[ Page 2057 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Special Purpose Appropriation Act, 1980 (Bill 5). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2057

Mr. Stupich –– 2060

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 2066

Mr. Lockstead –– 2069

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 2071

Mrs. Wallace –– 2073

FRIDAY, APRIL 18, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: This morning during his prayer, Reverend Moon mentioned a family which has just arrived in Canada, the Chun family from Laos, who have come via Thailand. They are a mother, father and three children: a boy, 15, a girl, 12, and a girl, 5. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming this family to Canada and wishing them a very prosperous future here.

MRS. WALLACE: In the gallery at 11 o'clock this morning will be a group of 22 young adults from the Cowichan Valley Alternate School. This school, as you may know, has provided an alternative system of education in the valley for some years now with a very great deal of success. They will be accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Barry Blow. I think it might interest the House to know that Mr. Blow, before living in the Cowichan Valley, lived in the Chilliwack area and at one time was, I believe, campaign manager to the Speaker of the House. I would ask the House to welcome Mr. Blow and the young adults who will be attending later.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the members' attention to a visitor in the gallery today. He is one of my three sons, not the oldest, but the tallest. He's a 6 foot 5 inch basketball player — I can't convert it into metric. He's in his fourth year at UBC, and, following Hansard, he decided to come over and see and hear for himself. So I hope that we will all behave in a proper manner this morning. Would the House please welcome Stewart Ritchie.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 5, Mr. Speaker.

SPECIAL PURPOSE APPROPRIATION ACT, 1980

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure this morning to speak in second reading of Bill 5. I have a number of notes — copious notes, I would point out — which will assist all hon. members, I think, in understanding what the government is attempting to do in this particular piece of legislation.

Bill 5, Special Purpose Appropriation Act, 1980, proposes the allocation of a total of $168.65 million of the 1979-80 fiscal year revenue surplus for a variety of purposes and activities. It will be necessary, Mr. Speaker, to identify what might be considered clauses of the bill in second reading. I trust that is acceptable to the Chair.

Item 1 is provincial public debt retirement in the amount of $26.1 million. This amount will be applied on May 1, 1980, as the second instalment toward the retirement of the provincial debt that arose as a result of budget performance in fiscal year 1975-76, resulting in an overall deficit in the province's accounts of $261,447,790. The interest cost on this debt in fiscal year 1980-81 is estimated to be $45.6 million which, you would note, Mr. Speaker, is provided for in the main estimates to be voted by the House at some point.

Item 2 — of interest to members in virtually every part of the province, I would suggest — is an accelerated highway construction program in the amount of $100 million. The allocation of this very substantial sum for an accelerated highway construction program this year allows for the following: the paving of approximately 200 miles of highway, construction of new roads or major reconstruction in the amount of 25 miles, work on 500 miles of collector and secondary roads in the minor road system and, perhaps even more importantly, Mr. Speaker, the provision of 1,500 man years of direct employment and 5,000 to 6,000 man-years of subsidiary employment, along with the employment of about 750 pieces of equipment. This appropriation, incidentally, supplements the $208 million provided in the main estimates for highway construction.

Items 3 and 4 may be described as (1) low-interest loan assistance to small businesses in metropolitan areas, $5 million, and (2) the Small Manufacturers Assistance Program in metropolitan areas, $5 million.

In recognition of the fact that approximately 80 percent of British Columbia's manufacturers have less than 50 employees, the Social Credit provincial government, when negotiating the five-year $70 million Industrial Development Subsidiary Agreement with Ottawa, included a jointly funded Assistance to Small Enterprise Program, designed to provide up to $10 million in interest-free forgivable loans to small manufacturers, and a $20 million Low Interest Loans Assistance Program to provide loans at half the usual rate to small- and medium-sized industries. This latter program is funded entirely by the people of British Columbia through their government. The ongoing programs focus on the manufacturing and processing sectors. Public investment in this critical sector of the economy, we believe, will provide the greatest benefits to the province in terms of job creation and economic spinoffs.

In these days of very high interest rates and the clearly indicated worldwide economic slowdown, our government has noted a growing need in major urban areas for the type of assistance and economic stimulus that the IDSA programs provide in less developed areas of the province. Provision for these low-interest and forgivable loan programs will help maintain the viability and dynamics of our major urban industrial bases.

Last year $5 million in low-interest loan assistance was made available in urban areas. This program has been an unqualified success. Continued extension of these programs is also in line with the long-standing provincial position that all British Columbia businesses, no matter where they are located, should have equal opportunity to benefit from such proven, effective economic development programs. However, this was not the mandate of our federal cost-sharing partners in the Industrial Development Subsidiary Agreement. Until now, the province has been unable to offer these programs in all areas of the province. To date, the Assistance to Small Enterprise Program has committed almost $7.2 million to projects with total capital costs of $17.5 million, not including land.

From this, Mr. Speaker, 349 firms were able to com-

[ Page 2058 ]

mence or expand their operations and about 1,700 jobs will be created. The average capital cost per job of $4,300 shows that a truly cost-effective job-creation mechanism is inherent in this program. For larger and more sophisticated industrial developments the Low Interest Loans Assistance Program delivered by the British Columbia Development Corporation has approved about $19.1 million towards projects with total financed costs of almost $100 million. In fact, the exact figure is $97.8 million. This program, which does not only generate large amounts of investment, has also created jobs to the extent of 2,343, still at a very low cost per job of $8,167.

Now with this exceptional industrial development track record as proof of the efficiency of programs such as this, the government has moved to use surplus funds to help businesses grow. These programs ensure continued growth and job creation in the industries of British Columbia.

The Small Manufacturers Assistance Program is a facsimile program to the Assistance to Small Enterprise Program which will provide forgivable loans of up to $30,000 for the establishment, expansion or modernization of manufacturing and processing facilities where the total capital cost is no more than $100,000. To qualify, existing businesses can have annual average sales of not more than $500,000 per year for the last two years. The Low Interest Loans Assistance Program delivered by the British Columbia Development Corporation will provide loans ranging from $18,000 to $250,000 at about one-half the usual interest rate.

Item 5 in this bill: The Science Council of B.C. applied research grants, $3.5 million; the British Columbia Research Council applied research, $1 million; and university scientific research equipment, $2 million.

The British Columbia government proposes to allocate a total of $6.5 million for scientific research in this year. The Science Council of B.C. has received requests for applied research projects worthy of support totalling in excess of $10 million. The provision of these additional funds to the Science Council will permit the funding of a larger number of projects offering high potential benefits to the future development of our province.

The additional $1 million for British Columbia Research Council is in response to a recommendation of the Lapp report. These funds will allow the expansion of the in-house research programs of B.C. Research Council to better serve industry in British Columbia.

Thirdly in this group, $2 million is allocated to universities for the purchase of scientific equipment. These additional funds will allow universities to maintain their already high standard of scientific performance for which our universities are known. These actions by the provincial government should demonstrate to the private sector the importance we place upon research for the fuller development of the province's resources and for our greater industrial diversification.

Next I would like to touch briefly on the accelerated Recreation Facilities Assistance Program in the amount of $5 million. Recreational facilities throughout British Columbia will benefit from the $5 million which has been set aside for an accelerated program. These funds will supplement $7 million budgeted in the 1980-81 main estimates for the entire recreational facilities program, or RFAP. This is a program through which the province assists communities in developing public recreational facilities in all areas of the province.

Recreation has long been recognized as an important factor in the physical and economic well-being of our communities. If I was not completely convinced of that a few years ago, my time in the office of Provincial Secretary and as Minister of Government Services convinced me that the program is indeed well worthwhile. Provincial assistance offsetting one-third of the capital construction cost of facilities reduces long-term debt; that in itself is desirable these days. As well, it permits local funds to be diverted to operational costs and, of course, it generates jobs in both the construction and operation phases. The program also provides incentive grants to assist British Columbia communities to improve their recreational services through the development of recreational master plans.

The next item I would wish to speak to members about, through you, sir, deals with local airport facilities. Provincial government financial assistance to the development of airport facilities in the smaller provincial communities was initiated by this government in 1978. It is perhaps an understatement to say that community interest in this program remains at a very high level. It is for this reason that the government proposes to increase the allocation of funds. The objectives of the program will be known to all members. The objectives are to assist in projects which will contribute to improved scheduled air services by sub-regional carriers, which improve access to the more isolated areas of the province, and serve other requirements such as fire protection, emergency air ambulance, and resource and other industrial development. This past year funds were allocated to 17 community airport projects.

There is allocated also in this bill a sum of $2.65 million under our Refugee Settlement Program. The plight of refugees, particularly those from southeast Asia, has stirred, I believe, public and government response in a number of countries. British Columbia has undertaken to accept over 4,000 individuals for settlement but not without cost. The amount here: $2.65 million is allocated for special education, health and employment services. Just as so many other immigrants from around the world have settled in British Columbia, have become Canadians and are now in the first or second or third generation and making significant contribution to the development and growth of the province, I am sure these new settlers will respond equally to the opportunities available to them. I feel very comfortable about all of the items contained in Bill 5, but I think the Refugee Settlement Program is one which gives me very great satisfaction.

The next item, in spite of the rather unusual name, is the Sierra-Yoyo access road construction program in an amount of $1.8 million. This access road, when completed, will extend 31 miles, connecting the Clarke Lake gas field and Sierra gas field road systems. Seven miles have already been completed.

The initial target for this fiscal year, 1980-81, was the completion of a further eight miles at a cost of approximately $600,000. Completion of the remaining 24 miles of this all-weather road would mean year-round access into this major gas producing area and would provide the means to deal with any well head or other type of accident, as well as obviously extending the exploration season in that part of the province. This, naturally, will increase employment. It will also assist development in the lumber and agricultural industries. At present, as you would know, Mr. Speaker, these gas producing areas can only be reached by road during the winter months.

Item 12 is distance education support in an amount of

[ Page 2059 ]

$1.2 million. This amount will be used to develop an educational telecommunications network in British Columbia. The Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications have planned the new delivery system as the next step in the government's program to ensure that all residents of British Columbia have full access to educational programming. Among previous steps are the creation of the Open Learning Institute and a request to the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission that educational channels be reserved by all cable operators in British Columbia. So, Mr. Speaker, it will be seen that the $1.2 million in this bill is the first capital contribution of the British Columbia government to a system which will result in educational programming being delivered throughout the province by cable, microwave and satellite.

The new educational network will allow for the future expansion of the present Anik B distance education project, which sees programming transmitted from Burnaby to ten provincial centres, as well as to Whitehorse in the Yukon. It is hoped that the first elements of the new system will be in place in the fall of 1980. Programming for the new delivery system will be developed by the universities themselves, community colleges, provincial institutes and related government agencies, as part of their continuing activities. The educational institutions presently spend more than $5 million on distance education programming. The development of a new telecommunication distribution system will clearly — and it's about time — allow a greater utilization of existing and future program materials, as well as ensuring that programs will be available in all regions of the province.

