[ Page 1463 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Presenting reports.

Auditor-General annual report as at March 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1464

Ministerial statement

Forest analysis and management.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 1464

Mr. King –– 1465

Routine proceedings

Presenting reports.

Ministry of Forests annual report as at December 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 1465

Forest and Range Resource Act (Bill 6). Hon. Mr. Waterland.

Introduction and first reading –– 1465

Budget debate.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1465

Mr. Lea –– 1470

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1473

Mr. Barrett –– 1477

Presenting reports.

Ministry of Transportation and Communications annual report as at March 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 1482

Liquor Distribution Branch annual report.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1482

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On the floor of the Legislature this morning is Mr. Gerry Bryson, who has been a part of the public service in this province since 1948. He has served in a number of capacities: as a commissioner, as assistant deputy minister and, since 1957, as Deputy Minister of Finance. Mr. Bryson served under five Ministers of Finance: W.A.C. Bennett, Dave Barrett, Dave Stupich, Evan Wolfe, and Hugh Curtis. It's interesting to note that when Mr. Bryson became the first deputy minister in 1957 the budget for the province of British Columbia was $300 million; in 1980 the budget is $5.8 billion. Mr. Bryson has been a part of not only witnessing the change and the dynamics that make up the government of the province of British Columbia; he has taken a part in making it happen. Gerry Bryson has been the epitome of the public servant whose commitment is truly to the people and to the government they serve, and he has proven his commitment under many ministers in different administrations. His contribution to British Columbia cannot be measured in just the bottom line of a budget but in the accomplishments that have taken place in this province over the years in which he served.

Today is Mr. Bryson's last day as a public servant, as he is retiring. But it's hard for all of us who have worked with Gerry and watched him work to think of Gerry Bryson retiring.

Today then, instead of the end of a career, is the start of another beginning in new ways in which all of us know Mr. Bryson will be playing a very important role and making a very strong contribution to the province. It's giving him an additional and new opportunity to carry on. To look at Gerry Bryson, as youthful as he is, and consider retirement then, Mr. Speaker, is not what anyone would think. We look at Gerry Bryson and say, "tomorrow is a new day, a new challenge," and we know that's what Gerry is planning.

Gerry Bryson, to you through Mr. Speaker, from all of us in the Legislature and all British Columbians, today, on your last day here, we'd like to thank you for your years of service, the contribution you've made, the advice you've given government, the help and protection you've given to your ministers, keeping many of them from pitfalls and pratfalls. Above all, the beneficiaries have not just been the ministers but the people and the province of British Columbia. Gerry Bryson, we thank you.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, as one of the former employees, when I was Minister of Finance, of the deputy, I want to add my congratulations to Mr. Bryson's years of service and sincere wishes for an enjoyable life ahead.

The Premier spoke eloquently of Mr. Bryson's assistance to all of us and it is true that he helped us avoid pratfalls and mistakes. Never once, Mr. Speaker, in all the years that the deputy minister guided Finance ministers through this House, did he ever have to be reprimanded by the Speaker for interfering in debates or interjections.

He sat through some heated moments and some very strong and wilful debates. It goes without saying that politics in this province are intense.

It is interesting that Mr. Bryson has served for at least a third of the history of this province's organization within Confederation. That shows how young we are, how much we have to learn and how much we need the assistance of people like Gerry Bryson. Mr. Bryson could write a book. But as a civil servant he has never changed the role or the standard of serving the government of the day, regardless of politics. That model is outstanding for all civil servants.

I want to add my congratulations to Gerry and his wife Grace. Both have been prominent, active citizens in this province. I understand that Alice, his secretary, has retired as well. That is another loss. Just as much as I confess that I was an employee of Mr. Bryson, Mr. Bryson was an employee of Alice. We will miss those support staff. Good luck. I hope you have, in the traditional sense, 120 more years of life. I hope that every other civil servant, when looking for a model in terms of service to the public of this province, will not hesitate to look at Gerry Bryson.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I too would like to add my words of congratulations to Gerry Bryson. After all, perhaps the most difficult period in his many years of serving the province of British Columbia was under me for the last four years. I just want to say that he was of terrific benefit to me and the government during this period of time. He is just a fantastic, knowledgeable person in terms of government procedures, finance and so on.

It has been a privilege to have served with him. He is a most loyal and dedicated servant of the province. I think it should be said that he served through some of the most difficult periods the province has incurred — experiences, I am sure, that are clear in his memory, where minor crises developed that he had to respond to. He is no small part of the present economic well-being that we enjoy.

I think all people of British Columbia should be mindful of this clear-cut example of excellent service to the province. I wish him well. I want to say that I enjoyed working with him. I know that he is going to continue to operate and benefit the province in other ways.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Speaker, as one who had the opportunity of serving as a Minister of Finance for only two and one-half months, I would like to join in this morning in recognizing the contribution that Gerry made. I suppose the thing that I regret most about the shortness of my career in that post was the fact that I had so little time to work with Gerry. I recall the day that I was appointed Minister of Finance. I arrived back in my office after having been sworn in and there was a note on my desk from Mr. Bryson telling me that it was the second time in the history of the province that a Minister of Agriculture had been appointed Minister of Finance as well. The previous time, I think, was somewhere in the 1890s.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Dave, it'll be that long again.

MR. STUPICH: The Premier suggests they're going to wait that long again. Well, perhaps.

In any case, one of the things I'd like to note about Mr. Bryson's attendance in the House in support of the Ministers of Finance — and I've seen him since I first appeared here in 1964 — is that the roof could have fallen in and Gerry Bryson would never have cracked a smile or made a frown. He sits in that chair with never any trace of emotion on his face. It doesn't matter what's happening or who is saying what to anyone.

[ Page 1464 ]

On one occasion there was something in the budget that indicated that the Minister of Finance might have had some information about the previous administration from the deputy, and I drew attention to this. I knew it didn't come from the deputy; he was not that kind of person. But he was just a little bit afraid that I might have felt that there was some report about the previous administration, and he made a point of phoning me afterwards to say that he had said nothing like that. He didn't have to reassure me; he was the sort of person that we trusted completely. He was the sort of person that, I'm sure, the administration opposite and the previous administration trusted completely never to tell members any more than they should know. He had a very firm line, but was always available to answer any questions of interpretation about the budget or anything that he felt was proper to reveal to anyone on either side of the House.

I enjoyed very much working with him, I've enjoyed very much knowing him for the last 17 years and I'm intrigued by what the Premier says about his future. Mr. Bryson has not told me anything about his future either, although I've tried to find out. The Premier hinted this morning that he's starting a new career. I'm awfully curious, Mr. Speaker; I wait with anticipation to hear just what that career will be.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. former Minister of Finance and now....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, is there something you know that I don't? [Laughter.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Now the Minister of Finance. I did recognize the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) as the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, you did, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The record will correct me.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I did not rise on a point of order, but do you know something that I don't know?

MR. LEA: Gerry's new career.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, this is Gerry Bryson's day, not the day of those who have spoken to pay tribute to him. My time with him has been very short, with the portfolio change of late just last year, but I do want to express, through you, in front of all hon. members of this House, my appreciation to Mr. Bryson for the assistance that he has rendered in this transition phase, as his retirement day approached and a new deputy commenced to take up the reins. I recall the first day I met Gerry Bryson, when I was in elected office some time ago. I didn't really at that point know how, to approach this individual who had such a fine reputation in British Columbia. He has been faithful — faithful is the key word, I think — to the people of the province throughout his career, and it's been a privilege to have even these few months with him prior to today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to make one observation. We've heard from the Premier and we've heard from the Minister of Finance, we've heard from the ex-Minister of Finance, we've heard from the ex-ex Minister of Finance, and we've heard from the ex-ex-ex Minister of Finance; but, speaking for the rest of the members, we didn't hear one of them mention the gold watch. Does he get a gold watch?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, in my community, as I'm sure in every community, there's a fine group of people-builders, and I'm very pleased to have them represented here today in the House. In your gallery we have three wonderful Guiders in Mrs. Margaret Furuya, Mrs. Sharon Jones and Mrs. Lorraine Wright.

We also have four young guides who've just been awarded their citizenship badges: Janice Gerllays, Rachel Stewart, Susan McGiveron, and Maria Peelo. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome a gentleman well known in Victoria for his tremendous contribution to opera, Mr. Art Wiebe, and with him, from my constituency, a fine leader, very active in Amway, a leader in the community, Mr. Jim Janz.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this weekend, the fine region of Victoria will be host to a rugby tournament — that loving, gentle, non-violent game, which is shared in fellowship between Commonwealth countries. It will be hosted by the University of Victoria. Two members of the New Zealand team from Auckland University, Ron Peters and John Paki are with us this morning, I ask the House to welcome these gentle sportsmen.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a brother visiting in the gallery today. I would like the House to welcome Thor Petersen, a resident of Cumberland.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I rise today for two purposes. One is to introduce the young lady who is my constituency secretary, Sheila MacFarlane. Sheila comes from a long history of political people involvement. Her father was a legislative reporter and ran a political CBC program in Halifax — for another political party, I should say.

Also while I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my personal apologies for my cross debate in the House last night that was the cause of your displeasure.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the annual report of the Auditor General of the Province of British Columbia for the year ended March 31, 1979.

FOREST ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'd like to make a short statement. Section 8 of the Ministry of Forests Act passed in 1978 requires that not later than September 30, 1979, not later than September 30. 1984, and every tenth year thereafter, the minister shall prepare and submit to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council a forests and range resource analysis. The act further requires that the resource analysis and a five-year management program be submitted to the Legislative Assembly within I 5 days of the start of the next session, after presentation to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The development of the analysis and the five-year prog-

[ Page 1465 ]

ram has been guided by the basic goals of the ministry. That is, to realize the maximum contribution of the available forest and range resources, now and in the future, towards the social and economic well-being of British Columbians.

The preparation of this analysis and program has been a monumental and demanding task. I would like the record to indicate my sincere thanks and appreciation to all members of the Forest Service, who have devoted so much time and effort above and beyond their normal work demand, in preparing the assessment and program reports. In particular I would like to thank my deputy minister, Michael Apsey, for guiding the development of these reports.

The assessment and program were presented to the executive council in September. And it is a tribute to the objective forward-thinking of our Premier, the Minister of Finance and the entire cabinet that the management program was enthusiastically endorsed.

The substantial initiatives announced in the budget on Tuesday are just the beginning of a long-term commitment required to make the transition from a forest industry based on the use of old-growth timber to an industry based on the use of well-managed, second-growth forests.

Continuous funding, as outlined in the budget speech, will lead to stable management and realistic planning for this most important of our natural resources.

The release of the three volumes of the resource analysis and program marks both a precedent and a new stage in forest management in British Columbia. During my estimates I hope that these reports will lead to a meaningful discussion and a new level of understanding of the challenges and opportunities awaiting us in the management of the forests and range resources of this great province.

I take great pleasure in presenting to the Legislature the first ever Forests and Range Resource Analysis and the first-ever five-year management program. With them and a commitment of this government we can move confidently through the eighties into a new era in forest management in British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Waterland tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Forests for the year ending December 31, 1979.

