[ Page 1623 ]

CONTENTS

Presenting reports Ministry of Education, Science and Technology annual report, July l, 1978, to June 30, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 1623

Ministry of Human Resources annual report, 1979.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1623

Presenting petitions

Institute of Accredited Public Accountants of British Columbia.

Mr. Ree –– 1623

International Woodworkers of America forest industry pension plan.

Mr. Segarty –– 1623

Routine proceedings

Budget debate.

Mr. D'Arcy –– 1623

Mr. Lorimer –– 1626

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1628

Mrs. Wallace –– 1631

Mr. Mitchell –– 1634

Mr. Hyndman –– 1638

FRIDAY, MARCH 21, 1980

The House met at 10 a. m.

Prayers.

Hon. Mr. Smith tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology for the year of July 1, 1978, to June 30, 1979.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Human Resources for the year 1979.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome four visitors from the far-away royal city of New Westminster — Mr. and Mrs. F. Brandolini and Mr. and Mrs. A. Vizzuti.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I'm really proud to introduce two guests to the House today; they're from the breadbasket of British Columbia, the Central Fraser Valley — Mr. and Mrs. Fred Rempel.

Presenting Petitions

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition. Leave granted.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I present the petition of the Institute of Accredited Public Accountants of British Columbia praying for the passing of an act intituled An Act to Incorporate the Institute of Accredited Public Accountants of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there a motion attached?

MR. REE: I move that the rules be suspended and the petition of the Institute of Accredited Public Accountants of British Columbia be received.

Motion approved.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I present the petition of the International Woodworkers of America forest industry pension plan, praying for the passing of an act intituled Pension Plans (IWA-Forest Industry) Merger Validation Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The attending motion, please.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I move that the rules be suspended and the petition of the International Woodworkers of America, forest industry pension plan, be received. Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, this morning in the portion of the time left to me before this assembly, I want to talk briefly about the question of land development in British Columbia. The member for the endowment lands, who is in charge of universities, sciences and technology (Hon. Mr. McGeer), spoke the other day about his concern for finding land for research and development. Mr. Speaker, that minister touched on a general problem in British Columbia which is in part responsible for the acute housing shortage that we have in British Columbia today. That is a shortage of land for any purpose, particularly land which can be developed or can be serviced. This province is simply not well endowed with usable real estate, and there is a major shortage in all parts of the province of land for residential use, industrial use, commercial use, recreational use and, particularly in the lower mainland and the greater Victoria area, foreshore land for the locations of marinas for pleasure craft.

The problem that we have in terms of planning and land use is that we have no coordinated government policy to try to deal with the problem of allocating certain lands for certain things. We constantly have disagreements; we have conflicts over land use, whether it be for agricultural purposes, development purposes or industrial purposes. Very often, Mr. Speaker, the wrong decisions are made regarding the highest use of lands for certain purposes, and this has led to an escalation in the price of land. I think it's fair to say that the perhaps necessary regulation exercised by municipal and regional district governments, in terms of land use and development, has contributed to the lack of supply, considering the pressure on land — the lack of supply of land — and that has contributed to the cost of that land in, essentially, not only the availability of housing but the cost of building housing and the cost of doing business in British Columbia, which has had a profound effect on the cost of living for all British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, I would call on the government to develop a comprehensive policy of working with municipal government to accelerate the question of land use planning and the allocation and development of land for various purposes. While I know the notion of planning is foreign to the Social Credit Party in British Columbia, my belief is that all British Columbians — even those who see themselves as having a philosophical sympathy with the Social Credit Party — would welcome such a move on the part of the government. I'm not suggesting that the government get into the business of buying and selling land; I am suggesting that in view of the great regulation applying to land in British Columbia by provincial and municipal levels, the government become involved in a massive way in the planning and the development of land so that the private sector, ultimately, within the context of the availability of that land, can make decisions in terms of development for residential, commercial and industrial purposes, and even for the research purposes that the member for Vancouver–Point Grey talked about a few days ago.

Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the budget in particular, we have heard some criticism and some praise for the government because of the size of the increase over the budgetary expenditures of last year — or the proposed expenditures of

[ Page 1624 ]

last year, because, as we all know, what a government says it is going to spend in the spring really has very little bearing on what it actually does spend by the end of the fiscal year.

I would like to compliment the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) for bringing in, at least in terms of his projected spending figures, a somewhat more realistic picture than that which we've seen over the last few years. It does represent a 27 percent increase over the projected expenditures of last year's projected expenditures and revenues; but the fact remains that it's probably a realistic increase, based on some assumptions that were never properly taken into account when previous budgets were brought in. What has concerned us on this side of the House, and has concerned many British Columbians, whether they be from consumers' groups or business, or industry or trade unions, is the fact that the size of the government take in British Columbia has been increasing under a government which promised, before it was elected, and since it's been elected, to reduce the size of government in British Columbia. And, Mr. Speaker, we're only talking about the bare bones of government.

I want to throw something else into the hopper here, which I don't believe has been emphasized in this debate, and that is that the Crown corporations, some of them existing in the service industries, some of them existing when this government took office, some of them created since, have been increasing their take out of the economy at an even faster rate than the provincial government has — in real terms, discounted for inflation. I'm referring to corporations that existed when this government came into office, such as ICBC and British Columbia Hydro. I also have to mention the British Columbia Ferry Corporation which, while the ferry system existed, of course, when the present government took office, was in fact part of the civil service when they came into power in British Columbia. It has since been removed from the civil service and placed in its own Crown corporation, partly I believe, Mr. Speaker, to give the impression that the size of government was not increasing as fast as it was.

The tax load on ordinary British Columbians, in terms of the tax load on business and industry in British Columbia — which is not ultimately but very quickly passed on to ordinary individuals — has been getting more and more onerous every year, in spite of marginal tax reductions here and there in the last two budgets. If you take into account inflation, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the total amount of government take — as well as spending — is increasing as a proportion of the real gross provincial product in 1980, as it increased in 1979, 1978, 1977 and 1976. Mr. Speaker, I would like very much to see the Minister of Finance and the government address themselves to this, and if they can't realistically address themselves to this, at least admit to it in the statements they make to this Legislature. It is my view that this sort of unrealistic budgetary forecasting — this kind of unrealistic taking of resources from British Columbians that should be left to circulate in the economy — has had a depressing effect on the growth rate of the economy and the number of new jobs which would be provided.

For the last four and a half years all of us in this House have been subjected to a number of specific instances where members across the floor allege that they know of somebody who is doing much better now since the Social Credit Party has been back in office, or of somebody who has more employees now. But they're all individual cases. We never hear people across the floor referring to the general picture as espoused by Statistics Canada. We never hear them wanting to tell us that there was real growth in the British Columbia economy of just under 5 percent under the former government, and that that real growth rate has dropped to about 3.2 percent under Social Credit — dropped by nearly 40 percent.

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), having been a little short-fused last evening, would have gone home and had a good sleep. But it appears that he might have been suffering from insomnia.

What do they say in the radio business? "Not every traffic manager knows how to count cars."

I'm also concerned — and perhaps the Minister of Finance is going to be dealing with this — with the last two auditor-general's reports for the province. I'm not suggesting for a minute there has been any sort of defalcation of funds by the government. But since the members on the opposite side of the House insist on refighting the 1975 and the 1979 elections rather than talking about the present, and much of their tirade seems to revolve around the real or imagined budgetary situations in government past, it has concerned me greatly, as it has many British Columbians, that in the two years that we've had an auditor-general reporting to this Legislature and to the people of British Columbia, in both cases that senior civil servant has seen fit to use what I can only describe as unusual hyperbole in criticizing the government's accounting practices. I'm not going to deal with this at length, but we find quotations such as: "Basic deficiencies in the securities accounting system have resulted in records that cannot be relied upon to produce accurate information." That's not my imagination; that's taken directly from the report of the auditor-general. That last statement refers, in particular, to the Ministry of Finance. Far be it from me to want to disturb the minister's honeymoon. He may be working on some of these items; I certainly hope he is.

She also brings up the point that there is no provision in the central accounting system for responsible reporting of revenue and no overall requirement to report budgeted revenue as a comparison to actual. One of the things I alluded to earlier was the very large overruns — whether taken in real terms or in percentage terms — that have been experienced by the present government. Most observers have reason to believe that when the final public accounts are in for the fiscal year of 1979-80 those overruns are going to be even larger than had been previously mentioned.

I mentioned the growing size of government — both the bare budget as presented by the two Ministers of Finance we have had under this administration, and the size of, you might say, captive Crown corporations which provide services which are essential if you are going to live or do business in British Columbia-such as ICBC, B.C. Ferries and B.C. Hydro.

I want to mention another area of government where there has been a real increase at an even faster rate than any of the agencies I've mentioned. That is in the area of property taxes, both for education purposes and for general purposes. I don't believe there is a school board or a municipal or regional district council in British Columbia that is spendthrift. In fact, they're probably more sensitive to tax increases than anyone else in the province-the administrators and elected representatives of those boards and councils. Yet

[ Page 1625 ]

we see, each and every year this government has been in office, the basic mill rate for education going up. We see the actual total property taxes, in real terms for general purposes, in spite of revenue sharing, going up every year. While it is true that the heaviest burden has fallen on industry and commercial taxpayers, the fact remains that those increased costs to industry and to owners of commercial property are passed on to the public through higher prices, higher rents and higher costs for manufactured products.

