[ Page 1537 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget debate.

On the amendment.

Mrs. Wallace –– 1537

Division –– 1537

On the main motion.

Mr. Howard –– 1537

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 1541

Mrs. Dailly –– 1544

Mr. Mussallem –– 1548

Presenting reports

Alcohol and Drug Commission report as at June 1979.

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 1550

Report on Special Committee on Selection.

Mr. Hyndman –– 1551

Mr. Cocke –– 1551

TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1980

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, just briefly, I would like the House's indulgence in allowing me to introduce in the gallery tonight, from the Regional District of Central Kootenay, the long-suffering chairman, Mr. Ned MacNeill, and his long-suffering administrator, Mr. Reid Henderson.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery tonight, from Victoria, are Larry Goulay, Larry Michell, and the former Miss Victoria, Susan Mair.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, over the dinner hour I had an opportunity to review some of the remarks I had intended to make. In view of the fact that I am the third speaker in a row from this side of the House, and in view of the fact that I feel the remarks I had intended to make would probably be better made under the main motion, I do not wish to continue at this point in time.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 29

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

On the main motion.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, in rising now to take part in the budget debate, it may be appropriate to identify, first, what the foundation of the budget is, what it's predicated upon and what it seeks to envisage in the future. There isn't any question that it's based upon inflation, that the inflow of money to the treasury is a direct result of the inflationary processes that have been going on. Even more damaging, I think, is the hope of the government that inflation will continue, because this government knows that in an inflationary period government is the beneficiary and the general public the losers, that as prices increase, and as a percentage such as the sales tax is applied to increased prices, it means an increased flow of cash into the hands of the treasury benches. In fact the budget itself in part — if I could just quote one sentence from it — indicates that that is the case, indicates that there is an expectation and a desire on the part of government that inflation will continue, so the expectations of the budget and projections into the future can be met.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Nonsense!

MR. HOWARD: My friend, the former Conservative member, now identifies that as nonsense. Well, I assume the Minister of Finance had something to do with writing the budget, that it just wasn't prepared for him and he read it, because on page 8, Mr. Speaker, he says as follows: "The international situation can also be expected to place continued demand pressure on a wide variety of metals — gold, silver, copper, lead, zinc, aluminum and molybdenum." Then he goes on to say that B.C. is rich in a variety of energy, resources, etc.

That statement itself — that there is an expectation of demand pressure on those minerals — results in what? In the normal theory of the capitalist system that demand upon a resource moves the price upward. The minister went even further than that in saying this: "As the commodities British Columbia exports become increasingly scarce in the world, the prices of those goods are expected to increase faster than prices generally." But if you put those two statements of the Minister of Finance together, what he is saying is there is an expectation that as a result of the demand, the international market, for minerals, for resources that British Columbia has, it is his expectation that prices will increase faster for those commodities than prices are increasing generally.

British Columbia, under the government of Social Credit, now and before, has had a policy of exporting raw materials from this province and buying back, or requiring British Columbians to buy back, the finished products that are manufactured in other countries.

I'll give you an example of that with copper. British Columbia produces, generally speaking, about 20 percent of the copper produced in Canada. Every ounce of that copper, in the form of concentrates, is shipped out of province. Other nations smelt it and refine it and turn it into tubing and wire and electrical equipment and the like and they sell it back to us. The concentrates go out; the finished product comes back in again. That, Mr. Speaker, is a very short-range and damaging thing to continue to do in this province, because that exports jobs. It exports employment possibilities for people here in this province. This Social Credit government, and the Social Credit government that preceded it, didn't have an inkling as to what wealth there is in this province, but sought to export it.

In the words of Omar Khayyam: "Ah, take the cash and let the Credit go, Nor heed the rumble of a distant Drum!" We draw an analogy about what wealth is in its real form. A tree standing in the forest has a certain value to the forest

[ Page 1538 ]

itself in shelter for animals and in containment for run-off waters and the like. It has an aesthetic value. But if a couple of people with a saw apply their muscular energy to cut that tree down, buck it up into lengths and split it up into cordwood, wealth is added to that particular product. They can sell that. They can say that this product called cordwood has a certain wealth that represents the work that went into transforming it from a tree into cordwood. If you run it through a sawmill, you increase the wealth of that particular product. There are many things the minister didn't know. If you export it in its rough lumber form you're exporting jobs. If you turn it into furniture you're employing more people to do it, and wealth is created within the province.

We've got sufficient copper, for argument's sake, produced in this province, around which one can build a smelter. That has been the case for many, many years. But because of the short-sightedness of this government and the Social Credit government that preceded it prior to 1972, they were more interested in exporting the nearly raw resource in concentrate form. If we had a smelter around the copper industry in British Columbia, we'd have jobs for British Columbians, and we'd add to the wealth of the province. If we had a refining process in British Columbia, we'd have more jobs for British Columbians around the refinery process. If we had the manufacturing of that copper into usable goods, such as electrical wire, conduit and that sort of thing, we would create more jobs in British Columbia and provide more wealth for this province. To do otherwise means simply that we are selling off our resources for the quickest possible buck that we can get, without regard to the future, without regard to employment in the future, without regard to jobs for British Columbians now and their children in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I know there are used-car dealers who are pretty prominent in the government. Just by contrast, a used-car dealer does not produce wealth. All he does is bring it in and live off it. All he does is recycle the wealth; he doesn't produce it. What produces wealth is workers employed in industry producing goods and services primarily for use here.

There was reference the other day in the newspaper to two very large multinational corporations headquartered in the United States — General Dynamics and, I believe, Pratt Whitney — interested in building a world-scale smelting process here in British Columbia. It's a companion, they say, to those companies being able to sell their military aircraft to the Canadian government. It's a balance-off — a kind of offer to the federal government: "If you buy our fighter aircraft, we'll put some of that money back in, and we'll be able to smelter here." Those companies, according to newspaper reports in both the Vancouver Province and the Victoria Colonist, in recent days or recent weeks have had discussions with the provincial government about that particular concept and that particular idea, seeking to, as the Province puts it, "woo the provincial government" for support for that particular idea. I don't know why we have to wait until some militaristic-oriented corporations — as part of a deal for us, as Canadians, to buy their fighter aircraft — come along and say: "Here is this project called a copper smelter." I don't know why this could not have been examined in some detail before, and something developed about it.

In my view, this is the sort of thing that the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation should have been doing. It should have been involving itself in that type of project, instead of fiddling around buying shares in Mac-Blo, which doesn't produce any additional jobs; instead of talking about whether or not they're going to invest some of their money in buying shares of Kaiser Resources, which doesn't produce any additional jobs but simply shows B.C. Resources Investment Corporation as more a holding company than an operating company — operating to develop the resources of British Columbia. That is the type of project that BCRIC should have been involved in. That is the type of project that, if this government had any vision at all and any hope for the future, it would have been involved in, it would have been trying to develop. But it is a very short-range, short-sighted government that looks at the quick buck. "Bring it in quickly, swell the coffers, and never mind the future."

There are other provinces in Canada — the Maritimes, particularly — who have seen and are now living the results of the short-sighted policy in years past of the export of raw resources and the failure to have them manufactured in that area. They become have-not provinces. If we continue the programs that have been developed under this government, we could easily fall into that category of being at some time or another a have-not province, particularly when we're dealing with non-renewable resources. Because all we have left over, in a mining operation, is a group of holes in the ground. At least with the forests — and I give due credit there to the government for examining a reforestation policy — we are dealing with a renewable resource. Carefully operated, carefully farmed — in the sense that a farmer farms his land — carefully looking to the future, the forests will be there as a renewable resource to continue to employ British Columbians and continue to produce wealth. But not so with the non-renewable resources, with the minerals.

While I'm on the subject of B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that at the initial offering of BCRIC shares — that is the 5,000 per person at $6 a share — last summer sometime, many people undoubtedly circumvented that particular restriction of 5,000 shares per person. During the initial offering period, with investment dealers all over this province who were handling those shares and banks that were also handling those shares, there was a common thread of conversation that a great deal of the money coming to buy those 5,000 original issue shares was coming from places like Alberta and Ontario. It was a commonly understood practice, contrary to what the intentions were, of course.

Just to give an example — and one example only — of how this thing worked, how it was possible to circumvent the intent of the program of limitation of 5,000 shares per British Columbian, per holder or recipient of the five so-called free shares, I draw upon the information provided by one William Maurice Young. I don't say that he did anything wrong. He just knew the road to follow in order to get more than 5,000 shares.

On August 7, 1979, William Maurice Young indicated that he had acquired 5,005 direct shares. He was the direct holder of 5,000 shares. He acquired them on August 7; that was distribution day. On the same day, August 7, 1979, one Rory Bartholomew Young bought 4,395 shares. On the same day, August 7, 1979, one Julia Mary Young acquired 4,396 shares. On the same day, August 7, 1979, one Frederick Maurice Young bought 4,550 shares. And on the same day, August 7, 1979, one Charles Edward Young acquired 5,000 shares in B.C. Resources Investment Corporation.

