[ Page 1381 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act Respecting the Televising and Other Broadcasting of Debates and Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia (Bill M202). Mr. Leggatt.

Introduction and first reading –– 1381

Oral questions.

Radial emission from visual display terminals. Mr. Cocke –– 1381

Administration of justice. Mr. Leggatt –– 1382

Budget debate.

Mr. Stupich –– 1384

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1401

Presenting reports

Law Reform Commission report on a Parol Evidence Rule as at December 1979.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1405

Law Reform Commission annual report, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1405

Report of Guarantees of Consumer Debts by the Law Reform Commission, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1405

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act of British Columbia report, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1405

Academic Council of British Columbia annual report as at March 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 1405

Occupational Training Council annual report as at April 18, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 1405

Management Advisory Council report, June 1979.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 1405

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. BARBER: I'd like to introduce today a gentleman who is, I believe, currently in the precincts and will shortly be meeting with the Premier. His name is Alan Perry, of CFAX Radio. On behalf of some 40,000 citizens in greater Victoria, he is presenting a petition — albeit perhaps a bit late, but we know who is to blame for that — concerning the preservation of the Princess Marguerite. I ask every member of the House, including those opposite, to make him especially welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I trust that we can, in making introductions of guests, preserve this as perhaps one of the non-political things that we do in this room. I think it is a custom well worth preserving.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with your ruling, I would like today to introduce six guests from the other side of the water: Mr. and Mrs. Fraser, Mr. and Mrs. Thompson and Mr. and Mrs. Atton. I'd like the House to welcome my guests.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I've two guests in your gallery this afternoon. One is Father Bill Devlin, a constituent of mine and parish priest from Fort St. John. I'm sure he'd be willing to listen to the confession of the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber). Looking after Father Devlin while he's in Victoria is his friend, Father Ray Cunningham of Victoria.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce today Mildred Hofmann, who is a member of the village council of Cumberland, and ask the House to join me in making her welcome.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce the students from the grade 9 class of Glenlyon School, who are here with their teacher, Mr. deGoede. This is a famous school in the great constituency of Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery this afternoon a constituent of mine, Dr. Ross Regan, who is an educator, and who I also understand was at one time a colleague of the father of the Minister of Education in Victoria. I ask the House to welcome him.

MR. HALL: I ask the House to welcome some constituents of mine from Surrey, who are over here to see the proceedings in the House and to meet with the Minister of Education. In view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I can't tell you why they're meeting with the Minister of Education.

MR. HOWARD: I rise in the House today, pursuant to standing order 49, to seek consent of the House to move, seconded by the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), the following resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Before we can proceed with the motion, we need leave of the House, since this is a motion not on the order paper and without notice. So we must first have leave. Shall leave be granted?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order, the second member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order, how can I decide in my wisdom whether or not to grant leave that a motion be proceeded with by leave if I don't know what the motion is?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the technical reason why we must have leave first is because in order to even present the motion, we would need leave to suspend the precedence of the House, which is the precedent motion to consider budgetary matters before anything else except introduction of bills, as I recall the motion. As a result, it is not a matter of leave to hear the motion itself, but it's a matter of leave to suspend all other business in order to even present a motion. I think that perhaps it can be solved very easily by just asking if leave shall be granted. Shall leave be granted? Leave not granted.

MR. HOWARD: Could there be some indication on the record as to who said no?

MR. SPEAKER: I wish that were possible.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT RESPECTING THE
TELEVISING AND OTHER BROADCASTING
OF THE DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

On a motion by Mr. Leggatt, Bill M202, An Act Respecting the Televising and Other Broadcasting of Debates and Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, 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.

Oral Questions

RADIATION EMISSION FROM
VISUAL DISPLAY TERMINALS

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would direct this question to the Minister of Health.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: He's surprised, he says.

Mr. Speaker, in the press gallery there are a number of visual display terminals; the new ones have the trade name "Teleram." There are thousands of them in the province in government offices, in airports and private offices. Since a New York finding, on July 5, showing excessive radiation and an order pursuant to that for lead shielding around a number of these terminals, has the minister instructed his public health officials to examine the many machines housed

[ Page 1382 ]

in this building and those housed in airports, private offices and government offices throughout the province?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I received a telephone call this morning advising me of the situation that the hon. member has advised this House about now, at which time I advised the person in question to get in touch with the Ministry of Labour. I understand they now have contacted both the provincial and federal Ministries of Labour. At the same time, I have instructed my ministry to look into the question and determine what action, if any, would be appropriate for the Ministry of Health of this province to take.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would gather the minister could have his radiation people come over and check them. I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister been informed that the compensation board are considering dropping from their health hazards, schedule B, the kind of equipment that I've just talked about — the non-ionizing radiation emitters?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member I have not been notified of this, but I will take it upon myself to make the appropriate inquiry and report back to the member in the House.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Yesterday, in answer to some questions from the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), he indicated that his Associate Deputy Attorney-General of Criminal Justice, Mr. Neil McDiarmid, would be assisting in the review of, or the investigations into, the matters that were raised in the CBC program. Can the Attorney-General confirm that Mr. McDiarmid also reviewed the matters previously for his predecessor, presently the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom)? Did the same associate deputy minister review the matters raised in the Donald letter previously, and can the minister advise the House why he would expect the conclusion from his associate deputy minister to be any different now than it was previously?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The Associate Deputy Attorney-General was instructed by my predecessor to examine the matters which were raised by Crown Counsel Donald in his letter of November 15, 1979. However, the review which is being undertaken by me is a more extensive one and covers other matters than were addressed by Mr. McDiarmid at that time.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I take it that one of the other matters that's being reviewed is the case, referred to in that program, of Mr. Mickey Moran, which was one of the three that the program referred to. My information is that on April 20, 1979, a letter was directed to regional Crown counsel in that particular case, Mr. Brian Weddell, instructing the Crown to drop the proposed appeal in the Moran case. That letter was signed by Mr. Neil McDiarmid. The person who has apparently been assigned to examine the Mickey Moran case not only was involved in the case but made a decision — and it may be a perfectly appropriate one. But my question is: does the minister now feel it's still appropriate, in view of this, that the person who made a decision on the Moran case should now be investigating the circumstances of this case, when he had previously come to a written conclusion that an appeal should not be proceeded with?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the member continues to be confused about the nature of the review. I'm not looking into the decisions that were made in the Moran case, but the allegations associated with that case as raised by the CBC telecast of last Thursday evening. If the member would very carefully consider the distinction between the two, I think he would recognize what the answer to his question must be. I must say, however, that I'm glad he said he wasn't suggesting that the decision of Associate Deputy Attorney General McDiarmid was the wrong one, because, in fact, it was the correct one.

MR. LEGGATT: The minister knows that that's not the issue and that's not the principle that's at stake. No one is casting any aspersions upon a man who served more than one government in this place and is a fine servant of the province. We're only directing the minister's attention to the appropriateness in this case of a person who had an active involvement in all three of those cases conducting, or assisting in, the minister's review. Surely he can go outside his department to get an independent member of the judiciary to do that review.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I did not detect any question, and before the Attorney-General proceeds, I would like to observe that in other Houses long preambles to questions are perhaps permitted; I'm not sure. Perhaps in some instances even statements are made. But I am duty bound by the regulations which have been given to me, and by which I am supposed to supervise question period. I must advise the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody that to gain the floor in question period in order to make a statement is irregular.

MR. LEGGATT: I have one further question, Mr. Speaker. The circumstances that persuaded the minister's predecessor to appoint Mr. Justice Seaton in the alleged interference in the case of Judge Govan.... Will the minister now distinguish, if he can, the reasons for appointing an outside judge in that case and the reasons for not appointing an outside judge in this case?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm happy to, Mr. Speaker. The royal commissioner was appointed in the previous matter because we were dealing with statements made by a judge of the provincial court in open court, which were recorded and made in the presence of counsel, whereas in this particular case we are dealing with allegations on a television show, presumably a news show. There is some distinction in that.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, having placed the letter from Bruce Donald, the senior Crown counsel in the city of Vancouver, in the context of some kind of private communication....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Do you want me to answer that right now?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes. Why don't you refer that matter, that came from an official of your own ministry of justice, to an independent judge? Answer it, by all means.

[ Page 1383 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I certainly will.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister has the question?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I have the question, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I do place Mr. Donald's communication in the category of a private communication. It was a private and confidential letter addressed from the Crown counsel to the Attorney-General, which someone has seen fit to make available and, therefore, breach the confidentiality assigned to it by the writer.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we are not here to argue the point, are we?

MR. MACDONALD: Would that be against the rules, Mr. Speaker?

It's public now, Mr. Attorney-General. Why don't you appoint a judge? Two years later; why not?

My question is this: did the Attorney-General receive a phone call from Mr. Donald Winterton, chief of the Vancouver city police, on or about February 5, 1980, relating to the matters referred to in the Donald letter?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I received a telephone call from Chief Winterton on February 5. They did not refer to the matters detailed in Mr. Donald's letter.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I ask the Attorney-General then: what was this report? What was the occasion for this phone call from the chief of police of Vancouver to the Attorney-General? What was it about?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: I ask the Attorney-General: when did he first become aware of either the actual letter of Bruce Donald of November 15, 1978, or its contents?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I first became aware of the letter, Mr. Speaker, last Thursday evening.

MR. MACDONALD: Did the Attorney-General not know that such a complaint in general terms had been made prior to last Thursday in conversations with the then Attorney-General, who is now the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom)? Did you not know about that before that time?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I had been advised by my predecessor that there had been a number of meetings with respect to the relationship between Mr. Donald and the Deputy Attorney-General.

MR. MACDONALD: Was the Attorney-General aware in a general way of what the complaints were that Bruce Donald was making in terms of the administration of justice?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The question asks about being aware "in a general way" to matters related to the administration of justice. The answer to that question is that in a general way I was aware of the difference of opinion between these two gentlemen. The specifics, which were referred to in the letter, were not known to me at that time.

MR. MACDONALD: Being aware in a general way of what the complaint was when the Attorney-General received the phone call from the chief of police of Vancouver relating to a proposed broadcast on CBC television, did he not know what the chief was talking about? What was the chief calling him about?

MR. SPEAKER: A further question?

MR. MACDONALD: In view of no answer, Mr. Speaker, I'm nonplussed, am I not — as the Attorney-General is. At this point I must pass on to another question.

In terms of the allegations surrounding the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), the RCMP were requested to make a report. Were they requested by an official of the Attorney-General's office to make such a report — by the Attorney-General or his predecessor?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The RCMP were not requested by me to make a report. I'd be happy to make specific inquiries as to who requested the RCMP to involve themselves in that investigation.

MR. MACDONALD: I take it that the Attorney-General will come back with an answer to that question — as to whether the inquiry was ordered from Victoria.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: As is my usual practice, when I take questions on notice, I find out the answers and bring them back at the earliest opportunity.

MR. MACDONALD: I have another question, Mr. Speaker. The Attorney-General told the House on March 10 that on the day previous to the press release being issued by the associate deputy minister, Mr. McDiarmid — relating to that case in Central Fraser Valley — he made no inquiry as to what that press release was to be. I'm asking the Attorney General, in view of the fact that the matter was of great consequence — because it could be either the green door of the cabinet room or even the grill bars of some other room, for all I know — how he can seriously tell this House that he made no inquiry as to what the statement that was to be released to the press that day was going to be that was to be. No inquiries?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No.

MR. MACDONALD: Did you know what the statement was going to be?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I didn't. Mr. Speaker, the second member for Vancouver East surely has some difficulty in understanding what I say, or in reading the Blues. I was advised on the Monday that Mr. McDiarmid had reached his decision, and I knew what the decision was.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, that's contrary to what you said.

[ Page 1384 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No. You asked me if I knew what the press release was going to be, and, as I indicated quite clearly, what Mr. McDiarmid was prepared to say with respect to his decision in the matter, I left to Mr. McDiarmid. Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

MR. STUPICH: First, may I say that in keeping with the tradition that was a tradition in the House when I first entered it, I don't use introduction period for political or any other particular purpose, other than to introduce groups of students or similar such groups. I know things have changed over the years; but now that I'm on my feet in another debate and can use this period for almost anything, may I say that I do have a number of guests here from Nanaimo, most of whom are hard-working, dues-paying members of the NDP down here to make sure that I keep in line this afternoon. They include my 91-year-old mother, who just a few years ago didn't like her age to be known; but now that she's 91 she doesn't seem to mind too much. Another guest all the way from Toronto is not a member of the NDP, but then we can't all be perfect. Mr. Speaker, I do have some introductory remarks.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I will for a while, Mr. Premier, I'm not sure whether you're going to sit through it.

I'd like to refer briefly to the budget, then get into some more general remarks, then go back to the budget, if I may. I was intrigued yesterday to hear the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), declare that this budget is one that's going to make the province leap forward into the 1980s. I note, Mr. Speaker, that I wasn't the only one who heard him say that.

But I think it would be more appropriate to say that this is a budget that is designed to drag us back into the 1930s. It's a budget that's designed not so much for economic purposes, but rather to try to get this government out of its political troubles — a government so concerned with bailing itself out that it really isn't aware of the very real problems that are facing people all over the province of British Columbia. In the past few weeks we have been treated to the spectacle of the Premier lurching out of his office at random moments to announce a series of large-scale capital programs, each one quite unrelated to the other, unrelated to any general plan or any strategy for development in the province, or to anything else, really, except for his desperate need to change the subject.

We saw a $200 million mortgage assistance project which he promises to patch up if we'll only stop talking about dirty tricks. My initial reaction was to think that this was great stuff, that $200 million project, but within hours of the money being made available I started getting complaints from people who weren't able to get in on it. What will it accommodate? Something like 4,000 applications, and then the money will be all gone. How much money is the government spending on the project? It looks good to put $200 million into another savings account, to put it aside — $200 million into another corner that's being hidden away for the time being.

The next thing was B.C. Place, another great announcement that seemed to fall kind of flat after it first came out. It didn't really meet the kind of response that the Premier expected and hoped for. When that didn't work, he tried once more; he upped the ante and rushed into print again. "How about a bridge?" he said hopefully. He got a positive response from the hon. member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) and perhaps a few other people.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: I see the hon. member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) likes the idea too, but I wonder about the rest of the people of the province, who are looking for something that is going to do something about the economy generally.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Have you been to Langley lately?