I believe the government should clearly address itself to the fact that it has not been pulling its weight when it comes to sharing provincial revenue with local taxpayers. There isn't a municipal taxpayer in British Columbia who isn't paying higher taxes now for school and general purposes than he was in 1975 — not one, Mr. Speaker. There are industries and commercial businesses in my constituency that are paying two to two-and-a-half times the amount of taxes they were paying four years ago. Thank goodness business is so good in B.C. Thank goodness the prices for our basic products in British Columbia have been so high that business and industry can afford to absorb these increased costs.

Mr. Speaker, before I finish I want to address a few more words to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). Last night I mentioned the ferry service in my constituency; this morning I want to deal with a project which by now, I'm sure, the minister is extremely familiar with, commonly known as the West Trail approach or the smelter bypass. As I'm sure the minister is aware, this is a project that is extremely important, not only to the public in Trail, but also to my major corporate citizen, Cominco Ltd. The staff of the Ministry of Highways tell me the project is coming along very well and I wish to let the minister know — if he didn't already — that his people have been extremely communicative on how the project has been going. But, Mr. Speaker, when the time comes that contract documents are ready for him to take to Treasury Board, I want to put on record that I hope that there is absolutely no delay in getting that passed by treasury, because I would suggest that that 1.3 miles of Highway 22, which has been neglected — admittedly, Mr. Speaker, by the last three governments — is long overdue to be reconstructed.

HON. MR. FRASER: Vote for this budget!

MR. D'ARCY: Oh, Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that Highways' capital spending bears absolutely no relationship to what goes into the budget. So in terms of a project which is long, long overdue from a safety point of view, from a traffic point of view and in this case — rarely, I think, but certainly very important — from an industrial development point of view, I would hope the minister will not waste any time when those engineering and contract documents are ready. I have faith in you, though, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Speaker, there are a great many other people who wish to take part in this debate — I see the government benches are filling up. I have to mention that I received a certain amount of criticism over the telephone from some constituents on Wednesday morning. Those constituents said to me: "How come you guys blew it the other night?" I said: "What do you mean?" They said: "Well, you had a chance to defeat the government. Why didn't you?" I said: "Well, they have more than we have." They said: "Well, if you ever get another chance, don't let it go by!"

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: No more late dinners at the Union Club, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if I could get the attention of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), I would like to have him perhaps make some remarks — perhaps I should direct these to the Premier — regarding where he and the government may be today on the Alcan II project. I wish to separate Alcan II from Alcan completion or the Kemano completion project, which only involves the Aluminum Company of Canada, while Alcan II, as we know, involves other rivers — the Morris and the Dean. The reason I'm bringing this up here is because the Energy minister's statements have been somewhat ambiguous on the subject. We have his energy statement as issued in the policy, where he said that there were going to be more private developments of power in British Columbia; then, when asked if there was a loophole in it, he told the press that the policy spoke for itself, which didn't take long. A few days later, Mr. Speaker, the Energy minister said there were several ways a project could go ahead, assuming that there was going to be a public inquiry under a new procedure, which is yet to be laid down. Later, on the 12th, the Energy minister said that the project would go ahead and it would be a Hydro job. Alcan immediately said that they were going ahead anyway, that they didn't know of any regulations or law which changed their licensing.

Mr. Speaker, one of the difficulties the opposition has in dealing with government intentions is that not only are government intentions on these major questions somewhat unclear on these issues, but they seem to change — not over a long period of time, but over a very short period of time. And, Mr. Speaker, I would hope, for the public of B.C. and particularly the people of the northwestern half of the province, that over the next few weeks the government could clarify exactly what they mean in the policy on some of these major issues, particularly the Kemano II and/or the Kemano completion project.

I think that those sorts of considerations, on a long-term basis, are far too important to waste time on trying to make political Brownie points. We know that the Kemano I project, agreed to by the coalition government in the late forties and early fifties, is in fact something we all have to live with today regardless of our political point of view. I don't want any snap decisions being made on projects of this nature involving a major group of resources, recreational, fish, forest and mineral resources, for what could be a relatively short-term energy gain that may be replaced by other forms of energy over a period of time.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There are other members who are standing and wishing to take their place.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, the opposition is asleep again today. Mr. Speaker, I stood; you recognized me, sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the only member that this Chair can recognize is the one who is standing. However, the rules simply say that when another member stands in the two formal debates, it is the Chair's responsibility.

[ Page 1626 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: No matter, Mr. Speaker, how long it takes them to get to their feet?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Unless it is the intention to exercise closure, I think that perhaps the thing to do would be….

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. If other members are on their feet, the practice of this House is that everyone be given the opportunity to speak, at least within the time limits provided for under the standing orders.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: While you are the chairman of this assembly, I watched very carefully to see if any member of the official opposition wished to speak. This government does not intend to enforce closure, but I must observe, Mr. Speaker, that at 10:35 on a Friday morning the official opposition was asleep.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same point of order, the Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Perhaps you could advise the House how long the Chair will wait for the official opposition to stand up so we may know fully when we may close debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps, hon. members, the Chair can bring an opinion to the House which would satisfy that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Further on the point of order, perhaps you would advise us then, Mr. Speaker, I would hope, on what is a reasonable time for some members to be able to identify that they clearly wish to participate in debate. It makes it difficult for those members who wish to get on with the business.

MR. HOWARD: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I think it should be pointed out that when the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) concluded his remarks and sat down, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) rose to gain the floor. Immediately! And in the normal course and flow of debate....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Can I hear the point of order?

MR. HOWARD: In the normal flow of debate, Mr. Speaker, and you approach this with great care and attention, there is an alternation between opposition members and government members. And you, sir, undoubtedly in respect to that, cast your eye on the government side of the House, saw the Provincial Secretary rising, and then the manoeuvres on the other side tried to make a game of it, and I think the government tried to cast reflections upon your impartiality and say that you're picking and choosing….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: It's a disgraceful way to run the affairs of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. LORIMER: I'd like to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that I was prepared to get up to speak. The Provincial Secretary was getting to his feet, and in the usual back and forth manner in which this debate has been carried on, I retained my seat. So it's an obvious ploy, and a ridiculous ploy, by the government to try to make some points, because they haven't made any in this session so far.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members. I think I have sufficient opinion upon the point of order, and I will return to the House with some guidelines.

Let us continue with the budget debate. Is it a new point of order? The member for Dewdney.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I have very rarely requested the permission to say a word, and I request that I now be heard on a point of order. Last night we bailed out the opposition, who were asleep last night also. We brought up the hon. Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) to take on the debate back-to-back, because we did not want to hasten. Now today the only other person who stood was the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). If they want to sleep that's their privilege, but I do not think they should have the support of the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. This is not a point of order. Back to the debate.

MR. LORIMER: I might say that it doesn't surprise me that the Minister of Finance wishes to close this debate. He's got a budget here that he's not too proud of. He's concerned about it, and he doesn't want any more discussion with reference to it. It's a bit of a game they're trying to play, and they should probably have their chance to have their little games. First of all, I want to say that I am pleased with the cooperation I have received from the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). With his assistance a small but quite knotty problem has been resolved in my constituency, and I want to thank him for his assistance.

Getting to the budget, this budget is $1 billion larger than last year's. Approximately $500 million to $1 billion is set up as a surplus in this budget, and we now know who are the last of the big-time spenders. Here they have a budget of $1 billion more than last year — an increase of probably 34 or 35 percent over the previous spending.

There is no doubt that the public generally have been grossly overtaxed. The province and its people would have been much better served if the Minister of Finance had decided to bring in some reductions in taxes. For instance, the personal exemption on income tax could have been increased so that the working poor — those earning some-

[ Page 1627 ]

where in the neighbourhood of $3,000 per year — could be exempt from paying income tax.

There are other areas where, if the government had desired to put some heart in this budget, it could have given relief to areas which are in dire need. There is no relief in this budget. It has merely increased the sums to each minister proportionally to last year's budget. A few of the portfolios have increased by a very slight amount, and a few have been reduced. Consumer services and Human Resources have had a drop of a percent or so, and Health and Energy have had a slight increase. So here we have a budget which is basically the same as the budget of last year with the one exception that there has been a $1 billion increase.

The budget has recited income from the B.C. Petroleum Corporation — that corporation that the New Democratic Party set up — of half a billion dollars, which is about the total amount of the surplus suggested by the Minister of Finance. So he owes his surplus to the forethought and the energies of the New Democratic Party government— and the wisdom. I am sorry to see that there is no mention of revenue from Plateau Mills and Kootenay Forest Products, or shares from Westcoast Transmission and Canadian Cellulose. Of course, the reason for this is that the corporations have been transferred to BCRIC.

BCRIC was created as a ploy to allow the rich to take away from the poor. It's a Robin Hood in reverse. Everyone in this province had equal shares in those resources, and the affluent citizens of this province were then able to buy the shares which were owned by the general public. It is true enough that to give a little legitimacy to this operation a few shares were sprinkled about to the common folk. They were, of course, not given the power to vote or control, in any way, in the corporation.

Interjection.

MR. LORIMER: Someone has asked how many shares I have. I have no shares in BCRIC. It's a boondoggle operation; it is a system of defeating the purposes for which it was set up — to give everybody in this province an equal share in the resources of this province. That has been taken away. And I, for one, won't have any part of it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Your brother has some.

MR. LORIMER: Well, I can't answer for my brother, my sister or anyone else. I'm telling you what I have; I have none, and I won't have any.

I might say that the aggressive policies of the new BCRIC organization have been anything but startling. There are no results that I can see in terms of any active operations or thrusts by the new corporation. The BCRIC experience has been one of the most expensive boondoggles that this province has ever seen. The operation which was carried out is absolutely nonsensical. As my colleague from Coquitlam Moody (Mr. Leggatt) has said, BCRIC has turned into another trust company.