Now, William Maurice Young is a director of B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, Rory Bartholomew

[ Page 1539 ]

Young is the son of the director, Julia Mary is the daughter of the director, Frederick Maurice is the son of the director, and Charles Edward is the son of that director of B.C. Resources Investment Corporation. All of those children, on the 21st day of September, 1979, sold their shares to their father, as a result of which, on September 21, 1979, the father became the holder of some additional 17,840 shares. I'm not saying that that's improper. It's permissible. It was permissible under the way the thing was set up in the first place, but I only use it as an example to show how, in that initial distribution of shares, thousands upon thousands of shares were sold to non-residents of British Columbia, because the people acquiring them put up front money and found a resident in British Columbia to acquire the shares in the resident's own name, and then later on to arrange to sell them to the initial beneficiary. That circumvented the intent of what the distribution of shares was in the first instance. I only use the name of Mr. Young as a director to indicate that that presumably is what he did. If he did it, many, many others did it as well — as is well known, Mr. Speaker, and was well rumoured in the investment community at that particular time.

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

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, a point of order, and I seek your guidance, sir. It seems to this member that the member speaking is endeavoring to discredit the name of a family in this province through innuendo and without any substance. I seek your advice as to how to have this sort of despicable conduct by someone who can least afford to wear the mantle of purity stopped.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, I think that the member has been here long enough and is aware, at least, of the standing orders which provide only that corrections can be made at the conclusion of the speech of the member who is in control of the floor, and that those corrections can only be made if they contradict a statement made by the member seeking the correction. That is the only standing order of which I am aware.

The member for Skeena has the floor.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Further to your comment, I seek your guidance, then, as to how one can, in this House, protect the name of innocent people from this type of smear, innuendo and despicable conduct by an hon. member of this House. Perhaps you could assist me.

MR. SPEAKER: The only recourse to this House from statements made in this House is the fact that every member takes full responsibility for every statement made in this House, as to both their accuracy and to their repercussions.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Then is that member prepared to apologize to this family?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Then I would ask: is this member prepared to apologize to this family and these children? Because now that his statement is made, Mr. Speaker, and the damage is done, what protection do they have?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. These are privileges that are enjoyed by every member of this House, and these are the onerous responsibilities that come with those privileges.

The hon. member for Skeena has the floor.

MR. HOWARD: Well, Mr. Speaker, in any event, I wouldn't seek to compete with the hon. Minister of Tourism when it comes to unseemly conduct and inappropriate remarks in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Let's continue with the debate.

MR. HOWARD: Well, I just thought, Mr. Speaker, if she could take the opportunity to tell me, then I can take the opportunity to tell her, especially when she's completely out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I demand that that member withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair seeks to maintain order on both sides of the House. All members will recall that I called for order repeatedly, and as is the case on both sides of the House on many occasions, order is not as easily come by as it asked for.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the member rise on a point of order?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether I rise on a point of order or a point of personal privilege. I demand that that member, who I could not possibly refer to as an honourable member, withdraw that statement with reference to the member for North Okanagan or prove it — and go out in the hall and prove it.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The basic standing order of debate in this House is standing order 17(2). It is the overriding principle of debate: "When a member is speaking, no member shall pass between him and the Chair, nor interrupt him, except to raise a point of order."

The member for Skeena has the floor.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I think it is worth repeating that at the beginning, talking about the distribution of shares and the acquiring of those shares by the individuals whom I mentioned, I said there was nothing inappropriate about that. I used that as an example to point out that others, very easily from outside the province, not having the capac-

[ Page 1540 ]

ity or the residency in the province to acquire the shares, used that kind of mechanism as a front to acquire shares improperly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why bring the name up?

MR. HOWARD: Why bring the name up? Because the hon. minister, being a member of a very honoured, ancient and learned profession, knows that this information is made public. It comes from a public document. Mr. Young and his family disclosed the information.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I ask the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) — to please come to order. This is the first asking.

MR. HOWARD: There is a further reference that I would love to become involved in debating, regarding the activities of and the expressions uttered by the president of B.C. Resources Investment Corporation. Looking at the time, perhaps I'll put them aside for future examination. I will deal with a major portion of what I want to look at with respect to the budget, namely the question of jobs in this province for British Columbians.

On page 16 of the budget we have a reference, outside of the forest industry reference, under the heading: "Industrial Diversification." I think it's very worthwhile to examine what that means in terms of jobs for people here. The Minister of Finance tells us: "The creation of the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications marked an important step in this government's drive to make British Columbia a centre for scientific research and high-technology industry." High-technology industry, Mr. Speaker, means very few jobs and lots of technology — lots of machines and computers in the processing — but very little in terms of the creation of jobs. That probably completely associates the orientation of the government to manufacturing, to secondary industries, and to the hope that future generations and kids now going to school have in this province about jobs awaiting them later on — how much it is necessary for government to place some emphasis upon managing the economy to the point where jobs are created for workers, and not leave it to happenstance and to occasional "maybes" and flows up and down of employment possibilities.

Perhaps in a different context I can make a brief reference to the budget of last year and to the closing remarks that the Premier made to the throne speech debate. A few years ago, Granduc Mines in the constituency of Atlin closed down. At the time, the government thought it was in the constituency of Prince Rupert. They weren't even sure where it was. In any event, it's in Atlin. As a result of that shutdown, workers living in Stewart and working at Granduc were required to move their families out and to spend a fortune seeking jobs elsewhere; to disrupt the school life of their kids; to disrupt their social lives; to go scattered on the four winds to find additional employment. This government turned its back on the workers of Granduc, on the company, and on the town of Stewart, and were almost prepared to let it sink. They washed their hands of any responsibility, virtually by saying: "Oh, that's nothing to do with us. That's the free enterprise system that does that." And then, last year in the budget, when Granduc Mines was sold by American Smelting and Refining Co. — I believe that was the parent owner at that time — to Esso Minerals, and there was a possibility and an announcement of Granduc reopening, the former Minister of Finance, now the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), had the gall to put that in his budget speech as if it were something that he and his government had accomplished. The Premier had the unmitigated gall, as well, in his closing remarks on the throne speech, to point at Granduc as one of the things coming about as a result of his being the Premier and his government's being in office. There's complete rot, showing a government prepared to take the credit for the sunshine and blame the rain on anybody else who happens to be near. That's not a very appropriate hallmark for a government that says it's concerned about the citizenry in this province.

To put it in another context, in the north — and I'm sure this is true in parts of the interior as well — there's been a steady complaint that wealth produced in the north flows out of the north and finds its way into Vancouver and the lower mainland, and into Victoria, and settles there, and that very little of it, proportionately, shows up as a return to the wealth producers. We have such things — and I don't knock them; we voted on some of them at the last session — as the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre at $10 million, the Victoria Trade and Convention Centre, the Lower Mainland Stadium and now B.C. Place. These are all worthy projects, acceptable in the areas where they are to be built, but all projects that are looked upon by people in the northern part of this province as being inappropriately placed and not reflecting the true source of that wealth. People in the north feel more and more alienated from the mainstream of the economy, more and more that they are just the producers of raw materials, the benefits of which go to other parts of the province in a disproportionate way.

In my own constituency of Skeena, I think it's incumbent upon the government, apropos the Aluminum Company of Canada's stated intention to expand the smelter process up there, if they go ahead with the Kemano II project — which is something I'd like to talk about at another time, the responsibility of government in that regard.... If we had a government concerned about wealth production, concerned about job creation, it would be sitting down with the Aluminum Company of Canada and saying: "Hey, wait a minute. What about putting a further processing plant in here, so that the aluminum you produce in Kitimat, which now just comes out in raw ingot form, is put through a further processing procedure, is put through further manufacturing, is turned into rods or bars or tubes, or windows or door sashes or siding, or whatever else they use aluminum for, and creates some of the secondary industry in those areas that up until now have just rested upon primary, raw resource production?"

Take the lumber industry in my home community of Terrace, ideally suited.... In fact somebody who wanted to do something like that at one time got shafted by the B.C. Development Corporation, or by the government. A small company wanted to set up a modular home program, where homes and other buildings could be built in a factory type of process up there. That fell by the wayside because this government didn't have sufficient interest in such a project to say: "Let's sit down and see whether or not we can do something about the creation of jobs here."

I've heard a great deal in this debate about the period 1972 to 1975, which seems to be the only portion of history that people in Social Credit can examine. Invariably, the

[ Page 1541 ]

commentary in the House from Social Credit members seems to have been — up until now, anyway — that everything that occurred in the economy in that period was entirely the fault of the NDP. That's what they say. Well, the other day the Minister of Finance told us just the opposite — and he's an honourable man. His words are there to read. Look at what he says, Mr. Speaker, to put that lie to rest about contributions to bad economy, in "The Medium-Term Economic Outlook." You don't have to go past page 2 to find it, either; there in clear, bold print the Minister of Finance tells us that: "By 1974 the realities of the OPEC cartel had set in and the industrialized economies slipped into a sharp recession." This is the same government, which in that sentence there recognizes what took place in that period of time, that now hopes — by its own statements in the budget, by statements of the Minister of Finance — for further inflation, hopes that prices will rise further, hopes that the poor working stiff will fall farther and farther behind in his purchasing power, so the coffers of government can reap the benefits of it.

