[ Page 1407 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget debate.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1407

Ms. Sanford –– 1407

Mr. Strachan –– 1411

Mr. Nicolson –– 1414

Mr. Ritchie –– 1418

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 1980

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Before we adjourned for dinner I was telling the House how, when we assumed the great role of government in 1976, we had a blueprint for the economy of this province — what is happening today is no bonanza — and how we carried it out. I was telling the House how our stewardship of the renewable resources would guarantee their existence in this province forever and ever. Of course, I referred to fish, food and forest. I was saying how our plan for the forest industry, the mining industry and the petroleum industry — non-renewable resources — had revitalized these industries so that they could now go out and take advantage of the opportunities that exist; and that we were not having a bonanza today, it was a careful plan carried out by a great team to make British Columbia the greatest province of all Canada, and probably of any jurisdiction in the free world, and the envy of everyone. There's revenue coming to government that allows us to reduce taxes to people and to business, at the same time giving them more services.

I want to talk for just a moment — and I just have a few moments, I understand — about another industry. I want to talk about the coal mining industry. Yes, indeed. I want to tell you that when we became government all was gloom and doom in the coal industry. The steel industry was in the greatest doldrums it had been in since the Dark Ages. But did this government sit back and say the world was coming to an end? No, not at all. We said that the steel industry in this world will revitalize, and in the meantime we will make sure that our policies allow the coal mining industry of British Columbia to take advantage of the great decade of the eighties, because the opportunities will be there.

We went out and searched for new markets. We told those markets that it wasn't the same place in British Columbia: "You come to British Columbia now. We're interested in selling you coal." They told me in Korea when I was there: "We came to British Columbia in 1974. We wanted to buy coal." They told me the government of British Columbia was not interested in selling coal. "Leave it in the ground for another three billion years, because we're not interested in selling it. We're not interested in providing jobs, and we're not interested in the revenue for the people of British Columbia." That's what they were told by that gang over there when they were government. However, we have changed all of that. The great coal-mining industry of British Columbia is now ready to take the opportunities that exist in the world. Believe me, we will end up selling our coal in the world markets.

This government of British Columbia today — this great Social Credit government, this great team — will see that in the decade of the eighties British Columbia takes its rightful place as one of the great coal-mining and shipping areas in the world. We're planning in this budget so that the people of British Columbia can reap the benefits. That's what this budget is all about; it's planning for the decade of the eighties.

Do you suppose, Mr. Speaker, that when all of these things that I'm talking about happen, they'll sit over there and say: "Oh, it's a bonanza, you didn't have any plan, you didn't do anything"? We're planning.

Oh, I wish I had more time to talk about the great plan of the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) to bring high-technology industry to British Columbia. Then they won't sit over there and say: "Oh, you're not spending anything on research." We have the greatest Minister of Universities, Science and Communications of any jurisdiction. Now, I suppose, when these high-technology industrial parks are full of high-technology industries, employing people, creating jobs, they'll say: "Oh, that's a bonanza, that just sort of happened."

Make no mistake about it, this government had a plan in 1976, a well-defined blueprint. Through teamwork we have been able to put that plan in existence. And that's why today the people of British Columbia are the best off of any jurisdiction in the world, and our record is the envy of every government in Canada and every state in the Union.

I suppose when we announce our ferro-alloy manufacturing plant they'll say: "Oh, that's a bonanza." I suppose when these great new petrochemical industries come into British Columbia they'll say: "Oh, that's a bonanza, that didn't have anything to do with your plan." I suppose when we create thousands and thousands of new jobs in the new fighter offset program — we're already reaping some benefits — they'll say: "Oh, that's a bonanza."

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member, I have to remind you that your time has expired.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm sorry too. I'm really sorry, because I wanted to tell the people of this province more about our great plan. But I shall probably seek that opportunity once again, because it fills my heart with joy to be able to talk and get enthusiastic about what this government is doing.

MR. LEA: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the member please state the point of order.

MR. LEA: Under section 14, I just wondered if the minister wants leave to continue his speech or to finish it.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we continue on the budget debate. I trust that the next member, who will soon be recognized, will speak softly, because the level of noise seems to be encouraged to assume the same level as the level of noise of the speech. So I would ask the hon. member to speak softly.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I will speak softly, and I do hope that for your part you will maintain order in the House so that I can continue to speak softly and be heard during this debate.

I am fascinated by the previous speaker, because, to me, he gives the best indication of the kind of deep trouble that that government is currently in. Let me just illustrate. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, the member for South Peace River, as you indicated, Mr. Speaker, quite often raises his voice in this chamber. But do you know, in recent days he has been very subdued; he's been sitting there frowning and he has been making derogatory

[ Page 1408 ]

comments across the floor of the Legislature, which to me is the indication that that minister, along with the rest of that government, is deeply hurting. Even this afternoon, when that member got up to speak, he was relatively subdued for the member for South Peace River, who's generally known as Leather Lungs in this chamber. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you've heard that before. He's been referred to as Leather Lungs. But the dinner hour seemed to have improved his whole outlook and approach and he began to adopt a bit of the life that he usually demonstrates in this House. But really, even tonight, during his last three or four minutes, when he was in flight, I have to tell the people who are sitting in the galleries that he was relatively quiet. He usually speaks much louder than that, and with much more enthusiasm. Interestingly enough — and I sat and listened to every word the minister had to say — he neglected to mention one very important topical issue, and I was very surprised. The minister usually doesn't hesitate to get involved in topical issues.

Now, this afternoon he spoke for about 35 minutes and another 5 minutes tonight; he used his full 40 minutes. He didn't speak until after 5 o'clock today and I'm sure he was quite aware of what the most topical issue, on the front page of the Victoria Times is today. If not, he certainly had the supper hour to look through the paper in order to realize that one of the most topical issues relates to the Princess Marguerite. I waited and I waited, but the minister didn't say a word about the Princess Marguerite.

Mr. Speaker, we had a petition today presented to this Legislature with 40,000 names on it, requesting that the Princess Marguerite continue the service between Victoria and Seattle this year. We've had the president of the company resign, or get fired — I don't know which — because he could not tolerate the decision of that government with respect to the Princess Marguerite. We have a Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) who proudly boasts of the marvellous things she is going to try to do for tourism, and then we have a government that makes a bungling decision about one of the most important tourist attractions on the whole of Vancouver Island. He didn't mention it, and he is the minister that talked about the vessel being unsafe.

And what do we read on the front page of the paper today? That the Princess Marguerite is very safe. It's just as safe as any other vessel within the B.C. Ferry Corporation. The chief inspector for the Coast Guard tells us there may be some problems with the Marguerite but, Mr. Speaker, the Marguerite is a safe vessel.

Art Elworthy is no longer with that board because he cannot face the prospect as president of running the Queen of Prince Rupert on that run this summer because he knows the problems that are associated with that. He knows the fact that the people on Vancouver Island are going to be very unhappy about the reduction in the number of tourists that are coming to Victoria. The minister is out in the hallway telling the press that the Princess Marguerite is unsafe, and we have the chief inspector for the Coast Guard saying that vessel is very seaworthy. What are they doing over there, Mr. Speaker? They're bungling, bungling, bungling. Oh, I'm sorry, I'm raising my voice.

Isn't it interesting that that minister, who has so much to say and regretted that he didn't have any more time, couldn't find even one sentence about the very important decision and the very important article that appears on the front page of the Times today with respect to the Marguerite. What are they hiding over there? Why don't they want to put the Marguerite on the run this summer? It's now obvious that it's not a matter of safety. There must be something else involved, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that along with all of the other unanswered questions out of that government we will get some answers with respect to the decision surrounding the Marguerite. It's a disaster.

MR. BARBER: Who have they sold it to?

MS. SANFORD: Has it been sold? We haven't been told that. What other reasons are there that you would have the president of the company decide he could no longer stay?

HON. MR. CHABOT: He was canned.