Next is the Accelerated Park Development Program in an amount of $6.5 million. To assist the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing in implementing a three-year Accelerated Park Development Program, $6.5 million is provided under this special appropriation bill for the first year's cost of this expanded employment-creating program. This funding level, Mr. Speaker, will allow for the construction of approximately 800 campsites, 1,900 day-use parking stalls, 8 boat-launching facilities and 80 kilometres of trail. In addition, it is proposed to bring electric power to Manning Provincial Park. Also, miscellaneous marine park improvements will be undertaken, and these include: installation of additional mooring buoys, adding to camping spots and constructing wharves.

The need for this accelerated expenditure is clearly evident in the rapidly growing public use of our provincial park network. Day use demand on the park system has almost doubled through the 1970s, from about 4.8 million visits in 1970 to 9.4 million visits in 1979. Camping use demand has similarly increased from 1.2 million in 1970 to 1.9 million in 1979. This expanded program will provide for the recreational needs of all the people of British Columbia as well as visitors to our province, Madam Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), and in addition will improve the distribution of recreational opportunities throughout British Columbia. Again, this special appropriation for park development is in addition to a significant sum — $3 million — provided in the main estimates now under consideration. Park development projects are highly labour-intensive, with the result that the substantially higher total spending level for this fiscal year will obviously provide an increased number of employment opportunities, particularly for our younger people.

That takes me to the next item on a very long list. Under youth employment and training, $4.5 million is provided in this legislation for expanded employment opportunities for young people in British Columbia and it will be applied as follows: $2.2 million for private sector incentives, to be used to augment the $7 million contained in the ministry estimates for job opportunities in the private sector, resulting in the creation of approximately 2,250 additional employment and training opportunities; $1.5 million for WIG — the Work in Government program. These additional funds on top of just over $4 million in estimates will allow the ministry to provide job creation funds to government ministries about equivalent to funding levels provided in past years. The funds will result in the creation of an additional 350 job and training opportunities within ministries of government for the youth of the province.

The next element in this section deals with $640,000 for the Critical Skill Shortage Training Allowance Program. Over the past year the Ministry of Labour has been confronting a growing number of problems arising from critical skill shortages in many trades in the province. I understand it is the ministry's intention to develop a program in which these funds will be applied, along with other ministry resources. Clearly, the details of this program will be dealt with by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) at the appropriate time.

The fourth item in this section is $150,000 for tourism incentive. About $300,000 already exists in the regular estimates for that ministry to support tourist promotion and related programs. The additional $150,000 will strengthen this component of the Youth Employment Program and is expected to create an additional 100 jobs.

Under this special purpose appropriation a further $1 million is allocated to senior citizens' housing, supplementing the $5.25 million provided in the main estimates. In communities where there is an absence of appropriate private rental units and the need for such units has been documented, the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing will, with these additional funds, be able to assist non-profit societies in building more senior citizens' housing projects. The objective of the program, obviously, is to provide all senior citizens in need of housing units, or who are living in substandard accommodation and are unable to upgrade their accommodation in the private sector, to have access to purpose-designed units at an affordable price.

Mr. Speaker, I have attempted to summarize, as briefly as possible, a number of areas where this legislation will supplement ministry estimates already before the House. In summary I would want to say that the projects, the programs, the activities in this program — whether in job creation, highways expansion, or recreational facilities activity in the northeastern part of the province, indeed all over the province — are designed to provide wide-ranging benefits throughout British Columbia. A large number of direct jobs will be created providing employment for many young workers just entering the labour force, providing them with valuable work experience which will be of assistance in obtaining permanent entry into the workforce. Business activity will be expanded and new businesses will clearly be established. Transportation services will be extended and improved to the benefit of industry and our visitors. There is extra investment in housing for seniors. There is extra investment in recreational facilities projects. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there will be not one constitutuency in British Columbia untouched by the many benefits which will flow from this bill.

[ Page 2060 ]

Mr. Speaker, it's with a great deal of pleasure that I move second reading to Bill 5.

MR. STUPICH: Certainly if we needed any reason to vote against this particular bill it's the reasons advanced by the Minister of Finance in moving second reading. To tell us that this bill is supplementing the estimates which were presented earlier in this Legislature is an admission that they erred in presenting the estimates in the first place. Rather than call it a bill dealing with surplus, what they really should be doing is calling it a bill dealing with sloppy administration and poor accounting.

Mr. Speaker, we were not rushed into this session. You'll recall that the 1979 session adjourned on July 31 and that was the end of it, except for a day when we came back to correct one of the mistakes of the administration. But really the session ended on July 31 and we were not called back into session until the end of February. That's a period of seven months. Yet, apparently, during that seven months the government was quite incapable of coming to any kind of conclusion as to just how much money it had in the bank and how it wanted to spend that money.

We're dealing with a bill now — and the minister has spent some time detailing it — which describes 15 different programs. In moving second reading, the minister went into even further detail with respect to some of these individual items — 15 different ways of spending money which the government either forgot about, didn't know it had, or didn't know what to do with, so it is now presenting this bill. There are 15 different items under 11 different ministries. Yet the bill is presented by one minister while ten other ministers sit back there and let the Minister of Finance tell us what is going to be done in these various programs to account for the spending of this money, give us the details as to how this money is going to be spent, answer questions about what his ministry has done with similar funds in the past, and give us details as to how he expects to spend the various amounts of money allocated to him for special programs in the legislation before us now.

The fact that it is supplemental to estimates is, as I said, reason enough to turn this back to the government and tell them: "If you aren't ready for the session after the long delay — all the time you had to get ready — why not adjourn, start all over and bring in a new budget which will tell us in one form — in estimates properly presented to the Legislature and available for proper debate in this Legislature — just how you intend to run the affairs of this province in the year ahead?" You're obviously not ready.

Mr. Speaker, they're not ready. After the long delay and all the time they had to plan, the government, apparently, has been so busy trying to cover up the dirty tricks perpetrated upon the people of this province that they just haven't had time to deal with the administration of government and are not ready for this session. The estimates prove that. Bill 7, which we've discussed already but are not finished with, proves it. Bill 5, now before us, is further proof that the government just isn't ready after the long delay. That's one reason.

The second reason is the first expenditure mentioned in this legislation, which I intend to deal with at some length, because this is another fiction perpetrated upon the people of this province by this administration and, unfortunately, it's one which seems to have been accepted by some of the people in the province. I suspect that there are even some of the opportunists on the other side of the House who joined this Legislature after the 1975 election and the most recent election who believe the stories they were told — the myths which were told about the debt created by the NDP administration. I think there are some of them over there who really believe it. I know there are people in the province who do believe it in spite of the explanations that have been given. In spite of the evidence that has been presented, there are still, unfortunately, some people in the province who believe the debt was created by the NDP administration rather than — as you know, Mr. Speaker — by the incoming Social Credit administration. The evidence is before us.

Deliberately, for political purposes, a debt in the neighbourhood of $261 million was created by the Social Credit administration. The proof is there. Unfortunately, we in the NDP have not been as successful in exhibiting that proof and explaining it to people as has been the Social Credit administration in perpetrating this falsehood, distributing it among the voters of the province, and making some of them really believe that the NDP administration created a debt.

Mr. Speaker, if you'll recall when the Clarkson, Gordon report was first announced, you may recall the Premier-elect — he was not yet Premier — saying he promised a full and independent review of the province's financial affairs. The first thing that happened.... He wasn't Premier then but he made the promise that there would be a full, independent review. Very soon after that it became public that the person who was going to work on this full, independent review was a Mr. Ian Smith.

It was well known that he was the bagman for the Premier before he ever became Premier. But from the time he became leader of the party, this same Ian Smith was the Premier elect's bagman, and still acts in that capacity, Mr. Speaker. He's still the co-signer for the funds that were under the direct control, supervision and management of the Premier in the 1979 election. He's still one of the co-signers on the cheques that were being controlled out of the Premier's office — still acting in that capacity. Yet the people of the province were promised a full independent review to be conducted by a man who was that closely tied politically, and in every other way, to the Premier-elect.

I'm not suggesting for one moment that a partner in the firm of an international chartered accounting firm, Clarkson, Gordon and Co., would put his name, or that the firm would put its name, to a false report. But I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that I don't think the Premier was aware of that. I think that in picking that person to do the job, he knew the kind of job he wanted to do and he felt that in picking a friend, that closely tied to him, he could get exactly the kind of report he wanted. I think that was deliberately done as the first step in creating the falsehood that has been so well created in the province. I don't think there's any doubt about that.

When this became public there was so much concern in the community about that particular person being put on the job that that person was relieved of those responsibilities, and the review, such as it was, went ahead under the name of Clarkson, Gordon and Co. But what kind of review was it?

Reading further from the Premier's remarks on February 20, 1976: "In line with our pledge, we moved first on research...." He calls it research; Clarkson, Gordon didn't call it research. "One of the first acts of the Minister of Finance was to appoint Clarkson, Gordon and Co. to conduct an independent and full review of the province's financial affairs, including those of government agencies and Crown corporations."

[ Page 2061 ]

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Finance in the Social Credit administration is suggesting that I didn't accept the Clarkson, Gordon report. I do accept it. I accept it in exactly the terms in which Clarkson, Gordon presented it. But I do not accept it in the terms in which the Social Credit administration has presented it so well in this province. I'm going to quote extensively from the Clarkson, Gordon report to show the difference between the interpretation placed upon it by the Social Credit administration and that placed upon it by the authors of the report.

What I'm reading from right now is the Premier's introduction. It is the Premier who promised the independent and full review of the government accounts, and of all the government agencies and Crown corporations. That was commissioned on December 22. Less than two months later came this full, independent review of all government accounts, all government agencies, and all Crown corporations. Mr. Speaker, it would be nothing short of miraculous to do that kind of full, independent review in less than two months. Obviously it was not a full and independent review. Clarkson, Gordon take some pains to explain to the readers of their report that it was never intended that it would be a full or an independent review of all government accounts, all government agencies and all Crown corporations, in spite of the fact that the Premier, in presenting this report to the people of British Columbia on February 20, 1976, tried to make everyone hearing him believe that, indeed, a full and independent review had been conducted by an internationally known firm of chartered accountants.

What did Clarkson, Gordon have to say about it? Their very opening paragraph: "On December 22, 1975, you requested us to coordinate the production of certain unaudited financial information...." Mr. Speaker, in auditing circles a review is an audit. The Premier, in using the word "review," intended to convince the people of the province that an audit was being asked for and that an audit was being done. He knew that most of the people hearing his remarks wouldn't realize that you can't do that kind of job within a period of two months. He did it deliberately, as he has tried to perpetrate so many myths in this province. "You requested us to coordinate the production of certain unaudited financial information for the year ending March 31, 1976, which you had requested...." This is addressed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance had requested "from the Deputy Minister of Finance" — so right away, it's gone through several hands. Clarkson, Gordon says the Minister of Finance asked them to "coordinate the production of certain unaudited financial statements" that the Minister of Finance had asked for "from the Deputy Minister of Finance, the comptroller-general, and the management of all Crown corporations" — what, 20 of them? — "boards and agencies, and to produce a summary report on the overall financial position of the province."

It was a summary report based upon information that the Minister of Finance had received from the Deputy Minister of Finance. They were simply asked to add up the figures. There is nothing wrong with doing that. I'm just saying that, in presenting it to the people of this province as a full and independent review, the Premier was telling us something less than the truth about this document, and intending it to be misunderstood.