I want to discuss very briefly this myth about the provincial debt that was supposed to have existed. While I'm on that, there are two or three references in this "Mid-Term Economic Outlook" that are highly political, highly partisan. I would suggest to the Minister of Finance that if he's going to produce any more of these documents he should keep the partisanship out of it, otherwise he'll destroy the value that such an economic outlook might have, because those are worthwhile documents to extend our thoughts into the future and try to guess what is going to occur. But if you laud it with partisan political statements, it destroys the value of it. But it's in there.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) has time and time again put the case about the provincial debt not being a valid question that the government was faced with; it was a bookkeeping arrangement in an attempt to make the previous NDP administration look bad, look as if it wasn't able to manage the accounts. They tell us that as at March 31, 1976, after three months of Social Credit in office, Mr. Speaker, when they had ample opportunity to juggle the books, to produce whatever picture they wanted to produce.... But apart from that, as of March 31, 1976, they say there was a budgetary deficit of $261,447,790 which had to be met — a debt, money that had to be borrowed.

Mr. Speaker, if it were the case that that money had to be borrowed, that there was a debt as of March 31, 1976, why did they wait until June 6, 1976, to show any debt on the books? They borrowed $50 million some months later. On September 9 there was another borrowing of $50 million; on November 1, 1976, months after the so-called deficit was supposed to be there, there was another borrowing; on February 18, 1977, nearly a year later, there was another borrowing of money. The final proof that it was a fictitious figure in the first place shows that on March 15, 1977, nearly a full year after this so-called deficit existed, the government then borrowed the exact amount of money to make up the $261,447,790 that they said existed as a debt a year before. "Let's keep the fiction alive; let's keep the mythology alive," they said, and so they borrowed that precise amount of money 15 days before that same government crowed about the fact that it then had a $76 million surplus. What's the point of borrowing a precise amount of money to meet the earlier fictitious announcement of $261 million when just 15 days later they claimed they had a $76 million surplus? Now, I know, Mr. Speaker, with your very perceptive mind and your understanding of these things, you will see that there is something wrong in that type of arithmetic and that type of budgetary activity. I'm not asking you to respond, Mr. Speaker, I'm just putting the case in the formal way that I can, through you to anybody else. It shows that there is a complete distortion of this, and I only put that forward as substantiating the case that has been made by the member for Nanaimo time and time and time again — that that so-called debt did not in fact exist. It was a bookkeeping creation and they went ahead and borrowed the money precisely in order to justify the bookkeeping entry in the first place; there was no necessity to examine that question.

Mr. Speaker, this is a budget that just simply rolls in the waves of the economy like a ship rolls in the waves at sea. It does nothing to steer a course, does nothing to have an objective or a goal. It's a government that doesn't have a philosophic content to its own feelings about where we should be looking into the future; it's a government that's just content to sit there and become bookkeepers. Let the money roll in, the more the better — the higher the inflation, the better — because it means more money coming into the coffers that they can wave around and say: "Aren't we good managers?" They're just recipients of a set of circumstances rather than directors or leaders with respect to those circumstances.

There are no projects in terms of the creation of long-term jobs in manufacturing or secondary industry in this province. There is just the continued expectation that we are going to follow along the same road of exporting raw resources — either in their raw form or their near-raw form. But this is a government that's quite content to continue to export jobs, quite content to continue to buy back the finished product, quite content to keep ourselves continually in a deficit position insofar as balance of payments is concerned; it's a government that doesn't have any direction.

Mr. Speaker, if I could just put it this way in closing: the budget, the action of the government, its statements and its declarations prove very clearly to me, and reflect, the principle of this government which says simply that having no goal or no objective, any road that we find will take us there.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I rise to speak in support of this tremendous budget brought down by the Minister of Finance a short time ago. I thank the member for Skeena for the few kind words he said about the new forest program in British Columbia. It makes me wonder what I did wrong when he says something kind about it.

MR. HOWARD: I'll withdraw them if you insist.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Please do. Now I feel much better.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena gave us a very short lecture on the traditional socialist school of economics by trying to demonstrate to us that the only value in anything is labour. I will agree to a certain extent that a great part of the value in most products is labour. But in attempting to demonstrate that to us, he said that this man took a cross-cut saw, felled a tree and started making cordwood. That member must recognize the fact that that cross-cut saw represents capital. You cannot accomplish anything unless you take resources, labour and capital and combine them properly to produce products.

[ Page 1542 ]

That member also was talking about the Granduc mine and saying that it closed down during the Social Credit term of office and opened up again, and we took credit for its having opened again. I know a little bit about mining, and I know a little bit about the Granduc mine. That mine was struggling along. It had a tremendous capital debt to repay after it first went into production. It was a very expensive mine to put into production. They were doing not too badly until the period of the mineral royalty legislation came along. In order to carry on into the future, that mine had to develop new ore bodies, both by exploration and by very expensive development work. Don't shake your head at me, Mr. Member — you know not of what you speak. That company stopped that very expensive exploration work because they knew that if they did make a profit that government's mineral royalty legislation would take at least 100 percent of the profit away.

That's why they stopped their lower-level development. They used up the ore reserves they had developed under a system where they had a chance to make a profit, and then they shut the mine down after that ore was exhausted. But when the mining climate was changed by this government, dollars could be reinvested into that property to put it back into production and hopefully to make a profit. By reinvesting money, by repreparing that mine for production, a great number of jobs for the poor working stiffs in British Columbia were thereby created. That's the type of thing this opposition doesn't recognize: that jobs are not created by governments; jobs are created by governments giving the people of British Columbia and people who would invest in this province a chance to make a profit by employing labour and resources. Everybody benefits. But I'm sure that type of thinking is foreign to those people.

The budget that our Minister of Finance brought down is, indeed, a budget that looks to the future in British Columbia. It is a budget that will launch this province and its people into the eighties in a very confident manner. It has taken a lot of groundwork to prepare the province for this day. I think it serves us well to look back for a few years to what has happened since this government took office.

I remember very clearly those things that happened in the few years prior to our forming the government. I remember statements about our tourist industry, which employs more people than any other industry, provides more opportunities for entrepreneurs, for small business people, and provides a tremendous number of opportunities for part-time employment in the summer months for our students who want to earn money to go back and continue their education. But do you remember the calls of "Yankee go home; don't come to British Columbia"? Do you remember the utterances of the then Minister of Highways, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), when he said: "It serves no purpose to build highways in this province so the tourists can come up, because they don't leave any money here — they don't supply anything for the province of British Columbia"? Those thousands and thousands of people who have invested their money, time and effort in tourist facilities in this province were told by that government: "We don't really want a tourist industry here. Yankee go home." That industry was killed by that government. That is just one of the many deficits we had to overcome when we formed the government.

I remember very well the mining sector. In fact, as I have mentioned many times in this Legislature, that is the reason I got into politics: because of the death of the industry in which I had worked for so long. In spite of what the Minister of Mines under that government said, the industry didn't like what he did. It didn't relax and enjoy what he had done. The industry was brought to its knees. They take great pleasure in that by saying: "Yes, it's those terrible multinational mining companies that were chased out of B.C." They don't realize that thousands and thousands of British Columbians are employed in the mining industry. They don't realize that many individuals — the miners, prospectors, claim stakers — and many small businesses that service that industry were also drastically affected by their anti-mining legislation. There were mine closures like we've never seen before, and that in the middle of the biggest mining boom northwestern North America had ever seen. All around us was a booming industry, and here in British Columbia nothing was happening. Our mining technologists, in the forefront of mining technology in the world, were leaving to find employment elsewhere.

They like to talk about the non-renewability of minerals in British Columbia. Everyone knows that any individual or body can't be renewed, but our mineral wealth can be renewed. At the time that that government took office we had more oil reserves in British Columbia than we'd ever had before, in spite of the fact that we'd been mining for 100 years. What happened then? By the stroke of a pen, by ill-conceived, ill-thought-out and ill-administered legislation, more oil reserves were turned to waste rock than had been mined in the entire history of British Columbia, because they don't recognize the fact that if you can't make a profit then you don't have an industry. They desire somehow to make "profit" a dirty word. Mr. Speaker, we had a tremendous deficit in the mining industry when we formed the government. That deficit also had to be overcome.

Confidence in the forest industry — the largest and most important industry in B.C. — had been completely shattered in three and a half short years. Many, many plans — and I've heard about most of them — were put on the shelf when that government took office. Through their actions they told the investing world that we in British Columbia planned to take over that industry and nationalize it, and they began to do it through their interference in the free enterprise system and the marketplace. No new plants or modernizations took place during that time, because no prudent businessman would invest these massive amounts of dollars in an industry, knowing full well that it was that government's intention eventually to nationalize it.