MS. SANFORD: He was canned because of the bungling decisions of that government — you're right.

Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the minister's speech, and I must say that I have a number of concerns with this budget. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) this afternoon did an excellent job of outlining, on behalf of the official opposition, the shortcomings in the budget that was presented to us yesterday by the Minister of Finance. The things that he mentioned referred to the fact that this government and this budget does not recognize, does not attempt to deal with in any way, the problems surrounding inflation and the effect that inflation has on those people who could least afford it. The budget does not deal with the problems of unemployment, and that is very important to us on Vancouver Island, not only because of the decision surrounding the Marguerite but because of the fact that in the last release of the figures on unemployment we find that on Vancouver Island the figures are in opposition to the trend that is taking place across the country. On Vancouver Island the unemployment figures have gone up again this month, and they are now up to 12.6 percent.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What about Vancouver?

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, that is unacceptable and is an intolerable situation. As far as Vancouver is concerned, Mr. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, or as far as the rest of the province is concerned, we still have tens of thousands of people in this province looking for work, and that's not good enough.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's 7.3 percent in the province, the best ever.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the hon. minister will have an opportunity in the debate.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, the minister will be able to tell us about the $3 million that's going to be set aside out of a budget of $5.8 billion — or is it $5.6 billion? — for energy conservation and alternate energy sources. He will tell us about that, I'm sure.

Because of the current rate of inflation the member for Nanaimo referred to this afternoon, what we are going to find is that half of this billion-dollar increase that we see in this budget is going to be eaten up through inflation. When you look at the catchup that has to be done in services to people in this province, that billion dollars doesn't look as great as it might on first appearances. It just doesn't look as great. We

[ Page 1409 ]

had 20 years of Social Credit government under W.A.C. Bennett where social services were neglected — and I see the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) applauding. They were neglected for 20 years and we have a massive catchup program to do.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You did your share.

MS. SANFORD: We did our share. From 1972 to 1975, when the NDP was in office in this province, we did a great job of trying to catch up on those services. There was no ambulance service in many parts of the province and the then Minister of Health, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), undertook to provide ambulance services throughout this province. It wasn't there before. We undertook to do something about day-care services in this province. We undertook to bring in Pharmacare in this province; that was introduced by the Minister of Human Resources of that time. We introduced a Mincome program for all of those people in need over the age of 65.

Mr. Speaker, in recent times, in the last four or five years, we have seen horrendous problems in the delivery of health services under that previous Minister of Health and the present minister (Hon. Mr. Mair). We have intolerable waiting lists for hospital beds; we have people on Human Resources assistance living below the poverty line in this province. It seems to me that the extent to which a society dependably and systematically reaches out to its less fortunate members is surely one of the most reliable gauges of the extent to which that society is civilized.

And what are we faced with in British Columbia today? It is long past time that the people in this society, including government, business, labour, churches and everybody joined together to alleviate — if we can't abolish it, at least we can alleviate it — that disgrace of people living below the poverty line and not being able to obtain the services that they need.

Mr. Speaker, about 20 years ago Gérard Pelletier made a speech on this issue. I think his words are just as valid today as they were at that time, and I would like to quote them for you tonight. He said: "One proof among thousands that we still accept it is the absence of any research into the way in which we can get rid of it." He is referring to the poverty that exists in Canada. We are still prepared to accept it. "Where are the social laboratories" — and I'm still quoting from Mr. Pelletier — "or the research workers provided with enough facilities and money to apply themselves to the causes and the remedies of poverty, just as thousands of medical people study cancer or rheumatism or any other disease that we are faced with in society?" None of that is going on, Mr. Speaker, and under this government we're certainly not seeing any attempt to overcome that disgraceful problem of people living in poverty in a society as wealthy as ours.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give you a few examples of the kind of lack of services that still exists in this province, examples that come from my own constituency. I would like to refer to a paper published just last week in the Courtenay area, the Comox District Free Press. The headline on the front page says: "Hospital Bed Wait Bloody Horror." That story stems from the experiences of a man living in Comox who is faced with a blocked carotid artery. He suffered a minor stroke last July and was sent to Vancouver to a specialist from St. Paul's Hospital. The specialist agreed with his doctor in Comox that he needed an immediate operation; that at any time he was in danger of facing another serious stroke which would either kill him or leave him a vegetable. His doctor in St. Paul's Hospital booked him in for the needed operation. Mr. Speaker, that operation had to be done at St. Paul's, because they specialize in carotid surgery. The man had his appointment, his bed and his operation cancelled not once, not twice, but three times. He claims in this article that if he had not threatened the people at St. Paul's Hospital that he would camp on their doorstep until a bed was made available to him, his fourth operation would have been cancelled.

The reporter from the Comox District Free Press was alarmed when he heard the comments of the constituent from Comox. He took the trouble to phone his surgeon at St. Paul's Hospital, and the surgeon said that the bed shortage is a "bloody horror." That's the quote of the specialist operating in St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver. It is going to be a long time before we are able to provide the kinds of services that will enable people like him to have his surgery when he needs it. It's a catchup thing, and it's long overdue.

Let me tell you about a senior citizen who lives in the Parksville area within my constituency. At a regular checkup at her doctor's she found that she was going deaf. The doctor indicated this and told her she would have to obtain a hearing aid.

She said to her doctor: "I think you are right, because I myself appreciate that I do not hear as well as I used to. I recognize that I now have to go and obtain a hearing aid. Would you please refer me to an audiological centre sponsored by the provincial government?"

"Well," he said, "the nearest audiological centre is up in Comox, but the waiting list there is already six to eight months, and the Comox audiological centre has now stipulated that only people from the Comox area will be accepted. Therefore the nearest audiological centre that I can send you to is in Victoria."

She made inquiries so that she could be admitted to the audiological centre to be tested and to receive her hearing aid through that program. She was told that the only people they were accepting at that centre were those 18 years old or younger, so there was no way she could get into that centre.

She was also told that there were now new facilities in Nanaimo which provided an audiological centre. But there has been no allocation of funds to staff it. In addition to that, the people involved in this program had been trying for over a year to get authorization from that government to have a mobile unit placed in Nanaimo, so that people 65 years old and over, and others who cannot afford to put out $300 or $400 or $500 for a hearing aid, could be attended to in those centres.

What has been happening during that period of time, when one of my constituents couldn't get the operation he needed, when a senior citizen couldn't get the attention she needed through an audiological centre? That government has been building up a surplus day after day after day, without authorizing the kinds of funds that are needed to meet the needs of these people, so that they will be facing about half a billion dollars in surplus at the end of this fiscal year.

Let me give you some more examples, Mr. Speaker, while I think about them. I have a constituent living in Courtenay who is a single parent. She has been ill for a number of years and has had to rely on social assistance. She has three children. Finally she became well enough to go out to look for a job. She was fortunate; she obtained that job.

[ Page 1410 ]

She worked for a year, and at the end of that year the job was terminated, the job was phased out. She has been trying desperately since then to obtain employment again.

Because of the unemployment rates she has not been able to find a job; they are just not available in that area. So what has she done? She too, like those people who were surveyed in that United Way report, has had to live below the poverty line. She is back in receipt of Human Resources assistance. She told me just last week that she has given up two of her children to foster homes, because they are now teenagers, they now require more in the way of food and clothing. She cannot provide it for them, and reluctantly and regrettably she relinquished two of her children to foster care so that they might have a better chance to escape from the poverty and the deprivation under which they were living. She has sold her washer and her dryer trying to meet payments. She has no car and virtually no opportunity of finding a job.

She must rely on that government that has been building half a billion dollars in surplus for her very means of existence. She is hoping that the remaining child who is still with her, now 11 years old, will be able to stay with her; that this government will finally come to recognize that people out there live in those conditions, that they will show a bit of heart, which heretofore they have never shown, that they will enable her to keep that child at home, to feed it properly, to ensure that it is clothed and to ensure that it gets its education.