What have we lost in revenues for the province? In 1976, the last full year of operation of these Crown corporations, Plateau's earnings were approximately $2 million, Kootenay Forest Products' $1.2 million, Westcoast Transmission's shares earned $2.1 million and Canadian Cellulose earned $26 million for a total of $31 million revenue in that particular year. In 1977, which was only a partial year for the operations of these companies under the provincial Crown corporation setup, Plateau Mills earned $4 million and so on; I won't go through them individually, but the total was $24.7 million in the partial year of 1977. So we can see that the gross earnings of these companies probably average between $25 million and $35 million, with the possibility that in future years those earnings could well be increased. Also they would be increased not just for one year but for a number of years, so not only have we deceived ourselves, but we have robbed all the people of this province, and those that are still not born, who would have received benefits from these corporations during their lifetime had these companies been preserved.

The shares given away amounted to about 12 million — those were the shares that were sprinkled among the general public — and the number of shares sold was approximately 84 million. So not only did the general public have non-voting shares, but they also had a very small percentage of the shares that were distributed. In the annual report of the company, we find that after three months 23 percent of the shares are now owned outside the province — almost one quarter of the shares issued. Now that is a great performance.

I want to spend a few moments talking about fisheries. We all know that before the creation of the province of British Columbia the fishing industry was one of the major industries of this province. At the present time, the industry is undoubtedly facing tough times. The federal and provincial governments are taking actions which are, in my opinion, detrimental to the fishing industry. On the one hand, the provincial government has not taken the fishing industry that seriously, due to the fact that their jurisdiction in the industry is somewhat limited. As a result, the federal fisheries department, although their intentions may be great, are dealing with a provincial government that has not been showing that much concern for the preservation and protection of the fishing stocks in the province. For example, the Queen Charlotte Island operations, in which logging was allowed to continue and flourish in areas which were sensitive, have resulted in damage to spawning areas which will have an effect on the fishing stock for a great number of years to come.

HON. MR. MAIR: Absolute rot!

MR. LORIMER: The member for Kamloops says that this is rot. He is suggesting that the injury of the spawning areas of the fish has no effect on the fishing stock. That might be the view of the member for Kamloops, but it's certainly not my view nor, I'm sure, the view of the public of this province.

Interjection.

MR. LORIMER: I am really trying to influence the rest of you, who are not already committed, to the fact that this budget is a budget that the province of British Columbia can well do without.

Wherever the fishing industry or the fishing problems come into conflict with mining or forestry, we all know who will win out. It will not be the fishing industry. The logs and the ore for the mines will beat out the fish any time there is a dispute. The food industry of fishing will take second place in the minds of the government of this province.

I think probably the answer to the whole matter is for the Premier to discuss with the federal government the transfer of

[ Page 1628 ]

total jurisdiction of the fishing industry to the province. That way, it seems to me, we in this area could probably far better control the industry as a whole than can be done from Ottawa. In that case, I presume we would also have a Ministry of Fisheries by which the minister would be in a position to say no when there was conflict with the Minister of Mines or the Minister of Forests. I think the province as a whole and the fishing industry as a whole would benefit immeasurably from such a transfer. In my opinion, the transfer of such industries as the fish industry — a food industry — is far more important than the transfer of ore and so on in the offshore areas of this province. If, at this stage, we could get control of the fishing industry, I think we are in a position to do a very effective job in the creation of a viable fishing industry again, due to the fact that....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: That's a reverse of your policy. You want to give all our resources to Ottawa.

MR. LORIMER: No, I think you've been reading too many of your own press releases and not enough of ours, my friend. You have done what many of you over there have done. You have taken words and sentences, jumbled them together and come up with an idea of what our policy is. If you want to ask about our policy, maybe you can get in touch with me in question period and I will try and answer your questions.

The provincial government does have jurisdiction over the fishing industry on the shore installations and so on. I think they should be very careful in making sure that the people in this province get the benefit of the processing of our fish, and in making sure that as much employment as possible is garnered for this province in order that the people in this province get some advantages.

I want to deal briefly with the problem of housing and the fact that we are now in a very critical stage in housing in this province. This isn't a sudden happening. It's been around for some time, and the government should have been able to foresee what has gone on in the housing field. Housing has never been a top priority of the Social Credit government; it never was in previous Social Credit governments. As a matter of fact, in the years 1968-72 the annual estimate for housing was $5 million. That stayed the same. The unfortunate part is that, generally, less than half of that money was ever spent during the current years. The housing shortages were acute in those days, but today they are much more acute than they were in those times. I don't know what you are doing about it. As far as I can see, you are doing absolutely nothing about the housing situation.

When the NDP was in power we came to grips with housing. What did we do in the field of housing? We created a Ministry of Housing to start with. The B.C. Housing Corporation was created, Dunhill Corporation was acquired, rent controls were instituted and there were regular increases in the homeowners' grant given every year. In those days the government had a leader, and the government was prepared to make decisions. This government has been leaderless since the election, and no decisions have been made since that time. Today we have to face the problem of those people who are unable to get housing, either rental or for purchase. We have to determine what can be done. There is nothing in this budget to indicate that the government has considered taking any action whatsoever. The housing has basically been left to the private sector, and it has been proven many times over in many jurisdictions that although the private sector is essential for a housing program, the private sector by itself cannot satisfy the needs of a growing urban society. There has to be help from the provincial field and from the public sector.

During our term as government we were involved in one-third to one-half of the housing starts in the province. There were a number of programs in place — I'm looking at the 1975 annual report of Dunhill, which indicates that there were some 32,476 units ready to be commenced, in the planning stage or almost completed. That would be enough stock in housing for a year. But what did this government do? They wiped out the Ministry of Housing. They sold the B.C. Housing Corporation assets. They sold and dismantled the Dunhill Corporation.

Rent controls have become meaningless. Now they are pretending that they're satisfied with their performance in housing. They know very well that they are directly responsible for the housing situation that faces the people of British Columbia today. They have done nothing about it; they are not going to do anything about it. They don't know what to do about it, and they've got no one to make a decision to do anything in any event. The performance of this Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and the government in the housing field has been a complete disgrace.

Interjections.

MR. LORIMER: Yes, if the NDP were in we would be able to proceed with the housing operations. However, you can't produce a house in two or three days. It takes time to get the activities in motion in order to start construction of the buildings.

If the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing or the government had not disbanded the programs and the activities that were in place when they took over office in 1976, they wouldn't have this problem facing them today. There would have been ample housing, rentals would have been much lower, and the housing situation would not be a major problem in this province. But no, they couldn't do that. They have failed completely. They've even gone so far as to attach it to a ragbag portfolio. They didn't know where to place it. They didn't know what to do with parks so they threw it in and threw lands in and then threw a minister in. As a result we have had no activities in that department of housing — none in parks either, and the lands branch has been unable to do anything under this ministry. It's an absolute disgrace. Even I expected more from this government in the field of housing.

I think that for the rest of my remarks I will wait until the estimates, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think, Mr. Speaker, that you would want me to say just a word or two on an important matter of this kind. I think that at the outset we would all agree that this budget is no less than fantastic. I think the thing that impresses me the most is that it is a balanced and sound budget, and this is one of the things I am most proud of, where this budget is concerned. A $5.5 billion budget.

Mr. Speaker, others in this House will remember the first $1 billion budget which Mr. W.A.C. Bennett brought into this House, and what an exciting day that was for British Columbia. Here we have a budget for one year alone of $5.5

[ Page 1629 ]

billion. I say it's a sound budget. When you examine it, it's positive for British Columbians. It's constructive. It is stimulative at a time when we could use some stimulation. It is socially conscious, if any budget ever was. It's exciting and opportunity-filled, and it's balanced.

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the Minister of Finance for putting together this budget and this budget speech in the brief period of time that it was his responsibility. I have some knowledge of the task which was before him and the job that he did. I think it's a terrific budget speech, and I want to compliment him. I don't thank him for all the duties he handed over to me; they're much heavier than I'd anticipated. I want to remind him of that.

In any event, I'd like to refer to the remarks by the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy). Once again we have a member opposite saying we're trying to fight the election of 1975 over and over again. On the other hand, I hear many members opposite trying to bring up the 1956 incident of Mr. Sommers, Minister of Forests in this province. Repeatedly in this House members go back to 1956. They talk about dragging up ancient history; that's 24 years ago, Mr. Speaker. So let's not have any of this nonsense about reflecting on past history in this House. I think it bears fruit and is illuminative to reflect on history in examining current events.

I believe the member for Rossland-Trail said: "What's all this nonsense about real or imagined fiscal problems during the NDP years?" Mr. Speaker, an overexpenditure of 27.5 percent on average in those three years is not an imagined fiscal problem. There is no way we can match that in terms of overexpenditure.

Mr. Speaker, in a brief few moments I would like to look at the broad picture where this budget is concerned, and with a rather different approach. I rather like figures, and I'd like to ask you if these figures remind you of anything. These three figures are: 18 percent, 26 percent and 48 percent. Those three percentages are the escalation in the budget of each of the three years of the NDP term of office. Here are another four figures: 5.4 percent increase, 5.9 percent increase, 11.7 percent increase and 6.7 percent increase. What do those mean, Mr. Speaker? Those four figures were the inflation or increment in the budget in the last four years during the Social Credit government of 1975 to 1979.