Our major industry was on its knees. B.C.'s major employer was on its knees. They talk about being concerned about jobs for working people in British Columbia. At the same time the industry that represents almost half of our economy in effect was told it wasn't welcome here, that government was going to take it over. In the last year of that government they realized things weren't going quite the way they had planned, so in desperation they did the one positive thing they did in the forest industry: they appointed a royal commissioner to study the industry and then ran for cover. Mr. Speaker, we had a tremendous deficit in our forest industry when we formed the government.

Then we look at the finances of the province. The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) completely ignores the realities of cash flow management, and somehow works things around so that we didn't have a deficit. Let me tell you, Mr.

[ Page 1543 ]

Speaker, we indeed had a deficit. That government came into British Columbia. They started with a large surplus. They spent that and incurred a direct debt of over $260 million, for a total loss of over $420 million in three and a half short years. Piled on top of that, the greatest record of any company in North American history for losses in a year was held by ICBC. What was it that company lost — $180 million or $200 million — in its first year of operation? Mr. Speaker, we had a tremendous real dollar debt, a deficit when we formed the government.

Do you remember that government's labour record? I was looking at a clipping the other day. It was Labour Day, 1975, on which British Columbia was covered by a literal forest of picket signs. The member for Skeena talks about the partisan statements in this economic forecast made by the Minister of Finance. Let me read you one of the partisan statements: "Finally, the labour relations climate in the province has improved dramatically over the last five years. In 1975, 1.8 million man-days were lost due to labour disruptions; in 1979, less than a third of that." Talk about opportunities for people! People aren't earning their living, they aren't adding to the wealth of this province and their own wealth, when they're on strike. That government, which claimed to be the friend of labour, had the worst record of labour disruptions of any time in our history. Mr. Speaker, we had a tremendous deficit in labour relations when we formed the government in British Columbia. We needed to do a lot of basic groundwork when we formed the government, and the preparation that took place over those years has put us in the position we are in today to make this gigantic stride into the present decade — into the eighties and then into the nineties and into the twenty-first century.

Remember what our first Minister of Tourism under this present government did? Do you remember the tourist promotional program she had and the tremendous beneficial effect it had on this province? We had tourists coming back to British Columbia and being made welcome here. We had a Minister of Highways patching up the potholes left to him by three and a half years of inattention. We had our people in British Columbia learn that tourists are important. These things just didn't happen; the tourists just didn't all of sudden decide to come back to British Columbia. It took a lot of hard work, by our government and our ministers, and the deficit was overcome — and this government did it.

I was Minister of Mines when this government was first sworn in. And we did have a tremendous deficit then, which I've spoken of already. We had that Bill 31, that way of getting all this tremendous amount of profit into the government, which in effect cut off government revenues and killed that industry. So we removed that royalty legislation, and we removed the discretionary powers given the former minister under that government in their legislation. We made the mining industry predictable — at least as predictable as that industry can be. We defined the rules by which they operate, and mining, claim-staking and oil and natural gas exploration immediately responded. I remember that in the winter of 1975-76 there were six oil-drilling rigs working in the Peace River country; today there are more than 100. Every prospector, every miner, every claim-staker that I know, has been so tremendously busy this last couple of years that they just don't know how to handle all the work they have. We have people working in that industry preparing ore bodies for production, finding ore bodies for the future of that industry. And these things did not just happen. We overcame that deficit in the mining industry; we had to work hard to do it, but we did; and we helped prepare ourselves for today. The economic mess that we had on our plate when we formed this government — runaway government spending, no fiscal control whatsoever, mounting debts, ministers spending wildly in every direction without any government planning whatsoever — has been overcome. Our Premier has insisted on very strict fiscal responsibility by this government. We have been accused of resource giveaways by the opposition; on the contrary, we have reduced the level of taxation on individuals in this province, and this last couple of years have given us record resource revenues. We are using those revenues to help thrust our province into the next decade.

I will be speaking at some length later in this session, Mr. Speaker, about what has happened in the forest sector, but let me run through it briefly. As I mentioned, the only thing that happened as a result of that government's action was the appointment of a royal commissioner to study the forest industry in British Columbia. I'm very pleased, and I'm very proud of the fact that I was the Minister of Forests when that report was received. We worked hard and we developed the most progressive resource legislation of any jurisdiction in the world — and it's been acknowledged as that — and it took us a year and a half to do that. That legislation required the very thing that I tabled in this Legislature a couple of days ago, last Friday. It required a complete analysis of our forest and range resources and it required a five-year management program. As I mentioned when I tabled that legislation, when those documents were presented to our cabinet, our Premier, our Minister of Finance and our entire cabinet said: "That is what we have to do, because we must maintain this resource. We must maintain it and have it in at least as good a position when we're gone, to pass on to our children so that they can manage it forever in the future of British Columbia." That report and that program requires the spending of $1.5 billion over the next five years. And we could not have done that, we could not have made that commitment to the management of that resource, had we not had good fiscal management in this province over the last four years.

These things didn't just happen. We overcame these deficits; it took hard work and good management.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The members over there say: "Yes, you're lucky because you have this revenue coming in." But to quote our member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips): "The harder we work the luckier we get." There's no luck involved at all; it's good management of the province of British Columbia.

I must congratulate the Minister of Finance on producing this "Medium-Term Economic Outlook and Fiscal Analysis" for British Columbia. Unless you have a reasonably good idea of where you're going you can't really get there. I think this is a real first, and I think it's something that the Minister of Finance must be congratulated for.

We have an economic blueprint for British Columbia. We have a forecast of where we are going, and through good fiscal management we have the funds to get there.

The short-term outlook, according to this projection and to all the things I have read myself in other publications, indicates that the rest of this year, and perhaps into 1981, is perhaps not going to be the best of times in North America.

[ Page 1544 ]

Some recession is fully expected. Our Minister of Finance has taken that into consideration in the preparation and presentation of his budget. A lot of government dollars are being injected into the economy to help us ride through this period of time in good stead. I'm not going to read all the items that were in the short summary, but I think they're tremendous. The thing I'm proudest about, of course, is the forest and range resource fund of $146.6 million, in addition to other increases in my budget. They say there are no jobs being created. Look at this list of things that are going to happen: $100 million for an accelerated highway construction program. "There are certainly no jobs to be created there. There couldn't possibly be jobs in highway construction, and there couldn't possibly be jobs in the tourist industry as a result of these improved transportation facilities in B.C. Absolutely no jobs in this budget for the people of B.C."

The new Fraser River crossing at Annacis Island; I think the Speaker has heard of that. "But certainly there will be no jobs involved in that; it will not be any more convenient for people to work in the lower mainland or for our tourists to travel around. There are no jobs there at all."

There is $10 million for assistance to small- and medium-sized business. "Of course these businesses, I guess, are going to take this money and stuff it into a mattress somewhere. They're not going to expand their businesses or increase their activity and create jobs; so there certainly aren't any jobs there."

The budget goes on and on with so many items that will directly and indirectly create a great deal of employment for the people of British Columbia. The best and most immediate example was the $200 million first-mortgage program brought forward by this government during the earlier part of this year, when there was a tremendous threat of decline in employment in the forest industry and the building construction industry. These members opposite say: "Yes, that was our idea. We were going to do that." Well, they were going to do a lot of things, but they didn't know how. And they didn't have the resources, because they had lost them all.

In late 1972 when that party formed the government, they started from a very firm economic base in British Columbia, with a sound, buoyant economy and healthy government finances, and in three and a half short years our province slipped into the quicksand.

In 1975 our government started from that socialist bog to which we had all sunk. We worked hard and we planned well. We extracted the economy from the bog and the quicksand. We instilled confidence into the investing public both in British Columbia and outside of British Columbia, and we built a very firm, solid economic base. And from that base we can leap with confidence into the eighties, the nineties and the twenty-first century. Mr. Speaker, all members of this House should take a great deal of pleasure and pride in supporting this budget.

MRS. DAILLY: Before getting right into a discussion of this budget.... In my remarks on the budget tonight I want to primarily deal with the budget in terms of how it is actually affecting, and how it will affect, the people of Burnaby North, the riding I represent. Therefore I want to deal in some specific areas. After all, we're dealing with a multibillion dollar budget, and I think the people of my constituency deserve to have some analysis of it to see whether out of these billions of dollars their average daily life is going to be improved. I will try to discuss that as I go along.

But before I do, I would like to comment on a few remarks made by the minister who just took his seat and a couple of other members from the government who have spoken in this debate. I don't intend to dwell on their remarks too long, because I feel that will turn my remarks into a very negative type of debate. I think we've had enough of the negative type of debate from the government benches throughout the whole session to date, so I don't want to contribute any more to it than is necessary.