AN HON. MEMBER: Has he been in Nanaimo lately?

MR. STUPICH: Yes, I was in Nanaimo last weekend. I was in Langley about three months ago.

The point about these huge capital projects, however worthy they might appear in a mature economy, is that you really couldn't think of any way in which to spend a half a billion dollars which would be less relevant to the serious flaws in our economy, the serious flaws in B.C.'s economic structure, than the kind of announcements that have been made.

We need to develop, out of our resources and our resource industries, a mature economy. We simply can't afford to put out huge sums of money that do nothing to advance that overall goal. The Premier, with his hastily announced projects, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) with this budget, demonstrated that they have the fastest fiscal guns in the west, which blaze away indiscriminately at everything, moving or stationary. What remains is for this government to develop a sense that targets are not only permissible but are, indeed, essential.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are yours?

MR. STUPICH: I'm coming to that. Mr. Speaker, I've been asked what mine are; I'm coming to that.

Just as important would be for the government to develop the capacity to aim at those targets. However, we get no assurance from this budget that the Social Credit government has any appreciation of the real problems that face the B.C. economy now and in the future.

We get no sense that they understand the problems of ordinary people living in today's society, no sense of that at all. Nothing in this budget will help to solve the three main problems facing us today: record unemployment, high interest rates and increases in the cost of living.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Do you read the paper?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I've been asked if I read the paper. I have documents to refer to which I hope the government members will listen to.

This budget does not make it any easier for the average British Columbian to buy groceries. It does not make it any easier for him to meet his mortgage payments, to buy a home.

[ Page 1385 ]

It doesn't make it any easier for him to find a job. It doesn't make it any easier to get a member of the family a bed in a hospital if that person needs surgery.

This is a government ridden with internal problems and scandals. They have expended so much effort trying to cover them that they have not had the time to deal with the problems that they are paid to deal with by the taxpayers of this province.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) suggests that I am not getting much support. I have some things to say to him as well, and I hope he will listen. But I take it that rather than support, what I am getting is people listening. l didn't really expect that, and I do appreciate the fact that the government members are listening rather than interrupting.

They say at this point, Mr. Speaker, that protocol suggests that I really should, somewhere near the beginning of my remarks, take an opportunity to congratulate the Deputy Speaker, the hon. member for Delta (Mr. Davidson), on his promotion, and also to congratulate those members on the opposite side who have joined the cabinet since the last session. I find it just a bit difficult, though, to do that with any real sincerity when I consider some of the actions of the leading members of this government. I'm not sure that congratulations are in order.

In general, I confess that I find it difficult — and this is a personal shortcoming, if you like — to associate personally and socially with many of the members on the opposite side. Now that's not the way it is supposed to be, but I've got to admit that that's the way I feel. So many of them have shown themselves to be complete and absolute opportunists, devoid of any feeling other than personal ambition, willing to resort to any tactic or any fabrication in order to maintain their positions of glory, and I feel that way about many of them. I just find it hard to stomach people like that, Mr. Speaker, so I find it hard to socialize, but there are some opposite towards whom I have felt differently, at least on occasion. With those feelings in mind, and more in sorrow than in anger, I'd like to comment on the discussions in this session to date. We've been here for two weeks; today will be the end of the second week.

I'm sorry the hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) isn't in his seat right now, because I was distressed to hear him say that he really believed the stories told about the secret police force, the stories that were uncovered by the Social Credit researcher at that time, Grace McCarthy. I have a photocopy from the newspaper of the day, the Vancouver Sun, May 11, 1973, and it's headed: "Secret Police Set, Claims Socred," and it said:

"Social Credit researcher Grace McCarthy warned Thursday the provincial government is forming a secret police force. Mrs. McCarthy told 500 party supporters attending a dinner here for former Premier W.A.C. Bennett that the police force is to be used" — and this is a quotation — "to enforce the government socialist, monopolistic legislation."

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Dewdney told us that he believed that at the time. I can understand him feeling that way at that time. No doubt he had respect for that particular Social Credit party researcher. No doubt he believed that she would be telling the truth. He knew her; he liked her and he believed her. He felt she would be telling the truth. But, Mr. Speaker, that was almost seven years ago; in May it will be seven years. To my knowledge there has been no uncovering of this cache of arms and ammunition, hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition, thousands of arms that were talked about — no uncovering of that secret cache. It is obvious that they existed only in the mind of that particular Social Credit researcher. Since she is now an hon. member of this Legislature, there is no doubt in my mind but that she would apologize for her mistake, had she been mistaken. She has not apologized. The only conclusion would seem to be that she knew she was not telling the truth at that time, believing it was proper to do what she did in her attempt to unseat the NDP government, to do or say anything, to tell lies if they seemed appropriate at the time.

It reminds me of a story about a previous member of a Social Credit cabinet who stood up in this House and said that he does not tell lies, and, if on occasion, he does tell lies, they're not really lies because he believes he's telling the truth. Now this member didn't believe she was telling the truth; she has never apologized....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, one member at a time. Order, please.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I knew it wouldn't last.

I can appreciate the hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) swallowing that line seven years ago, and I don't expect any better from the hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), but, frankly, Mr. Speaker, I expected better from the hon. member for Dewdney. That he would continue to support a government leader who would deliberately spread those kinds of stories makes me disappointed in him; I'm not at all disappointed in the hon. Minister of Human Resources. I wish that this rot in government stopped with the deputy leader.

Let's consider some of the actions of the Premier himself. I know that a lot has been said about this in the past few days, but some of the material has not been used, and there are some members in the House who are not aware of some of the things that that Premier did in the name of his government in the previous session, and I think they should be reminded of it. Those are the people who are supporting him and keeping him in office, and I think they should be reminded of some of those deeds and misdeeds. Surely some of them already must have some cause to wonder at some of what they have heard, and wonder, if there is so much, perhaps there is some truth there at least. But there's more, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to refer to a speech, an infamous speech if you like, by the Premier on February 20, 1976, when he produced the Clarkson, Gordon report, and I quote from what the Premier said in making public that report at that time: "In line with our pledge to research and share information, we move first on the research." It sounds okay. "One of the first acts of the Minister of Finance was to appoint Clarkson, Gordon and Co. to conduct a full and independent review" — note that, Mr. Speaker and those of you who weren't here — "of the province's financial affairs, including those of government agencies and Crown corporations." That really sounds great. Eyebrows were raised, you will recall, when it was discovered that the man placed in charge of this audit was a former bagman for the Premier. That ought to cause some

[ Page 1386 ]

raised eyebrows here today. That was changed — a full and independent review by the Premier's own bagman.

A full and independent review of government finances, of all its agencies and all its Crown corporations was to be conducted by an international professional firm. And this is the part that gets me, and perhaps others who are knowledgeable enough to understand it: this was going to be completed within a period of about six weeks. The biggest business in town — by far the biggest business, with all the Crown corporations and all the agencies — and they were going to do a full and independent review in a period of about six weeks. In saying that, the Premier knew that he was setting an impossible task; he knew it couldn't be done. He had no intention of having it done. The Clarkson, Gordon report itself, dated February 18, 1976, makes it perfectly clear that they were simply asked to add up figures that were going to be given to them by the Deputy Minister of Finance and the heads of the various Crown corporations. That's what they say right in the report.

"On December 22, 1975, you requested us to coordinate the production of certain unaudited financial information for the year ended March 31, 1976, which you had requested from the Deputy Minister of Finance, the comptroller-general and the management of all Crown corporations, boards and agencies, and to produce a summary report of the overall financial position of the province."

A clerk could have done it, but it looked better to hire an international firm of chartered accountants to do it.

The lie to that Premier's claim is further proven when we read the report itself. We find that the figures given to Clarkson, Gordon added up to a deficit of $541 million for that period. The figures were handed to them, and they added them up on their little calculators, I suppose. They did exactly the job that the Premier wanted them to do: they came up with a total $541 million deficit. But even with all the financial manoeuvres effected by the government, the deficit turned out to be not $541 million, added up by Clarkson, Gordon on the basis of the figures handed to them, but rather only $261 million. I use the word "only" not in any way saying that it's a small figure — it's very large — but simply comparing it with the original figure of $541 million.

That's not the end of it. Perhaps you'll recall the Premier doing something else. In the fall of 1976 he appeared at a Social Credit convention and held up a document which he said was the secret budget of the outgoing NDP government, a budget which showed that we were going to be something like $1 billion in the deficit position for that year. He held this up and waved it at the Social Credit convention. He had uncovered this document that showed how unreal and how irresponsible the NDP were in coming up with a budget $1 billion in excess of revenue. He admitted at the time, when pressed by reporters, that the document was not a budget. He knew at the time that the figures he was talking about had never been considered by Treasury Board and could not be a budget; had never been considered by the Minister of Finance; had never been referred to the Deputy Minister of Finance; had not even been considered by the ministers of those various departments. They were simply figures put together within the ministries of what their maximum goals would be in the event they had all the money to work with that they wanted.

He knew that. He admitted it under pressure from the press, but he didn't retract at that Social Credit convention. He didn't go to them and say: "I apologize. I told you a lie. I knew what I was telling you was not the truth, but for political gain I wanted to tell you people how bad those NDPers were. Go out and tell everybody else how bad they were. It's not the truth, but you don't have to admit that because nobody will really know." That's the kind of person you have agreed to support as leader of your party.

AN HON. MEMBER: With a standing ovation.

MR. STUPICH: With a standing ovation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. If there are to be any charges against the character of any member of this House, that would require a substantive motion requiring two days' notice. I trust the hon. member will keep this in mind as he continues his debate.

MR. STUPICH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not quite finished with the Premier yet. I don't really have it in mind to put that kind of motion. I'm quite prepared to let the people of the province be the judge when they have the opportunity, which I hope will be at the earliest possible moment. But we'll have to wait for that.

There are some other things, Mr. Speaker. What about the way in which this particular government leader has handled the ministers of the Crown? According to his own statement in this House, the Premier locked the office door of a former Minister of Transport and Communications, locked him out of his own office on the basis of what was not much more than a rumour at the time. He stood in this House and told us that he really had no information other than a report that had come to him. He stood in the House and said that he hoped that that minister would be exonerated, and that when he was exonerated he would be reappointed to his position or able to re-enter his office. That's what he told us with almost nothing to go on. Yet that minister was kicked out, locked out of his office.

Now what's happened since? The so-called Ritchie affair. I recall the Premier saying on the radio how pleased he was that the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley was exonerated of all the charges against him. That's just great.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There were no charges.

MR. STUPICH: Perhaps I've used the wrong word with the word "charges." I've been corrected, Mr. Speaker. May I say that the Premier stood up and said how pleased he was that the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley was cleared of any allegations against him. That's what he said. It came out very soon after that that the RCMP, who had been asked to do a review — an investigation, a study, whatever — recommended that charges be laid.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased when I heard the Premier say that the allegations were unfounded, because as a member of this House I think it hurts all of us if any of us are accused and found guilty of doing things like that. So as one of the members in the House, I think it's good that he was cleared. That's the way I felt; that was my initial reaction. But when I heard the next day that the RCMP had indeed recommended that charges be laid, my first thought was that the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley should be the first to stand in line and say: "I want charges laid."

It's the old story about the fellow in the insane asylum. When he gets out he's got a certificate to say that he is sane.

[ Page 1387 ]

The rest of us don't have that. Here, allegations were made that sounded pretty serious — serious enough that the RCMP recommended that charges be laid — but apparently so serious, from the political point of view of this government, that charges were not laid. I would think that the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley would want those charges laid so that he would have an opportunity to clear his name.

But, Mr. Speaker, I'm talking about the Premier now. Apparently he was informed that everything was okay. Otherwise, would he have stood up and said: "I'm pleased that the allegations were unfounded."? Now does that mean that the Attorney-General didn't tell him about the RCMP recommendation? If that is the case, how is it that that Attorney General held office for some time afterwards when the previous Minister of Transport and Communications was locked out of his on much less evidence?

Mr. Speaker, if the staff member in the Attorney General's department didn't tell the Attorney-General, I'm sure that staff member would have been locked out of his office. But he wasn't locked out. I take it from that that the staff member kept the Attorney-General fully informed. Mr. Speaker, if the Attorney-General, in the face of that kind of report, didn't tell the Premier, I find it awfully hard to believe for one moment that that Attorney-General would not have been locked out of his office. So I take it from all that, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier knew the whole story, knew how bad it was and didn't want to draw any public attention to it by taking any moves that would make it more public than it was. I don't see any other interpretation to place on all that.

Another affair has recently come to our attention which I will call, for want of a better description, the Vogel affair. The same thing, Mr. Speaker: if the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) wasn't kept fully informed — a different Attorney-General; they're both involved, the previous one and the present one — if they weren't kept fully informed, then it would seem to me that it was their responsibility to deal with the person who neglected to inform them. On the other hand, if the Attorneys-General, both of them, didn't keep the Premier informed, then surely their crime was much more serious than the one that resulted in the previous Minister of Transport and Communications being locked out of his office on the flimsiest of evidence.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member has inferred that either I or the Attorney General has been guilty of a crime. I ask him to withdraw immediately.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please withdraw any imputation of wrongdoing. It is not permitted in this chamber.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word "crime."

HON. MR. GARDOM: Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: While we have interrupted the member, which I regretfully have to do from time to time — and I resist it as much as possible — I think that something needs to be said about relevancy in debate.

Order, please. I'll request other opinions if they're required.

I think relevancy is a matter we should concern ourselves with. We've had two debates. One was on an amendment in which the scope was established by the wording of the amendment itself. We have also had the debate on the reply to the throne speech in which the scope is rather wide — traditionally so in this House. We are now in the budget debate, and I would trust that the hon. member would at least occasionally refer to budgetary matters as he proceeds. Please proceed.

MR. STUPICH: We appreciate your advice. I didn't take part in the earlier debates, and that's not an excuse for what I'm saying now. I don't mean it in that way. I'm just saying that some of the material I am using in this reflects on the government as such, and reflects indirectly on the budget. For the first few minutes of my remarks, I spoke generally about the economic conditions of the province, and what I am saying now has some bearing on the economic conditions of the province, how people outside of this House see the economic conditions of the province, and how they feel — comfortable or otherwise — about the kind of people who are directing the affairs of the government and indirectly of the province.

