[ Page 4649 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Jetfoil operating loss. Mr. Lockstead –– 4649

Increase in government advertising. Mr. Hall –– 4650

Farm labour regulations. Ms. Sanford –– 4650

Pier B-C pamphlet. Mrs. Dailly 4651

Milfoil control. Hon. Mr. Rogers replies –– 4651

Mr. Skelly –– 4651

Budget debate

Mr. Barnes –– 4651

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4653

Mr. Barrett –– 4657

Mr. Mussallem –– 4662

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 4666

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 4668

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4669

Division on the motion –– 4672

Tabling Documents

Report of the special committee appointed to select the standing committees.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4672

THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, may I thank you for your consent in allowing Mr. Vic Woodland to be present today with hon. members on the floor of the assembly. Mr. Woodland is general manager of the liquor control and licensing branch, and today marks his last official day on the job after a 32-year career in British Columbia's public service, 27 years of which have been spent with the Liquor Control Board or its successor. I'm certain that members are familiar with the history and career of Colonel McGugan and the Liquor Control Board; for 20 of those years Mr. Woodland was the faithful secretary of that board. His accomplishments in assisting a variety of ministers and governments with matters of liquor policy are pretty well known. I think the qualities of Vic Woodland that stand out, as he concludes a very successful career, are those of integrity, common sense and a great sense of fair play.

Speaking for myself — and I say this as a commentary not on Mr. Woodland's personality nor his style but rather on his vast knowledge — I am the last in a series of ministers who have had the privilege of working under Vic Woodland. He has a vast knowledge on matters of liquor policy, in every sense of the word. Vic Woodland has become a living legend. His wife Kay, who is in the gallery today, has been part of that process.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if members would now join me in recording the appreciation of the people of British Columbia to an outstanding public servant.

MR. MACDONALD: I'd like to join in the eulogy of that fine fellow sitting over there. Liquor administration was under the Attorney-General when I held that post. I agree with what the minister said, that Vic was one of the finest persons I ever had the privilege of working for. He was affectionately known in the trade as Doctor No. The only difference between him and the late Colonel McGugan is that the colonel would say no in two letters, whereas Vic took three paragraphs. Vic has aged gracefully along with his whisky. If anyone here does not think that Scotch improves with age, they should speak to me.

Vic, we're proud of the integrity and competence of the public servants of the province of British Columbia, and we wish you well in your retirement years.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I know that all in this House would like to comment on the gentleman who's retiring today. However, as Minister of Agriculture and Food in this province I have a special affection for this gentleman. I'd just like to say, Vic, on behalf of the grape-growers, the B.C. wineries and the people involved in agriculture in B.C., that we wish you well in your retirement, and I hope I'll have the opportunity to share a few hours with you on that sailboat of yours one of these days. All the best!

MRS. WALLACE: In the gallery today we have a group of undergraduate students from the faculty of agriculture at the University of British Columbia. They are visiting the Legislature today to express their support for the agricultural land reserve and their concerns about some of the present situations. I would like the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I too would like to join in a tribute to Vic Woodland for a moment. I certainly agree with the comments of other members today. Vic Woodland is a man of a great number of talents, many of which are publicly known and some of which are yet to be revealed. We feel we have not heard the last of Vic Woodland, and I'm sure the province certainly has not. We know that lurking within the mind of Vic Woodland is the answer to the system of bureaucracy. He's a gentleman who has not only observed it for more than 30 years but one who invented or designed certain new wrinkles that we're still trying to uncover, and we hope that perhaps, at some time, we'll be able to make use of this vast knowledge to see it doesn't happen again. I think one of the efforts that Vic will be putting forward in the not too distant future is probably a novel or look of some kind, very likely entitled The Colonel and Me. and we all look forward to that. Congratulations, Vic, and a great many years of happy retirement.

MS. SANFORD: I would like to introduce a group of students who are here today from Georges P. Vanier Senior Secondary School in Courtenay. The students, accompanied by their teachers, Mrs. Maddison and Mr. Doll, are guests of Crown Zellerbach. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, it's certainly my pleasure to ask the House to join me in extending a warm welcome to Mr. and Mrs. Curtis Friend from Ottawa. Mr. Friend is the president of the Canadian Feed Manufacturers Association, a very large association in Canada and one which I've been associated with for many years.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, in the precinct today are two classes of students from Britannia Senior Secondary School in the great constituency of Vancouver Centre. They're with their teachers, George Rapanos and Miss Betsy Brown. I would ask the House to welcome them today.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon are Mr. Warren Andrews and Mr. Rick Jenfen from Cranbrook and Mr. Albert Bossio from Fernie. I'd like the House to give them a warm welcome this afternoon.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, representing Vancouver–Little Mountain on behalf of my colleague, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), and myself, I'm pleased to inform the House that the high-school students and the band from John Oliver Secondary School are in the precinct today. They will be visiting the gallery in different groups, and they will be accompanying students from Guelph, Ontario. As perhaps some of our members heard, they are giving a very fine band presentation today in the rotunda. They are from the John F. Ross Collegiate Vocational Institute of Guelph, and our students from John Oliver Secondary School will be having an exchange visit with them in Guelph in the next two weeks. Will the House please welcome them.

Oral Questions

JETFOIL OPERATING LOSS

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development regarding the jetfoil service. In view of the minister's statement made in July 1980, when he said. "I have great faith the jetfoil is going to work out and that it's going to be a great success," can the minister confirm or deny that the Flying Princess Transportation Corp. has suffered a loss of about $I million in its first year of service?

[ Page 4650 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS. I'll be quite happy to advise the hon. members that indeed the jetfoil had a loss. When I table the report of the great British Columbia Development Corporation he will learn how much the loss was.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a supplementary question. In view of the statement of March 27, 1980, by the then Operation Jetfoil chairman, Mr. Cedric Steele, that BCDC agreed to pay any losses at the end of the first year, can the minister advise the House whether the taxpayers of British Columbia will have to bear the entire loss? Are we going to pay the whole loss or are you going to pay it yourself?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As I stated just a few moments ago, the loss will be revealed when the final audited statement of the British Columbia Development Corporation is tabled in this Legislature.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The minister has guaranteed loans to that company up to $2.5 million.

