[ Page 4459 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial Statement

Forest and Range Management.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 4459

Ministry of Forests annual report tabled for the year ended December 3 1, 1980 4459

Mr. King –– 4460

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents

Legislative Library report pursuant to the Legislative Procedure Review Act.

Mr. Speaker –– 4460

Oral Questions

Northeast coal development. Mr. Lauk –– 4460

B.C. Rail bond issue. Mr. Stupich –– 4461

Budget debate

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 4462

Mr. Lauk –– 4465

Mr. Lea –– 4468

Mr. Strachan –– 4471

Mr. Barber –– 4474

Mr. Davis –– 4481

Mr. Cocke –– 4483

Tabling Documents

Ministry of the Attorney-General annual report for the 15-month period to March 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4485

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today from Delta, and hopefully to join us very shortly, are Mayor Burnett, Alderman Lortie, Alderman Moser, Alderman Hayward, and Delta's newest and most attractive addition, Alderman Beth Johnson.

MR. HALL: Also visiting the galleries today are some other visitors from Delta who may be described as orphans. They are Mr. Brian Henshaw, Mr. Ed Brewer and Mr. Larry Reed, who are seeking relief on a bridge.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: It's a great pleasure for me to ask the House to welcome three of Victoria's most enthusiastic residents who have been in the tourist industry and have extended warmth and courtesy to our visitors. In the members' gallery are Miss Lee Richards, who manages the gift shop at the Crest Motel — no ad; her mother Mrs. Myrtle Richards; and a member of the local Pennysaver, Ruth Layne. Also, I'm sure the House will be pleased to know that a number of people from the hotel industry are in the gallery with us at this time: Mr. Ted Theobald, Mr. Rod Verstrate, Mr. Lloyd Manuel and Mr. Ken Noble. We have been discussing affairs of state and the economy, and I'd ask you to give them all a very warm welcome.

MR. SEGARTY: In the gallery this afternoon is one of the Elk Valley's most enthusiastic citizens. He's a director of employee relations for British Columbia Coal, a member of the British Columbia Labour Relations Board, and mayor of Sparwood. I'd like the House to welcome Mr. Henry Volkmann.

MR. COCKE: In the gallery today visiting from the Royal City, that well-known place in the sun, are Mr. and Mrs. Moody.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a ministerial statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

FOREST AND RANGE MANAGEMENT

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to table British Columbia's second five-year forest and range resource management program in the Legislature. This program is a confirmation of our government's long-term commitment to effective and consistent management of British Columbia's forest and range resources.

We have set our goals as was required by legislation, and we will meet them. I am particularly pleased that our government has been able to increase projected expenditures for my ministry above and beyond those called for in last year's program. Total projected expenditures in 1981 dollars over the five-year period from 1981-82 until 1985-86 will be $1.8 billion. This is a 16 percent increase, over and above inflation, beyond the total expressed for last year's five-year forest management program, which extended until 1984-85.

The respective roles of government and the forest industry in implementing the total ministry program are split approximately this way: 68 percent of expenditures through the ministry, and 38 percent through credits against stumpage and to be carried out by the private sector. In addition to that we will be contracting a great deal of the work we are responsible for, so that the real balance in work division between the ministry and the private sector will be approximately a 50-50 split.

Mr. Speaker, in tabling this report, I would like to just speak of a few highlights that you will find in the five-year program. First, basic and intensive silvicultural goals to be reached by 1985-86 have been increased over the targets projected for last year, and in several cases very significantly. Dramatic gains are planned for the reforestation program. The goal of planting 117 million seedlings by 1984-85 has been raised to a goal of planting 150 million seedlings by 1985-86. That will be double the number of seedlings that were planted during this current fiscal year. This change is an outgrowth of my ministry's policy of encouraging and supporting the development of nurseries by the private sector.

In 1985-86 the total silvicultural program, both basic and intensive, will comprise 40 percent of my total ministry budget, and that compares to last year's 28 percent. Over and above inflation, the total ministry expenditures by the year 1985-86 will be 99 percent higher than they were in the year 1979-80. The silvicultural program, however. will be 180 percent higher than in the last fiscal year.

In 1980 the forestry harvest in British Columbia totalled about 75 million cubic metres, which is very close to the previous record, in spite of a very poor lumber market in the world. Industry is also responding to the responsible management position that we are taking and they are committing themselves to modernizing and changing the forest industry to suit the changing profile of forests which they will be using in the future. At the present time a total of $4.6 billion in capital expenditure is committed and projected by the forest industry in British Columbia. Last year alone $1.4 billion was spent. The ministry collected over $514 million in direct revenue last year. This was a record amount and demonstrates the benefit of our forests for the province of British Columbia.

Several other records were broken last year. More trees were planted than in any other single year. For the first time, this year, some 75 million seedlings were planted in British Columbia, which is an increase of 18 percent over the previous year. Within five years we will have doubled that figure. The range administration in the province has again been increased. Last year we provided over 930,000 anabol unit months of forage in British Columbia — another record. Our recreational program has been greatly expanded and was used last year by over 1.3 million visitors — mostly British Columbians.

I am very pleased to table in the House today our second five-year forest management program which demonstrates our government's intent and commitment to manage the forests for the future. At the same time I would table the annual report of the Ministry of Forests for the year ended December 31, 1980.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On the tabling of the reports, the statutory section needs no leave but the non-

[ Page 4460 ]

statutory report will require leave. Shall leave be granted for tabling?

Leave granted.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for tabling the second five-year plan in the House at this time and to assure him and the House that we will look forward with great interest to studying that report.

I listened attentively to the minister's indications that he had achieved all manner of new records in terms of restocking the forests of British Columbia. While he gave percentage increases over previous years he did not give any indication that we have yet achieved a level which will keep pace with the annual allowable cut, much less catch up on the almost two million acres of inadequately restocked forest land in the province of British Columbia. That concerns me greatly. It's going to take a far greater allocation of will and financial resources to recapture that land which is now unproductive than simply a percentage gain over last year's budget.

I would observe too, despite the minister's claim that the nursery capacity has expanded and seedlings are now available, that a cursory inspection I have conducted of regional field offices of the Ministry of Forests still indicates a serious shortfall in the amount of seedlings available to restock the needs in those regions on an annual basis. So I don't think the minister should take too much pride until we arrive at a situation where adequate nursery capacity and adequate seedlings are available to meet the annual needs as well as catch up.

The other point he talked about in his previous inventory report dealt with the potential loss over the next 20 years of about 25 percent of the forest land base in the province of British Columbia. In the interim period we have seen the minister's colleague the hon. Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) dispensing Crown land, that is indeed forest base land for smallholdings of hobby farms, at an alarming rate.

I think that the projections contained in the first inventory report are indeed liable to be outpaced in terms of the erosion of the forest base land. The Journal of Logging, which is a fairly competent observer of the forest industry's health, arrives at the same conclusions in their latest issue. We will be looking very closely at these points. It's going to take a great deal more than bland statements of percentage increases to satisfy the official opposition that the minister is indeed delivering on the brave words of his inventory.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Ministerial statements in this House are perhaps not as frequent as they are in some Houses, and I think that it would be wise for us to reflect for a moment on the purpose and length of ministerial statements. Statements by ministers have been given a recognized place in routine proceedings. The standing order is specific, but considerable latitude has been left to the Speaker to set limits on the participants. The Speaker has emphasized that both the government and opposition contributions should be brief and factual. The purpose of ministerial statements is to convey information and not to encourage debate.

MR. HOWARD: I rise on a point of order, partly with respect to what you have just now said about brevity and also about the custom and the practice. It seems to me that if ministers are going to embark upon the practice of lengthy statements, and the Chair obviously can't know that unless he is advised in advance about what the statement is, it would be courtesy, if nothing else, for ministers to make copies of their statements available beforehand to members of the opposition so there could be some analysis made of them and thus fair play come into play in responding to ministerial statements.

Mr. Speaker tabled the report of the activities of the Legislative Library, pursuant to the Legislative Procedure Review Act, chap. 231, RSBC.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the second member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. BARNES: I apologize for being late. Did we have introductions yet?

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, if the House would indulge, I'd like to introduce someone.

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES: I'm sure everyone will be pleased with this particular introduction, Mr. Speaker. It's my pleasure to introduce Mr. Jerry "Mack Truck" Reddick. I'm sure that most of you have heard of Mr. Mack Truck — spelled perhaps different than the trucking company. Mr. Truck came off a merchant marine ship two years ago in the Victoria harbour and joined in one of those "So You Wanna To Fight" contests, and without any more experience than that has elevated himself to a top middleweight contender in Canada. I'm sure that all Victorians are proud to have Mr. Mack Truck here with us this afternoon. I believe he fights in Nanaimo in about a week; he has a fight coming up very soon. I'm quite pleased to have been associated with that young man. Why don't you stand up, Mack, and let them see you?

Oral Questions

NORTHEAST COAL DEVELOPMENT

MR. LAUK: My question is to the minister of industry and infinitesimal development. On March 9 I asked the minister to confirm that there will be a $2 reduction on freight charges to Teck Corp. and Denison Mines Ltd. In the first five years of coal shipment. As you may recall, the minister replied that he was not aware of the BCR or CN making a rebate to any coal company. Yesterday when I pointed out that Mr. Andras said that there was such a discount, the minister didn't answer. This afternoon I have again confirmed with Mr. Andras that a rate rebate will be given by BCR or CN or both. Was the minister aware of this rebate when he gave his answer on March 9?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I would suggest that the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre has been in this Legislature for quite some years. I'm sure he has lost some of his respect for the Legislature. Whether he has any respect for me personally or not is a matter which might be open to debate. But I

[ Page 4461 ]

would suggest in respect of our parliamentary order that the member address the portfolios of cabinet ministers with the proper nomenclature.

MR. LAUK: I can assure the hon. minister that I not only respect his office but him personally. The question is directed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the question from the first member for Vancouver Centre, as the member knows, there has been a lot of negotiation since April 21, 1980, when the Japanese steel industry decided to make this great move and open up the northeast section of the province by purchasing an initial tonnage of coal in order to make the project viable. Since that time, there have been a lot of negotiations between the coal companies, steel companies and the two railways involved. I think that I answered the first member the other day when I said — and it still holds — that I'm not aware of any rebate by the railroads to any coal companies. That answer remains the same as it was when I gave it to him two days ago.

MR. LAUK: On a supplementary. Mr. Andras of Teck Corp., being the principal negotiator for that company, is under the distinct impression and expectation that a rebate will be given. Mr. Olson, the Minister of State for Economic Development, has stated that the CNR will not be part of that because there will be a complete commercial cost recovery for that railway. Can the minister confirm that if there is such a $2 freight rate reduction to Teck, it will be made by the British Columbia Railway?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first member for Vancouver Centre I want to say that I haven't the legal background that the member has, not having had the opportunity to be in a courthouse. However, I want to tell him again that there were negotiations on the freight rates. There is a lot of difference, as far as I'm concerned, between a reduction and a rebate. Having said that in further answer to the member's question, which was not very properly worded to get the information I'm sure he's seeking, Mr. Speaker, there indeed were negotiations on the freight rate. I could go back in the records, I would imagine, and find that there certainly were some negotiations from the original price. The Canadian National Railway, that great railway which was built to open up this great country, first of all wanted a very high freight rate and, naturally, so did our great British Columbia Railway. But I want to tell the member that both railways will be making a very handsome profit on moving that coal from northeast British Columbia to the port of Prince Rupert.

MR. LAUK: If the rebate is applied to both companies for five years....

AN HON. MEMBER: Or reduction.

MR. LAUK: Or reduction — what difference does it make? It will amount to $90 million. a further loss which has to this point been hidden from the public. Is the minister now willing to disclose to the taxpayers of British Columbia all the hidden subsidies to the northeast coal development? Tell us about the other hidden subsidies, Mr. Minister.

The minister is attempting to get out of his seat, Mr. Speaker. He might be glued there for some reason. Is the minister going to answer that question? Are there any other subsidies?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Does the member have another question?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I can't answer the question, because there really was no question. I want to tell you, my friend, and I want to tell all these great British Columbians, there are no hidden subsidies in this deal on northeast coal. There is absolutely nothing to hide. The member is being argumentative. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you draw it to his attention, because he is being argumentative and imposing an improper motive on this government. I can't stand for that while I am a member on this side of the House.

MR. LAUK: I appreciate the minister's assurance to this House that there are no hidden subsidies and that his government has nothing to hide. I am asking him, therefore: has he decided to make public all the memoranda and documents surrounding this deal so that we can be totally assured that the minister has not made a mistake in that regard?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker. I will be tabling numerous and sundry documents very shortly.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the question was whether he would make public all the memoranda and documents surrounding the northeast coal project. not whether he would provide numerous and sundry documents. That is not responsive.

MR. SPEAKER: The first question was in order; the second question is out of order.

MR, LAUK: Well, Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that the opposition will continue to press for the full public disclosure of these documents, no matter how long it takes during this session?

B.C. RAIL BOND ISSUE

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Given the minister's continued trumpeting of B.C.'s triple-A credit rating, can he explain why the province failed to find any takers in the European money market for the $100 million B.C. Rail bond issue in February of this year?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The question is based somewhat on an inaccuracy. The government did not fail to find any takers for an issue. In fact, the issue was not actually offered to the market.

MR. STUPICH: Did the government change its mind about making this offer when it found out that the climate was going to be too cool in view of some concern by the international financial community about the government's involvement in the northeast coal issue?

[ Page 4462 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Argumentative.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the question is indeed argumentative, but I think this is an opportunity to put the record straight. I trust that the member, as an honourable member of this assembly, will accept and understand precisely what occurred. We were interested in placing an issue on behalf of British Columbia Rail in the Euro"U.S. market. These are U.S. dollars resident in Europe.

There is a term that I'm not that comfortable with, but it's a term the member will know, and it's a term which is used in the marketing of debentures. That is, there was a window. There was a brief period when it appeared that the most favourable market conditions for U.S. dollars were to be found in Europe, and we were interested. It also happened that many other people were interested. The member will know, as a former but brief Minister of Finance in the socialist administration, that these windows do occur, and then the market can alter dramatically within a very few minutes. Literally in 15 minutes it can move 10 or 20 basis points.

On the Friday in question we expressed a willingness to consider going to that market. On the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, while documentation was prepared, British Columbia, along with a number of other would-be borrowers at that particular moment, found that the terms and conditions were not acceptable. We have decided to wait as far as the Euro"U.S. market is concerned.

I assure the member that the issue was in no way related to northeast coal and I reject categorically the inference that the.... [Applause.] At least let me reject it before you applaud. I reject categorically the inference that the market somehow did not like what we were about to do. The decision to go was ours; the final decision not to go to the market was also ours, based on conditions and in the best interests of the people we are elected to serve.

MR. STUPICH: There will be better opportunity to discuss that response when we get to estimates, but in the meantime....

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: No, it's simply that we hope to get more information at that time. That's not a threat or anything else.

In the meantime, can the minister tell us what steps he has taken to secure investment capital for the BCR's Anzac spur line at a reasonable rate of interest?

HON. MR. CURTIS: On behalf of several Crown corporations, not the least of which is British Columbia Railway, senior officials in the Ministry of Finance are constantly monitoring the bond market — Canadian, American and Euro"U.S.; those are the only markets we are considering — for appropriate times to move to market. Indeed, an issue was successfully raised earlier today in Toronto in Canadian dollars for British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority.

MR. STUPICH: There is some concern that the bond market may be in a bad way for some time, and I'm wondering whether the minister has any alternative plans for raising the money for BCR to build this line.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think that it's not just the specific of British Columbia Railway and their capital requirements in months and years to come but rather all Crown corporations which would go to the market. We also, as the member knows and as the House knows, have significant capability internally to fund projects, and we are undertaking that. We review those frequently. I spoke just a moment ago of the issue which was successfully concluded today. It's to close on April 14 next.