Any government that will brag about building up a surplus, while allowing the people of the province to be faced with problems of that nature, does not deserve to be government.

What about the excellent ambulance program that was introduced by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) when he was the Minister of Health? Ever since 1976 the essential services people have been putting in requests to the government through Treasury Board in order to obtain and train the needed ambulance attendants, so that they can provide a service for the people of this province. They are feeling very demoralized. They are not getting the support of the government. They are forced to work overtime. People who have been coming in on a part-time basis are leaving, those who have received some training are leaving, which puts the essential services people in the position of having to train even more. They are far behind; they are desperate for additional ambulance attendants. The government could have, at any point during this past year, when it was building up that surplus day after day — and they knew it — released the necessary funds, so that the essential services people could provide the kind of ambulance service that every citizen in British Columbia deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid I'm getting angry. I get angry when I think about these things. These are people within my own constituency who are being adversely affected, while the government brags about the surplus it is building up. I remember getting particularly angry just before Christmas, when we had a press release issued by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), saying that she was being very generous — or at least implying that in her press release — because the people in receipt of GAIN were going to receive a $25 bonus at Christmastime, or $50 for a family. That's not very much, in view of inflation and all of the other problems we have been talking about. But what she did not mention in that press release is that that bonus at Christmastime did not apply to those on GAIN who are over the age of 65; they didn't qualify. Nor did it apply to those in receipt of GAIN between the ages of 60 and 64, unless they had a dependant. Nor did it apply to those who are in receipt of handicap pensions. Somehow they did not qualify for that little bonus at Christmastime. And they are sitting on that kind of surplus. It angers me.

I have been remiss, because this is the first opportunity I have had to speak in the Legislature since this session was called and I have not offered my congratulations to the new Deputy Speaker (Mr. Davidson) or to the four new ministers who have been appointed to the cabinet. I would like to wish them well in their positions.

The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), shortly after she was appointed, wrote to all of the MLAs and asked us for our suggestions as to how tourism in British Columbia might be improved. I was pleased to receive her letter, because the tourist potential within Comox constituency is tremendous. We have outstanding scenic beauty; we have fine opportunities for boating, fishing, swimming, hiking and camping. And now, with the development of a fine new ski facility, we present to the province one of the best ski areas in all of B.C.

All of these attributes, which could be so valuable in terms of attracting tourists to the area — and I am not going to mention any more about the Marguerite, because that's all tied in with this.... In attracting tourists to the area, the problem is that the tourists are not going to want to come back into that area in spite of all of those attributes, because of a major problem that we are facing on Vancouver Island from Parksville north right through to Campbell River.

I have written in response to the Minister of Tourism, who has asked me for suggestions as to how tourism can be improved in this province, that she use her influence in cabinet to convince the government and the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) that until we get a bypass route from Parksville right through to Campbell River we are not likely to bring tourists back again again into that area. The Minister of Highways knows what the problem is. He has spoken many times in this House about the problem, year after year. He responded to our questions. He knows that the present highway can hardly accommodate the people there now, let alone any additional tourists that might come in. So I have asked the Minister of Tourism: "Please, in the interest of tourism, let's get on with building a bypass highway from Parksville north through to Campbell River." I hope she is successful in accomplishing that.

I mentioned that unemployment still remains at an unacceptable level — 12.6 percent on Vancouver Island is a horrendous figure, and it's inexcusable.

The Minister of Finance in his budget speech yesterday pointed with pride to "the $4.5 million allocation from the surplus fund to the Minister of Labour for a youth employment and training program to assist young people in their permanent entry into the labour market." It's not quite clear from the speech how much of that $4.5 million is going to go into apprenticeship training, how much is going to go into the Youth Employment Program and whether all of it will be used in one area or the other or whether it will be split. The Minister of Finance failed to mention that last year out of the surplus fund there was a $5 million allocation to that same program. So we are hardly keeping up. We are not keeping up at all. The $4.5 million allocation is not going to solve the needs of the students this summer who are going to require work in order to get back to school next year. It's going to be inadequate, and I think that the Minister of Labour knows it.

[ Page 1411 ]

Some time ago outside of this House the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) — and some mention was made of this in the budget speech as well as in the throne speech — had given us a brand new commitment to solve the problems surrounding that apprenticeship training program. I have to smile a little bit. He's talking about enriching the program — I think that's the term that's being used now. The problems are not being solved, he's saying. He wants a brand new approach to that apprenticeship training program.

What we have right now is a situation in which young people cannot get into the training programs they require, and employers who need trained people are not able to get them. We have the scandalous situation of employers having to appeal to the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration in order to import skilled people to the province of British Columbia, because they can't get the training here. That was a problem that was recognized a number of years ago; I think it was about 1976 or 1977 that I remember the former Minister of Labour, now the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), made a great to-do about the whole new era of cooperation that was going to exist between the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Education — because both jurisdictions are involved — in order to ensure that the training programs would meet the needs of both the employers and those who needed the training. I thought that that was really going to happen. After all, the Minister of Education at the time (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and the Minister of Labour at the time both sat together and worked together over here on this side of the House when they sat as Liberals. They both abandoned whatever principles kept them to the Liberal Party and joined the Social Credit Party. They seemed to be working together quite well. So I assumed that this whole new era that was referred to in 1976 was really going to happen. It didn't happen.

The problem today is that not only do we have the new Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) who is a Liberal, and the new Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) who is a Conservative, as well as the now Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) who is a Liberal also, but we now have three ministries involved in trying to solve this problem. It's going to be interesting to see what develops.

All in all, this budget is supposed to meet the needs of the people of the eighties; it's supposed to be a challenge. It doesn't do any of those things, and that's why the response from the people of the province today to the budget that was announced yesterday by the Minister of Finance is a lukewarm one. They are just not able, because of their bungling, the problems that they have faced and their internal problems, to give the province the direction that it needs for the 1980s.

MR. STRACHAN: I rise to speak on the budget. It's an excellent budget, and I don't think there is anyone in this assembly who can really deny it.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) didn't speak to the budget but spent some time on the Marguerite, and then finally got to the budget, which actually turned out to be the estimates of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and the estimates of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). Then she got back to the newspapers — good old NDP research through the newspapers.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) the other day spent some time in this chamber reading a newspaper item to us about the supposedly poor little disfranchised man on the farm in Salmon Arm or somewhere in his riding. It was a sad story. It accused the government of hiding away in cabinet somewhere and introducing legislation that wasn't brought to this wonderful House, this forum of the public. It accused our government of the ripping-off of a poor little 89-year-old farmer. It was tragic; I was most upset when I heard the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke read that newspaper article.

Then, to and behold, we find out the facts from the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). In fact, that legislation was introduced in the House. When we find out the truth it was introduced with all members assembled. It was duly debated and passed. On further investigation, we find out that in fact this gentleman's farm status is something which he still enjoys and his taxes didn't go up to $2,900, but in fact stayed at $1.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no!

MR. STRACHAN: That's right. The Provincial Secretary said that, and it's recorded in Hansard. So what we have is the official opposition doing their research through the newspapers and trotting out that type of material, wasting the time of this House, and finding out that what they're saying is in fact not true at all in the first place.

The member for Comox spoke at length about the tourist industry in her area. Outstanding stuff, Mr. Speaker, and I'm very happy to see that the member for Comox is interested in the tourist trade in her area. She speaks of the scenic beauty of that lovely part of Vancouver Island. She speaks of all the people that will be coming to that wonderful part of this little island, and says it's about time that our government did something to help them. Well, I should point out to that member that we have tremendous items in our budget for highways — 100 million, I believe, for highways. I wonder if she would take that message back to her constituents in Comox who are interested in the tourist business, and then maybe at that point also compare this budget that we saw yesterday, this afternoon and again tonight with statements made by the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) when he was Minister of Highways, and his comments on what he thought the tourists should do. I am sure the people in Comox would be delighted with the stated NDP philosophy on tourism — "Let them stay home. If we don't build the highways then people won't come, and that way we can control the tourist business." Good, sound policy.