My third question is whether the minister can advise the House whether BCDC has made a decision to continue to support the jetfoil service in its next year of operation. If so, can he tell us what the projected losses will be for the next year's operation? Will it be another million dollars, or two million?

MR. SPEAKER: The first half of the question is in order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I would have to say at this time that the answer is no.

INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

MR. HALL: I'd like to address a question to the Provincial Secretary regarding advertising in the government's budget. The 1980-81 estimates contain an increase of $4.7 million for government publications and advertising, for a total this coming year of almost $20 million. Can the minister advise whether his new public relations deputy, Mr. Douglas Heal, will coordinate the expenditure of these funds?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Further information regarding details of advertising, of course, would be appropriately answered in discussion of various estimates. It is true that the new function of Mr. Heal as deputy minister, information programs, will be to try to better coordinate public information availability from ministries, and to see that it is handled in a manner which the public will understand. So the nature of this activity is still developing in terms of the government policy.

MR. HALL: Last fall the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) launched his TV career by hosting a half-hour prime-time telecast at the taxpayers' expense. Not to be outdone, other ministers have announced their entry into these ratings games. Mr. Speaker, how many more ministerial broadcasts are provided for in this year's estimates?

HON. MR. WOLFE: For a considerable period of time this government has used photographic material and film for explaining programs for our citizens. I know of no further specific plans, but undoubtedly there might be.

MR. HALL: Last year the former Minister of Health and the present Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) contributed their personal voices and images to government advertising. Have the minister or his new public relations deputy introduced guidelines concerning the appearance of ministers in government advertising?

HON. MR. WOLFE: No.

MR. HALL: In the field of print advertising, the Premier's selected Hansard mailings and the ever-popular B.C. Government News have done yeoman service in bringing some appreciation of fiction to the public of British Columbia. Can the minister advise how many household mailings are planned for 1981-82 out of the $20 million public relations budget?

MR. SPEAKER: That's a future activity. Does the hon. minister wish to answer?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I cannot advise him at this time.

FARM LABOUR REGULATIONS

MS. SANFORD: My question is to the Minister of Labour. On January 20 Labour ministry officials stated that the regulations establishing pay rates for farmworkers working on a piecework basis would be ready in a month. Can the minister advise why those regulations have not yet been adopted?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, it's true that the regulations have not yet been completed. The concern is attempting to equate the value of piecework in relationship to the picking of raspberries and strawberries, and there are some problems in trying to work out a formula which is acceptable and fair. I can assure the member that this matter will be brought to a successful conclusion before the berries are ready to be picked.

MS. SANFORD: Can the minister then explain why he has authorized his ministry to begin an expensive promotional campaign, which includes newspaper and television advertising as well as glossy pamphlets like this one, when the regulations affecting farmworkers are still not in place?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The major portion of the regulations called for by the employment standards legislation are in place. There is one item which remains outstanding, and that is the item to which the member has referred. As far as the advertising program is concerned, it was provided for at the time of the legislation, and I feel it is our duty as the government to inform the public of the contents of that particular bill. That is the reason for the advertising, which covers much more than the one particular item to which the member refers.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, there is another area that the minister has neglected to tell us about that relates to the bonding of farm labour contractors, which has still not been established as regulations either. Obviously this pamphlet is going to have to be replaced if in fact the minister will have those regulations in place by the time the berries are to be picked. Could the minister advise what the cost of this

[ Page 4651 ]

particular publication, which has been mailed all over the province, is to the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I cannot advise the House as far as the cost of that particular pamphlet is concerned, but I'm quite prepared to take the question as notice and provide the information.

PIER B-C PAMPHLET

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier in regard to a recent publication entitled "Challenge to British Columbia," dated December 15, 1980, which was a government promotion for Pier B-C. Would the minister tell the House if that publication was paid for out of the public purse?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, I am knowledgeable of the publication. It was paid for through the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development.

MRS. DAILLY: My next question should, perhaps, go to the minister responsible, but as it was a promotion put forward entirely by the minister I'm addressing the question to, I'll continue with her. Would the minister tell us why, if it was paid for out of public moneys, there was no ministers name, ministry or official government endorsement printed on that publication?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I believe the replies for the publication were to go back to the new manager of the trade and convention centre to help promote and bring business to the centre. It might be of great importance to the member asking the question to know that already the trade and convention centre, which, as you know, has not even been started yet, has presold, through the efforts of that manager and through the committee that has been putting that project forward, $72 million worth of trade shows and conventions, which will bring a great number of jobs and money to the city of Vancouver and all regions of the province.

MRS. DAILLY: That is a typically evasive answer from that minister. We're not asking for a speech on the promotion of her centre. What we're asking is: why was there no official endorsation from a ministry on that publication? If we can't get that answer, then we will have to assume that the minister who put it out must pay for it out of his own money.

MILFOIL CONTROL

HON. MR. ROGERS: Yesterday I was asked a question by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) about the use of a 2, 4-D formula known as Aqua-Kleen. The ministry does not recommend suspending the use of the 2, 4-D formula known as Aqua-Kleen in Okanagan Lake. The ministry has used Aqua-Kleen safely for five years, and the guiding policy is to be ultra-conservative in preventing the exposure of residents to even minute residues of this material where it is used. Contrary to the implications in the question in the House concerning the subject, staff advise that only a few formulas of 2, 4-D are of concern to the federal government. These are the so-called "dirty" formulations which contain as contaminates minute quantities of certain types of dioxins. Most 2, 4-D formulas are made by conventional methods, starting with 2, 4-D acid, and do not contain dioxins. In contrast the dirty formulations are produced by the non-conventional method resulting in various kinds of dioxins. The manufacturers of the formulas have already withdrawn their products from the market.