Now what I want to draw your attention to, Mr. Speaker, is that we have before us a large budget at a time when we need it, and a budget which reflects on the careful administration and restraint that we have shown. We do have a sizeable budget before us, and I think the significant fact is what it contains. In that budget we've had an increase of $226 million devoted to health-hospitals, medical insurance and so on — a 17.1 percent increase for health alone. To compare that to other years you have to appreciate what that means.

We have an increase to education alone of $133 million, 15.1 percent; an increase in the moneys which go to human resources of 17.4 percent, an increase of $112 million; and lastly, municipal affairs — thanks to the revenue-sharing program and urban transportation funds — shows an increase of $117 million over the last year, a 55 percent increase in the money going to municipalities. That's just not an insignificant figure. Therefore I say we should be proud of this significant increase in our budget which is going where it needs to go: to human resources and to local needs. It's not simply a case of the government sinking it into programs which some people would question or consider unnecessary.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, when you examine the budget of the province of British Columbia, over 70 percent of it is represented in grants or transfer moneys which go to municipalities, hospitals, school boards, universities, etc.

They're actually moneys which are turned over for local use at local discretion, with very little determination by the provincial Minister of Finance. And I say to you, these could in a sense be termed non-discretionary where the provincial budget is concerned. Over 70 percent of a budget of $5.5 billion is really going to local expenditure, to municipalities, to local citizens, to lower their taxes, to improve their services in local hospitals and so on. The point is, when you examine the whole budget this leaves a somewhat limited latitude in terms of incentive programs and other means which could be used by your administration.

I'd like to just touch, too, on the impact of the budget on the city of Vancouver, which is an area that I represent. First of all, revenue to municipalities has significantly increased. To the city of Vancouver what does this mean? It means an increase of $4.3 million — an increase over last year of 20 percent — in the funds which will flow to that municipality alone. Urban transit funding. We're all aware of the new funding provided for local transit. A high percentage of the total funding for urban transit goes, of course, to the most costly network in the province, the lower mainland. Out of an appropriation of some $64 million to $65 million, I'm given to understand that some $56 million of that will be devoted to the urban transit system in the lower mainland. Let's mention the new Fraser River crossing at Annacis Island and the $10 million appropriation to small business for metropolitan areas — of great benefit to Vancouver. Let's mention the funds set aside for the development of B.C. Place and Transpo '86, a world-class exposition which is planned to be held in Vancouver in 1986 and, of course, the increase in the funds going to the development of a major stadium in the Vancouver area. So, Mr. Speaker, those are a few elements in terms of the impact of this budget on Vancouver.

I want to say a word or two about our pension funding in this province. As Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services, I have responsibility for the superannuation funds. Recently, with the tabling of the annual reports of the Teachers' Pension Fund, the superannuation fund of the public service employees and the municipal superannuation funds, there was attention paid to the fact that the unfunded liability, which is a term used by actuaries, was a sizeable amount. The figure of $1 billion was totalled up as the unfunded liability in these three pension plans in British Columbia.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you and the people of this province that the funding of the pension plans I'm referring to is very sound in British Columbia. We can be very proud of this in B.C., due to the foresight of people who preceded us in administration; it reflects particularly, I think, on the sound long-term planning of Social Credit administrations. We find today that the financial position of the British Columbia public sector pension plans is excellent. I'm not trying to play down the problem of funding universally, in North America particularly, where pension funds are concerned. Inflation is a serious problem for pension funding, but in British Columbia the government has always had a policy of substantially funding the pension commitments it makes to these various pension statutes. As a result, the government has built up a very large pension fund for public servants, for teachers and for municipal employees. I would

[ Page 1630 ]

point out that the most recent financial reports of these three large pension funds, for which I have responsibility, disclosed that the public service superannuation fund had assets of $687 million at March 31, 1979, the assets of the Teachers' Pension Fund were $528 million at December 31, 1978, and the municipal superannuation fund assets were $714 million at that same date. What this means is that those three pension funds have funds in the bank of close to $2 billion. To give you some example of this funding, over the most recent reported year these three funds alone increased by a total of $300 million — the increased funding that is being set aside to take care of their eventual benefits.

So compared with the pension funding practices of other provinces, British Columbia has achieved an enviable degree of funding. The provinces of Alberta, Quebec and Newfoundland, and also the federal government, do not fund their pension plans at all. Other provinces, such as Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island, have funded only the contributions actually deducted from employees, not the contribution from the employer, so I would call them partially funded. So, Mr. Speaker, the government of British Columbia has been one of the very few governments in North America which has been concerned about funding its public sector pensions over the past 40 years.

As a result, our plans are very well funded by public sector standards today. I want to say, too, that we want to continue to keep a vigilant eye on the financial status of pension plans because the exposure escalates with inflation of salaries, compensation, and the revision in benefits; so we are concerned with the exposure of benefits to pension plans. But I want to assure British Columbians, and particularly the people who are involved in these plans, that they have really nothing to fear insofar as funding is concerned. As I say, I think it's a good example of the soundness of Social Credit administration in this regard.

Just a word, too, about lotteries — Loto Canada and the provincial lotteries. I want to make brief reference to the fact that, last August, the provinces made an agreement with Ottawa under which Ottawa ceased to handle the $10 Loto ticket. This was then turned over to the provinces, which have included it in their lottery ticket sales. In exchange for this understanding, the agreement stated that the provinces would pay to the federal government some $24 million. Each would share a part of this $24 million, payable over the term of a year, annually escalating according to the cost of living.

I am concerned at recent indications from the new government, in particular from Mr. Regan, the minister responsible, who has indicated that they are looking at the possibility of re-entering the field of financing their costs associated with national events where athletic endeavours are concerned, and there has been a clear indication that they might re-enter the lotteries field. This would throw up in the air the agreement signed last August. It would certainly make you question what, in fact, the provinces would be obligated to continue paying under the former agreement. In other words, what are we paying $24 million for if the federal government is going to re-enter this field? I merely want to show some concern about this, and I've indicated this to Mr. Regan. I would hope that in a meeting in the near future this situation could be clarified. Other provinces, aside from British Columbia, have also expressed concern, and I would hope that the federal government does not see fit to discount or set aside that agreement merely because they simply don't happen to agree with what it says.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in closing these brief comments on the budget, I want to thank the Minister of Finance for funds set aside for libraries. The computerization of the provincial libraries has been a matter of concern and request. There's $3 million in this budget set aside for that program. I have an acknowledgement of the libraries computerizing program from the Greater Vancouver Library Federation signed by Derek Francis, chairman of their board of directors. They are very interested in this project and I want to see this computerization program moved forward.

Secondly, I am very encouraged to see an increase of $5 million to the recreational facilities fund. This is very much needed. There are a multitude of requests from local areas for funding of local community projects which are difficult to satisfy without these increased funds. Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Lastly, the $5 million for the Barkerville Historic Park Development Fund is badly needed, as the Minister of Finance is aware, and other members have referred to this.

Then in the tax field, Mr. Speaker, not much mention has been made of the fact that probate fees have been eliminated in this budget. I think you will find that a great many people involved in estate probates and so on will very much appreciate this change. I thank the minister for that tax change.

The amendment to the Insurance Premium Tax Act is a matter that will make business in the insurance business not so much more economical, but more easily understood. I have some understanding of what this problem has been, so I think this is a very good move.

Lastly, in the tax field we've removed sales taxes on residential natural gas, electricity and telephones. This is a significant change in the budget of British Columbia and is going to have a big impact, I think, when you realize how many people it affects in terms of their needs in the energy field. I know that there has been a lot of concern over the years about the sales tax applied to telephone rentals. So I say this is a good move, and once again want to indicate to the Minister of Finance that this will be appreciated.

To sum up, this is a large budget. I think it reflects not only the careful management that has been applied in recent years by this administration, but we should recognize that the fiscal health indicated in this budget is in large part due to the bulge in resource revenues enjoyed by British Columbians from forestry and petroleum revenues. I say it is necessary to keep that in mind and, therefore, I am fully in support of the fact that we haven't spent all of these revenues. We've allocated surpluses because they have been beyond our expectation, but at the same time we're conserving in our surplus account.... If you'll examine the budget, some $253 million has not yet been committed in the anticipated surplus at the end of March 1981. I am in accord with that, Mr. Speaker. I support that, with a word of caution. In other words, resource revenues and their strength don't last forever. I think we're in quite a brisk, strong economy, but you have to prepare for days when maybe it isn't as brisk, so I'm in accord with holding some of this reserve aside for other times. We need to harbour some of this present prosperity for the future and I think that is, in effect, what we're doing by only allocating part of those surplus funds.

So, Mr. Speaker, this budget represents a strong statement of confidence in British Columbia. It is a budget that builds for the people in the 1980s and prepares for the opportunities and challenges ahead. To put it in another perspective, in this budget we will be spending $906 on

[ Page 1631 ]

health and social services for each British Columbian, $1,963 for each patient in acute-care hospitals in British Columbia, $1,394 on education costs for each public school student in the province, $4,344 on education for each university, college and vocational school student, and $405 per household on direct aid to municipalities throughout British Columbia in addition to the homeowner grant, plus $189 per person for provincial highways, roads and bridges. This is a budget for the eighties which serves the people of British Columbia in a responsible, sensitive and forward-looking way.