MR. SPEAKER: There is normally a right of reply to the ministerial statement.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond briefly to the minister's statement and to indicate that I am looking forward with extreme interest to having the opportunity to peruse the management plan which the minister has introduced, with respect to his glowing comments about what the report is liable to accomplish. I can only say that, not having had a prior opportunity to peruse the document, that debate will have to await a later opportunity.

I would only observe that it is my understanding that the report has been in the hands of the press and other media for some period of time. I would have hoped that perhaps the opposition Forests critic might have received the same courtesy that the media did. However, there will be ample opportunity to peruse the report and to enter into intelligent debate when the minister's estimates are before the House, and I look forward to that undertaking.

Introduction of Bills

FOREST AND RANGE RESOURCE FUND ACT

Hon. Mr. Waterland presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forest and Range Resource Fund Act.

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

Hon. Mr. Phillips asked leave to table a document he referred to during the previous sitting.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET
(continued debate)

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the question I keep asking is: how can the members in the opposition possibly vote against the budget which is being considered right now? It is certainly a tremendous budget. It leads us into the eighties with great enthusiasm and promises wonderful things to come for all British Columbians.

It occurred to me as well that it must be difficult for them to be very negative about this budget. I have been around a few years and I have been in business for some time, and during all of that time I can't remember anyone ever paying off any part of my debts. Here, in this tremendous budget, we have even been able to provide some moneys, because of good government, to pay off some of the debt which was left us after the NDP administration.

Actually there are very few people who are very negative about the budget. There have been many glowing comments. There have definitely been some negative comments as well, from those quarters from which we normally expect negative comments. But instead of speaking on the budget, instead of the members in the opposition addressing the specifics of the budget, we have heard a great many personal attacks on individuals, a lot of smearing.

In large part, too, they have been in hiding during all of this debate. Again, there are only a few members present. Right now there are only six opposition members in this debate. Their leader, as usual, is gone; to date he hasn't said a thing. They really haven't been all that involved; they have been keeping away.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), as might be expected, stated some contradictions. Certainly that was followed by other members as well. The member for Nanaimo actually wanted to say something very negative about the budget, but he said something which I think is very telling: in his opinion this budget had been designed to bail out a government in trouble. Obviously there has to be some contradiction there. If the budget is so bad and he thinks the government is in trouble, then how does he see this budget as being a budget to bail the government out of trouble?

The member for Nanaimo said: "You know, I was quite prepared to be supportive of the introduction of the government's mortgage subsidy program, but then I found it was so popular. There were so many people picking it up so quickly that I decided I'd have to be against it." The member for

[ Page 1466 ]

Nanaimo said: "The budget doesn't address three of the basic problems that face British Columbians today; it doesn't address record unemployment." But he failed to mention that the only record unemployment was in 1975 when we took over from where they left off. Those were the days of record unemployment, records we've not seen in this province for a good while and, hopefully, we won't see again for a good while. He fails to mention as well that of all of the areas in the whole of Canada, Vancouver is where the unemployment rate came down on the average during the last statistical information provided us.

He went on to criticize what the government was doing with respect to B.C. Place, a great project which will certainly provide a tremendous benefit to all British Columbians — not only lower mainlanders or people in Vancouver, but people throughout the province — a tremendously imaginative program which will take an area which they had proposed to fill with scrub, willow, alder and swamp birch and turn it into something beautiful and something productive. He was against that. He says: "You're spending a lot of money." He failed to mention that this project will attract a great deal of private money, a great deal of private investment, and provide tens of thousands of jobs, not only in its construction phase but in its follow-up for years to come.

He was critical of the Annacis Island bridge — too much money. Again he failed to mention that this project, like so many projects introduced by this good government, will again provide at least 4,000 jobs. Furthermore, the member obviously doesn't recognize that great things have been done for the Nanaimo constituency by this government to make that area boom. And I took part in presenting a cheque for $6.4 million which was coming to the people of Nanaimo after they, when he was in government and he was a member, had forced amalgamation but had short-changed the people of Nanaimo. I went in there and presented the cheque from this government because we, through good management, had made the money available.

MR. STUPICH: On a point of order, a correction, Mr. Speaker: there was no "forced amalgamation" in Nanaimo; they voted for it in a referendum.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for corrections is at the conclusion of the speech. The member for Nanaimo was out of order.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, I will correct that right now. I think perhaps I put too much emphasis on the word "forced," Mr. Speaker. Certainly I don't believe there was much alternative given them, but I'll remove the word "forced" from my comments.

However, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, while the member recognized or did not recognize — I can't quite understand this — all of the things done by this government for Nanaimo, there are tremendous needs in the enormously fast-growing area of White Rock, Surrey and North Delta for further transportation and transit facilities, and this Annacis Island crossing which we are proceeding with is a part of that total program to make travel for the people in the lower mainland just a little bit easier. How much they need this and how much they deserve it. I believe that the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) will recognize — although we've not heard from the second member for Surrey on this point, at least not during this debate — that the lineups at the Port Mann Bridge, the lineups at the Pattullo Bridge, are unbearable and something needs to be done. You cannot simply, as some would suggest, twin the Pattullo Bridge and put more people on the King George Highway leading to the are unPattullo Bridge. You need not only the Annacis Island crossing but need to tie into it a good transit program which is being developed by this progressive government during these very days.

The growth in the Newton area, the growth in the White Rock–South Surrey area, the growth in the Fleetwood area and the growth in the North Delta area dictate that this particular transit facility, by way of a new roadway, by way of a bridge, form a very important part of the total plans for the area.

You cannot develop an effective transit system unless you also have a very effective feeder system, and that effective feeder system for some people will mean getting into the car and moving to a park-and-ride, or for others it may mean a good bus system, and a good bus system, again, needs roads. I realize that our approach — and the member for Burnaby Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) will vouch for this — is certainly different from the approach which was being developed by the NDP government when they were in. Their whole approach — and certainly the member for Burnaby Willingdon will remember, because I was then the mayor of Surrey, and we had some debates and argument on this very point — was that every road should, if possible, remain two lanes, and by no means do you provide bus bays. What you do, they said — and there are certainly records to indicate this at the Surrey municipal hall, and in Delta as well — is have the buses stop as long as possible on the road, so that they get a long line of traffic behind, and when the people get irritated enough, they'll get out of their car and into the bus. That was their imaginative approach to resolving the traffic problems on the lower mainland.

This government is much more progressive than that. We do not look for a negative approach. Instead we develop a positive approach, and that's what's being done right now.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the member for Nanaimo made some mention, as a second point, of a problem that he felt was not being addressed: high interest rates. Of course, we read in the paper today, again, that there are problems, and that Ottawa is attempting to do something with respect to high interest rates. It's a problem in the United States, Canada, and the world over. No government anywhere, to my knowledge, has really been able to grapple with it or has done anything at all which is reasonably effective that, at least in part, may do something about this, except for one government in the whole of North America and in the world — not a national government, but a provincial government. The government of British Columbia took the initiative to introduce a mortgage subsidy program — $200 million. Maybe in the scheme of things, when you're looking at it on a worldwide basis, $200 million isn't that great an amount, but if we could somehow do, throughout the whole of the Canada and North America, what British Columbia was able to do for its citizens, the impact would be tremendous. But unfortunately for people elsewhere, they don't have the leadership or good government we find here in British Columbia — a model government which certainly is being viewed as a government that is leading the way throughout Canada and throughout most states in the United States of America.

The member for Nanaimo mentioned inflation as a point. He said it's not being addressed. Again, the member must

[ Page 1467 ]

know that the worst inflation that ever hit us — the beginning of many of the problems that are faced by people everywhere today, especially our seniors and those on fixed income — started and really came to the fore in 1973, 1974 and 1975. Who was the government then? None other than the NDP.

During those days, British Columbia was leading Canada, North America and possibly the world in the highest and the fastest-increasing inflation rate anywhere. Now, Mr. Speaker, as the statistics from Ottawa clearly indicate, Vancouver and most of British Columbia are leading in being the only area which is consistently the lowest in the whole of Canada.

Contradiction after contradiction. The only research they have available to them is some newspaper clippings from which they read. There appears to be some approach by them, for the last while, to use mostly newspaper clippings in order to make their presentation. I'm not sure who's working for whom, but obviously they're picking up a lot of this material and that is the only thing they're able to present to this House.

Is that really what the people of British Columbia deserve from an opposition? Is it really that which the people might expect to pay their elected representatives for — to simply go through the Vancouver Province, the Sun, the Times and the Colonist and clip out those things that they might stand up and read before the House? I don't believe so, Mr. Speaker. I think the people of British Columbia deserve better, and I think the people of British Columbia are aware of how little the opposition is doing during all of these debates. It's really a shame, though perhaps in some respect we as members in government should be quite pleased with the fact that they haven't been able to present anything concrete. I feel for the people.

Again, there are only four members from the opposition present in the House today. There is the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). I hope that he'll go back sometime during the next year and tell the people in Prince Rupert that that is the amount of his research. Let me tell the member for Prince Rupert as well that it doesn't matter to me at all that possibly the member for Prince Rupert, who is a fine fellow otherwise, doesn't get back to his constituency as often as he perhaps should, because he is resident in Victoria.

Let me tell the member for Prince Rupert that as Minister of Municipal Affairs I'm doing everything possible within my ministry to ensure that the people in that area get their fair share of the wealth of this great province. Only today we allowed for the annexation of an area called Ridley Island to the city of Prince Rupert, so that the city of Prince Rupert and the village of Port Edward together might benefit from the enormous industrial development which will take place in the Rupert area because of our initiatives, because of the leadership provided by our Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). We've been able to do this for you, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert, and I'm happy, as Minister of Municipal Affairs, to be able to be part of this great government and to do this for you and the people in your area.

And there's the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), another member who's in the House today, and I'm pleased that he's one of the four that are representing those constituencies that are in the opposition. Let me assure that member again, as Minister of Municipal Affairs, that we will do all we can to ensure that the people in your area receive their fair share of the wealth of this province.

I've already mentioned the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and the great things that are happening for that progressive city on Vancouver Island.

Now the other member left, the fourth and only member left in the House representing the opposition, is the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall). It goes without saying that Surrey is receiving not only fair but tremendous representation in this government of British Columbia today. I want to speak about some of the tremendous things that are in this budget for the people of Surrey, but before I get into that, I want to speak about a couple of other outstanding contradictions.

It bothers me no end to see the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) — and that's why I made reference to it last night and make reference to it again today — stand up in the House and argue continuously about one of the greatest resources that might be developed in British Columbia, our water resources. This government has taken the lead to ensure that these resources will be developed considering the environment, considering fisheries, considering all the other things that are important to the people of British Columbia. But it is a tremendous resource owned by the people of British Columbia. That member for Alberni says: "No dams. We don't want any dams." Then he goes on to say: "And we don't want any coal development." He's against everything, all these great resources. At the same time, while he doesn't want to see any of these tremendous resources developed for the people of British Columbia, he talks about being concerned about unemployment. If we accepted his philosophy and the philosophy of the NDP, we would have unemployment now which would make the unemployment of 1975, when they were government, look like nothing. It would be double what it was then.

I want to just have this for the record. The only thing that member did not make mention of, even though he's a member of some anti-nuclear energy committee, was nuclear energy. I can appreciate that. I think we should say it for the record: they are divided on the issue, because the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson).… I wish he were in the House but, unfortunately, like so many of them, they're seldom here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Away for the weekend.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I guess that's what it is. They've gone. That's why they've all left; they're away for the weekend. They want to work a four-day week, preferably three, maybe not at all.