The formation known as Aqua-Kleen was tested by Agriculture Canada a few years ago and at the time was found to contain no dioxins. However, in order to be absolutely sure, my ministry has forwarded additional samples of this material to Agriculture Canada for further testing using the latest in sophisticated detection equipment. I might add that in the manufacture of 2, 4-D there are some 75 different dioxins, the most lethal of which really comes from 2, 4.5-T, and that is the dioxin known as 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD, the one that is one million times our acceptable level. The water standard which we accept is one one-hundredth of the minimum that the federal government are prepared to accept. I want to emphasize the fact that our standards are 100 times stricter than those acceptable by Agriculture Canada.

MR. SKELLY: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister care to admit that Aqua-Kleen is a 2, 4-D ester formulation, which is one of the class of 2, 4-D formulations that the minister calls dirty formulations. and is presently being tested right now with new equipment by the federal government? They have found it does contain dioxins — that class of 2, 4-D esters which could be both immediate and hazardous in a long-term way to animal species.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'm advised that the 2, 4-D we use does not contain dioxins. However, as I've advised the member, the matter is being tested in Ottawa. The sample was shipped yesterday for testing in Ottawa. It will be some time before this year's applications of 2, 4-D would come up in any event, so, we should have the answer back in time.

I would like to thank the member for some very detailed information that he did provide me with, because it has been of some assistance. There are further questions that I've asked the ministry to come up with and I'll be responding to those by putting them on the order paper.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, the question that was raised this morning had to do with the government's fiscal policies, which I suggested did a great deal to fan the flames of discontent among British Columbia's races and cultures, which suggests that bigotry, racism, scapegoatism etc. are definitely associated with hard times and with economic unrest and so forth. So the government has done its share to encourage some of the problems that the Ku Klux Klan, the group I was discussing this morning....

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Yes, I can back it up, Mr. Speaker. What are they getting so riled up about?

MR, SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It must have been awfully bad during the NDP years.

MR. BARNES: You should have been here this morning, Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs. I was discussing some of the contributions you made personally to the present situation we have in British Columbia.

[ Page 4652 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Vancouver Centre will assist greatly in order in the House if he directs his remarks to the Chair.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I think the members on the government side are upset for a good reason, because with the budget, the taxation measures that they have exercised — the hoarding of funds in order to build surpluses for later political manoeuvres — indicates that the people of British Columbia are not getting a fair share or return on the punitive fiscal policies that this government has used to collect funds from them. So that's why I have made the remarks I've made, and in the next five minutes or so I'd like to indicate why there is concern.

This is a publication that was put out by the Canadian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. They only have a box office for this piece of literature. It says: "Stop coloured immigration now." Please bear with me, because my eyesight is failing and I can hardly see, but I will have some glasses next week, I believe.

"We should only allow in white immigrants, because they are the only people who can be assimilated into our white, western society. Bringing coloureds into Canada is polluting our society both racially and culturally.

"Was it coloured people or European whites who colonized and built Canada? Did our white forefathers and all our white Canadian soldiers in World Wars I and II die for nothing? We are destroying the society they died to preserve.

"Multiculturalism has never worked anywhere. Don't be fooled by white bleeding hearts; they are too naive to accept reality. English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians cannot live in harmony together, let alone whites and coloureds. We are having a language problem with the French, but when the Chinese or East Indians are the majority, we will have only one language forced upon us — their language.

"On race riots:

"Each time we let one coloured immigrant into Canada, he can apply to bring up to 15 relatives. Can't our government see the race problems being experienced in the United States, Great Britain and South Africa? Why let it happen here too? Everything cultural which originates in the United States comes to Canada. Do we need ghettos, forced busing, reverse discrimination and race riots? Many American cities already have racial war zones. When Canada has enough coloureds, we fear a racial civil war will occur here in Canada which will make World War 1, World War II and Rhodesia look like a picnic. It will only take an economic recession or a minor crisis, and the race war will begin. White people will have no choice but to fight, because there is nowhere else for us to go. We will cease to exist unless we push every coloured person south of the border or into the oceans."

Mr. Speaker, that's a piece of literature that is floating around in British Columbia. There is another introductory piece on the Klan, and it has this to say about the white race: "The irreplaceable hub of our nation, our Christian faith and the high levels of western culture and technology." And it has this to say on the Negro question:

"The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan does not consider itself the enemy of the Negro race. The only way both races can develop their full potential and culture is through racial separation. The Klan will oppose integration in all of its manifestations, including the high black crime rate, racial intermarriage, the destruction of our schools, lowering of labour standards etc."

That's from the Toronto office. The mailing address, the telephone numbers — all the information is on it.

This is from the Times-Colonist, February 4, 1981. The headline is: "The Ku Klux Klan Urges B.C. Members to Arm. The Ku Klux Klan is preparing for an unavoidable race war in the Vancouver area, and members are arming themselves with rifles, handguns and survival equipment." They refer to Vancouver's East Indians as bloodsuckers and trash. They go on to say: "Opening Canada's doors to future immigration by non-whites, East Indians, Chinese and Japanese immigrants has contributed nothing to Canada's economy, culture or heritage." They issue an application form for people who are interested in joining the Klan, and on that form it says: "Are you a Christian? Do you believe in the absolute and total supremacy of the white race? Are you non-Jewish? Are you a non-homosexual?"

These are just a few examples of things that are being floated around that I have suggested should at least contravene in part some of our laws with respect to maintaining peace and goodwill among Canada's cultures and races. The Criminal Code of Canada, section 2812 (l) reads:

"(1) Everyone who by communicating statements in any public place incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years, or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

"(2) Everyone who by communicating statements other than in private conversation wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years, or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

"(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) who (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true, (b) if in good faith he expressed an attempt to establish by argument an opinion upon a religious subject, (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true, or (d) if in good faith he intended to point out for the purpose of removal matters reducing or tending to reduce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada."