The member for Comox, Mr. Speaker, also spoke at some length about trades training, and for the information of that member and all members in the House, there have been tremendous increases in trades training in this province. If I can get a bit parochial, I will tell you about the trades-training programs that I've seen in Prince George at the College of New Caledonia since 1976 — a whole new program to train electricians, an expanded millwright program, and an increase of our shop space by one-third. That's just the beginning, Mr. Speaker. Those trades-training programs are taking off at an incredible rate right now, and I think the member's being most irresponsible when she speaks about the fact that there has been no increase in trades training since 1976.

Well, I'd rise to speak to the budget, Mr. Speaker. As the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon.

[ Page 1412 ]

Mr. Phillips) said, a budget is a blueprint, it sets the design out and it's something we follow. It's a strategy and it's a tremendous blueprint for this budget. I don't think any member here can deny that this is a long-term blueprint, a long-term budget, a budget that doesn't just speak for 1980 but speaks for the decade and for decades to follow.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I think if we examine the budget that this political jurisdiction — the province of British Columbia — has introduced to the House, and if we examine the budgets of other provinces in Canada, if we examine the budgets of other state assemblies in North America, we will find that the budget before us now is probably the most innovative budget, probably the only budget that speaks to the 1980s of any budget introduced in any North American political jurisdiction to date. I would stand on that, and I would like to see any of the members opposite refute that.

This budget aids consumers, homeowners, education, the forest industry, the senior citizens, mobile-home owners, the sick, the tourist industry, the small businessman; everyone in this great province is aided by this budget. This budget also fights inflation, and I think if you had any sort of a finance critic, you'd....

MR. COCKE: How does it fight inflation?

MR. STRACHAN: Well, how about a $50 homeowner grant for the elderly? Yes, very good, you've picked up on that one — super. The loyal opposition speak against this budget not with a bang, but with a whimper.

I've asked in previous speeches to this House in this session: where is the opposition? Mr. Speaker, in your wisdom this afternoon, you asked them to debate the budget, and I think for a while they kind of got back to it, although, I must admit, it has drifted and strayed, and has become reasonably irrelevant since your admonishment this afternoon. You asked them to debate the budget, and what did they do? They rehashed old policy. What constructive criticism did we hear? Was there anything constructive mentioned by the members opposite, either this afternoon or this evening? Where is the opposition, Mr. Speaker?

When we look at some of the great old CCF guys, and I'll acknowledge there were some pretty good orators, some pretty good constructive thinkers — Tommy Douglas, Stanley Knowles, Robert Strachan (no relation, by the way) — those people would have said something; they would have proposed constructive criticism; they would have analyzed what we have said here; they would have done something to explain and extemporize on their great socialist philosophy — I'm sure they would have. But where are the stirring speeches? Where's the constructive criticism? Stanley Knowles had policy, Tommy Douglas had policy and Robert Strachan had policy. Where is it now? None, just a whimper.

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN: Sorry, I will retract that. We have heard five policy statements from the members opposite since this session began. One, they know how to read newspapers. They're convicted on that one. The mother superior of the press gallery is writing their stuff for them. The members opposite know how to say: "We were going to do that." They're good at that one. They can talk about unemployment, and they talked about Railwest, and they talked about a steel mill. Those are the five items that we've heard, said with conviction, since this House opened seven days ago. And they say they will vote against the budget. I would ask the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea)...he's not here. The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) is also gone. Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) — that member's here. The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) and the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) are missing. The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) and the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) are all missing.

You people have said you are going to vote against reforestation. The members I have just spoken to — you are going to vote against reforestation? That's good to hear. You are going to vote against sales tax exemption, are you? Isn't that interesting. You members are going to vote against a sales tax exemption for wood- and coal-burning furnaces, stoves and fireplace inserts, storm and multiglazed windows and doors, and equipment for solar heating systems? You're going to vote against that. I think that would be interesting for the member for Skeena or the member for Atlin to take back to the folks at home and tell them how they feel about that. You're going to vote against $100 million for highway construction? Isn't that wonderful. You'd better tell your friends at home about that one too.

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN: Speaking of bridges, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) — and actually to all ministers here — a great lot has been said, quite humorously, but I think with some sincerity in the last week and a half, about the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) and his bridge. The opposition is opposed to that bridge. Well, I think they should go back to Delta and tell the 75,000 people in Delta that they're opposed to that bridge. Why don't you tell Carl Liden that you're opposed to that bridge? Tell the 35 percent of the people in Delta who voted NDP, who voted for Mr. Liden, that you're opposed to that bridge. Are you going to do that?

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, it was a small percentage, but 35 percent of the people voted for Carl.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you will assist me in maintaining order if you address the Chair.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I simply asked all members to ask themselves if they can really go back to Delta and say they are opposed to that bridge.

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, tell Carl Liden you're opposed to that bridge. Tell the consumers, particularly in the cold-weather areas — Skeena, Atlin and Prince Rupert — you're against taking the sales tax off gas and oil, hydro and telephone. Members for Prince Rupert, Atlin, Skeena and the Island, tell them you're against the sales tax on used mobile homes. Will you go back? Will you give me an undertaking that you will go back and tell your constituents that?

You're speaking about employment. Mr. Speaker, through you to the members opposite, you will then, I pre-

[ Page 1413 ]

sume, go back to the trade unions and tell them that you're against B.C. Place. Is that right? You're against the Annacis Island crossing, and you're against increased hospital construction. Go out and tell them that. I'm sure you will.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) is not here, regrettably. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds is in Prince George this evening. I wonder if she'll speak against our proposed increase in the health budget — the greatest increase we've seen in that health budget. I wonder if she'll speak against the 17 percent increase in the Ministry of Human Resources. I wonder if she'll speak against homeowner grants, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN: Well, no, I'm not actually, because she won't, and if she does speak against those things, not too many people will hear her because in the facility that she's speaking to tonight, the largest meeting room can accommodate 40 people, so I'm not too concerned about a great audience. I wonder if we could have the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) tell us all about small crowds when you have an NDP speaker.

I wonder, members opposite, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether you will speak against education. Will you speak against the $1.2 billion for post-secondary education? Why don't you phone the member for Burnaby-Edmonds in Prince George, hon. members opposite, and tell her to tell the crowd assembled that she is going to speak against the College of New Caledonia when she addresses this budget. That would be interesting.

It's funny, you know. The NDP Minister of Education (Mrs. Dailly) said great things would happen in post-secondary education. I'm sorry she isn't here tonight; I hope she's listening on the speaker-phone. I remember those NDP days in post-secondary education. I remember the great Hazel L'Estrange commission under the auspices of the NDP Ministry of Education. It lurched from college to college, and nothing happened at all.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, Miss Elaine Sparks from the Prince George Regional Hospital was over in England recruiting nurses while the NDP were wondering what they should do about post-secondary education. The College of New Caledonia does have nursing programs now. We do have Prince George graduates working in our hospitals, and we have a great expanded hospital in Prince George. There is no bed shortage. It's in great shape, and expansion is continuing. We have lots of beds. We have elective surgery. We have no problems with the health situation in Prince George. I doubt if we really have that serious a situation in any other part of this province, because I have seen what expansion has gone on under this great Social Credit government.

I know the members opposite will say: "Oh, we were going to do that." Well, I would have to submit that you weren't going to do that, because you couldn't have afforded it. You might have borrowed the money, but you couldn't have afforded the expansion that we've done in post-secondary education, in hospitals and in other great provincial institutions that this government has put in place since we've been government.

However, we believe in paying our way, and paying our way is what we did, Mr. Speaker. We will continue, because we're a good government and the people of the province know it. We're hard working and we're free enterprise.