The fact that Clarkson, Gordon really couldn't take responsibility for the figures is borne out by the figures themselves, because on page 2 of their report, they arrive at their conclusion — and that's a good place to put it, right in front where people read it — and their estimate of the deficit for the year was $541 million. There was a cash surplus on hand from the year before, but they said that the year under review itself would result in a deficit of some $400 million. Mr. Speaker, had the deficit actually amounted to that figure, then there would have been more credence in the administration's argument that we created a deficit of that amount. But, in fact, it didn't; it was substantially less than that. The deficit actually, as the bill before us indicates, was in the neighbourhood of $261 million, $140 million short of the amount that Clarkson, Gordon said it would be on the basis of figures given to them by the Minister of Finance who had asked for these figures from the Deputy Minister of Finance and from those in control of all of the Crown corporations and Crown agencies. It was fiction from beginning to end. Not in the Clarkson, Gordon report; I accept the Clarkson, Gordon report. The fiction was in the description of this report, in the description of the work and in the presentation of this report by the Premier of this province, from whom the people of this province have a right to expect something better, but from whom, on the basis of experience since then, the people of the province know better than to expect something better.

Clarkson, Gordon deals with government accounting, the vagaries of it, how different it is from other types of accounting. It says "cash basis" — cash received in one year is counted as revenue of that year. I think this is pointed out in the auditor-general's report, where billings in the Ministry of Forests were some $140 million behind. The money should have been paid in one fiscal year. It was earned in the sense that the trees were cut in that fiscal year, but because the money had not actually arrived in the offices of the Ministry of Finance by March 31, that money is counted as revenue in the following year, and the same thing with respect to expenditures. So it's very easy for governments to influence surpluses and deficits. They may simply delay receiving revenue until after March 31, if they choose to, and thereby reduce the revenue of a particular year — and there is nothing illegal about this; that's the way it's handled — or they may, indeed, Mr. Speaker, pay amounts out by March 31, show them as expenditures of that particular year rather of the following year and thereby, again, reduce the surplus of the first year. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, you know that was done. You know that hospital boards around this province in 1976 received cheques dated March 31, 1976, and they didn't know what they were for. They had to make inquiries as to what these funds were for; they found out that they were advance payments on accounts of moneys that they would normally receive in the summer of the year following. But the government, in an attempt to create a deficit by March 31, 1976, was paying out amounts to hospitals, was paying out amounts in Farm Income Assurance Programs — to name two that were identified — in advance of what they would normally have done, in an attempt to increase the deficit by March 31, 1976, so they could continue with the kind of political falsehood that results in the first expenditure detailed in the bill before us now.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 2062 ]

How did they manage to achieve a deficit? Clarkson, Gordon tells about any number of ways in which the government could. It said, for example, that if a Crown corporation needed money, that Crown corporation might go out and borrow it. From time to time we have known B.C. Hydro to borrow money; we've known B.C. Railway to borrow money; we've known B.C. Ferry Corporation and B.C. Buildings Corporation.... I'm not talking about a bill that's coming up in this session, a bill on the order paper. We've known these Crown corporations to borrow money, and that's quite legal, quite appropriate. From time to time Crown corporations may go out and borrow money, in which case it doesn't affect the surplus or deficit of the province. Another alternative is for the government to give money to those Crown corporations, as has certainly happened in the past. The government gives money to B.C. Hydro every year for special programs, but nevertheless it's money that's being given to B.C. Hydro, that comes out of public accounts and does increase the expenditures of B.C. Hydro for the year under review.

From time to time the government has made grants to B.C. Railway Co., and again this increased the expenditures in that particular year. While it may not create a deficit — depending on how much is given — nevertheless it does increase expenditures in that particular year. B.C. Ferry Corporation gets grants; many Crown corporations get grants. If the government chooses to make these grants out of public accounts, then it is added to the expenditures of the year in which those grants are made.

The government, precisely on March 31, 1976, in order to increase the expenditures of the 1976 fiscal period ending March 31, did indeed choose the second alternative — that is, it chose to pay out grants on March 31, 1976, in order to get those expenditures into that particular fiscal year. As Clarkson, Gordon points out, that is quite appropriate. There is nothing illegal or really wrong about it. But for the Social Credit administration and the Social Credit Party to go around the province telling people that we created a debt when indeed it was their administration that chose on March 31 — right at the very last minute, on the last day, the 365th day of the year — to pay out grants totalling $245 million, and to then go around saying that the NDP administration, which had gone out of office three and a half months earlier, had created a debt of $261 million, is treating the truth very lightly.

Mr. Speaker, I placed a question on the order paper. It was answered on June 10, 1976. I asked whether the province was indeed broke — out of cash — when the Social Credit administration arrived in office on the morning of December 23. It was question 24. It was answered.... As I say, those opportunists who have joined this group since that date may not be aware of these things. That is why I am taking some pains to explain to them that it was a Social Credit–created debt rather than an NDP-created debt. In Votes and Proceedings, June 10, 1976, question 24 was answered by the Minister of Finance to the effect that on December 23, 1975, the province was not in debt, didn't owe money to anybody and, indeed, had $69,965,292 cash on hand.

One might say, that is all very well; they just didn't pay the bills so they would have cash on hand. I followed the question up by asking about other dates. On January 31 the government had been in office for over five weeks and they'd had a chance to see just how many bills were owing. There was still cash in the bank: $72,745,745. Of course, January is a very good month for revenue. Sales tax for the December sales come in; it's the best month of all for sales tax revenue. They had had a chance to look at the bills. If there were any bills that should be paid, they had an opportunity to pay them. Money had come in. There was still $72.7 million sitting in the bank. To give them another month to catch up, if they needed it, on February 29 — 1976 was a leap year — there was still over $70 million sitting in the bank. Mr. Speaker, we didn't leave the province broke.

If you ask about March 31, that is a different matter. But that is because on March 31 the government rushed to pay out moneys in advance of when the recipients expected it, and transferred some $245 million to various Crown corporations. The government, in 1976, in a discussion of this program of paying out these funds, said: "We had to; ICBC needed it." Mr. Speaker, you weren't here then, but the minister responsible for ICBC at that time was the Minister of Education, now the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). He said: "We had to pay that $175 million to ICBC because they didn't have any money to pay wages. The employees needed their salaries and there was no cash to pay them. There was no money to pay the repair companies that were doing car repairs. ICBC was just flat broke and it needed this $175 million."

There are two ways of dealing with that, as Clarkson, Gordon point out. When a Crown corporation needs money, it can get a grant from the government or, alternatively, it can go out and borrow, if it has the legal authority to borrow. It can borrow, generally, at a very good rate because it has a government guarantee — if the legislation provides for that. The ICBC legislation did indeed state that ICBC had the right to borrow. It did indeed give it a limit, as is the case with all borrowing on the part of Crown corporations; there are limits prescribed by legislation. The limit set for ICBC was $100 million.

The Minister of Education talked about ICBC's need to have money in the form of a grant in order to pay wages. If he was telling the truth that day in the Legislature, what he was really telling us was that ICBC had borrowed up to the limit; it had no further credit; it had exhausted its borrowing limit of $100 million.

Again, what are the facts? I do want you to hear this, Mr. Speaker, because you are one of the new people. What are the facts as evidenced by an answer to a question on the order paper? This one, question 19, was answered April 1, 1976. ICBC started borrowing — after Social Credit was elected — on December 29, 1975. They borrowed $225,000 that day. They had borrowed several times, something like 30 times, by February 4. But they borrowed because the government couldn't make up its mind as to what extent it would use political interference in adjusting the rates of ICBC.

The rates had been set for the year 1976, but this government, which professed not to want to interfere politically in the management of Crown corporations, nevertheless had long discussions certainly within cabinet and possibly within caucus — although not likely — as to what they were going to do to exert their political influence to get ICBC to change its rates. Because it took them so long to make up their minds, the cash wasn't coming in, so ICBC had to continue borrowing. Finally, early in February, they made up their mind. The last borrowing was on February 4, because once they had established what the rates were, the money started coming in. But they hadn't exhausted their borrowing power

[ Page 2063 ]

by March 31. The last day on which ICBC borrowed was February 4, almost two months prior to March 31. The total accumulated borrowing at that particular point in time was not $100 million; it was $28,471,000. The former Minister of Education was treating the truth very lightly — not surprising coming from that particular minister — when he told us that ICBC needed a grant from the taxpayers of this province to be able to pay wages to its employees, at a time when ICBC had an outstanding credit of $71,529,000. But that's the case; they didn't need the money.

Further evidence of the fact that they didn't need the money was that the day after they received this money the government went out and borrowed funds to make up for all these grants they had made to Crown corporations on March 31, and ICBC was one of the places they went to borrow that money. They borrowed back the $175 million, which they had given to ICBC the day before, because ICBC didn't need the money which the former Minister of Education told us they so desperately needed on that date. The evidence is there. It is evidence that this particular clause should not be presented to the Legislature in this form.

There's something else about this $261 million debt and the way in which it's being handled. Do you know where the funds are being borrowed — the $232 million which is still owing? They were borrowed from pension funds. These are pension funds on which this government is paying approximately 9 percent interest at the same time as it is earning approximately 14 percent interest on the money it has sitting in the bank. In perpetrating this falsehood, the government is actually stealing money from those pension funds in the amount of the difference in those rates of interest. They are borrowing money at 9 percent from pension funds, and turning around and investing that money in the bank at 14 percent, pocketing the difference, and saying: "What great managers we are. We found a way of getting more money out of pension funds. Aren't we great? Aren't we wonderful?" They aren't wonderful.

To get on with the other sections of the legislation before us.... I've dealt with one item in one ministry, because I believe that is the only one which actually comes under the Minister of Finance. There are 14 other items which are not under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance, yet all are included in this one bill which is trying to make up for the deficiencies in the administration, the sloppy bookkeeping, They didn't know how much money they had and they didn't know what they wanted to do with it. The ministers weren't ready to come forth with programs, or the Treasury Board wasn't ready to either approve or disapprove of these various programs.

There are 14 other programs that should have been included in the estimates of the various ministries. Let's take a look at some of them: for example, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Mr. Speaker, do you mean to tell me that the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) didn't know in December or January, when the budget was being worked on, that he could have used another $100 million to do the kind of work he wants to do in the province? Or is it that the Treasury Board couldn't reach a conclusion as to whether or not to give him this $100 million? Or is it that the government didn't know at that point in time whether or not they had $100 million to give him? The total of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates before us is not a small one; it's in excess of half a billion dollars — $514 million. Sooner or later, the Minister of Transportation and Highways will be standing up in this House and telling us what he did with his money last year and what he intends to do this year with $514 million. He will be answering various questions from the members about the highways in their own particular constituencies. That is as it should be — but not this $100 million. The Minister of Transportation and Highways won't be talking about this $100 million unless he takes part in the debate on Bill 5, because this $100 million is going to be talked about by the Minister of Finance, because they didn't trust the Minister of Highways with it.