I'll skip down now to subsection (6). It says:

"No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General."

I want to refer now to the B.C. Human Rights Code, section 2, dealing with discriminatory publications.

"(1) No person shall publish or display before the public or cause to be published or displayed before the public a notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation indicating discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or class of persons in any manner prohibited by this act.

[ Page 4653 ]

"(2) Not withstanding subsection (1), a person may by speech or in writing freely express his opinions on a subject."

I don't have much time to debate this point. What I'm suggesting is that both of those acts have a good intention but they go to great lengths to try to show why people's rights should be defended. In other words, they give just as good a case for why it's okay to discriminate as they do for why we should not.

I think at the very least the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) should protest to Ottawa with respect to the Criminal Code and ask that it be amended, so that the people of this province will have their day in court and not have to get permission or a fiat from the Attorney-General in order to do what an individual can do. We're talking about groups of people, classes of people, not individuals. We're concerned about those people whose self-respect and dignity is being undermined with impunity by an organization that has cleverly found the way to circumvent the laws.

With respect to the Human Rights Code, when we talk about freely expressed opinions, I did a little review in the dictionary of what "publication" means and found that you can publish something either by handwriting, press or any other form. As long as it is made public, it is published. We need to amend the Human Rights Code. We need to take a look at where it's failing, because right now, Mr. Minister, I believe that the government is not prepared to start attacking those principles that are obviously failing us such as free speech and other freedoms, which can clearly be used to hurt this country and the people, and are in fact hurting the people. I know that that is a new area for us, but the only way we're going to get our day in court is to broaden our perspective, to increase our imagination and to take a look at the results of our doing nothing and sitting back and saying that this is a matter that is not physical; it is an intangible problem and we can't nail them. I think that that shows we are a long way behind in coming up with sufficient legislation to deal with these problems that we're faced with today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would very much like to associate myself with the many who are again welcoming you, sir, back to the chair. I certainly hope that you have a great 1981.

I would like to make some remarks about the budget and how critically important an effective budgetary direction and the concept of balancing income with outgo are necessary not only for the progress of our province but for the future of our nation. I would also have to consider the budget in the light of a continuing constitutional authority and responsibility of the provinces and regions of Canada to manage their own affairs, develop their own initiatives and provide their own affirmative action programs. I don't think there is any question that the constitutional turmoil in our country is undermining the capacities of this nation to effectively deal with the upfront and the real and immediate problems — the burgeoning national debt, the energy crisis, the double-digit inflation, the depreciating dollar, the sky-rocketing interest rates, the unemployment and the critical housing shortages.

As I said before, it even takes a letter about two weeks to cross town. As a matter of fact, it was only on Friday when I happened to receive a Christmas card from the hon. Premier of Ontario. It took three months to come from Queen's Park to Vancouver. I think it would have done much better by covered wagon.

Even more destructive is the fact that the present federal initiative, if carried into effect, could result in a drastic restructuring of the capacities, the economies and the opportunities of our various regions to achieve their ambitions and to realize their potential. What Canada could well face is 50 years of constitutional and legal embroilment with all of the attendant uncertainty and expense and all of the disruptions and discordance that could flow from that. It might well be a mother lode for the lawyers, a bonanza for the legal profession, but it would certainly be an awful drain on the pocketbooks and the energies of our citizens.

With this constitutional land-mine we find a massive departure from Canadian tradition and direction that has not been called for and is not wanted. By far the majority of our citizens and regions are opposed to it. Nonetheless, we have the Prime Minister of our country. aided and abetted by Ontario and the majority of the federal New Democratic Party, and apparently all of the B.C. New Democratic Party, still insisting on wanting to maintain, enshrine and cast in stone for all time for central Canada a perpetual constitutional, productive, and economic supremacy. All of this is notwithstanding the contemporary realities of a shifting, changing, growing, regionally expanding and maturing Canada. These Canadian centralists, aided, abetted, encouraged and fawned upon by the federal NDP and all of the B.C. socialists, are in essence saying, "We'll go along with the game of federalism, providing it's only played our way, providing it's only in our interests so that only we can win," even though it's very clear that the forecasts, the discoveries and the new technology all indicate that the economics of the nation are shifting, and indeed should shift. It's a natural consequence. It's a Canadian evolution.

The centralists still say: "No way. We'll change the goalposts. We'll bring in a new system. We'll enshrine our centralist position, whatever the direction the natural forces and the progress may take." They also say: "If that's a process towards republicanism, if that's a movement towards increased judicial authority at the risk of submerging parliamentary supremacy, then so what? We've got the raw power. We'll ramrod it through, regional non-representation notwithstanding." All of this is absolutely flying in the face of the will of the majority of our people, the majority of the governments and the majority of the regions of our great country. Yet tragically all of this is supported by the federal New Democratic Party, and even more tragically all of this is supported by the B.C. New Democratic Party. I say what a travesty, what an abandonment of responsibility and what a neglect of duty.

"Negotiate," say some. We say: "But Ottawa won't. They refuse." They say: "Nyet — no way." Mr. Speaker, that constitutional steamroller still powers on full bore — straight forward. The whole of the country is saying to the Prime Minister and to the federal NDP — who could play a major role in stopping this steamroller, as could the provincial B.C. New Democratic Party — "Hold, cease and desist." They're paying no heed, and the juggernaut rolls on. What are the options — to roll over like two-thirds of the federal NDP, or to roll over like three-thirds of the provincial NDP and end up nothing less than an inglorious piece of the pavement, or to try to stop it?

What we should be doing is bringing about a return to reason in our country. Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan are all trying to do just that. They 're trying

[ Page 4654 ]

to bring about a return to reason. The administrations of these provinces, Mr. Speaker, are telling these central Canada centralists and all of the socialists who support them that what they are doing is wrong, it's unfair and it's not the Canadian way.

