[ Page 1605 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget debate.

Mr. Brummet –– 1605

Mr. Barber –– 1605

Mr. Kempf –– 1611

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 1613

Mr. D'Arcy –– 1617

THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 1980

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In the gallery tonight is Mr. Tothill, the leader of the Liberal Party in British Columbia. I ask the House to bid him welcome.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Also in the gallery this evening is someone who has had close contact with British Columbia over a number of years, Mr. Jacques Mignon, vice-president of the Banque Credit Commerciale de France of Paris. He is accompanied by my wife this evening. Would the House make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. BRUMMET: This afternoon before we adjourned the debate, I had attempted to make the point that this budget was not a fluke. It was a result of very careful and deliberate planning. It got to this point by encouraging industry and providing incentives to that industry. Since 1976 we had cleaned up the mess, and we were reaping the results. I think it was pointed out that we did have a definite long-range plan, and that plan also included the need to make some unpopular moves in the early part of this government's taking over again. If necessary, some unpopular measures had to be taken to straighten out the economic mess which we inherited. I said, and I think it bears repeating, that it took courage, planning and faith. This budget is an example of what happens when you have that kind of planning and that kind of faith. That faith is contagious, in that industry picked up that faith, and they have certainly rewarded us with the revenues which have made it possible to provide extra services to the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker, it is a well-known fact that the socialists made some gains in the 1979 election based exactly on our successes. They capitalized on the hard measures we had to take, because they kept telling the people that if they had been there they would have just been giving it and would not have taken any hard measures. Well, we saw what happened in three years of giving and not planning for revenues to keep coming in. You cannot increase services and keep them coming if you do not have an assured revenue. That revenue is not created by government; it is produced by industry, by the people, by the jobs created out there — by the taxes that then result.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I suspect that this government could probably have picked up more seats in the '79 election had they been willing to take the irresponsible action that was pushed at us — that we were supposed to be stampeded into. It took time and effort, and it would have been irresponsible to take quick advantage of the restored economic situation. Now, once again, they are trying to use the success in this province against this government.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please, hon. members. Would the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) please come to order. Hon. members, may I remind you that dinner hour is over. We are in the budget debate.

MR. BRUMMET: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I note that Chief Walking Eagle is back and has certainly set a different tone than was in this House this afternoon.

I would like to conclude with the following statements. The government cannot create revenue; it can only stimulate an economy which can. Socialism cannot do that. The very principles of socialism dictate against that, because excessive government control inhibits development. Incentives by government to others encourage industrial development...

AN HON. MEMBER: Read us some more.

MR. BRUMMET: Well, at least I wrote my own.

...and that produces revenue, which produces services. That's where government fits in: in providing services to people.

This afternoon I was referring to a Canadian company, Canadian Hunter, which, for a half-million-dollar lease purchase, was planning to spend $27 million in the Nechako area and has spent $145 million in the last five years in northeastern British Columbia. Tonight I am pleased to announce a significant discovery that they have made. Some of you may have heard of the deep-basin theory which was advanced by John Masters of Canadian Hunter in 1978.

AN HON. MEMBER: They wouldn't know.

MR. BRUMMET: That's development, so perhaps they wouldn't understand it. Nevertheless, that deep-basin theory implied that there would be a saucer-like layer under northeastern British Columbia, with the shallow end at Fort Nelson at around 5,000 to 7,000 feet, and up to 18,000 feet below Fort St. John and Dawson Creek. By seismic exploration they have established that that layer extends into that area. It is significant that they have now confirmed that theory by discovering at the south end, south of Dawson Creek, at about the 8,000-foot level, one of the most significant gas finds in British Columbia history. Mr. Speaker, under socialism that could never have happened.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce Mr. Ian Mott and Miss Marlene Nelson, who were at the Empress earlier, with the Automotive Retailers Association. They are from Surrey and they have just entered the buildings to watch democracy in action. I would ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to talk tonight, if I may, initially in a detailed way relating to some issues, as reflected in the budget proposals and the budget speech, that concern people in my own riding. I'd then like, if I may, more generally to talk about and make certain proposals regarding the problem of high interest rates and the problem of housing in British Columbia. Let me say now that a number of the proposals that I wish to put forward tonight are very much my own. I don't purport that they represent caucus or party policy. They are my own, for what they're worth, and they stand or fail on that ground. They do not necessarily represent party policy.

[ Page 1606 ]

I think it's fair to observe that this budget has some good features. Some of them, I suppose, derive from experience. Some of them derive from desperation. Some of them come from I'm not quite sure where — I trust, an imaginative member of the cabinet or of the public service.

The aspects of the policies represented in this budget speech which I find most supportable, personally, are those features concerning the public management of the most important public resource in British Columbia, which, of course, is the forests. Whoever deserves credit for them — and I'll get to that in a moment — nonetheless we've reached in 1980 an important acknowledgement, I think, on the part of almost every citizen in British Columbia: that forestry is principally, and if we manage it correctly, enduringly, the most important source of revenue to all of the people of British Columbia.

It is, I think, a lucky thing that 70 years ago a significant political debate was won in this province by those who then recognized and fought for the principle that the resources in the forest belong to all of the people. The battle over the public ownership, the public right, the common benefit that should derive from the forests, was won more than half a century ago by people who acknowledged then and had the foresight to view where we might be now, that if those resources were in private and not public hands, the opportunity for all of the people to benefit from them would be severely limited. So credit should now be given, one can observe, to those who fought years ago, and fought very, very hard to establish the principle which now virtually every British Columbian acknowledges, that the resources of the forest belong to all of us and not just a few. So when one stands up in the opposition and congratulates the government for certain measures in the budget, one has to acknowledge how it is that the government has any say in the matter at all, and it is because people who died more years ago than I am old fought a significant political battle and won. We first of all owe them that.

I think these good features in the budget also derive from the work of a man whom I personally admire a very great deal, because the man possesses, I think, an absolutely first-rate intelligence. I know there are those who might not be comfortable with some of the personal aspects: those who never got along with him in a social situation. Nonetheless, the people of British Columbia were lucky to have, for three and a half years, one of the brightest, one of the most authentically intelligent persons who ever served in public life. Like those other pioneers, he too deserves credit for bringing us to the place where we are tonight — that both sides of the House can agree, at least in some measure, on recognition of the important principle of good management of the public ownership of the forest resources. The guy who also deserves credit is Bob Williams.

Regardless of all the controversies that swirled about him, even his most bitter and relentless personal critics will acknowledge, at least in private, that the man is phenomenally bright, alert, quick and intellectually more than capable of doing what he did, which was to initiate....

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. There are still several members who have the opportunity to speak in the budget debate, and I would trust that each would take his opportunity in his turn. The standing order provides that we speak one at a time. Need I remind you again?

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In acknowledging those features of the budget which I personally support, I want to pay credit to the people who are responsible for bringing the level of policy here tonight over a period of many years prior to this evening. Bob Williams deserves credit for that.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) will please come to order.

MR. BARBER: So also does a gentleman, again the rigour of whose intellect and the certainty of whose scientific inquiry deserve tremendous respect, I think, from both sides of the House. I am referring, of course, to Dr. Peter Pearse.

I'm not competent to comment on Gordon Sloan; I didn't know the man. I can't comment on his work. No doubt those two royal commissions for which he is responsible also contributed germinally to the development of competent forest management policy in British Columbia. It's important, though, to observe that New Democrats at least — and others, I trust — are willing to give credit to a man who ran for the Liberals, because most people should acknowledge that when a mind as valuable, interesting and imaginative as that of Dr. Pearse sets to work, the results are surely worth some study. I think another of the reasons why the public debate on forest policy has now reached the relatively mature level it has is also to the credit of Dr. Peter Pearse and the royal commission which he headed. That's important.

Credit is also due to the current Minister of Forests. I'm glad you can agree with some of the credit being due. Regardless of criticisms one might have about aspects of his policy, nonetheless there are represented in this budget speech, I think, certain valuable new objectives for all the people of British Columbia. The man responsible, together with his deputy, Mr. Apsey, deserves credit; and I for one am happy to give it to him. He has achieved this tonight. We will have specific criticisms; they won't be raised in detail tonight, but they will be raised during the estimates of the Minister of Forests. Nonetheless, if credit is due to the guys who fought 60 and 70 years ago to establish public ownership of the forests — and won; if credit is due to the two Sloan reports; if credit is due to, I think, one of the most extraordinary Ministers of Lands and Forests this province has ever had, in simple intellectual terms — Bob Williams — and to Dr. Peter Pearse, it's also due to the current minister (Hon. Mr. Waterland). To be fair, it is. Those aspects of the budget are, I think, worth reasonable and significant study by all of the people of British Columbia. They are far more profoundly influential than any other aspect of the budget. In regard to the long term, the environmentally sensitive, the economically necessary public management of this commonly owned resource, those aspects of the budget speech concerning forest policy are probably the very most important of them all. There is no other aspect that touches so many lives and that describes in such an important way the fundamental

[ Page 1607 ]

engine of the British Columbia economy, which is forestry. Having said that on that aspect, I want to discuss briefly a couple of local concerns as a member of the Legislature for Victoria city.