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, thank you. Good, you like free enterprise? Perhaps you should tell the member for....

MR. BARBER: Author!

MR. STRACHAN: Here's an author for you: the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). "Free enterprise is a heartless system, a system that has a balance-sheet morality to it. And no one can speak from the heart when they speak of free enterprise." I'm sure that will make very interesting reading for the constituents in Skeena, the small businessmen.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena talked about m.p.g. and referred to it as "money, power and greed." "Miles per gallon" is what it stands for. Perhaps I might point out a few items to this House — what the sliding sales tax rate on automobiles is going to do to our imports — and perhaps cite a few statistics from Statistics Canada and from Transport Canada, items that the members can research if they don't trust my comments.

Mr. Speaker, Chevrolet Citation is one of the GMC"X" cars. Comparable models are made by Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Buick. When you convert the litres per 100 kilometres to miles per gallon, you get 35 miles per gallon. On a 500-mile trip, assuming that gas was about $1.15 a gallon — it varies throughout the province — that trip would be $16.45. If we take a Chevrolet Camaro, which gets 26 miles per gallon, that same trip would cost you $22.08. If you're in a Cadillac Seville getting 20 miles to the gallon, that trip would cost you $28.75. Now let's presume that with this outstanding budget we can switch a good amount of people from cars selling for the 4 percent rate to those selling for 2 percent.

If we look at those mile per gallon figures, Mr. Speaker, we can then see that we'd increase our gas mileage by a third and reduce our imports by a third. I might point out that the gasoline imports for 1979 were 3.8 million gallons, and that a one-third reduction would in fact reduce our dependency on other gasoline producers by $125,000. Now that may be rather boring to some members, but I think it's an outstanding piece of legislation. It is, by the way, the first piece of legislation introduced in any political jurisdiction in North America that does speak to conserving energy and becoming less dependent on imports.

Interjections.

MR. STRACHAN: An enlightened critic said that there would be jobs for foreign car workers. Well, I would submit to that critic that there are many cars that fit into the 2 percent category, a good long line of them made by General Motors, Chrysler, Ford and Renault in Nova Scotia. They are excellent lines.

Mr. Speaker, we import 3.8 million gallons. Given the 33 percent increase in mileage we could reduce our imports by 115,000 gallons. That is policy, members opposite, and our answers are there.

We'd like to hear about your answer. We have heard tremendous criticism about too much unemployment. I hate

[ Page 1414 ]

to bring this up to you, but your facts are wrong. It's unfortunate that the party that depends on newspapers for research has finally been shot down by their own research bureau. Gee whiz, while you were making all those statements about unemployment, to and behold, in the Province today.... While the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) was speaking about unemployment, what do we see in the Vancouver Province but that Vancouver and B.C. jobless rates are falling! Isn't that interesting.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you mean to tell me those people over there lie? No!

MR. STRACHAN: No, they don't lie. They just don't do their research.

They talk about fast decisions, they're concerned about our low-interest mortgage rate that came in. Mr. Speaker, that low-interest mortgage rate is one of the reasons we did have an unemployment decline in this province, because we stimulated the wood industry, the construction industry and the service industries to the construction industry. With good government, with sound, fast, decisive thinking, we were able to keep our jobless rate down when normally it's up. You know, you folks are going to have to start doing your own research. Maybe you should start with Tommy Douglas. He didn't deliver pap from a newspaper; he said something with conviction.

Speaking of research, members opposite are going to speak against the $3 million fund to aid public libraries and computerization. Tell me, all you academics — the first and second members for Victoria (Mr. Barber and Mr. Hanson), the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson).... Well, I think they're going to have a little trouble with this one. They're going to vote against the budget; they're going to vote against the $3 million aid to public libraries. You just walk into the public library, walk up to the catalogue department, see the catalogue clerks filing away, and then you walk up to them, the brilliant academics, and say: "We're voting against computerizing public libraries because, in the words of our whiz-bang Finance critic, the government won't build a steel mill." Good stuff! You'll be asked to explain. Members opposite, you'd better have your finance critic with you when you walk into those libraries.

I would perhaps submit that you should walk into a union hall and say: "We're going to oppose the budget, a budget that includes tremendous construction projects. We're going to oppose the budget and job creation, and we're going to oppose trades training. We're going to oppose small business incentive tax exemptions, and we're going to oppose municipal revenue-sharing and increased transit, and we're going to oppose the Prince Rupert port." Walk into your union halls, members opposite, and tell them you're going to oppose all those items because there's too much unemployment. Take your whiz-bang Finance critic with you when you do that one. "There's too much unemployment so we're going to have to oppose construction and any sort of development in this province."

You tell us that you want to develop resources. Did you ever develop resources? I would submit that the record shows they left. Ask the miners. You know, great things were said today about the markets and how fortunate B.C. is to have tremendous offshore markets, United States markets. Members opposite, you faced one of the greatest mineral markets when you were government, and what did you do? You drove all the miners out of the province — and you talk to us about development.

You accused us of developing tactics of shooting at targets. Yes, we do, and we succeed. We have lowered unemployment. We build, we develop, we project and we reach our goals. We have the highest standard of living in Canada. The official opposition Finance critic said that we have no budget for the eighties, and then spent three hours talking about the sixties and the seventies; that's consistent.

You speak against the private sector. You speak against anything. You speak against a $1.4 billion forest management program. You speak against the Ministry of Health expenditure of $226 million. You speak against the Human Resources increase to $763 million. You speak against reducing the sales tax on natural gas, electricity and telephone rental. They speak against lots of things, but there's absolutely no constructive criticism. They haven't made a decision. They've been nothing but destructive.

Our government makes decisions. We plan, we encourage, we stimulate and we build; that's our government, that's our policy and that's our budget.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this budget, first of all to take some time out to congratulate yourself being elected Deputy Speaker, and to congratulate the new Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and the new Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan). I'd like to thank the new Minister of Tourism for responding to the first request I put into her office, that she meet with Mrs. Val Anderson of the Kaslo Chamber of Commerce, who wanted to put forward that community's plans and aspirations for getting a sternwheeler back on Kootenay Lake and their proposal for the Samson V.

I'd also like to thank the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). For some time now, I guess, I've been making a request on behalf of the people of Glade to have a larger, safer ferry located there. I understand that just this week they have finally moved the old West Creston ferry down into place, and work is proceeding. And, of course, the steel is going up on the Tagum Bridge, and the decking contract is due to get underway fairly soon; things are going on schedule.

In fact, I'm rather surprised, in view of the fact that these couple of nice things are happening in my riding, that they didn't get a little bit more attention.

In this weekend just past we had a most curious visitation. I was phoned by the good mayor of Nakusp, and he related to me a most curious incident which happened to him on the weekend. He said: "Now, Lorne, you know I'm not a man for taking strong drink. You might think this rather strange that I would relate such a story to you. We had a visitation here last Friday in Nakusp. It was a most curious thing. I was phoned on Friday morning by the president of the Social Credit Party. He said: 'Mr. Mayor, please be down at the senior citizens' centre this evening at 7 o'clock. We have a surprise for you, good news'." Well, Mr. Speaker, you wouldn't believe it, but he swore on this — and I know the man to be a man of good word — that lo and behold a leprechaun appeared right before their very eyes, and he presented two cheques on behalf of the fine Social Credit government. Not only that, but that very same leprechaun appeared to the Kootenay Society for the Handicapped the next day, so it's a widespread story and it's coming from different independent sources.

[ Page 1415 ]

So it appears that we had a visitation in the riding of Nelson-Creston. I kind of wonder why the government would choose this strange way of bringing glad tidings from the government, by sending someone else out to look into various concerns. I'm surprised that perhaps the Premier himself didn't appear, but then I don't know if the Premier has appeared in my riding — it's been rather quiet if he has — since about 1976.