But that member has come out very much in support of developing nuclear energy for British Columbia. Is it really the position of the NDP that we should not develop dams, that we should leave the coal in the ground and develop nuclear energy instead? I am opposed to nuclear energy. I don't want it in British Columbia. I don't want it anywhere near our borders, and I'm not afraid to say it, because I think the people of British Columbia are extremely concerned about the potential and possible consequences of nuclear energy. I wish the NDP would come out clear. I wish they would really say it, once and for all, so we could really understand.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. In order to maintain order I would remind the member for Central Fraser Valley

[ Page 1468 ]

(Mr. Ritchie) that he is being disorderly. Please proceed.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The member for Vancouver East has just come in….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) will come to order.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: He's a fine fellow too. I think perhaps I should just address a few moments to something that particular member was involved with, with his running-mate, the first member, now Leader of the Opposition. Or is he the second member? I'm not sure. However, they were certainly very involved in a project when I was mayor in Surrey some years ago now. It's on record in Surrey, and the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) will remember this because he was Provincial Secretary then. They approached the council very late in the game because much had already been done.

They had moved into the southern section of Surrey and bought up a very large portion of land, at tremendous prices of course. The prices they paid were greater than the prices that are being paid for land today, and that was six years ago. But money didn't matter much to them. That's why they went broke so quickly. But aside from that, that member and his running mate, then the Premier of the province, were going to put in an oil refinery. They had apparently made some arrangement with British Petroleum and were going to put a great oil refinery in south Surrey. Of course, much of that land is in what's now the agricultural land reserve, but that wasn't that important.

The thing they haven't mentioned since, but what was then a real issue — and certainly the second member for Surrey is still suffering from it, because in that area his vote is relatively light — is that the opposition from Surrey came about because they were going to bring these large oil tankers down the coast and into Mud Bay, would you believe. They were going to park these oil tankers in Mud Bay and pump the oil from the tanker to the refinery. That was a part of the program. Can you imagine?

I tell the people of Surrey this, I remind them, and certainly there are many other members of council who will remind them, because they are very concerned about Surrey's future, its progress and its well-being. We don't want oil tankers in Mud Bay. We don't like oil tankers in Mud Bay. We don't want them coming down the coast, but to bring them into Mud Bay could be disastrous, to say the least. Anyway, again we haven't heard too much about that.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) walks in. He was here for a little bit last night. I am very pleased to remember that last night that member was applauding the comments made by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) when he said: "We don't want to bring any power or energy to Vancouver Island. What we want to do instead is conserve energy. People should use less energy. Instead of turning on the light, you use a candle or a coal-oil lamp." That member, incidentally, drives a Mercedes. Hey, he must be really concerned about some of the things in the budget now, because I don't think his Mercedes is really covered by the lower sales tax. He's in trouble. If you go to sell that you're going to pay the maximum. We're not going to let you off with 2 percent. You're going to have to pay more.

But anyway, the member with the Mercedes was applauding the statements made by the member for Alberni that we were going to cut off power to Vancouver Island. He didn't mention that 300,000 people are expected to move to this most beautiful part of Canada over the next 20 years. What he wants to do is shut off Vancouver Island — no more people. I guess he wants to get rid of a few that have arrived lately. He wants to cut back on energy. That's his solution to the energy problem of Vancouver Island: cut it off, make people use candles instead, conserve energy. How ridiculous, Mr. Speaker, and this is the sort of thing we've been hearing from all those members during all of this debate.

I'm sorry that the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) isn't here. I listened to the member for Comox, and I got the impression that somehow Courtenay and Comox were in dire straits and somehow the budget did not provide for the area. This is a very growing area, a beautiful area of Vancouver Island. Mr. Speaker, it can't be as terrible as that member said. I believe it to be a very progressive area, full of people who are very anxious, very ambitious, and very optimistic about the future of the Courtenay-Comox area.

I said earlier I wanted to make some mention about what this budget might do for the people of Surrey. Again, the budget provides an increase of 17.4 percent in the area of Human Resources. We in Surrey certainly have a great many single-parent families. If the rate is increased for them, as is suggested, I think not only is this worthy and very desirable now, but to Surrey it is very important. Those single-parent families will benefit from the increase. It mentions as well that we will provide for increased day-care programs and day-care rates. Again, to these single-parent families in Surrey, those who have to provide for a family and at the same time work out, that increase of program and increase of rates will be a tremendous help.

It's also mentioned that there will be an increase in the foster home rates. Surrey has the greatest percentage of foster homes in the whole of British Columbia on a per capita basis. I am very pleased that these fine foster homes, which are providing for youngsters who otherwise have no family of their own, will see some increase to pay for their effort, though really the majority of them are not in it for the money. This budget is providing for that. And the people of Surrey say: "Thank you, government of British Columbia. We are grateful."

The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has also provided that we will see an increase of moneys for the achievement centres of British Columbia. Those centres are doing a wonderful job in the community of Surrey, as the second member for Surrey will agree. They're doing a tremendous job in White Rock, in Whalley, and in Cloverdale. These centres will receive an increase of moneys in order that their efforts may be more effective in giving the greatest opportunity to our handicapped people. "We are grateful; we thank you, government of British Columbia, for making this possible."

We in Surrey, particularly in the White Rock area, have a large senior population. We also have a number of people who are, unfortunately, handicapped. Over the years I have met with many of them. I am very pleased that the government of British Columbia has seen fit to give them an addi-

[ Page 1469 ]

tional $50 in their homeowner grant. We thank you, government of British Columbia, for doing this too for the people in Surrey who will benefit from this additional program.

The people of Surrey are very grateful, as are people all over British Columbia, for the introduction this year of the denticare program — $30 million. That is a tremendous social program that is being introduced by a progressive government at a time when governments elsewhere in this nation are cutting back. We are able to provide this tremendous social benefit, and the people of Surrey and all British Columbians thank the British Columbia government for making this possible.

The only negative comment I've read about this tremendous denticare program comes from a gentleman in Vancouver who is called David Schreck. David Schreck may be remembered, because he was the one of the people who were sitting in the gallery when the now Member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown).... She now has to drive there from her big home in Point Grey in what may be a Cadillac. We better look into that, because certainly the budget will affect her Cadillac.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Oh, that's an NDP member for Burnaby-Edmonds who lives in Point Grey.

Day after day that member stood there and argued that when I was Minister of Human Resources and eliminating the Vancouver Resources Board the world was going to come to an end, social services in Vancouver would suddenly go down to nothing, and it would be a tremendous disaster. She said she didn't care if her debate went on day after day. She filibustered, and it was costing $25,000 a day. This money might better have gone to the needy people of British Columbia. That didn't matter to her. David Schreck was sitting in the gallery smiling and thinking it was great. He didn't care. He was the then director of the Vancouver Resources Board. But that didn't matter, they said, because if the Vancouver Resources Board were discontinued — oh, it was just the greatest disaster that could ever have happened in Vancouver.

Well, the Vancouver Resources Board disappeared. There was no more mention of it by anyone. The opposition has never mentioned it again. What's more, social workers from all over Vancouver....

A social worker just walked in. We just had the Leader of the Opposition come in. I'm glad to see he's back. That social worker would probably agree with all other social workers that the elimination of the Vancouver Resources Board was the best thing that ever happened. Mr. David Schreck, who was then the director, said that this denticare program was wrong because of this and because of that.

I wonder how many members of the opposition will speak against the denticare program. I doubt if too many of them will speak against it. Maybe they should have a talk with David Schreck.

I'm also very pleased for the people of Surrey that the sales tax has been removed from residential telephones and from electrical and natural gas service charges. The people of Surrey are grateful that this progressive government, through good management, was able to make it a little easier by removing those burdens. What government in Canada or anywhere in North America was able to do that? Not one, anywhere!

We have a great many mobile homes in Surrey. The people of Surrey are very grateful that the sales tax has now been removed from used mobile homes. For those people who can't afford new mobile homes, the sales tax has been removed, as it should be. This government not only recognized the need but did something about it. The people of Surrey are grateful, and we thank you, government of British Columbia.

There is $10 million in assistance to small businesses in the lower mainland, and the people of Surrey will benefit from this.

There is a $100 million accelerated highway program. You just need to go to Surrey now and see some of those tremendous highway projects which were brought about by a very progressive highway minister. We are improving the highways of Surrey. It's happening. The people of Surrey are extremely grateful. We thank you.

I'm also very pleased to see that we have 20 percent more assistance for independent schools. We have a number of independent schools in Surrey.

I see the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) is smiling. It must hurt you, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre, because while all of you members in opposition walked out during the debate on independent schools because you were so violently opposed to assisting independent schools, when the next election was called, you sort of scrambled around and said: "I'd better find a way out of this." So you sent a letter to the independent schools, saying: "I think we'll support you now." He had a change of mind.

Suddenly there is no more talk about nuclear energy, no more talk about oil tankers into Mud Bay, no more talk about not assisting independent schools. They've changed. They are learning a lesson from us, the government of British Columbia, and I'm pleased to see this. Maybe one day they'll come around completely and vote for something — and I have yet to see that in my five years here.

Mr. Speaker, we are also pleased, too, that there has been a tremendous increase in the health budget to provide for additional extended- and acute-care beds throughout British Columbia, and the growing municipality of Surrey and the city of White Rock will once more benefit from that. Already our very hard-working and progressive Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) — take a bow, sir — has provided for and announced a doubling of all the extended-care beds at the Surrey Memorial Hospital. We thank you, Mr. Minister of Health of a most progressive government in British Columbia.

I see my time is running out. I hope I'll get another opportunity, because I want to talk about this tremendous transit program and where this progressive government has provided $55 million for capital transit works. I want to talk about that downtown revitalization program, where this government has provided $25 million to assist small business in the downtown cores of small communities. I want to talk about the great revenue-sharing program and the good words that we're receiving from mayors and from the UBCM about the greatest assistance municipalities in this province have ever received. I want to talk about all of these things, Mr. Speaker, and I hope I might get a further opportunity.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, before the Minister of Municipal Affairs leaves the chamber, I would like to make another correction. He withdrew his charge that the people of Nanaimo were forced into amalgamation and substituted that

[ Page 1470 ]

of the government, giving them no alternative. The people of Nanaimo chose a committee locally that determined the boundaries, and that campaigned successfully in favour of a referendum vote that passed. It was determined locally.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate.... I was going to leave this part until the end of my speech, but I think, after hearing the Minister of Municipal Affairs, it becomes quite appropriate to now read from Hansard of March 14, 1975. It says on page 651:

I think it's correct to say that the fundamental approach of the government speakers, particularly the NDP ministers who have taken their turn in this debate, can be described as a diversionary tactic, to the point where many of them have been given the impression that they, too, know that it is not a good document.

As a result, they've attempted to shift attention from the budget itself by way of an attack on the opposition. In fact, I think at times, Mr. Speaker, that a detached observer would be understood for thinking that this was a replay of the last election campaign.

Rather than to report in detail on achievements in their specific departments — their areas of responsibility — ministers have tried to turn back the clock with repeated references to the shortcomings of the former government. With respect, that is not what the citizens of British Columbia want to hear. That's an old tune. It's a very old tune now and a scratchy record which has been played too often by the present group in power.