This unilateral activity is contrary to Canadian custom, Canadian convention, Canadian practice, Canadian federalism, Canadian constitutional law, and most of all it's contrary to the will, the desires and the wishes of the majority of people right across our nation. What is attempted to be imposed upon all of us — force-fed is a better way to express that — upon the Canadian public by Mr. Trudeau and his cabinet and by Mr. Broadbent and his two-thirds supporters and by you people over there who are supporting him is something that is discordant, divisive and purely and simply destructive. I say to you, plead with you: stop before you do any more damage.

Canada was established as a federation for very clear, practical and obvious reasons.

AN HON MEMBER: What were they?

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's an enormous country, it's strung out, it's very diverse. It has a tremendous amount of regional uniqueness, Mr. Speaker, and there's a strong requirement, and indeed a practical need, for doing locally that which can best be done locally. A continental country cannot be run in detail from the centre. There is a virtue with smallness — the quickness and the ability to respond, the first-hand know how and the capacity to provide affirmative action and develop programs to meet local needs. As a federation, the affairs of Canada are managed by two distinct orders of government, each with their own defined areas of responsibility and jurisdiction, wherein each order is sovereign within its own area of jurisdiction — in other words, the principle of sovereignty or nonsubordination of the two orders of government. This was best summed up in a report of the Canadian Senate under the hand of Senator Carl Goldenberg in November 1980. This is the way our country has worked for 113 years. It has prospered as the most enviable place in the world for anyone to live.

We, said, in the submission that we regretfully had to file before the Kershaw foreign affairs committee in London:

"Federalism is a fragile form of government. Its success is never assured, even in the most stable and sophisticated countries. Success flows entirely from hard work, tolerance, a willingness to compromise and faithful adherence to the framework of federalism, provided in the constitution. Failure will flow inevitably from diminution of these ingredients. The remedy for political deadlock in a federal nation cannot be unilateral action by one level of government. Rather, the remedy must be an even more dedicated search for compromise."

But that search for compromise is not being carried out by two of the provinces in this country. That search for compromise is not being carried out by the hon. Prime Minister and his cabinet. That search for compromise is not being carried out by Mr. Broadbent, the leader of the federal New Democratic Party, and that search for compromise is not being carried out by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition in the province of British Columbia.

The fragility that I've talked about is being sandbagged for a fare-thee-well by both Sussex Drive, Queen's Park and the various tag-along socialists. Most Canadians are not prepared to sit idly by in a manner of passive acquiescence and become constitutionally mugged. They are responding to the defence of Canadian traditions. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that this is not the time in the history of our country and your country to run to the rear and hide. That's what you're doing.

We say this federal unilateral activity is wrong and it must be condemned. There's not only the need, but it's the solemn duty and responsibility for the Prime Minister to return to the table so we can arrive at an agreement, patriation, amending formula and an immediate agenda for change according to that specific formula. What we wish to develop in Canada is a made-in-Canada constitution. That's why our country needs today, more than ever before, some up-front, straightforward, no-frills, Canadian type of negotiation and compromise and a return to Canadian common sense. I implore the Prime Minister to get the premiers together. Let them all stay in a room. If necessary — and I'm being capricious — let them have their food under the door, but let them stay in a room together just like a jury. Let them deliberate the evidence until they can reach a conclusion and bring in a verdict. That is their solemn duty and responsibility.

The sorts of sentiments that I've been stating now are being expressed right across our nation, except by the governments of Ontario and New Brunswick, except by the B.C. NDP and except by Mr. Broadbent and his followers. Listen to what some of the provinces have said.

MR. MACDONALD: Tell us about René Levesque's position.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll come to that in a minute, my friend.

Alberta passed a resolution last November opposed to federal unilateral activity. It asked for patriation with appropriate safeguards for provincial rights, proprietary interest and provincial jurisdiction. In other words, maintain section 92 of the BNA Act — provincial rights, the kind of rights that the provinces in our country have enjoyed for 113 years. Don't unilaterally encroach upon them. It's the way the country is structured and the basis on which the country was born. It is the conditions under which the provinces were formed and came into the partnership of Confederation.

In Manitoba we hear that Premier Lyon refers to this as being a domestic matter for resolution in Canada — not imposition. He condemned the unilateral activity. He stated that it does affect the powers and responsibilities of the provinces. In a speech that he gave in London not too long ago, he made reference to a statement from the council for the federal government in the court cases who admitted that the federal government appeared to be pursuing a deliberate strategy of avoiding a reference to the highest court in the country. That appears to be the situation today, and I think it's disgraceful. Fortunately there is going to be an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, launched by Manitoba within the next few days.

Quebec condemned the one-way route of the federal government. They said that it was contrary to the very nature of Canadian federalism and asked for proper constitutional renewal and consultation.

Newfoundland strenuously objects to the process of federal force-feed. They say that amendments affecting federal-provincial relations require consent and approval of federal administrations and provincial administrations.

[ Page 4655 ]

Premier Buchanan of Nova Scotia said that the agreement of union never provided for nor contemplated that either the federal government or the provincial government would be able to assume the unilateral right to alter the terms of the agreement and invade the autonomy of the other. But that's what Canada is facing now, hon. members. It's facing a constitutional invasion, and that constitutional invasion has to be repelled. Premier Buchanan of Nova Scotia said it was causing disunity, and that that course was planting in our soil the seeds of destruction of our nation, and he asked for suspension of the proposals until the court decisions were handed down.

Premier Maclean of Prince Edward Island said that the drastic and perhaps illegal steps are not justified, and he rejects the unilateral step; he calls for the resumption of discussion; he favours patriation with an agreed amending fornmal. He also said that it would be constructive for the Prime Minister of our country to seek a reference from the Supreme Court of Canada to see if what he is doing is legal, constitutional and is within the spirit of the law. The hon. member applauds. Even the Attorney-General of Ontario, the Hon. Roy McMurtry, agrees with that concept.