The budget provides a $300,000 operating grant for the Vancouver Convention Centre; this is a good thing. I wonder if the members opposite are aware of how much is provided by way of an operating grant for the Victoria Convention Centre — not $300,000, nor $30,000 nor even $3,000, but precisely nothing. I think this is an unfair double standard. I freely acknowledge that the centre in Vancouver is larger and located in a larger metropolitan area. I freely acknowledge that the capital costs involved are more considerable and therefore with the expanded size of the facility the operating costs will also be greater. Nonetheless, in Victoria we have in this budget no commitment whatever — 0none, zero, zip — to share in the start-up or the ongoing operating costs of this facility. I think it's a bit of a double standard. I think it's less than fair.

If a good reply can be made, I would like to hear it from the members opposite, but I am well aware, as I'm sure they are, that the business community in Victoria, which ordinarily supports you, and not us, is also disappointed in you. The sum of $300,000 a year for the Vancouver Convention Centre in operating grants, for what I gather was to be a short-term period, with nothing whatever in Victoria, is not fair. If there is a justification I've yet to hear it from anyone opposite, and I don't expect to hear it, either. In my opinion the government must be willing to negotiate an operating agreement with those in Victoria responsible for the convention centre that includes, on the same basis as in Vancouver, a share of the initial operating costs, because they will, of course, in the first three or four years, before the centre gets fully on its feet and operational year-round, attracting all of the conventions, events and fairs it will bring to the capital city, be in somewhat difficult financial straits as far as the operating costs go. Such a formula has apparently been negotiated for Vancouver. I urge the government to recognize the necessity to negotiate a similar formula, proportionate to the size of our facility and of our community. That too would be fair.

A second local matter. It seems, I suppose, a small point, but it is a large symbol. The government has laid some claim to an enlightened taxation policy which recognizes the difference environmentally, and the difference in fuel efficiency as well, of automobiles, and would argue that on the basis of fuel efficiency certain automobiles be granted a lesser rate of sales tax than others. I don't think there's anything at all wrong with that principle. Indeed, maybe the penalty for the larger automobile should have been a great deal larger. I don't object to that principle, but the small point suggesting a large symbol I want to make is simply this — and it's more than just a personal thing. In the greater Victoria area, according to the city police force, there are some 100,000 bicycles in use. In greater Vancouver I expect the proportion is similar. In Europe — I remember discussing this with the former Attorney-General three years ago — the bicycle is acknowledged as a cheap, safe, healthy and affordable means of public transport. I would urge the government to abandon altogether the sales tax for bicycles.

Again, I realize it seems like a small point, but it stands for a larger policy, and it is this: the government must, in every way, by incentive, encourage the use of the cleanest, simplest and most energy-efficient vehicles we can find with which to transport people. For those who can use it, the plain old-fashioned bicycle is just that. It provides all of that at a very small cost for a great public benefit. Abandon the sales tax altogether for the bicycle, encourage its use thereby, and extend your own principle of recognizing a differential sales tax rate for the private automobile. Extend it logically a great deal further down the road and encourage people to use energy-efficient, cheap, healthy and safe public transport as they do in Europe and have done for 65 years in a significant way.

A third local matter. For whatever reasons, the Glenshiel Hotel has been allowed to fall into disrepair. For whatever reasons, the current administration has not invested and reinvested in the building or in the human beings who live there. It's only because of recent public protest, complaints by the fire marshal, campaigns led by the people who live there, and action taken by my colleague the other member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) that the government has now acknowledged the worth of the building and of the human beings who live within it. I think the hotel has been treated badly.

The government seems to feel, I presume for ideological reasons, that it shouldn't be in the hotel business. If that's their only objection to the Glenshiel operation, I think that's okay, because we have an alternative that satisfies them and you. The alternative is for you to sell the building for a dollar to an agency of the long-term care program of the Capital Regional District of Victoria.

If you are ideologically opposed to running a residential hotel for seniors, I'm not going to fight it. I'm only going to ask you to be consistent and to acknowledge that the human beings who live there have a right to continue to do so in some dignity, and in total safety. If for ideological reasons you cannot stomach the notion that the government runs a hotel for old folks, let's agree on that. I'll bite my tongue and say no more about your ideological hang-ups. Sell it for a buck to the long-term care program in Victoria, and they'll administer it for you. It's an important local matter, Mr. Speaker, and I regret that nothing whatever in this budget provides for the reinvestment in the heritage potential of that building, and nothing whatever in this budget acknowledges the human potential of those who live within it.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Have you been in the Glenshiel, Garde? It's a fine building. It was originally constructed as an annex to the Empress Hotel. It has architectural value, and is worth the work. If we operated on the principle this government has operated on regarding the Glenshiel, all of the heritage buildings in Victoria would have fallen down years ago. You have to reinvest, you have to commit it, and you have to be prepared to spend the money.

I regret that there is nothing in this budget to provide for a permanent vessel to replace the Princess Marguerite. The Queen of Prince Rupert, everyone acknowledges, is hopelessly inadequate by itself. The admission of that from the government is, of course, the admission that they have to supplement that service with jetfoils. On January 31 the Minister of Finance told us the Queen of Prince Rupert would be adequate; today the government admits that the Minister of Finance was dead wrong. They don't say so directly, but we know so clearly. If it were not the case, we would only have the Rupert, but the reason today we have Rupert and three jetfoils a day is because the Minister of Finance was

[ Page 1608 ]

wrong. The Rupert is not adequate; it cannot be made adequate; it will not serve by itself. I regret that there is nothing in the budget which provides a permanent replacement for one of the most important links in the whole tourist economy of the Pacific Northwest.

A fifth matter that I want to raise is of concern in my own riding but is, I think, of general application as well. There is nothing in the budget speech that deals with the fiscal relationship between this government's transit finance policies and those internal finance policies of B.C. Hydro. Peculiarly, the day of the federal election B.C. Hydro announced yet another rate increase. To suggest that Hydro did so in order to non-inform the people would, of course, be rude; to suggest they did so out of less than honourable motives would be impolite. But one can observe that of all the days in the year Hydro could possibly choose to announce a rate increase, they chose to do it on the day of the federal election when they hoped no one was looking. It was, I think, gutless and dishonest of Hydro, and the government, who have members on the board of directors representing the cabinet interest, should not have permitted it. It was a sleight-of-hand that attempted to deceive the public of British Columbia by hiding an important announcement by Hydro on the day of a general federal election. I hear no member of the government defending Hydro's policy, and, of course, they can't — it was cheap. You shouldn't have let them do it; they shouldn't have done it.

But there is a larger issue that I want to address in the budget. B.C. Hydro, at the same time they were notifying residential customers of a general increase — and I say the word "general"; this is the median increase, a 7 percent increase — and notifying those same customers that their rates would be going up in approximately five weeks from that date, also notified commercial customers that they, too, would have to pay a rate increase. However, commercial customers got a special deal from B.C. Hydro. How much notice did they have, Mr. Speaker? A year. Their rates don't go up for a whole year. Yours and mine go up within a couple of weeks because, of course, residential customers are second-class customers, as far as Hydro is concerned, and aren't worthy of the year's notice that the commercial customers got. It's a double standard and it tends once again to reinforce in the minds of the people of British Columbia that Hydro is not fundamentally committed to the ordinary consumer.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Where did you get that?

MR. BARBER: From Hydro's own statement. I'll produce it; I'll table it — Hydro's own release. Did you not see it?

However, that's not the principal concern that I chose to raise.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Have you got it?

MR. BARBER: No, I don't have it at hand. I'll get it for you. It is not the principal issue. It is the issue of the relationship of Hydro's former responsibility for transit in British Columbia and, as of April 1, its responsibility for nothing of the sort.