It is a little bit humorous, and yet it is a little bit telling about the attitude of this government toward elected representation. Indeed, as has been mentioned, we have a Premier who thinks it not even important to vote. So it gives a little bit of an idea of the interest and the attitude that this government has toward the electoral system and toward elected members, when they have to keep an appearance secret even from the mayor for fear that he might tell me and that I might show up in Nakusp when these government cheques are being handed out. It would be rather interesting, Mr. Speaker.

I have been associated with the Kootenay Society for the Handicapped as a concerned and interested supporter of their work, certainly, since 1969, and I can say with some pride that I have been instrumental in assisting that society to get a sheltered workshop for the handicapped in both Nelson and Creston, with the assistance of the former Minister of Human Resources. I've tried to take a non-partisan attitude, and I have gone to lengths to set up appointments when people would come down here to meet with various ministries. In fact, I did set up appointments for representatives from Nakusp to meet with the appropriate ministries concerning those cheques which were handed out last weekend to the Nakusp Hot Springs society and to the senior citizens.

It is rather curious, though, that a letter was sent to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) dated February 18, and a copy was received in my office on March 3. I immediately dictated a letter to the minister — that was a week ago Monday — and said: "I am enclosing for your convenience a copy of a letter to yourself of February 18, 1980, from Mrs. Ruth Hufty, the chairperson for the Kootenay Society for the Handicapped, Nelson branch." I explained in the letter that because this government did not come through with some capital funding for the expansion that was underway at the Kootenay Society for the Handicapped, they were unable to make the most expeditious use of the $58,000 Canada Works grant that was given to them. And I just want to show you what happens when a government doesn't listen.

Canada Works has strings on it; it is for labour. It was $58,000, but it could only supply the labour component. The Kootenay Society for the Handicapped also needed capital to buy lumber to build the extension, and were pressed to the point, because they were ignored by the Ministry of Human Resources, of having to get a portable sawmill go out on the site, which does happen to have trees, and go into the business of sawmilling so that they could produce rough lumber to change a capital item into a labour item. Had the Ministry of Human Resources come through with more money, not only would the much needed capital expenses have been met in a more orthodox manner but the $58,000 for labour would have gone a darned sight farther.

What were the excuses given? Did the ministry just refuse outright their earlier requests in Mrs. Hufty's lengthy letter? I won't bother to read it in its entirety. She points out that in 1978 and in 1979 they made a request for capital for this expansion and they were turned down. They were told that there were no more funds.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the Public Accounts, page D151, human resources community projects. The second item in vote 155, achievement centres for the handicapped, provides assistance to centres for the development of programs to improve the quality of life skills in handicapped persons. Achievement centres for the handicapped. Here in this Legislature last year we passed a budget of $3,837,866. The minister only spent $3,003,611. Over $800,000 of a $3.8 million budget item went unspent and yet they were told by the ministry something that was not true — that there was no more money in the budget.

Indeed, in every item of the human resources budget last year there were unexpended items, as in the previous year when they were also given the same cock and bull story, and yet there was an underexpenditure of funds in every vote of the Ministry of Human Resources — underspent even in the minister's office, underspent in administration and community service, underspent in services for families and children, underspent in services for the seniors and the handicapped.

If the previous speaker from the government wanted to get up and support this budget he should have gotten up and also told us that we were voting against $1 million for senior citizens' housing in this budget. Why didn't he mention that? He didn't mention it because in the last years of the New Democratic Party government there was $12 million for senior citizens' housing.

Here is a headline from the Nelson Daily News: "Handicapped Exploited, Says Workshop Director." Why do they need funds? They need funds because when you are sawing dust.... We won't allow students in the high school woodworking shops to operate in violation of workers' compensation regulations. There are dust standards and we have had to install — at least in School District No. 7 — dust collectors. We have brought them up to standard. What is so different about the handicapped? Why don't they count?

For $40,000 — or even less if it had been done a couple of years ago — we could have brought the Silver King sheltered workshop up to decent standards and we could go a long way toward meeting standards for workers' compensation. These people are doing work. They are producing thousands of dollars worth of merchantable items. In this sheltered workshop they make cedar furniture. They get an allowance there of 73 cents per client-hour.

Mr. Speaker, we spend $75 a day for disturbed teenagers but we ignore the people who I think really do deserve the very best. This government has underspent and is not meeting the needs of the handicapped. How can they explain the waiting lists? I have been talking about people who are chronic mental patients or people who might be suffering fairly profound retardation but who are still able to make a contribution to society.

It isn't only the Silver King Workshop in Nelson. I understand the Langwood Workshop issued a press release on February 28, 1980, which said:

"The Ministry of Human Resources currently provides a grant to assist in the operation of workshops throughout the province, and the grant is 73 cents per trainee-hour. This amount may be of assistance to some workshops, particularly those dealing with physically handicapped people, and others who have considerable ability to participate in revenueproducing activities; it works a terrible penalty on

[ Page 1416 ]

those who are severely mentally retarded. No reasonable person expects that a severely retarded person can participate in revenue-producing activities, yet the funds available to us under this funding make it necessary that some effort be made to meet the increasing shortfall — donations from the public, payment from parents, etc."

Mr. Speaker, I understand that this organization, which I believe was in operation even before 1972, is in more financial difficulty now than they have ever been at any time in their course of operations.

And if these people weren't in an unfortunate enough position, what about the profoundly mentally retarded who also have severe physical disability? Because of the Long-term Care Program, which this government has introduced, they have come up with a definition that people that fit into this category are to be in long-term care. Many of these people were formerly in Glendale, here in Victoria. There are a couple of other facilities. There's Cradlehaven, over on the mainland, there's Queen Alexandra Hospital; there are just a handful of facilities in this province that can handle these people. I know that Queen Alexandra Hospital has a waiting list of almost 60 children in this category. Because they've come up with some kind of bureaucratic definition, there are empty beds in Glendale, and yet children cannot be placed in those empty beds because, for some reason, Human Resources is in charge of Glendale, and they are not supposed to take long-term care patients — I'm talking about long-term, not short-time relief. I think that this is an absolutely insane policy, by ministers who are constantly being shuffled around into different responsibilities — and I suppose they're very relieved to be given a new responsibility so that they don't have to carry the can for the mess they've just left.

Mr. Speaker, I've heard this budget called lots of things: how it's supposed to appease the people; how it's supposed to cover up. Mr. Speaker, there is so much mess with this government, this budget is almost a sort of kitty-litter to try and clean up the mess that's being spread all over by this government. I think that, because of the problems they have been facing, not only have we not been able to have a public accounts meeting — because the chairman of public accounts was the chairman of caucus, and he was trying to deal with its internal problems.... It is a symptom of what is affecting many of those ministries.

Why can't a Minister of Health and a Minister of Human Resources and a Premier sit down and do something about a mess like this, which is causing divorces and other family breakup? There is a tremendous strain when you have a profoundly physically and mentally handicapped child in a family. It is hard on siblings; it is hard on partners in a marriage. The longer we let this go on, the bigger the problem we are going to create, and it is going to cause unnecessary problems. You know, Mr. Speaker, it isn't easy. I don't think it would be easy, when you have a child born this way, to really come to grips with what is best for that child. You would be suffering guilt, and you would, maybe, after some careful consideration, come to the conclusion: "Yes, we have tried with our child, and we think the best thing for our child and our family is long-term care." I think most parents try to care for that child; but when parents finally come to that decision, and find that they are being put on a two-year waiting-list, I think that that is absolutely shocking and unnecessary. And the number of children involved is not so great as to make this an unmanageable problem. If the government had the will to solve this problem, it could be solved in two weeks or a month.

Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised that that member from Prince George is so proud of this budget, when this budget is going to spend another umpteen million dollars for a Vancouver coliseum and a Vancouver Place — and that's not so bad. I'm as much of a sports fan as anybody, but, Mr. Speaker, what is in here?