If I could just refer to the debate to date, I mentioned earlier that I've been in this House since I was elected in 1963 — there was a break of three years. One of the other traditions that used to be a feature of this House was that cabinet members would talk about their ministries or their departments. Mr. Speaker, quite a number of cabinet members took part in the two weeks of debate that we have been involved in to this point. Except for passing reference, none of them has told us anything about the ways in which their ministries are going to be conducting themselves in the year ahead. We look forward to those speeches to tell us something about what the government is going to do, but unfortunately they have told us very little.

In particular, I listened to the hon. member responsible for energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland) the last day of the debate and I thought: "Here we might hear something." Well, Mr. Speaker, after listening to him for 40 minutes, I had to look up my record to refresh myself to see which ministry he headed. He made no reference to his ministry unless it was some fleeting reference that I missed completely.

The hon. Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) spoke as well and I would like to refer to his remarks, because certainly forestry is a very important part of this province. There is another aspect of it. The Minister of Forests, speaking in the House on Wednesday, March 5, and talking about the way in which the NDP administration handled forestry, said:

I became involved as the Minister of Forests in 1975 in the forest industry, which had almost been scared out of British Columbia. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) mentioned the assets for BCRIC and how they were acquired, and they were a great asset. Any resource investment in British Columbia can be made into a good asset if it's properly managed and properly administered.

The Minister of Forests was proud about the Plateau Mills purchase, saying:

...it was purchased in a free and open market. Well, I happen to know something about what took place in those days when Plateau was being purchased. It was for sale. The government, of course, controls the timber allocations and is in a pretty strong bargaining position if it wishes to purchase companies in the private sector.

[ Page 1388 ]

Mr. Speaker, he very carefully skirted around the issue without saying that there was anything wrong. Certainly the implication was there. Anyone listening would get the impression that something was wrong with the deal that had been made between the owners of Plateau Mills and the government, but he didn't say it. Someone else did say it.

The hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), perhaps emboldened by the introduction offered by the Minister of Forests, did say there was something wrong. He spoke on Thursday, March 6. He said: "I have a clipping from June 26, 1973, written by Allan Fotheringham;" — that's the source of his information about the Plateau Mills purchase.

The news from Victoria is that the government is about to buy Plateau Mills in Vanderhoof. It is not just that the B.C. government is going to intrude further in the forest marketplace; there is an added factor. Last fall a bid was made for Plateau Mills by International Telephone and Telegraph, those wonderful people who brought you an abortive overthrow of the Allende government in Chile through its subsidiary Rayomer. The NDP squelched the ITT bid, because Victoria controlled the timber rights.

Then the hon. member for Omineca said: "Intimidation, Mr. Speaker.... They stole Plateau Mills. It's all documented here...." Later on he said: "The government of the time stole Plateau Mills." He went on to say: "I think the thing that puts the whole cap on it is when they did in fact steal Plateau Mills for $7.4 million. And the story is here — this is a clipping from June 29, 1973, from the Vancouver Sun." It was Fotheringham again. The headline was: "Barrett Asked to Re-study Decision to Purchase Mill."

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Omineca knew that what he was saying was not so when he spoke in the House on Thursday, March 6. He knew it, because he sat as a member of the public accounts committee that tried in every way they could to get the president of Plateau Mills to say that he had been unfairly dealt with in any way.

MR. KEMPF: I've never ever been on the public accounts committee — never!

MR. STUPICH: Oh, weren't you on it then?

MR. KEMPF: Wrong again.

MR. STUPICH: I'm sorry. Mr. Speaker, I do have an apology to make to the member for Omineca. In that case, I'm sure the hon. member for Omineca will be pleased to learn the truth about the Plateau Mills affair. I was chairman of the public accounts committee when members on the other side of the House did everything in their power to get Mr. Martens, the president of the company, to twist his story in some way to say that the NDP....

AN HON. MEMBER: You'd use anything over on that side of the floor. You're all bloody hypocrites!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The member who has the floor is the only one who should be speaking. Let's not interrupt.

On a point of order, the first member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER: I heard the civilized member for Omineca refer to the opposition as "a bunch of bloody hypocrites." It's clearly offensive. I ask him to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member to withdraw the word "hypocrite."

MR. KEMPF: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I'd be only too happy to. They're just incorrect, that's all.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. Would the hon. member for Nanaimo please proceed.

MR. STUPICH: It's been suggested that we would use anything and that I would use anything. May I say that what I'm using is the transcript of the public accounts committee meeting recorded by Hansard. It's available to any member of the House. In addition to Mr. Martens — the previous and still president, I believe, of Plateau Mills — members of the Social Credit Party on that committee asked that Mr. Williston be included in that delegation. Mr. Williston attended the meeting as well and he too was questioned.

Mr. Veitch started the questioning: "Mr. Martens, how long have you been associated with Plateau Mills?"

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I think this is perhaps an account of what happened in a committee, at least from what I can determine. The only way those matters can be dealt with in the House, of course, is by report through the chairman of the committee. Other than that, we are not even remotely interested in what happened in committee. I think that's the procedure that we follow here.

MR. COCKE: This is a wide-open debate, Mr. Speaker. What are you talking about?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It doesn't matter what the scope of debate is; we are not interested in a report from a committee, except a formal report which comes through the Chairman, as I understand the rules you have given me.

On a point of order, the member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON: Under standing order 9, I draw your attention to your responsibility when explaining a point of order or practice to state the standing order or authority applicable in the case.

MR. SPEAKER: Fine. I'll consult the pages and report to you immediately. The debate continues.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, if I may, while you're consulting the authority.... I'm speaking about something that happened almost three years ago. I went to the library to do my research, and as part of that research I consulted the minutes of the meeting. I'm not reporting on what happened in the meeting; I'm simply dealing with the charges that were made by a member opposite that the NDP administration stole something. What I'm reporting on are the words of the president of that company, that I could perhaps get from another source, but it happened in this case that the library was the easiest source, and it was something that happened in a previous parliament. I think there's no way that this could actually be presented to the House at this time other than as a history of something that happened in years gone by. In any case, I'll proceed.

Mr. Martens was asked how long he had been associated with Plateau Mills, and he said that he had been associated with Plateau Mills since 1967.

[ Page 1389 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Agriculture on a point of order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I gather that you are determining whether or not this member is in order in following this line of debate. I don't feel it is right for members of this House to hear this debate continue until you make a ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: If that be the wish of the House, I will require just a few moments to find the proper reference so that the member for Nelson-Creston can be satisfied. I declare a short recess.

The House took recess at 3:14 p.m.

The House resumed at 3:25 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if we can proceed on the report that I have quickly prepared for you, the matter in question was that while the member for Nanaimo was continuing his debate, he was referring to proceedings and matters which had been under discussion in a select standing committee of this House. There was an intervention, and the minute the report is over the member for Nanaimo will again be in control of the floor.

Beauchesne, in his fourth edition at page 251, gives the general outline for debatable material in this House — material which has arisen in committee. He says at section 324:

"Until the report and evidence have been laid upon the table, it is irregular to refer to them in debate or to put questions in reference to the proceedings of the committee. When the evidence is before the House it may be debated at length, but members will not be permitted to discuss the conduct or language of members of a committee, except so far as it appears on the record."

The general rule that is cited by Sir Erskine May at page 422 talks about unreported evidence taken before a select committee: "It is out of order to refer in debate to evidence taken before a select committee until the report of the committee has been laid before the House." That is also a general rule.

Another problem needs to be introduced, and that is that although it could be argued that the matter to which the member for Nanaimo is referring had been reported, I draw to all members' attention that they had not been reported to this parliament because it has been drawn to the Chair's attention that these matters took place in another parliament. So it requires, perhaps, a more general rule than either of the two that I have cited to determine whether or not the debate is relevant, and that is the general rule of relevance:

"A member, when called to speak, must direct his speech to the question then under discussion or to a motion or amendment he intends to move."

This is at page 421 of the nineteenth edition.

"The precise relevancy of an argument is not always perceptible. However, when a member wanders from the question the Speaker reminds him that he must speak to the question. Debate must not stray from the question before the House to matters which have been decided during the current session."

As a result, I think that it could be said, in general terms, that the debate upon which the member for Nanaimo was embarking could fall into question and would need to be interrupted by the Speaker on one of perhaps three counts, the most important one being the one of general rule and relevancy, in that the question to which he was referring has already been decided in this House in the throne speech debate. I think I cautioned the hon. member for Nanaimo already on one previous occasion that relevancy was of concern in this particular debate, and I would draw it to his attention again.

MR. NICOLSON: My concern is with the ability to report, or at least to quote, Hansard, which might have occurred in committee in a previous sitting. I think that on page 146 of the nineteenth edition it cites the ancient custom of parliament, which I think would probably be the spirit of what we would attempt in the rules. I feel that that citation at the bottom of the page 1ndicates that what we're trying to avoid is anticipating or prejudicing something that is under active consideration when we wait until a committee has reported before referring to matters presently before a committee. I think that's the spirit by which subsequent decisions have been made. Therefore I would submit that referring to a Hansard of a previous parliament would be in order just as it is to cite something in a newspaper.

MR. SPEAKER: I think, hon. member, that your point is well taken and I think that the Chair would certainly condone a casual reference, but to build a debate upon a question which has already been decided, even though in a previous parliament, I think, would require the interruption of the Chair.

The Minister of Health rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. MAIR: If, of course, you invited the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the member for Nelson-Creston to assist you in your deliberations, then my question has no relevance and my point has no relevance, but if you did not, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether it's a practice of this House to allow members of the opposition, or any members of this House, this side or the opposition to intrude upon your privacy when you're making decisions and when you're seeking advice.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Any member of this House is welcome, either at the throne or at the office of the Speaker, at any time to offer his opinion. The Speaker may not always accept that opinion; however, I think the Speaker would always hear that opinion.

I recognize the member for Nanaimo, who proceeds, considering relevancy.

MR. STUPICH: Thank you for inviting me to proceed, Mr. Speaker, and also for the invitation to take control of the House; but I decline — please. I would rather you continue to be responsible for trying to maintain some kind of order in the House.

With respect to the relevancy of my remarks, I suggest that they are extremely relevant to the subject under discussion. What we're discussing is the budget, and through the budget, the economic affairs of the province of British Columbia. Forestry is certainly extremely important in the economic affairs of the province, being responsible for a minimum of 40 percent of our total provincial product; and for members opposite — the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

[ Page 1390 ]

Waterland) and, more particularly, the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) — to suggest that actions of the previous administration hurt the forest industry in the province is to reflect upon the future of the province, and could be damaging to the economy of the province if these charges.... And I do say that the Minister of Forests didn't make charges; he skirted around the issue, but didn't come right out and say there was anything wrong. But the member for Omineca did say that we stole it. Now if those charges are well founded, then we certainly did hurt the forest industry, and by doing so, hurt the economy of the province. So I think it's important to prove to the members opposite that we did not, indeed, deal unfairly with the owner of one of the mills that was acquired by the NDP administration.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I had intended to go on at some length on this, and I believe it has been established that we can certainly refer to Hansard as much as we like; but I won't bore the House, now that I've put you through this exercise of having to recess and be brought back together again; and I don't really want the members opposite to get exorcised about this. But I will say that the various members of the committee tried in every way they could to get Mr. Martens to say there was something wrong.

MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in the Speaker's last ruling he talked to us about preciseness and relevancy of debate, and the hon. member for Nanaimo, I'm sure, is debating in that atmosphere. I would like to bring to his attention the fact that if he's considering preciseness, Mr. Martens pronounces his name "Mar-tin" not "Mar-ten."

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that's a rather obtuse point of order. I think also that Hansard will find it a little easier to spell it properly if I say Mar-tens; but in any case Mar-tins will do now that Hansard knows it's spelled M-a-r-t-e-n-s.

I'm not going to refer much more to this, other than to say that several members of the committee tried in every way they could to get Mr. Martens to change his story. And I'll just quote from one small reference: "Mr. Martens: 'Well, verbally and honourably, we had completed the deal. We would have had to break our word of honour to change it'." I suggest that's something some of the members opposite would not have the least compunction about. But Mr. Martens was an honourable man. He had made a deal and he went through with that deal. He said himself that he was an honourable man, and those members opposite who felt that he should have changed his story didn't realize they were dealing with an honourable man. And that honourable man said that he was treated fairly by the NDP administration. And with that I will not deal any further — unless the members opposite want to hear more about that particular meeting; it was quite a meeting.

I will now go on with some of the other remarks of the ministers who participated in the earlier debate, and who really said so little about the affairs of their ministries. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) didn't really tell us much about agriculture when he spoke — and I'm not particularly surprised, Mr. Speaker. He did speak, and was reported on, in a publication called The Rancher, in February 1980. I'd like to quote a little bit from this; it's more than he said in the House about agriculture. "I also hope that we will be able to eliminate some of the politics that is involved in the agricultural land reserves." Well, they brought the politics into it, and I certainly hope they'll be able to get some of the politics out of it, too; but let's hope that he realizes that particular hope.

The minister noted that in this province farm income assurance, farm credit and interest reimbursement had done much to provide needed capital to the farmer. I endorse that recommendation for the policies brought in by the NDP administration in British Columbia. I wonder what the Minister of Agriculture would have had to talk about at that meeting had he not followed a three-year NDP administration, because all he talked about were the things that were brought into effect under the NDP administration.

Throughout this session so far, throughout the whole affair of the dirty tricks episode and all that, the Premier, and everyone else in the government, has refused to accept any responsibility for these acts. They've hidden behind their subordinates and minor officials. We are supposed to believe that the executive assistant to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), working in that minister's office, did certain things without the knowledge of the Minister of Human Resources, and he was fired. We are supposed to believe that the top man in the Premier's office was handing out thousand-dollar bills, and the Premier was there a good deal of the time but didn't know that this kind of thing was happening, and so that person lost his job. We are supposed to believe these kinds of things were going on all the time around these various cabinet members, in particular the government leaders, and they didn't know that anything was going on. Something like those three monkeys; they saw no evil, could hear no evil, and could feel no evil.