But the speaker who just took his seat, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland).... I've listened to that minister speak for about the last four years and there is one thing he keeps repeating. He gives us a lecture every year, every session, on the fact that government's responsibility is not to create jobs, and we're told that constantly. Well, of course, that is one of the basic differences between that side of the House and this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, because we feel it is government's responsibility, particularly in a time of recession, to do something in the area of employment. Now that minister actually says, "We leave it up to private enterprise," and he's been saying that for four years — and so is his Premier and so have most of the Socred cabinet ministers. But what we have to do is look at the result of that philosophy during the last four years.

Mr. Speaker, I think we all know that when it comes to job creation under the Social Credit government, we have had one of the highest unemployment rates ever in the history of this province under that government. It's all right to throw figures across the floor — this year is showing a very slight decrease. The point is that that government, because of their philosophy of non-government intervention in the economy, have sat back for four years and allowed the unemployment figure of this province to increase. Yet there is no hope for the people as long as this government is in and as long as that minister speaks for his party when he says: "It's not up to us to create jobs." It doesn't give much hope to the unemployed of this province, Mr. Speaker.

When he said, "Look at the areas we're going to create jobs in," it was interesting that all he could refer to were possible projects which might come — the building of bridges and so on, none of which is here right now, none of which.... Mr. Speaker, you're there, but that bridge may never be built and what will happen to you? Anyway, the point is the bridge isn't there now, and what does that do for the unemployed here today, and how many will it actually employ?

Then I listened to the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman). I found his speech most interesting because he made a point this afternoon — well, I'm not sure if it was this afternoon, but whenever — that under his government the total tax load in British Columbia borne by the people of British Columbia has fallen sharply since Social Credit came in. Now I'm sure that the members on this side of the House could disprove that completely, but there is one particular area that I found most interesting. He backed up his contention that under the Social Credit government the tax load had fallen sharply. Do you know how he backed it up, Mr. Speaker? He referred to the removal of the succession duty taxes. I found that most interesting because that pretty well tells us where the Social Credit members really believe tax loads should be eased — on the people who have the most money in this province.

[ Page 1545 ]

His main concern was the fact that he dropped the tax load by reducing succession duty. How does that help the people on welfare, Mr. Premier? How does the removal of the succession duty tax help the people on fixed incomes? So I really found the points made by that member for Vancouver South most interesting because they show a complete lack of understanding of where the tax load should really be dropped.

Then that member for Vancouver South also — and I'm paraphrasing, Mr. Member — stated that he was very happy about the economic strategy of his government. He said that there was "a positive and optimistic economic strategy developed for this province by his government." Do you know what he said to back that up? He said: "You know, the strategy is.... " We were all waiting with bated breath to find out what this economic strategy of the Social Credit government is, because the minister responsible, the minister of whatever he is and small business, has never told us what the economic strategy is for this province, and yet he is the minister who should know — but this member knows. Do you know what the strategy is? "There are excellent times ahead for this province." That is what followed after he announced to the House that his government had developed a positive and optimistic economic strategy. He said: "There are excellent times ahead for this province." I'm sure that if you run out and tell your constituents: "We've got a great economic strategy! Just stay with us — good times are coming.... " They've been waiting for that for too long, Mr. Speaker, under this government.

That minister from South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who should be in charge of economic development in this province — frankly, his speeches are an absolute disgrace to this House, but I'm not going to go into that in any further detail at this time. Not once since he's taken his feet — and he's taken his feet many times in this debate — has he talked about his department; not once has he spelled out to the people of British Columbia what is going on in his department to help small business and to help the economy of this province get moving.

I know that this minister is one of the most travelled ministers in the cabinet. It is very difficult to keep up with the Socred cabinet ministers. I'm sure they find it most difficult to have to stay in their seats now, for this session, particularly the minister from South Peace River. That minister has recently returned from China. We haven't heard one word about any negotiations with China, which at this time is very open for assistance from us and, I'm sure, also ready to make some trade arrangements with us. I happen to know this, Mr. Speaker, because I had the great fortune of visiting China myself last fall, and had an opportunity to talk with some of the politicians there. It is quite obvious that that country is very interested in trading with Canada. It was the taxpayers of British Columbia who paid for his trip to China, and I think the minister owes it to this Legislature and to the people of B.C. to tell us what came out of that trip.

That minister has been travelling all over the globe ever since he became minister, and all we've seen as a result is that there is more unemployment and that more businesses in British Columbia have gone bankrupt since the Social Credit government came into power than we've ever seen before. I want to remind the House of the figures. In 1976 there were 1,229 bankruptcies filed in the province of British Columbia — the first year after Social Credit took office. In 1977 bankruptcies rose to 1,390. In 1978 they rose to 1,717, and in 1979 to 1,813. This means an increase of almost 50 percent from the year 1976, and an increase of 5.6 percent from 1978 to 1979.

It is interesting that when the members on the other side are talking about what great things they have done for the province of British Columbia, naturally we never hear those figures. Certainly an increase in bankruptcy shows that that minister in charge of small businesses is not doing his job.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: The steam-baths? Even if he gave us a report on the steam-baths we'd be getting something, Mr. Speaker. But we get nothing from that minister from his trips; nothing at all.

I think he owes it to the province, as I said earlier. I think the people of British Columbia who take the time to read Hansard — and there are a few — I'm sure that when they read some of these speeches and see the figures that are being hurled about, they must ask the question that I ask myself: "Well, so what? What is this multibillion dollar budget really going to do for the people in my riding?" When I ask myself that question, I start looking at the areas of great concern to the people in Burnaby North, and I'm sure those areas of concern are the same as you have, Mr. Speaker, in your riding. In my riding anyway, the areas of most concern are traffic, transit, housing, cost of living, unemployment, health care, and the economy in general. I think most of us, no matter which riding we represent, would find those the major causes of concern to the people of this province.

No one expects any government to have the answers today for all these problems. But I think the thing which we on this side of the House condemn this government most for is that with this multibillion dollar budget, we find that the priorities which they have set for the spending of those moneys are not meeting the needs of the people in those vital areas of concern.

Let us look at housing. I know that every day we open the paper.... We all know the terrible situation of housing. What is this government doing about it? What is there in the budget that is going to make the people of my riding feel: "Well, maybe there's going to be some help coming for me"? What about the young couples who cannot possibly afford to buy a lot in Burnaby? What about the young couples who no longer have an opportunity through some of the excellent housing schemes initiated by our former Minister of Housing? As the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) documented so well this afternoon, very specific areas of housing were created by the New Democratic Party government. Yet what has Social Credit created in the housing field since it came in? As a matter of fact, their whole approach to housing has been very negative. I haven't seen much encouragement for cooperative housing. We haven't seen any government intervention whatsoever in making Crown land in urban areas available perhaps on lease to the people of the area. There is nothing for housing, Mr. Speaker.

What about the whole area of rent control? We listened to question period earlier today, and we listened to the minister in charge, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), completely sidestep the issue. He didn't give a straight answer. I wonder what the people of my riding are going to feel — the ones who are being told that they have rent increases now. I know one case where it's gone up $150 in one jump. What is this government doing about it? Well, of course, when you have a philosophy, which the Social

[ Page 1546 ]

Credit Party has, that the government must not interfere in the economy, I guess we have to just accept the fact that the people of this province will have to continue, perhaps, to live without shelter until this government can be thrown out.

Housing is, of course, one of the most serious problems we face. And I think that on this side of the House we have shown by concrete action through our Housing ministry, when we were in government, that government can do something about the housing situation through co-op housing, through actual construction of housing for people, and through making lease land available. But we don't see any of this being done by the government which is now, unfortunately, the government of this province.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Oh, yes, I expected somebody from the other side to say: "Oh, government ownership." You know, I sat through so many debates in this House in which, whenever anyone stood on their feet on this side of the House and suggested that perhaps it would be a good idea to provide lease land, we heard from the other side: "Oh, that's socialism. Everyone in our province wants to own his own land." I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, if the people today who have no place to live and who are perhaps going to have to live in tents this summer had a choice between leasing land and no land at all, they'd take lease land. But this government's not going to give them the opportunity. So when these people are suffering this summer, I hope they'll go and explain to them that that isn't their policy, that they believe in non-intervention in housing, that they believe in leaving it up to private enterprise. And we know that at the moment private enterprise is not involved in apartment building, because the federal laws which were changed do not encourage the building of apartments. All right, what's this government doing about it? Are they bringing this to the attention of Ottawa? We don't get any reports of this in this House.

The whole matter of fuel and energy costs, we all know, is a very complicated matter today, and the thing which concerns me is that the people of my riding and the people of British Columbia are just sitting back waiting and hoping that the B.C. government will be able to represent them well when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) meets with the new federal minister. But do you know what I find very discouraging, Mr. Speaker? The Minister of Energy has gone off, I believe, for his meeting; but at no time has he discussed it with the members of the opposition, or made any speeches to the people of B.C. on what he's hoping to accomplish or what his plans are to help bring to the people of B.C. the very best possible arrangement we can have, so that the people of B.C. will perhaps be able to have some relief with their fuel costs, and, I want to say, at the same time recognize that we are all Canadians and that there must be an equitable sharing to assist the provinces that do not have the same fuel resource opportunities that we have.