MRS. WALLACE: First, if I may have the indulgence of the House — I hope they're still there — I would like to welcome to the gallery a group of grade seven students from Mill Bay Elementary School who are visiting the precincts today and arrived just in time to hear me speak on the budget. I would like the the House to make them, together with their teacher Mr. Pollock, welcome.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make just a few comments on the remarks of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) before I begin the remarks I had intended to make here. I was interested in his statement that this budget represents a strong statement of confidence in British Columbia. It seemed to be in a rather strange context that he used that statement, because he used it just as he finished talking about how things were going to be so bad that he had to save up for the future. That didn't make very much sense, but I suspect he is probably right in that latter assumption, because even the Minister of Finance, in his comments in the budget, indicates he is expecting that unemployment will be worse in this year. He says in his written comments that unemployment will increase in British Columbia. That's what he expects to happen. Yet at the same time he's squirreling away money rather than making that money available to put people to work, even when he says outright and forthright that there's going to be more unemployment.

I want to deal today, very specifically, with the budget and the figures in the budget. I think it was the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) who spoke in the House earlier— and I'm not making this statement, but I concur that perhaps he was right in this one particular statement — and said: "Figures don't lie, but liars figure." Maybe he was talking about this budget when he said that. I'm very interested in page 34 of this budget— the statement of expenditure by ministry. Last year the former Minister of Finance presented us with a budget with comparative budget figures for the preceding year, and those figures were the figures that we had discussed and debated by the hour in the Legislature, and agreed on through the democratic process. But the figures in this budget are different, and the Minister of Finance put a little star up there and said: "It's a revised estimate."

I wondered about that, but then I looked down at the bottom, and he says it's adjusted, for comparison purposes, to the 1980-81 ministry structure. Okay, that's fair enough, I'll buy that. But you would expect, Mr. Speaker, if that's what he was doing — just changing things around because ministers have different responsibilities — that the total would be the same. But the total isn't the same; the total is far different. I don't think that's a total, truthful picture of what the minister has done.

In effect what he has done is to come in and say: "The last Minister of Finance didn't know what he was doing. I'm going to change the budget." That's what he has done — he has changed the budget. He has increased it from $4,567 million to $4,810 million. He hasn't just moved figures around to accommodate a change in ministerial responsibility. Even if you give him the benefit of the doubt where he added another ministry — there's $2 million in there for Intergovernmental Relations — that would only bring it up another $2 million, not up to the $4,810 million. No, Mr. Speaker, that isn't what this minister has done at all. He has changed the budget. I suggest that represents a disrespect for this Legislature and for the debate and discussion that goes not only into the budget but into the very detailed estimates that are presented to this House.

How has he changed this budget? Well, some of the ministries have more money and some have less. It doesn't seem to really matter what the Legislature voted. If you spend less — that's fine, there's a surplus. If you spend more — that's okay too, we'll just have a special warrant. That's rule by order-in-council, and it overrides the whole democratic process.

The Minister of — it used to be Economic Development; I guess he ruined the economy and now he is going to ruin industry in B.C. — the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) has an expression he uses quite frequently in this House, and it's "flimflam" — everything is "flimflam." Well, Mr. Speaker, I say to you this budget is flimflam.

They say: "If you don't spend what the Legislature voted and indicated you should spend, that's okay, that's a surplus, we'll squirrel it under the mattress, we'll use it for something else, we'll come up with some other idea. And if you over spend, we'll just pass a special warrant." Mr. Speaker, the special warrants that have been passed by this cabinet over the last year are nothing short of disgraceful — one after the other after the other, completely disregarding the will of the Legislature and doing what the government full well pleases with no respect for the decisions of the Legislature.

There are a couple of exceptions. One was a fire for which they had to bring in a special warrant, because nobody knew that fire was going to take place — perfectly all right. And, of course, under the new legislation which they brought in, they can put in a new ministry without any consultation with the Legislature. So probably the $2.5 million that went in a special warrant to establish that new ministry is perfectly all right.

But I have some grave concerns about many of these special warrants. There are so many of them. I don't have them all here, but I've got a list of all of them, and they go on and on. These are for the Minister of Finance. One for incidentals is $175,000. Another one for computer and consulting services is an overexpenditure of $738,000-plus. You know, we were going to have such a wonderful service with this new Systems Corporation. It was going to provide us such an economical and all-encompassing computer service. It has done nothing but cost the taxpayers money. That special warrant is just one more thing that indicates how much it's costing, and how it's being done with complete disregard for the Legislature.

Assessment appeal boards — that's a great one — an additional $299,000 over and above budget, required because of the mess this government has created through trying to change the classifications, particularly the farm classification. It's nothing but a horrendous mess out there, and that's the kind of extra expense this government is having to cover by special warrants. Another one from the Minister of Finance is $202,000 for government agencies.

[ Page 1632 ]

Here is a dandy: $24 million as of February 7 this year. Do you know what it's for? It's for overexpenditure on salary contingencies. That one is worth looking into a bit. In 1977 and 1978 the government budgeted a little over $21 million for that particular item, but do you know how much they spent? They spent $8.78 million; they'd budgeted $21 million and spent $8 million. That's good budgeting, Mr. Speaker, isn't it? So this year they reduced the vote to $17 million, about $3 million under what they had last year, and what happened? They not only spent the $17 million, but they needed $24 million more just to cover salary contingencies. That is completely inefficient budgeting and nothing more.

While I'm on the Finance minister's special warrants and his particular responsibilities, I want to talk just a little bit more about these assessments. You know, without so much as a "by your leave" to anyone, the government decided to change the assessment rate for machinery — this is machinery within large industrial or commercial properties — and I have a statement here which indicates just what that change, coupled with the 50 percent assessment for farmland, has done in the North Cowichan district municipality; what it has done to change the amount of dollars that municipality can collect. These things were done just offhand, off the cuff, by the government. It has reduced the farmland dollars collectible for school tax by 30.78 percent; there has been a reduction in the school assessments from some $416,000 to $288,000. Machinery and equipment — because of the change that this government made, the assessment reduction was brought down from $62,900 to $56,300. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that when a municipality is faced with those kinds of changes in its assessment base, it's hard put to hold the mill rate; it simply can't do it. The mill rate has to go up because their expenses remain constant.

I think the thing that added insult to injury was.... I don't know if it was the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), but he sent a letter to those municipalities — and I'm not sure which minister it was — and asked them to include on the assessment notices how because much the mill rate would have been if the resource grants had not been made by the province. Well, I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that raised a lot of ire among some of the councillors. They said: "Okay, if we have to do that, we're also going to include how much the mill rate would have been reduced if our assessment had remained the same and if the school tax basic mill rate had remained the same." Those are things that the government does on one hand — it takes with one hand and gives with the other — and then says: "Tell me what a good boy am I. "

Moving on with the special warrants, Mr. Speaker — municipal affairs. Here they are; I've got four of them here. They go on and on — Mines, Energy and Petroleum Resources; oh, lots of those. These special warrants are not included in the budget, Mr. Speaker, not voted on by this Legislature; it's money that government just decides to spend because they didn't do a good job budgeting or because some whim moves them to do something else.

Lands, Parks and Housing — $348,000 for parks and outdoor recreation — and I'm not saying whether that's good or bad, Mr. Speaker. What I'm saying is that that minister should have decided what he was going to do, taken his estimates to cabinet, put them through the Legislature and done it as any good business operation would have carried out its business. You know, that minister can go and get a special warrant for extra money for parks and outdoor recreation. He can stand up in this House and tell us about all the money he's going to spend and how he's got $6.5 million extra for special projects; and he can send out news releases outlining all the parks he's establishing and the land he's giving. But whenever I write that minister to indicate any park needs in my constituency, I always get the same answer: "No, no, no. No money." I've asked for a campsite, Mr. Speaker. We have no campsite in the Cowichan Valley, really. Can I have a campsite? No, there is no money. I've asked for a very special little park site at Mill Bay, a sort of mini Cathedral Grove, as we used to call it, over on the Alberni highway — big trees, something there are not too many of any more.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is it?

MRS. WALLACE: It's right on the highway, right at Mill Bay, an ideal spot, not too costly, where we could have a nice little roadside park. There's access to nice beaches for swimming, and it would be a beautiful nature conservancy with those large historical trees being preserved. Is it happening? The minister says no, no, no. He has only one answer.

If you want to get into Gordon Bay Park at Lake Cowichan, you don't have to leave on Friday, you have to leave at noon on Thursday in order to get a space. That's how full it is during the summer. There's a piece of property adjacent to that park, with a golf course on it, which is coming up for sale; there is an option to buy at a very low price that piece of property that the people who have the golf course have. Is the minister interested in expanding Gordon Bay Park and helping those local residents preserve their golf course which is adjacent to the park- a beautiful setup? No, no, no. The same answer. The road through that park, the access to that park, has become a disaster. It's a real hazard. One after the other, large recreational vehicles go through there where children are walking and playing. There's an alternate route; it would be very easy to provide. Will it happen? No, no, no. It won't happen; the minister says no. What he's doing is widening the road. I don't know what he's proposing to do by widening the road, except to make more room for more vehicles and more kids so we can have more accidents.

Forestry, range management, special warrants — here we are, another one, for $213,000. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) had a lot of them. It's not good budgeting when this happens, and it's disrespect for the whole process of the Legislature.

Education. Education is a very interesting one. This House adjourned on July 31 — we'd passed all the estimates, we'd done all the business and we adjourned. On August 16, two weeks after we adjourned, here's the Minister of Education with two special warrants. Now, surely he could have decided what he was going to do before that time. But, no, the House adjourns and then we go ahead and decide what's happening in education.