At the moment there is some concern internationally with respect to the availability of so-called long-term debenture markets, long-term bond markets, but that problem is by no means restricted to British Columbia issues or to Canadian issues. In Europe quite some time ago, the former long-term bond disappeared and now "long" is an adjective which would be ascribed to ten years, seven years, or something of that order. The issue which we undertook for British Columbia Hydro three days before Christmas was for 30 years. The issue which was settled today for British Columbia Hydro today was for 25 years. Whenever we see an opportunity to go into that kind of market, if the conditions and terms are right, we shall do so immediately.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET
(continued)

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have a few minutes yet in my time to conclude my address to the budget. I was surprised, frankly, with the official response from the official opposition on this budget. I had thought, for example, that the hon. member from Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who accused this government of Canada-bashing in his address, would have been the kind of member to separate himself from the New Democratic Party in Canada, who have aligned themselves with the Liberal Party in Ottawa against those of us in western Canada who appreciate that our natural resources and the profits therefore belong to the people of British Columbia. I would have thought that that member, of all the members across the way, would have appreciated that and wouldn't have included in his remarks the Ottawa bashing commentary which he laid at the feet of this government. I would like to say to the designated speaker of the opposition who accused us and made so much of Canada bashing that it seems to me the federal government has abandoned in past months any notion of a cooperative approach to revenue-sharing and instead has embarked on a program of unilateral persuasion. The opposition claims that this administration has embarked on this campaign of going after the federal government, but I would say that from the standpoint of resource revenue the reverse is very much the case — the federal government is going after the provincial government of British Columbia.

I would think that this isn't a view held solely by this side of the house but also one increasingly shared by observers in the province at large — so much so, in fact, that the Fraser Institute has produced a timely book on the reaction to the national energy program entitled, Reaction: The National Energy Program. If the members of the house take no more time than to read from the introduction of that publication they would be well advised to do so. The introduction by Dr. Michael Walker gives us an outside view of events which produce the background making today's budget a necessity.

There has been much talk to the effect that the British Columbia government has adopted a contrived attitude of bashing the national government, but other people do not feel

[ Page 4463 ]

that way. In fact we are reacting to issues which are without precedent in the country and which were begun unilaterally by the national government. Let me quote from the introduction to the book to emphasize the point that the federal government has left us no alternative but to raise revenues, to make up for revenues that are siphoned off by the federal government. Since 1945 the approach to revenue sharing has been a cooperative one between the provincial and federal governments. In recent months the national revenue program has abandoned this relationship. We are merely reacting to their drastic changes. In the stormy weather which has been created by unilateral federal action, the budget before the House can be viewed as a lifeboat intended to save the level of public sector services provided by provincial government in the province. Dr. Walker says this in the publication put out by the Fraser Institute.

"While the national energy program is obviously of great importance in determining Canada's energy future, its most profound and long-lasting effects may be on the structure of the Canadian federation. In fact Professor Tom Kurcheny, an internationally acknowledged expert on matters of fiscal federalism, suggests that the national energy program has effectively shattered the concept of federalism as a system of self-rule — shared-rule. In his insightful analysis Kurcheny concludes that the most devastating feature of the National Energy Program is the fact that it involves unilateral action and revokes a long-standing tradition of cooperation in the evolution of fiscal arrangements. In his view there are no longer ground rules for the federalism gain. While the National Energy Program itself directly impacts only a narrow range of issues, it will have an effect on the overall tone of federal-provincial fiscal dealings. In Kurcheny's view the medium is the message, and the medium is one of unilateral action — a message which the provinces have clearly received."

At the end of the preface there is also another quote, and I wish you all would read the messages in between, but let me just quote this last line.

"Thus the most important long-term consequences of the national energy program may be the further decline of the common market which exists between the provinces with all the inefficiencies that portends. In Kurcheny's view the future of Confederation and federal-provincial relations looks bleak and fractious."

Mr. Speaker, when the members opposite, who have on the national scene and obviously now on the provincial scene aligned themselves with the moves of the Liberal Party in Ottawa to take over the resources of the provinces and not to return to the provinces what is rightfully theirs, then I suggest to you that these members of the New Democratic Party are not serving the people of British Columbia well.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Each member will have an opportunity to debate in his turn.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, let me just respond, too, to some of the discussion which was embodied in some members opposite when they were responding to the budget speech last day, and they talked about the current housing crisis. I also refer to some publications which were put out by the Fraser Institute, not recently but in 1975. A book was written and edited by Dr. Michael Walker and put out by the Fraser Institute. Part two says that rent control is not the solution. I would like to share this with the members of the House:

"Price control produces shortages because of the prices kept below the market price. The control becomes, in effect. a tax on the supplier. The amount of the tax is the difference between the market price and the controlled price. Since the proceeds of the tax are in effect given to the consumer, the consumer is encouraged to demand more. Thus since price control taxes suppliers and gives the proceeds to customers, it leads inevitably to a widening gap between the amount demanded and the amount supplied. i.e. a shortage.

"Rents in Vancouver appear to have boomeranged under the influence of rent control. Historically. rents in Vancouver have risen slightly less than rents in Toronto. In the period 1963 to 1973 Toronto rents rose 30.6 percent, whereas in Vancouver the increase was only 30.3 percent. Since the time rent controls became effective — that is, 1974-75 — rents have risen by 59 percent more in Vancouver than they have risen in Toronto."

Mr. Speaker, I lay that before the House because there is going to be a lot of discussion in this province in the next few months regarding a shortage of rental units. May I say that we only need to go back to the moves that were made by the opposition when they were in government, to really lay the blame of a shortage of housing in this province where it rightfully belongs: at the feet of the Now Democratic Party, whose moves have disallowed an incentive for the building of housing units which are so necessary today. Thank goodness the province of British Columbia, through its government, just a year ago provided low-interest loans and mortgages to the amount of $200 million, which gave this province record housing structures in this past year surpassing all of the Canadian provinces.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have drawn to my attention that in the gallery this afternoon is Dr. Gordon Shrum. As members of this House will know, Dr. Shrum is an outstanding Canadian who has assisted this province in such an outstanding way, and I would like the House to join with me in welcoming him.

Dr. Shrum wasn't in the House yesterday, I don't believe, when I commented on the trade and convention centre. It is because of the initiatives of this government and the trade and convention centre and the kinds of revenue that it will bring to the province of British Columbia that the social services which I am responsible for will be able to be increased and enhanced. I'd like to thank Dr. Shrum for his part in bringing the trade and convention centre to fruition. It will be the finest trade and convention centre in the world, and we'll welcome the world to British Columbia because of the work that Dr. Shrum has been doing on our behalf.

Mr. Speaker, I really want to address myself today to some of the services which we're going to provide in this budget for families and children, because in this province

[ Page 4464 ]

today we have a level of social services to be envied in all of the world. We have social services to families and children which have been the focus of attention in this past four to five years in this province. I'm happy that $104 million is going to be added — an increase of 18.8 percent over the 1980-81 budget — for a total of programs which include an increase in subsidies to help more than 10,500 parents in British Columbia to meet the cost of child day-care services. My ministry subsidizes the cost of almost 11,000 children a month, in a variety of day-care services — 43 percent of all children who attend day care in the province of British Columbia. These subsidies were increased in May 1980. One million dollars toward improvements in the income-testing criteria for the day-care subsidy and the homemaker subsidy, to allow these programs to reach an increased number of potential beneficiaries, will be added. These will increase by 17 percent in May 1980. The proposed additional assistance will offer valuable support to low- and fixed-income families.

The government has provided $2.3 million to develop five intensive-care child-care resource units for emotionally disturbed children. I'm pleased that the inter-ministerial cooperation is working so very well between the social services ministries. The Ministries of Human Resources, Health, Education and the Attorney-General are all together in addressing the plight of the emotionally disturbed adolescents who cannot receive proper care under existing programs. We have long awaited this initiative. If I don't speak today of any other social initiative in the budget, I want to draw attention to that one because of the incredible need for it and the fact that it has been such a cooperative effort between our ministries.

There are other important services to families and children which will be extended this year. It's interesting that they are extended at a time in this province and in this nation when social services are being curtailed throughout the North American continent and the world because of recession and problems with economies which promise too much and cannot deliver. But we are delivering our social services. There is an increase in specialized services and community services for children with emotional problems. This will enable them to return to their own families and communities, while receiving continuing care and attention. It also addresses itself to increased staffing to deal with reported child abuse and neglect. Our Helpline program for children has proven to be of immense value in identifying family-crisis situations; but in the identification of those situations more help has been needed.

We are increasing the budget for the income-security programs under GAIN. An additional $32 million has been allocated to provide increased benefits to those receiving income assistance and GAIN-for-handicapped allowances. To ensure that the ministry can effectively administer these services, the field operations budget will increase by more than $3 million to provide additional staffing. An additional 85 social workers and support staff will be hired to provide services in areas where a need has been identified. These new positions will be throughout the province. I'm pleased to tell you that new offices will be opened to meet the growing need in the northern and interior areas, where the pace of economic and social change is rapid, particularly in the areas of Valemont-McBride and Stewart.

The United Nations has declared this year to be the International Year of Disabled Persons. Particular attention is being given to the expansion of services to the disabled. The infant development program provides special training from birth to the age of three to those handicapped children who are delayed in their physical development. This has been a most successful program. Because of its success it is in such demand throughout the province. Those who have the program would like it to cover more; those who do not have it would like to have it initiated. This year's funding will be increased 100 percent to expand existing services and to provide services in several communities where none exist. There are currently 17 of these programs operating around the province, serving an average of 625 children. A number of requests will expand those programs during the coming year.

Specialized day-care programs for children with exceptional needs will be expanded. This will enable an anticipated 170 handicapped children throughout the province to receive services. The ministry purchases specialized day-care services for approximately 1,000 handicapped children in specialized and integrated group day-care facilities. Parents of special-needs children are not required to contribute to the cost of specialized group day care. Counselling and home training programs for deaf children, introduced by the federal government, will be continued. The families of 50 deaf infant and pre-school children will be given training in all forms of communication. It is our firm belief that early training by specialized staff can greatly support the later education of those children with learning disabilities.

The number of achievement centres will be increased so that handicapped adults may receive more opportunities and social interaction. The monthly transportation allowance to travel to achievement centres will be increased for the 1,700 handicapped people receiving income assistance and attending these centres.

I'd like to congratulate our Minister of Finance, who has given us a realistic budget but has also addressed the needs of those who are in need and need our special care and attention. I was particularly interested in the budget's mention of the year of the handicapped, where a $14 million enrichment of educational and employment opportunity programs for the handicapped has been introduced and there is a full rebate of the provincial fuel tax to eligible handicapped persons. I would also like to suggest that the extension of the maximum $630 homeowner grant to cover an additional 3,000 handicapped persons is particularly apt in this year of the disabled, but also pays tribute to the fact that this balanced budget, which calls on the people of British Columbia to, yes, pay higher taxes, asks them also to think of those who are not as fortunate as themselves and need our special help and special care. Among those are those people of British Columbia who are in a particular income tax area which needs special assistance. The major tax reduction in the budget which covers and benefits 40 percent of British Columbia families and 75 percent of the elderly residents of the province is a measure which will give relief to our people of British Columbia while still maintaining and retaining all of the services and adding so many more.

We have seen a difference in philosophy in this province in the last few years. The difference in philosophy has been one of socialism or individual enterprise. This budget addresses itself to the initiative of the people who have a vision and an opportunity to build British Columbia even greater. This budget says to the people of British Columbia that we will in this province take care of those in need and we will also give opportunities for those who will be coming after us.

[ Page 4465 ]

This is a budget that is looking forward. By being realistic it reflects the government's commitment to those in need, those who are ill, those who are disabled, those who need hospitalization and those who need human resources. None of these services has been curtailed, none of them has been sacrificed. Where the NDP, the socialist party of this province, say, "Leave the resources in the ground, " the statement made by the designated speaker of the NDP....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Or: "Give them to Ottawa."

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: As my colleague the Attorney-General says, they say: "Leave them in the ground or give them to Ottawa. You have your choice."

But the choice that this government makes and the choice that this province of British Columbia makes in this budget says to the people of British Columbia that we will protect the resources for the people of British Columbia, for the good of the people of British Columbia, and this government has clearly expressed the vision that matches the greatness of the province of British Columbia. This budget gives opportunities for the young, jobs for the people of British Columbia, and it once again says that this is the place to be in the 1980s, this province of British Columbia.

I am pleased to speak in support of this great budget.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the warm response that I'm receiving from all sides of the House is a testimony, because all of the veteran members of the House applaud as I take my place in this debate. That's a clear indication that they know my remarks are going to be fair, even-handed, truthful and to the point.

By contrast I would like to deal with the comments of the previous speaker. The Minister of Human Resources has made some statements in her speech which cannot go unanswered. I think the minister is not completely candid with us or the people of the province of British Columbia on several issues, and I want to point them out because she raised them in her speech. I think that it's incredible indeed for the minister to quote statistics of comparative rent increases in Toronto and Vancouver when since 1976 this government has sat on its hands and allowed a housing shortage to grow more serious month by month and year by year until the people, particularly in the city of Vancouver, are on the streets.

Housing is a critical problem in this province, and she blames rent controls. Since 1976 this government had an opportunity to deal with that problem; they have done nothing. They have shut down the housing corporation. They've created no new incentives for the building of housing. All they do is whine and whimper about farmland remaining in the agricultural land reserve, and they take it out for their friends to develop expensive luxury housing, They will not come to grips with the housing shortage in this province for ordinary people. That's why the rents are so high here. There's a shortage of housing. Why is there a shortage of housing? Because this government has done nothing since 1975 or 1976 to take care of it.

Of all the unmitigated gall, for the minister to raise the trade and convention centre. Last year this House voted a vote of confidence in that minister as our representative on the board to develop the trade and convention centre. We voted for the bill. We delivered a totally non-partisan encomium to that minister. We said she was fantastic. She sat on that board. She knew at the point when she announced the cost of the trade and convention centre at being somewhere in the neighbourhood of $25 million that it would cost more than that. She was trying to sell a bill of goods on that project to the people of Vancouver and this province. She sat on that board month after month. We thought she would negotiate for us and handle it in a businesslike manner. She has totally bungled that project, and there's proof of that. The city of Vancouver, through its finance committee, has exposed the real cost of that convention centre. The minister knew or ought to have known what the real costs of that convention centre were. It's an elaborate boondoggle, a political ploy that had nothing to do with the reality of a trade and convention centre, which all of us thought would be a good idea.

What do you say to a person who has dealt with an issue so incompetently?

AN HON. MEMBER: "Resign."

MR. LAUK: Resign from that convention centre board. Resign from it. Give it to somebody who knows what they're doing, who can tell the truth to the people about its costs so that we can relate realistically to what we, as taxpayers — the business community and civic and provincial officials — can do to put together that project in a proper, businesslike and efficient manner.

It was through the minister's bungling.... And I'm surprised that she would have the nerve and unmitigated gall to stand in this House to take credit for something that's still a puff of wind today because of that minister's incompetence in handling the project.

What was the answer of the people of Vancouver to these big-ticket items that were being handled in such an incompetent way by the provincial government? They got their answer on November 15 when a number of Social Credit Party hacks sitting on council were thrown out of public office by the city of Vancouver. Thrown out of public office!

AN HON. MEMBER: The people of Delta gave a message on Saturday.

MR. LAUK: Another message in Delta. You're not reading these things, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister and to the government. You're not taking a close look at what's happening in this province. People are fed up to the teeth with the shell game. They want to be told the truth, On some of these projects they'll pay the price, but they want the truth. They don't to be hoodwinked into monuments on behalf of the Social Credit Party. They want to know that it's a benefit to their community, that it's a reasonably priced project and that it will not be funded by this government or by the city at the expense of needed projects within the city and particularly funded by massive and oppressive tax increases to ordinary working families.