Mr. Speaker, all of this was said by the present Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) in 1975.

MR. BARRETT: Was he a Socred?

MR. LEA: Well, was he a Socred or a Liberal or a Conservative at the time? I can't remember. But, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take a bit of time this morning, going back to those old days, and talk about the present Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and some of the things he had to say.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I take some exception to those remarks, in that they were probably very appropriate at the time; but that was March 14, 1975.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that is not a legitimate point of order.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, it's obvious what the government has been doing for the past day or two, as we've been on the budget debate. All they've talked about is the NDP; that's all they've talked about: the bad old days when the NDP was in government and they were in opposition.

Before getting into some remarks of criticism I would like to apply to the government, I, too, would like to thank the government for some of the initiatives they've taken in terms of conservation measures and incentives to conserve. I'd like to thank the government for that. Particularly I would like to thank the government for a particular aspect of a happening in my riding surrounding port development.

Maybe some members of the Legislature and the public don't know that the Conservative government — when in power — and people they appointed were trying to push for the new grain terminal to be built at a place called Casey Point near Prince Rupert. I went to the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) of this government and gave him my view: that I thought it would be disastrous; that the grain terminal should be built on Ridley Island along with the coal terminal, another port development, so that it could be a much more economical venture for all of us — for B.C., Prince Rupert and Canada.

I must say that I had the fullest cooperation of the present Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and the government in persuading the Conservative government to go the way that it should. I thank the government for that. Obviously on most issues as they concern B.C. we are going to be of a sameness of mind.

The minister who just spoke talked about $30 million being put forward to denticare — a program that doesn't exist. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of money to a program that doesn't exist would only be worthwhile for those people in our citizenry who are under three months old and don't yet have teeth — some sort of gum control — or for people who happen to be over 95 and possibly have no teeth. Because with $30 million and no program, that is exactly the kind of dental program that you can look forward to — absolutely nothing.

I suggest that the only thing we are going to have at the end of the year is the $30 million plus the interest on the money. That's all we are going to have. The same as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) — he has $10 million for a program, and at the end of the year we are going to have the $10 million plus the interest. That is all we are going to have.

I have nothing against gums, except that when they get teeth I'd like to see a program in government to do something about helping those teeth to live in a nice, healthy way. That's what I ask.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to turn to another page in Hansard. This is from 1974. The present-day Premier was speaking; he was the Leader of the Opposition in those days. He was talking about such things as surpluses in government. Every time they get up these days they say: "You know, you guys couldn't do what you wanted to do because you had no money." Yet when you look through all of the budget debates while we were in government, all you see is the opposition — the Social Credit — attacking us for our surpluses.

On every page of Hansard during the budget debate you see the present Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) attacking us for surpluses; you see the present Premier, when he was over here, attacking us for surpluses; you see the present Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), when he was over here, attacking us for surpluses all the time we were in government.

It's a strange psychological phenomenon but they say that people, if they hate, tend to end up doing the things that they say they hate. If ever that were true it is this government. It's big government, a government that would like to take control of the money that we should normally have in our pockets, as citizens of B.C., to spend. They want to take it and they want to spend it, as big government, as they see fit.

A government for individuals? They have to be kidding. When are they going to start letting individuals in this province make decisions? In every area of jurisdiction this government has taken the decision-making process from the local level and moved it into Victoria. They say they hate that, but they have become that.

[ Page 1471 ]

They say that they don't like surpluses, they want a balanced budget, but in every budget we've dealt with since they've been in government there have been surpluses — in other words, an overtaxation of the people of this province. What do they end up with this year? A billion bucks. What are they doing with it? They are going to spend it as they see fit.

They say they like to have some money put aside for a rainy day. The Minister of Finance himself says that we're going to have a few slight showers this year. But are they going to spend any of that money to offset those rainy days that the people of this province are going to experience during the next year? Not a bit.

What could they do? Well, they could take part of that $1 billion and they could give some tax relief so that the people of this province could have the option of spending the money as they see fit. Everybody in this province knows that the cost of transportation is going to go up in the coming year. We know that the cost of food is going to go up in the coming year. We know that the cost of shelter may have some extraordinary increments in the coming year because of mortgage renewals and the higher interest rates for those getting their mortgage for the first time.

What is this government going to do to relieve people of that high cost of living they are going to face? They're going to hoard money. They are going to put some money under the mattress. They're going to spend other money on pet projects such as B.C. Place. Mr. Speaker, I guarantee you that at the end of this government's term there will be no B.C. Place. I mean, how can you have a B.C. Place that was planned in four hours on the back of a matchbox? Now they've taken a new minister and they've said: "Here you are. We dreamed it up in four hours; it doesn't really mean anything; it was designed so we could have a big breakfast and get the Premier and the cabinet out of a bit of trouble. Now it's yours." You know the mistake he's making? He's taking it seriously. I mean be honest to God thinks they're going to do it. He's going out making speeches, talking about B.C. Place. His only mistake so far is believing the government. Not too many people these days are making that mistake, but then he's got a special reason.

Mr. Speaker, what are some of the positive moves that this government could have made with the surplus funds they have? Could they have taken, say, half the present sales tax away for a one year period? It's a regressive tax anyway. It affects those people who have less more than those who have more. Why not take the sales tax away for a one-year period and stimulate some retail sales in this province? Why not do that? Help the business community. I commend them for dropping the corporation tax to small business from 12 to 10. I think that's a good move. But at the same time, the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) pointed out there could have been some moves to stimulate the economy in other areas. What are those other areas?

We see in our forest industry today some of the smallest inventories we've had for a great many years. We also, from the Minister of Finance's own statement, see that we may be having a shortfall in lumber sales for the coming year. That means one thing. It means less stability for our forest industry in terms of management and ownership. But it also means fewer jobs. Because if you don't have the sales, and because of high interest rates it becomes impractical to stockpile an inventory, then you might look towards your provincial government to give you some relief so that you can stockpile goods. It seems to me that higher inventories this year are a must if we're going to keep any sort of stable employment. There's not a thing in the budget debate about that. Nothing! There hasn't been, in that budget debate, one positive thing that the government has put through, either for business, to stimulate the economy, or for people, to leave money in their pockets so they can stimulate the economy in terms of spending the money where they want to spend it instead of spending their money where the government wants to spend it. All we're seeing, Mr. Speaker, is a big government designed to do nothing more than take control of our lives, from our pocketbooks to our social programs to everything that we can touch. They take the decision-making process from the local level and bring it to Victoria — in every area — the very thing they say they are against.

The present Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) for year after year after year, when he was in this House as the Liberal leader and the Liberal member, spoke about overestimating the expenditures and underestimating the revenues so they would end up with a surplus. He said it was one of the worst things that a government can do because it's over-taxation. And yet he sits here, now that he's part of the government, with a government that's doing it much more than any government before, and what does he say? Absolutely nothing. In fact, he applauds. Is that hypocrisy? Is that the ultimate in hypocrisy? The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications sits in this House and sees the government he belongs to doing this thing he thinks is the worst thing for the economy — and he's said it over and over. He said: "This is the worst thing for the economy in the province." Now he sits on the government benches and applauds those things he feels will hurt the economy and the people of this province. That is hypocrisy.

There is no better criticism of this budget than going to Hansard, March 14, 1975, page 655. It says:

In B.C., a province that has always placed the value of work among its highest priorities, people are now getting less for their money, getting less for their work — less value for money, less value for work, less buying power. I don't think there's a family in British Columbia which believes that work and money bring more today than two and a half years ago.

I, for a moment, won't quote. But is there anybody in this province who believes otherwise — that today you can get less for your money, less for your work than you could two and a half years ago? Those remarks are still very apt today. Mr. Speaker, I go back to Hansard:

Inflation, Mr. Speaker, as others have told you, is the cruelest tax of all.

Isn't that true? The cruellest tax of all is inflation.

It strains family budgets, it brings added problems to the collective bargaining table, and we have clear evidence of that this year.

That's what it says here.

If last year's 12.1 percent consumer index increase continues over a period of years, and not too many really, inflation will then fully threaten the social and economic fabric of our society.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said it?

MR. LEA: This was said in 1975 by the now Minister of Finance when he was on this side of the House. He was right. But the words are right today too. He says:

In my constituency there are many taxpayers who live on what is called a fixed income and many more who live on a relatively

[ Page 1472 ]

inflexible income. Many have earned their place in society; they're not interested in getting more from society and they're not asking more from the economy than they already have now. But to put it in impersonal economic terms, these people are satisfied with their standard of living as it has been. They don't want more, but they do not deserve less.

Again, that's not a bad speech by the Minister of Finance when he was in the opposition. But what do we see today? A government gone crazy. Surplus — our money, the people of this province. That government has our money in the bank. They're going to spend part of it and put the rest under the mattress. I'm going to tell them that it's going to be a rainy year for us, and we want some of that money back in our pockets. We want tax relief. We want to have the sales tax lowered for a one-year period. Use some of that surplus so we can have some money in our pockets and spend it the way we want; so we can go to the gas station and pay the extra money we have to pay to run our cars. When we go to the grocery store we'd like to have enough money to buy nutritious food.

You've got our money in the bank, and you're not going to give any of it back. You've got $1 billion of our money. You want to spend it; I say we want to spend it. We want to have that money in our pockets so we can go to the grocery store and buy some fruit for our children. We want to have that money in our pockets so that we can afford to drive our cars to work. We don't want you to have the money. We don't want you to put it in the bank. That's not a balanced budget; that's thievery. You've reached into our pockets, taken our money and put it in your bank, and you want to spend it as you see fit, and you have the nerve to come in this House and talk about big government and Big Brother government.

Mr. Speaker, they should be sitting over there in shame, because they don't even stand for what they say they stand for. They're neither socialist nor free enterprise. They're an unfeeling cash register. If any corporation in the world dealt with its money the way this government's dealing with money, it would make some sense. But it doesn't make sense when you're the government, and that's the thing that this group of people can't get through their heads. Yes, you have to run government in a businesslike way, but you don't run it as a business.

There are two different principles at work. Time and time again since they've been in government we've seen that they don't understand that. They don't understand that if you're running your own business and you lay people off you save money; if you're running the government and people are laid off you're more responsible for them than you were before. They don't understand that, and so they go along making decisions that might fit one area but are crazy when it comes to government. They have no idea what it's all about.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) talked about contradictions. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) — and I've heard him — talks about BCRIC being a wonderful thing: how people should buy BCRIC because it's a good investment. On the other hand, just yesterday in the House he said that when the NDP were buying those assets he says are so good, we were squandering the money. He said we were squandering the money; now he says they're gold chip. Does it make sense? What are the people who are going to invest in this province going to think when you have a Minister of Industry and Small Business Development who comes out with two contradictory statements that are so apparently stupid? What are you going to do?

It would have been better still if the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development had gotten up in his place and asked for what the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) asked for: to get rid of, in this one area, something that we did when we were government that I think should be done away with, the Corporation Capital Tax Act. In retrospect, I think it was a mistake, and I think that it should be done away with. But that group said at the time that it was a mistake. They've been in power how long? How long has the Corporation Capital Tax Act been in, and they've been in and done nothing about it? We've had a chance to see that it taxes a company before it is making any money and does not tax it after it is. We made a mistake. It should be repealed, and this government knows it and hasn't acted.