I would like to assume that he asked for it. I would like to assume that this hasn't been suddenly presented to us as an afterthought; that the Minister of Transportation and Highways didn't really know about it until he saw it in this bill and doesn't know how he's going to spend it, except now he may be working on some program. I'd like to think that is not the case. I'd like to think that the Minister of Transportation and Highways really wanted it but he couldn't get the Minister of Finance to release it. So now the Minister of Finance is going to stand up and tell us.... Certainly in discussion of that section of the legislation the members of this Legislature — on both sides of the House, every one of us — might very well get into the debate and ask for some of the money to be spent in their constituencies and to expect the Minister of Finance to give us the answers as to just how he was going to allocate that $100 million among the various road problems in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, is that any way to deal with estimates? As the Minister of Finance said himself, these are supplemental estimates. They should be presented as supplemental estimates. They should be presented, perhaps, as a supplement to estimates and considered when we are discussing estimates, rather than being considered as a bill in the form before us now. I'm not opposed to spending $100 million on highways. I might like to look at some of the other programs and say some of this money should go into other programs, or more should go into highways, but that's part of the budget speech. The Minister of Finance, in presenting Bill 5 in this form is inviting us to start the budget speech debate all over again, because we're talking about the spending in 11 different ministries. He's inviting us to range through all of these and suggest that the figure for highways should be higher or lower, and the figure for science, communications etc. should be higher or lower. That's what second reading of this bill could very well be, Mr. Speaker. I don't know how anyone could be called to order in getting into the general budget debate all over again when we have Bill 5 in the form that is before us.

B.C. Development Corporation: low-interest lending, $5 million. Who would be against that? What I'm against, Mr. Speaker, is expecting the Minister of Finance to tell us the details of how he's going to use that money. BCDC is becoming a fairly large organization. It is important in many areas of the province, and $5 million is not all that large in terms of their budget. They have borrowing of I think $200 million, so $5 million is certainly going to assist them, but it should be the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) talking about that particular program. If indeed the government wants to put $5 million into the development corporation.... I think last year they put $25 million into it; that was a separate bill presented by the Minister of Economic Development, with a whole range of debate on second reading and then detailed discus-

[ Page 2064 ]

sion of that amount of money in presentation of that particular piece of legislation, which proposed to add a certain amount of money to BCDC. It was not one item out of 15 presented to us by the Minister of Finance.

Does the Minister of Finance not trust the other ministers to present their own estimates? Does he not trust the other ministers to explain their own programs and to answer questions about them?

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I am invited to answer a question as to whether or not I would. I would if they were ministers on my side of the House. Certainly I can understand some concern on the part of the present Minister of Finance with respect to some of the ministers who might have been presenting some of these programs.

Funds will go to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications to support applied research in industry and universities. This minister has a budget of $293 million that he will be discussing with us when we get to his estimates. It's almost an insult, it would seem to me, for that minister to have presented to the House a bill, and included in that bill an item that gives him another million dollars for the B.C. Research Council. Do we not trust the Minister of Finance to support the B.C. Research Council? Is the Minister of Finance afraid that if he simply added a million dollars to the estimates of that particular ministry that ministry would deny support to the B.C. Research Council? Is that why the members of this House are being asked to direct that $1 million of government money be allocated to the B.C. Research Council, through the hands of the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications? It has to go through him because that comes under him; but we're not going to let him make the decision as to whether it should be half a million, a million or two million. We're going to tell him in this legislation, because apparently we don't trust him: "Whatever else you might want to do for the B.C. Research Council, this bill is going to obligate you to spend $1 million on that council."

That isn't the only direction we're giving him. To support applied research in industry and universities: $3.5 million. The question might well be asked: would we trust that minister to support this kind of program? I would not have thought that it would have been necessary for us on both sides of the House to instruct this particular minister, knowing his ideas on the subject — to vote in support of legislation instructing him to spend $3.5 million on this kind of applied research. I thought he liked research. I thought we could trust him to do that. It would appear, in presenting this legislation, that the Minister of Finance has some grave doubts as to whether that particular minister would spend $3.5 million on this kind of research. So he brings in a special bill, one of the sections of which requires the Minister of Education to receive $3.5 million, which he, in turn, will pass on for applied research in universities.

We're not finished with that particular minister. We're giving him all kinds of instructions. Once again the universities need equipment. That's logical. If they're going to do more research they need more equipment. But having instructed the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications to give the universities another $3.5 million for applied research, we don't even trust him to give them the equipment that they need to do this research. We're going to tell that same minister: "Look, this bill provides you with $1 million. It's going to come into your ministry. When you get it, you in turn are going to give it to the universities so that they can follow through on the program that we've already told you to follow through on. That is, we're going to give you $3.5 million for research that you're to give to the universities. Once you've done that we're going to give you a further $1 million that the universities are going to have to spend on equipment to make sure you don't forestall their attempts to do this kind of research."

How ridiculous can you be? If that minister needs that kind of detailed instruction by separate legislation, then that minister should not be in that job — I don't think he should be anyway. Certainly the government, in telling us in this legislation that they don't trust the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications to spend by way of research $6.5 million in addition to his $293 million budget, is certainly itself voting want of confidence in that particular minister. People supporting this legislation are indeed saying: "We have no confidence in the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications because we can't give him $6.5 million to proceed with research. We don't trust him. We're going to tell him exactly what we want done with it."

The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has the Accelerated Recreational Facilities Program. This is not a new program; it's a program that was brought into being by the NDP administration in 1972. It's for recognizing the need for recreational facilities throughout the province, encouraging local communities to develop their own plans by saying to them that if they're prepared to put up two-thirds of the money the government will put up one-third to produce the kind of recreational facilities they need in the province. We put a total of, I believe, $40 million into that program in a short period of two and a half years. Not much has been done about it since. It's certainly past time that more money was put into that program. Now we're giving $5 million to the Provincial Secretary. The program is woefully behind. It's been terribly neglected by this administration. There is need; there is pressure from all over the province. Instead of the Provincial Secretary coming to this Legislature and saying that in his ministry he wants an extra $5 million to support this program, we have separate legislation before us. It's not separate legislation at all, Mr. Speaker, but included as one of 15 items in this particular bill. There is certainly no commitment to carry on the program. Is it an afterthought, possibly, because they happened to find out they had some money left over? There was no time to include it in the budget; it was just an afterthought.

There's certainly no commitment to continue this kind of program beyond the $5 million put into it by this legislation — this instruction to the Provincial Secretary and, once again, lack of confidence in the Provincial Secretary to proceed with that program unless this Legislature tells him that he's going to get $5 million and he is to do thus and so with it. They don't trust him to do it unless they bring in a bill explicitly telling him that he is to spend that $5 million on that program. I too wouldn't trust that Provincial Secretary without giving him detailed instructions. But if I had that kind of a minister, I think I would be looking for somebody to replace him, somebody that would want to do the kinds of programs that should be done in this province and the kinds of programs envisioned in presenting the estimates in a more general form.

The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr.

[ Page 2065 ]

Fraser) isn't finished. We're going to give him some more money. He has a total already in estimates of $514 million. We trust him to spend the $514 million without getting into the detailed instructions presented in this bill. We're going to give him another $100 million to do specific work. That is quite a chunk of money; it might warrant separate legislation even when it's that large. It should have been an estimate. But we're going to give him another $3.4 million because apparently, Mr. Speaker, the government found out, after being in recess for some seven months, that there are some airports in the province that need some special assistance. It was too late to put it in estimates. That's one possibility, or possibly they didn't trust the Minister of Transportation and Highways to do it. So we're bringing in, by special legislation, an amount of $3.4 million that's to go to the Minister of Transportation and Highways with that caveat on it: "You are to use this for one purpose and one purpose only, or not use it" — because there's no instruction that he really has to use it. "We're going to make available to you and your ministry $3.4 million, but if you spend it you’re to spend it on airports." It's not something that we would quarrel with. The money should be spent. But it should be presented to us in estimates, not as an afterthought and not as a specific instruction to a minister who the Minister of Finance feels cannot be trusted to spend that $3.4 million without a specific instruction from this Legislature.

I'm not going to deal with the Sierra-Yoyo Access Road. I don't think the Minister of Finance knows a great deal more about that than I do. I think somebody else should be talking about it; I don't know who.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance tells me knows a lot about it. If he knows a lot about it, I'm quite prepared to admit that I know very little about it. I look forward to hearing more about it, and I look forward to the Minister of Finance getting into a detailed discussion of the need for the Sierra-Yoyo Access Road improvement, the reasons why the Sierra-Yoyo Access Road is getting the amount of money that it is. I can't pick it out right now in my notes. What's the amount?

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's your speech, not mine.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance didn't rise to my challenge to tell me exactly what the amount is for the Sierra-Yoyo Access Road. In any case, once again apparently we don't trust the ministry to spend this money on that particular Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources program. If it's that important to energy development, can we not trust that minister to spend it if we simply put it in his estimates? I wouldn't like to ask that question. But certainly the Minister of Finance, in telling us that the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has $21 million in estimates.... The Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland) will be talking to us about that — we'll be answering questions about it — but to say to us that it's all very well to give him $21 million to spend, but there's another job that has to be done, and if we don't put it in the form of separate legislation, the Minister of Energy may not use it for that purpose.... So we're going to allocate, out of this total of $168.5 million, $1.8 million with the specific instruction that he spend it on the Sierra-Yoyo Access Road work or not spend it at all. He can't use it for anything else; he has to spend it for that particular purpose.

It's a new form of budgeting. I wonder where this might lead us eventually. I wonder whether, instead of presenting estimates in the form that they are presented before us now, we might simply have one long bill...

AN HON. MEMBER: Plus vote 1.

MR. STUPICH: As my colleague says, apart from vote 1.

...that would give each ministry, all in one bill, specific instructions as to how it might spend amounts as low — and I think the lowest figure in this bill is $1 million — as $1 million, when they are dealing with a budget of almost $6 billion. Rather than have estimates, rather than have a budget speech that we debate generally, we wrap it all up in one bill, and that will be the debate in the House. Are we getting to that? Is this the beginning of it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Then it could be contracted out.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, my colleague here is making a better speech than I am, and I think you should have the benefit of his remark. He suggested: "Then it could be contracted out," and there'd be no need for any of us.

The Ministry of Labour, youth employment and training — who can argue with the need for youth employment and training? You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that during the course of my remarks on the budget debate I held up an official report from the Ministry of Labour, dated February 1980, pointing out that B.C.'s unemployment had reached record levels. Certainly it's worst among the youth. There is need for youth employment training and youth employment opportunities. But to say to the minister responsible for that program: "We have, out of the $5.8 billion budget, been able to find another $4.5 million for youth employment and training, but we're not going to put it in your estimates because you might not spend it on that. You might blow it on something else. We're going to bring in a separate bill, and we're going to add another $4.5 million to your budget of $57 million, with strings on it...." We're going to say to you: "Here's another $4.5 million on top of your $57 million, but you are specifically instructed to spend this on youth employment and training." Lack of confidence in the Ministry of Labour? I wonder how the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) feels about this. I wonder how he feels about being told, by way of this legislation, that the government doesn't trust him to spend an extra 6 percent on top of his budget on youth employment and training, and is therefore bringing in legislation that will specifically provide him with another $4.5 million with the specific instruction that he may use it for one purpose and one purpose only.