The minister says: "Socialism versus individual enterprise." Well, the people of the province of British Columbia are well aware of what that government means by individual enterprise, and they're saying it's too expensive for the individual. If this is what they call individual enterprise — an extra $850 per working family to pay for their big-ticket monuments across this province while nothing has happened on the basic services that government should be providing to people — then individual enterprise is too expensive for us. Let's talk about individual freedom — the freedom to work and live in our communities without being taxed out of our

[ Page 4466 ]

homes, without being taxed out of our jobs, without seeing everything we've worked and saved for over a lifetime of labour eaten away by an extravagant and incompetent government. The government is feeding off the backs of the homeowner-taxpayer here in the province of British Columbia. They are destroying home ownership in this province. Whether it is deliberate or just out of sheer stupidity, Mr. Speaker, they are destroying the opportunity for ordinary families to own homes in this province. They know it, and they call that individual enterprise. For whom? The major corporations in this province, or for the ordinary working people, some of whom used to vote for that party?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: It's okay for the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) to say: "Bring out the whipping boy." Let me tell you, the ordinary working family in this province has been whipped long enough by this government. They've been whipped year after year, budget after budget. They have no place to live, they can't afford the rents, they're out of jobs, and of the jobs that they do have, Mr. Speaker, they are paying such a great portion of that income for taxes, for northeast coal, for B.C. Place, for Transpo and for that little toy ALRT, for which the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is trying to do a snow job on the people of British Columbia....

Mr. Speaker, I'll give you an example of how this government is destroying home ownership in the province of B.C. They are paying less of school budgets while the homeowner pays more. In transit they created a virtual smokescreen in this Legislature on the Urban Transit Authority Act. They said: "We're going to give responsibility for planning your transit to regional areas through the UTA. At the same time, however, we're going to give you responsibility to raise the funding for that transit through homeowner taxation, hydro rates and gasoline tax."

Little did we know at that time that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) had every intention to come this Christmas and say to the UTA: "I'm taking back planning, but you keep the responsibility of raising the funds." The gasoline tax — is there anything left for transit there? This greedy, money-hungry government is grabbing every last penny from the gasoline tax. Hydro — we're going to pay more on Hydro rates. Who's kidding whom? Hydro owes $8 billion. Do you know what the annual interest rate and debt-servicing charges of that amount is on the backs of the Hydro ratepayers in this province? No, it's going to be homeowner taxation once again, and only the very wealthy will be able to stay in their homes, because this government couldn't care less about home ownership in this province. Oh, they went across the province and talked about everybody being entitled to own his own home and about the poor people being stricken by the NDP because they were not given Crown land. Remember that? "They are not giving you Crown land."

But actions speak louder than words. Since 1976 the share of education taxes on the homeowner has risen steadily, whereas in the NDP administration it went down steadily.

That Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Speaker, can only be described as an egotistical dictator when it comes to transit. You cannot give with one hand and take away with the other.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would remind the hon. member that temperate language is the hallmark of good debate. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: I thank you for bringing me to order, Mr. Speaker. But I'll tell you the people of the city of Vancouver are fed up to the teeth with the double-shuffle that that minister has perpetrated upon them, as if he has some magic about urban-transit planning. When he announced this automated light rapid transit system — the turnkey operation we're buying sight unseen, a pig in a poke from back east — he gave as an excuse that the regional district is moving too slowly, when, a month prior to his announcement, the Urban Transit Authority had said to him: "We are ready to go. Here's the study, here are the Spaeth plans. We've got the roadbeds laid out. Here's the cost, here are the materials, here are the contractors. Let's go." And the minister stalled and stalled and stalled, and then at Christmas came up with a Christmas present for Vancouver: the Toonerville Trolley from Pier B-C to Transpo. What is it, six kilometres, with this little toy train going back and forth? Can you imagine the Minister of Municipal Affairs sitting there with his railway hat and his little transformer in the CPR tower, Marathon Realty's tower, running his little toy train back and forth. That's all we're going to get in Vancouver. Everybody knows it. The rest is nonsense, because no one can buy a pig in a poke that is untested and apply it as a mass transit system to an urban area, a metropolitan area like Vancouver.

Vancouver and Victoria are fed up — and I'm sure the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) will have more to say about being taxed out of our homes to pay for transit dictated to us by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. You know, it reminds me of the stories in the Bible, Mr. Speaker, of ancient kings taxing their subjects to build monuments, and the oppression of their subjects paying these taxes to build their monuments. But I'll remind that government that most of those monuments ended up to be tombs, tombs for the kings themselves. The people of this province, as I say, have had enough of the massive increases in homeowner taxation with no relief in this budget — none.

I want to talk about education costs primarily today, and I want to talk about the role of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) together with the Minister of Finance and their feeble efforts to relieve the homeowner from this oppressive burden. The Minister of Education gave a commitment in February to make the finance formula more sensitive to fluctuations in property values. I looked carefully in the budget, I looked carefully at press statements — I can't find it. Philosophical direction from the minister is lacking, Mr. Speaker, and this disappoints me, because there is room for philosophy and an expression of philosophy even from a minister who is corralled in that cabinet. Last year the minister said he would do nothing until he had toured the province; we heard that promise. This year, 865 briefs later — count them, 865 — he's still doing nothing. What direction does the government want education to go in, I ask? There were plenty of briefs, and a good portion of those briefs dealt with education financing and the incredibly uneven and unfair formula, which places a burden on ordinary homeowners in B.C.

Ministerial accessibility all of a sudden has become limited. I'll give you an example. Most recently — and I've got a whole file full of these about this minister — Capilano College Student Society sent a letter to the minister on

[ Page 4467 ]

February 23. He had previous correspondence. He promised he'd be accessible, and despite the earnest wishes of the students, faculty and staff to speak with him, does the minister plan to meet with them? We've heard no indication as of to date that he'll meet with them to discuss their specific problems. Today out in the front lawn there is a demonstration, and the very urbane Minister of Education went out greet them, fed them a little cake, patted them on the head, made a few patronizing statements and came back into the palace. That's not good enough, Mr. Speaker, and I have a strong criticism to make about the Minister of Education's accessibility to the various people who comprise those educational institutions in this province.

There is no policy respecting the proportion of school costs that will be borne by the taxpayer. You can't leave policy to an uncontrolled, wild formula — you can't do it, unless you're trying to pass the buck and avoid the heat of your responsibility as a government to take the heat for taxes. Because I have a feeling that if that formula were changed and another formula instituted where there would be a definite percentage of contribution to school districts for their education costs such as recommended by the McMath report. then these inequities and these oppressive property taxes would not take place. But it's clear that the motivation of the government is to avoid the heat by creating confusion and making it appear as if it's the school districts' fault, as if it's the school boards' fault, as if it's teachers' demands that are at fault — as if it's anybody except them who are at fault — and also to avoid a further tax, a further imposition on the treasury for education costs.

If we paid for nothing else in this province except the essential services the government has to deliver to the people, I would say fine. But the government has opened themselves up to serious criticism, and that's this: they are expending funds in the northeast of British Columbia, the funds that private enterprise should be expending there. They are expending funds for B.C. Place and Transpo and for Pier B-C, a great part of which would be the ordinary responsibility of the private company, the private entrepreneur. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that they have opened themselves up to the criticism that if they're going to spend and use those as priorities, they've got to demonstrate clearly that they've acquitted themselves justly and honourably in the expenditure of funds in education. They failed in that; there is no policy.

McMath recommended that 75 percent of all school costs be borne by the province and 25 percent by the school districts. The British Columbia Teachers Federation, the School Trustees Association and this party have endorsed that recommendation.

Do you want to know who else endorsed that recommendation? He was just a Social Credit candidate in those days, and everybody believed him. It was the present Minister of Education. He said he accepted the recommendation of the 75 percent provincial share and 25 percent local when he was a candidate running for office in Oak Bay. I have a feeling, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Education is going to get a message from the homeowners in Oak Bay next time around. They'll remember his promise. And if some of them forget, we'll always be there to remind them.

In five years the proportion of education spending picked up by the province has declined from 47 percent in 1976 to 33 percent in 1981. That's the decline in the share of the provincial governmentos contribution. Here's the graph. The basic mill rate goes up. The mill rate is there; it goes up. The homeowners pay more and more tax. The provincial government, although increasing our taxes almost every year, pay 33 percent — 10 percent less than they paid under the NDP administration. The government has never made a pronouncement on McMath's recommendations, but I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we know what they think of them. We know what they think of them, and actions speak louder than words.

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party used surpluses to begin a deliberate, planned, five-year program to remove homeowner tax for school purposes. This government wiped it out. They wiped out that program. This government has spent their surpluses on monuments to themselves on the backs of the homeowners of the province.

School boards have budgeted responsibly. I heard the minister the other day get into the same trap as his predecessor, the Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer), the second member for Point Grey, the doctor. It's the same trap — issuing a press release which is totally smokescreening it, saying the school boards aren't budgeting responsibly. "It's not our fault the taxes are going up- it's theirs." That is false. It's not true. It's insupportable. and any minister worthy of the name should not make those statements publicly inside the House or outside the House. School boards have budgeted responsibly, and the average increase has been about 15 percent, in and around the inflation figure, for running our schools in the province. When he says that inflation this year is lower and that the number of children entering schools is lower, it's totally deceiving. We know that if you get three students less at this elementary school, 20 less there and 40 less there, you're not going to shut down the schools. You're not going to hire less teachers if there's one pupil less per class. He knows that there are fixed ongoing costs, and it's unfair to label school boards — the most thankless, political job in this province; they have little authority as it is — as being irresponsible.

I say the minister has to answer for that kind of incorrect response. It's not responsible. It's less than honourable for a minister of the Crown to blame the school boards of this province in that manner using those figures. As I say, the increase is about 2 percent above inflation, and that's to incorporate additional programs. It's for work imposed upon the school districts by the government, such as education for the gifted and education for the handicapped. They can't have it both ways. Those are extra costs that have been placed on the school districts by this government, and then the minister comes back and says: "You're being irresponsible by raising your budgets."

School boards act conscientiously within a highly centralized, provincial government-controlled system; let's not forget that. They need approval for all of their expenditures from the ministry.

The minister gave a commitment in February to make the finance formula more sensitive to fluctuations in property values, as I've said. That commitment has not been followed through in this budget. There's been no change in homeowner grant. A mill rate of 42 mills means doubled and tripled tax bills for many residents of the lower mainland. The present formula is complex, and had the minister any clout in cabinet or had the government any commitment to getting the property tax burden off the backs of the people, they would have achieved relief. They would have reduced the basic mill rate. Increased the homeowner's grant, or both. Like all

[ Page 4468 ]

commitments of this minister, it's next year, as in this year, next year, sometime, never. The same thing next \car. the same time next year. The minister of next year.

Over half of the unemployed in this province are under 25 years of age and unskilled. Is the education system, particularly the post-secondary colleges and institutes, geared sufficiently to producing the skilled people that British Columbia needs at the time they are needed? The evidence is that the Socreds would rather import the skilled people for as long as they are able rather than make a commitment to make sure the British Columbia school-leaver can get a job done here.

One of the assumptions of the budget is that unemployment will increase by 10.3 percent in 1981 over 1980 and by a further 8 percent in 1982 over 1981. What is the budget doing to reach out and train British Columbians? They complain about an in-migration of new Canadians and Canadians to British Columbia who are taking jobs and putting pressure on the job market, but what are they doing about 50 percent of those unemployed who are young people and unskilled and don't have an opportunity to get into institutions and to take training courses to become valuable workers in our community? The budget is virtually silent on this issue. This government has not taken seriously that logjam of trades and training in this province. The hon. member, our labour critic, will be dealing with this in greater detail. This is one of the major problems facing this province this government has not addressed itself to.

The present federal-provincial student loan plan is something I also wanted to mention this afternoon. It's inadequate. Everybody knows it's inadequate. The minister heard briefs in the last year, saying he was going to deal with the problem, and limits access to higher education.

The British Columbia Students Federation last year asked for changes in the student assistance plan. I've seen those changes. I wrote to them myself. I agree with many of them and I think the minister, in a very double-shuffle routine, pretended to agree with them too. The government made no changes as a result of the submission by the student organization. After talking with the students and seeing their submissions I would say there's still a sound position for us to take. The minister has failed to do that. There is no reflection in the budget of those needed changes.

Be aware that the allocation is up nearly 30 percent in vote 58 this year; I'll say that. But that percentage increase is very misleading, because the department has no idea how many students they're going to have to cover. In 1980-81 cabinet authorized $580,000 in special warrants for a total of $11.56 million for vote 58. I'm not referring to estimates — only to make my point that the 30 percent figure is after taking the special warrant into account and that there's no reflection of the needs for the coming year in that budget.

Each ministry has an item in the budget that I wanted to mention before concluding my remarks. It can only be described as Socred funny money, 1981 style. I think the item reads: "Less efficiencies achieved to control government growth." This proportion varies from ministry to ministry. Education's is just over 8 cents per $ 100. How is this efficiency to be achieved'? Well, since the average per ministry is 92 cents per $100, what conclusion should be drawn from the apparently limited potential for efficiency from this Minister of Education? I think that's something he has to address himself to. How was the target sum calculated — on the Russian five-year plan principle that no matter what the practical results, the targets and the plan are all somehow miraculously achieved?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It reminds me of the story of the Russian five-year plans. Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry you're leaving, because I know you'll enjoy this. I'll mention it to him when he gets back.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Oh, there's the honourable maverick from the north over there, the honourable gentleman who said he was going to stand up and fight this government because they weren't doing the things he needed in his constituency.

MR. KEMPF: Get your facts straight.

MR. LAUK: I've got my facts straight. Mr. Speaker, I was talking to the people of his constituency in Omineca, and most of the leaders there say he's a man of few faults but the ones that he has he does very well with.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair]

The major implication of this budget is twofold. Firstly, it is a budget that takes away more and more of what we earn as ordinary people in this province. It eats away at our assets. The only asset that the average family has, if at all, is the house they own. Their earnings and savings are all the cash they have. This government is raiding all of our bank accounts. They are taking away the possibility of our keeping our homes, and they have eliminated, almost for all time, the possibility of a young family purchasing a home in cities in this province. They've done that in the name of Transpo and B.C. Place. They've done that in the name of monuments to a decaying government bankrupt of ideas, and a government with little sympathy and little sensitivity to the needs of ordinary people. They act at the bid and call of the major corporations, of their special friends and special interest groups. They do not act responsibly, generously and fairly to the majority of people of this province who are ordinary families who just want to get by with as little government taxation as possible. They've taken $625 million off the backs of ordinary people. It's the most shameful budget in the history of B.C.

MR. LEA: I suppose if the government isn't going to have speakers during the budget debate the reason should be quite obvious: they can't defend the budget.

We listened on March 9 to the Minister of Finance telling us for three hours what a wonderful, booming economy we have in this province, how things are so good, how the economy is so buoyant, how things have never been better — in fact so much so that we've got to bring in more taxes. Things are going so well that the government's broke. Things are going so well in the economy that we're going to have to switch the onus of taxation from the corporations who extract our raw resources to the backs of those people who earn their living in the workplace and to the small business community. If there's one thing that can be said about this budget it is that it does this: it ensures that the people of Japan get the coal and the people of British Columbia get the shaft. That's what this budget is all about.

[ Page 4469 ]

In the first budget after this government was re-elected in 1979 the Minister of Finance at that time said that this was going to be a visionary budget — the budget of 1980 — a budget that would be the cornerstone for budgeting into the eighties, the visionary budget, the budget of the future. Interestingly enough the second budget is the budget to clean up the mess that the first one raised. This is an immediate budget. The first one was visionary, and it seems awfully strange to me that that vision only lasted a few months — about 12.

What can we say about a budget that's obviously a fraud? I've got quotes from other fraudulent budgets by people who are still in this House today but have switched their party allegiance. Here's what was said about another budget: "The problem with Social Credit budgets is that they have never told the truth about revenue. They told the truth about expenditures, but they never told the truth about revenue." Who said that about the Social Credit? The present Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) from Vancouver–Point Grey. That's what he had to say about Social Credit in their budget. He now sits on the benches after turncoating his way over there and says it's the most wonderful budget any government has ever brought in.

But, you know, somebody thought of putting a Hansard into this House, and now we can look at the remarks. What else did he say?

MR. McGEER:...you've done over there is trade jobs in private industry for jobs under the government. You've taken revenue, taxes from the people who are working and producing. and you've blown them on non-productive programs.

Well, it may have been true then, but they've even left out the non-productive programs in this budget, the Social Credit is improving upon themselves: now they just tax.