Hydro has, for some years, been complaining that it was unfairly burdened with the cost and the losses of transit operations in greater Vancouver and greater Victoria. This budget does nothing whatever to reflect any commitment on the part of the government that this year Hydro will not be responsible for $61 million in transit deficits. This budget says nothing whatever about a liability impressed on Hydro to either reduce its rates correspondingly or provide some additionally beneficial service. In its annual report for this year, Hydro also pointed out that because last year they lost the liability, as they saw it, of Pacific Coach Lines, they were thereby relieved of an additional $3 million a year loss. By Hydro's own calculations, therefore, as of April 1 this year they will not be liable for some $64 million in deficits directly connected to the operations of its own transit division in British Columbia. Peculiarly, Hydro has said nothing whatever, nor has the government — except for the Municipal Affairs Minister (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who is running for the leadership — to suggest that something is wrong with this situation. I recall two years ago the then Minister of Municipal Affairs implying quite clearly that when Hydro was relieved of its transit obligations the people could expect a break from Hydro because transit would be funded in another way. But what do we see this year instead, Mr. Speaker? Hydro is relieved of $61 million for its transit division, $3 million for Pacific Coach Lines — a total of $64 million — and asks for a general rate increase of 7 percent.

What's the position of the government? What's the response of the government to this action on Hydro's part? Well, again, with the exception of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who said he also thought something was wrong with it, we hear silence. I wrote a letter to the office of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and his public utilities commission asking it to be forwarded to the chairperson — I trust it will be — asking that the public utilities commission rule on whether or not it is correct, proper and fiscally necessary for Hydro to be relieved simultaneously of a $61 million obligation for transit and to demand, unchallenged by that government, a general rate increase at the same time. As far as I'm concerned, it's not….

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: I expect you to hold it until you appoint them in two years' time.

It was necessary to write there because there is no other agency you have to review the matter, and I took, at least initially, some heart in your energy policy, which is now, of course, generally the subject of much public ridicule in British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Hydro's reply to the question, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) please come to order. This is the second time I've asked him.

MR. BARBER: Hydro's reply to the question when we made public statements on the matter was to refer quite deceitfully, I think, to problems of bookkeeping, and to say that we misrepresented the case. We argue that because they saved $61 million here, it doesn't mean they saved it there.

[ Page 1609 ]

Hydro's reply to the argument has been dishonest. For them to try and persuade the people of British Columbia that they have not been relieved of a real obligation of $61 million this year is simply false. If Hydro argues that it requires the $61 million that it would otherwise have spent — if they'd been obligated in the following year it would likely have been a figure of something like $72.5 million according to the estimates — then either Hydro never needed the money or Hydro hasn't been telling the truth about its own revenue picture.

I urge the government to make some statement as to whether or not they consider it permissible that we be double-billed by Hydro in one year. A general rate increase announced the day of the federal election, and the abandonment of Hydro's responsibility for transit losses — if Hydro needs all of that money let's hear them make the whole case and not just part of it. In the absence of the whole case one can only conclude that Hydro has been less than honest with the people of British Columbia about its genuine revenue picture and expenditure obligations, because they've been telling us one story for three years now about what'll happen when they lose transit. Now that they're losing transit, they are telling us another story. It is not consistent.

I want to make a couple of general comments in conclusion. An overrun is as significant an admission of poor planning as is an underestimation of revenue. An overrun as significantly reveals poor planning as does a deficit. It is, no matter how the government cares to reply, at the very least an admission of inept forecasting. Either you poorly concluded what your revenues would be and were thereby incompetent, or your revenues were much greater than you expected by luck.

Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, the government was telling us that luck had nothing to do with it and that it was all the result of good planning and good management. Let's take them at their word and tell them once again they can't have it both ways. If it wasn't a happy accident that these additional revenues came in, then it is in fact the result of incompetent forecasting. They can't have it both ways. If they deny it's luck, then they have to admit it was bad planning. One way or the other they weren't doing their job properly. Logically, they cannot have it both ways.

Competent planning requires foresight of a special order. I want to restate the argument that one of the reasons this government enjoys the bounty which its surpluses reveal is because the previous administration had foresight of a most valuable kind. The previous administration, against vocal objections, established the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation. It was an act of the highest planning and the best foresight, because it recognized the necessity of allowing the greatest possible return of the petroleum resources to all of the people of British Columbia. If the BCPC didn't exist today, would this government invent it in order to obtain those revenues? Would they have the courage or the wit to recognize the instrumentality of that corporation and through it obtain the revenues which were previously unavailable? Well, they've never shown that kind of courage before dealing with the oil companies. We have reason to suspect they wouldn't show it today. The reason they have such a significant surplus from petroleum resources is because the administration of Mr. Barrett had the guts, the planning ability and the simple foresight to anticipate that in the world dominated by OPEC, in a world of tremendous price fluctuations, in a national economy like our own such an instrument was fundamentally necessary to protect the economic interests and obtain an economic return from that resource. If that instrument didn't exist, what would exist in its place today? What other means or what other device would have been able to obtain in a few short years the $1.5 billion revenue to the Crown?

Another example of good planning which has not been addressed in an open and fair-minded way in this budget was the good planning shown by that same administration when they assembled and added to the assets that now form BCRIC. Not only could this government not boast of its major petroleum surpluses if they didn't have the Petroleum Corporation, but they could not boast of BCRIC if they didn't have the achievements of the New Democratic government to assemble under that corporate umbrella and pretend to call their own.

The most important example of foresight was the Petroleum Corporation. The second most important example of foresight was those assets which today, in combination, form the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation. Were the budget fair-minded, I think some credit would have been given to the administration that had the foresight to take those steps.

The commitment to small business in this budget is, I think, at best trivial. My colleague from Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) pointed out that not only did we hear the promise of registered, small business, venture capital corporations in last year's budget speech, but we heard it in almost precisely the same language. I needn't read again how remarkably similar is the wording of this year's promise to that of last year's promise. But the promise remains utterly unfulfilled. Why the government has taken a whole year to do nothing more than Xerox last year's promise and put it into this year's budget speech is a great mystery. But that's what they have done, and no more. May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, it was not this government but the New Democratic government which established, through the foresight and business policies it had, the British Columbia Development Corporation. That was a good corporation. It was well managed by my colleague from Vancouver Centre. This government has at least — even though they opposed it, of course — had the common sense to keep it, although they've done nothing with it as brightly or innovatively as they could. The only commitment here of a new or interesting order to small business is plagiarized from last year's commitment. Even to the small business supporters of this administration that must be a very disappointing thing.

The final thing I want to talk about, and will do so at much greater length during the Housing estimates, is the final relationship between the problem of high interest rates and the problem of affordable housing. At greater length and in another debate I will be talking about the Briarpatch Trust. It derives from the anti-redlining movement in the United States. It has established a means whereby capital is pooled in some of the poorest economic sectors of that country and, for the purposes of rebuilding private housing stock, of making commercial loans available to businesses, of, through their own capital, obtaining resources on a scale which would otherwise be denied them individually, has had, in at least three communities, Chicago, Philadelphia and Washington, some apparent considerable success.

I want briefly to put the government on notice that a couple of us over here will be leading a debate later on about this remarkable new use of community capital to do three

[ Page 1610 ]

things simultaneously: (1) to deliberately lower the rate for private mortgages and commercial loans in those areas that involve themselves in the community foundation most frequently referred to as the Briarpatch Trust....

HON. MR. GARDOM: The what?

MR. BARBER: The Briarpatch Trust — it's a foundation in the United States of America.

Secondly, having pooled their capital, they have also, by virtue of their involvement in the anti-redlining movement of that country, been able to negotiate through the assembled powers-of-attorney with a bank, with a credit union, with a trust company, and say: "We are prepared to deposit $12 million in your institution. We will take that money from all of the other places in this neighbourhood where it currently lives, and we will put it in your institution. In return for this, we insist that the following conditions be met: (1) you will loan this amount of money in our neighbourhood for (2) these purposes; (3) you will provide us with our money at these rates of interest; (4) you will be prepared to accept this level of risk; (5) we will provide in return a commitment to invest more over a period of time, according to our contract with you, so that you understand that we are together committed to the integrity of our neighbourhood and to its financial redevelopment.

Now in the United States this approach appears to be working. It is, admittedly, only four or five years old. The credit for it is due, in Chicago, to the Industrial Areas Foundation, headed by one of the most remarkable community organizers whomever I had a chance to observe or study with. His name is Saul Alinsky — he's passed away now. But Alinsky, initially through the Back of the Yards organization, now called Industrial Areas, has created in the neighbourhoods of the decaying American cities a level of public and private commitment to reinvestment in their own housing stock, in their own enterprise, in their own industry, that is an admirable and innovative thing.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mainly private.

MR. BARBER: No, there's also public in it.