All I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that I know it's complicated, and I know it's very important for the federal and provincial governments to share, but why can't — just for once — one of the government ministers in charge, before he goes on a trip to Ottawa, call in a House committee and discuss it with our energy critics, and see if we can work together on something as important as this? But we can't expect it from the Social Credit government, because their history of involving the opposition is shameful.

At least when the New Democratic Party was in government and we set up standing committees, they met and they travelled around this province. And there are many members over there who are now ministers who sat in on these committees — I think you yourself did, Mr. Speaker — and had the opportunity to be with the government members at that time, when we were in government, and go around the province and take part in various issues of the day, and help in developing policy.

Since this government came in, the only committee, to my knowledge, that has made an attempt to meet throughout the year has been the Crown corporations committee — and that has become an absolute joke. I was put on that committee at the last session, and I was looking forward to it. I haven't had the opportunity to attend one full meeting yet. And when the Premier of this province spoke on that bill that was setting up the Crown corporations committee, he told the province of B.C. that this was one of the greatest things his government had ever done, that finally we were going to make the Crown corporations accountable to the people — and the opposition was going to have a right to be part of it.

Mr. Speaker, we haven't sat in full meeting for almost a year now. What is more important today than discussing the direction in which B.C. Hydro is going to go? We are all concerned about that. Yet we in the opposition don't have an opportunity to take part in these important discussions, because that government does not want to include the opposition in anything except maybe the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills and the committee on privilege. They do not want us to have an opportunity to get in on some of the very basic policy discussions which are taking place.

When the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) spoke on the matter — which will be coming up later, I know — of select standing committees, I thought he made a very good point when he pointed out the difference from the Conservative province of Ontario where you actually find some committees have a majority of opposition members. Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker? Here committees do not even meet, so we have a long way to go with what I call involvement of the opposition with that government.

I hope that when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) returns, he will make a statement to the House and fill us in on this most important matter which we all face. So as far as fuel costs go, we are all just waiting and hoping that some arrangement can be worked out between the federal and provincial governments that perhaps may ease the problem of increased fuel costs for the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the other area which, of course, I have looked over in the budget, and which affects the people in my riding.... I have mentioned housing; I have mentioned rent. I would like to move now, very briefly, to the problem of education and education taxation. I want simply to say that we have looked over the budget — we'll have time to go into it in detail during the estimates — and I find it somewhat shocking, as I'm sure you know I would, Mr. Speaker, that the independent schools of this province are getting almost a 13 percent increase, and the public schools just barely 7 percent. I know that the independent school people will say right away: "Well, that's because that's based on a certain formula." They get 30 percent of the average per student cost. The point I want to make here — and the point I made

[ Page 1547 ]

when this first became policy in this province — is that from the time the independent school question was brought into this House we have seen a decrease in the share which this government is putting into public schools in this province. This was predicted. There will be more to say about that at a later time, in the estimates.

As far as the people in my own riding are concerned, all they see is an increase in their school taxes, and they see the provincial government putting in less money every year. As a matter of fact, I think we are all aware that from the time the Social Credit government took office, their share of school taxation has dropped and local taxation has increased. Yet on the other side of the House we hear what great help that government has been to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

I want to protest something now. That is the fact that I understand the municipalities of B.C. have been told to include in their tax notices a statement to the effect, in essence, that their provincial government is so great because they've given this increased money from revenue-sharing. They've been told to put that in their tax notices. I say if they're telling the municipalities to place that in their tax notices, the municipalities have a right to state how much the provincial school tax has increased and how much this government has dropped its share. This government, when it comes to PR, is something else. But when they start telling the municipalities what they are to put on their tax notices, I think we had better start looking at what kind of autocratic government we have over there running the affairs of this province.

I want to move on to more costs, the costs to people. I left energy but I want to get back to just one point. You know, Mr. Speaker, no one condones anyone being corrupt or stealing or committing a crime. This latest press release from B.C. Hydro, which came out on March 13, pointed out that heavy fines are being levied on persons convicted under the Criminal Code of theft of electricity from B.C. Hydro. It goes on to list the number of people who have recently been fined who have attempted to bypass or cut in on the Hydro power lines illegally. I know it's illegal and I don't condone it, but this press release is almost symptomatic of the whole sickness that we're coming to in this province. People are becoming desperate. Desperation should not lead to crime, but it does make one wonder about how the lack of looking after the people of this province in the areas of the people who have the greatest need — people on fixed incomes, people receiving Human Resources assistance and senior citizens.... Because this government hasn't come to grips with their needs, there are some very sad things happening.

Someone said to me the other day: "You know, when you think about it, this housing situation is so bad in British Columbia that the average young couple today cannot afford to have a child." Fifteen or twenty years ago a couple would get married, they'd work towards getting their home, and then four or five years later they would plan to have a child. But how could a young couple today possibly buy a home unless two are working, and even then it's getting harder and harder? And then, if two are working and one decides — I guess it would have to be the woman! — to stay home and have the child, how on earth are they going to make the payments?

So the point I'm making is that because this government really hasn't come to grips with these really serious problems, our whole society is beginning to take on an aura of.... I won't say it's a sickness, but it is changing the fabric of our society, it is changing lifestyles, and I think that is very, very sad. I think this government cannot be held responsible for all the changes in lifestyle and, perhaps, sicknesses and crime, but let's face it, they don't give any hope that they even understand that they have the responsibility to do something about it; we don't see that anywhere.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

On food, Mr. Speaker, the food prices are jumping higher every day. Even though salaries are going up for most of us, we have to remember the people on fixed incomes, the senior citizens and, again, the people on welfare. How are they surviving in the light of this constant increase in the cost of food? Then I think back to that Minister of Agriculture's committee that was set up. How many millions of dollars? I can't recall at this time — over $3 million. What did the people of British Columbia get out of that committee? I thought the committee was set up for the people of B.C. What did they get out of it? It cost $3 million for a committee to travel around this province. Have we seen any results? Can that Minister of Agriculture name me one concrete result that came out of that $3 million expenditure?

MR. COCKE: Nothing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) will please come to order.

MRS. DAILLY: The point I'm making here is that even if out of that committee had come a real condemnation of price-gouging and the ripoff of prices in British Columbia, even that, as a hard statement....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, there were some facts. All right, you had some facts about it....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Agriculture will please come to order. This is the second asking.

MRS. DAILLY: The Minister of Agriculture says I didn't read the report. I know there were some specific facts about it in the report, but the point I'm making is: what did you do about it after you got the facts?

AN HON. MEMBER: He said he didn't read the report.

MRS. DAILLY: Oh, he said he didn't read it. That might be understandable.

Mr. Speaker, why can't we at least have some kind of food commission in this province that can be a watchdog over this ripoff of prices in the province of British Columbia? I'm not saying they're going to be immediately able to cut down prices, but when I look at articles such as Nicole Parton puts in the Sun, articles which are very well researched, well studied articles in which she outlines, almost every second day, how the people of B.C. are being ripped off in food stores and in other areas.... We see the prices of sugar,

[ Page 1548 ]

for example, and she documents in a recent article how she travelled around from store to store and found the prices varied completely — I don't know, maybe they were 10 cents different from one store to another for the same quantity of food, Mr. Speaker. We see that every day; any of us who travel around and do any shopping would know that. You wonder what's going on when you can go into one Safeway in one part of Vancouver and you find the prices maybe 10 cents or 15 cents cheaper than in another.

The point I'm making here is that we know that's being done. Why does this government not at least set up a watching food commission where they can call these people in and ask them to explain and rationalize before the public of B.C. why their costs all vary? At least you would put a real microscope, I hope, on those food stores in this province; you bring them before you, bring them before a committee. If the minister doesn't want to involve the opposition, we expect that, but at least he could set it up and use the Consumers' Association of B.C., use some of those people, to assist him in bringing forward these stores to explain the difference in their prices. At the moment there's no control.

I'm sure if you went to other countries in Europe and so on they would be astonished at the fact that there's no control over this in this province. But, of course, if this government believes in this so-called hands-off, no-government intervention policy, we really can't expect them to be willing to set up such a food commission. But once again I throw this out to this government, and I know many other members have spoken on this before.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: We've had food commissions, perhaps, Mr. Minister, but I'm talking about one that you put some teeth into — a very responsible food commission. You know, the Minister of Agriculture has one of the most important jobs in this province. I really believe he could do something about food prices, but he hasn't done anything. Now, Mr. Minister, I said you had an important job, but I didn't say you were doing it well. I'm just hoping that in time you will.

MR. SPEAKER: Please address the Chair, hon. member.