The member down there who used to be in the cabinet knows it and tells them, but are they going to listen to him? Not on your life. They've already fired him. He probably made a little bit of sense and made them confused, and they said: "We've got to get him out of here, along with the caucus chairman, because, boy, we need scapegoats, and we know where to get them — right from within our own ranks."

Mr. Speaker, there are many, many areas in this budget that this government has not dealt with in a fair and openhanded manner. The biggest one has to be that they've taken money out of our pockets in a year when we needed that money. But this coming year, the year not of rain but of showers when it comes to the economic climate in this province, they are going to hang on to it. They're going to stuff it in a mattress, and they're going to spend it or not spend it as they see fit.

Surely in a year of trying times, with the cost of living going up, we'd be better off as a government, as a legislature, to take that surplus money — nearly $1 billion — and say to the people of this province: "Last year we made some money unexpectedly from natural resources. We had revenue from the forest companies that was beyond our wildest dreams. We underestimated it sadly. It's not our fault, but it's here. We've got money from gas that we never thought we'd get, and we've got it in our pockets in the Treasury Board. But because we know this coming year is going to be trying for a great many of our citizens — for you, our people — we're going to take this unexpected bonanza that we have in the government treasury and we're going to, in the form of tax relief, give it back to the citizens of this province so that you in your own way can decide how you're going to spend that money that you have in the bank."

It's our money. It's our money that this government has in the bank, and they're not going to give it back to us so we can spend it to offset what are how going to be the highest cost of living increases, probably, in a decade.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance said that this budget is going to take us into the eighties. We are in 1980 now, but God help us if this government carries on in the same manner it has in the last part of the 1970s. Because what it will mean is big government making the decisions for us and a less healthy socio-economic climate for the individual in this province, because they are the government that is against individuals. That's the one thing we do know for sure. They don't think that the people in this province have enough common sense to spend their money in the right way, so they've decided they're going to keep our money in the

[ Page 1473 ]

treasury and spend it the way they want to spend it, on the things they want to spend it on, to try and get themselves out of a scandal. That's all they're going to do. And in their heart of hearts.... Or maybe they don't have them. Maybe those things in their breasts called "swinging bricks" — maybe they could look into them and they could say: "Just in pure economic sense, it makes sense to take this billion dollars of the people's money we have in the treasury and give tax relief." For one year, why couldn't we let those people out there decide what part of inflation they'd like to make it their priority to fight and have a bit of money in their pocket.

Mr. Speaker, if this government has committed one big error, it has to be the error of thinking that they know better than the people of this province how to spend the people's money. That's the biggest mistake, and they know it. I believe if it weren't a year of political scandal, of proven weak leadership, of proven chaos within the government ranks, and if it weren't a year where they had to bolster their own political image to try to get themselves out of eight months of scandal, political intrigue and weak leadership, they would have taken this money and given it back to the people.

So I'm saying this, Mr. Speaker: the people of this province are going to be shortchanged in a way that they've never been shortchanged before. One billion dollars is going to be lifted out of their pockets this year by a government which is going to use that billion dollars of taxpayers' money to try to buy their way out of a political scandal.

Mr. Speaker, this government has pulled the biggest, dirtiest trick of all, because in order to try to get themselves out of those other dirty tricks, they've brought in a Super Dirty Trick — the 1980 budget. It's Super Dirty Tricks, and they're going to keep our money in the bank to try to buy votes when the time comes. They're putting it in all sorts of funds. It's money they don't intend to spend and money they hope to have in their wallets in the treasury bench so that they can buy votes when the time comes.

It's a dirty trick and they know it — money that should be in the people's pocket. The treasury bench, big government, Big Brother — 1984 came four years early with this group.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I smile when I hear the member for Prince Rupert in debate. I guess the only thing I can say to the member is that at least we have the money to spend. That administration didn't have any money in the bank; all they had was an overdraft, so they couldn't do anything.

I rise, of course, to support this budget, because it is a very progressive and sound budget with which to begin the eighties.

It's a balanced budget, as have been all budgets since we became government. It's a budget that provides revenues to meet the expenditures of this administration — that's something that the party opposite just doesn't understand. Those revenues are based on a sound economy; they are not based on excessive taxation of people, as the member for Prince Rupert implied. The sound economy of this province is due to our having brought good relations between industry and government, instead of regressive legislation like the mining tax — we're not holding down development. We have good communication and good relationships with the private sector, in order that it can stimulate the economy and improve the revenues of this province.

I don't have to refer to the tax reductions put into place last year because of a sound and growing economy, which took away some of the load on the individual in this province.

Before I go into the rest of my speech, I'd like to comment on something the member for Prince Rupert said: "The decision-making process has been brought to Victoria from the local level." Well, I'm sure he recognizes that that statement is somewhat in error. There are ministries in this government that have regionalized their operations; they have moved the decision-making process out into the field so they can respond more quickly to the needs of the industry they represent. We know full well that the Ministry of Forests has taken that tack. We know that the Ministry of Agriculture in its reorganization is also taking that approach, in order for us to respond quickly to the needs of the people in the area.

The past year's good fiscal management by the government has resulted in surplus funds, which, at this time, we're able to inject into the economy to assist it and the people of this province. It is all due to the growth of a sound economy in this province.

Let's just look at the indicators. We don't very often refer to the actual budget document. Many speakers go back in history; I think last night somebody went back to the year 1900. I'd like to point out, on page 10, some of the indicators stated in the budget:

"Since 1975 business capital expenditures have grown at an impressive average annual rate of 16.8 percent, compared to only 11.3 percent in Canada."

MR. LAUK: Inflation.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, if it's inflation, Mr. Member.... Our growth is greater than the rest of Canada, so I assume we cover inflation; but we have greater growth as well.

"The value of exports from British Columbia has expanded since 1975 at an average rate of 22.8 percent per year. The comparable rate for the country as a whole has been 17.9 percent."

This is another indication of how this province is growing.

"Since this government took office, the number of jobs in the province has increased by more than 170,000."

And they talk about unemployment! Yet the latest indicators show that the unemployment rates are lower in British Columbia than in other parts of Canada.

"In 1975 British Columbia accounted for over 17 percent of Canada's total time lost from strikes and work stoppages, but by 1979 this share had declined to approximately 10 percent."

"And in 1979 British Columbia's 7.7 percent inflation rate was well below the 9.1 percentage increase in consumer prices for Canada."

Those are indicators as to how this administration has assisted in developing the economy in this province. The results are there, and the evidence is there. It's not overtaxation of people. It's an economy that generates the revenues so that government can provide the services.

Those programs and policies brought into place over the past four years the economy will continue in the future. Again, I'd like to refer members to some of the comments in the budget: a five-year $1.4 billion forest management program, a program to develop the forest industry for future generations in this province; enabling legislation to create small business venture capital corporations, an excellent

[ Page 1474 ]

move to stimulate investment in small business in this province; and a reduction, in taxation. Again I come back to the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who talks about overtaxation of people. The small businessman is the backbone of our economy, and in this budget we have reduced his taxable rate from 12 percent to 10 percent — a move, again, to assist and to stimulate the economy.

MR. LAUK: That covers inflation, does it?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, Mr. Member, the reduction is there. It will assist to meet the inflationary trends experienced not just in British Columbia or Canada, but in the whole world.

Mr. Speaker, the budget also recognizes the serious matters of energy, the security of our energy supply and the conservation of energy. And we can recall that no less than a few weeks ago, when the energy policy statement was issued, the comments from the opposition were that there wasn't anything in the energy policy statement, there was no concrete material in the energy policy statement. But not one member has commented on the statements that are in the budget which refer to and carry out the government's strategy for energy and energy conservation in this province.

This budget indicates the follow-up action that was in that policy statement. For example, there is $10 million for an energy development agency to look at research and development, to assist in our energy security for this province, and a $1.5 million expenditure for a pilot project for further extraction of oil in existing wells. As you may or may not know, Mr. Speaker, the figure for extraction of oil from wells under the conventional method is, I believe, about 35 percent of the oil that's in the ground. So we have other reserves in the ground. If we can improve the technology, if we can develop this pilot project, we will be able to extract more of our own oil from our own wells, thereby becoming more secure in our energy supply. There is $1.8 million, for access roads to our natural gas fields. Those are things that are being carried out in development of the source of energy and to secure energy supply.

Energy conservation: $3.1 million this year, under the federal-provincial agreement, and I would assume that would be matched by the federal government — a $6.2 million expenditure under that federal-provincial agreement for energy conservation, renewable energy research, demonstration and development.

Sales tax relief for energy-efficient automobiles — and that, of course, wouldn't apply to the member across the way, because, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) mentioned, he drives a Mercedes-Benz, and as a result he falls into the 6 percent rate classification. I would suggest he trade it in and move to a 4 percent rate; it would relieve him of some of his high costs of living — sales tax relief for energy conservation materials and equipment.

They're all set out in the budget, Mr. Speaker; they're there for the people to read, for people to take action on. Storm windows, for example, have been made exempt from the sales tax, as have heat pumps, wind-power equipment, solar-heating equipment, etc. And there is sales tax relief for natural gas and electricity to give some indirect relief, I think, to the consumer, because that is a reduction of their monthly electric or gas bill that comes into the home. But it also may be just the thing that makes some people think that maybe they should look now to conversion from oil as a heating fuel to natural gas and/or electricity.

Basically, Mr. Speaker, the budget in regard to energy sets out the action that was stated in the energy policy statement which was made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland).

Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Agriculture I want to touch on the agricultural industry in this province for a few moments. On page 16 of the budget a comment was made that "agriculture represents another important renewable resource sector" of our economy. The only fault I would find with the budget, I guess, is the comment in that one line that says: ".... . another important renewable resource." At this time it is my feeling that agriculture isn't just another renewable resource of this province; it probably is second only to energy in this province as a problem that faces British Columbians and the people of the world today. We must, of course, have a viable, aggressive agricultural industry in this province. I would suggest that as time goes on agriculture will become the most important sector of the economy — again, not just in this province but in Canada and in the world, because we must feed our people.

We've had good growth in agriculture over the past year — excellent growth, as a matter of fact. Let's go back to 1976 and look at some of the statistics.

The number of farms in British Columbia has increased by 6 percent since 1976, as opposed to a decline in all of Canada of 3 percent, which means that more people are going into the agriculture industry in British Columbia, thereby providing food for our people and for the people of Canada and the world. In British Columbia we've had a 5 percent increase in cultivated farmland since 1976, as opposed to all of Canada with no increase over the past four years, an indication that we have activity in the farm community. And more productive farmland is coming on stream in British Columbia.

Milk production in British Columbia increased by 9 percent, compared to a 1 percent decrease for all of Canada — a very aggressive and active milk industry in this province.

I'll just read some of these, Mr. Speaker, because I think it's important that the members understand the activity going on in agriculture.

Poultry is up 34 percent in this province, compared to 20 percent for all of Canada.

Fruit sales are up 80 percent in the past four years. Of course, I might mention that the Okanagan supplies a great deal of that fruit — with the exception, I guess, of the Creston Valley area. My colleague from North Okanagan (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) and I are very supportive of our tree-fruit industry.

Vegetable sales are up 32 percent.