Accelerated senior citizens' housing — again, Mr. Speaker, how can anyone challenge the need for accelerated senior citizens' housing? We're setting our sights very low, it would seem to me. One million dollars is not going to provide very much assistance for one project, let alone for all the work that has to be done. The minister, in presenting this, said that there is already $5.25 million in the budget. I think that even $5.25 million isn't nearly as much as there should be for this particular program. However, that particular ministry — Lands, Parks and Housing is where it comes — has a budget of S69 million. We're saying to this minister:

[ Page 2066 ]

"We're going to increase your budget by something like 1.3 percent — we're going to give you another $1 million."

There's a lot of pressure from all over the province for senior citizens' housing. Volunteer organizations are trying to increase the amount of senior citizens' housing available. It's good politics to put more money into senior citizens' housing. We believe it is. We're not going to give you a million dollars without strings on it, because you might not do that with it; you might do something else with it, or you might not do anything. But we're going to give you another million dollars by way of a special bill with the string on it that you're going to use it for senior citizens' housing. We don't trust you to use it for that purpose otherwise, so we're going to specifically instruct you.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance told us that these are supplemental estimates. As supplemental estimates, they should not be presented in this form; they should be presented in the regular estimates. It would appear, as I said, that the Minister of Finance was not aware of the need for all of these programs before, or simply couldn't get to dealing with these programs because the administration was so busy trying to cover up its tracks — cover up the dirty tricks. Or, remember the financial statements for the year ended March 31, 1979, were very much delayed this year. Whereas normally they would come out in August or September of 1979, we didn't see them until February or March this year. Possibly the government, in doing this this way, is admitting that they had no idea at all where they stood financially.

Whatever the reason, the reasons advanced by the Minister of Finance himself for opposing this particular way of spending taxpayers' money, or the possibilities I have suggested, this is not appropriate legislation to be debating in this House at this point in time, and I certainly intend to vote against it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm certainly honoured and privileged to stand in this Legislature this morning and give my whole-hearted support to Bill 5, because as I've said before, Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to be part of a team which has been able to build such a strong economy in the province of British Columbia at a time when other provinces in Canada, states in the union, and other countries in the world are suffering economic setbacks. I'm proud to speak on this bill this morning because it has been a joint effort of this government. Time and effort expended and hours and hours of planning and work which we have put into running this province have made this day and this bill possible. It's taken a lot of hard work, a lot of planning, and some tough decisions, but those decisions have been good for the province and good for the people of the province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to remind you that our last speaker spent 90 percent of his time trying to tell us that there was no deficit when we became government in 1976. I want to remind you that in the dying months of that government when the last speaker was forced to try to come in and rescue the ship of financial state from sinking entirely because it had been under the control of the now Leader of the Opposition as Minister of Finance for some....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, it hadn't been in control, but he had been trying to control it. Anyway, he was Minister of Finance, and he did a very poor job of it; six months before they tried to go to the people and hide all the financial ills under the table. He had to desert the sinking ship and pass it on to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). I want to remind the people of this province that in the last year of the NDP government in the province of British Columbia they spent more money than they took in, which means they ended up with a deficit — and a huge deficit.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's as simple as that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's as simple as that. Make no mistake about it. It was attested to by themselves; they knew they were in trouble. Because the last six months they were government, what did they do? They stopped spending and curtailed programs, because they knew they were in trouble.

AN HON. MEMBER: They froze staff.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, there was a freeze on hiring staff, and money was withdrawn from health, social programs and the highways department. Now I ask you: does that, in itself, attest to the fact that they were in financial trouble and they knew it? For that member for Nanaimo to stand up here this morning and try to paint any other picture is ludicrous. All we have to do is go to the library, pick out the papers of those last six months that they were government and we'll find they said they were in trouble. They had to stop spending. So I think we can take with a grain of salt, really, what the member for Nanaimo has said this morning in trying to paint a picture that that government did not have financial difficulties in its last year in office.

Now I want to contrast that, Mr. Speaker, with the record of this government in their first year in office — again, when the world was not experiencing a great surge in the economy. This government, in its first year in office, turned the economy around and managed the finances in such a manner that we came up with a modest surplus. It was a complete turnaround. That is why I'm proud to stand here this morning and support Bill 5.

In Bill 5, Mr. Speaker, there are 17 new initiatives to assist the economy of this province and 17 new initiatives to put money back into the economy. Sometimes we have short memories in this province, but I recall when we had our first surplus in this province. It was a modest surplus, somewhere around $80 million. But what did the NDP say? The said: "Oh, you're hoarding money; you're overtaxing the people and you're not putting it back into the economy." Now we are taking our surpluses and we're putting them back into the economy. What do they say? They're condemning us again. So I don't know how in heaven's name this government will ever be able to satisfy the opposition, because no matter what we do, they stand up and give us carping, negative criticism. I don't know how we could ever satisfy them, but that's the nature of the beast. But the criticism is not even constructive. It's just negative, harping, carping criticism against a government that they know has done a fantastic job in running the province. I think, Mr. Speaker — and I say this without malice in my heart — that they are envious of the record of this great government and what we have done for the people of British Columbia and what we have done for the economy. They are envious of the fact that this great province of British Columbia under this government is looked on with envy by all the provinces in Canada and, indeed, the rest of the free world. That is a great record and I'm proud to be part of the team that put that great record together.

[ Page 2067 ]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for just a few moments about some of the bill initiatives in this great bill with regard to my own ministry. We have in this bill provision to carry on two initiatives created by this government. I refer to the LILA program, which is the Low Interest Loan Assistance Program and an extension of the Assistance to Small Enterprise Program. The LILA program was created in the province of British Columbia as an initiative of this government, recognizing that small manufacturing plants and small businessmen had to have some access to low-interest money. That was an initiative of this government in cooperation with the federal government. As we designed the new initiatives under the General Development Agreement and we signed the Industrial Development Subsidiary Agreement, this new initiative of low interest loans assistance was part of the package that the province of British Columbia put together.

We had a little bit of difficulty selling it to the federal government — I don't mind saying that — but we showed them that that was what is needed in the province of British Columbia. Rather than going around with a cheque book and making grants here and there, we would loan this money to the small businessman and help him by having interest at half of the prime. That was an initiative of this government, and we were able to sell that to the federal government. It's been a great deal of assistance. As a matter of fact I'll have all the statistics about the number of jobs created and the number of loans made under this program in its first and second year when my estimates come up. But it has been of great assistance to numerous small manufacturing firms and small business people in this province. It's something new — not the old status quo, because we didn't want that.

We looked at what had been happening under the DREE agreement in Quebec, the Maritimes and in Manitoba. We weren't satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that that was good enough for British Columbia. We wanted something new, something with initiative, something innovative, something to help the small businessman without going around and passing out a cheque, because the small businessmen in British Columbia, being the type of persons they are — rugged individualists like our mountains — wanted something new, and they didn't want the cheques, Mr. Speaker. So that's why we've come up with this innovative program to give them a little help and just help them pay these high interest rates.

There is the opposition day after day standing in this Legislature, telling us that we're not doing anything to help the small businessman, telling us that we must do something about interest rates. Mr. Speaker, we have been doing something about interest rates, and we have been doing something about helping the small businessman for three-odd years now since we've been government. What hurts them over there is the very fact that, indeed, these programs are working, they are helping the small businessman, and they are creating jobs. They're just a little part of our overall blueprint for the great economy of this great and dynamic province of ours.

When we saw that this great program was working out in the hinterlands, because that's the only place the federal government would cooperate with us, what did we do last year? We took $5 million and we put it into the same LILA program and we applied it to the lower mainland, because those small business people in the lower mainland and in the Victoria area required assistance to help them with their interest rates. In other words, this is a B.C. initiative — not being helped by the federal government — a B.C. plan. We extended it to cover the whole province. Our idea was so great, worked so well, that we extended it over the whole province, and it has been a success over the whole province. That's just the LILA program. We're helping with interest; helping the small businessman; helping the guy who wants to help himself. That's what free enterprise is all about. We're preserving the initiative of the individual, giving him a little encouragement — that's what governments are for. Just give them a little encouragement. Don't write them a cheque. Don't give them a grant. Give them a little encouragement. Give him a little help along the way and he'll help himself. That's what it's all about.

We had another great program called the Assistance to Small Enterprise Program, with a small amount of money — up to $35,000 — a new program in British Columbia. Again, we were working with the federal government. It's something new, not the same old programs that they've had, the same old deal, shovelling money out. No, it's a program designed to help the small individual who has an idea, but his banker won't listen to him. Because we take so much money from the individual entrepreneur in our country, there isn't much left over like there is in the United States. He couldn't go to his friend and say: "Hey, loan me $30,000. I've got an idea." They don't have any risk money left. So we have to go to our banking system. The banking system doesn't work. No, it sure doesn't. And here's the small individual — he's got a great idea, wants to employ people; wants to manufacture a product. Where did he go for his money? He couldn't go anywhere. That's why we brought in the Assistance to Small Enterprise Program — to help that individual; to preserve that entrepreneurship, because that individual's feeling was that there was no place in Canada he could go for help. That was part of the great initiative of this government to help and preserve that entrepreneurship and to help our small manufacturers. It's been a great and thriving success.

Last year, to the end of January 1980, there were 363 authorized loans in the amount of $6,962,361. I remember the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) standing in this Legislature for the first two years saying: "You birds are doing nothing over there to help the small individual businessman." I want to tell you that the initiatives that we brought in through the LILA program and through the ASEP program are new, innovative programs and they, indeed, have been a great help to many....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Did I hear correctly? The member for Prince Rupert says they're good programs. I'll bet you if I did a study — talked individually to all the members — they'd say privately it's a good program. But part of their attack has been to stand in this House and be negative, be carping in their criticism.

AN HON MEMBER: Be positive.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm being positive. I'll tell you these are two great programs.

So what have we done again this year? We've taken our ASEP....

MR. LEA: You're being negative now.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No! I'm always positive, my

[ Page 2068 ]

friend, because I have great faith in this province, and I have great faith in this government, and I have great faith in this country. I'll tell you, the sooner the rest of Canada and the rest of the provinces get some faith in this great country and forget about that negative carping criticism and that gloom and doom that you guys are spreading all over the province the better off we will be. I want to tell you, my friends, we make our own future, and to do it we must have faith in ourselves. That's why this government is leading, that's why this government is giving faith to the people of British Columbia, and that's why the economy is going forward, my friends, I want to tell you — not because of negativism.

I want to get back to talk about this great program. It was called the Assistance to Small Enterprise Program, and it was outside of the lower mainland, outside of the lower end of Vancouver Island. But it worked. It's been a great program. It helped many small individual companies, many small individual entrepreneurs.

What we are doing this year is changing the name a bit so we don't confuse it with the joint federal program and calling it SMAP. [Laughter.] It is really no wonder that we all chuckle, because as I go through these programs of IDSA and TIDSA and DREE, I have to have a special dictionary to look up the letters to find out what the words mean. But we call it SMAP because it's short for Small Manufacturers' Assistance Program. It is going to have a "snap" to it because it's going to help many small individuals and manufacturers in the lower mainland. Why shouldn't they have it?