However, Mr. Speaker, it's kind of a pleasure to read something other than the budget, because in the budget speech they are taking cognizance of something. I finally discover that ministers of this government are prepared to take some responsibility for something. They admit no responsibility for the depredations that go on under their noses in their offices, but they are, we are told, responsible for the high rate of home construction in the United States. They take pleasure in that. This is great! Under their administration, everything is great in B.C. because we've had a lot of homes built in the United States. The high level of world demand for items such as copper and molybdenum is because we have this administration in office; they take credit for everything good that's happened in the province. It's happened because a lot of homes have been built in the States; it's happened because there are high levels of world demand for copper and molybdenum. It's good because of the low value of,the Canadian dollar, and that's something they are responsible for as well. In consequence of which B.C.'s raw material exporting economy did, in gross terms, do reasonably well.

We wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether this government opposite will be so anxious to assume responsibility for these things one year hence, because certainly the forecasts are not good, and the Minister of Finance did refer to this, or to some of these forecasts in his budget. One of these publications, Business America, dated February 11, 1980, has the headline "Prognosis Uncertain for 1980, but Lean Year is Seen Likely." British Columbia's real gross provincial product is expected to grow 3.4 percent this year, off from an estimated 3.9 percent in 1979, and the Minister of Finance did recognize

[ Page 1391 ]

that. The Employers Council of British Columbia, December 11, 1979, business trends survey, November 1979, said the B.C. business climate reached a record high in 1979, but the outlook for 1980 is less positive. The Minister of Finance recognized all this, but apparently felt no responsibility to do anything to try to turn that situation around in our own province. Those conclusions about the future were reached by 156 executives who responded to the Employers Council of B.C. twelfth business trends survey.

I draw to your attention the most recent surveys of 1980 U.S. residential construction, the only ones made, to my knowledge, since the recent increases in the U.S. discount rate. I make particular reference to a publication entitled Random Lengths dated February 22, 1980, and I quote:

"Housing starts in January were off sharply from December, but building permits were up slightly and have held within a narrow range for the past three months. Seasonally adjusted annual rate of starts for January was down only 6 percent from December, at 1,420,000 units. However, adverse weather in the two previous Januarys is an influence in the statistical calculations of the January 1980 seasonal rate, and probably inflated it to some degree. Actual starts were reported at 72,900, down 19 percent from December, 17 percent from January of 1979. Those projections have now fallen to between 1.2 and 1.45 million units."

Since that time there has been a lot of speculation in the United States and elsewhere about the possibility of further large interest rate hikes. The Colonist of March 5, 1980, had a story on page 5 quoting market analysts about the real possibility of 20 percent interest rates:

"U.S. banks jacked up the prime lending rate another half point to 17 1/4 percent Tuesday and analysts said volatile financial markets could lock the key interest rate near 20 percent.

"Record interest charges would provide a further blow to the already weak housing market. The prime rate has risen 1 1/2 points in the last eight business days, and with increases coming in rapid half-point jumps, a 20 percent prime rate is now within striking distance."

If that happens, the 1.2 million unit projection will probably turn out to be the most accurate. That 1.2 million has to be compared with the 1979 achievement of 1.74 million units, a precipitous decline of more than 30 percent in one year. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the health of our forest industry is linked more closely to that U.S. house construction rate than to any other economic activity. It provides the best single indicator for the state of the industry; it provides 51 percent of our manufacturing and, therefore, of our overall economy.

Richardson Securities' publication Investment Thinking for February 1980, noting increases on the supply side for our base metals together with weakening demand, predicts lower prices and lower volumes for these ores. On the supply side, increased free-world production is projected for aluminum, copper, and lead, among other metals, in 1980. Demand, on the other hand, is expected to weaken from 1979 and the trend to inventory replacements may turn out to be the name of the game for the majority of the metals listed.

"Prices for copper, lead and zinc in 1980 are projected as follows."

This is from the London Metal Exchange prices in U.S. dollars per pound:

"In the years 1979 and 1980 copper is expected to stay at 90 cents."

Considering inflation, that will be a reduction in real dollars.

"Lead is expected to drop from 54 cents down to 52 cents, copper from 33 cents down to 31 cents."

That's much more in terms of real dollars.

"Looking at the copper market, resolution of the Rhodesian crisis is expected to provide more alternative transportation routes for copper exports and could create a more favourable political climate in Central Africa, thus enhancing productivity in that area. Markets for lead will be influenced by increased primary supply from a new mine in South Africa. Demand from the battery sector is also to be less buoyant than evidenced over the last two years. Fundamentally, the demand growth for zinc metal is not attractive."

Mr. Speaker, the budget, at the beginning of page 5, does say something with which, I think, we can all be associated. Perhaps we would wish that it was entirely positive, but there are some remarks in there that I think we can all join in: "This budget represents a strong statement of confidence in our province" — we would all like to be confident in our province — "in our people" — and we certainly all share that confidence in our people — "and in our economy" — and we certainly all hope to be confident in our economy. The kind of budget speech that was delivered by this government in 1976, its first budget, did a great disservice to the economy of the province by telling the whole world how bad things were in British Columbia. It was a budget speech couched in rhetoric so bad for the province that the government withdrew it and issued a reprinted version of the budget. There is some of that in this budget but not enough to do any damage; certainly we can all identify with the positive statements.

"We are part of Canada's booming west" — I'm pleased to see that in the budget and I'm pleased to endorse it. "We are situated to take advantage of growing markets on the Pacific Rim" — but we have to be concerned about these markets. "Our resources are rich and varied, and our people are skilled and energetic. The ingredients are all there, but they will not come together without effort." Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we don't see the kind of effort in this budget that will bring together those ingredients.

The budget goes on to say: "The task for all of us will be to put it together — to build a secure and satisfying future for our citizens." We all want that, Mr. Speaker; in that we work together.

With respect to the resource picture generally, the only bright side is provided by natural gas, and I'm sure that the present government knows who it has to thank for being in the position to take advantage of that aspect of our economy. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that when we assumed office in September 1972, the price at which we were selling our natural gas and the price at which we had been selling it since the pipeline was built was 31 cents a thousand cubic feet. You'll remember, Mr. Speaker, that energy prices were increasing, and certainly the price of that natural gas would have increased. But you, Mr. Speaker, will know that had the NDP administration not established BCPC, an organization that was opposed most vigorously by those members opposite who were in the House at the time, the profits from the increase in the price of energy would have gone to the international oil corporations and not to the people of British Columbia — profits that have made a considerable difference

[ Page 1392 ]

to the public accounts in this province, Mr. Speaker. In 1974-75, the first year in which BCPC was operating, but for part of the year, $26 million was turned over to general revenue. In 1975-76, $198,950,000 was turned over to the public accounts to provide people services. In 1976-77, $149.5 million was turned over to public accounts; in 197778, $170.8 million. In 1979 it exceeded revenue from that other government enterprise — euphemistically called a government enterprise — the liquor administration: $164.250,000. In 1979-80 the projected figure is $310 million, and the budget for 1980-81 is $450 million.

MR. LEA: And they voted against it.

MR. STUPICH: They voted against it. They opposed it in every way they could. Yet in the course of its relatively young life it will have provided $1.5 billion for the people of British Columbia — money, as I say that would have gone to the international oil corporations were it not.... Increased money from the sale of drilling rights would have come to the Crown, but this is money in addition to the sale of drilling rights. This is profit that would have gone to the international oil corporations had the NDP administration....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The member is complaining. I'm not sure what he is saying. He wasn't in the House at the time, so he didn't have an opportunity to vote in favour of it. I would like to think that he would have been intelligent enough to have supported the institution of BCPC at that time.

One and a half billion dollars over a period of eight years. Now that's a tremendous accomplishment, Mr. Speaker, leaving aside everything else.

Mr. Speaker, I have recounted some of the grim forecasts of what might happen in the future, and I've recounted some of the optimism. The facts of the matter are, of course, that in B.C. we really have little influence over international markets. There is not all that much we can do about them. The responsibility of the B.C. government is to create a framework within which the citizens of this province can best respond to those larger-scale circumstances, and that is where the budget falls short.

Despite these looming signs of difficulties on the international level, Mr. Speaker — despite a government which is not only unable to do anything about them but to declare itself, as a matter of high doctrine, unwilling to do something — there are people in B.C. who are doing quite well, thank you. According to the Royal Trust survey of Canadian house prices, homeowners in Kerrisdale, for example, appear to have experienced a capital gain of 35 percent in the past eight months. They're doing quite well — an annual rate of about 50 percent. That gain, of course, isn't taxable, as long as it is a residence, and at worst it is taxable at only 50 percent. According to the Vancouver Real Estate Board, since 1960 the prices of homes in that area have increased by a factor of ten. So those people are not really hurting, by the stories I've been told. Similar increases have been recorded in Point Grey, West Vancouver, Shaughnessy, Oak Bay and, of course, in the area known as Gracie's Finger.

Major shareholders in certain enterprises have done even better. Imperial Oil "A" common shares rose from $18.50 to $56.75 in the one-year period from March '79 to March '80.

The decline experienced since March I has not affected the order of that capital gain. Dividends for the year 1979 were $1.15, though even that represents a 43 percent increase over 1974-75 dividends of 80 cents. It appears that Imperial shareholders, confident of a generous deal from the Canadian government, are happy to leave their earnings with Imperial. By the way, only 24 percent of the common shares of that corporation are held by Canadians. The remaining 76 percent — including 70 percent owned by the parent, Exxon — of the dividends flow out of Canada, thereby contributing to by far the largest factor in our trade deficit: what is euphemistically entitled, in Canadian government accounts, the service account.

Significantly, MacMillan Bloedel shareholders have also done quite handsomely. Their stocks increased in the same period from $15.38 to $36.76. The company recorded a return equity of 16.5 percent, almost identical to Imperial Oil's 16.6 percent. Dividends reached $1.75 in 1979, up more than 400 percent from 1977.

Nor have the beneficiaries of Canadian government been limited entirely to the exercisers of ownership. The Chapman Executive Report on Salaries yields the following information on salary and bonus increases for middle-management personnel in the Pacific region of Canada. In the year 197576 salary increases for such people were 14.4 percent, much more than the cost of living — and that in a time of wage and price control. Salary increases 1976-77, still under wage and price control, were 10 percent. Salary increases in '77-78, still under wage and price control, were only 7.5 percent, but bonus increases were 42.1 percent. Controls are tough, Mr. Speaker. In 1978-79 salary increases were 14.9 percent and bonus increases were 5.3 percent. Some people are not hurting all that much. If you're high enough up, you don't really get hurt.

It is interesting to note that the 14.4 percent salary increase and the 42.1 percent bonus, as I've said, occurred during the period of the Anti-Inflation Board program. Regrettably, these figures for increases are not clearly tied to absolute salary levels, and since the study deals only with reported bonuses, it would not, in any event, yield the kind of data that we have available on wage earners. We can control them. We know what's happening there, especially those who are covered by a collective agreement. What we can venture from figures like these is the guess that when the newspapers predicted in a recent story that most people, given the income increases that they have experienced over the past couple of years, would be able to handle the very large increases in mortgage payments, they were talking of a group that includes these middle management people — they will be able to handle them.

The point of the foregoing is, of course, not to begrudge people these fruits of good fortune but rather to provide a contrast against which to assess the circumstances of the less fortunate of our society and to provide a measure of our ability to assist them. I propose, therefore, to examine some very gross indicators of how the less fortunate among us have fared. Limiting myself to numbers respecting income and expenses, I have to rely on members of this House and on the public to translate these numerical facts to far more profound ones.

Each of the 100,000 unemployed represents a human being deprived of his or her livelihood. There are 119,000 separate cases, and each one of us knows some of them. Deprived of the chief token of respect that this society has to

[ Page 1393 ]

offer, deprived of the chief source of self esteem — in many cases it represents a person expected by society, by his family and by himself to be the main provider, coming home daily to report yet another failure.

There are those in our society who believe we ought not to mention things like this in polite society. I believe it's essential that we remind ourselves from time to time. Many of us were insulated, by the circumstances surrounding our births, from these harsh realities, and we too easily focus so strongly on statistics that we evade the tragedies that they represent.

Among the more fortunate are another group reported on by Statistics Canada in their time series, "B.C. Industrial Composite." If we combine these figures with the consumer price index for Vancouver we discover that in the seven quarters since the first quarter of 1978, real earnings have increased in only one quarter, and that is the third quarter of last year. This decline in real wages, in purchasing power, is for many of our people understated in a variety of ways. The figures include the organized people who, among wage earners, are best able to defend themselves against the process. For the non-organized the picture is, of course, much more bleak.

Second, increases in income tax consequent upon nominal increases in income are not included in the CPI, or the consumer price index. To that extent their real wages have not been sufficiently devalued.

Third, a point which has a greater bearing on groups with even smaller incomes, the consumer price index standard, the basket of goods and services, assures a standard percentage of expenditures on all items. Obviously the poorer people are, the higher percentage of their income that has to go to the inescapable fundamentals: food, housing and transportation. One of the most inhuman features of inflation is that these are precisely the items that have experienced the greatest inflation. For Vancouver, the December 1979 all-items figure was 197.0; for food, it was 240.3; for housing it was 189.3; and for transportation it was 190.5 — and this is on a base of 100 at 1971. They are the three most rapidly increasing items listed by the index.

A group included in this latter one is the one we call the working poor. These are people who rely to a great extent not upon collective bargaining, which is in some instances legislatively forbidden them, but upon the minimum wage. The group is, of course, much larger than those employed exactly at the minimum wage, although no one seems to know exactly how many are included. Many of the individuals affected are recent immigrants, and it goes without saying, that the perilously low levels of their incomes reflect not the value of their work to the economy but their vulnerability to exploitation, which is aided and abetted by this government.

The last increase to the minimum wage was enacted by the Legislature in 1975 and implemented in 1976. It stands nominally at $3. But to quote the Ministry of Labour's own publication, Labour Research Bulletin, February 1980, page 31: "Currently the purchasing power of the minimum wage in 1971 dollars is somewhat less than the $1.50 provincial minimum wage implemented in May 1970." That's how far we've fallen behind in this province. The question this should pose for government is whether this retreat to a ten-year-old standard is sufficient. Would they prefer, say, the standard of 1910, or 1810? And this is the budget that was going to take us forward into the eighties. Suffice it to say now that these figures, coupled with the number of people unemployed — and that is referred to in this Labour Research Bulletin as well, in the very first paragraph.... The government spoke in the budget about how great we're doing from the point of view of employment. But read their own publications.

The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who should have some interest in this, who should have some responsibility for it, threw something across the floor; I'm not sure what it was.