It's interesting when you realize what has happened in education as far as this budget goes, Mr. Speaker, and it repeats what's been said in this House before. It tells us where the power base is. The grants to school districts — the public school system — as estimated for 1980-81 show an increase of 6.6 percent over 1979-80. Colleges and provincial institutes, on the other hand, have an increase of 17.7

[ Page 1633 ]

percent. Independent schools have an increase of 19.6 percent, and universities 11.4 percent. It shows the priority that is put on the public school system in this province, and it's a very, very low priority.

I wrote the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) the other day, relative to research grants. I was concerned about the lack of money available for research grants for agriculture. He wrote me back, and he agreed in a way, but he gave me some interesting figures too. He said the Science Council of B.C. does the best it can within the limits of the funds made available to it. So it sounds like he would like some more funds for research. In its most recent distribution of funds, the council was able to award grants to 32 out of 175 applicants. That indicates to me, Mr. Speaker, that there should be a sizeable increase for research and development. But the worst of all, as far as I was concerned, of this particular letter is that he says: "In this stiff competition none of the three applications for agricultural research were in fact funded." Is there any money for agricultural research? The answer again is no, no, no.

Special warrants for the Ministry of Health. They are probably the largest amount of money that has come in in special warrants, and obviously they're needed. Health care is still in dire straits in this province, to put it mildly. But I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Health could well have guessed that, could well have learned that, and known that was going to happen, and come into this House last year with estimates that would more nearly reflect the needs for health care in this province, instead of doing it under the table through orders-in-council.

He can go and ask council for $16 million or $800,000 — all kinds of amounts. Yet when I write him, Mr. Speaker, and point out to him that in the city of Nanaimo where the Central Vancouver Island Health Unit is located, which serves the area that I and other members on this island represent, and ask that the facility that has been built there to provide audiological services to the people of that area be provided money to staff that facility.... He spent the money to build it, and there is no staff. I write and ask him if he will staff that facility so the people on the Island will have that service. What is my answer on March 14, 1980? In spite of all these special warrants for millions and millions of dollars, he writes me and says: "I thank you for the letter. We will encourage such a development as soon as financial circumstances allow."

What is that minister trying to prove, Mr. Speaker? He can go to council for millions of dollars, but he can't get funds to put one audiological technician in an already provided facility in the Nanaimo area. As a result there is no service for people on Vancouver Island. You can come to Victoria if you are under 18, but otherwise there's nothing. That's the kind of action this minister and this government are taking. There are special warrants by the score, but not enough money for one technician in Nanaimo to help the people with hearing difficulties.

Provincial Secretary. Yes, there are warrants for the Provincial Secretary. Small business developments. There are special warrants for them. The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has had a lot of special warrants, but the two that I want to talk about are two that were passed February 7 and February 21. A special warrant of $2.9 million reads: "Whereas the Minister of Transportation and Highways reports that the necessity for the expenditure is urgent." It's urgently and immediately required for the public good, and do you know what it is, Mr. Speaker? It's $2.9 million to buy an airplane! This was just a couple of weeks before the House was to come into session. I guess on February 21 he realized that if he had a new airplane to play with, he needed someone to staff it and some fuel to run it. So we have another special warrant for $500,000 for the air services branch. Special warrants. Government by cabinet. Big government at its worst — "urgently needed for the public good," indeed!

The special warrants that have been issued in this province over the last year filled three pages of close typing, and they total $267,714,787. In 1976 and 1977 they amounted to $84 million; in 1977-78 they amounted to $215 million; and in 1978-79 they amounted to $226 million. This is government by cabinet, and it gets worse every year. This particular Minister of Finance has seen fit to bring in a budget that doesn't even relate, as far as comparable purposes, to the budget that was actually passed in this Legislature last year. What assurance does this House have that anything we discuss or anything we vote on will be carried out? It will be done by that cabinet according to the whim of the moment. It will be done according to some fantasy of some minister who wants an airplane, wants to build a road somewhere, or wants to do some particular thing without any consultation or long-term planning. It's budgeting without due thought and care. If you ran a company like that, it would be a disaster. It couldn't be done. But this government, who pride themselves on being such great managers and such great businessmen, are the ones who have proven to be a complete disaster.

I'll say just a couple of things in closing. I recall when that government was first elected. They were trying to accumulate a deficit to lay on the shoulders of the former administration. One of the minor things they did— they did a lot of things worse than this — was to dig out all the payments that would be coming due to the cattlemen under the Farm Income Assurance Plan. They weren't expected until April or May of the following year, but they charged them out in the previous year, so that would be an added expenditure — something to add to the so-called deficit. Well, that's what they did then. What are they doing this year?

They found out that thanks to the former Minister of Agriculture — not this one but the one that held that office for just a few months, the member no longer in this House who made a commitment to the farmers of this province that they would have a guarantee to 9 percent interest rebate, and this minister is stuck with that— thanks to that minister who's no longer here, the farmers are getting that payment, but it's costing, and it's costing more than they budgeted. But did they go and get a special warrant for that? No. What are they doing?

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, but when you paid the cattlemen you made sure that got in the previous year, even though it wasn't done back in 1975-76. This year you're not paying it out; you're paying it out of this '80-81 budget, and that's mighty strange. It's what you said, Mr. Minister, when you spoke earlier: "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure."

Mr. Speaker, I was concerned about the figures in this budget, I was also concerned about a couple of things in the content of the dialogue that we heard from the minister of the dulcet tones over there.

Mr. Speaker, the two things that concern me are, first of

[ Page 1634 ]

all, the obvious error in the budget when he was talking about the homeowner's grant. He talks about new measures that will increase by a further $50 the grants to the elderly, the handicapped now receiving GAIN, and war veterans. There were a lot of war veterans in the province who thought they were going to get that $50. But were they right? No. The minister made a mistake. That is not what the minister really meant.

The other thing that concerns me in the dialogue is the fact that this minister would write into a document that goes all around the world his own political bias relative to the federal government duly elected by the voters of this province and this country, and say that he was going to have a difficult time working with the new government. It shows very poor judgment, Mr. Minister, to include that kind of remark in an official document that will go all over this province.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: No, Mr. Speaker, we don't want it both ways. But I would suggest to you that any Minister of Finance who would turn out a document that tells the war veterans of this province they're going to get $50 of their homeowner's grant when it isn't necessarily so, and who tells the world that they're going to have a difficult time working with a duly, democratically elected federal government.... There is something drastically wrong with that document. As I said earlier, it's a flimflam budget, because it doesn't mean very much. It doesn't mean a thing, because we're not going to follow it anyway. That government will continue to govern with surpluses and special warrants.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I feel it is quite a tradition that the members of the opposition participate in this debate. I felt it was a personal affront for the people of Esquimalt–Port Renfrew when the political game was played by the Minister of Finance to try to institute closure in this House. I'm telling you, we accept certain traditions, Mr. Speaker. We recognize you as the Speaker to direct and to give us guidance. When we have a policy that has been set down by tradition, by you and your predecessors, that there shall be a certain selection — the opposition, the other parties and the government — we accept that. And when you have the little petty political games of the Provincial Secretary standing and sitting down — a good friend of mine, a personal friend for a long time — I find this sort of manoeuvre offensive.

I don't think it's any political secret that we, on this side of the House, participated in the last federal election. One of the things you are doing when you're out knocking on doors and main-streeting is that you are finding out what the general public is saying. They are talking to us.

MR. BARBER: We all voted, too.

MR. MITCHELL: And we all voted too, as my good friend from Victoria says. But when we get out there.... I have knocked on doors where I meet a lot of good traditional NDPers, and granted, they are going to support us both provincially and federally, because we are the only political party in British Columbia that fields a full slate of both federal and provincial candidates. We are a party that has principles and traditions, and we are part of the political force of this country. We will be here long after the Social Credit Party has gone down the tube, like it's gone down in Quebec, like it's going down in Alberta. It is a thing like the coalition and the dodo; it is going out.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't even vote.

MR. MITCHELL: I vote. I vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't vote on the independent schools, did you?

MR. MITCHELL: I wasn't here on the independent schools. I was not here, and if you point at me, you point at me as an individual.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, will you convince this blabbermouth to keep quiet?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the member speaking to address the Chair, and I would ask the members interrupting to cease interrupting.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker I appreciate your traditions. I appreciate the control you exercise in this House, and I bow to your wishes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Health on a point of order.

HON. MR. MAIR: The member opposite called me a name that, while true, was offensive. The member opposite called me a blabbermouth, and I'd like to know whether or not that's on your list of proscribed words, and if it is, I would ask for a retraction.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is on the proscribed list, hon. member. The minister asks for a withdrawal. Would the member withdraw the term?

MR. MITCHELL: Is the word "blabbermouth" on the offensive list? Well, as someone said, it's true, but I withdraw it. I bow to your overwhelming majority; I know that you have to enforce it.

But one of the things I would like to bring out.... I couldn't help when the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) wanted to bring some figures to this House, and I would like to bring some figures to this House.... I would ask the government not to continue to read their old press releases and rehash Jack Kelly's research and speeches that they bring out, but study what is happening in the province of British Columbia, what is happening to the political spectrum and the political votes.

In 1972 the NDP came to power with 38 percent. My riding was a good indication of what was happening in that respect. My riding indicates what is happening to the political votes in the province of British Columbia. We sent a member here with 33.9 percent of the vote. In 1975 — again, study the facts; don't study the political garbage that comes out — the NDP were defeated with 39 percent of the vote.

[ Page 1635 ]

My riding, again, was a good indicator of the type of vote, of the increase. Our vote at that time rose to 43 percent. Again, I ask the members, through you, Mr. Speaker, to say to the members of the government that that vote in B.C. has risen to 47 percent; my riding has gone to 52 percent, and this is what is happening in the province of British Columbia. The Social Credit Party is going down the tube and the NDP is coming up.