The anti-redlining movement has recognized, as this government in its budget address so far has not recognized, the interrelationship of housing and interest rates. One of the great generators of inflationary interest rates is the problem of housing on a market where it has become unaffordable, where land prices are too high, where the problems of rent, publicly or privately administered, have become so grievous that no agency, public or private, is able to deal with all its facets. One of the reasons for this failure of policy in Canada in the States is the seeming unwillingness of private capital to take a few more risks, and the total failure of public capital to cooperate through some new venture that allows people in their own neighbourhoods to reinvest. Let me illustrate very quickly with an article from the U.S. News and World Report, a journal that I ordinarily do not subscribe to. However, precisely because it's there, it is, I think, a little more credible.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The Wall Street Journal is next.

MR. BARBER: I think it's a heck of a lot more credible a journal than U.S. News and World Report. Let me illustrate with Chicago, briefly, Mr. Speaker, so that the government understands the relationship of these two issues — affordable housing and low interest rates. I quote from the U.S. News and World Report of June 9, 1975: "In Chicago a study by the Metropolitan Area Housing Alliance asserts that 41 of the city's banks, with assets of more than $41 billion during the year that ended on June 30, 1974, invested less than one tenth of 1 percent of that amount in conventional home mortgages in the city."

There's a second problem in Los Angeles, where once again private and public capital, through this new American force against redlining and in favour of private reinvestment in otherwise decaying neighbourhoods, found as follows: The National Task Force on Credit Policy found that six savings and loans associations put mortgage loans of $671 million into Los Angeles county in a five-month period that ended in May 1974. During that same time, the associations made virtually no loans in the central city, east Los Angeles and some outlying areas. They borrowed the money from depositors in those decaying neighbourhoods but they refused to return the money by way of mortgages, loans or other investment.

Now this problem is certainly more grievous in the United States, where urban decay is greater than that in our own country, fortunately, but urban decay is a reality in Vancouver. It is certainly a reality in Toronto, Montreal and Halifax as well. In this province, this government would, I think, be well advised to examine the apparent success of the anti-redlining movement in the United States, a movement which is now sponsoring legislation in four American states. I hear the former Attorney-General mentioning something about Hawaii. I wasn't familiar with that, but California, Illinois and New York now have anti-redlining legislation pending which requires private loans companies to reinvest a certain portion of the money they obtain from redlined areas back into those neighbourhoods themselves. In that country they have recognized the relationship between interest rates and the availability of private capital, much of which is generated by poor people themselves who do have some savings, and who put it into the savings and loans on the corner in downtown Los Angeles but can't get it back, for commercial venture purposes or for home-mortgage or home improvement purposes either.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: I'm not aware of the Hawaiian example but I'll start to examine it tomorrow if I can. This government, I think, has a similar opportunity, and to end this evening, although not by any means to end the debate, the British Columbia Savings and Trust Act, passed by the Barrett administration but not enacted — the government passed the bill in, I believe, June of 1975 and it was dumped in December of 1975 and there wasn't time to enact it — nonetheless created an instrument which, uniquely for British Columbia would have pooled public and private capital to break the back of the control of the great banking institutions of this country on interest rates, and having pooled public and private capital to bring down interest rates for all of us in this province, would have tied those moneys to the availability of housing where previously and presently it cannot be found. I thank you for your time, Mr. Speaker, and will refer to these policies again in the near future.

[ Page 1611 ]

MR. KEMPF: I'd just like to say before getting started that it's amazing how those members opposite, now that they're in opposition, have become instant financial wizards. It's too bad they couldn't have done that when they were the government of British Columbia.

But, Mr. Speaker, I rise, and I guess it's no surprise to anyone here tonight, to speak in favour of this budget, to speak in favour of a budget of which I believe all British Columbians can be very proud, a budget to which all British Columbians can relate, Mr. Member, excepting possibly the members opposite, the doom-and-gloomers on the other side of the floor who, it would appear from the speeches we've heard emanate from that side of the floor in the last two weeks and, in my estimation, the very stupid amendments which they have been moving, can't relate to anything at all. I was appalled and disgusted that we in this House should be wasting our time and the taxpayers' money as we have done in the last two weeks in debating these ridiculous and absurd amendments. It was a breath of fresh air, really — and I don't say this very often — to listen to the last speaker, who did, in a very small way, stay very close to the budget debate.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Jack.

MR. KEMPF: You're very welcome. Mr. Speaker, the amendments brought in by that inept bunch of socialists over there were brought in and debated because they didn't want to face the facts. They didn't want to debate this budget or the throne speech. Now that we are back to the issues of the day, their speeches reflect that. They can't logically debate the economy. Why, Mr. Speaker? They can't logically debate unemployment. They didn't want to debate the throne speech, and they didn't want to debate the budget until we on this side of the floor-regardless of what was reported in the media — forced them to call the question on the amendment. Why didn't they want to debate the budget? Because things have never been better in British Columbia, and it's abundantly evident by this budget. They know it. Those members over there know it and that's why they have difficulty in debating the issues of the day.

The economy, employment figures and the total economic outlook of this province, evident again by this budget, are second to none in North America, and they know it. Those members opposite know it, and they don't want to debate the real issues. They just can't face reality.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Member, you'll have your turn on your feet, and I'm sure Mr. Speaker will indulge you in one of your 40 minute dissertations of unreality.

So what do they do in not wanting to face reality? They brought in amendments. Disgraceful! I think it's absolutely disgraceful, and it's been a total waste of the taxpayers' money. Mr. Speaker, even the media…. To date the media have given all those lame-duck opposition over there all of the material for all of their speeches-not only for their speeches, Mr. Speaker, but for their out-of-date questions in question period. You laugh, Mr. Member, but we see it every day in this House. Even the media had to say it, and I relate — as that opposition does in practically every one of their speeches — to a news release. Here is a news release of March 19 headed: "Vancouver Housing Problem Worst in Canada." But even the media had to recognize how things are in British Columbia. They tried to be negative, but even they, in this article, had to be a bit honest. It goes on in the article to read: "Ironically, housing starts were up 208 percent in metro Vancouver in February, to 1,529 from 496 in February of 1979." We just heard from the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber). It's up 44 percent in Victoria in February — to 123 from 88 in February 1979. The article goes on to read: "In urban Canada in February housing starts were down 2 percent, to 6,003 from 6,359 in February 1979; in B.C. starts were up 144 percent, to 2,137 from 876 in February 1979." Even the media had to admit it. Mr. Speaker. Even the media can't help but print the truth sometimes.

If the media is having trouble in not putting the truth of what's happening in British Columbia, no wonder those members opposite, those socialists over there, are having trouble with their speeches here in the House. And yes, Mr. Speaker, the province is having its troubles in providing such things as housing and sufficient jobs in this province, and it's no wonder when you check the figures, as I have done, to find out the influx, the migration of people to British Columbia since 1976.

I'd just like to read into the record here tonight some of those figures. In 1975, the last year of that disastrous government, now opposition, over there we had an out-migration from this province of 2,864 people. In 1976, with the disastrous results of three and a half years of that socialist regime, we still had a slopover; we had an outflow of 3,820 people from this province. Probably those were the ones who had come in during those three and a half years expecting to get on the welfare rolls knowing of the giveaway of that very inept bunch of socialists on that side of the floor.

Mr. Speaker, let's continue to read these figures. In 1976, 13,565 new citizens came to the province of British Columbia; in 1978, 19,030 new citizens came to the province of British Columbia; and it's estimated that in 1979, on the basis of what has happened in the first nine months of that year, 30,100 new citizens will be entering the province of British Columbia.

People are coming to British Columbia in increasing numbers because they know that things are good in British Columbia. They have heard that the government of 1972 to 1975 has been thrown out; they know that the socialists are never to return to this province and that industries can once again flourish in this province and grow and provide the jobs and the security looked for by these people coming in to our province, looked for by other Canadians coming to British Columbia. It's difficult to keep up and to employ all of our citizens, all of the new citizens coming into British Columbia, as well as the young people coming on stream out of our colleges and universities.

That's what we've done in British Columbia. British Columbia has only 10.5 percent of the population of Canada, yet today it provides 15 percent of the jobs in this nation. Since 1975 there have been 134,000 new jobs in this province. No wonder the socialists over there would rather debate the amendment; no wonder they're having problems in debating this budget.

Mr. Speaker, let's look for a moment at the budget. Let's look for a moment at this province's enviable position in this nation. Since 1975 business capital. expenditures have grown at an impressive average — an annual rate of 16.8 percent compared to only 11.3 percent in Canada. The value of exports from British Columbia has expanded since 1975 at an average rate of 22.8 percent per year; the comparable rate for the country as a whole has been only 17.9 percent.