I wonder whether he has had anyone read this to him yet. I wouldn't expect him to be reading it, but I thought perhaps someone might read it for him. This is from your own government's publication, the January statistics: "The result was the highest level of unemployment in the province's history." Is that something of which this government should be proud, which they should tolerate, which they should accept as something which they shouldn't do anything about? They've never said they couldn't do it. All they've said is that they really shouldn't; it's not their responsibility. That seems to be their attitude. I think this illustrates the absolute urgency of doing something permanent, something systematic about this grievous problem.

They illustrate also the folly of refusing to abandon the grotesque economic metaphysic which has been paraded by this government as an excuse for their lethargy. The proposition is that no matter how grave the circumstances, fashioned in large measure by this government, they must always leave it to the private sector to bail us out. We must always swear our fealty to a version of laissez-faire economics that even Adam Smith would have declared outdated.

It is not to Major Douglas that this government is obligated; it is to the people of British Columbia. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) is laughing at the reference to Major Douglas. He's one of those people I was speaking about at the beginning when I talked about the political opportunists who really have no basis for their politics, other than that of political opportunism. So he laughs at Major Douglas. And I can appreciate his laughter.

To the people of British Columbia, and especially to those who owe their financial difficulties to the resolute determination on the part of successive Socred governments to leave industrial strategies entirely to the tender mercies of Exxon, ITT, et al....

We come now to those who are perhaps the least favoured of our society, those who rely on the even less tender mercies of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). The circumstances of these people have been clearly described by a recent publication of United Way. The point of exploring the happy circumstances of some among us and the unhappy circumstances of others is to emphasize and make more general the point made so well by United Way, that the gulf between different sectors in our society grows ever wider: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. There was a warning recently from, actually, the Tory minister — I don't think the change in government will change the circumstances very much. This is from the December 10 issue of the Vancouver Sun: "Tough Time Ahead, Tory Minister Warns: 'I would be less than honest with the Canadian people if I said we were going to have a great year in 1980. We won't. We're living through a difficult period...'." It wouldn't be difficult for him, who is very well off; it won't be difficult for the members opposite; but there are people in our society for whom it will be very difficult. This government seems not to be concerned about that.

[ Page 1394 ]

This process of enlarging the disparities goes on in this province, punctuated by the pious pronouncements of the Minister of Human Resources, which pronouncements are currently being orchestrated by a $40,000 publicity campaign. In the circumstances prevailing, the Minister of Human Resources cannot think of anything better to do with that money; and that accurately describes the limit of both her imagination and her compassion. The idea seems to be to spend money to tell people they're well off, in the hope that they'll believe it.

The question raised for this government especially, and for all of us, is how wide shall we allow, or cause, the gap in incomes to be. Make no mistake, these ever-growing gaps are of society's making. I quote from a study published by the C.D. Howe Institute in 1978, entitled "In Search of Robin Hood." I recommend it to the members of this chamber. Reading from page 5:

"It is by now a well-established fact that the distribution of money income in Canada has not changed significantly during the past quarter century. In addition, government redistributive activity during the 1960s did not favour poor families at the expense of the highest income families."

From the same document, on page 18:

"The reform legislation of the early '70s did surprisingly little to improve the distribution of income in favour of the poor. Especially significant is the result that tax reform provided virtually no benefits for the poorest families, and did not redistribute income from the highest income families to the poor.

On the top of page 6 the budget says:

"First, and I think most important, will be a continuation of the firmly established Social Credit tradition of fiscal responsibility in government. Public services and facilities must be provided efficiently, with sensitivity to people's needs, and at minimum cost to taxpayers. But responsibility has to prevail. We should not be spending today the tax dollars of our citizens of tomorrow. We should spend without recourse to government borrowing."

That's rather interesting. Page 54 of the same budget speech shows that the debt of the province, the "contigent liabilities," as they're euphemistically called, now exceeds $7 billion. Even with some of the debt represented by relatively low-interest bonds, that must mean some $600 million in interest charges in the course of the year.

The budget talks about the people of the province not having to pay interest. Yet the people of the province, through their B.C. Hydro bills, through their subsidies to B.C. Rail — which I do not oppose, but nevertheless I recognize that they're there — through their support of B.C. Ferry Corporation — and I don't object to that — through the B.C. School Districts Capital Authority Act.... I don't object to any of these things. The British Columbia Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority, the British Columbia Regional Hospital Districts Financing Authority — all of these things and others that I haven't listed — add up to $7 billion in debt that's on the backs of the people of this province.

I'm not suggesting for one moment that all of those things should be paid for on a cash basis; I'm just saying let's quit the fiction of saying that we're not paying interest. Some $600 million, roughly, on an annual basis — $50 million a month, and yet they say in the budget we're not paying interest. How ridiculous, Mr. Speaker.

But beyond that, they talk about recognizing the needs of caring for those unable to care for themselves. They talk about recognizing our responsibility to people like that, and at the same time, March 31, 1979, a year ago, had cash in excess of $654 million sitting in the bank — over $654 million a year ago while people on income-assistance programs, according to every study that was done, except the one by the Minister of Human Resources, said that all of these people were living at subsistence rates below the poverty level. Yet this government was sitting on $654 million in the bank a year ago.

By now that figure will be double that. It'll be some time before we ever seen the Public Accounts for March 31, 1980. We didn't see the ones for March 31, 1979, until February 28, I think it was, so it'll probably be a year before you have an opportunity to check my forecast. But I forecast right now that the cash figure on March 31, 1980, will be $1.25 billion sitting in the bank, while people are going without in this province. A year later it will be close to $2 billion, unless this government does something different. It'll be tied up in all kinds of funds, they'll hide it away in all kinds of little corners, but when it comes to the balance sheet, March 31, 1980, will show $1.25 billion, cash sitting in the bank, and March 31, 1981, will show close to $2 billion cash sitting in the bank — while people are waiting to go into hospital for serious operations; while people on assistance programs are living at less than the poverty level; while homeowners are being hit with a regularly increasing share of the cost of paying for education. All of these things are going on and the government is sitting on all that money.

Even worse than that, Mr. Speaker, do you remember the device of 1976, when they provided that a grant of $175 million would be taken out of the pockets of the taxpayers in the province and handed to the people who drive automobiles? That $175 million would have gone a long way toward dealing with some of the problems individuals were facing in our community at that time, and it was handed to subsidize the premiums for automobile drivers. ICBC at one time had a bank loan as high as $26 million, and that's the most that it ever borrowed from the bank, yet that government chose, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, to take money away from people who were on income assistance programs, to take money away from people who were not getting a proper level of health services, to take money away from people who are waiting to get into hospitals, to take away from those people $175 million and give it to the automobile drivers in the province so they would not have to pay the costs of their automobile accidents. That's what happened; there's no doubt about it.

The divisions that have been created and widened in our society and the sacrifice and suffering that have been endured by those at the bottom end of the economic ladder have all occurred so that the Premier of this province could squirrel away funds which he spends with reckless abandon to rescue himself and his government from political problems. Every person requiring medical treatment, but waiting for a hospital bed, every person....

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: I'm afraid I might miss something over there, Mr. Speaker. I thought I should listen to the interruptions over there, but so far there's been nothing from that

[ Page 1395 ]

loudmouth pea-brain, so I'll continue with my speech. Every person looking unsuccessfully for work in this province is doing so in order that the Premier can have the option of buying his way out of his political difficulties. Expenditures of the NDP government on the forest industry, Railwest and on facilities crucial to agriculture were not chosen overnight. They weren't sudden announcements to deal with sudden emergencies, as the recent expenditures announced by the Premier of this province have been — in a desperate need to spend.

If we are ever to develop secondary manufacturing and the more reliable, skilled jobs that such industries provide, it will be from the base provided by our forests, mining, fishing and agricultural industries. In a recent study published by the Science Council of Canada entitled The Weakest Link, the author points out that the percentage of agricultural machinery Canadians import has been increasing in recent years. This is a quotation. It says: "In a country with capital intensive agriculture as developed as in Canada, agricultural machinery imports of this magnitude are a disaster." The authors might have added that where food costs are the most rapidly escalating in a severely inflationary period the disaster is magnified, and that in such a context to under spend budget allotment to agriculture is, to understate the point, irresponsible.

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is out right now, but, Mr. Speaker, you will recall from your review of public accounts that of the $72 million provided for agriculture in the year ended March 31, 1979, approximately half was spent — $35 million. Food is the most rapidly increasing cost in our cost of living — something that concerns every one of us — and yet this government shows its lack of interest by spending only half of its budget.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the tractors that we use so extensively in our major industries — B.C.'s forests, mining and construction — are not, from a manufacturing standpoint, much different from agricultural tractors. What is needed is to reach some critical mass of steel construction to make a steel mill viable. Things like Railwest moved us closer to that critical mass. This government chose to close Railwest. Negotiations with the Japanese brought us closer. Bridges and construction projects like B.C. Place consume a one-shot ration of structural steel, but then they play no further part in building up the economy for the construction of a steel mill.

But there is an even more fundamental approach to our economic immaturity, Mr. Speaker, and that is through the most strategic of industrial expenditures, those on research and development, or as the above-cited study observed: "A strategy is required to create and secure technological ability so as to obtain for Canada a measure of technological sovereignty." What that means for us, Mr. Speaker, is that ITT, Rayonier, Weyerhaeuser and Exxon have no reason at all to invest in B.C.'s process of economic maturation, and that it is naive to expect them to. Therefore we must at long last bestir ourselves to ensure that research and development are undertaken here. There is a reference on page 16 of the budget.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, there is a comment from opposite that we can afford to now. I would suggest that we can never afford not to.

MR. KEMPF: What did you do when you were government?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I have been challenged as to what we did in our day. I was reminded, I think a couple of days ago in this Legislature, by some of those opposite that the Social Credit Party has been in office in this province for 24 years and the NDP for only three. Yet we are asked: "What did you do?" Mr. Speaker, I ask them what they did in their 24 years. In the twenty-fourth year they've suddenly found a million and a half dollars to put into research. Isn't that great! After 24 years running the affairs of this province, they have now found a little bit of money for research. Some people wake up awfully slowly; they're not doing nearly enough now.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Don't be so dramatic.

MR. STUPICH: The Minister of Forests challenges me not to be so dramatic. These are dramatic subjects that I'm discussing; I would hope that you would take some interest in them. I'm going to tell you something about research in your ministry.

The Minister of Forests interrupted at a most opportune time, because I would like to talk a little bit about what's happening in his ministry. He spoke in the Legislature a few days ago and unfortunately didn't talk about what's happening in his ministry, but perhaps later on we'll hear something from him. The budget discusses a reforestation project which needs a great deal of examination and explanation, and I look forward to hearing that. But this much is clear, and I think the minister would admit this: if we don't know what seedlings grow best in what climate and soil conditions, or if we do not research and develop superior trees or fertilizing or thinning or disease-control techniques, we will, with our fast fiscal guns, have wasted a lot of money. The research is basic, the research is important; it has to be done, it should have been done. That, Mr. Speaker, is another reason why, apart from BCRIC's prosperity, the purchase of forest industries by the NDP administration was a good idea as part of a larger set of good ideas.

How does our forest industry stand as regards research and development? Let's look at what others say about us. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development did a study in 1979 entitled "Trends in Industrial Research and Development from 1967 to 1975." Page 24 of that study reveals that in the group including forest industries, our real expenditure on research and development was down between 25 and 49 percent, and the number of research and development scientists and engineers employed was down between 3 and 24 percent. This neglect of our most important of all industries is not something that started in 1979, estimates over the last three decades recognize that the forest wealth of our province accounts for between a third and 40 percent of the total wealth produced in B.C. The Sloan report of 1945 referred to a figure of one-third of the total production in the province coming from the forest industry. Mr. Speaker, the minister is smiling; I guess he thinks that's out of date. It was 35 years ago.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: You weren't even born then? Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it's important that he knows something. It

[ Page 1396 ]

has been said that those of us who refuse to learn anything from history are destined to suffer the same mistakes, to experience the same mistakes. I think it is well that the Minister of Forests knows something about the mistakes of the past.

That same report recommended that the subject of forests was important enough to warrant another inquiry ten years hence. I'm going to quote briefly from the report. The minister says he wasn't born then; perhaps that's his good fortune. But I'd like to read him a little bit out of this report. It's in the library, Mr. Speaker. Although he wasn't born then, he still has access to it.

"I would estimate that in general terms the wealth produced by processes of extraction and conversion of logs into final manufactured form accounts for at least one-third of the total production and wealth in this province."

Page 127:

"It is essential that a royal commission, ten years hence, re-examine all aspects of forestry in the light of development during that ten-year period."

That recommendation was accepted.

Mr. Speaker, I could be reading this in 1980 as easily as it was said in 1945.

"At present our forest resources might be visualized as a slowly descending spiral."

This is being said by people all over the province, all over the country.

"We must change from the present system to a planned and regulated policy of forest management leading to a program ensuring a sustained yield from all of our productive land areas."

Page 128:

"The rate of planting denuded areas of productive forest land, especially on the coast, must be greatly increased."

Page 143:

"The third step towards a sustained yield production objective is to start new forests growing on our denuded land areas. On the coast approximately one million acres" — this was 35 years ago — "and in the interior 19 million acres of productive forest land are not satisfactorily restocking. It is of the utmost importance that this acreage be planted at the earliest possible date."

That's Sloan, 35 years ago.

A further report by Mr. Sloan was described as....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is muttering about a $1.4 billion program, I'm going to come to that if he would just be patient.

A further report by Mr. Sloan is described as the 1956 report — and the Minister of Forests was born then — although it was not delivered until 1957. By that time forest industries in the province accounted for 40 percent of the total net value of production, as referred to in that report. But neglect of our most important resource of all had continued during that ten-year period; there was no improvement.

The Sloan report of 1956 says: "It is generally agreed that forest industries as a whole comprise the most important industrial group in the province, accounting for 40 percent of the total provincial value." Then there is a table on page 290: "Acreage Not Satisfactorily Restocked." In 1945 on the coast it stood at 918,000 acres; in 1955 it had almost doubled to 1,723,000 acres. Acreages are given for the interior as well.

He comments on page 292:

"The Forest Service should be planting on Crown lands 12,000 acres a year merely to prevent the present position from worsening, plus 36,000 acres a year if we are to reclaim the lost 900,000 acres in 25 years. This would mean a yearly planting program at a cost of $1.9 million a year."