Here's what the member for Vancouver–Point Grey had to say about the now Leader of the Opposition, when he was Premier, travelling around the world.

He's had a nice tourist visit to China. He's been to Europe. He's been to Japan. He's had an opportunity to travel tire world. We feel that this year, particularly in view of the care he's got to show as Minister of Finance, he needs to be at home, and we won't require all this money for public travel.

Isn't it odd that this year the Premier and some of his staff and some of his colleagues have just had the taxpayers of this province pay for a big boondoggle trip throughout southeast Asia, and then they come back and tax the people of this province so they won't get any holiday at all.

What else have they said? Here's what was said by the hon. member for Point Grey during another budget debate of this kind. This one fits so closely. These figures will be a little different, Mr. Speaker, but you'll get the same story.

This budget is taking tax money at the rate of $6 million a day, $42 million a week, $200 million a mouth and $2.4 billion a year.

It was a $2.4 billion budget. Today, Of Course, we're looking at $6.5 billion.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Ah! Let's just spend a moment with the member from the north. Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that the maverick member for Omineca called a public meeting in his riding to discuss with the people in his riding the expenditure of funds by government, namely the Kemano project? Six hundred people showed up at the meeting, and they said: "Well, Mr. Member, what do you think of the project?" He said: "Well, if it's good. I'm for it: if it's bad, I'm against it." Right there and then, Jack knew lie had better become a maverick. You see, the idea is that you speak out against your own government, hoping to create the maverick image, so that some day when the next election comes around you can still get the Social Credit nomination but be Mr. Maverick. The fact of the matter is, that member has done not one thing to stop Kemano II from going ahead, except talk about it and then go in and completely succumb when he meets his caucus, tail between his legs, run out and say: "Well, I'm just a maverick; I'm not really against them."

I'll say one thing, he does better than his seatmate. The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) said that he is "in principle" against two things that this government is going to spend money on. He's in principle opposed to northeast coal. He's in principle opposed to B.C. Hydro being the carrier of natural gas to Vancouver Island: he's against it on economic terms and in principle, but he says he's going to vote for it, because he wouldn't want to submit the province to the socialists. He'd much rather, I suppose, have his friends ruin the province than his enemies.

You're watching a pretty novel and spectacular thing. You're watching for the first time, the Premier sit down beside the member for Omineca (Mr, Kempf) — the first time in history. It pays to be a maverick, eh? At least you get him to sit down beside you once in a while and not cut you off when you're the chairman of caucus and you do his bidding.

What about this government and what about this budget? Here's the government that always said they were for small business. Then they bring in the most regressive tax of all and add to it — two more points on the sales tax. Who does it hurt? It hurts those people in this province who can least afford to pay. I don't believe that you"ll find an economist anywhere, right- or left-wing or middle of the road, who won't say that the most regressive tax in our society is the on sales tax, because it hits those people in the lower incomes in a much harder, meaner way than a graduated income tax system. First of all, there's no need for this taxation. But once you've decided, for whatever various reasons, that you're going to tax, why pick the one that hurts most the people who can least afford to pay? Why would they do that? Lord knows.

There are people who have said that this budget is not an election budget. I say it is. This is definitely a Social Credit election budget. It's the story of Social Credit. The year before an election they tax the dickens out of us, knowing perfectly well that their expenditures and their estimates of revenue are false. They know that what they brought into this House as a budget is a false document. It does not reflect the revenues that they expect or the expenditures they expect to make. What it reflects is an overestimation of expenditures and an underestimation of revenues so that at the end of the year they can say: "What good girls and boys we are: we have balanced the budget." I don't know how they can call having a surplus a balanced budget, but they do, and they take some pride in announcing it every year.

When the Liberals — the present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) — were on this side of the House, sitting down about there, as Liberals, they abhorred this kind of budget. They spoke about it, they cried about it, they anguished about it, and they

[ Page 4470 ]

used to bring in their own Liberal budget, saying how awful and immoral it was to bring in this kind of budgeting.

Isn't it strange today that I look across the floor at the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations so busy scribbling himself notes. Today he's sitting on that side, smugly saying: "It's the kind of budget I can support. After all, I'm over here now. It means my paycheque; it means I'm going to stay in power, maybe." All the trickery and false documentation in that budget are quite okay with the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations today. He still laughs kind of nicely; he chuckles and goes along. But in his heart of hearts he knows this is the kind of budget that when he sat over here as a Liberal he condemned and voted against year after year. I think it's well worth while; it's a lesson that we should all learn in some aspects of human nature. I think it's worth a moment just to glance across and look at the minister writing so busily and say, there he is; there's the guy who voted against this budget when he was a Liberal in the opposition benches, now voting for it. That's what he looks like. That's the kind of person who does that sort of thing.

I suppose it's the Liberals that annoy me more than anything else over this budget. The kind of remarks I was reading by the hon. member for Point Grey, who's now the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications; the kind of remarks that he made about this budget, yet now he stands up and defends it. The Attorney-General won't stand up and defend it. If he did that, he might be forced at some time to stand up and defend the Premier, and he's not going to do that at all costs. It's better to defend nothing and nobody any time. Those three Liberals, who spoke against, voted against and said on principle they were against this kind of budget, now sit there as meek little lambs voting for 'it because they enjoy the position they're in so much that their principles have gone out the window. We've got the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis); his principle is that he's against it in principle, but he'll vote for it anyway because his friends are in government. It just doesn't make any sense.

Taxing the people too much to build up surpluses for next year's election, or the following year — there isn't anyone in this province or in this House who doesn't understand and agree that that's exactly what this government is doing. They're going for more surpluses to try to bribe the people of this province with their own money at election time. They are a government of bribery when it comes to budgets. They are a government that has no respect for the people of this province. They are a government that doesn't seem to understand that with modern communications the people in this province know what they're up to. In the outback, in the rural community where we didn't get television coverage and daily newspapers, now we do. The people in this province know what's going on. They know this government is again setting the stage and scene to try a bribery of them with their own money.

More monuments, more taxation, more bribery, and they have the nerve to talk about fiscal responsibility and balancing their budgets. Some nerve — some budget on the backs of the people of this province who can least afford to pay. What about the small business community they say they support? What's going to happen to the sales in those small businesses with sales tax going up? The sales are going to go down. That's what is going to happen. They have hurt the economy of this province. They've added to the inflationary spiral. They've hurt the small business community, and to add insult to injury, they've taken a look at small business services in this budget and they've cut them by almost 50 percent. The services to small business are down from just over $2 million to $1.2 million — an $800,000 cut. Give them the back of the hand.

They are not the friend of the small business. They are the willing messengers of the corporate world and they love every minute of it. The odd part about that is that they don't even talk to them. This government is so withdrawn into itself that it has no idea what's going on in this province. They only have a blind faith that what they should do is let the corporate world off the hook, tax the people, build up surpluses and attempt to bribe the people of this province with their own money. Again and again they've done it. I don't expect any better from the Premier. He's an old Social Crediter. I don't expect any different from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland). He's had a Social Credit card in his pocket for 20 years. There are others here who are Social Credit, and you agreed with it from the beginning — to overtax, build up surpluses and bribe. We know where you're at. We can understand it. There's some consistency. But for those people who are new to this House, who came from other political parties, who came from the Conservative Party, who came from the Liberal Party, or who came from no party at all....

MR. BARBER: Or all of them, like Curtis.

MR. LEA: Or like the Minister of Finance, who has been in all of them. Surely you can take your courage in this Legislature and say that this budget is wrong.

How can the member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) go to his constituency and tell the small business community that the spending by government on his behalf is cut in half? How can he go to the people there and tell the small business community to expect smaller sales? "The government wants surpluses to bribe you next year." How can the member for Prince George go to his constituents who are on fixed incomes and say: "I'm sorry, but we're going to put the sales tax up. I know it hurts you more than it hurts people who are making a lot of money, but then they're our friends — you're not. We just want you to vote for us when the time comes"?

How can you do it? Interestingly enough, I think that the back bench is going to be pretty silent on this budget — unless they have staff write them and they read them and they're ordered to read them. But left to their own devices, you won't see too many backbenchers up defending this budget.

What's the money going to be used for? Surpluses. In good conscience, how can you call coming in with a surplus year after year after year a balanced budget? I'd like the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), who is a self-determined economist....

MR. LAUK: He's a self-made man.

MR. LEA: He's a self-made man and he worships his creator.

I'd like to have him stand up and talk about a balance sheet. He thinks he's a businessman. I want you to stand up and tell this House how you can see surpluses every year as a balanced budget. It just doesn't work.

[ Page 4471 ]

The small business community is going to suffer. People on fixed incomes are going to suffer immeasurably. It would be bad enough if this was the only taxation that we have. I have constituents who are over 65, coming to me with their ICBC premium crying, tears running down their faces, knowing that for them it's over — no more driving their car. And for those who aren't senior citizens, you can pick up your ICBC bill and see it has gone up 50 percent at least.

Isn't it incredible that we tax our own citizens — our own individual citizens — out of their homes, out of their cars, out of their hospitals, out of their medical care system, out of life. We tax them out of it. Yet we turn around to their corporate friends and we say: "Here's a billion dollars, boys. It's for you. Spend it wisely, and we know that the people of this province will be socketed by our bribery budget."

I'd like to offer a challenge to the Premier of this province. Let the Premier decide with whom on this side of the House he'd like to go on a television debate on this budget. Let him say who he wants to have from this side of the House go on television and debate the merits of this budget. I challenge the Premier. I know he won't take on our leader — we know that because he's afraid to do that. Pick anybody. As a matter a fact you'd have a hard time with the Pages. They're in here enough that they can hear what's going on and you couldn't debate them.

Can this Premier defend this budget? The answer is no. He cannot defend it. He can attempt to but he cannot defend it. As we see inflation eating away at the wages of working people in this province and even more so with people on fixed income — the answer that this government has to those problems of trying to meet the inflationary spiral that we're living in is to tax the hell out of them! It is the most insensitive, most inhumane kind of budgeting possible to try and bribe people with their own money. There isn't anyone who doesn't believe that.

I'm glad to see the member for North Vancouver–Seymour back. I hope he speaks on the budget. I want him to explain how he's so opposed to what they're doing on a matter of principle but will vote with them anyway to keep them in office. I had sympathy for that member. I watched him crucified by the Premier in this House. I watched him go through torment for what that Premier did to him, and I had feelings towards him. I thought, at least he's a man of principle, but I take it back. How can you be opposed in principle to the government you serve with and the projects they're carrying out and vote for them anyway?

MR. BARRETT: That's politics.

MR. LEA: That's politics, eh! That's Social Credit politics-cum-Liberal. I don't know who I detest the most, Mr. Speaker — the people who've always adhered to bribery with your own money through budgeting or those who've grasped it to their breast for power and to sit with government. I know one thing, this government doesn't care a whit about anything except themselves. They go by the policy that self-interest is the order of the day. They believe it's self-interest that makes the world turn and they believe that it's self-interest they should adhere to. They never have heard and don't even like the word cooperation. It's all self-interest for themselves. That's all it's about.

This budget isn't designed to help, hurt, or do anything to the economy. What it's designed to do is to bring a surplus amount of dollars in for bribery. That's all it's for. They know it, we know it and the people of this province know it, and a three-hour boring speech doesn't change a thing. At the end of the speech, that's what we're left with — gas taxes, fuel taxes, heating taxes, car insurance taxes, hospital insurance, medicare, income tax and sales tax.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Ridley Island. We've had Ridley Island announced every year and every election since 1910. I honestly believe that Hays committed suicide by going down on the Titanic so he couldn't see you in operation. The promises you've made! Nobody in Prince Rupert will believe anything's happening until we see it start. We had the Premier's father come through every election and promise us a superport. We had that Premier come through every election and say we're going to get a superport. We won't believe it until we see it. All talk, all mouth, no action.

This budget is detestable. That's what it is. It's attempted bribery and a clumsy one at that. I guarantee now that television is around this province, now that newspapers travel more easily, now that you can get a daily newspaper in Prince Rupert in the morning — the Vancouver Province; the Sun the next day — now that those kind of things are happening, now that the communications in this province are in a state that they know what's going on in this House and what's going on in this province, people are wise, and they're wise to this bunch. They're not going to be bribed, and especially with their own money. You can try it all you want, and we know you are, but we know what you're up to and the people of this province know what you're up to: you're taking money out of the lunch buckets of this province and you're turning it into a fund, and it can only be called bribery. This, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, should be labelled the bribery budget of 1981 — nothing more, nothing less.

MR. STRACHAN: Nice, friendly day in the House. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this budget. It's a good budget; it's balanced in terms of dollars and it's balanced well in terms of priorities and initiatives.

MR. LAUK: What are you going to tell the people of Prince George?

MR. STRACHAN: Well, I'll get to that; it's coming. I was telling my corridor colleague, the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), who I speak to from time to time, that he'll have to stop smoking and start sewing, and he agreed to that. Seriously, this is a very good budget. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), I think, compromises his own professional position — he's a chartered accountant........

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it's not that we mind what the hon. member says, but on the point of order: one must never in one's remarks in this House reflect upon the profession and the calling of a person in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did he say?

MR. LAUK: He said that the hon. member for Nanaimo had compromised his position as a professional accountant. That must be withdrawn, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 4472 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, if the member was imputing any improper motive he should certainly withdraw.

MR. STRACHAN: If I imputed any improper motive, I'm sorry. I was going to mention that the member for Nanaimo is a chartered accountant; he still maintains a membership in the Institute of Agrologists, and I understand him to be a reasonably clever and intelligent man. I don't always agree with his politics and I found that I had an awful lot of problems agreeing with his comments about the budget.

This budget is fiscally responsible. It ensures that our province will not go into debt; it ensures that we won't leave a legacy of debt for our children and for our grandchildren. I assure you it's a good budget. Sure, we could have had debt, we could have had management like the NDP had when they were in power, when we saw in the years 1974-75 the migration of 20,000 people from our province. We reckon if that had continued, if they had stayed in government, then, in fact, we could be looking at a deficit in our province of close to 200,000 people by now. Well, you only have to look at the net migration figures, hon. members, to sort that one out — and I'm sure you have from time to time, although you've never mentioned them.

Again, Mr. Speaker, from the NDP we hear absolutely no alternative. As I pointed out, the member for Nanaimo is a professional; he was for a short period the Minister of Finance for the party when they were government. He should be able to sort through the budget very quickly and point out what he feels about it and, in fact, present an alternative. In my two years in this Legislature I have yet to see that party across the floor give us an alternative. Can you give us an alternative budget, hon. members? What would you do? Can you present anything to this House that is in fact an alternative?

AN HON. MEMBER: Debt.

MR. STRACHAN: Oh, sure, debt, debt, debt.

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, resign. How about your program? You don't have one. I would submit that....

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, well, tell us what your budget would be. Present an alternative, my friends. Say something about your position, about your policy. I don't think you have one, and I don't think if you had one you'd care to articulate it. You could maybe, say, leave the sales tax alone, and then, in fact, given the position we're in right now, you would have to curtail spending. What spending would you curtail? Would you curtail hospital spending? Would you curtail education spending? Would you curtail spending on the social services? I doubt it. You'd probably just carry this government and this province further into debt.

We have exemptions this year — good exemptions — and they add to a long list of exemptions that we, in fact, have brought to this province. There are exemptions in terms of energy. If you will remember, last year we introduced exemptions of sales tax on wood-burning stoves and other items that would, curtail our importation of energy; there were exemptions and reductions in the sales tax on fuel-efficient cars.

This year we've exempted caulking, insulation and weatherstripping on homes.

We have to begin efficiency measures, because oil is a depleting resource, and I don't think there's anything that you and I can do about that. All hon. members have to consider that. We have to take efficient measures. As a member from a part of the province that has some severely cold winter from time to time, I can assure you that that's a very good initiative on the part of our government and something that will save my constituents many dollars in heating oil and gas and in insulating their homes.