I'll tell you what is happening, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: You want to check your...you can tell the Speaker when you get the floor. I'm telling you what's happening in the province of British Columbia, and I heard it from knocking on doors in the last federal election. There are people who are voting NDP federally, and there are people who are voting Conservative and Liberal federally. But I had person after person, voter after voter, constituent after constituent, tell me that though they have their federal traditions, they can hardly wait for the next provincial election to get those — I won't say it, Mr. Speaker, I know it's offensive — people out. And that's what's going to happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: And now to the budget.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. MITCHELL: It's really important that we get back to the budget. We should study a few of the issues that have come up. I think one of the major issues, again referring to the previous speaker who said that we should review some of the history of the province of British Columbia.... I would like to deal with forestry, though I will be speaking on it longer in the estimates. If you go back into the history of my political party, in 1939 there was a man who represented the Comox riding by the name of Colin Cameron. He made a speech in this House where he advocated complete forest management, complete sustained yield, and 100 percent maximum reforestation of the denuded lands.

In 1956 Mr. Sloan brought in a report. At that time the Social Credit were in power. He brought in a report where he advocated — so that we could catch up with the lands that had been denuded, raped and creamed by the forest companies — that if B.C. wanted to maintain its position in the world market of forests, they should start on a policy of reforestation to the lands. They should start it. He recommended at that time that we should at least plant 48,000 acres of land per year.

The Social Credit government was in power with a great, overwhelming majority. They could have enforced that policy. What happened? They drifted and they drifted. They completely destroyed the forest industry. They have given land away in forest management licences so that now the vast majority of B.C. is controlled by seven or eight multinational forest companies who dictate what we are doing today. Now our Minister of Forests comes back and says in all his wisdom that we are going to put $380 million into reforestation this year. In the next five years we are going to put in $1.4 billion to plant and replant the forest lands of this province. Do you know what that does, Mr. Speaker? Five years from now — 25 years after the Sloan commission report came down — it is only going to plant 38,000 acres per year. This is after 25 years of Social Credit mismanagement.

B.C. led Canada in forest industry and wealth, and now we are allowed to see our country denuded. The money is going out of this country, and nothing is being done. Nothing has been done for 25 years. What has happened? The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) rose to ask what provisions had been made to protect the log supply for a mill in his riding and what provisions had been made to protect jobs. The minister said: "I am not interested. When someone buys timber they can do what they want with it." Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister, this is the reason that I have three mills in my riding today that go from month to month and week to week, because they are not assured of a permanent supply of logs.

I'm telling you the constituents in Esquimalt–Port Renfrew are fed up with the mismanagement and the lack of action of this government. If we had the policies that were promoted in 1939 and if this Social Credit government with their 25 years of overwhelming majority had given leadership and direction and shown initiative we would have had trees today and we would have had employment throughout the forest industry. But, no, we burnble along, day after day, week after week, and we never face it until we hit a disaster.

I'm sorry the Minister of Human Resources is not here. I know she will be listening to what I have to say, and I know when we get into her estimates there will be a more detailed study. I would like to bring to the attention of this House one small situation that developed in the Esquimalt–Port Renfrew riding. Within the riding it is called the Langwood Centre for the Mentally Handicapped. This is a centre that takes 20 children or adults who have come from homes where the parents have been looking after these children — and some of these children are from 20 to 50 years of age, but through no fault of their own are mentally handicapped.

What is the alternative? They could either stay home and the parents could look after them, or they could go into an institution like Glendale at a price of around $200 a day.

So the Capital Region Association for the Mentally Handicapped have opened, in the Esquimalt riding, a centre where adult males can go and work, do projects, learn life skills and have the chance to work with peers and fellow residents. What is the alternative, Mr. Speaker? Some of these children had been taken out of Glendale and put into group homes. Some were still in their own homes, and parents cannot survive with a mentally handicapped person in their house 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They have to be taken out to an activity centre. Then in October the Capital Region Association for the Mentally Handicapped came to the minister and requested a meeting for more funds. We had October, November, December and January, and there was absolutely no answer and no positive commitment — nothing — until the association was forced to announce that it had to shut down this centre. This was completely uncalled for. The worry that went through the parents' homes, and the worry that went through the group-home parents who were looking after children, and who had taken children out of a $200-a-day hospital.... They were saving the taxpayers money, saving the government money, and they were showing a type of humanitarianism that is not shown by a lot of people in this House. They were looking after people who needed help. They were relating to people who needed it and appreciated it.

Then we get the budget, and I am happy to see that they have raised the funds for the handicapped, but they still have not faced the variety of handicapped people in this province.

[ Page 1636 ]

There are people who are handicapped because of industrial accident; there are people who are physically handicapped, although mentally competent, because of birth defects; and there are handicapped people who are handicapped because of mental illness. You cannot bundle all the handicapped under one budget, and you cannot put them all into one basket, because they are as different today as apples and boards of lumber. Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister, to the Human Resources and to the Health ministries: let us recognize the different types of handicapped people and how they fit into our society. Let us recognize that some need a helping hand, and some need complete, seven-day-a-week care.

When we have families of natural parents and group parents from group homes who are attempting to give the treatment that is needed, instead of the state being forced to spend $200 a day to keep them in an institution, we should not be so niggardly, and so inhuman that we stall it off from October to November to December to January to February, and at the last minute come out with an increase from 73 cents to $1 per hour. I ask the minister to go over his budget, and I ask the minister to give more money to those who need it, those who are in the mentally handicapped field.

Mr. Speaker, a large part of the budget is in highways, and again, we will be going into it in detail. But I feel that there are certain policies that affect my riding, and affect the riding of every member who has a rural section within his riding. There are two matters, and the first one is drainage.

I know the Highways ministry has told me time after time — when I have approached the engineer, the minister or the foreman on the road — that the Highways ministry does not recognize drainage as one of its responsibilities. One of the great causes of drainage problems within the province of British Columbia, and within my riding, is the inept policies of this government and the Highways ministry — day after day. The cause of the drainage problems in two major drainage areas in my riding — the Bilston Creek and Craigflower Creek drainage system — is the Highways ministry's approval of subdivisions up in the hills.

They have allowed the subdivisions to be denuded of trees and covered with blacktop, and they have allowed the subdivisions to run the water down the hills into the valleys, down into Bilston Creek, and have allowed it to flood that area year after year. It is the Minister of Highways and his ministry who have okayed every last one of these subdivisions. They have made no preparations for any off-site damage; they have made no preparation for those who have collected large sums on the subdivisions to pay something, to look after the drainage where they are flooding those who settled in the valley, the pioneers of this area down along the riverbanks who year after year have been flooded out. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, if you have any input into the Minister of Highways, that he look over his budget, look over his policies and bring in some type of understanding and some plan that looks to the future for the drainage problems of the province of British Columbia.

We have another creek, Craigflower Creek. A good friend of the political party which is now governing this province wanted to put in a subdivision. It was in a field beside Craigflower Creek. The first application for that plan was rejected by the Ministry of Highways. For some unknown reason, a certain political MLA at that time, I believe, got involved. The original engineer had said the area was not to be subdivided; it was to be held for a park, because traditionally that area flooded. All of a sudden seven lots appeared on that land, seven lots that flood every second year because of the development above that land and the increase in water. This year was no exception; seven of them had four feet of water in the basement. I say this is the bungling and mismanagement of 25 years of Social Credit rule in my riding.

I say that from a constituency point of view, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see a policy come out through the minister where we can make some positive plans to correct this measure. Maybe these seven houses are there, and I feel that to build a dike around them would not solve the problem. But I sincerely feel that this government, where it's been proven because of their mismanagement, should make a sincere attempt to correct the situation by either moving the houses or raising them, but should not allow this cancer to develop and continue as it has for the last 10 to 15 years.

What is happening? I guess people are human. They get flooded out in the winter, look around in the summer, clean up the house, move all the bark and the chips off the lawn and sell the house, and a new owner is stuck with it. The new owner ends up the next winter or the winter after with a basement full of water, again because of the mismanagement of this government and the predecessors of the Social Credit government.

I would like to bring a second issue to this House — through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Highways. Because of the changing lifestyles that we are having, because more and more people are leaving the family car at home, more people are riding bicycles, more rural areas are developing, and more kids are walking to school. Every day the highways that were originally designed for traffic are now taking the pedestrians.

I would like to see this government develop a policy of paving at least one side, one shoulder, of every highway so we can get the school kids off the road, can get the bicycles off the road, and we can protect people. I say that this is something that we need, not only in my riding.... Granted, my riding has the largest concentration of residents who are not organized within a municipality, but I do know that they are paying taxes, Mr. Speaker. They are donating to the revenue of this province and they demand, they want, they request, they plead for some of that money to come back into the highways to protect their children, to protect their cyclists. When a car breaks down they want an area where that car can get off the road and the repairs can be done in safety.

I ask this government to come up with a policy that is a change from their blacktop, 60 miles-per-hour philosophy, and that we start looking to the fact that roads are for people.

When we go through the various speeches, we from the southern end of Vancouver Island have one policy, one program, that has come up consistently. It is a program that has grown for everyone in the capital region to watch. It is something that each one of us — even the minister from Saanich, the new minister from Oak Bay, the two members from Victoria, and myself from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.... We have watched a ship that has been part of our tradition, has been part of our way of life. We know and you know that it was brought in by the previous administration, but this ship became very popular. For some unknown reason the government, with the planned involvement of five ministers of this government who have been a part of the board of B.C. Steamships — there was the present member

[ Page 1637 ]

for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), there was the Minister of Human Resources, there was that great and wonderful best Minister of Economic Development, so he keeps telling us, and for a short period we had the....