A word or two about Saskatchewan. We heard some very strong and very correct statements from the Premier of Saskatchewan. I think the language in the statements by the Premier of Saskatchewan was perhaps the strongest expressed by any Premier in the country. Premier Blakeney of the New Democratic Party in Saskatchewan said:

"What this exercise is is a breach of firmly established constitutional convention. It is not federalism. It is not Canadian. It strikes at the heart of Canadian federalism. It defies constitutional convention. It must be condemned. It's clearly corrosive of the basic principles of federalism."

He said it's flouting 50 years of tradition and pulling Canada apart. He too said that Westminster should have the assistance of the Supreme Court of Canada.

A resolution was passed in Saskatchewan on March 4 not too many days ago — stating that the unilateral process was incompatible with the fundamental principles of federalism — a very clearly defined statement. With all of that, Mr. Speaker, let us please make some comparisons with those stands and those definitions and those concepts of federalism, all of which are indeed most complimentary to what I'd say are the highly learned, precise and correct assessments of the federal nature of our country, which was so well articulated by the likes of past Prime Ministers Pearson, Meighen, Borden, Laurier and St. Laurent. It was summed up best of all and in the shortest form perhaps in the 1965 federal government's own White Paper when it said: "The Canadian Parliament will not request an amendment directly affecting federal-provincial relations without prior consultation and agreement with the provinces." All of this is blatantly ignored by the B.C. NDP. It's blatantly ignored by Mr. Broadbent, and it's blatantly ignored by Prime Minister Trudeau and his cabinet.

I'd like to make some comparison with all those principles what we've heard from the B.C. NDP. It's truly sad and it's truly regretful that you've been unable to formulate or articulate any position on the greatest constitutional issue that our country has faced in 113 years. I'd say that if silence is golden, they've sure cornered the bullion market.

But we hear some other members of the New Democratic Party from the former CCF who quite well understand what the issue is. In a speech he gave in the House last December, my colleague, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), quoted Mr. J.S. Woodsworth. This is what he said in 1925:

"I would urge that the only way we can maintain Confederation is to insist upon justice for all, for the newcomer as well as for the old-timer, for the westerner as well as the easterner, and for those parts of the country that entered Confederation more recently as well for those that entered into it when the BNA Act was passed."

Mr. Woodsworth moved an amendment to a resolution dealing with constitutional change and he added these words: "upon first obtaining the consent of all of the provinces of Canada."

Here's what Stanley Knowles said in 1964, House of Commons Hansard, p. 4465:

"But in more recent years, with the exception of the amendments passed under our right to pass amendments to our constitution regarding things that are purely federal. any amendments that touch the boundary line between section 91 and section 92 of the BNA in all cases were not sought by this Parliament until it had the unanimous consent of the provinces. That tradition, I suggest, is so well established that it is now good as law."

AN HON. MEMBER: What did he say last week?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Isn't it unfortunate that he didn't follow his own principles last week, hon. members? This is a statement that Mr. Lorne Nystrom made. It is referred to in the Colonist of March 1, 1981:

"Since I feel so strongly that this resolution ignores federalism. Ignores that Canadian way and will further divide the country, I have informed my leader, Mr. Broadbent, and mv caucus that I will oppose this resolution when it comes to a vote in the House of Commons."

Why don't you side with Mr. Nystrom? He carries on:

"In any federal state there is a division of powers between two orders of government."

You people don't believe that. He carries on:

"I believe that it is wrong for one order of government, acting unilaterally, to amend parts of the constitution that are properly within the jurisdiction of the other or that affect both orders of government. It is made even more unacceptable when this unilateral action includes the most important part of federal constitution, the amending formula itself." And you don't agree with that. He carries on:

"To argue otherwise is to argue that Canada is not a federal state but that provincial governments are subordinate to the federal authority, even in areas of provincial jurisdiction."

And you don't agree with that, because you don't support Mr. Nystrom.

"Since I believe unilateral action is wrong in a federal state, I fear the process the Liberal government has embarked upon may do lasting damage to the political structure that has enabled us to maintain unity in a country of diverse peoples and regions."

Mr. Speaker, Mr Nystrom is telling the truth, and he is not running to the rear and hiding like the B.C. NDP.

[ Page 4656 ]

Here's a good summary of where Mr. Broadbent and the B.C. NDP are. I'm referring to the Globe and Mail which summed it up very well on February 10, 1981:

"Mr. Broadbent jettisons certain NDP principles in accepting the Liberal program. He permitted the Liberals to throw overboard cooperative federalism, the idea that the federal and provincial governments are both sovereign in their own jurisdictions, that any shift of powers can only be properly achieved by negotiation and compromise. He let the Liberals retain a veto to please the Liberal senators. Mr. Broadbent let the Liberals retain the power to make future constitutional changes by referendum, with no matching power for the provinces. He let the Liberals approve a massive charter of rights, knowing that while the majority of Canadians may want a charter of rights, they most emphatically do not want it imposed unilaterally from Ottawa. Mr. Nystrom, speaking in the House, saw it as fraught with danger for Canada. 'We are a federation,' he said, 'we are supposed to try to reach a consensus before doing things.' Mr. Nystrom, like Premier Blakeney of Saskatchewan, seems to us to have a superior sense to Mr. Broadbent of what is due the provinces and the people of Canada."

So what have the B.C. Broadbent socialistic paragons come up with? There appears to be a new Canadian axis — the B and B brigade. You have bought, you are party to and you are supporting all of these things: you're supporting a built-in, never to be changed, never to be reformed, solely to be prime ministerially appointed Senate — a Senate with ultimate, everlasting and permanent veto over anything the people of Canada, via the elected representatives and via parliament, may wish to do.