The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) made the very interesting point, when we speak about depleting resources, that the NDP wishes to nationalize the oil companies. When Prime Minister Trudeau was on a certain TV show a couple of weeks ago, he was asked if he would nationalize B.C. Tel. He said: "No. How can a government who can't even run the Post Office run a telephone company?" Well, let's use that same argument. Although Mr. Trudeau wouldn't want to do that, in fact with your party's support he's seriously considering nationalizing the oil industry. I have to ask the same question of you, hon. members, as you support the federal government: can the government who can't even run the Post Office be allowed to be in charge of such an important resource as energy?

Governments and people need the private sector; they need the private sector investment to go. Nationalization just doesn't work, I think if you check with the hon. second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) he will tell you of that and of the experience he witnessed in his own country. If nationalization is such a good thing, then why do people immigrate from the U.K. to Canada? Why isn't it the other way around'? Nationalization has ruined that country, and I think we're all aware of that. Just look at the recent British budget.

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN: I'll get to that, hon. member; that's a very interesting point.

Here we sit and face members of the opposition who certainly endorse nationalization of our oil industry, of energy in Canada, and the government that would support $1.5 billion to buy Petrofina and yet cut back the community services program when, in fact, we could have private sector money look after the energy situation in our country and continue community services programs and many other good federal initiatives for the people. I understand your membership, hon. members opposite, doesn't think too much of your association with the Liberal Party.

There are many good budget initiatives. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) at some length asked me if I would be prepared to talk to the small businessmen in my riding and defend this budget to them. I have no problem whatsoever, particularly when I look at the reduction in tax to the small businessmen; it's gone from 10 percent, to 8 percent. This is a great move. As a matter of fact, if you follow this one through and check with accountants, people who are aware of what small business is, we're looking at businesses that would do $2.5 million down to $2 million per year, depending on what type of business they are in. This will very greatly affect them. It will be money in their pockets for expansion, for new hiring, and it will have a very positive effect on 90 percent of British Columbia's business.

[ Page 4473 ]

I don't imagine members opposite have followed this one through. In fact, the $150,000 gross taxable income does mean that we are looking at business from $2 million to $2.5 million a year sales. I have no problem — to the member for Prince Rupert if he's listening or if he's still in the buildings — about facing the small businessmen in my riding with this budget.

The other item that's most beneficial to the small businessman is the change in commission on the collection of sales tax. That will help them greatly. Again, I have no problem with that.

We've been labelled for the last three days as a government that builds monuments. Talk about northeast coal; my friends, that takes tremendous vision. We have to have vision. We had to have vision, Mr. First Member for Victoria, when we developed hydro in the north. If it wasn't for that hydro development that I saw in my part of the country, Prince George would not be the city it is today.

Our government has tremendous vision. We're looking for resources, we're looking for development, and we're looking for many things that will benefit the people of this province. Social Credit built this province by having that type of development. You cannot disagree with that, hon. members, as much as you would like to. Social Credit built this province by looking for development and continuing to look. Items like northeast coal are just another way that our government shows that it has vision.

The interesting thing about your criticizing northeast coal, Mr. Member, is that in fact there already is a benefit to the people of British Columbia from that development. Prince George is starting to do very well just in the last six weeks since that development was announced. The suppliers in Prince George are doing very well — suppliers who, as a matter of fact, have warehouses in New Westminster and Burnaby. Your constituents, Mr. Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), are already benefiting from the announcement of northeast coal. They are, and I can demonstrate to you how they are. And to the members for Burnaby, they are benefiting from the development and the announcement of northeast coal, make no mistake about that.

We have that type of vision and we will continue to have that type of vision. Prince George in the last 15 years has had phenomenal growth. Why? Because of the wisdom and the vision that W.A.C. Bennett had for the central interior and the northern part of our province. We've grown tremendously. We grew because we had faith in people and we had faith in resources. We had people who had the faith to pioneer and to invest in our part of the country. It really does benefit the whole province. In the words of W.A.C. Bennett: "Draw the circle ever wider, my friends."

You talked about monuments. You talked about B.C. Place, Transpo and northeast coal as being monuments. My friends, monuments are something that deal with something that's dead. Let me tell you that B.C. Place, Transpo and northeast coal — all those initiatives by our government are not dead. They are alive, vital, breathing facilities for people. They are people programs.

We could erect monuments. Yes, we could in fact forget about B.C. Place and put a monument up saying: "We forgot about that, and here lie all the dreams of all the people who would benefit from B.C. Place." We could forget about northeast coal and put a monument up there saying: "Thanks to the NDP, who didn't like the idea in the first place, we're going to dash the dreams of all the people who will benefit from this development." That would be a monument. We could do the same thing for Transpo. We could put up lots of monuments if we followed your ideas. "Here lie the dashed dreams of millions of people." Sure.

B.C. Place, Transpo, northeast coal, all the initiatives our government has taken and will be taking are for the people of the province — for people to build, for people to go to, for people to use. Again, they're part of our vision.

Society has to continually move ahead. Governments must move ahead. They must have vision, and this budget has vision. Standing still really won't do anything for us, my friends. We have to have faith, we have to have commitments, and we have to have initiatives. That's what's in this budget: initiatives for all the people of B.C.

MR. LEA: Why don't the people know that?

MR. STRACHAN:They do.

Now, there have been many concerns that we've cut back on health care. That's a myth that your party tried to propagate in 1979. I remember during the campaign the big ads coming out, "Socred Cuts Back on Health Care," and your poor NDP candidates driving down the street seeing hospital construction, the construction of a health-care unit, the Northern Interior Health Unit, hospital beds — not just small projects but projects in the millions of dollars. There was complete bafflement, wondering why your party would say we're cutting back.

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN: There has been $6.7 million this year, Mr. Member. Health care has never been better in this province, and you know it. Come on, it's a myth if you don't think that it has.

Social services have not been cut back. Social services have been added. Again. hon. members, during the 1979 campaign we watched the NDP advertisement saying: "Social services arc being cut back." In the meantime, in Prince George the achievement centre was being added to. All sorts of programs — the infant development program was coming along quite nicely — many good social services.... Schools were starting up. I opened five schools in Prince George in 1979 while you people were decrying the fact that the education budget was being slashed. The college was expanding. It's an interesting thing that the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) talks about Cap College because he received one letter from the student society. I took the liberty of phoning the administration of Cap College and found out that in fact their budget was not in and there was nothing for them to worry about yet. Then your member points out there is no increase for colleges in this budget. I referred him to page 21, but maybe he didn't have his contacts in and couldn't understand this one or see it. Provincial funding for colleges has been increased by 20 percent, and yet we hear doom and gloom and everything is being cut back. Perhaps a speed-reading or comprehension course might be the best thing for your members.

The government has also substantially increased the amount of money available for student aid. These initiatives, I might add, were not taken by the first member for Vancouver Centre, but by our Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) and by financial aid officers throughout the province meeting with the Minister of Education.

[ Page 4474 ]

There's one program that I had a bit to do with in its inception in Prince George that I'd like to spend some time on this afternoon. It's a program that's received a 100 percent increase in its funding. That's the infant development program which was begun with great success in this province during our government.

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN: Oh, yes, it is, hon. member. Perhaps you should read the Blues tomorrow — as you listen to me. There was a pilot program only in 1975, but nothing happened until 1977.

For the benefit of the House I'll describe some of that program to you. Essentially the infant development program is a program that employs a health professional to go out to the homes of mothers who have just had infants and who are maybe concerned about a delay in development — either a diagnosed delay or a suspected delay. The job of this professional is to assist the family — the mother, father and all of the family — in coping with the problems that may or may not be there. It's an extremely good program. I've met many mothers who have benefited from it. I think, for the record, I should read into the record the name of the gal who really got it going in 1977. Her name was Dana Brynelsen, and I'm sure some of you members might have heard of her. She travelled all over the province and spent a lot of time with many associations describing the program, helping them recruit staff and providing guidelines for the program. The program has met with extreme success. This is a program that's been given a 100 percent increase in funding in this budget. At the same time members opposite are saying we haven't increased our budget.

I'll briefly describe the program in Prince George. Since its inception — it's been going now for just about two years — there have been well over 200 cases referred to the infant development program coordinator in that area. There's been a fantastic response from parents, and there's been a tremendous response from pediatricians and general practitioners who realize the benefit of this program. The wonderful think about this program is that it does have a cost-benefit. It employs one person only — with a small equipment-expense allowance and a travel allowance — who goes out and does incredible work in the parent's home. If it can diagnose if it can save training problems later on in years, and if it can in fact change the course of that child's future, then it has a cost benefit to all of us in the province. That is a program that our government has endorsed with a 100 percent increase in budget to expand the program — and maybe to expand it to Prince Rupert, Mr. Member, although I wouldn't be a bit surprised if you already have it.

MR. LEA: No, we don't.

MR. STRACHAN: You don't have it? Maybe you should check with the MLA there — he might be able to help you out.

MR. LEA: No, we checked with the minister — it's not available.

MR. STRACHAN: Well, it certainly would be if you looked at it. It's a great program, and I'm sure a city of your population would be well served by it. Now that there is an expansion in the budget for that program, to not only expand existing programs but also add new ones, I think you'd be well advised, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert, to take that concern to your local association for the retarded and take it to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy).

A government always has to be realistic in approaching a budget. Sure, there are lots of things we don't like. But we have to bite the bullet, and we have to ensure the fact that our province is going to be well served in years to come. We can only do it with this type of a budget. Of course, it's politically unpopular in some respects; in other respects it is quite popular. But we're prepared to live with it and support it, and it's going to serve this province well.

MR. BARBER: The member for Prince George (Mr. Strachan) gave away more than he intended when he admitted at the beginning of his speech that this budget "assures that our province won't go into debt." We have to ask him what debt he was referring to; doing so, we find the obvious and clear answer.

The principal debts, the major capital expenditures, the biggest new items in the Social Credit agenda are those wild, reckless and unaffordable schemes promoted by the Premier and no one else. That's the debt you have to avoid and that's the reason why we see in this budget an increase in taxation of $625 million. The member for Prince George clearly but accidentally revealed the fact that the debts they are concerned about are the debts created by the reckless schemes of an over-ambitious Premier, desperate to retrieve the failing popularity of Social Credit by buying his way into public favour with big-ticket monuments to himself. It won't work. It won't succeed, the reason being that you are now so discredited and the Premier's leadership is such a joke around this province that none of these vast and grandiose proposals is treated by the people as any more and any other than a pathetic attempt by Social Credit to buy its way back into public favour with public money.

We know the debts you are worried about the province going into. They are the debts for B.C. Place, for Transpo, for Pier B-C, for a rapid transit system that's totally unproven and, most massive of all, for a ridiculous and unnecessary subsidy of northeast coal. Corrupt governments produce corrupt budgets. Discredited governments produced discredited budgets. Stupid governments produce stupid budgets. We have seen aspects of all these three things in this budget. It's a matter of clear and indisputable public record that Social Credit is in trouble across the province. One by one the members of its farm team in local government are being defeated. They are being defeated by persons who stand for other principles and other values, most recently in Delta on Saturday, when once again the Social Credit farm team candidate was handily defeated by a candidate who stood for higher and more civil values and against the arrogant and bullying tactics of the provincial government in specific regard to the location of a bridge.

Social Credit has always used local government as its farm team in British Columbia. Something like half the members of the current Social Credit caucus once served in local government at the school board or municipal level. There's nothing wrong with doing so except when you pretend that you're not. It's the hypocrisy that offends. The action, if it were clear and honest, open and admitted, would offend no one. The hypocritical claim, however, that Socreds never get involved in local government, only socialists do, is

[ Page 4475 ]

offensive, false and disreputable. But it is, in this instance, further proof that Social Credit is in trouble all across British Columbia. The standing joke about the Social Credit leader is that if his name were Bill Smith he would never have become Premier of anything. The glaring and woeful inadequacies of the leadership of the coalition Premier is now a matter tested by the public across this province, and the Premier's leadership is itself tested and found grossly wanting. I expect that the by-election results in Kamloops will be further proof of that if and when a by-election is called.

Social Credit's in trouble, and this budget is a desperate attempt to buy itself out of that trouble. Let me illustrate the kind of trouble they're in.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Hear the whole argument before you decide. Hear the whole case before you make up your minds.

The Socreds are in trouble in part because of the whole dirty tricks episode which the people of British Columbia have not forgotten. They've not forgotten that the Premier promised to set up an ethics committee within the Social Credit Party. They've not forgotten that George Lenko, one of the many people fired for his involvement in the dirty tricks campaign, presumably in repentance, proposed terms of reference for such an ethics committee within Social Credit at the party's last convention. What happened? The Premier himself said no. They've not forgotten that the Premier promised an ethics committee and then when he was called upon to deliver the goods refused to do so. They've not forgotten that the Premier accepted a motion by the official opposition at the beginning of the session last that we set up a committee on fair elections practices in this House. Hypocritically, the government accepted the motion and deviously refused all session long to call the committee into action and to honour the commitment that they supposedly made to make such a committee a real and active thing in this House.

They haven't forgotten who's really responsible for the whole dirty tricks episode in this province, and that's another reason why the Socreds are in trouble. They haven't forgotten about Lettergate; they haven't forgotten about Dan Campbell's giving out thousand-dollar bills; they haven't forgotten about the forgeries and the mass firings; and they most certainly have not forgotten about one-time Social Credit candidate Larry Eckardt and his commission. as it was called, on electoral reform, a commission whose general manager was one Dale Mearns. Who was she'? She was the Social Credit campaign manager in the two previous general elections in Vancouver Centre. A one-time Social Credit candidate and a Social Credit campaign manager ran that show, and we had of course the ridiculous and offensive results of the Eckardt commission.

We now have as a matter of public record a statement made by the Premier in December 1980, in which he said that he was prepared unilaterally to increase the number of seats in the Legislature to reflect what he said with a straight face was the growing population in certain ridings in this province. What ridings did he name? Strangely, he was only able to name Social Credit ridings, where he proposed to add extra seats. Strangely, he only named Kelowna, Kamloops, Delta and Richmond.

We know something about the ethical standards of a government that would appoint a fellow like Eckardt in the first place as a one-man commission on electoral reform. We know something about the ethical standards of a government that would hire a research office that did what they did, and then fire the lot of them and pretend they knew nothing about it while all of the dirty tricks were going on. We know something about the ethical standards of a Premier who would have a man in his office engaged in forging people's signatures to letters they never wrote. We know something about the ethical....

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: It is true! Prove it.

We know something about the ethical standards of a Premier who would hire out a man who gives thousand-dollar bills without receipts during political campaigns, and who is the leader of a party that fails to report and disclose something like 20 percent of their general campaign expenditures at the central office, when they were legally obliged to do so.

We know something about the ethical standards of Social Credit and its leader. The problem for Social Credit is that so do the people, and that's why you're in trouble.

I said that corrupt governments produce corrupt budgets. I said that discredited governments produce discredited budgets. Stupid governments produce stupid budgets, and that I suppose is unerringly the final result and the real meaning of this particularly stupid budget proposal that we have before us.

After all, this is the government that managed to close down, accidentally and stupidly, the Seaboard insurance company. Do you remember that one? We were the ones who disclosed that they had done it. The then Minister of Finance pretended that they hadn't. That was in the morning. At four in the afternoon, the Premier announced: "Yes, we had." And just as the opposition had said that morning, proving us correct, he said the only remedy was a legislative one, and the House had to be called back into an emergency session that night.

If you want proof of stupid, you don't need to look much further than Social Credit for all the proof you could ever ask for. But there's more proof of stupid in Social Credit. Let's take a look at BCRIC. Today BCRIC is trading at $5.45. Yesterday BCRIC was trading at $5.45 and closed at $5.50. If you want to take a look at stupid, take a took at the record of this government and its administration of the affairs, legislative and otherwise, of the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation. When the prospectus for the resources corporation was first published, we saw in it the claim that the resources, the companies, the component parts of that corporation, were worth $11.75 a share. For political reasons,.thought to be clever at the time, the Premier artificially lowered the value to $6 and said: "Here's a bargain. folks. Go out and buy it." In the long-run that turns out to be stupid with a capital S. It turns out that what he really did was permanently lower the value of the BCRIC shares, because except for a brief period when they rose to $7, $8 and $9 and then fell back down to $6.... BCRIC shares have never been worth anything like the $11.75 that the government's own stockhouses indicated they would be worth.