The significant thing about all of these programs is that they're possible because the economy is strong and because we have some surplus funds, and we can do this. It's all part of our strategy to improve the economy of this great province of ours. Why do we have these surplus funds? How is this bill possible? It's possible because of the initiatives and the legislative changes that we brought in to our natural resources industries, legislative changes that would ensure that the labourers in our natural resource industries got their fair share that would ensure that the people of British Columbia got their fair share, and that certainly would ensure that those who put their money into the natural resource industries got their fair share. That is the basis of our resource industry policies, and it has worked, and that is why our natural resource industries have responded in kind. That's why we have a surplus.

You, Mr. Speaker, know full well, as I know full well, that last year in this Legislature, when we brought in our budget, we reduced taxes to people. After reducing taxes to people we proved a great theory: if you reduce taxes to people and if you reduce taxes to industry, they respond. And what happens when they respond? The economy grows and inflation goes down. Instead of using your theory, where you tax everybody to death and run everything yourselves, and bring on inflation.... That's what's happened everywhere in the world. You people stand up over there and talk about the great socialist theory. Tell me one area in the world where your theories have ever worked. What they're interested in doing, Mr. Speaker, is trying a socialist experiment here in British Columbia. They tried the socialist experiment in Manitoba and it didn't work. You want to get back into government again so that you can play with your little pet theories...

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You be quiet! I'm speaking.

... in British Columbia. A little jiggery here, a little pokery there; work in a theory here and try and take over this and that. They want to try and experiment here in British Columbia. They tried their experiment once. They had three years to try it, and what happened? It didn't work. Now they tell us and the people of British Columbia: "We didn't have enough time. Let us back in again and we won't be as socialist as we were the last time."

Let me give you an instance. There's an argument going on between the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) as to whether Alcan should be nationalized or not. They've kept it out of the press headlines, but they have their meetings. The member for Prince Rupert says: "No way." The member for Skeena says: "Yes, we should." Then for advice they go to the member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) to moderate the argument. They have great arguments about this. They're fighting among themselves. "Should we nationalize Alcan or should we not? If we nationalize Alcan should we go ahead, and if we don't should we let them go ahead?" They're fighting among themselves. If they were in government they'd still be fighting among themselves, because they haven't told us what they would do. They haven't told us what their philosophies are.

I want to let you in on a little secret, Mr. Speaker. I know what they want to do when they become government again, and it frightens me. The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) doesn't agree with the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), because the member for Coquitlam-Moody is pretty far left, but only half as far left as the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam. The point I'm trying to make is that they're all left, but they're just left in degrees of left. They're trying to paint us a great picture.... We've painted all the red stripes over and now we're a moderate government.

To get back to the bill, it's interesting to me that we are able to — out of the surplus funds which come from our natural resource industries — put additional moneys into our highway program. I know that years ago when we were building up this great pioneering province and building one of the finest highway networks to be seen anywhere in the free world.... Those birds over there were in opposition then. And what did they say? Oh, they called us a blacktop government; oh, we're paving the whole province. I'll tell you that during that time the great highway network that we built up was one of the great parts of our economic development, our tourist industry. If we had not had it, Mr. Speaker, we wouldn't be where we are today with our tourist industry, we wouldn't be able to move our goods and services, and we wouldn't be able to allow those great people from the north country to drive on a straight superhighway to visit the lower mainland. And they tried to call us a blacktop government.

What did they do when they were government? They followed through with their policy that we were a blacktop government. The then Minister of Highways (Mr. Lea) said to the people who were visiting our great province and leaving behind millions and millions of dollars of foreign capital: "Go back home; we don't want you. No way are we going to build highways for you guys just to come in here and drive on. Go back home; we don't want you. We haven't got enough money to build highways for our own residents, let alone for you visitors."

That was their attitude; that's why they failed. One of

[ Page 2069 ]

their pet socialist philosophies because the leader then.... The member who is now the Leader of the Opposition was then Premier and I remember a speech that he made in this House. He said people should do away with their automobiles; it's just a pet love. They should do away with them. Nobody seems to realize that this province is still a pioneering province and we have people in the north and east of this province that need highways. You tell them to do away with their automobiles and go back to the horse and buggy. Those people out there pioneering this great province — putting up with ice and mud and snow so that the people of the lower mainland can live here in the lap of luxury — deserve highways, my friend. They deserve highways and I'm proud to be here in this Legislature and see that $100 million extra is going into our highway program. Because it's part of our economic development and a lot of that money will be going into highways to help those great people in the hinterland, the north, the east, the Kootenays, the great Peace River country, the great ridings of Skeena, Omineca and North Island. Who had to come in and finish the road to North Island? We did.

This is a great bill. I'm not going to take time this morning to speak of all the great initiatives in this bill, because they're all equally good. The significant part of this bill is that the money is there. We are not going to the bank to borrow the money, which would be an impost on future generations. It would be an impost on the kids who are in school today if we went out and borrowed the money. That's why this government is successful. We run a good financial ship. We are not borrowing on behalf of our future generations, because we pay as we go. That's why I'm a Social Crediter. That's why I'm proud of this great team. I want to tell you that we're the envy of every province in Canada and every state in the union because we are good financial managers and we are able to bring in these great programs. We are able to give people faith in the future of their great country, and that's what it's all about.

MR. LEVI: I rise under standing order 42 to correct a statement made by the minister, Mr. Speaker. He's quite right when he says that there was a meeting in which we discussed the question of nationalization. Don't go, because I want to tell you what it was. We did discuss the question of nationalization. We were looking at how we could nationalize the minister's mouth as an alternate energy resource.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I've always enjoyed listening to that minister. It's comic relief. I really regret that the debates of this House aren't televised, because I'm sure we could sell commercials like crazy after a speech if we put the minister on comedy hour.

In any event, I think it's appropriate that I follow that particular minister, because I wish to discuss this afternoon, quite briefly, a very serious situation that we have in British Columbia today. I think it's appropriate to discuss that situation under this bill; in fact, it has been referred to several times by previous speakers. Part of that deals with transportation into and out of Ocean Falls at the present time. We have $100 million appropriated in this bill, if the bill passes, for highway construction and other highway and transportation links.

Just to give you a brief history, Mr. Speaker, starting last Sunday 114 people were laid off in Ocean Falls. Just a week prior to that layoff, they took the only water transportation link into that community away from that town. In other words, there is no transportation by water for these people, who were laid off just five days ago, to get out of that particular community.

This bill is more properly, I suppose, discussed in committee, because it deals with at least 12 different ministries. This bill should have been included in the budget as our previous speaker from Nanaimo has pointed out. But I want to discuss the situation in Ocean Falls just for a moment. I'm giving the House just a bit of history of what has happened here.

Some time ago — in fact on a number of occasions, but more specifically on October 26 last year, after a visit to Ocean Falls — I wrote to the Premier and expressed to him the very serious concerns people in that community are having about the future of that operation. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I received no reply, not even the courtesy of an answer from the Premier of this province or from the chairman of the B.C. Cellulose Company, Mr. Williston, on that particular topic.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, this is in order, Mr. Speaker. This has been a wide-ranging debate. We're discussing the 114 employees and their families who are stuck in Ocean Falls at the present time. I'm just anticipating your ruling.

While we're discussing the 114-person layoff, I might remind the government that we have a vessel that could be placed on the Seattle-Victoria route, and that is the Marguerite. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the sister ship to the Marguerite, the Princess Patricia, owned and operated by Canadian Pacific, is sailing this year to Alaska? It has been given a clean bill of health by the Canadian Coast Guard, the American Coast Guard and CSI.

MR. BARBER: It has five times the miles on it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, and not only that, but that ship was cleared and refitted at the same drydock, Burrard Yarrows in Vancouver, as was the Princess Marguerite. That ship could sail, which would mean that the Queen of Prince Rupert should now be sailing on the north coast route, and those people in Ocean Falls wouldn't be stranded.

But we have a far more serious situation in Ocean Falls right now, because there is going to be a further layoff of approximately 300 people, taking place on June 1 this year. Every day I'm receiving telephone calls and letters from that community about the concerns expressed. I've been pretty patient; I have raised the issue in this House on a number of occasions, but I haven't come down hard on this government. But time is running out, and I want a commitment today from the appropriate ministers of this government — the Premier, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) — that these people will not be stranded and that assistance will be forthcoming for them.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

People up there who are fortunate enough to be members of the union, Mr. Speaker, are getting some moving allowances and other benefits through the corporation. But we

[ Page 2070 ]

have across the aisle from me a government that expounds its belief that they are of great aid and help to, and have the support of, the small business community. I doubt that last statement, by the way, but that's what they tell us. Just as I was coming into the House this morning, I got another phone call from a small business person who tells me that they have no assistance and no way to get out of the Falls. He has to be out by April 24 to meet other commitments, and has no way to do it. There is no assistance from this government, in spite of the fact that I was assured by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development that assistance for these people would be forthcoming. But then, we've learned not to believe everything they tell us, Mr. Speaker.

Let's look at January 16 this year, when the Premier met with the Canadian Paperworkers International Union representatives and told them: "We will not put a foreclosed sign on the door of the Ocean Falls Corporation, and when the future of that community is decided, the people up there would be the first to know." As a matter of fact, what happened was that we, the rest of us in this province, read about it in the newspaper first. They didn't even have the courtesy to first discuss the future of that community with the people directly affected.

It's hard for me to describe what is happening in that community right now. There is despair and uncertainty. There have been committees formed by wives of employees and/or former employees in some cases. They are deeply concerned. It's hard for me to express in this House what is happening there today. I would certainly invite the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development or any other minister to go and visit that community as soon as possible — or perhaps he shouldn't, I don't know. But as I've said, it's very difficult for me to put it into words. It concerns me that commitments that are not honoured have been made by members of this government.

You know, Mr. Speaker, this government made a decision right off the top of its head again in spite of the fact that they had four years to make a decision. I don't know how they reached these decisions. For example, I have correspondence here dated April 2 of this year from a former resident. Obviously local management wasn't aware that the government was going to make a political decision to close down that community. I'll give you a list of what was in progress while the government was considering this without telling local management or the local people about what they were doing. There are 14 items. I think I'll read them all, because I think they're well worth reading. This is a government that prides itself on its administrative capabilities, yet the millions of dollars of wasted funds involved.... If they knew they were going to close down that corporation.... Just listen. This is a short list but the list is much longer. I'm going to get into that later on in this session during the debate of the estimates. But I'll give you this short list.

Firstly, a new ferry ramp to accommodate the Queen of Prince Rupert. That's a joke. I wonder if any of this $100 million is going into that project.

Secondly, repaired all dam gates for the huge dam. This is one of the things they've done which wouldn't have been done and wouldn't have been necessary had the government decided to keep that community in operation.