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, I'll tell you, Mr. Member, if you don't know. I'll not only vote against that bill if this government does not come through with something for rural people, but I'll go into your riding and I'll tell the people about it.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I've been in both of those members' ridings, and there are fine people up there. I'd love to go up there and meet with them again.

I think the Premier can read that in Hansard — I think it was 1972-73.... I'll talk to you about some things I did support that this government did. When the government brought in the Revenue Surplus Appropriation Act, Bill 5, in 1978, I got up and I not only stood up and voted for that bill on a division, but I got up and I spoke in favour of that bill in second reading. I probably spoke in favour of it in committee when we got to the section that dealt with assistance to water improvement districts.

It's rather interesting to know — and I'll be getting to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) pretty soon, Mr. Speaker.... This is a list of all the water improvement districts in the province. It goes on for some 28 very condensed, very fine-print pages. There are a lot of water improvement districts in this province, Mr. Speaker. Some of them have 20 subscribers, some of them have 80 subscribers, some of them have hundreds of subscribers. They're in rural ridings like Kamloops, Kootenay, Columbia River, Omineca, Yale-Lillooet — that's where you'll find these. They are also in other areas that might not be thought to be rural ridings, but they're also in the Saanich and the Islands riding. There are a lot of them out there on those Gulf Islands in the riding of the Minister of Finance, and I wish the Minister of Finance were here.

I supported the $2 million appropriation in 1978; I looked forward to it with anticipation in 1979. I gave the government the benefit of the doubt that perhaps due to the government reorganization and the transfer of community water systems from the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) it might have been just an oversight and it might have been lost in the shuffle. So, Mr. Speaker, in the true spirit of this House, in a non-partisan way, I circulated a letter to all of the rural members of the Legislative Assembly, and I reminded them that in 1978 we passed Bill 5 and I solicited their support. I pointed out to them that while we're expected to vote for coliseums, rapid transit, trade-fair centres and other things for the lower mainland, now we were going to be asked to vote for another crossing and so on, and I think fair is fair, Mr. Speaker.

I think that all of us rural members, if we pretend to represent our constituencies, should vote against this budget, because it has been tipped off that it does not include help and

[ Page 1417 ]

assistance for rural water systems, and I think that's terrible. Mr. Speaker, we're talking about people who are volunteers, in fact maybe some of the last pioneers, people who do things for themselves, people who don't need big government to go out and build a water system for them. What is this government trying to do? They're trying to force them to go under the regional districts. They're trying to force them into the county system that they have up their sleeve in terms of government. I'll be reading some of the letters that they got back from the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

This is a nice one that the Minister of Finance should have read. It says:

"Dear Mr. Curtis:

"I find it strange writing to you in support of a policy proposed by an NDP member, since I have always been a strong supporter of yourself and the party you represent. I must, however, strongly concur with Lorne Nicolson in his statement that rural water supplies deserve all-party support.

"In 1978, $2 million was set aside for rural improvement districts, but in 1979 the program seems to have been lost in the reshuffle from water rights branch to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Now it seems that the only access to needed funds is through the Capital Regional District, which would mean turning over our water district assets, and that would certainly mean losing local control. This would be strongly resisted by the water users served by water improvement districts on Saltspring Island for the following reasons: We, who get our water from Maxwell Lake, have that precious thing — a totally untainted water supply. Half of our watershed is owned by the water district and the other half is so restricted that at most only four dwellings could be built on the watershed. At present, there are no dwellings at all.

"We fought hard to preserve the integrity of this, and hope to see the day when the complete watershed is owned by the water district. That is preserving one of the very few remaining totally pure water sources. To this end, the water board was very carefully selected for their unusual expertise. The calibre of trustee is far beyond that normally found in a rural district. The five members are:" — and they give the names — "chairman — Ken Patrick, retired chief engineer and water commissioner of the Greater Vancouver water district; Don Lockhead — retired vice president, International Nickel, Falconbridge, geologist and mining engineer; J.J. Fairley — purchasing and marketing manager, Standard Oil of B.C.; Dr. L.J. Kreissl — pathologist; and Stan Sage — Electric Communications engineer, B.C. Tel. Now where could you hand pick a more capable board? Help us to keep them at the helm and preserve our vital water supply, and pardon my typing — Fred Brookbanks."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, just for the Minister of Finance alone, I have this many letters. I have letters from a Mr. and Mrs. Beauchemin, expressing concern for the water improvement district on Saltspring Island; another couple concerned about Saltspring Island; another one from Saltspring Island and North Saltspring water district. Mr. Speaker, I have letters from the riding of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), letters from the East Kootenays and all over this province. And I want to tell you that if those members are so proud of this budget.... I think that they've gone out and bought themselves some white shoes and maybe some alligator shoes. I think they've lost their roots, Mr. Speaker. I think they've forgotten why the people elected them and why the people put them here, because if they think for one moment that the people put them here so that they can be forced into a form of big government, so that the initiative can be taken away from them, then they've got another think coming. Because the people of the rural areas just want a little bit of financial assistance. They just want their due.

There are many items of concern I would like to bring to the attention of the government. For instance, I think we heard a statement that the visitor industry is going to be the number one industry by the year 2000. If we don't start looking after some of our natural resources, we might not reach that fairly desirable goal. I just hope that we have full employment by the year 2000, and I really don't hold the brief for one form of industry. I don't want everybody to have to become waiters and I don't want everybody to have to become heavy construction people, necessarily. I think people should have a choice of profession. If we don't do something about our environment, I don't think there's going to be much to come and visit.

Mr. Speaker, for years I have been concerned about the Kootenay light fishery. Government could, if they wished, I think, disclose what has happened in order to cause a total shutdown for the next two or three years of Kokanee fishery, which is the most popular fishery for tourists on Kootenay Lake. We have had such a serious die-off, yet there are no funds for enhancement of spawning channels. The fisheries branch is carrying on a very limited program on Redfish Creek on the West Arm of Kootenay Lake. Work should be done at Kokanee Creek, at Duhamel Creek and at others. As a result of the recently announced shutdown of the Kokanee fishery — a total ban — I would call on the government to immediately initiate a study to identify the problem once and for all and see if various enhancement programs could not take place.

There is a very extensive study by the Inland Waters Directorate of the federal government; a draft copy of that has been circulated. I think that the Minister of Environment should call for the immediate release of its final form. I think that would go a long way towards deciding what appropriate measures should be taken. Unlike the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), who suggests that we should perhaps go ahead and build artificial spawning channels only to find that the problem could be due to the lack of nutrients in the lake, I wouldn't propose that we go ahead and spend money foolishly. I would expect that we would identify the problem first and then consider solutions. I think some possible solutions might be found in looking at nutrient levels and at artificial spawning channels.

There are a couple of other things. I think there is an alarming amount of acquisition of farmland by non-nationals for the purpose of divesting their assets, probably into a multiplicity of investments. The very people who are putting some money into gold are also looking from Europe at farmland in British Columbia. In the Creston Valley in the past couple of years over a thousand acres of land have been acquired, mostly by German people at the moment. Some of

[ Page 1418 ]

them are landed immigrants who are farming. They are welcome. I think they will be good farmers. They are an asset.

The thing that does disturb me is the absentee owners that are purchasing land, and it disturbs me because the government's action taken with Swan Valley Foods a couple of years ago has put on the market 5,000 of the 20,000 acres on the Creston Flats. About one-quarter of the land on the Creston Flats is now really not listed on the market but it is available for sale, and people know who has their farm up for sale right now. Mr. Speaker, I think that this is a very serious problem. I have heard nothing to date in this session about the government's measures to curb foreign land acquisitions and the possible problems that will have for us a few years down the road.

Right now we're talking about energy; we're in the middle of what has been called an energy crisis. Back in the mid-1960s people were pointing out this problem and it was being ignored. Well, it's 1980, and I am pointing out that we are going to have a crisis in the food industry. We are going to have a crisis in food. We're going to be having the same economic pressures if we do not do something. I think that the first step is to look at control of foreign land purchases, particularly of our agricultural lands, when they're made by absentees.