Even today's Senate, the Senate of Canada, did not go that far; for in their report they advocated only a suspensive veto. But no, the NDP have bought the whole thing. Give an absolute veto to a non-elected body! What happened to these great statements of principle? What happened to them? The Nystroms of this world understand it, the Blakeneys of this world understand it, the low man in Alberta — I must confess and I am sorry that I've forgotten it — he understands it. The NDP opposition in Manitoba understands it. The provincial party in Quebec understand it. But not in B.C.! The B-B axis is rolling right down the line.

That's what they are voting for — a permanent, everlasting, enshrined veto power for a Senate that is appointed by one person. That's what Mr. Trudeau is voting for, that's what Mr. Broadbent is voting for, and that's what the leader of the official opposition in British Columbia, David Barrett, is supporting. It's a lot of hollow talk.

They are trying to sweep the thing under the rug. They've even refused to let their own federal council meet to consider this monumental departure from the historic CCF and NDP position and philosophy. What have they done? They've developed the biggest case of constitutional lockjaw in the annals of Canadian history.

At one point the only thing clear about the New Democratic Party's constitutional petition in this issue, which has been going on for about three or four years now, was that it was unclear, but that's no longer the case, because they've sold out. They've sold out on Canadian federalism, on provincial rights and responsibilities, on Senate reform and on all of these historic NDP and CCF concepts, and they've sold out on resources. "Give them to the feds or keep them in the ground," they say. What a great policy. But Premier Allan Blakeney, a socialist, and Mr. Lorne Nystrom, a socialist — but socialists of a different hue — said: "No way." No way are they going to sell their souls for something that is contrary to the fundamental way in which our country is run, contrary to fundamental NDP policy and contrary to fundamental CCF policy. But apparently these sorts of fundamental differences don't mean anything to the B.C. NDP party. You're going to take a chutzpah approach to that, I guess.

I think we'll all agree that Hon. Robert Stanfield is a mild and thoughtful Canadian, and he's well regarded by politicians of every type for his temperance and his integrity. He likened this present exercise to a coup d'état. If the course doesn't change, if reason doesn't take over from emotion, if confrontative federalism isn't replaced by cooperative federalism, and if this onslaught upon our Canadian traditions is not stopped, great and lasting damage may be inflicted upon our country. We'll never know quite to what extent.

So I'm going to say to the NDP in B.C.: will you step forward? Canada today needs the help of all of its citizens. Will you change your mind and come aboard? I say to the B.C. NDP: join the views of the great Prime Ministers of our country. Join the views of Laurier, Pearson and St. Laurent. Associate yourselves with the views of the eight premiers, and join with the sentiments of Woodsworth, Stanley Knowles and the very, very strong and courageous stance of Mr. Blakeney and Mr. Nystrom. Join yourselves with the NDP opposition in Alberta and the NDP in Quebec and Manitoba. I say to all of you here: break away from this B-B axis whose course, if unchecked, will be to impose and perpetuate, for all time, a protected, sheltered and privileged economic and action capacity for just central Canada, and enshrining the centralists with an even more fixed, rigid and inflexible power base than they've ever had in the past. It's not just maintaining the status quo in central Canada, but it's maintaining more and more of the same for evermore. That, Mr. Speaker, is not our view of what all of Canada should be or what direction all of Canada should take.

All the while the proponents and supporters of the federal proposals are asking the Parliament of Canada to do that which no previous Canadian parliament has done or has been presumed to have the right to do, and which no future parliament would ever have the right to do. As Mr. Blakeney said, it's not the Canadian way. It's an exercise in ultimate autocracy. Central Canada does not need, nor is it entitled to, more constitutionalized power. What it needs and what Canada needs is a Canada that can grow and truly prosper in all of its regions from sea to sea.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Let's have a united, harmonious Canada, a vigorous private sector and a burgeoning and effectively managed economy. What we wish is cross-country growth, and we wish it to be encouraged, not discouraged. We wish a free-flowing federation, not a constitutionally locked-in, restructured federation that will project, for all time, the present overly protected hot-house economy industries of central Canada. What they're proposing flies right smack into the face of evolution.

What we've heard about this budget from the NDP in this House, most of whom, I think, represent the more radical and

[ Page 4657 ]

republic elements of the NDP party, is doctrinaire socialism and not even basic, let alone sound, economics. They appear to be still virulently anti-individual, virulently pro-collectivism, pro-structure, pro-regulation, pro-borrowing, contrary to paying as one goes, pro-deficit financing, pro soaking it to the children to pay the debts of their fathers, and pro planned economy.

Here's a a marvellous quotation from the smaller member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) in 1976.

"MLA Gary Lauk, Vancouver Centre, former Economic Development minister, wanted party members to be careful in supporting the concept of free-collective bargaining. Lauk argued that the NDP's long-term goal is a planned economy, which, he said would be inconsistent with collective bargaining."

That's a remarkable quotation.

Mr. Speaker, this party over here is still haunted, I'd say. by the 1972-75 excesses, when they squandered the provincial treasury. They had $100 million errors in arithmetic, non-accountability, no auditor-general, no Crown corporation reporting committee, no ombudsman, no quarterly accounts, whilst wallowing in the greatest period of non-economic accountability in the history of our province. They blew every nickel and every dime that the taxpayer and the province had. And then, Mr. Speaker, they had the ultimate gall to go the people in 1975 and not level with them and not tell them the treasury was broke; not tell them there was no dough — and then they ran on a platform of strong leadership. Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you, it was as strong as a beached mackerel in the midday sun, and that was about its greatest strength.

I remember the promises, Mr. Speaker, when the treasury was empty. Poor Mother Hubbard's cupboard was as bare as it could possibly be, and what did they promise? Twenty-five dollar car insurance! It improved by only one thing.

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Dead broke — flat broke. What was the next promise? Free pensions for housewives. They said that was strong leadership. If the money was there, it would have been a good idea, but the money wasn't there and you knew it wasn't there and you didn't level with the public, and that's too bad.