The Premier lowered the value of BCRIC shares to $6.00 from the $11.75 that his own prospectus indicated they were worth., and now we discover — two years later — that the value will not go back up. Why is that? Because the Premier wasn't very bright. He didn't seem to realize that when you artificially and politically reduce the value of shares in a

[ Page 4476 ]

corporation, which is presumed to be the property of the government of British Columbia and the creation of the Premier, you then discover that it's quite hard to pump it back up.

MR. SEGARTY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understood that we were on the budget debate. BCRIC is a private company operating out there in the private sector and has nothing whatsoever to do with this budget or the government of British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Notwithstanding, the debate on the budget does leave wide latitude for each member.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker for protecting me from the learned member, who just rose on no point of order at all.

Another reason why Social Credit is in trouble is the fact that BCRIC shares are currently trading at $5.50, and people are paying interest on the $30,000 that the Premier told them to go out and borrow in order to buy the 5,000 shares. One of the reasons this government is in trouble, and one of the reasons why this budget is a desperate attempt to buy its way out, is because of the fact that the Premier himself, touting a stock while at the same time artificially lowering its value, is now unfortunately in the position....

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Shame? The shame is yours for creating BCRIC in the first place, and the double shame is yours for lowering its value, in the second.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, Hon. member, you would assist me in maintaining order if you would address your remarks to the Chair.

MR. BARBER: Happy to do so, Mr. Speaker. I know you understand; the Minister of Agriculture and Spetifore may not.

It concerns us, sympathetically, that Social Credit is in so much trouble because of the failing worth of BCRIC shares. This morning we read that BCRIC is trying to buy major control, a major shareholding position, in the MacMillan Bloedel corporation. Well, one has to wonder who is taking over whom. One has to wonder whether or not Bruce Howe and his pals at Mac-Blo have not in fact taken over BCRIC, instead of what is presumed to be the other way round. But we'll get to that in another debate shortly.

Social Credit is in trouble because BCRIC so far is a stock market flop. No matter how hard BCRIC tries to pump up its own value by buying other companies' shares, and thus artificially raise the worth of BCRIC shares themselves, the point is that it won't wash. It won't wash, in part, because of the quality of "stupid" that permeates Social Credit. You see, BCRIC owns southeast coal; BCRIC now owns Kaiser Resources, called B.C. Coal. When you artificially, through massive subsidy, bring on stream coal in the northeast part of this province, and at the same time have to deal with the problems of a corporation like BCRIC that owns coal in the southeast and is thereby jeopardized in its competitive position, it might occur to an intelligent person to ask what happens to the value of BCRIC shares. What has happened to the value of BCRIC shares is that they have been further undermined by the clear favouritism played by the Premier, in favour of northeast coal and thereby against southeast coal. You see, southeast coal doesn't require a massive public subsidy; it more or less goes on its own. It got Roberts Bank; it got an agreement with the federal government; it didn't get a billion dollars' worth of public handouts, as will northeast coal. Southeast coal makes it on its own as a basically viable commercial proposition. That's a good thing. I welcome it. Hurray for them! Northeast coal, if it could make it on its own, would have done so a long time ago. The reason it can't is because it's not currently commercially viable. Southeast coal was, and that's why it came onto the market without a government subsidy. Northeast coal isn't. Therefore BCRIC is further compromised because of its equity ownership position in southeast coal. That's in part the quality of "stupid" that personifies, that clearly validates — from the point of view, we think, of most people in British Columbia — criticisms of this budget.

The best thing we can say about this budget is that it will continue to help us to defeat Social Credit at the next general election. That's darn good news for most people in this province. The best thing you can say about the budget is that it's another nail in the coalition's coffin — and that's a good thing too, at the very least. I agree entirely with my colleague from Prince Rupert. It substantiates this clear fact: the people of British Columbia are enormously more sophisticated now and better informed and more aware of government activities and programs and of government bribery schemes than they were perhaps 20 or 30 years ago. The old Socred tricks don't work any more. When the old man was in trouble, he would bail himself out with a Wenner-Gren trench proposal, or take over and nationalize Black Ball and CPR Steamships, or nationalize B.C. Electric. When he was in trouble he would do these things and bail himself out. What has happened now that the coalition is in trouble and guys like Rafe Mair jump ship? What happens, clearly, is that the public isn't buying it any more, and they're not going to allow you to buy it with their own money. They resent it; they resist it; they reject it. And they will vote you out at the next election. It won't work. Just because you're in trouble doesn't mean that Transpo '86 makes any sense. Just because you're in trouble doesn't mean that Gracie's Glass Slipper at Pier B-C is any more going to be a viable proposition — but I'll get to the details of that one in a moment. Just because you're in trouble doesn't mean that people are going to buy these reckless schemes to subsidize northeast coal. Let me argue again that if it were commercially viable, commercial interests would have proposed it and pursued it and achieved it some time ago. If it's commercially viable, it goes on its own; if it's not, apparently government has to make up the difference. Sometimes that's appropriate, you know, if the development that results results here. Sometimes it's okay to invest public funds if the public benefit remains in this province; I don't object to that. The point is, the real benefit is to the coal corporations and the steel companies of Japan. That's pitiful. It's good news for them; it's bad news for us. There's nothing wrong with public investment in northeast coal in B.C. If the people of British Columbia benefit entirely. What we resent, and what the people of British Columbia do not accept, is the notion that we in this province are going to subsidize the extraction of our resource for the benefit of someone else's industrial machine.

[ Page 4477 ]

We resent it, we refuse it, and the people of British Columbia will reject you with the next election for your pains.

The minister of universities, science and tunnels yesterday praised the Minister of Finance for what he declared to be that minister's candour and foresight. Let's take a look at the candour and foresight; let's take a look at the candour, in particular, of the Minister of Finance a year ago January. A year ago January the Minister of Finance told us that a famous ship, for which he was then responsible as the arbiter of a dispute in cabinet, was unsafe, unfit for babies and tourists, a public menace on the high seas and a floating coffin. The Minister of Finance said it, aided and abetted by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and others, who engaged in, if I may say it, Mr. Speaker, a grotesque deception about the seaworthiness of that vessel. When you take a look at the record for candour of the former Liberal, former Tory, former Action Canada and now Social Credit Minister of Finance, you have to ask what sort of candour he demonstrated when he and his government deliberately — because they knew otherwise; their own consultants' reports said so — misinformed the people of British Columbia about the seaworthiness of the Princess Marguerite.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I have to ask the hon. member if he is imputing an improper motive to any member of this House.

MR. BARBER: I don't know what his motive was, Mr. Speaker, but I know that the people of British Columbia were deceived.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We're not about to enter into a debate. Is the member imputing an improper motive? If he is, he must withdraw; if not, please proceed.

MR. BARBER: I will proceed at this point. Mr. Speaker, and will verify the claim as follows. If you determine that it is improper, I will certainly withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: All right. Please proceed. If it occurs again, I will ask the member to withdraw.

MR. BARBER: That's fair enough, and I would be pleased to withdraw.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I ask for your direction, because you raised the point of this member imputing motives of other members. I refer you to a statement I heard a few moments ago in which this member stated that the Premier told people to go out and borrow $30,000 to buy BCRIC shares. I, Mr. Speaker, look to you for direction as to whether or not that's impugning the Premier of this province or his motives.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members. It is out of order to make corrections in the middle of a member's speech. Therefore I would ask the hon. minister if he would perhaps make that correction during his own time of debating.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to debate the issue with you. What I'm asking for is your ruling, not as correction but an imputation. It's not a correction of what he said, but the imputing of a member of this House when he said it.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the only time the Chair has the power to intervene in a matter such as this is if unparliamentary language was used. If a statement which was made is in error.... The Chair couldn't possibly be expected to determine the correctness or otherwise of all statements made. Therefore every member, as I have said so many times, must accept the responsibility for statements made in this House. Any corrections will be made at a time when a member already has possession of the floor. We cannot interrupt a member's speech in order to make corrections. Does that clarify the matter?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, not entirely. I would therefore ask the member to withdraw the imputation he made about the Premier of this province, as you have asked him just a moment ago to withdraw the statements he made.

MR, SPEAKER: The Chair is not clear at all what the statement was to which the member takes exception.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I will hear the statement.

HON, MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, may I then either give you the statement or ask you to check the Blues and then advise me accordingly.

MR. SPEAKER: I will review the Blues, and if something unparliamentary is there, I will ask the member to withdraw. Please proceed.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARBER: In fact, Mr. Speaker, I give you my undertaking that if I did say anything unparliamentary, I will, of course, withdraw it. I understand. however, the nervousness and the sensitivity of the Minister of Agriculture. Just this afternoon the GVRD planning committee voted 7 to 5 to leave the Spetifore land as farmland. Hurray! No wonder he's so worried. No wonder the Minister of Agriculture is so nervous, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We're on the budget debate. Please continue.

MR. BARBER: That's right. And I'm discussing the alleged candour of a member of the government who told us a year ago January that the vessel Marguerite was unfit, unsafe and unseaworthy. Well, we now know that that simply wasn't true, Mr. Speaker. That was confirmed as recently as three weeks ago, when the current superintendent at Burrard Yarrows, who is currently supervising the refit of the Marguerite was asked: "Is there anything unsafe about the vessel? You're putting it back into the sea this year."

He said: "No, there isn't."

"What do you mean?" the television reporter asked. "Do you mean to say that there was nothing unsafe about the Marguerite all along?"

[ Page 4478 ]

The superintendent replied: "Yes, that's correct, there was nothing wrong with it in the first place."

The Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland), the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the Minister of Finance all told us that the vessel was unfit, unsafe and unseaworthy. Well, what they've really told us is something about their candour. What they've really told us is something about their willingness to tell the truth to the people of British Columbia about this incident and a few others that one could name. The government of this province deliberately misled the people of British Columbia about the genuine condition of the Princess Marguerite vessel, and that was a shameful thing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must ask the hon. member to withdraw the phrase "deliberately misled."

MR. BARBER: I impute no false motive to an individual; I describe an action by a government. I think that's in order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I think, hon. member, that in the interest of good debate and good spirit in the House, I must ask the hon. member to withdraw that kind of language because it is intemperate and it is inflammatory.

MR. BARBER: In the interest of accommodating you, Mr. Speaker, I do so. I respect you, and I will always do what you ask me to do. I will also tell the truth: the vessel Marguerite was and is perfectly safe, comments made by Socreds to the contrary notwithstanding.

Let's talk again about the foresight the Minister of Finance supposedly revealed in his budget. In 1977 he told us that the housing crisis of British Columbia was over. He was the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing at the time, and he had the foresight to shut down the Housing Corporation of British Columbia. Oh, that was a prescient thing, Mr. Speaker; that took a wonderful gift of foresight. The Minister of Finance, then the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, actually wrote a letter to the Vancouver Province on October 14, 1977, entitled, "Housing Crisis Passed, " and goes on to say that the rationale for shutting down one of the most important, strategic instruments available to the people of British Columbia to guide and initiate and support housing was no longer needed because Social Credit had solved the housing crisis. Oh, what foresight! What wonderful, wonderful anticipation! What a gifted minister! Thank god they're not all like that.

It's hard to credit the Minister of Finance with candour — much — when you remember what he told us about the Marguerite. It's hard to credit him with foresight — much — when you remember what he told us about the housing crisis and the alleged justification for shutting down the Housing Corporation of British Columbia. It is hard to credit him with any of those things, but it's easy to credit him with this: his budget represents one of the worst episodes of Canada-bashing that this House has ever seen, and we're sick and tired of it. We're sick and tired of Socreds standing up, bashing, attacking, denigrating and insulting the fundamental nature of this country for cheap political gain in this province. This coalition is the worst gang of Canada-bashers in B.C. history, and we're sick and tired of it; we don't want to hear it anymore. We most certainly did not expect to hear it in the budget, but we did. Once again we resent it, and we believe the people of British Columbia will reject you for it at the next election. They are profoundly loyal to the people of Canada, they are profoundly loyal to the idea of Canada, and they are profoundly offended by the endless Canada-bashing that goes on, perpetrated by Social Credit to try to get itself re-elected.

My colleague from Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) made the obvious point yesterday. Let me restate it: "In 1976 and 1977 it served this government's political purposes to bash the New Democrat administration which preceded it." You see, they could lay all the blame there; I suppose that's credible for a year or two. But they're now going into the sixth year of their administration, and they can't blame the New Democrats anymore. So they have to find another fall guy. Who have they decided to attack? The national government. How have they decided to attack it? By attacking Canada itself. We resent it, we reject it, and so do the people of British Columbia.

Canada-bashing in this budget is utterly unacceptable to us. These ridiculous threats, these childish and stupid threats to set up a British Columbia tax collecting system because you can't get along with the rest of Canada are completely without foundation and without merit.

I remember when the old man, Mr. Speaker, in one of his attacks on Ottawa, took down all the Trans-Canada Highway signs and put up British Columbia Highway I signs instead. It was a small symbol of a small attitude. The people of British Columbia resented it then. You see, they're loyal to Canada. They are loyal to the idea of Canada and they resent, they resist, and they reject Canada-bashing in any form, including the form in which this budget offers it. This is the worst gang of Canada-bashers in B.C. history, and we're fed up with it.

I was talking earlier, Mr. Speaker, about the quality of stupid that you find in this budget. Because not only do we see the Minister of Finance, like the rest of that gang, Canada-bashing at every politically opportune moment, but we then see them turning around and begging the Canadian government to bail them out. They beg national money for Pier B-C, they beg national money for B.C. Place, they beg national money for transit, they beg national money for Transpo and they're begging national money for northeast coal.

There may or may not be a role for national funds and national investment in each of these things. That shall be debated on the merits of each proposal individually. But the point is that it is only stupid to endlessly attack the national government, its representatives and its place in this country, while at the same time expecting them to donate to your various charities in British Columbia.

It is stupid to call the Prime Minister an arsonist, as the Premier of this province did, and then turn around and expect the Prime Minister — any Prime Minister — to look favourably upon your charities in this province. It is stupid to call the Prime Minister an arsonist and then ask him to donate and trade federal lands in order to put B.C. Place together. It is stupid to call the Prime Minister an arsonist and then ask him to donate tens of millions of dollars to transit. It is stupid to call the Prime Minister of Canada an arsonist and then ask him to bail out Grace's Slipper at Pier B-C — a project that's gone from $25 million to $90 million and not an ounce of concrete has yet been poured. It is stupid to call the Prime Minister of Canada an arsonist and then expect him to look favourably on northeast coal — any Prime Minister: Mr.

[ Page 4479 ]

Clark, Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Broadbent, any Prime Minister. But, you know, stupid is rapidly becoming the hallmark of Social Credit, so I suppose we needn't be altogether surprised.

It is, I suppose, a reasonable thing to describe this budget in terms of the election that must occur in this province by May 1984. It is, I suppose, a reasonable thing, looking at the history of Social Credit, to describe it as a pre-election budget. Here, again, I concur with my colleague from Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who has observed the traditional scheming of Social Credit. They invariably bring in a dreadful budget in the year before an election, overtax and overcharge everything in sight, and then the following year prance to the people with the phony claim that they've got hundreds of millions because of good management and are therefore prepared to give it back in election goodies.

The problem Social Credit has is that the people of British Columbia are not stupid. They were not born yesterday and they have not forgotten what they've seen before. Pre-election budgets — in this case a budget which is used to take $625 million out of the pockets of British Columbia, thanks to bad management and the Premier's reckless schemes. Next year you'll turn around and give some of it back in the name of an election-goodies package. It's no longer acceptable to the people of this province. Why? Because they've seen through your stunts. Why? Because they know why Rafe Mair quit. Why? Because they know why you're going to lose Kamloops. Why? Because they know why the members of your municipal farm teams are losing election after election. Why? Because they know what the Spetifore deal was all about. Why? Because they know what the Gloucester Properties deal was all about. Why? Because they found you out and they know you for what you are — a coalition of political opportunists willing to do and say anything to get reelected, willing to do and say anything to keep the other guys out. It won't work.