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: The voice came from our Minister of Finance. He seemed to be involved in there, and now we have the present Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). What happened? For three years they knew that we had to do something with the Princess Marguerite — for three years! For three years they had the warnings, they had the announcements by the Canadian steamships inspectors, they had it from the U.S. Coast Guard, they had it from Lloyd's of London, that changes must be made. For three years they burnbled and stumbled from day to day, and little stories were leaked out, little reports were leaked out, which I thought were about the funniest I ever heard. Here we had a ship sailing with the certificate from the U.S. Coast Guard — 100 percent; from Lloyd's of London, who are not new in the industry — they said it was 100 percent safe; the Canadian steamships; local people, professionals we all knew, who had roots in this community, who had friends in this community, who had connections in this community, said it was 100 percent.

But this little group directed by cabinet ministers of the Social Credit government leaked a little report out that said the ship was a disaster. They weren't even sure in this report if the lifeboats were made of steel or not — this was how detailed it was. They think they were steel. I don't know where they stood — they stood out on the breakwater as it went by.

They obviously didn't make any attempt to study the ship. They never talked to the professionals who run the ship, they never talked to the people who inspected the ship, but they had a talk when they were out fishing off the end of the breakwater. They said: "Oh, I wonder if they're steel. Those lifeboats obviously must be deteriorated by now." So what happens? We get right down to the last minute, the eleventh hour, and we have petitions; 40,000-odd people — the little people, the business people — sign a petition. What does this government do? It's a disaster. The Minister of Transportation and Highways can't look after it. They fire the only man who had any tradition in the steamboat industry, Mr. Elworthy, who came from a long family of towboats and was involved with shipping.

To straighten it out they had to send in the Premier; they had to send in the coach. He got on the phone, he looked up the phone book and got the chamber of commerce. He said: "Oh, I'll appoint the head of the chamber of commerce. We're going to set up a non-profit society." What are they going to do? They're going to run jetfoils.

Now I know Cedric Steele. He's a wonderful little guy. He has just been elected to the chamber of commerce. He might be able to sell houses; he might know the subdivisions; he might do all these wonderful things. But all of a sudden, because he was a minister, because he was the president of the chamber of commerce, he was appointed the czar to look after the transportation from Victoria to Seattle. It was a bungling idea. They have no plan; they have no understanding; they can't even pack cars. Maybe the people of Victoria will accept that, but if any of these visitors....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), if he wishes to speak, must be in his own place.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate any little help I can get around here. We need help because we're sure not getting any help from this government. This government is destroying Victoria. It's destroying it, and I say it has destroyed the member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis). There will be another NDPer from this end. Some have an albatross around their neck, but the Minister of Finance has the Marguerite and he'll have one heck of a time packing it around. It was nice knowing you.

Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness, the only thing that I really regret is that Sam Bawlf is not here.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Your side feels the same way, eh? [Laughter.]

MR. MITCHELL: There is one reason that I had — only one reason. At least he had the vision of rehabilitating and updating buildings, and he had the vision to update and bring ships. Everyone has a little bit of good — the Minister of Finance, even the Premier. A few of you over there have a little bit of good. Anyway, we will be getting into that in a little more detail. I believe I have some new information that I'm going to bring out when the minister's estimates come up. I feel this government should come in with a plan, come in with a budget, and know how much British Columbia money is going to subsidize another American import. They're going to hire American crews to bring people to British Columbia when our employees have been laid off. With all the unemployment — we have 10 percent unemployment in Victoria-they bring the Swedes, they bring the Japs...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MITCHELL: ...and they bring in the Americans. We want to get jobs in this port for Canadians, and we want especially to get jobs for people of the greater Victoria riding. I have no doubt that if anybody is going to get a job, it's going to be a job from Victoria.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Please proceed.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to withdraw the name "Japs." I would like to honestly take it back. I would like to bow to your wisdom, but I say that the people we must provide jobs for are the people in this riding. I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

I'm never sure when I see that blue light how much time I have.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not much after that!

MR. MITCHELL: But I didn't even get started here, and I've got to go on and on and cut it all off. We're going to be here until December, they tell me.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should give my reasons why I am going to vote against this budget. I'm going to vote

[ Page 1638 ]

because of three major issues. One is the inept bungling of the Forests ministry in the last 25 years of Social Credit. Even today with all the reports that are on their desks we have 10,000 acres a year less than we need. I have mills that need logs, and if this government had taken action 25 years ago we might have seen some light today.

Secondly, I'm going to vote against this budget because, for one issue, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) could have come and given some of the feeling and compassion that was needed for those who were running and had children in the Langwood Activity Centre. She never even answered the letter. To me, Mr. Speaker, it was a disgrace.

The third reason is the complete bungling over the Marguerite, and I say "complete bungling" because that's how it was viewed by every profession in this area and by the people in the business community. If we can have that bungling on the Marguerite, it is indicative of why today we do not have hospitals and we do not have the facilities that are needed in this province. That is why I am voting against it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, with some indulgence from you, I should like to take a few opening minutes in my budget remarks to express my absolute incredulity and my very great shock and sorrow in recalling what I think were the words I heard uttered by the last speaker, the member of the opposition for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. If I heard those words correctly.... It's after the fact, whether or not they have been withdrawn. We have heard a reference....

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that when the Chair asks for a withdrawal or when a member voluntarily issues a withdrawal, the Speaker...

HON. MR. BENNETT: What are you so nervous about? Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I cannot hear the point of order.

MR. KING: ...accepts the word of hon. members in this House and accepts their retractions, and that matter is concluded and is not appropriate to be raised again in this Legislature. That's my understanding, Mr. Speaker. I would like your direction on it.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I don't know how the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) knows what the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) may yet be referring to. The member for Vancouver South has not yet introduced to this House the subject he wished to discuss. Secondly, it's my understanding that statements which may be withdrawn in the House may be withdrawn if they offend a sitting member and are considered to be unparliamentary. Further, Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware that you asked the member to withdraw any remarks.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: May I have order, please? Would the Premier please come to order?

In order to have some guidance for the House, whenever an offensive remark is made — sometimes already having been previously ruled unparliamentary, sometimes not having been previously ruled unparliamentary but still offensive — when those remarks are withdrawn they are withdrawn by the word of an hon. member and are accepted by the House as withdrawn. To put those words again into the mouth of a speaker would be to consider them as though they had never been withdrawn.

Although in the instance before us the Chair has no knowledge of what words are being referred to since they have not yet been identified, I still would warn all hon. members to guide even the construction of their phrases by the overriding principle that once a remark has been withdrawn, it should be withdrawn.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, in moving to the topic of the budget and stressing how the introduction to the budget stresses the reliance of this province on export trade and makes reference to our great trading neighbour, Japan, my point is, sir, that in a province so dependent on export trade, with a budget which so heavily stresses our requirements for export trade, may I simply say that I hope the budget of this government is seen as a document which shows friendship and interest to our great trading neighbour of Japan. This government and this party of which I have the privilege of being a member takes the greatest of pride in and values highly the friendships — the business friendships and the social friendships — we hold with our Japanese Canadians, our Japanese British Columbians and Japanese citizens overseas.

Mr. Speaker, we, in this party and on behalf of the government, hold in the highest regard the working abilities, the quality of craftsmanship, of the Japanese worker and the Japanese product produced and imported into British Columbia, and we value the fact that the Japanese worker and those Japanese businesses choose to do business with us, using our exports.

There is, Mr. Speaker, no place in the vocabulary of this government or our party — no place at all — for the word "Jap," which we find unfortunate, regrettable and not to be used in the trading business between this province and that country.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is this the phrase that was withdrawn?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: If this is the word that was withdrawn, then I would suggest that it not be referred to in further debate. Please proceed.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I will proceed as you suggest.

I would also like to pay the Minister of Finance....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I fear that we might be moving into some dangerous ground here if we establish a precedent within this House that

[ Page 1639 ]

we can't use words, in our speeches. The member who was speaking was speaking about something that he finds offensive, and we have no way of knowing whether he's referring to something that happened in this House or in Langley or in Point Grey or somewhere else. That member finds that term offensive. I'd caution the House that we wouldn't want to start ruling against the use of words and the use of the opportunity for us to express our feelings very clearly in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I will reflect on both the precedent and the opinions of both sides of the House over the weekend; I will prepare a statement and bring it to the House on Monday or Tuesday next. I trust that that will be acceptable.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, out of the regard and the respect I hold for you, sir, and your chair, I think it is now appropriate if I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Just before the hon. House Leader moves the final motion, hon. members, earlier today I undertook to bring a decision to you. Here it is.

Standing order 42 requires that the Speaker inform the House that the reply of the mover of the original motion closes the debate. The purpose of this standing order is to alert members who have yet to speak, and a member thus alerted may stand immediately and declare that he wishes to continue in debate. Today, following the custom of the House, I recognized the Minister of Finance as the only member standing and inquired if the minister was closing debate. At that point another member sought the attention of the Chair to continue the debate and was recognized. The minister quite correctly yielded the floor. The Speaker will recognize all members who wish to take their place in debate; this House does not recognize an official speakers' list; and it is incumbent upon members to be prepared to speak at the appropriate time.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Just as a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker, which section did you quote?

MR. SPEAKER: Section 42.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Thank you.

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

The House adjourned at 12:53 p.m.