Thirdly, all the trestle roads were filled in and hardtopped. Is some of that $100 million going into that project?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The Chair is having some difficulty in relating your comments to the bill presently before us, which is the Special Purpose Appropriation Act. Reference of the material would be in order but not the in-depth debate of articles which are not in any way related to Bill 5, particularly when that opportunity will present itself, for example, in estimates, when it would be very much in order. I would caution the member accordingly.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your observation, so I will attempt to clarify two points. Firstly, time is running out and has run out for some people in Ocean Falls. Secondly, I can't think of another opportunity before the next major layoff to discuss this item. I really can't. The minister responsible to this Legislature for that corporation is the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, who just spoke. He has two large appropriations of funds under this act. They are funds that should be used to assist those people at the present time, and I'm wondering if some of these funds are going in that direction.

When the Minister of Finance gets up to close debate on this bill sometime next August — or whenever it may be that he will answer these questions.... Check with the minister. I can't question the minister directly, but I can question the Minister of Finance on this bill. I would like to know....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, again, I appreciate the concern you're expressing for the time factor that you have expressed. Nevertheless, the House is bound by the rules, and the rule of relevance, certainly in second reading of this particular bill, must be observed. Notwithstanding the member's concern for urgency or opportunity, the Chair has no alternative but to refer again to the relevancy factor of Bill 5. I would caution the member accordingly and ask him at this time to proceed.

MR. LOCKSTEAD. All right, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

I think it's important to bring in part of the history of a community without water transportation, although there are $100 million in this bill under highways estimates, over and above.... What the ministry has done here is calculated their overruns before the overruns. There will be overruns over the overruns, I guarantee you, next year. But that's next year's debate, not this year's debate.

In any event, we have to ask if any of these funds are for transportation to that part of the coast. I won't continue with this list of many, many items, except for one. Two new turbines, plus new materials, were ordered — and are now in transit — to drive the paper machines in Ocean Falls. If the government knew what it was doing, why did it allow the corporation to spend many millions of dollars on these items? The fact is, the government has not been candid. They do not know what they are doing, and they are in complete disarray.

To illustrate the concern shown by some people in that community.... The government stated some time ago that they would look at the proposal for a new flitch and chip mill for that community. Here's the problem: they have no wood. This is a company that is supposed to be interested in starting up and operating the so-called flitch and chip mill in Ocean Falls, but they have no wood. Can you believe it? To date, no wood has been allocated to the corporation and/or to the Impact Lumber, the company which is going to operate this proposed new mill. As a result, people in that community

[ Page 2071 ]

who wish to stay and attempt to get a job with this so-called "new concept company" have no choice. Eventually they will have to leave whether they like it or not. A lot of people will be staying just on spec, but in due course their funds will run out. I should tell you that as of this morning the corporation has located only 59 new jobs for the 420 employees in that community. We now have 103,000 people unemployed in this province. How are they supposed to live when their benefits run out? Many people in that community don't even have benefits; they're not covered by UIC. At this point, people in the small-business community, particularly, are receiving no assistance whatsoever to alleviate their situation. What the heck are they supposed to do?

The residents of the community have formed the Ocean Falls Residents' Council. They tell us that neither has a date been set for the completion of the study of this new flitch and chip mill, nor has a decision been made about the new mill. The uncertainty is causing really serious problems.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, again I must ask the member to return to Bill 5. While his concern on the item may be of one nature, to discuss what is not in the bill is certainly stretching the point to some considerable degree. I would again ask the member to narrow his discussion relative to what is in fact on Bill 5.

The member for Skeena, on a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: On the point you have raised, I think the Chair should probably take into consideration, in examining the bill and the principle of it, that it basically has no principle except the expenditure of funds. As has been pointed out before, there are 15 separate subject matters involved in the bill. It's a very wide-ranging and encompassing avenue of expenditure. The member for Mackenzie is trying to examine three of them specifically, I think, and he's trying to apply them to a particular situation. I'm not transgressing the rules in doing this, but I need to refer to the content of the bill: one is in subparagraph (b), where there is a proposed $100 million for an accelerated highway building program. He advanced the argument that that encompasses, and can easily encompass, the B.C. Ferry operation because it is considered to be an extended highway program.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: I suggest that the Minister of Transportation and Highways wants to engage in examining this point of order. You might well do that in the proper way, Mr. Speaker.

Point (h) refers to $1 million to improve the economic advancement of the province. That is what the member for Mackenzie is arguing — to improve the economic advancement of the province through a specific situation insofar as it is facing his community. Regarding the transport question of people from that community who are faced with layoffs and are being denied adequate opportunity to move out if they so desire, there's an item under (k) of $3.4 million for improving airport facilities, which could easily be encompassed in the context of Ocean Falls. If Your Honour would take those points into consideration, you might not be too severe in your suggestions as to the way the member for Mackenzie should approach the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I appreciate the points raised by the member. Nonetheless, again I must relate to my original comment that to discuss what is not in the bill would certainly be straining the principle of discussion of any bill, particularly when there will be other opportunities to discuss it in detail, section by section, or in future estimates. The member for Mackenzie continues.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your advice. I have made every attempt, in view of the wide-ranging debate that preceded my gaining the floor, to stay in order. I have made every attempt to tie this matter into coastal transportation problems, relating to Ocean Falls and the central coast particularly. Since these ferries are our highways and are heavily subsidized by the people of British Columbia and that ministry, there is no question in my mind that that part of the debate was in order. However, I'll let you decide; you are the Speaker, so far.

I have just about finished, but I have one last point I wish to make. Some time ago the government commissioned a wood evaluation study of uncommitted wood supplies on the central coast. Although I have asked for it on numerous occasions, that study has never been made public. This directly affects the future of the community of Ocean Falls at the present time. I would ask the minister to make that study available to the public, and to at least commit some of that uncommitted timber on the central coast to the Ocean Falls Corporation for this proposed flitch and chip mill. It's of vital importance at the present time. Those people up there who are going to take their chances and stay are asking me every day: "Have you seen the study? What's happening? Have we got any wood?"

I would suggest to the government, in conclusion, that transportation for the people of that community is a vital top priority. As I said, only 59 of 410 employees have found jobs as of this morning. Jobs for these people must be found in other parts of the province if possible.

There must be assistance for these people to purchase homes when they move to other parts of the province. Housing was very cheap, as a matter of fact, in Ocean Falls, because of the tie-in with the corporation. The fact is that nobody is going to lose any money on his investment on his home in Ocean Falls. But a home equivalent to one purchased for $20,000 in Ocean Falls couldn't be purchased for $80,000 in the lower mainland. Like most people today, people working in that community lived up to their incomes and they don't have that kind of money and can't afford to purchase a home at the high interest rates we have today.

I see the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is back in the House. The people of that community would appreciate a clear statement from that government and that minister as to the future of the soon-to-be-unemployed residents of that community.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I haven't spoken too often in debate during this session of the Legislature. It's nice that one or two of the opposition are still hanging in there, late on a Friday morning. I must say that in the 17 years I have sat in the House there has never been less content in debate, never less purpose and never less in the way of constructive opposition and argument than we have had this year.

MR. BARBER: You said that in 1976.

HON. MR. McGEER: It has deteriorated significantly

[ Page 2072 ]

since then. I can only attribute this.... If it needed any proof, witness the benches here today. The irrelevancy of the debate is reflected in the attendance of members on the opposition side themselves. The five that are left indicate their particular interest in this debate. While it might be said that the treasury benches have important business to conduct outside the chamber, one would have thought if the NDP attendance was to be so poor, at least they'd be spending their time researching speeches so we would have a little more content in the House itself.

We're talking about Bill 5, which appropriates sums of money for a wide variety of purposes. I certainly don't intend to take the time of the House to go through that list, but the important thing for members and for the public to realize is that the possibility of a bill of this kind appearing before the House is a result of this government and the fact that we are not following socialist principles in British Columbia.

What we were dealing with when that group opposite was in power was not with surpluses but deficits. That government took power when the treasury was full. It only took them three years to piffle away all the money that had been left for them, to run the economy of the province down. Not just that there was nothing left from the past, but there was insufficient money coming in to look after the day-to-day obligations. It didn't just extend into the estimates that the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) wants all of our budgets to be compressed into; it extended into the Crown corporations such as ICBC, where it was felt it wasn't necessary to bring money to pay for the insurance. It wasn't necessary to bring money in to pay for the ferries. It wasn't necessary, Mr. Member — and I'm glad to see you over here where we can give you a little bit of close attention — for transit or the electric company. So quite aside from the deficits that were built up in our estimates on a day-to-day basis, there was this enormous amount of money that still had to be found to look after the Crown corporations. Then, when we were through with that, Mr. Speaker, it was fulfilling all the expectations in unpaid bills that came in for years afterwards,

One of the features that should give the members opposite some comfort from this particular bill, aside from the fact that it's possible at all, is that we're gradually working off that deficit that the NDP left us — $26 million more. If this government remains in office and continues to give good management in the future, we'll be able to pay it all off.

The members opposite are voting against — as we understand their debate — money going into the kinds of things that I would like to praise the Minister of Finance for providing. We're attempting, for example, to bring educational opportunities into the home of every British Columbian by using the modern technology of television, which can be done with a modest appropriation of funds for the necessary equipment to link our educational institutions directly to the network which does exist in British Columbia and which can provide that service into the home. But they're against it. Why? Is it because they're jealous of the fact that the present government, through its wise management, has the funds to finance this sort of thing? Are they against it because they don't want television to go into the homes of British Columbians; they don't want those educational opportunities? Or is it just that they don't understand the nature of the economics of British Columbia, the responsibilities of high office — which include among them sound management of the economy — and the way in which benefits, if and when they accrue, can be appropriately distributed to bring the maximum benefit, but without raising expectations beyond the ability of a government to deliver at some future time?

I would say that of all of the problems which this government inherited from that very brief three years that the NDP was in office, the major one was not the deficit in the day-to-day financing that we found, the shortage of $400 million. It was not the enormous losses in the Crown corporations which we somehow had to cope with.

It was the unrealistic expectations that had been created out there in the community that somehow government was a bottomless pit of money; that this was all automatic; that there was no need for sound management; that somehow people could forget fiscal responsibility and the money would roll in; that we didn't have to worry about the resource industries of British Columbia; we didn't have to be competitive in the world and produce; we didn't have to worry about what other nations were doing; we didn't have to be careful in our relationships with the federal government to see that we got a fair share of the British Columbia taxes paid to the federal government — that all those things were unnecessary. All that had to be there was a group of people with good hearts and fine intentions and everything would be lovely.

It just doesn't work that way in government. It never has and it never will. It does take careful and responsible management, and when that's done, just occasionally there is a surplus. There is a possibility to give benefits, to undertake once-only projects — the building of airports, special appropriations for scientific equipment, providing the capital facilities for an educational television network around the province, and so on. One would hope that that opportunity would be repeated next year, the year after, and the year after that. But it would be folly to suspect that a combination of wise management, confidence in the economy, and buoyant world markets would make that happen every year. Indeed, we can already see storm signals on the British Columbia economy now, as a result of softening markets in the lumber industry.