That is what Sloan had to say in 1956.

As I mentioned earlier, members opposite have been making much of the fact that Social Credit has been in power in this province for 24 years, as opposed to three years for the NDP. That being the case I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that they have to accept responsibility for the almost total neglect of our forest resource over a period of 28 years since that party was first elected.

A further report was commissioned. The Social Credit government didn't do it. They didn't want to hear any more bad news; they didn't want everyone to hear how bad a job they were doing of looking after our resource. But the NDP did commission a further report, the Pearse report, which was completed in 1976. It is one more reminder of the sinful neglect of our most important of all resources.

I have a quotation from the Pearse report as well, from page 277:

"In 1965 a specific target was adopted by the Forest Service. It was estimated that one-third of the acreage logged would require artificial reforestation which, at the level of logging then" — and the minister was certainly around in 1965 — "implied a need for 75 million seedlings annually."

At that time annual planting was in the order of 18 million, roughly one-quarter of what the Pearse report said should have been going on in 1965. That was recommended by the Forest Service in 1965, when this government had been in office for some 13 years. They stayed in office for seven years after that.

"In 1974 the long-sought objective of 75 million seedlings was met for the first time...."

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Not true.

MR. STUPICH: The Minister of Forests says that the Pearse report is untrue in this respect. He will have an opportunity to explain to us in what way the Pearse report was wrong. In the meantime, since this is the only evidence I have, and since I have never before heard the facts in the Pearse report challenged, I am going to refer to them in this debate. But I appreciate that the minister may want to say something about it later.

In any case, nine years after the Forest Service set a target of 75 million trees a year, and after two years of NDP administration, that target was finally reached. According to the Pearse report it "was met for the first time, and by 1975 had expanded to 90 million."

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that Sloan recommended in 1956 that, in terms of 1956 dollars, we should be spending $1.9 million a year simply on planting seedlings — that's $40 an acre. What was the government doing then? I didn't go that far back. There was no need to; the figures were infinitesimal.

[ Page 1397 ]

In 1962 this administration, after having been in office for ten years, spent not $1.9 million on reforestation but $0.4 million — and $0.2 million on research. By the time they were voted out of office in 1972 their level of spending on reforestation was $4.7 million. That is all they were spending on the most important resource, on reforestation, in spite of the fact that Sloan, in 1956, had recommended $2 million a year in terms of 1956 dollars.

On research, from 1962 until 1972, a period of 10 years.... They spent $0.2 million in 1962 and $0.2 million in 1972. That is what they thought of research. Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I've been challenged opposite: what did we do in research? Ten years' history of that administration from 1962 to 1972, and what they were prepared to spend on research on our most important of all industries year after year was $200,000 — sometimes a little less.

As they said, we were in office only three years. But the spending on reforestation went from $4.7 million in the last year of the outgoing Social Credit administration to $14.3 million in the last year of the NDP administration.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't you keep it up?

MR. STUPICH: Because the voters, unfortunately, chose to re-elect a government that persisted in its policy of neglect and has persisted since then. The levels of research that we worked up to have been maintained at those levels — little change since then. There's been little increase in reforestation since then. But no, Mr. Speaker, we have a grand new program. The minister....

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: I keep hoping I might hear something worthwhile. I wouldn't expect the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) to consider any of this worthwhile. You know, I have to consider who's listening, her estimation of what is being said and the importance of what is being said.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) quite properly expressed concern over the future of the forest industry. A major expenditure for forest management is planned. This is where we come to the figures: $388 million this year as part of a five-year $1.4 billion program that the minister of economic development referred to in one of his interjections. I'd like to examine that, and hope that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) will expand on this when he has an opportunity to speak.

On page 15 of the budget: "Renewing Natural Resources. Funding for the coming year will be provided from three sources: $157 million will be allocated to the Ministry of Forests, an increase of $32 million over last year's budget estimate." Sounds terrific. The budget for the Ministry of Forests is up 27 percent, which is the same figure for the increase in the total budget. Nothing special for forestry in that; they're treating forestry the same as the average government expenditure. But there are other things in there, I confess that.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The second item: "$84.1 million will be allocated from stumpage revenue for reforestation and other projects related to forest management." I wonder just exactly what that means. Does that mean that we're simply shuffling the same dollars around? Does that mean that dollars previously expended by industry and reported by them on their profit-and-loss statements will now be reported by the Minister of Forests as expenditures on forestry? The way this reads to me, there's no new money coming out of government revenue, no increase in stumpage to provide for any new and additional bold programs; it's simply a reshuffling and taking credit for something previously done by the industry. It's a recalculation of the same dollars.

The minister is shaking his head. He had an opportunity to tell us something about these things in his previous speech; he'll have an opportunity again, I hope.

Then we look at: "$146.6 million from the 1979-80 revenue surplus will be placed in a new forest and range resource fund. Included in the fund expenditure in 1980-81 is $1.45 million for Forintek Canada." That's not enough but it's a good start.

But let's take a look at page 61, and consider the use of this $146.6 million. If you look at the forest and range resource fund, forecast revenue for this fund is $146.6 million; forecast expenditure is $19.3 million. Isn't that great! We're taking $146 million out of surplus to have a bold new program for forestry; and a year later, March 31, 1981, we expect to have left in that fund $127.3 million in cash sitting in the bank. The cash sitting in the bank isn't going to plant any trees.

Then let's look at the $1.4 billion to be spent over five years. Some $785 million will come from the regular ministry budget. Gee, why didn't you say ten years and say that it was going to be $3 billion regular budget expenditures? Over half of the $1.4 billion they've been boasting about is the regular. ministry expenditures, and "$448 million will be returned from stumpage revenues back into forest management" — it has been going into forest management, I suspect; I believe that the forest companies have been putting that kind of money into forest management, and that it's going to keep on going there — "and the remainder will come from the forest and range resource fund to be created by legislation..." — and maybe spent over a period of time. They're projecting in the first year that they actually are going to spend $19 million out of that $147 million allocation. That's not going to do very much, I'm afraid, for the future of the forests in the province of British Columbia.

I come back to a point I made earlier, Mr. Speaker, and that is that if this money is going to be spent wisely, adequate research must be done, and my complaint about the research that's provided for in this budget is that it isn't nearly enough. Adequate research must be done into tree-planting techniques and silvicultural practices. It's difficult to pick some of these figures out. They've changed the way of recording expenditures for the activities in the forest ministry, so we're going to have to ask some detailed questions of the minister. It used to be that there was an item in the estimates called "reforestation." But I guess they were so embarrassed about the little that was being done in that field that they've now included reforestation in with another vote, and we don't know, without asking the minister — and perhaps we will have trouble getting the answer then — precisely what is the comparable figure on a year-to-year basis, because it's not identified any more as "reforestation," not identified any

[ Page 1398 ]

more as "research." So that's one way of hiding the fact that you aren't doing very much — change the description so that it can't be compared.

In the recent past and in the long past our expenditure on forest research has not been high. The total budget of the research branch of the Ministry of Forests last year was $3.8 million; less than $1 million was spent on tree improvement, only $750,000 on silviculture.

In A Review of the Canadian Forest Products Industry, published in 1979 by the federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Commerce, these observations were made on page 211:

"Although the Canadian forest products industry can, in many respects, be considered a mature industry, a more intensive and long-term commitment to research and development is essential."

Mr. Speaker, I have ranged rather broadly in these remarks, attempting to set out our view that a great deal more is required of a government than an accountant's facility for book-balancing or the ad man's facility with phrases like "sunshine budgets." Our greatest shortcoming as a society is not to be able to provide good work for those willing and able to do it, and that shortcoming is linked in turn to our failure to develop the economy. All senior governments have a heavy responsibility in that matter, Mr. Speaker, and especially those of the western provinces. Certainly our claims as provinces to jurisdiction over natural resources will morally, if not legally, be weakened by a failure to exercise stewardship in such a way as to benefit the economy generally.

I'd like to refer again to the budget, and I wonder, really, Mr. Speaker, whether the Minister of Finance was doing a service to the people of British Columbia in saying what he did in this paragraph on page 29:

"The next few years will see important decisions made at the national level and it will be of utmost importance to ensure that the interests and concerns of British Columbians are appropriately reflected. The federal election results could make this more difficult...."

Mr. Speaker, what was the Minister of Finance saying in the budget when he said that the results of the election could make it more difficult for this government to work with the government of Canada? Is that really what he meant to say in that budget? How can he talk on other pages of this budget about negotiating with Ottawa if he says in his budget speech that he regrets the fact that the government of the day was elected? It's going to make it more difficult....

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't even vote.

MR. STUPICH: The Premier thought it was unimportant, not even worth voting. The Minister of Finance says it was a disaster for British Columbia that the Liberal Party was re-elected.

He talks about bargaining: "...federal taxation of British Columbia's natural gas beyond that currently applied to natural gas producers through the income tax system, is unacceptable." Mr. Speaker, is that the kind of challenge to issue in a budget speech? He's going down to bargain: yet he says in the budget speech what his position is going to be, says that he doesn't like the government, can't get along with it and that their position is unacceptable even before he hears what their position is.

"Such taxation would substantially reduce revenues accruing to the people of this province and limit our capacity to develop energy programs...." I'm reading out of the budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: What would be your position today?

MR. STUPICH: I'm asked what would be my position. I would never say in a budget that I would find it difficult to represent the people of British Columbia in negotiating with whatever federal government happened to be in Ottawa. I would never say in a budget that I'm going down to Ottawa, but before I go, regardless of what is put before me, I'm not willing to negotiate, that I want what I want for British Columbia and am not prepared to negotiate.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, I see one person standing, but I hear many voices.

MR. STUPICH: You're hearing things, Mr. Speaker.

"A first priority of the new federal government" — I'm now on page 30 of the budget — "should be the introduction of a budget." That's a profound statement. "I should also like to see the budget contain measures to offset the adverse impacts of high borrowing costs until such time as the federal government is able to bring down interest rates."

They don't like the fact that the federal government is borrowing. I pointed out earlier that the provincial government, through its agencies, is in hock right now to the tune of $7 billion. But they don't like the federal government borrowing. They're sitting with approximately one-and-a-quarter billion dollars cash on hand, and yet they say in the budget: "We've got to go to Ottawa for more. Ottawa shouldn't borrow, it shouldn't spend any money, but it should give us more, even though we've got one-and-a-quarter billion dollars sitting in the bank."

I'm still reading from page 30: "We are looking to the new government" — the federal government — "to commit funds to the development of British Columbia Place. This government has made a major financial commitment" — well, I'm not sure what that commitment is — "but federal financial support is necessary and appropriate." It's not appropriate that they borrow; it's not appropriate that they have a deficit; it's appropriate that we have one-and-a-quarter billion dollars cash sitting in the bank, and it's appropriate that we go to them and ask them to give us more money for projects in British Columbia, money for projects that are designed simply to take the Premier's political irons out of the fire.

I think it's worth reviewing changes in taxation revenue over the years. There have been some substantial changes in the collection of revenue, between the province and the federal government. Personal income tax, for example, represented 18 percent of the budget in 1972. In 1981 — and this is a shift of taxation revenue to the province: we're dealing with much larger figures, of course, but even the percentage is higher.... Twenty-two percent of our total budget is now coming from personal income tax, a field that used to be entirely federal. Corporation tax, again, used to be a federal collection device. In 1972, 5.5 percent of our total budget came from corporation tax: it's 9 percent now. And that much-maligned federal government, that does so little for the province of British Columbia, its share of joint service prog-

[ Page 1399 ]

rams, its contribution toward programs in British Columbia — although we're getting back a higher percentage of the personal income tax and corporation tax — its share of our total budget is roughly the same as it was in 1972. In 1972, 18.7 percent of the cost of everything that this government was doing was money that came directly from Ottawa; and although they've handed over the tax points, 18 percent of everything that is done in this great $5.55 billion expenditure budget is money that is coming from the federal government — the people who are so criticized for borrowing money, so that we here in British Columbia might pile up huge surpluses and deny services to our citizens.

A study just released by the Canadian Institute for Economic Policy estimates that in '78 prices, $58 billion worth of additional goods and services would have been produced in the four years 1975-78 had the Canadian economy been running at capacity. How many people would that potential have removed forever from the chilling reach of the Minister of Human Resources? Neither governments nor budgets are to be judged by their willingness to hurl money at everything in current sight, nor by the exuberance of the huckster's prose. Governments and budgets in British Columbia must be judged in the short term on the assistance provided to those most in need, and in the long term on the effectiveness with which they address our fundamental economic problems. On both these counts, this government and this budget fail.

The government of British Columbia will be spending over $1 billion more this year, without compassion for the needs of citizens or concern for the economy's industrial future. Total government expenditures this year, between special funds and budgeted expenditures, are $6.14 billion, according to Table I on page 33 of the budget. Our gross domestic product in 1979 was $31.35 billion, and converting that to current figures and taking inflation into account, probably in the neighbourhood of $35 billion for 1980. In other words, the government expenditures run about 18 percent, if we consider just those budgeted figures and the special accounts.

When we are talking about taking so much out of the economy and spending it on certain non-productive items, I think of the much-heralded Heroin Treatment Program in my own community, Brannen Lake — $12 million in advertising to try to tell people what a great job the government is doing, an increase of 17 political hacks in the various ministers' offices as proposed this year, and other wasteful items. It all has a serious effect on our economy. But in addition, government-guaranteed borrowings of Crown corporations for capital expenditures, completely under the control of this administration, add another St. l billion, for a grand total of $7.28 billion in publicly backed expenditures. Divided into the 1980 gross product, estimated at $35 billion, it works out that about 21 percent of the total economy is under the control of the government. It's no wonder that the former Socred Finance minister felt a little unhappy about this, a little awkward about it.

Remember his speeches, the grand policy announcements about reducing the 17 percent provincial government ratio of gross domestic product in 1978? An absolute shambles, that policy. How typical, though, of Social Credit, two-faced in everything. Bombastic policies of highest principle, utterly overturned by equally bombastic policies of highest principle. Mr. Speaker, surely it must now be clear for all to see that Social Credit produces Finance ministers who trumpet their belief in high principles while writing budget speeches of sheer political expediency. An ex-Finance minister and the current Finance minister have gone in completely opposite directions while each applauded the other's empty rhetoric.