MRS. DAILLY: I've mentioned my concern over food costs and housing. I noticed also the matter of clothing. I would hope that the sales tax can be looked at very carefully, and perhaps the reduction on clothing for children could be moved up to the age of 18; I think that would be well taken by many of the mothers and fathers in this province who are responsible for the buying of clothes, which is becoming more costly every day. I know this government has been petitioned to do this. When we're into the estimates on Finance we certainly hope we can get a positive answer on this from the minister.

Basically, the points I've been trying to make tonight are that as we look through this budget presented to us by the Social Credit government, large as it is — and some of the members seem to be so excited about the size of the billion dollar budget — I seriously question its priorities. One only has to go through the areas I've listed — housing, food prices, education, taxes and transit — and one realizes that all this money is not going to alleviate the people's concern in those areas.

Speaking of transit, I noticed today that it looks like there is going to be a further increase for the senior citizens. Now this government is again allowing these increases to come on those who can least pay. That is why there's no way I could support this budget.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, that thunderous applause denotes something. I'm not exactly sure what it denotes, but I thank them for it. It gives me a great feeling of comfort.

First I must say thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the excellent decorum maintained in this chamber, and how free we feel with the dignity of the Chair. Also, while I'm speaking of that, I must at the same time reflect on your deputy, who is not in the House at this moment — how when he is with us he carries on the same dignity with the same effect, and how much pleasure it gives us that you would select so good a man for that job. We indeed thank you for him.

I could not help but remark on the words of the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). It is consistent with the position of the opposition to cry crocodile tears for the poor. I tell you, they may cry tears, but we do something. Our government has always had as its first consideration the plight of the unfortunate people of this province. I should say to her, on the question of Human Resources, that that factor alone is a 17 percent increase in this budget. That's a big increase, when you're talking about a billion dollar budget. That is for the poor.

The poor will always be with us. But I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that they are not the same poor. The poor are not always the same people. We don't recognize that. We recognize people who find themselves in unfortunate circumstances through no fault of their own, and they need the help of government. Our present private enterprise system is out to help these people. We don't just cry about it; we do something about it, and always have. It has always been so.

I recall very vividly, when our government took over in 1975, I happened to be in the beautiful city of Mission and saw two cars packed up with about six people and a few children. I remarked to the garage man that it looked odd — they had mattresses and everything on the car — and asked him where they were going. He said: "I don't know." So I said to the driver: "You're moving." He said: "Yeah, we're getting out of this doggone place. I hear the Social Credit is back. There isn't much more money to be got from this province." And out they went. Now that's the established poor; they're the ones who make a living out of it. They're the few people who go in these communes. They're gone. We had dozens of them, but those are not the people we want. They can come in if they want, but we no longer support the principle of communes. They left, and that's the poor that maybe you're talking about. We're talking about the honest poor, and we work for them. I'm talking, Mr. Speaker, about the people who need help.

MR. COCKE: Hey, George, where's your Cadillac?

MR. MUSSALLEM: My friend says "Cadillac." What's wrong with a Cadillac? I myself drive a Chevrolet and I think it's an excellent car to drive, but if he likes a Cadillac, let him buy one; there is nothing wrong with that. So it's the honest poor — and I do not know why we always have to be treated to this about the poor from several members on that side. If you want to know, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 1549 ]

who looks after the poor, it is this government. We're the ones. We're the ones who stand with the people in need, and always have, and they know it.

Right after the election when we were first elected in 1975, when I took my office, I had continual complaints regarding human resources. People were crying in need of more money, more help, but do you know that lately — and I have a great rapport with the people of my constituency — there are practically no complaints, practically none? I think that's to the credit of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) — a great system and a job being well done. We do not need any of these crocodile tears. We're out to help the poor, to build up the poor so they shall be poor no longer; that's the system we've got.

The hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) drags up the old adage — "the ripoff in the stores." There is no ripoff in the stores. What we've got to do is not talk about ripoff but educate the buyers and the shoppers to buy properly and not blame the stores for everything. I recall only last week I went to a major department store about five blocks from here to buy a dozen eggs and I walked into the store and I couldn't find the price of those eggs. I looked everywhere — not the large, not the extra large, not the fancy, just medium-sized eggs. I wanted to find the price but couldn't find it anywhere. I asked the lady who was putting stuff in the shelves: "What is the price of these eggs?" "I don't know," she said. "Ask that boy; he knows." I asked a boy who was also putting things away; nobody knew the price of eggs. A lady came and put a dozen eggs into her shopping cart: "Oh," I said, "madam, do you know the price of these eggs?" "No," she said, "who cares?" Well, that's the spirit that fuels inflation. That's the inflation syndrome. That is what we must get across to our people. Our members should fight the high prices, not accept them. We accept prices. We're too ready to spend money foolishly.

I'll go on with this another time. A very important point has been brought to me here and I shall use it in a few minutes.

Another thing that bothers me tremendously, not only in Victoria but in Dewdney and in Surrey, is that this opposition, every time there's a budget debate, will come up and say: "There's a shortage of beds. You can't get the sick into hospitals." What drivel!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a lie, George.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Well, I won't say it's a lie — I won't use that word. That is not correct. But they know there is no shortage of beds. This is the parlance used by doctors. If the doctor is not ready to operate he always says: "I'll call you in when I get a bed." It doesn't mean that there is a shortage of beds — never did. There is no shortage of beds.

In this great city of Victoria there is a special problem. It's not the fault of the NDP this time. But for 15 years....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let us please hear the member who has the floor.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I sincerely believe that doctors are hitting somewhere and we're feeling it. But when I tell them that Victoria has a special problem, they don't want to hear the story. The hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) said there was a shortage of beds, but he didn't tell you that for 15 years the Greater Victoria Hospital Association could not agree where a hospital should go. They couldn't agree on hospital construction. All through the time of the NDP, what did they do with hospitals? What did the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) say, the former Minister of Health, who is heckling away about hospitals? What did he do? Nothing. He called Mr. Foulkes to make a report. Isn't that right? Mr. Foulkes took no action, none whatever. Oh, I'll say this for the honourable opposition: they are great for plans, they're great for ideas, but they never do anything. That's the ultimate difference between the free enterprise, Social Credit government and the socialists. Wherever socialism has touched, it has destroyed. The heavy hand of socialism is a destroyer. It is regrettable that our people do not see it.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Oh, they are seeing it gradually. But for everybody looking for a Valhalla, for a free lunch, there is no free lunch. We have to work for what we get, and you've got to work to develop your business and your country. Nothing is free.

The hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) said there were no beds, and he said — let me quote from Hansard what he said: "If a patient goes to a doctor and is diagnosed to have some physical complaint that is classified as urgent, it is likely that the person would have to wait between two and three months to get into hospital to get a hospital bed."

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: This is true, my friend. Well, I can't use the words I want to use here. I can't use the word "prevarication"; it's unparliamentary. But I'm telling you, if I could use it I would, because it is definitely not true. There is no one that needs an operation — no urgent need — no one that needs to be in a hospital that can't be brought in there tonight or tomorrow morning. I checked with the hospital, and no one is refused if they need a bed. He says that they have to wait three months to get into hospital for an urgent operation. That's not true. Why can't we at least be honest with our hospitals? Why can't we be honest with this great hospital system of ours?

The only government that ever did anything with the hospital system was the Social Credit government. For three years the present opposition was government, and they brought out one report by Mr. Foulkes. What did Mr. Foulkes say? "Scrap the whole works and start over again. The report cost half a million dollars." That's what the former Minister of Health from their government said. "Scrap the system." Well, that's ridiculous. It's the finest hospital system in — I don't know about the world — certainly North America. We brought in extended care, and intermediate care was just brought in by this government — the full coverage. And now dental care is coming — the full gamut of health care. It's by this government, not by the schemers and not by the idea people, but by us, the practical workers. We are the government that brings forth the ideas that need to develop into things for people. We do things for people. We go on.

I should, in the first part of my speech, deal with the opposition a little bit. I shouldn't waste too much time on

[ Page 1550 ]

them, but I must do some. The hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) opposes site C in the Hydro system. He also opposes the Cheekye-Dunsmuir connection to Vancouver Island. Does he know that if that line to the Island is not built, the Island will be in a brownout within one or two years? It'll be in a brownout anyway in two years. Now I wonder why they say things like this when we can get hydroelectric power, which is non-polluting, which creates energy from the sun. Why are they saying this thing? I'll tell you who went through the same process: the states of Oregon, Washington and California went through this same process, with no development of hydroelectric power. What happened there? They're building nuclear power. Now I wonder why he would say that. Who was proposing nuclear power on that side?

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Right there. Nuclear power. And they tried to pin that on us. I tell you, and I tell you clearly, this government will never need nuclear power, has decried nuclear power. We've never supported it like that side and we never will. We must have hydroelectric power, we must have site C, there must be new dams built, there must be power for the people of British Columbia — there must be, because British Columbia must grow and prosper, and hydroelectric power is the finest power that we can get.