The member for Prince George gave it away inadvertently when he said: "We're concerned not to throw the province into debt." We know that the person who has most spectacularly thrown this province into debt in the last six months is the Premier himself. The expensive Socred chickens are coming home to roost. Let's look at them one by one. Let's look at the way in which this budget is, in fact, an attempt to pay for the grandiose monuments to Social Credit that the Premier has been announcing for the last six months.

The reckless promises and the grandiose schemes include Transpo '86, a quarter-billion dollar world's fair that no other city even bid on, a quarter-billion dollar world's fair to show off what we presume are the wonders of British Columbia technology in the field of transport. What those wonders might be....

AN HON. MEMBER: Oxcarts.

MR. BARBER: Oxcarts and the rest, we can only imagine. The only thing that Social Credit has got to show off at Transpo '86 is a marvellous piece of technology that the New Democrat administration left them, SeaBus. The only modern, innovative, exciting and bold technology in the field of the transportation this province has seen in the last decade is SeaBus, a creation of the New Democratic Party. It's the only one they've got to boast about. We'll wonder how on earth they try again to deny credit to the man responsible for it, Mr. Lorimer. Nonetheless, I suppose they'll try. The first expensive Socred chicken coming home to roost, which is going to be paid for in this budget, is Transpo '86.

Then there's Pier B-C. Once again you have to look at the record of its proponent. The Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) toured the province in 1974 claiming that the New Democratic Party had established a secret police force. She ran around this province, initially in Prince George and then in a dozen other centres, claiming that the New Democrat administration of the day had warehouses full of bullets, high-powered rifles, high-powered cars and other of the paraphernalia of secret police forces.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Shame on her, Mr. Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), for telling such a fib. The Deputy Premier, who once made up, invented and created out of whole cloth a nonsensical story designed to frighten people about a secret police force, has now been caught pulling the same stunt with Pier B-C. Two years ago the Deputy Premier told us, and presumably the cabinet, who might have been none the wiser, that the Vancouver convention centre at Pier B-C would cost only $25 million. She further informed people that the city of Vancouver would be entitled to charge a property tax, and she further informed people that it would not go above that figure, that it was a conservative, correct and proper estimate. The Deputy Premier who invented a secret police force then invented the figure of $25 million for Pier B-C.

We charge that she knew all along that figure was false and meaningless and had no basis whatever in reality. We charge that she deliberately named a low figure for that centre in order to sell it to the people of Vancouver and the then mayor of Vancouver. We charge that she did so deliberately, to understate the costs of that centre in order to obtain public approval for it.

We now observe that another of the reckless Social Credit promises, another of the expensive Socred chickens has come home to roost to be paid for in this stupid budget. It's a fact that the convention centre in Vancouver has now gone from $25 million to $90 million. And if I may say it again, not an ounce of cement has been poured, not a brick has been laid, nothing has happened except that the original pier has been largely torn down. What has also happened, however, is that the Deputy Premier of this province has lost even more credibility with those who used to take her seriously when she claimed to be a good manager. There has never been a convention Centre in this country more mishandled, badly managed and misconceived than i the Vancouver convention centre.

Can you imagine what the Socreds would have said if the New Democrats had proposed a convention centre and said: "Don't, worry, folks. It'll only cost you S25 million and won't go a nickel over budget." A matter of months later it was up to $52 million: this year it's up to $90 million and the darned thing isn't built yet. What would they say about any administration, New Democrat or other, that would carry on the public's business in such a dull-witted and incompetent way? They would say there was something wrong with that minister, and he or she should get out of the business before the cost goes to $100 million or $110 million, and so on and so on.

There's something wrong with the Pier B-C proposal. In part what's wrong with it is the minister who's mishandling it, and in further part what's wrong with it is the fact that the people of British Columbia, through this budget, have to

[ Page 4480 ]

make up the difference between what she pretended was the real cost and what we have now learned is the final cost — if it's final even yet. This budget once more, as with Transpo '86, is a gross overexpenditure, a reckless waste, and a further proof of the incompetence of Social Credit.

But there's more. B.C. Place — the Premier's strange and pathetic copy of Ontario Place in Toronto, for which there was no known public demand, for which Vancouver City Council did not petition him, of which no member of this Legislature spoke in favour in advance, which no newspaper editorial called into being before the Premier responded to all these demonstrations of public need and public interest — B.C. Place was hatched by the Premier as yet another grandiose scheme to try and buy himself back into public favour. What has he done? Well, he's made some very peculiar property trades with Marathon, the real estate arm of the CPR. He's attempted to make some property trades with the leader of the government he describes as an arsonist, and then he wonders why Ottawa delays. He's attempted to put together a proposal that, as far as we can tell, has yet to be supported by anyone other than the members of the Social Credit caucus and a few members of the Social Credit farm team in local government. That's about it.

The real need at that site is for housing — public-private; mixed income, low income-high income; housing that people can afford. The need is not for another monument to the sagging fortunes and ridiculous future of Social Credit. That's what B.C. Place should be. It should be housing for the citizens of Vancouver and not monuments for the members of Social Credit. B.C. Place, this pathetic imitation of Ontario Place, is another of the expensive Socred chickens coming home to roost in this regrettable budget.

Another one is northeast coal. If northeast coal were commercially viable, private enterprise would have brought it on stream. If it's not commercially viable, it won't do it. It's one of the rules of thumb you can expect with most competent persons in private enterprise. Occasionally they make mistakes, but by and large most of them wouldn't invest in a scheme like northeast coal unless there were money to be made and it were commercially a sensible proposition in the first place. So when the government has to invest in order to get such a scheme off the ground because the profits aren't there on the face of it to justify the whole matter, then you have to ask what is the justification for that massive public investment. I argue that it would be justified if we could guarantee that industry, the new jobs, the new aspects of enterprise remained here in British Columbia. That's justifiable. But instead we're back to that sad episode in Social Credit governments of British Columbia giving away and paying to the takers a non-renewable resource, the industrial result of which will occur to the benefit of people in another country and not to the people in this province. That is a pathetic and sad indictment of Social Credit.

If we could guarantee there would be a steel mill in this province — a rolling mill of some sort, that there would be new construction jobs of a permanent sort related to the product itself, that this coal would be used in this province in an important way — then you might be able to persuade us of the necessity of subsidizing a billion dollars' worth or more of coal development in the northeast sector of this province. But so far you can't prove that. We have instead the sight of the Minister of Industrial Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) telling us that the initial contracts for roughly seven million tonnes are not adequate even to return the investment. Another 11 million tonnes will be necessary in order to break even, and even then there's no profit except, of course, to the lucky people in another country across the sea who are paid by us to take from us our coal. What further proof do you need of stupid than the proof offered in the name of stupid by such a strategy? What further proof of stupid do you need than by the clear admission within this budget that the people of British Columbia are going to be paying $625 million more this year in taxes to bail out another reckless, costly, grandiose and unaffordable scheme of Social Credit? How much more proof do we need that this budget should not be supported?

I said earlier that the best aspect of the budget is that it is another nail in the coffin of Social Credit, and that's a good thing — we're glad for it. We could almost be tempted to vote for the budget on that basis alone, but not quite, because the real menace is what it does to the purchasing power of the ordinary worker in B.C. The real danger is what it does to the income of the ordinary non-millionaire, non-car-dealer family in this province. The real menace is what it does to the long-term industrial interests of the province of British Columbia — how those interests are foreclosed every time we ship out another tonne of coal, subsidized by us, to another country and get back in return not one whit of industrial development. The real menace is when we subsidize our foreign competitors and they sell the processed products back to us and our balance of trade once more loses in the bargain. The real menace is in a budget of this order that attempts, in a pre-election strategy, clearly, to do two things. To pay for the reckless and grandiose schemes of the Premier, to engage in continual Canada-bashing on the part of the Minister of Finance and the Premier, who, if I may say it again, referred to the leader of this country as an arsonist while at the same time asking him to bail them out of their ridiculous cost overruns such as that of B.C. Place — $25 million, becoming $90 million in the space of a few months — and then turn around and ask the people of B.C. to pull in their belts because of Social Credit mistakes. The people are sick and tired of paying for Social Credit mistakes, for the bungling of this administration, of having to make good the errors of this coalition.

It would almost be possible to vote for the budget because we know it will help to bring down Social Credit, and the sooner that day occurs the better for everyone. But the reason we cannot vote for it finally is because of the profound and unyielding damage you are doing to the economy of this province.

The last time the sales tax was fiddled with, the Premier announced it was going from 6 percent to 4 percent. The day he announced it he said it would be, and I quote him directly, permanent. He would not tamper with it again. He thought it was one of the great achievements of the Social Credit to bring it down below the 6 percent level he had taken it to in the first place.

The final damage this budget does is to the credibility of its authors: the people who put forward convention centres at $25 million and then ask us to pay for them at $90 million; the people who tell us that sales-tax reductions to 4 percent are permanent until they boost them back up to 6 percent again and lose more credibility in the process; a Premier who touts BCRIC shares to advance his political fortunes and then ends up doing damage to BCRIC's own portfolio by playing favourites with northeast coal. The credibility damaged under Social Credit is self-evident in this budget. What's worse

[ Page 4481 ]

and unforgivable is the damage done to the people and the economy of the province of British Columbia — that will never be acceptable to this opposition, and neither will this budget.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, this is a services-for-people budget; it's also a pay-as-you-go budget. It features health, education and human resources. It gives vocational training a major push and it's non-inflationary in the sense that income equals outgo. New taxes are added in order to match the increased expenditures in this people-oriented program which the provincial government is mounting in 1981.

It's not supply-side economics in the sense that the new Reagan budget is supply-side economics in the United States. It doesn't try to switch spending from consumption to investment by using tax cuts and other devices which are said to be characteristic of supply-side policies, which are also being followed in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. But it's orthodox in another and very important sense: it builds confidence by being fiscally responsible. It doesn't borrow against the future; it keeps our provincial economy in the black; and it reinforces investor confidence by letting everyone know that the government of British Columbia is prepared to pay cash on the barrelhead for all kinds of government services — those which our people need now and in the future.

Basically, this budget leaves production to the private sector; the government looks to private enterprise to put labour, capital and natural resources together, thereby creating the economic wealth upon which we all depend. The government takes a share of this wealth and converts it into services for people. That share amounts to about 17 percent or one-sixth of our gross provincial product today, and it's being capably administered by a public service which is roughly the same in size as that which the government inherited from the New Democratic Party, when the latter ceased to be government in this province in 1975.

The circumstances in which we find ourselves in 1981, however, are quite different than they were six years ago — ours is a booming economy today. It's a prosperous island in a sea of uncertainty. It's enjoying record employment at a time when much of Canada and most of the United States is depressed, economically speaking. New industries are starting up here and new areas are opening up in British Columbia. People are flocking to this province in the tens of thousands each year. They're leaving central Canada — and especially Ontario — in droves, and they're coming here because private enterprise has faith in this province's future, and because these people, like most British Columbians, know that a revival in world markets is just around the corner, and that this revival, when it comes, will carry production in this province to new heights, heights which we've never reached before.

We're at an interesting point in our province's history. Things are heating up here despite the cold financial winds blowing in from outside. Maintain government spending on services for people and out- economic pace will continue to quicken at home; level off in the mid- I 980s when conditions on the rest of the continent, in Western Europe and across the Pacific are buoyant again. Then we will have the satisfaction of knowing that our people have been well served from a health, education and social services point of view. They will have the best facilities and be served by the finest personnel. They will be healthier, wealthier and wiser. They will contribute far more to our province and to Canada than they would have done had the quality of our government services been allowed to deteriorate in 1981 and 1982.

This, then, is an anti-cyclical budget; it's a "maintain the momentum" budget; it's a "carry us through to even more prosperous times" budget: it's a demand-side budget — to a degree, at least. It isn't perhaps as investment-oriented, as production-promoting, as some of our critics in the business community would like but it isn't going to dampen their enthusiasm unduly, and its added emphasis on spending now will be forgotten in the surge of private-sector spending which is bound to occur in the years immediately ahead.

Last year, when I spoke on the budget, Mr. Speaker, I expressed my concern about our growth in government spending. In the 1960s Victoria's outlays on goods and services of all kinds was of the order of 12 percent of our gross provincial product. This figure increased dramatically in the NDP years; it reached 18 percent in 1975. With the return of Social Credit to power, the government take declined in relative terms; it was down to 15 percent in 1979. Last year something happened. Our resource income was up dramatically and so was our spending. We are back to 17 percent of our gross provincial product in the fiscal year which is now coming to an end. We'll stay at 17 percent in 1981-82 if the provincial government's expenditures total $6.6 billion, as outlined by the Minister of Finance in the budget which he presented to us. I hope this is the peak. Seventeen percent is too much, in my mind. I'd like to see us get back to 15 percent by 1983 or 1984. I'd like to see us aim in the long run at 12 percent. That's where we've been and that's where we have to be in the 1990s if government spending as a whole — federal, provincial and local — is to get down to 30 percent of our gross national product, 30 percent rather than the 40 percent-plus figure with which we are struggling nationally and internationally in the over-governed and overtaxed world of big government. big industry and big labour.

Several things worry me, It's difficult to cut a provincial government without cutting into essential services of different kinds. Health alone will soon account for $2 billion of our provincial budget of $6.6 billion. Along with Education and Human Resources. the people package will top $4 billion. It's getting on to two-thirds of all our expenditures on provincial government goods and services. Add environmental protection. protection for persons and property and aid to local governments and we're up in the 80 percent range. Four dollars out of every five are demand-side dollars: there are programs for people dollars. They are dollars being redistributed by the provincial government to the ill, the elderly, the young and the needy in this province. They are dollars going out to highly skilled personnel, who in turn will be demanding better pay and better working conditions as time goes by.

"Out of control" isn't the right description. I know, but the cost of health care, for one. Is rocketing upward. It's growing at a far higher than average rate. It's making it harder and harder for our provincial governments, from one end of the country to the other, to keep their provincial budgets under control. Education is surprisingly durable, even with a declining enrolment in our schools. Other social services, especially those required by single-parent families, the elderly and children from broken homes, is a budget item with a growth pattern of its own. I can't see how these people programs can be cut back significantly, especially in the near future. They may be slowed down. With considerable effort

[ Page 4482 ]

they may be contained, but they will nevertheless call for a greater allocation of our financial resources.

With expenditures difficult to contain, we must look increasingly to the revenue side of our budgetary equation. In other words, revenues must keep pace with spending — contained spending, but spending which demands more production from us all.

Where is this increased wealth going to come from? Eighteen months ago one might have said, with confidence: from our natural resources. Our income from natural gas was moving up dramatically, timber sales were booming, exploration for metals and other minerals was producing results and at long last coal was looking like a commodity which could provide a considerable amount of tax revenue, especially in the 1980s. Therefore, last year at this time the Minister of Finance was optimistic; he was forecasting a surplus of the order of a billion dollars, based essentially on the performance of our resource industries. The official opposition grumbled enviously about windfall profits. I warned that this picture was in part at least illusory, but it still looked to me as if we could make some tax cuts then. How wrong I was. How wrong we all were. Our gas bubble has apparently burst, timber sales have slowed down, metal prices have softened, and coal, on balance, looks as if it will be a cost item rather than a revenue producer for another decade at least. Now it looks as if British Columbians as individuals will again have to pick up the lion's share of the tab. In the fiscal year now ending we as individuals picked up 51 percent of all provincial government costs. Natural resources financed 18 percent. In the new fiscal year natural resource revenue is expected to drop from 18 percent to 10 percent of our total provincial budget. Meanwhile, revenue from individuals has to go up. It will go up from 50 percent to 60 percent. Clearly, resource revenue is a slender reed to lean on. It's highly variable; it's up and it's down. It's volatile because it is essentially dependent on world markets. In the present climate of federal-provincial relations parts of it can be cut in half with only a few months' notice.

Looking ahead into 1981-82 we've got a tight situation. The minister is budgeting for a 1 percent surplus. So a tight rein will have to be put on expenditures if we are to reach March 31, 1982 unscathed. But it's not really the next 12 months that concern me; it's the next three or four years. Expenditures on our people programs may go on expanding at a 12 percent to 16 percent-a-year rate. Meanwhile, revenues from resources will lag behind. They're not likely to make a major surge forward again until 1985.