So to include these amounts of money in the estimates, as suggested by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), would be to perpetuate and repeat the errors that were so disastrous when that member and his party held office. Let us remember that the NDP, when they were in office, stood for fiscal irresponsibility. During the latter days of their government, when the member for Nanaimo was the Finance minister, he can tell you better than anybody that he didn't have any surpluses to look after. He didn't have any opportunity to build airports, to build roads, to look after ferries, or to do anything for any of the constituencies that were represented by the NDP members. Indeed, we were given to believe by one of those members — a former cabinet minister who crossed the floor to this side of the House — that there was outright panic in the NDP when they realized they were coming up to an election, that the cupboard was bare and all the plans that the individual members of the NDP had put forward to their constituencies could not be fulfilled.

But I can tell you that because of the wise fiscal management on this side of the House, because of the leadership of the Premier of British Columbia, and because of the imaginative budgets of our Minister of Finance, that isn't going to happen — not only to government constituencies but to opposition constituencies. As the Minister of Finance has said, the benefits that have flowed from this wise management are going to find their way into every single constituency of British Columbia, including all of yours, despite the

[ Page 2073 ]

fact that you are against it. That's the difference between the management that is coming to British Columbia today and the management which characterized your years in office.

I don't like standing up again and again to remind the NDP of what differed between the way they managed the economy versus what we have been able to do since we've been in office. It's been an uphill struggle for us. But if the NDP insist upon coming into the House and failing to provide any constructive debate at all and, at the same time, opposing bills which benefit them and the people of British Columbia, then surely members on this side of the House are entitled — obliged — to stand up and explain to the House and to the public precisely why it is that the attitudes are so different. They couldn't learn in government, and they can't learn in opposition.

I believe that people who are concerned, for example, with education, and particularly with television education, will be interested in the fact that the NDP are against their having this opportunity to benefit the people of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are they really against that?

That's what they said. They're against $3.4 million to improve the airports around British Columbia. They're against that and I think the small communities of British Columbia should know.

They're against spending money for refugee settlement in British Columbia. I can remember when we had appealing resolutions from the other side about what we should be doing in Vietnam. Now they're against refugee settlement.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's the saddest part of all.

HON. MR. McGEER: It's the saddest part of all, as the Minister of Finance said, because you can tell where his heart is in this particular bill.

Similarly they're against the money that we're spending to improve scientific equipment at our universities, something which has sadly been allowed to deteriorate. The Science Council, I can tell you, will know that the NDP are opposed to funding $3.5 million out of the $11.7 million of requests for sound scientific projects to benefit the people of British Columbia. They're against that.

You're even against spending money for highways — $100 million. And can you believe it, Mr. Speaker, they're against paying off the debts that they themselves accumulated.

It's another said and sorry day for the opposition in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, and the only thing that I could wish upon them is that they do one of two things: either come and listen to some of the debates and hope to learn from them; or at least, when they are not in the House — as most of them are absent today; I don't know whether it's because it's Friday afternoon — they should be trying to improve their own speeches so the calibre of debate in this House can be brought back to its traditional level.

HON. MR. MAIR: Almost immediately you'll get an example of what you were talking about.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly thank the Minister of Health for his very kind remark.

The last speaker has indicated that he feels that the opposition is against everything. Well, I'll tell you what the opposition is against, Mr. Speaker. We're against having to vote for and discuss three separate budgets, because that, in fact, is what this bill does. This is, in essence, a third budget being brought into this House. We discussed at some length the supposed budget; we have been discussing for some time another bill that deals with surplus revenue which, in effect, is an extension of the budget; and now we are here again today discussing a third supplement to the budget, because that is what this is all about. This is simply allocating bits and pieces of money that should have been included under the estimates of the various ministers — and we are certainly against that kind of strange and inadequate financing in this province.

Mr. Speaker, the last speaker talked very glowingly about the things that this government has done; he talked very glowingly about what this bill was going to do. I'm wondering, when he stands in this House and talks about the great financial position that this province was in in 1972 when the New Democrats took over, if he recalls some of the things he said about the financial position of this province just prior to 1972 when he sat in a slightly different position than he sits now. He seems to have changed his tune a bit. As I recall, at the time the New Democratic Party took office in this province, the current assets of this province were not sufficiently great to cover the current liabilities.

MR. LEA: Parity bonds.

MRS. WALLACE: That's right — the current outstanding liabilities. I think if you checked the public accounts for those years, Mr. Speaker, just as we took over in 1972, you will find that that information is there, for all those who would see, to see.

The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) stood up in the House and made glowing remarks about the future generations of this province never having to face any debts because this province was debt free. I would just like to refer to public accounts for the year ending 1978-79. On page F74, under the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, are listed long-term liabilities of $4,774,000,000 and parity development bonds of some $50 million. On page F82 it says: "Note 4 — Guarantee by province of British Columbia: the government of the province of British Columbia has unconditionally guaranteed the principle and premium, if any, and interest on the bonds, debentures and parity development bonds." If that's not debt.... That is debt. That's a debt on every taxpayer in this province.

If you want to go a bit further in regard to what the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) said in this debate.... He referred to the fact that we have no debt in this province. Let's look at item 5.25 on page 18 of the auditor-general's report, relative to the B.C. Railway: "A guarantor of debt" — she's talking about the debt of the B.C. Railway, which is more than $53 million — "is obligated to honour the terms of the guarantee if the debtor is unable to repay its debts from its own resources. Once this becomes apparent, good financial reporting requires that the obligation be recognized as a liability in the financial statements of the guarantor." She goes on to say that this has not been done by this government.

That minister, who is responsible for industry and small business in this province, has the audacity to stand in this

[ Page 2074 ]

House and make that impassioned speech, trying to impress the people in the gallery and the people in this province with the fact that this province has no debt. He is departing from facts when he makes that kind of statement.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence in letting me deal with those items which have been raised by other members in this debate.

I want to deal now with the so-called Bill 5, which I would call the third supplement of the budget. I want to express my concern that we are faced with having to speak about a method of financing that is incomprehensible to me from a government that is supposedly very businesslike. Why they should find themselves in the position of bringing in not one but two bills to dispose of so-called surplus revenue escapes me. For that reason, I certainly cannot support this bill.

I cannot support it for other reasons, too. One of the reasons has been outlined very well by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), my colleague, who has indicated and explained very explicitly to this House that the first item listed in the bill is certainly not one that should be there. It's a debt created by that government in an attempt to further its own political purposes.

I also believe that this bill has its priorities all wrong. The Minister of Finance stood in his place and said: "These programs ensure continued growth and job creation." Those were his words; I jotted them down. Well, Mr. Speaker, it's very strange that he should stand in his place and talk about continued growth and job creation on a day like today, when the papers have been full of headlines of loggers and people in the forest industry being out of work and of massive layoffs all over this province. It's strange that this minister can stand in his place and talk about creating more jobs and completely ignore the need for government to give some support to existing industries to ensure that those jobs stay in place, and that the government is not prepared to take the steps that would ensure that those jobs are kept in place.

Of closer concern to me, Mr. Speaker, even closer than the forest industry concern, because of my role in this particular caucus, is my concern about what's going on with the poultry industry in this province. I am concerned that this bill does not see fit to provide any programs that would encourage or assist the kind of problems that we are facing in the poultry industry today. I regret that in the kinds of programs that the minister outlined, which are going to create new jobs and ensure continued growth according to the minister, there is nothing that is going to create or even maintain existing jobs in the poultry industry. Nor is there anything in this bill that will ensure the continued growth of the poultry industry in the province of British Columbia. Rather, Mr. Speaker, we can well be in a position where the whole turkey industry may be disappearing in this province. I understand that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) has finally agreed to some stopgap measures to keep the industry operational at this point in time. But those are stopgap measures only. This bill, unfortunately, does not provide any means whereby the government can assist to ensure that there is a long-lasting decision in relation to that particular industry in our province.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this bill doesn't provide for the care and feeding of elephants either. We need to talk about what the bill does provide. That's what's in order. What it doesn't provide is not in order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I firmly believe that the member had just concluded her remarks on that and was moving on to the principle of the bill, which she is now doing.

MRS. WALLACE: The government is very prone to ask for constructive criticism, and when one tries to give constructive criticism the government is very prone to stand in its place and say that it is out of order and that they don't want constructive criticism. I am attempting to give constructive criticism by suggesting that there be some proviso in this bill to ensure that industries such as Maplewood....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the Chair has allowed great latitude to this point. A point of order was raised, and I'm sure the member is aware of the validity of that point of order. To carry on in the same method is certainly not in keeping with the traditions and cooperation that we expect in the House. I would ask at this time that the member get back to the principle in the bill presently before us.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I notice that item (c) of the bill talks about the B.C. Development Corporation providing low-interest loans for small business development. I would like to suggest in a very positive, constructive way that the minister responsible — who unfortunately is not the minister responsible for this bill — review the maximum limits he has set to enable him to involve himself in some very serious problems that are occurring in the poultry industry in this province.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister has indicated that this would gobble up the taxpayers' money. Well, I think it might be well worthwhile to gobble up the taxpayers' money in order that we don't gobble up the turkey industry in this province.

The minister has indicated that he is going to create jobs with his small industry development in section (e) of the bill. I would like to very constructively suggest to the minister that he consider enlarging that particular portion of the bill to include not only the creation of jobs but the retention of jobs in the forest and poultry processing industries.

Mr. Speaker, we have a desire expressed in this bill to encourage small business development and to encourage processing, wholesaling and manufacturing on the basis of a small, local type of company. Now I understand that that is what the minister was speaking about when he spoke so dispassionately in this debate.

We had a small business in the Fraser Valley that was operating reasonably well. It was sold to a very large corporate concern. The minister responsible told us in the House.... I'm referring to Panco, Mr. Speaker. I'm quoting from Hansard, March 28, on page 128. The minister said: "The sale of Panco gave us the highest return" — and note this — "gave us a five-year, forward-planning program and a $4 million expansion to take place — upgrading and further processing of turkey with the benefits to the turkey producer." That's what the minister said in the Legislature, Mr. Speaker. Four million dollars for processing and upgrading.

[ Page 2075 ]

Unfortunately the minister was not very familiar with Cargill. In fact that minister was apparently so naive that he signed a contract to purchase Panco without any provision to ensure that that $4 million would be....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Again, I know the time is short, but I must request that the member return to the principle of the bill presently before us.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that's what I'm trying to discuss.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair is straining to try and relate the member's comments to Bill 5.

MRS. WALLACE: Let me explain. Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain that I'm talking about small business development, which this bill is trying to foster and further. What I'm trying to point out is my concern that that has not actually been done. I want to point out very constructively to the minister some of the things that have happened, so he won't fall into those pitfalls again. I note that the hour is very late, Mr. Speaker, and I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member for Cowichan-Malahat tried to say that I had left the impression with this Legislature that the province was debt free. I want to say that if I left that impression, I want to apologize for it, because the province isn't debt free. We're trying to get out of the debt that they left when they were government, and we're working on that. If I left that impression, I apologize for it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. That is not a point of order, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: I just would like to ask that the House grant leave for me to remove Motion 9 standing in my name on the order paper, because there are a few errors, and I would like to replace it with another one.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move that the House, at its rising, do stand adjourned until Thursday, April 24, at 2 p.m.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:56 p.m.