These doom-sayers over there, doom and gloom — with a budget like we have today, a budget of $5.5 billion which will catapult British Columbia into the eighties — say: "Why didn't you reduce taxes?" We have reduced taxes by $54 million. But before you get major reduction we must build the plateau that will create the business for British Columbia that will put us into the eighties. That's the difference. We can't stand down in the dumps; we must build a plateau.

Now I'll tell you something about plateaus and dumps. I'll just show you. Bring me that card. This is very important. Move it over here, will you? Mr. Speaker, you may be able to see this, I hope.

The NDP took power in 1972; now this is the real gross provincial product in 1971 constant dollars percentage increase. May I tell them who it is by? The source was the central statistics bureau of the Ministry of Economic Development of the federal government. I want them to know where this came from.

They took over here in 1972. Do you see that black line there? That's when we left. And we had such an emphasis on the economy, look what happened in 1973. In this period Mr. Barrett said on record, not from my saying: "Yes, that's right. The coffers are full. Yes, there's a lot of money in there." Yes, he said that. "Oh," he said, "I wouldn't have believed it. I didn't believe it when I was in opposition, but now, yes, the old man is right." He said "the old man" — Mr. W.A.C. Bennett, the Premier of the day — not in a derogatory fashion, but he was often referred to as such, as you know, and with much respect. But the Premier was right — there was money in there. He was surprised. The economy was sliding up; you couldn't stop it, because the impetus was on. That's what happens. It was like we have today — a live, vibrant economy, the same thing. But you can only give the thing a shove; it doesn't stay pushed unless something keeps the fuel going.

Now what happened in 1973? What happened? Down it went, the gross provincial product. Where did it go? Through the basement. In nuclear parlance they refer to that as "the China syndrome." It goes through the basement to China; that's what it means. They wondered where they were, and what happened at this time. I'll tell you what happened, Mr. Speaker. Simply this: every major union was on strike and the country had practically come to a grinding halt. Well, it had to. They were in the basement and there was no other way. And what did the hon. Premier of that day do, the Premier who is now Leader of the Opposition, the Premier who got chased out of Coquitlam, the Leader of the Opposition who couldn't find a seat, couldn't win an election in a reasonable seat? He had to be taken to a safe seat; he had to buy a seat for $80,000. That's the leader who proposes to stand in this House and tell us how to run this country. God help the day!

I hope the people of British Columbia realize the danger that can ensue if that party ever again gains power. That's the danger in British Columbia: we're too polarized. But for the sake of this province, for the sake of the future, for the sake of our families, for the sake of the people, get rid of socialism. It's deadly! They talk about business acumen; they talk about management. Whammo! Up goes the impetus of our government down the slide to the China syndrome. Those are factual figures. You can get this chart; you have it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give it to them.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I'll table it. I have many charts. This is a blowup of a small chart.

From here on you'll see that our government takes over. But it's a steady, difficult rise, because you're in the basement. We clambered out in a very short time, and here we are riding high again. It's the impetus of this year, 1972, again that's carrying us onward. But we must continue the impetus, and that's what has happened with this budget we have today. It's a large budget. It's a budget that raises us to a new plateau in British Columbia.

Great things will happen because we have the wherewithal, the acumen, the intelligence and the direction. We've shown, through the throne speech, the direction. We have industry all over the place. Do you know that 2,000 acres of property was opened near the north end of the Port Mann Bridge, and do you know that that was all sold to industry within six months? British Columbia's future has arrived. Industry sees security. We are on the march and this government is on the march, because they have planned, because they have purpose and, above all, integrity. That's what leads us.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to speak more about some really important things, but I don't want to break my speech in the middle. So, with your permission, may I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Mair tabled the report of the Alcohol and Drug Commission for the year ended June 1979.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I notice that we have the adjourned debate on the motion concerning the committee system. If the House feels we can dispose of this by 11 o'clock, we'd be quite prepared to call it now.

MR. SPEAKER: This is the adjourned debate on the

[ Page 1551 ]

motion that the report of the committee of selection presented March 18, 1980, be adopted.

MR. HYNDMAN: Just to recap the position of the government on the composition of the committees as recommended, these are a reasonable ratio of numbers. They are not a recommendation of lopsided numbers, as some would infer. The member for Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) quite correctly has pointed out that the numbers proposed in this motion conform precisely to those proposed, adopted and acted upon at the session of last summer. The proposal before you is sensible and fair, particularly after allowing for a chairman who is normally impartial, and a secretary as an administrative officer. The then working members of the committee are very near the kind of ratio which the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) suggests is appropriate.

There has been some talk of precedent. We have been cited the case in Ontario as an example. Of course, Ontario is a minority House, in which the government holds 58 of 125 seats. There is a far more appropriate precedent in Canada, if one wishes to look at what, as a matter of current precedent, should be a fair and balanced ratio, and that is the province of New Brunswick, currently headed by a Conservative government. But the ratio of government seats to opposition seats is 30 to 28 — similar to this House, but closer. May I add, Mr. Speaker, a pairing system is in effect in New Brunswick. In New Brunswick, where they take their politics pretty seriously, we have a ratio of 30 to 28 and a pairing system. And what are their committee ratios? There are two sizes of committees in New Brunswick, a small committee and a large committee. The ratios are 7 to 5 on the small committee and 11 to 8 on the large committee. So if we want to talk about precedent in this country, Ontario with its minority government and no pairing is a poor example; but New Brunswick, I suggest, is a fair example. In New Brunswick, in a House with a closer balance than this of 30 to 28, with a pairing system of 7 to 5 on small committees and 11 to 8 on large committees, there is a useful precedent to which the numbers in this motion accord.

In sitting down, may I adopt the words of the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who said: "Some regard should be had to the will of the people." We join in that view. The will of the people in this province has been expressed. It is that this government has a working majority; and it is that the committees of this House should get to work soon. That may mean working concurrently. If the will of the people is that these committees get to work and, with the number of committees, must work concurrently, it's clear that some ministers who are members of several committees cannot be in all places at once. If it's the will of the opposition to deny a pairing arrangement, I think the opposition must live with the consequences of that, one of which is that if the committees are to work and to work concurrently, these ratios are fair. So as a matter of precedent set last summer and as a matter of precedent in a place like New Brunswick, the ratios proposed are sensible and fair and deserve the support of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for New Westminster.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Bring back Rae Eddie.

MR. COCKE: Quite right. Rae Eddie was much more a gentleman than I am.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. We're on the motion.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on the motion. The composition and the reasonable ratio argument is obviously a mistake of the previous speaker, or he doesn't understand 31 to 26 vis-à-vis 8 to 5 and 7 to 4, because it just doesn't work out. As far as the chairman and his voting capacity go, the chairman has two votes in our committee, has the casting vote, and the nonsense about the secretary that has been stated by two members opposite is just so much nonsense, because the secretary in any committee on which I have ever sat has voted and I'm sure will vote in the future.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We're on the motion.

MR. COCKE: That poor dull minister can think of nothing more than that kind of retort in this particular debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On the motion, please.

MR. COCKE: Incidentally, to compare Ontario and their minority situation with New Brunswick and their majority situation is absolutely ridiculous. Ontario for years has followed the rule that you reflect the numbers in the House. It so happens they now have a minority situation but there have been times when they had a close majority situation and they also reflected the numbers in the House.

One other thing the member spoke of was the working committees of our House. We saw in the past parliament, and we have seen since this group have been government, just how hard those committees work. Even the Crown corporations committee that was to meet between sessions has not worked, let alone.... I'm sure the chairman got his pay looked after nicely, but other than that, the committee has not worked.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Yes, he did. Mr. Speaker, the committees have not worked.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Only that committee, the statutes.... That wasn't even a standing committee of this House, Mr. Minister. But in any event they have not worked, and I would suggest to you that it's about time that they do start working and that they start reflecting the numbers in this House. The House Leader is very, very impatient; but I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we're quite on the right track on this side in asking for those committees to reflect the numbers in this House, which they do not now do.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, earlier in the debate this evening the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) made some comments in his dissertation which were not untypical of his approach to debate, but

[ Page 1552 ]

they were an embarrassment to him and offensive to me. I would ask him to withdraw, please.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is at a loss to know what the member is being asked to withdraw, and we first have to determine whether or not it was unparliamentary. Would the hon. minister please identify the offensive remark?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On page 615-2 of the Blues, as just handed Mr. Howard, it says: "Well, Mr. Speaker, in any event, I wouldn't seek to compete with the hon. Minister of Tourism when it comes to unseemly conduct."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we would be establishing a strange precedent to try to determine an unparliamentary remark out of the phrase just cited. However, I would suggest that in the typically good humour of this House, perhaps the hon. member for Skeena would withdraw any imputation of wrongdoing from the member. Does the member withdraw?

MR. HOWARD: The word used was "unseemly comments," not "conduct," but there was no desire to impute anything whatever to the hon. minister.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong again. I have the Blues, and the word is "conduct."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the matter is concluded. The statement is withdrawn.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: May we proceed?

HON. MR. GARDOM: With a little bit of luck, I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:03 p.m.