Let's take natural gas. I said that the bubble had burst. Government receipts are going to be disappointing for some time to come. Field prices have to go up.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In keeping with a practice which is prevalent throughout parliamentary precincts, I would ask if the hon. member would entertain a question relevant to his speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is very unusual to interrupt a speech which is underway for anything other than a point of order. Please state the point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: But it is not unusual in parliament. It is certainly not unusual in Ottawa, nor is it unusual in the Parliamentary Debating Society of the province of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: It's a little unusual in this House, though.

MR. NICOLSON: Recently, yes.

MR. SPEAKER: We must operate under the Standing Orders that we have, and I'm just leafing through to see whether I can find it for you immediately. No member may interrupt a member who has the floor of the House, except to raise a point of order. I do not see that a question would fall into that category.

MR. DAVIS: At the end of my remarks I'd be glad to entertain any question or questions that the hon. member might have.

Referring again to revenues flowing to the government, and specifically natural gas, I said the bubble had burst. Government receipts are going to be disappointing for some time to come. Field prices have to go up. Already the lowest in Canada, they could soon be the lowest on the continent if we don't make some upward revisions, and soon. Export sales to the United States face difficulties not only because fresh U.S. supplies are coming on stream as a result of deregulation there, but Alaskan gas overhangs the situation. U.S. utilities will be able to pick and choose for a change. Because we don't have any firm sale contracts in the U.S. Pacific Northwest and California, we will be reduced to the role of a supplementary supplier, and perhaps a high-cost one at that. Gas to Vancouver Island will have to be subsidized. Gas used in British Columbia is already subsidized. Whether price increases to existing consumers can cover our Vancouver Island adventure is a moot point. But our provincial treasury, on balance, is likely to find its gas revenues declining rather than increasing in the years immediately ahead.

There's a mid-term answer to our gas dilemma! It's finding a new export market for surplus B.C. gas. It's an overseas market, a market for liquefied natural gas, LNG in other words. It means a new large-diameter pipeline to tidewater, a large liquefaction plant in the Prince Rupert area, LNG tankers built — hopefully all of them — in B.C. yards, and it means public hearings before the National Energy Board to ensure that this arrangement is the best we can get not only from the B.C. but also from an overall Canadian point of view.

An LNG line would be good news for our producers. They could be looking at increased gas sales in the late 1980s rather than a sharp decline, especially after Westcoast's current export contracts to the U.S. run out in 1989. World prices on board ship should also mean a better return per thousand cubic feet at the wellhead. Drilling would then pick up again. Land auction sales would also yield more revenue to the provincial treasury. This is why I hope the government will get behind a offshore gas export proposal and push it hard now — not six months from now, not a year from now — or many of our drilling rigs will have deserted B.C. and Canada for better wellhead prices in rapidly expanding markets to the south.

Forestry revenues, meanwhile, are highly variable. The Minister of Finance is forecasting a close to 50 percent drop in them next year, but he's also counting on a near doubling by the mid-1980s. Whether this will happen or not is an open question. Forest products have to be a good bet over the long run. But the introduction of protectionist policies relative to lumber in the U.S.A. would be bad news, especially if they

[ Page 4483 ]

were to be put into effect before we could do anything about gas earnings in the north.

The background papers which we were given on Monday also show other natural resources coming on strongly from 1982 onwards. Metals certainly should be up. Non-metals, including construction materials, will produce increased revenues for government. But coal will lag unless and until B.C. royalties per tonne can be raised and more mines get into production on a profitable basis. This is why I, personally, am looking more to the production of electricity from coal than the mining of coal itself. Here is a way of upgrading a resource, providing more jobs for British Columbians and earning more foreign exchange at one and the same time.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we should be going flat out on the construction of a large waste-coal burning plant in the Kootenays — in my friend's riding in the Kootenays. It could be built and in operation by 1985, selling most of its output in the early years to neighbouring utilities in the United States. It could be a financial success from day one. I hope that B.C. Resources and B.C. Hydro can get together on a project of this kind, one which will not only provide fresh employment opportunities for many British Columbians, but one which can also generate additional revenues for the province in the late 1980s and beyond.

To recap, Mr. Speaker, I'm worried about our expenditure side. People programs already account for 75 percent of our budget. They're tending to grow faster than our provincial economy. They will have to be kept under control or the share of our provincial income taken from us in provincial taxes will continue to rise in the 1980s. Income on the resource side may be disappointing for a few years; natural gas, forest products, metals and power, however, have great longer-term possibilities. But we're facing a lag in income from these sources. Everything, therefore, must be done which can be done in order to get new projects like an LNG line to Prince Rupert and a waste-coal burning plant in the Kootenays underway. They will provide returns beginning in the mid-1980s which will help us to balance our budget with greater certainty 5, 10 and 15 years hence.

I'm all for an increase in our provincial gasoline tax. It once was a major source of revenue to the provincial government. It has remained at 17 cents a gallon for many years. Now it's being set at 20 percent of the price at the pump. That's about right; other provinces have a similar tax. Its contribution, of course, will go up with inflation but Ottawa shouldn't be left with this area of additional taxation all to itself.

Raising our provincial corporate income tax to 16 percent is disturbing. I hate to see us taxing business, even big business, at a rate which is the highest of any province in Canada. We should be down to around 12 percent, as Ontario used to be. But that's supply side economics and perhaps something for another day.

Finally I have to take another shot at our capital tax. We should do away with it entirely. Not only does it discourage investment in new plants and equipment, but it also hurts businesses which have to carry high inventories. High interest rates are bad enough without having to pay the provincial government a tax on money used in one's productive operations as well.

In sum, I conclude that this is a realistic budget. It's balanced and it's good in itself, but it contains the seeds of its own destruction. Expenditures have to be kept within strict limits. Overruns can't be tolerated even in 1981; production and employment have to be encouraged around the province. Otherwise, we're not going to have the revenue we need in order to keep our public accounts in the black in future years. Supply-side economics includes deregulation and the dismantling of government agencies — especially those which compete with the private sector, or get in the way of private enterprise. I hope, therefore. that the government will be taking a number of other initiatives, in addition to this budget, which will keep British Columbia's economy booming. That's the only way we're going to keep our heads above water financially in the 1980s and it calls for a special kind of leadership, in the private sector as well as in the public sector, in the years immediately ahead.

I'm going to vote for this budget.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker. after having read the newspapers for the last month or two.,and after having listened very carefully to the speech a few minutes ago, I must confess that I'm shocked and surprised. I would swear that I was under the impression that, number one, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour would have dealt at length with the northeast coal situation, and then I would have thought that he would have announced to the House on a matter of principle that he would be voting against the budget. I now have to say that we'll have to wait for another day.

I'd like to say on my part. Mr. Speaker, that there is a very positive side to this budget. I want to talk about positives first. The positive aspect of this budget is that it will defeat the Socreds in this province and it will be the death of the Socreds in B.C.

Mr. Speaker, as I see it, the people in the province have been conditioned by government that has taught them well, and have been conditioned by a government that has really taught them how to perform dirty tricks. This budget is probably the epitome of the financial dirtiest trick that the people have seen. There have been tax increases in areas one would not expect, looking forward to an election in the not too distant future, unless my colleague from Prince Rupert is right — that they're going to sock it to us now and give it back tomorrow.

I was interested to hear the member for North Vancouver–Seymour talk about coal, the drag that it is. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, he said that coal would be a deficit item, unless I didn't hear him correctly, for the next decade. Edgar Kaiser hasn't seen it that way, and we should not be seeing it that way in this province, I believe that from the resource side of this budget the people are being duped badly in terms of the resource industries in the province not being asked to pay their share; or if they are. We'll be creating a surplus so the government can move in the direction that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) outlines.

Mr. Speaker, there have been tax decreases. As a matter of fact I took advantage of one this morning. I went out and bought a new bike. I want to thank personally the member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) and the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) for having fought for years to get some recognition for that very fine piece of locomotion. I have one in my home in New Westminster, and I thought that it was only right that I should have one over here, because I plan to spend a lot of time over here trying to keep an eye on a bunch of people that can't be trusted, particularly the person from South Peace River.

Interjections.

[ Page 4484 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, it is 25 minutes before the normal hour of adjournment.

MR. COCKE: If they want to rest, Mr. Speaker, I'd be only too happy to adjourn debate until tomorrow.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We are 25 minutes from adjournment, hon. members. Surely we can hold out for those 25 minutes.

MR. COCKE: I suggest that when the Premier said, at the time when he took the taxes off — that is reduced the tax by 50 percent — that it was permanent.... I would suggest that he should be asked now why he said what he said then or why he, as the leader of this government, has permitted what has happened in the last few days. There would have been an honest way to deal with that situation if there was a need to go after people directly for more taxes, and that's the fair tax — the income tax. At least it gives the low-income people a break. But this regressive tax, the sales tax, does not give those people who require it the most a break. That regressive tax is back, and it's here to haunt us. I'm just sorry it has happened, and if the reason it has happened is because we're trying to build a surplus for an election come 1982, then I suggest it is the dirty trick of all of them — and we've seen our share.

I saw a budget speech in this House in 1976 that had to be reprinted. This government was so ashamed of that budget speech and the kind of charges that they made that they had to have it reprinted. I would suggest to them that they take this new budget speech and reprint pages 28, 29, 30 and 31. Everybody knows why. It's entitled "Federal-Provincial Relations." What a joke! To take four pages of the budget speech of this province, embarrass all the people in this province by the verbiage in those four pages, everything short of calling the Prime Minister an arsonist.... But we can be sure on this side of the House that the words on those four pages were not put there by the Minister of Finance. They were there on the direct instructions of the Premier of our province, who's gone around trying to light fires and then suggest he's a fireman.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, I ask the member to withdraw. What he's saying is untrue. I don't want to apply that to the rest of his speech, which may or may not be, but in this case I happen to know that what he is saying is untrue.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I will have to repeat what I said just an hour ago, and that is that it is not for the Chair to decide the veracity or otherwise of statements made in this House. Every member must accept that responsibility for himself. The only time the Chair can intervene is if a statement is unparliamentary.

MR. COCKE: If the Premier was misquoted, and he didn't call the Prime Minister an arsonist, then he should stand up tomorrow when I get through and correct my statement. Meanwhile I stand on what I said.

Isn't it funny how they repent. Isn't it funny how they feel sorry for some of the statements they made, but the statements that are made in this budget speech are on the record.

All I ask is that the people that are responsible for pages 28, 29, 30 and 31 think about having it reprinted for public consumption, and particularly for consumption outside British Columbia. That speech is not only circulated across Canada, it's circulated around the world. Is there any particular reason why B.C.'s population should be the subject of people's ire by virtue of the fact that they get angry when those kinds of statements are made? No, I don't think so.

We're also telegraphing a hint to the people of the province, and we're telling them that we've got a balanced budget, folks. We have to tax you a little bit more, we have to be responsible — incidentally, that little bit more is about 20 percent more — we have to tax you 50 percent more on your sales tax in order to present a balanced budget. This province has been going into the glue, into debt, so badly since that new government took office, it's just unbelievable. And they would be even further in debt if they could borrow money right now.

B.C. Hydro — exorbitant debt. B.C. Rail — in debt over their heads. That's the same railroad that's going to be asked to subsidize northeast coal for the steel mills in Japan. That's the kind of debt we have here. And beyond that, they were not satisfied with two or three Crown corporations that were already debt-ridden. The old Liberal Party used to talk about that debt by the hour — particularly the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer), now Minister of Universities. We have set in place a Buildings Corporation and it can acquire all the debt it likes. It doesn't have to go through our normal pay-as-you-go proposition that W.A.C. Bennett used to talk about — no, we can take all that debt away from people's attention. There's new debt every day in this province.

They talk about the federal government and all the interest that is being paid. What are we doing here in this province? Are we kidding ourselves that these Crown corporations aren't ours? Can you tell me, Mr. Member for Victoria, that the B.C. Buildings Corporation is not incurring debt? Can you tell me that B.C. Steamship Company is not incurring debt — particularly after the faux pas pulled by the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser)?

B.C. Ferries has been taken out — another debt that we have created. But it's contingent liability: a marvellous invention to take the attention of the folks off the fact that we're hopelessly in the glue, getting worse every day. So don't Canada-bash and tell us how bad they are, as long as these people are doing what they're doing.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, sorry, it's no longer contingent liability. That died. It is now guaranteed debt. Oh, debt! Good heavens, what a shocking word.

I contend that the revenues are available to put us in a lot better shape than this budget predicts. I'll bet you my hat that the resource revenues are understated significantly. And I go beyond that to suggest that the resource revenues, if they were being fair, would be a lot higher, particularly from coal. The only people who have got rich on coal in this province are Edgar Kaiser and a few of his friends. The rest of us are watching our resources being frittered away — subsidized by the taxpayers and frittered away ever since 1976 began.

I listened with some interest — not a lot, because I heard the same speech over and over again — to the member for Vancouver–Point Grey again doing his little admonition of the

[ Page 4485 ]

opposition. I guess the reason he does that is because he's so darned ashamed of where he now sits that he's got to turn his ire on the opposition because he can't show that he's ashamed of being where he is. However, he has gone this far; he has said: "I will not run again." Congratulations at least for that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that a few months ago in this House I had something to say about the university hospital. I noted in the paper that I didn't know what I was talking about, according to a letter to the editor. I will have much to say about the university hospital over the next few months, and I will suggest to the Minister of Universities that he should probably go over there now, quick, while he's up, and take his job as director of the Health Sciences Centre or president of the university. Grab it while you can and, for heaven's sake, if you do, get us out of the glue on that university hospital that's the biggest white elephant this province has ever seen. And don't ever have the gall to stand up in this House and suggest anything about the B.C. Medical Centre and any mistakes that could have been made there. Boy, I'll tell you, these people know how to make mistakes bigger and better than anybody in the world.

I just want for a minute or two to say a word or two about the Health estimates, as I see them. In general, the Health estimates look big — great numbers scream at us. I'd like to reserve some of the things that I want to say about Health for tomorrow. But what I'd like to say at this point is that last year they had $199,171,750 in overruns in that department — $200 million, give or take a few cents, in that one department. Orders-in-council suggest to me that there were words provided before we went into this legislative session. Mr. Speaker, $200 million, and there's been hardly a whisper. Six years later they've been up, they've been down, they've been up and they've been down again, and they're still trying to blame a government that hasn't been here for six years. Ridiculous!

AN HON. MEMBER: And never again!

MR. COCKE: I'll bet you a bottle of whisky, friend.

MR. BARBER: Call an election!

MR. COCKE: You guys dare — call an election!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, assist me in keeping order, please. Address the Chair.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, before I suggest adjournment, I would just like to tell you about a little message that I have from somebody that has nominated me to be her MLA. She lives in Delta.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE: She's written me a long letter, and she says she wants to adopt me. She sent me these reasons for adopting me,

HON. MR. HEWITT: Is her name Johnson'?

MR. COCKE: No. It's not.

MR. KEMPF: She wanted a sugar-daddy.

MR. COCKE: She's come to the right place!

She says she cannot get service from her MLA. [Laughter.] Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) fails on both counts. I understand the embarrassment of the member for Delta, who is now sitting behind me, out of his chair, wanting to know the name. However, it's nicely hidden. I'll let him have it in due course.

One of the reasons this person is angry is the Annacis Island faux pas. She doesn't even live on the ridge on the Delta-side of the crossing. She's listened to the pros and cons, and she suggests that her member isn't servicing his riding properly at all.

Beyond that, I would like to talk to you just for a moment about the damage it's doing to New Westminster in prospect. The Pattullo Bridge gives us the traffic right through the centre of our town. Our town has been plugged up. Then we have visited upon us the Port Mann freeway, and that also gives us traffic congestion that we can hardly tolerate. Now they want to do the same thing to the west end of our city, and I suggest that we're not going to tolerate this. We will continue to fight it every inch of the way.

On that note, and because of the fact that the government can't seem to contain themselves this evening, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Williams tabled the annual report of the Ministry of the Attorney-General for the 15-month period to March 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m..