Floriculture and nursery sales. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) isn't here, but I can tell you that in the past four years sales are up 52 percent, compared to 28 percent for all of Canada.

Honey production — a small but aggressive industry providing natural food for the consumer — is up 100 percent over the past four years. That is from the north. We have some excellent honey producers in the north of this province — Peace River country.

Cattle numbers — a very important industry of this province — are up 3 percent, as opposed to a 10 percent decline for all of Canada.

The hog industry is up 72 percent, as opposed to a 48 percent increase for all of Canada.

Sheep are up 37 percent.

Wheat production is up 36 percent.

[ Page 1475 ]

Rapeseed production has increased twelve fold since 1976.

Agriculture is an aggressive industry. It is an industry that, as I say, in the future is going to be one of the most important sectors — if not the most important — of our economy in British Columbia and in all of Canada.

However, I would like to mention that revenues in the agriculture industry have increased in the last year by only 9 percent. That is the farm-gate revenue — what the producer gets. But at the same time, operating expenses to produce that food have escalated by 14.4 percent; which means, of course, that the farmer is falling somewhat behind while he is producing food for the people of this province. There is another statistic that I think members of this House might be interested in. A number of years ago the farmer received 60 percent of the consumer's food dollar from the marketplace. Today he only receives 32 percent of that consumer's dollar. So, Mr. Speaker, the agriculture industry in this province has been aggressive, expanded its production, and met more of our needs; but the pressures of inflation, imported products, increased energy costs, etc. are taking their toll of the agriculture industry in this province.

Of course, as government we are acting to assist and support that industry. We have moved to increase our budget considerably, as members of this House will know, to $70 million this year — a 44 percent increase over the expenditures for 1979-80. We are providing the major portion of that in financial assistance to the agriculture industry to help offset some of the high interest costs.

We are also carrying out the reorganization that I mentioned earlier in my comments in response to the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). We are carrying out a reorganization program which will regionalize some of our activities in order to be able to provide services to the areas in question, the regions of the province, and to be able to respond more quickly to the farmer and the agriculture industry in that particular area.

We have had other programs, of course. I think the one that has been of the greatest assistance in the agriculture industry is that of the ARDSA program signed in 1977. It is a federal-provincial agreement which provides funds to assist the agriculture industry in this province. To March 31, 1979, which is the date of the last report, we expended $2.1 million in research and market promotion for agricultural products in this province. In our coordinated resource management programs we've expended $4.6 million. We've spent $600,000 in primary resource development. We've spent $5.1 million in support services and community development in this province for a total of $12.4 million since 1977. We still have another three years to go. The total program is $60 million to assist the farm community.

But these programs — and I am fully aware of this — may not be enough to help the farmer of this province. He cannot understand why he, who is providing the food, happens to be at the bottom of the food chain. He cannot quite understand why his expenses keep going up and up, when the price he gets from the marketplace and the competition he gets from low-cost, imported products erode his income year after year. It is my intention during this year to explore new ground on how we can help the farmer in this province. We'll have to work closely with all sectors of the industry and all commodity groups, because they all have problems. We will have to work closely with them to identify those problems and determine ways to resolve them.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The mandate of my ministry, as the budget has mentioned, is to expand to include the food sector. I think this is something that is long overdue, because in many of our programs we have been acting in an area "beyond the farmgate." But I think we will have to move fairly quickly to see what assistance we can give them.

For example, we can provide assistance, I believe, to the food processing industry. But there is a lot more we can do. We should be able to extend our time in the marketplace by further processing of our product, which would provide that opportunity instead of meeting just the fresh market. Some storage of product would assist in the processing sectors so our raw product is used in the value-added sector, and it would become B.C.-processed food as opposed to cans of food being imported into this province.

We must increase our technology in the processing sector in order to compete with our U.S. counterparts. I think that we've fallen well behind our counterparts in the United States. As a result our unit cost of production, of course, is not competitive and it is eroding our processing sector. I think we should be able to assist in that area.

There is another major problem that our producer has that very few other businessmen have. In most cases they must pay cash for their product, or they must buy the inputs to their production three months, six months or nine months in advance. In other words, they must invest in the land and then wait for nature and their good management to provide the end result, the product that they will sell. They must be able to pay cash to the labour that they have to have. They must buy their supplies, fertilizer, etc. They must maintain and repair their equipment and at the same time harvest the crop. In some instances they must wait five or six months beyond that date in order to receive payment for their production.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to look at a program whereby the farmer can be relieved of some of that burden. It seems to me to be somewhat of an injustice when the investments of that farmer — in his land, his buildings, his equipment and his labour — has to be made, in some instances, 12 or more months in advance of when he gets a return. But there must be some way, some program that we can develop so that government can assist in that way.

Mr. Speaker, other issues in agriculture that face us are the environmental conflicts that we have. That may seem strange. An environmental conflict? I thought the farmer was the greatest environmentalist we ever had — the man who tends the soil of this province. But we do have conflicts. We have a beef industry in this province that is growing, is aggressive, and wants to finish its B.C. product here, instead of shipping the calves or the yearlings back to the Prairies. They want to finish them here. So I have to tell you that we have conflicts. We have conflicts with (a) environmentalists; (b) those people who are anti-everything; and (c) local governments. We have those problems when we are attempting to expand that industry. We run into roadblocks. I hope to be able to work with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) to resolve some of those problems.

We have problems with hog farms. Yes, the hog farm is not the nicest-smelling place in the world.

Interjection.

[ Page 1476 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, Mr. Speaker, I am supporting the farmer.

However, I would just like to say that we have a great potential in the hog industry in this province, but in many cases, on agricultural land, land that is owned by the farmer himself, zoned agriculture, he can't put in a hog farm because the urban encroachment is coming upon him two or three miles down the road. We don't want to have it there.

We've got to resolve some of these problems. We've got to resolve the problems of the use of chemicals to control our knapweed problem in this province. Every time we attempt to do something we run into those "anti" people who say, "No, you can't do it," and kick up such a fuss. We've got a whole cattle industry that is based on having our our grazing land available and yet it is being overrun by knapweed and our hands are tied at every turn. I think, Mr. Speaker, we have to be aggressive in this area and the agriculture industry and the ministry are going to have to speak out fairly strongly if we want to see better self-sufficiency in this province.

MR. KEMPF: What about the wolves?

HON. MR. HEWITT: And I guess, Mr. Member for Omineca, the wolves are certainly a problem in your area, and I agree with you.

We've got other problems, Mr. Speaker. We have problems of labour costs in agriculture. As I mentioned before, the impact of high labour costs on our packing houses is substantial, mainly because, though I'm not objecting to the rates that are paid to workers in packing houses, etc., as I said before, the farmer is at the bottom end of the food chain. He can't pass on that increase, as the supermarket can, to the consumer because he's competing with imported products, and the imported products come into this province and he has to meet that market price or he can't sell his product and so he's faced with higher costs. The other members of that food chain can pass their costs along, but not him; he is limited in what he can do. He is at the bottom end of the food chain. We have the processors, we have the wholesalers, we have the retailers and we have the consumer, who says: "Let's keep the price of food down." Yet he's doing all that at the expense of the producer.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Member, I'm just stating the problem. We will have to work to try to resolve those problems.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) is out of order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate that this problem occurs in agriculture, but it is there. It is a major problem. I think if the agricultural industry is going to survive and prosper in this province we have to address these problems. Other problems that we're faced with in agriculture are transportation, as you know, energy costs and, of course, the final one, which is the imported product. In regard to the member for Prince Rupert's (Mr. Lea's) comments, I had the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) pass me a note here and I thought I'd just raise it, because he kept saying that the way we got all this surplus money was through overtaxation of people. That's what he said and he knows it's not right, but he'll say anything in this House because he just wants to point out that this government is a good government and managed the funds well, and the economy is sound and as a result we have funds to be able to spend.

The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development very kindly passed this back to me and I'd just like to mention the drilling rig operating days in the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't want to hear it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, they don't want to hear it. Well, I wanted to bring this up. You may recall that the minister tabled it but I thought I'd mention it because it was such an excellent report.

MR. LEVI: He didn't table it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Did he not table this one?

MR. LEVI: He did not.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I tabled it this morning.

MR. LEVI: One page.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, I'll table it again, if you like.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, if we look back here, starting '72 to '73, and I'm going May 1 to April 30, which is basically the operating year, total operating days in B.C. were — this is '72 to '73....

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was government then?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, for a good part of the time, of course, it was Social Credit, and I imagine just after the election it went like this. It was 5,471 days. In '74 to '75 it dropped to 3,692; '75 to '76 — 3,440; '76 to '77, it starts to move up — there were 5,000 operating days in '76-77; '77-78 — 10,953 operating days; and May 1, 1978, to April 30, 1979 — 13,803 operating days. That means people are working; they're receiving paycheques, the companies are working; the suppliers to those companies are working and the economy is booming as a result.

I'd just like to comment also, because it was raised yesterday in regard to this $200 million interest rate program.... You know, I find it hard to understand that the members....

MR. COCKE: You find it hard to understand anything.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, I find it hard to understand the members of the opposition; you interjected too soon.

I find it hard to understand why they would not identify and recognize the value of a $200 million program. Let's say that it's money that's lent out, which you acknowledge, and as the money goes out, of course, it will be repaid. But let's look at it in total, Mr. Speaker, which they failed to do. Under the $200 million program, the activity in the housing industry which will result.... I think it was the member

[ Page 1477 ]

for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) who touched on the fact that it was only helping those people in single-family dwellings at the price of a $95,000 home. He wouldn't say and didn't say that it helps people in regard to mobile homes and modular homes and it helps in regard to rental accommodation — all through the building sector. All wage levels of people.... It's to assist them, but the ceiling is $95,000.

But the point I want to make is that injecting those funds into the economy would result in about 8,000 jobs, Mr. Speaker, in the construction and allied industries in this province. It would assist in using B.C. product, because in that program it said that B.C. product, in regard to lumber, etc., should be used; it provides rental accommodation when we have problems with rental accommodation in this province; and finally, it affords the opportunity for many people to own their own home.

I'd ask the members opposite: what's so wrong about that type of a program? I think, Mr. Speaker, that the comments made about that program should be ones of total support. The only reason we could do it is because we had the funds, and we didn't get those funds from overtaxation of individuals or withholding people services in this province. We got those funds because of a sound, progressive economy in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I only have a few minutes, and I would like to just refer to a letter to the editor — and I'm sure I'll get a rise out of the members on the opposition on this one. It was written by Andrew Cleminson from Richmond. It says:

"Maybe at a time like this political parties should look back at the words of a not insignificant human being:

"'You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift; you cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong; you cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage-payer; you cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred; you cannot help the poor by destroying the rich; you cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn; you cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence; and you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could, and should, do for themselves'. "

Mr. Speaker, I read that in the letters to the editor, but I'll tell you where else I read it. I read it in Newsweek magazine.

MR. COCKE: And the tears fall down your cheeks.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for New Westminster is out of order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just pointed out those words. Although it's been debated in the press, I can only say that the letter to the editor said those words came from Abraham Lincoln. I would think that those words could apply today.

We often talk, Mr. Speaker, about the Waffle Manifesto in this House. We often talk about the fact that socialism means control of industry, control of the commerce and control of the finances of a country by the state; that's really the definition of socialism. I would like to think that those statements I made in regard to that letter to the editor are the Social Credit philosophy, because they mean that there is an opportunity for the individuals in this province to gain some thing in this province. I think it means that governments are there to assist those who are in need of help and to encourage people to obtain their goals for themselves.