MR. RITCHIE: As I listen to this monotonous, non-productive nonsense that's been going on for almost two weeks now, I listen to all of the money that is being wasted and all of the money that isn't being spent, and all of the people who are suffering, and all of those people who are going hungry, and all of those poor children going without food. Yet this is what we get for almost half a million dollars of their expense. I call it absolutely disgusting. As I listen to it I'm reminded of an old farm story, if it's permissible.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us a farm story.

MR. RITCHIE: It's clean. But it goes as follows. There is a bachelor farmer out in the Fraser Valley. He was called on conscientiously by the district agriculturalist. On this particular visit he told the farmer: "You know, I think you have to modernize if you are going to keep up with the times. You are going to have to cut out this business of milking by hand and get yourself a milking machine." He was a bachelor, and he said: "This was good enough for my father and it's good enough for me."

The DA said to him: "You just can't keep up with modern times. You're not going to be able to compete in the markets unless you modernize. I would suggest that you get rid of your horses and get yourself a tractor." The farmer said: "No. This was good enough for my father and it's good enough for me."

The DA was really confused. He didn't know what to do. Finally he said: "John, I think what you are going to have to do is get yourself a wife; that would help you." John said: "No. It was good enough for my father, it's good enough for me."

Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday a member opposite suggested that I was not being parliamentary. Just to make amends I am going to begin my remarks by referring to a great parliamentarian, Sir Charles Tupper. Tupper said there were three duties of an opposition. The first was to use its considerable influence in restraining vicious legislation. The second was giving loyal support to government proposals which were in the best interests of the people. Finally Tupper suggested that the opposition should propose measures for the common good which it felt the government had not put forward.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker: has the opposition lived up to such ideals during this debate? I don't think so. Frankly, I had hoped they would choose the high road. Not that their present approach isn't great for us on this side of the House; it most certainly is. For the opposition's lack of substance is going to hurt them very badly, not just here but throughout the entire province.

Yes, the government will gain much support from the many voters who will be dismayed when they read how much talking the opposition has done without saying anything. I am not happy about this. I am not delighted by the disappearance of real opposition in this chamber. I understand that we used to have some good opposition. I do feel that there is a crucial role for the opposition to play in our Legislature, and I am sorry to see that that role has been abandoned.

In the Bible we read: "There is a time to break down and a time to build up." Sadly, the members opposite have only the time to break down. I may be naive, but I fully expected the opposition to provide some ideas and some suggestions to improve our programs and proposals in the throne speech and our budget.

So far the debates have been like shadow boxing. We can't argue ideas or policies with the opposition, because they won't comment on ours and they won't state any of theirs. They haven't got any at all, so there's nothing that you can really tackle; there's nothing that you can come to grips with.

Some observers will say: "Well, it's all a game, anyway." But it's no game when the potential of the opposition benches — and there is some potential there — is squandered on so much nonsense. I believe that there is some potential over there; and it's really too bad to see it squandered on the nonsense that we have heard discussed over the past ten days.

What I'm trying to point out is that we must have some constructive criticism coming from the NDP benches if this assembly is to perform its proper function.

We have before us a complex and challenging budget that really deserves the assembly's scrutiny, not all the nonsense that we've been listening to and witnessing over the past ten days. Our government is prepared to listen to criticism when it is valid and informed.

Interjections.

MR. RITCHIE: Any material you've come up with so far is what has been appearing in the newspapers — that's all. Of course, as I say this, I must remind them that not all criticism is worth listening to. During the last session we heard the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) talk about the economic situation at the start of the summer. Do you remember what he said? Let me quote directly from Hansard:

Unemployment is just as bad. Inflation is just as bad. There are the same problems and the same pressures, the same economic forecasts and almost the same economic players; although there has been a significant improvement.

Now was that capable criticism, Mr. Speaker, when a member tells us things are just as bad, and then goes on to admit that things are really better? I would say it's totally confusing. It's like saying it's just as cold out today as

[ Page 1419 ]

yesterday, but it's a good bit warmer — sounds like Alice in Wonderland to me.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Is that Scottish humour?

MR. RITCHIE: That's Scottish humour, yes. I'm still trying to figure out what humour this is, though.

When I read that kind of opposition criticism, I am reminded about something Sir Harold Macmillan said when he was the Prime Minister of Britain. "Criticism in politics," he said, "is never inhibited....

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: I want you to hear this, my lawyer friend. "Criticism in politics," he said, "is never inhibited by ignorance." Did you get the message? [Laughter.]

AN HON. MEMBER: Could you explain it to him?

MR. RITCHIE: I'll repeat it for the benefit of the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt): "Criticism in politics is never inhibited by ignorance."

A similar useless criticism came from the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) during the 1979-1980 budget debate. Do you know what his constructive analysis of that 49-page document was, Mr. Speaker? "This budget," he said, "does nothing." What a creative approach to a budget packed with details, new initiatives and ideas.

Mr. Speaker, are we to hear more and more of that sort of washed-out comment in this debate? Will the opposition continue to evade each and every real issue before us?

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you set us an example?

Interjections.

MR. RITCHIE: I would like to remind the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell).... I'll go back, if he wishes, to what Sir Harold Macmillan said: "Criticism in politics is never inhibited by ignorance."

Mr. Speaker, will the opposition continue to evade each and every real issue before us? I hope not. I am one of those who believes, as Disraeli did, that we need good opposition to have a good legislature. I don't think any of you realize that, but you people have a responsibility to make this a good legislature.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm concerned and saddened by the refusal of the opposition to constructively criticize the government's policies — not just criticize them, but constructively criticize them.

MR. MITCHELL: Resign.

MR. RITCHIE: "Resign," he says. Why, our PCB boy says: "Resign." We'll deal with you another day. Tonight we're dealing with the budget.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley please address the Chair. I'm waiting dutifully for the approach to the budget.

MR. RITCHIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm referring to the debate on the budget, and I'd like to go on by saying criticism is not just condemnation of everything and everyone. That philosophy, I believe, is belief in nothing. Criticism takes some positive thinking, and that's something the opposition hasn't shown a hint of to this point. I believe the people of British Columbia are just sick and tired of hearing and reading so much negative news coming from the opposition, because the people I talk to are not at all negative.

MR. LEA: You've been getting all the headlines.

MR. RITCHIE: Well, I have to give you and your colleagues credit for that indeed. There is only one thing about that, Mr. Speaker: I wish they would spell my name correctly.

I believe the people of British Columbia are sick and tired of hearing and reading so much negative news from the opposition, because the people I talk to are really not negative. They're happy to be in this province and optimistic about its future and about their future. Their attitude is right. They're not going around with sour faces and angry looks, feeling negative; they're positive. The opposition should get in touch with the people; they should get back to their constituencies and know what's going on. They should join the people in displaying some enthusiasm for our province.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition could be immensely helpful, if they would only change their attitude and become confident and proud of British Columbia. I for one would welcome the change, and I would be the first to listen to their ideas and their criticisms of our policies and of this budget. These are not only my views, because I'm hearing the same thing from many people throughout the province: the voters, the people who pay our salaries in this assembly. They want sound, constructive and no-nonsense opposition to this administration. The people do want the opposition to play the traditional watchdog role, but they do not want a rabid watchdog snarling and foaming at the mouth and turning on everything in its path.

Mr. Speaker, I know that some of the opposition members do have the ability to participate positively in the deliberations of this House, to contribute their ideas to the debate on policy. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I believe some of them also have that desire, but for some unknown reason it doesn't show. May I challenge those members to rid themselves of their mud-slinging approach and show their constituents that they have a worthwhile and constructive contribution to make.

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal more I wish to say and time is getting on, I don't want to spoil the real text of my speech. Therefore, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:52 p.m.