What a cynical sideshow they have made of British Columbia's budget day. Our citizens, taxpayers and business community deserve better than that. They deserve honesty, integrity and a genuine — not a sham — economic policy.

Mr. Speaker, this budget confirms that British Columbians were overtaxed by as much as half a billion dollars last year, extra revenue that they said they didn't anticipate. This government fails to see that that was one of the reasons there was a dip in the growth rate last year. They don't seem to have recognized that this extra money they are taking out of the economy hurts the economy. They fail to see that a significant tax cut by that amount would help spur our economy to the pitch where a lasting reduction of a substantial order in our terrible unemployment problem could be achieved. They fail to see that a major tax cut to eliminate this overtaxation burden of approximately $200 per man, woman and child would reduce the inflationary pressures on every worker's paycheque and every retired person's pension.

Besides this heavy and unnecessary overtaxation, this government has also inherited an additional half-billion dollar windfall in resource revenues, largely retained for British Columbians, as I explained earlier, through the mechanism of our B.C. Petroleum Corporation — approximately $1.5 billion during the life of that corporation, which the shortsighted Socreds originally opposed.

Think of it, Mr. Speaker: an extra half-billion dollars, and all this government can think to do with it is to throw it away to try to solve some of their political problems. A half-billion dollars would be enough to build a partnership with industry in a British Columbia merchant marine, in a steel mill — a grand opportunity to lift the province onto a new economic plateau, an opportunity that would give pride and an entirely new chance for work to many disheartened British Columbians, an opportunity to embark on a bold, new direction towards stable prosperity.

But sadly, Mr. Speaker, instead of an imaginative leap into the 1980s, about which the Minister of Finance spoke, we have a government which only imagines that it can buy back some respect by throwing money around at a rate it boasted only last year it would never do because that would be irresponsible and ruinous to our economy. Remember last year how harmful government spending was to the economy? Here they are, heaping money onto this embarrassing spot on the rug, onto that tear in the carpet, without a thought for prudent, planned development. This government's only thought is to try to hide its political sins and its miserable mismanagement of our economic opportunities under a shower of undirected dollars.

We have neither a heritage fund like Alberta nor a systematic economic strategy like Saskatchewan to harness our temporary bounty into an engine that will give this province a quantum jump towards the goal of bettering the lives of all our citizens. Nor did we see compassion for those pressed down by the taxing burdens of this callous regime.

This government talks about high interest rates, but what have they done about it? Mr. Speaker, remember the B.C. Savings and Trust report that would have made it possible for citizens throughout the province of British Columbia to benefit from subsidized interest rates and acquire their own

[ Page 1400 ]

homes and meet the financing costs of acquiring those homes.

B.C. Savings and Trust. What did they do about that? They buried the report somewhere. They picked up little bits and pieces of it but nothing significant to reduce the cost of interest. The opportunity was there with B.C. Savings and Trust. They had the report; they've still got the report. They have flubbed the opportunity. This government talks about small businesses and promises — they make all kinds of promises. Page 30 — I know the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is waiting patiently. There are references in the budget to helping small business — a reduction of 2 percent in the small business corporation income tax rate to 10 percent. Well, that's great, Mr. Speaker, for those small businesses that are successful, and are making an income on which they pay income tax. But what about all the ones that have gone bankrupt during the four years in which that minister has been responsible for this department?

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I've been asked: "Why didn't you suggest something?" Mr. Speaker, I would have suggested that the $21 million that this is going to cost the provincial treasury might better have been put into an expanded program in the Ministry of Economic Development. An extra $21 million would have enabled that minister — well, perhaps not that minister, but would have enabled that ministry — and BCDC to have done something important in this province. Whereas the $21 million, as it is directed in this budget, is simply going to help those who are already successful. The ones who are paying income tax aren't the ones that need the help. It's the ones who are going broke that need the help.

There's another interesting reference on page 19, and I think the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) would be interested in this. The previous Minister of Finance isn't here. I'm going to read two statements:

...enabling legislation will be introduced to permit the creation of registered small business venture capital corporations in British Columbia. Such corporations will provide an important new source of financing to assist small business to realize their growth potential. For the 1980 and subsequent taxation years, British Columbia residents and/or corporations will be allowed a credit against income tax for shares purchased from a registered small business venture capital corporation. The cooperation of the federal government will be sought to accommodate administration of this program under the tax collection agreement.

Now I would like to read another statement, Mr. Speaker. This time I'm reading from page 44 of a different document: Mr. Speaker, our government is proposing incentives for the establishment of a new type of financial corporation in British Columbia, a small business venture capital corporation. The purpose of these corporations is to provide venture or equity capital to small business in British Columbia...

Mr. Speaker, does it sound as though I'm repeating myself? I assure you, it is separate document.

...to encourage establishment of venture capital corporations and to encourage both individual and corporate taxpayers to put their savings into such corporations. Special tax reductions from British Columbia income tax will be provided to investors who place their funds in a venture capital corporation.

It's almost word for word — identical. Even this bit:

The cooperation of the federal government will be sought to accommodate the administration of this tax program through the income tax under the tax collection agreement.

Now I ask you: which one of those was from the budget read in the House yesterday and which one was from the budget read in the House in April 1979 and presented again in June 1979? It's the same old promise. The same old bunch in office. How much has it really helped small business in the province to regurgitate that promise? How many more years?

I remember the Leader of the Opposition — I don't think he was even the Leader of the Opposition at that time; this goes back some years — talking about a bridge that this administration promised in the city of Quesnel for something like 15 years. His comment at the time was that the government's attitude is: "Why ruin a good promise by putting it into effect? You can't promise it any more once you've done it." So we're going to promise to set up a venture capital corporation, and we're going to promise to talk to Ottawa about it. In the meantime we're going to sock some more money away, hide it somewhere, and leave it there until we get around to talking to Ottawa about it. We passed the legislation last year, and here it is in the budget. We're promising it all over again. Gee, that must be great. It must be really encouraging to the small-business people who are waiting for some assistance from this particular administration.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Someone says: "Just like denticare." I'm not going to talk about denticare or the fact that it was promised in the opening speech last year, and the fact that it was promised in the budget speech, and the promise that was made in the election campaign, and the fact that it was reintroduced in the budget in June 1979, and the fact that it was in the opening speech again this year, and that it's in the budget again. It's not in the estimates, Mr. Speaker. An oversight!

I remember a couple of months ago the Premier saying: "It's a priority item for this year's budget." Then I remember the Minister of Health saying: "Well, it couldn't be this year." Then I remember them saying: "Maybe this year." Now we are going to have legislation which, to me, Mr. Speaker, indicates that they didn't have their plans sufficiently developed when the budget was being prepared, so they said: "Well, we'll bring in a bill to set aside $30 million for a denticare program." I wonder how much real planning….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) please come to order.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) please assist me by coming to order. The member for Nanaimo has the floor.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, you'll understand why I declined your invitation to take control. I think it's better that you keep control.

[ Page 1401 ]

However, getting back to the budget, on page 27 it talks about the burden of education costs on taxpayers, and do you know what they say? Maybe you recall this from yesterday: "Direct grants to school districts will increase $29 million in 1980-81, restricting the increase in the basic mill rate." That's not freezing, not reducing, as we did every year in which we were in office, the basic mill rate. Educational services were improved every year and the basic mill rate was reduced every year. That changed, starting in 1976. In 1976 the basic mill rate was increased over the year before, and every year since then the basic mill rate has increased, and now, even in the 1981 budget, we're simply saying we're going to put more money in so that the rate of increase will not be as fast as it might have been otherwise, but it's going to increase. The local property tax payers are going to pay....

MR. COCKE: Stepping on the homeowner!

MR. STUPICH: And the homeowner grant! You know, there's a little bit in here for some of the homeowners. But you will recall me saying in this House last year, Mr. Speaker, when we were talking about the homeowner grant, that this Social Credit administration, from the time it was reelected in 1976, made no general change in the level of the homeowner grant until election year. There's no change this year, and I suspect, Mr. Speaker, if the citizens of the province want to know.... The Premier said across the floor the other day that if he didn't know better, he would say it was an election budget. It's not because there's no change in the homeowner grant. Some three or four or five years from now there'll be a change in the homeowner grant and we will know that's election year. Once every election they'll change the level of the homeowner grant, it would appear; that's their record so far. There's nothing this year.

This government talks about agriculture, and I have referred to that already. The Premier looked at me when the budget was being read and said: "Aren't you in favour of spending more money on agriculture?" Of course I am, Mr. Speaker. I think it was Anthony Eden who once said: "Everyone is in favour of general economy but particular expenditure." I am in favour of spending more money on agriculture.

"The effects of high interest rates are being cushioned by the Agriculture Credit Program. Because of high interest rates charged farmers by the financial institutions, the $7.7 million provided in 1979-80 was exceeded by $9 million. An amount of $23.2 million will be provided for 1980-81."

The Premier expected me to be pleased with that reference in the budget to what the province is doing with respect to high interest rates for farmers. What the budget didn't bother to point out is that the format has been drastically changed for 1980. It's going to be tied to the prime rate, which can be reviewed weekly; it's going to be 2 points below the prime rate, which could very well be an intolerable burden and will be passed on in higher food costs; and the year after that it will be I point below the prime rate. If this government stays in office, does that mean it will be higher than the prime rate two years down the road? Mr. Speaker, I don't know. We're looking too far ahead.

But, obviously, when the Premier looked to me for some support for what they are doing for agricultural credit.... They ruined one of the good programs that we brought in in 1973.

This government talks about alternative energy, and this is one of the things that I welcomed when I was first exposed to the budget. When I first heard the initial remarks about the budget, I thought, gee, that's great, that's a good idea. So I read on page 20:

"Over the next four years" — now when I first saw the summary I didn't realize it was over four years — "the province working jointly with the federal government will continue to implement" — that's nothing new — "a $27 million program of energy conservation and renewable energy technology development. In 1980-81, $3.1 million will be provided for this purpose."

Out of $5.5 billion, we are going to spend $3 million to implement a program of energy conservation and renewable energy technology. Isn't that great?

Apart from that, we are doing a little more. We are setting up an energy development fund. This is great. We are going to set aside $10 million of this cash into an energy development fund. Mr. Speaker, how much of that is going to be left a year from now, in March 1981? I think you haven't had an opportunity to read the budget. But isn't this great! We are going to spend $10 million on this energy development program, and a year from now we are going to have $10 million left in that fund. That's great publicity. Wait until the people of the province have an opportunity to see the details of this budget.

Mr. Speaker, this budget gives us no imaginative leap into the 1980s that the the Minister of Finance promised. Any leap in this budget is imaginary, the hallucinations of a stumbling, burnbling government that has pratfalls so often that it cries "Alleluia!" when it accidentally bounces into a sitting position. What a missed opportunity going by our people. At a time when the province's coffers are full, we have a cabinet with craniums so empty'.

This budget and this government fail because there is no plan to deal with the fundamental problems for which the government is responsible: record unemployment according to the government's own publication, Labour Research Bulletin, February 1980; high and higher interest rates by tying programs to the prime rate that may change weekly; and a rapidly increasing cost of living. We see no programs, no concern and apparently no awareness.

Mr. Speaker, because of its shortcomings, because of its paucity of initiative, we will not be supporting this budget.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, if that is the biggest attack we are going to have on one of the greatest budgets that has ever been brought down, not only in the province of British Columbia but in any province of Canada, l don't think we have too much to fear from the opposition. It is sort of like the throne speech debate. They never criticized the throne speech in over a week of debate, and I can see that the same is going to be true of the budget. If they criticized one thing in the budget, it was this government for being successful in the last four years.

I listened very intently to see if there was one little smidgen of a suggestion as to what they would do were they government. I know I was out for about two minutes at one time, but I listened very intently. Did I hear one word about what they would do or how they would do it better? No, not one word, except to say that they'd go off with their socialist philosophy and buy a steel mill and a merchant marine.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that I am very proud

[ Page 1402 ]

indeed to be a member of the team that made yesterday's budget introduction in this House possible, because that budget tabled yesterday by our Minister of Finance didn't just happen in the year 1979. It started from a plan of economic development, a blueprint to put this province back in superior economic condition, as it has done. It didn't just happen. It was a team effort. When we first agreed to our economic blueprint back in early 1976.... Thankfully for the people of this province, the plan that we developed at that time has indeed worked.

The member for Nanaimo, who didn't criticize the budget, talked about a few things. One of them was inflation. It is an inescapable fact that among any of the Canadian provinces inflation is lowest in B.C. now. Indeed, it's one of the lowest in Canada. But when they left government after the three years they were government, inflation in British Columbia reached the highest of any province in Canada; that's their record, and they dare talk about inflation.

Under the management of this government the taxes in British Columbia are the second-lowest in Canada. When they were government, did they reduce taxes? No. They increased taxes to the point where they drove industry out of this province.

They talked about high unemployment. I'm going to talk about unemployment. I'm going to talk about the positive programs we have brought into this province that have put people to work. When they left as government of this province, unemployment stood at 8.5 percent and was among the highest of any province in Canada. What is it today? It is one of the lowest of any province in Canada, standing at 7.3 percent. I'm not going to read out of some report; I'm going to give you the latest figures from the Ministry of Labour. Employment rose by 19,000 persons in the month of February, and combined with the moderate rise in the provincial workforce of 4,000, the total number of unemployed in B.C. fell to 103,000. Since February of last year the B.C. labour force has risen by 59,000 persons, or 5 percent, an increase well above the national average in the employable workforce.

But they say we haven't done anything for unemployment. Employment growth in B.C. has been 68,000 persons since February 1979. There are 68,000 more people working in British Columbia today than there were in February 1979. That's a record for any province in Canada. This represented a 6.3 percent rise in employment, in contrast to a 3.4 percent increase nationally. In other words, we almost doubled the rate of employment in British Columbia as compared to the national average, and among the major provinces it was second only to that other free enterprise province, Alberta, which had 8.2 percent. Yet they dare stand over there and say that we haven't done anything for employment in this province.

For a moment I just want to say how glad I am to be part of the team that took this province from its lowest possible ebb of economic development into one of the have provinces again in Canada. It hasn't been due to one particular ministry of this government; indeed, it has been a team effort. It was a team effort when we decided to work with the federal government to get some of that money flowing back to British Columbia and to put into action all of the great programs that we have working for small business and working for the small manufacturer.