I'd just like to quote from the budget in closing. The Minister of Finance said: "Our resources are rich and varied and our people are skilled and energetic." Mr. Speaker, this government and this budget allow for individual opportunity in this province. It has provided for the health and welfare of our people; it has provided for education of our youth, therefore our investment in our future; and it has provided for the protection of our elderly and our handicapped. I'm pleased and privileged to support this budget.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed privileged to take my place in this debate, which has been marked by a good-spirited exchange between members, if not always in order. And I've noticed that that spirit has spilled over into the hallways on occasion. It is a commitment that I think all members have to their own particular point of view.

One of the factors that contributes to that spilling over into the hallways is an item in the budget which I don't know whether to welcome or not. We've noticed that the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) has been completely unfettered in this particular session of the Legislature, and I have been puzzling why that should take place. With unlimited energy he has thrown himself into this debate. I discovered a small item in the budget that's permitted this to happen: they've taken the tax off windmills. He hasn't been the same since.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your firm guidance of the debate and for the instruction you have given to the members of the House. Generally, if I may be permitted to make this observation, most of the contributions to the debate have been very good. I note that due to recent problems within the Social Credit Party they have been confined to one researcher for their backbenchers, because they're all saying the same thing. But at least there's an inflection in tone that varies.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few general words abut the Canadian scene. I welcomed your very good greetings, just this week in the House, on Commonwealth Day. I think it's important for all members to reflect on how important it is that we understand that Commonwealth Day, and Commonwealth participation in world events, are part of a very important role that we all positively contribute to. It has a role in the Canadian scene. Even during the height of political diversity that exists in this nation, none of the parties on the national scene have forgotten their role in the Commonwealth, and that is good. Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Clark and Mr. Broadbent restated a commitment to the Commonwealth and the Confederation.

I did detect, with some hesitation and then with a note of sorrow, that the once-great Social Credit Party has shifted its policy. We need to have a clear-cut statement from this group governing this province about whether or not they are in complete agreement with their national party. It is with regret, Mr. Speaker, that we note that Fabien Roy, the leader of the Social Credit Party, has decided to support the PQ in the referendum vote in Quebec. I would hope, for the sake of all Canadians, that we would have a clear-cut statement from the Premier of this province that he separates himself completely from the position of Fabien Roy and the national Social Credit Party. It may mean setting up another party, but that will be no difficulty to many of the cabinet ministers.

[ Page 1478 ]

They've been through a number of parties, and that trauma will not be difficult for them. I think it's important that we hear from the leader of the government in this province that Social Credit does not speak for them, and they don't speak for Social Credit.

Now, in terms of the recent federal election, Mr. Speaker, I was chagrined at the gratuitous comments made in the budget speech about the newly elected federal government. Being a government of this great nation and attempting to hold it together during its political adolescence is difficult enough. Mr. Clark, Mr. Trudeau — now Prime Minister again — and Mr. Broadbent took responsible positions during the federal election campaign about policies, philosophies, and their opinions about current problems in this country.

The people of Canada — almost all of them — went to the polls, Mr. Speaker, and made a decision. That decision was to return a Liberal government to Ottawa, although no Liberal candidates were successful in western Canada except those who crossed the floor — they found a new career. But I'm talking about federal Liberals; I don't want to confuse the members opposite. Lo and behold, we got a federal government, and here in British Columbia the citizens chose to elect 16 members of the Conservative Party and 12 New Democrats. I regret those spoil-sports, those cry-babies — I can't describe them any other way — who, because the candidate they wanted to get elected didn't get elected, had to talk about western alienation and western separatism.

I don't like to mention my good friend from Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem). The man has suffered a great ordeal lately. He's so hard up to sign up members in Social Credit that he's chasing sasquatches to get their membership money. Things are so tough now, he even wants to associate into an economic union with the United States. Is that the policy of Social Credit? Is that the separatism?

MR. COCKE: God made the country north and south.

MR. BARRETT: And turned him upside down! Mr. Speaker, it's one thing to have a little fun with the member for Dewdney, because everybody knows he provides comic relief. Even in the midst of all the scandals he provides comic relief, but there are some serious moments. I want to refer to a statement in the budget that concerns me as a Canadian and should concern all of us British Columbians. I quote from page 29 of the budget speech, and this is a budget speech allegedly authored by a former Tory, former Liberal, now Socred. He knows about all the parties — I don't see why he should be so particularly bitter about one:

"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 and the government of British Columbia will, therefore, have to pursue intergovernmental affairs with more vigour."

Mr. Speaker, the people have spoken. Their choice of elected representatives is free and open. I don't think casting aspersions on the choice of the electorate in terms of western regions or eastern regions serves any useful purpose in the budget speech — not at all. But more important, I find it a little bit much to read that in the budget speech remembering that the leader of this government didn't choose to vote at all.

I understand René Lévesque didn't vote either, but at least he stuck around. That's a pretty expensive excuse not to vote — to have to go to Hawaii.

Mr. Speaker, I can't think of a greater failure for the leader of a government, at a time of crisis in this nation, to make the statements he did about his attitude towards voting and not vote at all and then, worst of all, come back and instead of saying, "I made a mistake; I should have voted," start making excuses as to why he didn't. I agree with my colleague, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), when he put it in eloquent, understandable, simple language, which I will not repeat here, about how they will greet the Premier when he goes back to Ottawa and complains about the federal government. One of those fellows is going to lean over — on national television — look him right in the eye and say: "And how did you vote?" And what is our Premier going to say then? "Well, I was in Hawaii. I thought about it." Or, "I didn't like the idea." Or, "I was mad at Fabien Roy." There is no excuse, Mr. Speaker. This province has been let down, once by his not voting and twice by the lack of an apology in not voting. What is the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) going to say to pupils about that?

If anybody knows the value of one vote it is the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), and if anybody who knows it better than the member for Atlin, it is the former member for Atlin. I find it a little bit regrettable — no, more than regrettable — that the Premier is up to his usual lack of facing up to problems that he has created by giving poor excuses about not having voted.

I suffer from a habit of going into the library. I would think that if this government wanted to protect its reputation on a 24-hour basis, the first thing it would do is close down the library. They keep old speeches, old federal papers and old statements made by cabinet ministers and by government leaders. Some of them are not so old. I want to refer, in relation to this budget, to a document produced by the Premier of British Columbia, Premier William R. Bennett. I intend to refer to the Premier on occasion because I have noticed that among certain cabinet ministers there seems to be a complete absence of identifying themselves with the Premier. They talk about the budget, they talk about expenditures, but they don't talk about their old pal anymore.

I listened to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) speak for 40 minutes this morning and not once mention his old pal Bill. He talked about backbenchers in the opposition. Look at his face going red — you see that? Look! Look! I touched it! You see that, Mr. Speaker? He doesn't want to be associated with the captain when he's making a move to become first mate. Ahh! Look at him! Smile! Oh, it's beautiful. I love that photogenic smile. It's even more automatic than that of the guy he is trying to replace.

But I notice that when he spoke today he didn't talk about his former pal, the Premier.

Art not without ambition; but without

The illness should attend it.

My friend, thou wouldst be great....

We'll go into Lady Macbeth later. [Laughter.] If you can't find a Brutus, you can always find a Lady Macbeth. One way or the other, you've got to do the job, boys. And you know what's happening if you don't. You're all going to go down together. You're going to sink faster than the Marguerite ever will!

Being a student of the library, I went in and got this

[ Page 1479 ]

document out. What did I discover? I discovered the new A plus B theorem of W. R. Bennett, the Premier of the province of British Columbia, as of February 1978. Lo and behold, on page 10 he says:

"For the period of at least three years all governments should restrain spending growth to a rate of at least 1 percentage point below the growth rate in the economy, rate of growth of gross domestic product for the federal government and rate of gross provincial product for each province, each one related to the federal and provincial government budgets. By way of example, if a provincial economic growth ran at 10 percent, unadjusted for inflation, then government spending would not grow at more than 9 percent, unadjusted for inflation."

I believed the Premier intended to follow through this A plus B theorem. Lo and behold, I went into the library, read past budgets and have come up with the results of his formula as it now applies to his government's budget. Why, in the year 1978-79, when this thesis was approached, that was the year they followed it. As a matter of fact, I think it occurred almost simultaneously. Does anyone in this chamber think that the Premier had previous knowledge of what the budget increase would be? Does anyone in this room think that Treasury Board would let him know? I don't think so, Mr. Speaker. Budget secrets are well kept, so we must assume that it is only coincidence that the Premier was right on in 1978-79.

The gross provincial product growth, on page 58 of the 1978-79 budget, was $31,353,000,000 — up 12 percent. The budget, under the Premier's theory for that year, was up to $4,438,000,000 — an 11 percent increase. One year, one formula. Don't take into consideration that both statements were made at the same time — that is the budget and the formula. The actual spending that year was up close to that 11 percent.

Year two in the theory of the three-year plan is 1979-80. The gross provincial product growth was up to $34,438,000,000 — up 10 percent. Premier Bennett's formula on the proposed government spending should have had the budget go up to $4,837,000,000 — a 9 percent increase reflecting a 10 percent increase in the gross provincial product growth. What was it up that second year? It was up to $5,270,000,000. What was the increase? Not 9 percent, but 19 percent, more than double the Premier's own formula. Did they rip up any of these copies of the 1978 statement? We saw the pious stage performance of the Premier as he went back to federal government conferences, pronouncing in a tome-like voice that this is the way the governments have to control their spending — and in the second year of his formula the spending went up to 19 percent.

This year is important. It is year three of the formula. Let us examine what has happened this year under the Premier's formula. The gross provincial product growth is $37,892,000,000 — up 10 percent. The formula says to limit the increase to 9 percent. That would be a budget of $5,272,000,000. No, Mr. Speaker. Taking into account the overruns — I don't want this next statement to appear anywhere in public — which, incidentally, were the highest this province has ever seen in any single year.... Do you remember what they used to say about overruns under our administration? Yes, we did have overruns in Human Resources expenditures. The highest overruns in that $300 million-plus, Mr. Speaker, were on blacktop — cover every thing. A new letter to the editor — cover it with blacktop. A new whisper of a campaign — cover it with blacktop. There was over $300 million in overruns, most of it in expenditures on highways and not a penny of it approved in this chamber.

What do we find this year? Why, we find not the Premier's formula, but a doubling again of the Premier's formula and an increase again of 19 percent.

Any person who has a commitment to a thread of honesty in political life and to the philosophical pronouncement in terms of trying to define their approach to government versus the democratic socialist approach to government.... This government says: "We want to cut back. Governments shouldn't be the big gouger of taxes. We should limit our expenditures to a precise formula. He announced this publicly, and then did exactly the opposite. This government cannot be trusted in any area of fiscal statement in the province of British Columbia.

I wonder what those good Conservative Party members, many of whom support Social Credit, think about their approach to fiscal responsibility. I must say that it strains credibility. It's not enough to have all these other problems the government has which they are incapable of handling and which continue to grow. The only relief we have from those problems is the joy we see on the Premier's face when it's a cabinet colleague, rather than he, who is in the glue for a week. It's not very nice. It certainly strains credibility outside of the other area when you examine their performance related to what they've said they're going to do.