[ Page 1612 ]

Beginning in 1977 and continuing through 1978 and 1979, the rate of inflation as measured by the Vancouver Consumer Price Index has been well below the national average, in spite of the fact that in the early days it was usually higher.

When this government took office in 1975 the seasonally adjusted rate for unemployment stood at 8.9 percent, the highest rate since the labour force survey started, the highest rate west of the Maritimes, and a significant 1.6 percentage points higher than the Canadian average. Since then the average annual unemployment rate in British Columbia has declined in each and every year.

Since this government took office the number of jobs in this province has increased by more than 135,000. In 1975 British Columbia accounted for 17 percent of Canada's total loss of time in strikes and work stoppages, but by 1979 this share had declined to approximately 10 percent — from 17 percent to 10 percent. I think that speaks for itself. We have a sound economic situation.

In relating to the jobless rate in British Columbia I've got to read to you a news clip of March 11, 1980:

"Vancouver and B.C. Jobless Rates Fall.

"The Canadian employment picture is looking a little rosier than last year, Statistics Canada reported Tuesday, with the brightest spots in Vancouver and the rest of British Columbia. B.C. leads the way in the decline in jobless totals, dropping from 8 percent in January to 7.3 percent last month, the month of February. "

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: I told you about housing. Weren't you listening, Mr. Member? You know, you're as bad as your friend the seagull over there. If you'd just sit and listen once, you might learn something.

MR. SPEAKER: Address the Chair, please.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, we have a sound economic situation brought about by sound fiscal management by this administration.

What has sound management brought us, Mr. Member? You wouldn't know because you didn't have any sound management when you were government. We remember you. Yes, we remember you, and we remember your management, and that's not all we remember. I should relate to you the story of the health and human resources board in Houston. I could relate that to you very vividly; it sticks in my mind, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, we have a very sound economic situation in British Columbia. What has sound management brought us? Well, I'll relate it just for that member over there, just for that dictatorial once Minister of Health.

Let's take, for instance, oil exploration. My friend and colleague from North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) was telling us about the marvellous new find announced just today. I'd like to relate it to you, and it's been done before in this House and I think it needs doing again, because it would appear no matter how many times members on this side of the floor relate those things in the budget which British Columbians can relate to, they don't seem to hear it. I'd just like to read for you some statistics from the "Drilling Rig Operating Days Summary." This is a summary of operating days of drilling rigs. The members over there think that it takes a corporation in order to deliver the taxes, the money, to government from our natural resource, that it has to be done through a corporation. You know, you have to drill holes in the ground. You have to have drill rigs; you have to have people interested in development in order for that money to come into the provincial coffers. It's not just this marvellous corporation put together by those socialists.

I've got to read to you from this summary "Operating Days Summary for Drill Rigs" — oil and gas drilling rigs in the province of British Columbia. This is from May 1972 through to April 1979. From May until April, 1972-73, there were 4,257 operating days for drilling rigs in the province of British Columbia; for the same period in 1974-75 almost half of that — 2,446 operating days; 1975-76, almost half of that again — 1,507 operating days; 1976-77, 5,032 operating days; 1977-78, 10,953 operating days; and 1978-79,13,883 operating days. Yes, Mr. Speaker, that's what the return of confidence does for the province of British Columbia. That's what the return of confidence has brought the people of this province, not just in the oil and gas industry but in every other industry that you want to mention in this province — forestry, mining, tourism, agriculture, you name it. You name it, and it's found renewed energy and initiative, Mr. Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), and you know it; and you know it and you sit over there and you waggle your tongue. You know what's happened in this province since 1975. You know what got this province back on its feet from the disaster that we found when we took office early in 1976.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

What will the budget bring, Mr. Speaker? The members opposite have taken pains to make sure that their debates have stayed a long way from this budget. They know why and we know why as well, because it's one of the best budgets ever brought down in this province. In fact, it's one of the best budgets ever brought down in any province in this great nation.

Mr. Speaker, the budget calls for a budgetary expenditure of $5,549.6 million and statutory appropriations for another $250 million, balanced by revenue. I think that's very important — balanced by revenue. This is a balanced budget, something that those socialists, while they were government, knew nothing about.

Tax cuts totalling $54 million and major initiatives proposed. I think the one of most importance to me as the member for Omineca in a constituency very highly dependent on the forest industry is a $1.4 billion five-year forest management program. I heard the last member say: "Long overdue." Yes, Mr. Member, it's long overdue, but we're very happy, especially in my constituency of Omineca, that it's finally come.

An energy development program, energy conservation measures, support facilities for northeast coal development, further processing in mining and mineral industries through changes and processing allowances under the Mining Tax Act and Mineral Resource Tax Act, major assistance in transportation, and social programs.... And we hear the members opposite often talk of those social programs they'd like to see for the people of British Columbia. Yes, this budget has social programs.

The Health ministry expenditure rises $226 million for a

[ Page 1613 ]

total of $1.55 billion to be spent in health in this province in the next fiscal year. The Medical Services Commission receives an additional $345 million. Hospital programs are allocated $795 million. The Human Resources budget is increased 17 percent to $763 million.

The Municipal Affairs budget rises 53 percent due to a large increase for transit funding and municipal revenue sharing.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, Mr. Speaker, rather than speak to the seagull I'll speak to you.

Expenditure for basic education, Mr. Speaker: an expenditure in this fiscal year of $1.2 billion in this province. A statutory appropriation of $30 million for the first-year costs of a dental care program. Other tax benefits, as found in this new budget — an additional $50 for homeowner grant for elderly people. I'm sure that will be well accepted by the people of the province of British Columbia, Mr. Member for New Westminster.

Charges for residential natural gas, electricity and telephone rental exempted from the sales tax — something long overdue in this province. Something very important to the people of the north and the people whom I represent in Omineca: sales tax is removed from used mobile homes. Many of the people of the north, through necessity, live in mobile homes.

The corporation income tax rate for small business corporations is reduced from 12 percent to 10 percent, a full 2 percentage points, from surplus funds. I realize it's difficult for the members opposite to understand the word "surplus." The word is foreign to them. They didn't know what it was when they were government, and they still don't know what it is when they are opposition.

There is $146.6 million for a new forest and range resource fund to be implemented on a five-year plan. There is $100 million for an accelerated highway construction program. It was interesting, Mr. Speaker, to listen to the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) in two different speeches. In one he castigated the government for spending an extra $100 million on highways, and in the other he castigated the government for not building enough highways in his constituency. You can't have it both ways, Mr. Member. Maybe you'll learn that. I don't think you will with that bunch, but maybe you will.

There is $30 million to a special fund for first-year costs of construction of a new Fraser River crossing at Annacis Island. I'm sure you, Mr. Speaker, are very happy with that particular item in the budget. Not to be local, so are we happy in the northern part of British Columbia. I also heard the member for Atlin talking about those things which shouldn't be in the budget because they serve only the people of the lower mainland and in the city of Vancouver. That's not so; we can't be that local. Mr. Member, I'm sure — well, maybe not; maybe some of his people don't come to Vancouver — but I know for a fact that a lot of people that I represent come to Vancouver, and they're going to be very happy with the new highway link in that area.

MR. PASSARELL: What highway?

MR. KEMPF: Well, you have to link two highways across a river with a bridge, Mr. Speaker. Even the member for Atlin should know that.

There is $10 million for assistance to small- and medium sized business in metropolitan areas, including funds for a continuation of a low-interest loan program. There is $4.5 million for an employment opportunity program for young people — very important in this budget, and done out of funds found in a surplus. There is $3.4 million for the continuation of a local airport assistance program. Again, I'm very happy to find that item in this year's budget — a very important item to the people of the northern part of this province.

Unfortunately we find as an item in this year's budget — and I say unfortunately because we're going to find it in the budget of this province for some years to come — a $26.1 million entry for the second annual payment to retire the provincial debt. I might bring to the attention of all hon. members of this House that we found in returning to office in 1975 a provincial debt that did not exist when the Social Credit government left office in 1972. The debt was incurred by those on that side of the House when they mismanaged this province.

I could go on and on. The budget goes on and on. It's a budget for all British Columbians. It's a budget for the people whom I represent. It's a budget which I support 100 percent.

MR. BARBER: During my remarks I referred to a Hydro notice of one year's advance for commercial customers. I did not have the release in my hands at that time; I do now. I ask leave to table it.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, it's indeed a pleasure for me to have the opportunity of taking my place in this debate at this time. I haven't had the opportunity of congratulating you on your new appointment, your unanimous selection as the Deputy Speaker of the House, and I want to congratulate you, Mr. Member for Delta.