Today as the members came into the House...another great new program to assist the small manufacturer in the lower mainland and in the lower portion of Vancouver Island. It's an initiative to put people in British Columbia to work, and help the small manufacturer, and create even more jobs. This program is a sister to our ASEP program, which is jointly funded by the federal government and the provincial government. It has been one of the most successful programs introduced in any province in Canada. Over 372 small businesses were helped by the ASEP program, which employed over 3,000 people. It's a program that we brought in. It's a program that put people to work and helped the small entrepreneur in this province. And they say we haven't done anything in this province to put people to work.

It was also a team effort when we made the decision that financial stability was the priority in this province in establishing an economic climate for investment, to restore faith in our province. You heard in the budget speech yesterday of the billions of dollars that have been invested in our province to make jobs for our workforce.

I remember last year's budget, brought down in this House, with tax cuts for individuals and the small businessman, to give us again the second-lowest tax rate in Canada. I want you to contrast that, Mr. Speaker, with their third year as government, when the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) was the Minister of Finance. What did they do in their last six months of government? They brought all spending to a halt — under that member for Nanaimo, who dares to stand up in this House and criticize yesterday's budget. They want people to forget that in the last six months of their administration all spending ceased. Why did they cease all spending programs? Because the government was broke. You talk about honesty in government. You talk about stewardship in government. What did they do? They called a snap election. They thought they could hide the facts from the people of this province; but it backfired, and that's why they're not government today.

I want to say just a few words about some of the remarks made by the last speaker, the member for Nanaimo. He didn't criticize the budget, so far as I'm concerned. I quickly went over his speech in the House last year, and it was practically the same thing. He remade the old mudballs and lopped them across the floor — without any enthusiasm though, because he wasn't enthusiastic about what he was doing. He said that this budget was not a budget for economic purposes. Well, I didn't hear the member for Nanaimo giving any suggestions. I want to tell you, this budget will go down as projecting the economy of British Columbia into the 1980s. Above all things, he had the audacity to criticize our $200 million mortgage fund, which probably put about 8,000 people to work in British Columbia immediately it was introduced. It's a fund that maybe saved the lumber industry in this province from being shut down, a fund that put construction workers to work building houses in this province. And he called it political gimmickery.

He also criticized the Annacis Island bridge. Well, Mr. Speaker, maybe he doesn't realize that the Annacis Island bridge is going to help some 4,000 employees on Annacis Island — make it easier for them to get to work. Maybe he doesn't realize that it's going to help employees in all of the lower mainland to get to their jobs; plus, it is going to facilitate the movement of goods and services, something that they, on that side of the House, don't even understand. They think that if you build a subway, or rapid transit, you're going to go on there with your television set — or whatever you have that has to be distributed, once it's manufactured —

[ Page 1403 ]

and you're going to distribute it on the rapid transit system. I don't care if we have ten rapid transit systems in the lower mainland; we are still going to have to have a highway network, and we are still going to have to have bridges.

He also said that we need to put money into systems that will develop a mature economy. I want to tell you a little later on about putting money into systems that will develop a mature economy, and exactly what we've done. But, first of all, I want to point out to the House — and I feel that it is very important that I point this out to the House — that he criticized this government for not doing anything for the small person, for those in need. I took the budget and did a little work with it in the computer. When that member for Nanaimo over there was Minister of Finance, the government of British Columbia was spending $50, on a per capita basis — that's for every man, woman and child in the province — on the protection of persons and property. In our 1980 budget the figure is $103 per person, Mr. Speaker — an over-100 percent increase in just four years under this government for the protection of persons and property.

He talked about not being able to get a hospital bed. When that member for Nanaimo was Minister of Finance, we in this province were spending, on a per capita basis, $410 for every man, woman and child on health and social services. In our 1980 budget, we are spending not $410 but $776 per individual on health and social services in this province. And they have the audacity to stand up in this House and say we're not doing anything for the needy people in this province. I want to tell you, if they were still government we would either be borrowing a billion dollars a year to stay afloat, or the needy people in this province would have no services whatsoever.

Education. In 1975, when they left, we were spending $253 per man, woman and child in the province of British Columbia. In our 1980 budget, we will be spending $452, an increase of $199.

They talk about the need for providing housing. When they left government, and the member for Nanaimo was Minister of Finance, they provided $29 per capita for housing in the province. This year, in the 1980 budget, that figure is $95, a 300 percent increase — to provide housing for people.

They talk about increased taxes. When they left government we were spending $33 per individual to aid local governments. This year that figure is $77, a 200 percent increase. He also talked about how we're taxing the people. Property tax per capita when they were government was $8.63. In the 1980 budget, property taxes are down to $8.19 per individual in this province — and they scream about property taxes. That's because of the programs we have put out to aid local government.

They talk a lot about petroleum and natural gas. When they were government, we were collecting, from that particular natural resource, $46.03 for every man, woman and child in the province. This year it's $223.77.

I think we can be very proud. This government did not have a bonanza, and this government was not lucky to be able to table that budget yesterday. We've found in this government that the harder we work the luckier we get. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we had to work hard to bring forth politices to get British Columbia out of the glue on our natural gas reserve, because when they left there was an energy shortage in British Columbia — an energy crisis in British Columbia.

Today, Mr. Speaker, that's why we are able to sell our gas and plough the revenue back into the economy, because we brought in policies that would allow for exploration and drilling. That is why we have an energy-secure British Columbia today so far as natural gas is concerned. The revenue from the sale of our natural gas, which was in short supply when they left government — there was an energy crisis — is able to give British Columbians the lowest tax rate of any province in Canada, save Alberta.

They talked a lot about the great British Columbia Petroleum Corporation. The British Columbia Petroleum Corporation was nothing more — absolutely nothing more — than a tax-collecting agency that cost the people of this province hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional wages when it could have been done by the Ministry of Mines and Petroleum Resources. If they'd continued on with the policy they had, there wouldn't have been any gas to sell to collect any revenue on. Compare the stewardship of our petroleum resource with that of the NDP.

Mr. Speaker, I must remind you that in 1973, when they were government, there was a world energy crisis and the price of oil quadrupled within two years. Within two years the price of oil quadrupled; within three years British Columbia had an energy problem of its own when we should have been drilling. When the price doubled, when we should have been getting oil companies in here and drill rigs to drill for our own resource, what did they do? They drove them out of the province, and that is why we had an energy crisis at the end of their term of government. Drilling and exploration ceased in British Columbia.

And what did the Leader of the Opposition do, who was then Premier? What did he do during this time, Mr. Speaker? He offered to give the petroleum resources of British Columbia to the federal government. Where would the revenue have come from that now allows us to reduce taxes, to provide more services to people? Where would it have come from had we followed the ex-Premier's advice and given our natural resources to Ottawa?

What happened really, Mr. Speaker, with the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation is that it cost the taxpayers of British Columbia over $ I billion while they were government because of that Leader of the Opposition's inability to deal with Ottawa and to get the price of natural gas up when there was a world energy crisis. It cost the taxpayers of this province over $1 billion because of his inability to deal with the federal government.

We changed the energy scene in British Columbia. Today British Columbians can look forward to the future, knowing that we have an adequate supply of natural gas. Revenues are up from that particular resource by hundreds of millions of dollars.

We now have, Mr. Speaker, on the drawing-boards proposals for petrochemical industries in British Columbia from that particular natural resource which would have been impossible had they remained in government. These petrochemical industries will come to British Columbia. They are on the drawing-board. They are being planned. They will come here because we have a sufficient quantity of natural gas so that they can establish here. That's not good luck, and it's not a bonanza. It came from hours and hours of planning policies that would get our natural resources turning revenue back to the people. No, that's not a bonanza; that is just good management, working as a team together. That's good management.

[ Page 1404 ]

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to bring up the Grizzly Valley pipeline, but that is typical of their thinking. "There's no gas down in the Grizzly Valley; never build a pipeline." I want to tell you today that that pipeline is flowing. It goes into what could possibly be one of the largest gas deposits in the world, and it's sitting right on our doorstep. That Grizzly Valley pipeline can tap that particular large reserve and will again pour revenue into the province to help our citizens.

The Pine River gas plant, Mr. Speaker, is now on stream. They wouldn't have built it. There have been hundreds of millions of dollars invested in the province, in the Pine River gas pipeline and the Grizzly Valley pipeline, and hundreds of new jobs created because this government planned it and put it into action, and they say we haven't done anything for employment. No, I'm afraid that revenue, that employment and the extra drilling were not good luck; it was good management.

They say we didn't have any plan; they say it was just a bonanza. Is it a bonanza that our forest industry today is financially sound, is able to meet the challenges of the eighties? Is that just a bonanza? I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is not a bonanza, because when they left government the forest industry was dead on its feet. There were no plans for revitalization, no plans for modernization and absolutely no plans for expansion. There were no plans, so we set upon a plan. Part of our strategy, part of our blueprint, was to get the forest industry in British Columbia back on its feet, to make it economically viable, so that it could keep on with the employment that was in that particular industry. Mr. Speaker, that wasn't any bonanza; that took planning.

We created a new climate with hundreds of millions of dollars in investment in the lumber industry in the last four years.

We sent a technical mission to Japan to explain our forest industry. We have sought out new markets in Holland. We have sought out new markets in other European countries. We have sought new markets in Korea. Mr. Speaker, we are not relying on the United States market — and we don't make housing starts in the United States. But I want to tell you, because of the plan we have, we are assisting our forest industry to merchandise its product, not only in the United States but elsewhere in the world.

I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that you would.... No, I know you wouldn't; but I suppose that they might consider the fact that we have been able to be very successful in our overseas marketing plan a bonanza. We secured two additional contracts to supply housing in Saudi Arabia, valued at $19 million. Would you call that a bonanza? Or was it part of our plan to assist our industry to merchandise their products elsewhere in the world? Would you call it a bonanza that three sawmill packages worth an estimated $5 million were sold to Malaysia because of the assistance from this department? Would you consider it a bonanza that sales of sawmill and logging equipment in Central and South America are worth an estimated $15 million — manufactured in British Columbia by British Columbians? Sales of timber-frame housing components to Holland with an estimated value of $3.7 million? Design and engineering services to Saudi Arabia valued at $4.5 million? Aviation servicing and maintenance equipment to Southeast Asia valued at $300,000? I could go on and on and on.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that was part of our economic plan to assist our industries to merchandise their products in the world market. And it has been happening. It's bringing back hundreds of millions of dollars in sales, and it is part of the reason that I can stand up here today and say that today there are 68,000 more people working in British Columbia than there were one year ago. It's part of our overall plan. It's not a bonanza, it's part of a team effort.

A new pulpmill is being planned now. I suppose you would call it a bonanza that the Fibreco. export company just happened to happen. It's one of the greatest boons to the independent sawmill operation in British Columbia that they've ever seen. Is it a bonanza that that they are planning to put new woodchip mills in the interior for the better utilization of our forests, to bring new revenue to the Ministry of Forests? I suppose some people might call that a bonanza. I call it good, solid planning on behalf of a government — our assistance to get them going — planning on behalf of a team that I happen to be very proud to work with. It's a team that has been successful in putting the economy of British Columbia back to work.

Yes, we've had a push for new markets and a push for new investments. We have been successful. It hasn't come easy. We have travelled around the world to tell them that British Columbia is no longer a communist state, because that's what it was thought of as when they left government. We had to travel to Europe and we had to travel to Korea and we had to travel to Japan. We had to send teams all over the world to say that the climate in British Columbia had changed. It wasn't an easy matter turning that situation around.

MR. COCKE: They laughed their heads off.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, they laughed their heads off at you. You were a disgrace to British Columbia. It will take us more than four years to recuperate from the damage done by that government. They damaged this province far more than anyone will ever know.

We started out on a strategy in 1976 to restore the economy of this province. We had a strategy; we had a blueprint; we worked at it. It has happened. It's what you see happening in British Columbia today. The budget that we tabled yesterday was no bonanza; it's a result of hard work, working as a team, following a blueprint that we set out in 1976.

I listened with a great deal of intent to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), and he seemed to think that there was something different in British Columbia. He seemed to think that, you know, all of this was happening, that our mines were better or something, or our forestry. Never once did I hear him compare the other provinces of Canada. Do you think there's no mining in Ontario? Do you think there's no forest industry in Quebec? Why aren't they able to bring in budgets like we were able to bring in? Why aren't they able to put people to work? Why aren't they able to reduce taxes for their citizens? Oh, no, you'd think we've got something special going in British Columbia. I'll tell you, we have something special going in British Columbia. Yes, we've got good solid government. That's what we have going for us in British Columbia.

The mining industry. I suppose you call it a bonanza that there is a high demand for our minerals and the prices are high. Isn't every province in Canada, hasn't every other jurisdiction in the world, got the same opportunities as British Columbia? I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, and I don't want the people of this province to forget either, when they were government in 1973 and 1974 there was the

[ Page 1405 ]

greatest demand for minerals the world had ever seen. The prices for minerals were the highest we had ever seen. That's why they were able to increase their budget and squander the money and go around the province buying up companies. They had the opportunity. We're not having any great bonanza, my friend, but our mining industry today is healthy; there are new mines coming on stream and people are working. It's not a bonanza; it's because we planned it that way and we assisted the industry and we took away those damaging taxes that you had that were driving the mining industry out of British Columbia.

No, Mr. Speaker, they want us to forget those years of '73 and '74 when they had a bonanza. They had a bonanza and a full pocketbook and a full bank account left to them by the previous government. They're the ones that had a bonanza and they squandered it. It's no bonanza. If we look at the situation as it would have been had they carried on, there would be no mining industry in British Columbia; our mines would not be in a position to take advantage of the new demand and the higher prices. We are planning for the future. Hon. Mr. Phillips moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Williams tabled the report of the Law Reform Commission on a Parol Evidence Rule, December 1979; the annual report of the Law Reform Commission, 1979; the Report on Guarantees of Consumer Debts by the Law Reform Commission, 1979; the annual report of the Legal Services Commission, 1978-79; and the eighth annual report of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act of British Columbia, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Smith tabled three reports, required pursuant to the College and Provincial Institutes Act: the first annual report of the Academic Council of British Columbia for the year ended March 31, 1979; the first annual report of the Occupational Training Council, April 18, 1979; and the first report of the Management Advisory Council, June 1979.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:51 p.m.