I'm sorry that the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is not here and that the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) is not here — oh, there he is.

The member for North Peace River made a very serious allegation during his speech. He said that the NDP government had stolen Plateau Mills. Now, Mr. Member, I don't normally pay too much attention to a backbencher; they've got enough problems of their own. There's only 11 of you and you're all hoping to make the cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf).

MR. BARRETT: Oh, I thought it was this member who said that we stole it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Whoever said it, it was true.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, members should be responsible for statements they make in this House. I challenge any member to go out in this corridor and tell the press, or anyone else, that Dave Barrett and the New Democratic Party stole Plateau Mills, and I will slap the biggest libel suit on those people they've ever seen in their lives.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Perhaps you're new, and you're only a high school principal, and you realize that you're not completely responsible for your statements to adults; but in terms of your own students, don't you come in here and lecture us with statements that are absolutely false and only serve some kind of mixed-up political purpose.

I say it again, Mr. Speaker, that if those members believe we stole anything, then let them put their mouth right out in the open, have the guts to say it outside this House, instead of

[ Page 1480 ]

that political slander that goes across the floor of this House and is not based on fact. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I had to bring that up and I'm sorry that I had to refer to the corridors. But I'll bet you one thing: not one of them will call a press conference and say that we stole anything while we were in office.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about where some of the money came from. My other...the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips). I was going to call him my good friend, but I don't feel that well disposed this week; maybe next week he'll be back to being my good friend again. Last night his emotions got the best of his rational behaviour, and that's a very thin line. I'm willing to forgive him, but it'll take a few days. He speaks about the gas. Why, we all know where a significant amount of this money comes from; it comes from the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation, the most successful publicly owned petroleum corporation in the history of North America.

Mr. Speaker, it was on this side.... I know you will remember, along with other members, the 14-hour madness speeches given by the member for South Peace River, attacking the Petroleum Corporation. I'd like to remind some of the newer members what that member said at that time.

I quote from the Times of Saturday, October 13, 1973: "'We're heading — not walking, not even running but galloping head first — into a complete socialist state in British Columbia.' said Don Phillips. 'They have created a jungle of bureaucracy in the corporations that will take years to untangle,' he said in attacking the Petroleum Corporation."

I quote the 1973 Hansard, on page 874. He said about the British Columbia Corporation:

Another thing that bothers me from the Premier's remarks is the fact that out of all of these profits that the Premier says he is going to turn back in to pay for schools and pay for hospitals and pay for this and services to the public....

He didn't believe that any of that money would ever be made or would be turned back to the people. I quote from page 875:

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

Mr. Speaker, by the end of this year, $1.5 billion will come back through general revenue to the citizens of the province of British Columbia through that corporation which they voted against, because they said it was socialist. When they're questioned about it now they say: "Oh, it's just a tax-collecting agency." Half of the surplus they're going to have this year is a direct result of the publicly owned British Columbia Petroleum Corporation. And, Mr. Speaker, I would think — even with a little whimsy — one of them might get up and say: "You know, that wasn't a bad idea." If you want to soften our hearts, and if you want to allow us to think that you've grown into some maturity of understanding in the parliamentary system, stand up once in a while when you've made a mistake, and say so. Stand up once in a while and say: "That's not a bad idea; it worked out all right." If it isn't, why didn't you kill it? Why haven't you killed the Petroleum Corporation? I don't want to add misery to the point, Mr. Speaker, but I'd like to remind you and the House that the first $25 million in profit made from the Petroleum Corporation was used to buy up 13.5 percent ownership in Westcoast Transmission that El Paso was ordered by the U.S. courts to divest themselves of. We paid $22 million for those shares. We suffered the personal abuse of those members when they were in opposition. What makes a significant part of the BCRIC, my good friends? The $22 million we spent out of profits from the American sales to buy part of that American company, and they're touting it in BCRIC now as a good asset.

Resource management, Mr. Speaker. I want to come to coal, and the member who was responsible for this has just left the House, but I'm sure he'll listen on the squawk box. I noticed what the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) had to say, and I also noticed the way he's been treated by this government for having the guts to say things that this government doesn't like to hear.

Somebody has to address himself to the fact that that member was accused and convicted on the floor of this House before there were any reports from the Attorney-General's department. But that's not the same way the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) was treated. That has to be said on the floor of this House.

Mr. Speaker, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour has been writing letters to the editor about coal, and he's quite right. He feels the twinge of his Liberal associations forcing him to make statements about resource management. We don't have the same resource management on coal that we have on natural gas. But we were promised things.

My former colleague, and a good friend of almost every member of this house, Gordon Gibson, who sat as the Liberal leader, some two years ago raised important matters in this House related to coal leases. Lord knows he's a free enterpriser, bright young man, educated — like others in this House, has had some American and Canadian education — handsome, vivacious, gregarious, and open-minded like other members of this House. My good friend stood in this House and raised an alarm that even got a response from the Premier, about coal licences. The Premier said: "No, no, no. No coal leases will be given until we have full opportunity for debate and full opportunity for legislative examination."

Well, what happened, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Gibson asked for assurance after assurance that the giveaway of coal licences in this province would stop. He was applauded in this magnificent fight of resource control by the New Democratic Party members. Regardless of party line, anybody — free enterprise or democratic socialist — understands and shares that we must have a basic responsibility for good public management of the resources in the province of British Columbia. Good for Gordon Gibson.

Mr. Gibson said before the legislation was introduced: "I just ask for an assurance to this committee today that no licences will be issued under the discretion of the minister or his government until there has been a full public debate. That's all I ask." Hon. Mr. Bennett said, and I quote from Hansard: "That's fairly easy. I think this sitting the member will have the opportunity. And I can guarantee to him that...in this sitting.... I can give that, yes...assurance that no leases will be signed before the minister's estimates...."

Mr. Macdonald, who has a little more suspicion in his bones than the former Liberal leader, said: "I don't think that that undertaking is sufficient to protect the people of this

[ Page 1481 ]

province; it's more than the passage of time until the minister's estimates that we're talking about." How prophetic he was!

Mr. Speaker, my time is running out rapidly. I won't quote the whole debate in Hansard, but there are some revealing statements that were made. One particular exchange that I did want to put on the record was the comment made after the minister introduced his legislation and the member for North Vancouver–Capilano, as he was then, complained about the legislation and went on to say: "Everything is too left up in the air. I don't think that the companies and individuals putting up the investment deserve the uncertainty." Listen to what Mr. Chabot said — and as I quote from Hansard — when both Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Gibson were predicting what was going to happen. Mr. Chabot said: "Well, you will have to live with that uncertainty, I guess."

Mr. Gibson was uncertain as to who was going to control the coal. Mr. Macdonald was uncertain as to who was going to control the coal. The people of British Columbia were uncertain about who was going to control the coal. But the oil companies knew all along what the name of the game was, and they were the ones that had the biggest, smirking, hand-hidden smile of all in the province of British Columbia when that minister said we're going to have to live with uncertainty. They laughed in the boardrooms of the oil companies, Mr. Speaker.

In quick report, let me give you what the result of that new Coal Act is, and who now controls the significant coal leases in this province-unlike natural gas, where the people get a return through a marketing agency; unlike forestry, where stumpage rates have been built in. Coal is now coming into its own. That member, who, because of his willingness to speak out, sits down there alone and isolated, also predicted in his letters to the editor what Macdonald was saying and what Gibson was saying.

"Gulf Canada now has 492 licences pending — 401 issued; they control over 300,000 hectares of coal licences. That's some uncertainty for Gulf Canada! Shell Canada: 26 licences pending — 38 issued — involving some 17,000 hectares. That's some uncertainty for Shell! Esso: 86 licences pending — 1 issued — involving 20,500 hectares. That's some uncertainty for Esso. BP: 37 licences pending — 35 issued — a total of 20,000 hectares. There's no uncertainty in the oil companies. Under Social Credit they have had the significant coal leases in this province handed over to them willingly; that is a greater scandal than anything else that we've heard today.

The same amount of money that you said could not be taken out of natural gas.... You've not dared touch the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation, but you have handed out the jewels of our energy vault into the hands of the international oil companies, and you've had to justify it by saying: "We have to live with uncertainty." The oil companies have never lived with uncertainty with Social Credit; they've always got every single thing they wanted out of them.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: It is not for sale; it is for giving away. You're probably right.

I regret that my time is running short. I wanted to talk a little bit about the failure of the narcotic addiction program that we warned the government about in this House. Some of us who have had personal experience in dealing with these problems warned the minister that $14 million would be thrown up against the wall in the hope that some of it would stick to addicts. The latest fiasco out of the Heroin Treatment Program is that the centre bosses quit after the treatment director was canned a couple of weeks ago. Why don't you do the common-sense thing? You've moved in the minister with the shovel and broom, who cleans up the mess after every other minister. Stand up and admit that it was a failure, and save the taxpayers some money. Spend it on the elderly and the chronically ill, rather than continue that program.

There's no need to catalogue the ferry mistakes with the Marguerite, no need to catalogue the land fiasco, no need to relate to this House how they can't even handle a simple increase in B.C. Hydro rates. They had that minister announce that they were going to set up an agency to control Hydro rates. Then he announces that he is satisfied that Hydro can go ahead and announce a rate increase, and the minister for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) says: "No, I'm against the Hydro rate." If you're really against it, get out of the cabinet and show your guts instead of talking about it out in public.

I have so much other material to show that the credibility of this government has gone. Then I have three positive suggestions. I want to deal with those quick positive suggestions, and I will deal with this other material later on in the estimates.

There is nothing in this budget on inflation — not a single thing. An ill-directed collection of inflation-fed taxes in this province, plus a bonanza under the BCPC — that money should not be kept in the government's pockets, but given freely to the people who own that money and trust the people freely and individually to make up their own minds what they want to do with their own money. It's not your money.

Unemployment in this province is the highest it has ever been, and I want to thank the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) for putting out documents that even dare to contradict statements in the budget speech. He's laid it on the line — 119,000 unemployed. What have they done about it? Nothing. High interest rates — nothing. What about legislation passed in this House — the British Columbia Savings and Trust Corporation, Mr. Speaker? All of these things add up to a government that has mismanaged the economy, has fumbled in making decisions, has threatened the livelihood of intermediate business people all along the coast, at Prince Rupert and here in Victoria. You have been paralysed internally by problems that are self-inflicted, and you are now beginning to bleed from those self-inflicted wounds to the point that you are incapable of making rational decisions. You are trying to throw money up against the wall in an attempt to cover up your own problems.

Because of that, and for many other reasons, I move that this House regrets that, in the opinion of the House, the hon. Minister of Finance has failed to adequately relieve our citizens of the onerous burden of continual increases in the cost of living or to mobilize our human and natural resources toward a strategy of full employment embracing manufacturing and secondary industry, and also that no provision has been offered to protect our citizens against rising interest rates. This is seconded by the hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi).

MR. SPEAKER: The motion was given proper notice. The motion is properly endorsed and appears to be in order.

[ Page 1482 ]

Mr. Levi moved adjournment of the debate. Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Fraser tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways for the year ending March 1979.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen tabled the fifty-eighth report of the liquor distribution branch, Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:58 p.m.