I'm rather surprised that the opposition, having been in the Legislature for only three weeks now, seems to have collapsed. They haven't found a speaker to speak tonight, but we're prepared to speak, because we believe that the budget is a budget for British Columbians, that it's a budget that looks after the needs of British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about parks tonight, and the great programs that we have for British Columbians, and others who want to be British Columbians, and others that want to visit British Columbia. I listened to the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) a few days ago talking about the neglect in his riding, which I'll refer to a little bit later.

I want first of all to refer to an article that appeared in B.C. Outdoors, which relates to the campsite fee increase which will take place this year. Mr. Stainsby, the editor of that magazine, in my opinion did a great disservice to the credibility of that magazine by the erroneous statements and lies that permeated the editorial that he wrote in the March edition of B.C. Outdoors. I think it's unfortunate that people who want to convey a message to the people do not avail themselves of the information so they can inform the people accurately, rather than create apprehension and fear in the minds of certain people as to campsite fees in this province. I also want to castigate some of the Vancouver newspapers. It seems that the media has a way of drinking their own bathwa-

[ Page 1614 ]

ter. If one magazine or newspaper puts in an erroneous report or false statements in an article, it's repeated by other newspapers in the area.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, they seem to repeat it as the gospel truth. They don't want to get the facts from the source. They want to repeat derogatory and erroneous remarks, such as that which appeared in the Vancouver Sun editorial, "Camptown Cartel," which appeared on March 10, 1980. They didn't bother to check the facts to see whether that erroneous article in B.C. Outdoors was accurate or not; they just wanted to perpetuate the lie. The Victoria Times did the same thing on March 13, with a front-page article stating, "To Hell with the People on Camping Fee Hike." They didn't contact me to find out whether there was any truth to the statements made by one Donald Stainsby of B.C. Outdoors. I just want to talk briefly about some of the statements that he made in there, Mr. Speaker.

He suggests that the reason for the increase in the campsite fees was lobbying by the B.C. Motels, Resorts and Trailer Parks Association. I want to categorically deny the allegation made in this article. I've never met that association, Mr. Speaker, and furthermore, I don't feel responsible for what they might publish in any publication they might print.

I'm going to repeat some of the erroneous remarks in this article, and then I'm going to correct them as the facts are. "Many of the campgrounds which were free last year will be $5." That is a falsehood, because there is no campground in British Columbia now free that will be escalated to $5. "All the $4 parks will be $5, with the remainder — about one-third — of government campgrounds increasing from $2 to $3." Well, I will relate the figures in just a moment — the number of campgrounds that are involved in British Columbia and the fees applicable. He goes on to state in his article that old-age pensioners and handicapped people will be gouged by this increase, leading the people of this province who purchase this magazine to believe that we charge senior citizens and handicapped people in this province. This government in 1976 eliminated the necessity of senior citizens and handicapped from paying campground fees in public campsites, and there is no intention whatsoever to deviate from or to change this policy.

Then he goes on, Mr. Speaker, to suggest in the closing remarks of his editorial that the taxpayers of British Columbia have already paid for these campsites, and why should they pay for them again? He has some difficulty in recognizing that there is a difference between capital costs and operating costs. Certainly I agree — and that's the only place in which he's correct — that the taxpayers have paid for the campgrounds in this province, but he doesn't understand that once you establish a campground there is an operating cost associated with this operation. The operating costs for the campgrounds in British Columbia last year were approximately $2.8 million and we have a policy objective to ensure that the user fee that is applied in campgrounds is between 50 percent and 60 percent of the operating costs. I don't believe that's excessive, and we find that our user fee has fallen below the 50 percent level of the operating costs of these campgrounds. Hence the reason that we've increased the fee by $1 per overnight use of units.

We will have in British Columbia 55 campgrounds that will have the $3 fee and 44 that will have the $5 fee and, as I said previously, none will move from zero to $5. In fact, three will move from $4 to $3. As I said before, in view of the escalating cost of operating these campgrounds, I don't believe that this $1 increase is excessive.

Yesterday, March 19, the national government made an announcement that they're going to increase their campground fees, and I might say that ours are comparable to other provinces in this country, as well as the northwest United States, and substantially less than those of the national parks, even before their increase. The national government's daily camping fee and the reason the hikes are necessary is to keep pace with higher operating costs and to bring rates for national parks in line with those charged for private parks. Daily camping fees will jump to $4.50 from $3 on campgrounds with standard services; to $7 from $5 for a campsite equipped with individual electricity outlets; and to $8 from $6 for a site with individual electricity, sewer and water outlets. A $3 fee is also being introduced for unserviced camping areas; they'll have a minimum. We'll still have campsites in this province that are free, Mr. Speaker. So their fee increase is between $1.50 and $2, and the fully serviced and fully developed ones will be $8. I think the fact that the national government has escalated theirs to this degree really shows that our increase is a small marginal increase.

The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) talked about the lack of campground facilities in his constituency. I'm rather surprised that he talked about them, because of the 13 proposals that have been put forward to the parks branch of my ministry, none has been initiated by that member. He has not corresponded or suggested that a campground be established anywhere in his riding.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, we have a record of all the MLAs who've written in requesting for campgrounds in various locations of the province, and the member for North Island, who professes to be interested in campgrounds while he speaks in the Legislature, doesn't appear to have the time or the interest to write a letter asking that something be done at a site specific within his constituency. He talked about our failure to establish a campground in the Port Hardy area because of the increasing traffic caused by the new ferry dock up there. The reason why we haven't deemed it necessary to establish a campground in that area is because there's an Indian band that is in the process of developing a campsite there and we're not about to start competing with them. We're not about to compete with them. They're building a campground on the Kluxewe River and we're not about to compete with them there.

I'm not going to enumerate all the parks that he has in his riding, but there are five provincial overnight campsites in his riding: Elk Falls, Miracle Beach, Morton Lake, Smelt Bay and Strathcona. He also has 57 forestry overnight camping facilities. I'll give them all to you: Muchalat Lake, Leiner River, Rodes Creek, Rugged Point, Elk Creek, Little Bear Bay, Pye Lake Beach, Lower Stella Lake, Stella Beach, Pye Lake, Stella Lake East, Amor Bay, McCreight Lake, Aldergrove, Cedar Lake, Blackwater Lake, Twin Lake, Amor Lake, Stella Lake, Surprise Lake, Mohun Passage, Paterson Pond, John Hart Lake, Big Bay, Loveland Bay, Camp 5, Apple Point, Brewster Lake, Merrill Lake, Merrill Lake South, Little Loveland Bay, Gray Lake, Boot Lake, Gosling

[ Page 1615 ]

Lake, Orchard Meadow, Fry Trestle, Fry Lake, Lawson Lake, Loon Bay, Dogwood Bay, Long Point, Campbell Lake, Fire Grove, Gosling Bay, Bonanza Lake North, Wosk Lake, Lower Klaklakama Lake, Vernon Lake, Atluck Lake, Artlish Coves, Fair Harbour, Apple Bay, Quatse Lake, Georgie Lake, Nahwitty Lake, Shuttleworth Bight, Mohun Lake. Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of the campsites that are prevalent in the North Island riding. I think that if the member is going to truly represent his riding and not still have his heart on the North Shore, up Indian Arm, he should acquaint himself with the kinds of facilities that exist in his constituency.

Now I want to mention very briefly the very significant program we have for the acquisition of land and development of parks in British Columbia. For the upcoming fiscal year we have embarked on a $25 million program for land acquisition and development of campgrounds and parks in British Columbia. The member for North Island suggests we are doing nothing about parks, when we have allocated in this budget, through surplus funds, $6.5 million as the first step in developing this $25 million three-year program. We're not only going to....

MRS. WALLACE: What about Gordon Bay?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member from wherever that one is from wants to talk about a specific site in her riding. She has ample opportunity to ask me specific questions of that nature either through written questions or through oral questions, or she'll have ample opportunity to question me as often as she wants during my estimates. For her to bring up a specific site like that — as an interjection — shows the lack of interest she has in that particular park, because she would have asked me a question by now.

MRS. WALLACE: But I have.

HON. MR. CHABOT: She's asked me that question by now? Mr. Speaker, I am being interrupted by the member for Cowichan-Malahat. I wish you'd ask her to come to order. It's a vicious attack against the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. I'm sure that if she's written me a letter, she's had an answer. However, maybe she doesn't like the answer.

Mr. Speaker, along with the massive program of assistance for the parks of British Columbia, through greenbelt reserve acquisitions we will continue to make a substantial contribution towards the regional park function in this province. I might say that we are in a process as well of looking at the possibility of making financial contributions towards the development and the operation of community parks where....

MRS. WALLACE: Like $600.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, the member for Cowichan Malahat isn't thankful for assistance for the class C parks and she doesn't understand what I am saying. She's not prepared to listen. She just wants to sit there and chirp, Mr. Speaker. I never thought I'd see her chirping in here like that.

We have a substantial program which I'm very enthused about, and we have made commitments to parks in British Columbia.

I want to refer to another member — unfortunately the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is not here tonight. Is he here in the vicinity or has he gone to bed? He's in his office? Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena has a reputation for saying anything and doing anything as long as it serves his ends. His respect for the truth is less than marginal.

I want to refer to an article and a statement of his that appeared in the Interior News of Smithers on February 27, 1980, in which he said that the government's attitude towards the hot springs at Lakelse near Terrace was deplorable, in view of the generosity that was granted to Fairmont Hot Springs Resort on the Alberta border. He said that in December an $850,000 forgivable loan was provided to Fairmont Hot Springs Resort under the Travel Industry Development Subsidiary Agreement with the federal government. "While that Christmas present was given to Fairmont, Lands, Parks and Housing Minister Chabot couldn't stir himself sufficiently to find the $50,000 which he had promised for a feasibility study of the Lakelse hot springs."

When he was making that statement, had he cared to acquaint himself with the truth, which might not have served his purpose in making this statement, all he had to do was drop me a letter or phone me. I would have told him at the time that that $50,000 allocation for a feasibility study had already been committed. But no, he's not interested in the truth. He wants to make false statements to serve his own political ends.

I might, for the benefit — not of him, because he doesn't care for the truth — of the people in Terrace and the northwestern corner of the province tell them the status of the Lakelse hot springs feasibility study. We've established the terms of reference for this feasibility study. The $50,000 is committed. Tenders will be called fairly soon for the feasibility study. I presume it will be underway within the next week or two — two weeks at the utmost. So, Mr. Speaker, as I said before, that member's respect for the truth is less than acceptable in my estimation.

I would like to make reference to statements made by the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) recently. He was speaking in the House last week about the serious problems his constituents are having in gaining employment.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Where's that? Where is he?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's the Atlin riding. He's not here tonight either. There aren't too many of them here tonight. Like I said a little earlier when I stood up, Mr. Speaker, it seems they have collapsed. They've not only collapsed and not got speakers, but there's nobody here tonight either. Where are those socialists tonight?

Mr. Speaker, he wants to preoccupy his talks with the Iskut-Stikine Hydro project, which is really a wild and woolly sense of imagination that member has, because these are merely imaginary projects in the member's strange thought process.

Rather than the lack of job opportunities in the Atlin riding, I want to say that that area is in a state of boom at this time. Because some of the projects were initiated by his predecessor, Mr. Frank Calder, who urged the government to undertake some of these projects, at this time I want personally, on behalf of the government, to thank Frank Calder for part of the boom that is taking place in Atlin.

I want to mention some of the projects which Mr. Calder pushed for on behalf of the people of Atlin and in which he was successful. He was successful in getting a $500,000

[ Page 1616 ]

contribution from the government for improvement of the airstrip for the community of Stewart. Despite the fact that the members over there.... Here's one that's appeared; Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to see one's arrived. They seemed — especially the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) — to have some serious reservations about American investment coming into the community of Stewart to reopen the Granduc mine to produce jobs for British Columbians and to help build up the economy of that community. I'm not opposed to American investment coming into Stewart to help create employment in the northwestern corner of the province and jobs for people in British Columbia. What's wrong with that? They seem to think there's something wrong because the dollars are coming from south of the border. They seem to think those dollars are tainted because they don't happen to be generated right here. But I'll tell you that the benefits that will flow from those Americans will be immense for British Columbians.

At the urging of the former member, Frank Calder, as well we've had millions and millions of dollars spent on Highway 37, building an alternative route to the north. Not only, at his urging, have we spent millions and millions of dollars, but the member is decrying and unwilling to give credit for the jobs that those highways being constructed through his constituency have generated for people around Dease Lake. A lot of people in Dease Lake have benefited from the highway construction or reconstruction taking place up there. And he says that there are no jobs for the people in his riding.

At the moment the Ministry of Forests is looking at a forestry inventory in that area to determine the quantity and quality of timber. I feel quite optimistic that it will generate a sawmill for the community of Stewart and provide many jobs for British Columbians in that community.

He doesn't want to talk about the tremendous construction that's on at Kincolith in his constituency. Amax Minerals is developing a molybdenum property there that is employing 500 British Columbians in construction.

MR. KEMPF: He wants to shut it down.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, he wants to shut it down; that's probably his attitude, Mr. Speaker. Shame on him. You know, he stands in here and he decries the lack of employment opportunities in his riding — when they're there. And then when they're there, he wants to shut them down. Strange thinking indeed. And where is he tonight? He doesn't want to hear the facts. He just wants to spout off platitudes about lack of job opportunities in his riding.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, once the construction project is over at Kincolith — and I might say a contract was recently let for $12 million worth of housing construction in that community — there will be 400 mining jobs in that community for at least the next 35 years.

He doesn't talk about the new little mine that opened up just south of Cassiar either — Ericksen Creek, gold, 60 new jobs. He doesn't talk about the many jobs that have been created by the new large trucking contract between Cassiar and Stewart, that has helped build up the base in the community of Stewart. Oh, no, he doesn't want to talk about the great development that is taking place in his riding. He doesn't want to talk about the geochemical survey that this government sponsored to help promote exploration in that part of the province, that brought on a boom like we've never experienced in this province before, and which brought helicopters at a premium once the maps were issued.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Did socialism produce that? No way.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No. They produced a boom, but it was a little further north than the Atlin riding; it was just north of the border of the Atlin riding, in the Yukon. That's where they chased all the prospectors out of this province.

I want to talk about some of the other projects, Mr. Speaker. The Adanac property near Atlin will be under construction shortly, will be in production in late '82, which will produce 300 new jobs in Atlin. And he says there are no job opportunities in his riding. He wants to talk about imaginary Hydro projects such as the Iskut and the Stikine. He has an obsession about imaginary Hydro projects. He has such an obsession that he doesn't know what's happening around him.

There's another new little mine being reactivated this year — the Atlin-Ruckner, gold-silver-lead-zinc property. There will be 30 placer gold operations in operation, starting in June of this year. There will be general prospecting and extreme activity in that area for tungsten, tin, molybdenum and gold. Atlin will be used as a base for exploration, particularly in the coastal area of Tulsequah. In the Atlin area alone there were almost as many mineral claims staked in the first two months of this year as were staked in the whole province when the socialists were in. In 1980 there have been 102 placer applications and 890 mineral claims recorded up to February 29.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member for Atlin will distribute my remarks about the opportunities and what is happening up there, because I'm sure that member is not telling them of the great development that is taking place and that is on the horizon — for the benefit not only of people in Atlin, but of all British Columbians.

It has been the economic policies of this government that have made that kind of boom in Atlin possible. That member doesn't want to be in the House to listen to the facts regarding his riding. He doesn't want to be confused by the facts. He reminds me of the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard): "Don't confuse me with the facts; I've got my mind made up. I want to say this; it might win me a couple of votes." The blabbering of the member for Skeena! I hope it doesn't brush off on that young member for Atlin who is just starting in politics.

No, Mr. Speaker, this budget makes a provision for British Columbia, and the policies over the last four years as well have made it possible to have the attractive budget presented in this House less than two weeks ago. This budget makes provisions, and that's why, I'm sure, these members have collapsed tonight. I'm prepared to speak on the budget because of the tremendous benefits being conveyed to British Columbians and those who want to be British Columbians.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) mentioned the tremendous influx of people, and I want to say that we've had the largest influx of people in this province in the last few months that we've experienced in any comparable month in the last 20 years. Not only that, unemployment has been decreasing as well, and those people who've been finding

[ Page 1617 ]

Jobs here.... No wonder they don't want to speak tonight. They don't want to hear the facts, they don't like this budget that makes strong provisions for British Columbians and for the future of this province. They don't want to debate the $226 million extra that has been given to health services in this province, elevating health spending to an all-time record of $1.55 billion. No, they don't want to discuss the additional $50 that we've allocated to the senior citizens of this province as a homeowner grant — $630 per year.

HON. MR. GARDOM: They'll vote against that — against the senior citizens.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, I don't think they'll vote against it. They wouldn't dare.

The budget also makes provision for $16.5 million, of which $6.5 million is for new parks, land acquisition and development, but also funds for the Barkerville Historic Park Development Fund. I'm sure the member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is pleased with that allocation; $4.5 million is for the employment opportunity program for young people; $3.4 million is for continuation of the Local Airport Assistance Program of which, as previously mentioned, $500,000 goes to the little community of Stewart; $1 million, an increase over the previously allocated funds, for senior citizens and handicapped people for housing in British Columbia, and an additional $1 million from surplus, raising the total to $5.2 million — and I'm sure the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) recognizes the stupidity of attaching his remarks to those of the mayor of Vancouver.

MR. GABELMANN: Garde's partner.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Ex-partner!

So the allocation is $5.2 million, not $1 million, as was misinterpreted by the mayor of Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of economic stimulus in this budget. It's a budget that will look after the needs of British Columbians for the forthcoming fiscal year and set a strong, stable base for a continued growth for the benefit of all British Columbians in the years ahead.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Columbia River on his very entertaining speech. Since February 18 I've been listening to and observing that member very closely, because he is the only surviving Quebec Social Crediter elected to a parliament in Canada. He's the last of his kind.

Mr. Speaker, I also would like to acknowledge and thank the automotive retailers' association for providing this House with some very cheerful people this evening. I've looked around at some of the coloration in people's faces and thought that perhaps there was a sudden sunspot or something outside over the dinner hour.

Being, I believe, the only member of this House who gets around this fair city by what the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) suggested was a reasonable way, a bicycle, I would like to concur with that member in his statement that really.... Perhaps it was an oversight, but I hope that the Minister of Finance would consider reducing or removing the sales tax on bicycles as well as cars.

Mr. Speaker, in between what we might call those two extremes — the licensed four-wheel motor vehicle and the self-propelled vehicle — there is the whole area of mopeds and motorcycles, which represent a significant part of the transportation scene in British Columbia. I consider it very inconsistent — perhaps it was an oversight on the minister's part when he was drawing up his budget — that the sales tax should have been reduced for small automobiles but not reduced for other licensed motor vehicles that are perfectly legal and acceptable on our streets and highways.

Considering — there is still some chuckling and chortling across the way — it's safe to comment on the media during evening sittings, because it's commonly said that they don't report speeches in any event.... However, I'm continuing to hear people from the other side of the House say: "The media did it." It's just like: "The butler did it." Whether it's the Glenshiel Hotel issue, the dirty tricks issue, or the Deputy Attorney-General issue, whatever it is, Mr. Speaker, we constantly hear it's a creation and exaggeration by the media of this province. It's encouraging to hear the government members give us credit for something like that, but I want to assure you that, to my knowledge, no member on this side of the House owns the media in British Columbia or controls any member of the gallery here. No way.

Mr. Speaker, I also enjoyed the speech by the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and whatever else the other night.

MR. BARBER: And the late Marguerite.

MR. D'ARCY: I'm going to be returning to that later. Mr. Speaker, while that member is in the House I want to draw attention to what I felt was a very disturbing statement in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways' summary of recommendations of the ferries inquiry. I brought this to the minister's attention before. I'd like to point out to him again that I have a freshwater ferry, a cable ferry, in my riding. It, along with the Albion ferry in the Fraser River, is one of the most heavily used ferries in British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: I think the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is showing his ignorance of the West Kootenays. He may be knowledgeable about the East Kootenays, although I've many friends over there who say he doesn't know much about the East Kootenays either.

The Castlegar ferry and the Albion ferry are the two most heavily used ferries in British Columbia, carrying more cars and passengers than even the major routes 1 and 2 across the Strait of Georgia. I would like to express to the minister in the House some concern over a recommendation from the report:

"The committee identified some existing free ferries where there are existing local alternate routes, and the ferry provides a shortcut which has easily identified economical advantage to the users."

Heaven forbid, Mr. Speaker! The government is providing a service which is convenient and economically useful to the public who are paying the taxes. Continuing to quote from the report:

"Decision on fares at these locations should be based on different considerations than ferries which form a single link in the highway network."

Mr. Speaker, I realize that the minister has not acted on this recommendation, nor has he shown any indication he is going to, and I would give the minister every bit of support for his continued inaction on that recommendation, because

[ Page 1618 ]

that ferry at Castlegar has been in service for most of this century. It has provided a great service to the people of that community in the West Kootenays and I hope it is not interfered with in any way. The mere level of usage of that route, I think, is indicative all by itself of the public demand for that service.

I note it is typical in evening sessions that the treasury benches are mostly empty. However, I wish to direct a few remarks of concern to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith). Perhaps he'll be reading the Blues tomorrow if he can get here by 10 o'clock in the morning. In my constituency, we don't have one of the major universities, which means that most young people attend an institution on the lower mainland or in greater Victoria, one of the three major universities. In the past 12 months there have been significant policy changes in the application of the loans and grant systems by the provincial government Ministry of Education student services. What has happened is that a number of the students from my riding, many of whom are no longer teenagers but may be well into their twenties, instead of having student loans and grants given to them at the same level as they have had in past years in spite of inflation and increasing costs, have had those loans and grants drastically reduced, or in some cases even eliminated. It may be trite, but I wish to point out that nobody in their right mind at today's interest rates of a minimum of 16 percent is going to borrow money for fees or room and board or any other purpose knowing full well that the moment they graduate they're going to have start paying interest at those kinds of rates. Particularly if you're taking a four- or five-year program, the amount of the loans could seriously accumulate over those years and take several years to pay off. I'm very concerned about this policy as applied by the Minister of Education, and I would hope that they would show a little more compassion and consideration in the application.

I've had cases where young people whose parents were retired from their employment and on pension were being denied even a minimum amount, because for some reason the Ministry of Education felt that their parents were wealthy and could well afford to put these young adults through university. I don't think these people are looking for handouts. I think that the Ministry of Education, particularly in view of the kinds of surpluses which we have seen in the fiscal year that's about to end, has the ability to make these kinds of funds available.

Speaking of interest rates, briefly, I have to remember the remarks of my colleague for Victoria regarding the potential that this provincial government or any provincial government has to influence the housing market, to influence the interest rates charged to individuals and institutions which wish to invest in housing. Mr. Speaker, I want to note that while it is quite true that chartered banks and other organizations do not necessarily put a great deal of the moneys saved and invested by ordinary people back into the communities, into housing, into even commercial development let alone residential development, it is true, however, that the credit union movement in British Columbia and in other provinces, and in the United States where it exists, reinvests virtually every penny into the communities whence their deposits were taken.

However, just in passing, I noted that I didn't think I had heard such a spirited advocacy of government involvement in these major financial decisions since I was going over some of the work of Bible Bill Aberhart and Major Douglas, in terms of dealing with some of the economic and fiscal forces that so savagely affected the people of the Prairies during the 1930s. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, as far as those parts of the original and true Social Credit theories go, I believe most members on this side of the House could give them full support. I suspect a number of members on the other side of the House could also support those theories, but I rather doubt that the Premier and the other members on the treasury benches are going to pay much attention to them.

I want to make note of one section of the budget which is very encouraging to me. That's the section for increased funding for silviculture and reforestation in British Columbia. I hope that the government means what it says. I would feel far more confident if we saw legislation introduced that would provide money on a steady appropriation basis, rather than simply having a verbal commitment. For years we've had a verbal commitment to the principle of rebuilding our forests, and we've yet to see it happen.

Certainly a most encouraging thing, though, is the large report which the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has tabled, which for the first time gives us a good inventory and a good assessment of the resource in British Columbia. It shows that on the staff of the Forests ministry we have people who can do a very adequate assessment and appraisal; we don't have to constantly go outside the civil service to get information about our most vital resource.

I see the Premier has come into the House, Mr. Speaker. [Applause.] It is encouraging to have the Energy minister pounding his desk, instead of caterwauling in the background, for the first time this evening. The reason I was glad to see the Premier come into the House was that on the issue of the forest resource, I'd liken the need here for what we — or the Premier's father — used to call bill funding. The Premier's father used to bring in funding bills for such developments as parks and provide a funding program for park development over a period of years, not just a one-shot thing.

I think we've had a good forest policy introduced. I would be far more encouraged if the government saw fit to bring in special appropriations, by law, over a period of time, to make sure that those recommendations were carried out and weren't merely something that we saw in a report.

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: I want to repeat, since the members across the way don't seem to like my remarking on this at all, that it is most encouraging to see such a comprehensive report for that particular resource being brought in by the Minister of Forests and his staff for that particular resource.

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, we still seem to be having a series of minor interruptions here. Perhaps people will settle down tomorrow morning.

Mr. D'Arcy moved adjournment of the debate. Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:50 p.m.