Mr. Speaker, this is a budget that is a tough budget. but notwithstanding that, it is tempered and it is fair. Most important of all, it is a responsible budget; it is paying-as-we-go; it's not soaking the kids for the excesses of their fathers. That is responsibility, that is leadership, and that's why I shall support it, Mr. Minister of Finance.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I hope within the course of my discourse today that I will wake up some of the members who have been treated to a Sominex form of lecture from the former Attorney-General, who is now the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. The word, Mr. Minister, is "chutzpah." Chutzpah means something even more than the English word "gall" — it is taking a great big bundle of nerve.

Don't leave now, Mr. Member. Oh, he's gone. That member, lecturing this House about chutzpah and praising this Social Credit budget — which is the same old Socred angle of underestimating your revenues and overestimating your expenditures to come up with a balanced budget — used to be a Liberal and attack it. And he's got the chutzpah to stand up in this House and defend Social Credit? Mr. Speaker, Major Douglas is whirling in his grave this very moment.

Then he lectures us on his position on the constitution, and if anybody doesn't agree with him, they're traitors. Mr. Speaker, in a free democratic society when people have differences of opinion they're respected for their ideas and differences of opinion, not classified as something less than committed to this country. It was the Premier of this province who called the Prime Minister an arsonist. Does that help in any way, Mr. Speaker, to have rational debate in this nation, as we go through our political adolescence? There was never an apology from the Premier for personally vilifying the Prime Minister of this country, who may not be of a political party you like, especially to those who came from the Liberal Party. Like all new converts they try to wash away their past. Of all governments in Canada that have contributed less than nothing in terms of responsible political debate on this important issue, it has been the Social Credit Party, that coalition and the Premier, who has done nothing than vilify people personally.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I still love the former Attorney-General as a person, because there 's still hope in the human breast. Even though they show a tremendous amount of chutzpah, there's still hope for salvation. I want to warn the former Attorney-General that somebody is going to record his words and mail them to Ottawa, and those silks that he so desperately desires before the next provincial election may not come by air freight; they may not arrive by mail. The member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head (Hon. Mr. Smith) may get to the bench before the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. We know there is a great race going on and that they're all trying to jump ship, but there's only so much room on the bench. Room on the bench is limited to the number of offices in the courthouse. That's how it's worked, and we didn't build that many rooms in the courthouse. So there are two spots open and three in the race.

MR. MACDONALD: That doesn't give me much chance.

MR. BARRETT: No, you're not going to make it; you're too wise.

I also found the same old business of attacking the NDP interesting — we're bad and nasty. Let's end all this; let's finish the argument. If we're so bad in attacking this budget, if this budget is so good and you're so right and we're so wrong, then take us to the polls and whup us. Call an election. Put us out of our misery. Go out there and sweep this province with the polls. If you really believed in what you're saying, you'd dissolve the House right now and let the people of British Columbia decide. How many of you would get reelected? Well, North Peace River would make it. Oak Bay might make it. Yale-Lillooet could make it.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Small debts court? Not with the debts Social Credit is racking up. I'll tell you; there are no small debts in this government.

I'll just leave that and go on to the budget. But really, stop that silly nonsense about how you're so good and great and everything else. Call an election. Wipe us out. You wouldn't

[ Page 4658 ]

get 15 members back even if you gerrymandered again, Mr. Speaker. Where are you going to gerrymander to? Are you going to put 56 seats in Oak Bay and 3 in the rest of the province? That's the way they'd operate, Mr. Speaker. Before the former Minister of Health left and went to a hotline show, he announced what he thought the redistribution should be; and not to be outdone, the Premier announced what he thought it should be — another seat here in Kamloops, one in the Okanagan. Never mind bringing back Eckardt; just write it out with all those excuses. What a sham. What a pile of mockery.

You know, I don't understand these fellows — the sanctimonious claptrap not based on fact that comes from that side of the House. I know for a fact that three government members are going to vote against this budget, by the statements they've made in the last short while. I'm going to read some of those statements as I go through the budget.

Before I do that, I want the House to welcome a very prominent Victorian, Mrs. Paul Freeman, and her mother. Mrs. Freeman is the wife of one the best orchestra conductors in North America, and we are lucky enough to have Mr. Freeman as the symphony conductor for the city of Victoria. I'm sure the House will welcome them both. Mrs. Freeman's mother is from Alabama, and she is going to take the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) out for dinner. That's her first mistake in coming to British Columbia. Speaking of that member, may I say that he gave an excellent presentation on a very serious topic. There is a serious problem of racism in this country, and that too is part of our political adolescence.

Now to the budget. I want to quote from this well-known socialist newspaper, the Vancouver Province. I want to discuss what the well-known socialist business editor, Mr. Ken Bell, says:

"The latest provincial budget smells to high heaven. Yes, according to Finance minister Hugh Curtis, the budget will neatly break even for the year. Provincial revenues, at an estimated $6.6 billion, are expected to be ahead of the provincial expenditures of $6.61 billion by $26 million. To reach this conclusion, Mr. Curtis has made some absolutely pessimistic predictions. It's hard to believe that Mr. Curtis is actually predicting that natural resource revenues will drop 34 percent."

He goes on to give a detailed analysis from a vicious left-wing socialist point of view out of the Vancouver Province of why this budget is bad.

What did he discover? First of all, this is a budget that is designed to fuel inflation because it benefits from inflation. This budget is designed as no other budget in the history of British Columbia has been designed to actually benefit from inflation and encourage inflation. I want to go through some comparisons before I carry on that thesis.

When we left office in 1975 the provincial share of personal income tax was 30.5 percent. Under Social Credit the personal income tax is now up to 44 percent. That's inflationary. That is taking money out of the pockets of ordinary people in this province at an accelerated rate for government purposes such as northeast coal and other projects that lead us to even further debt in our Crown corporations.

The sales tax is back up to six points. It was never at six points under the New Democratic Party. When Social Credit was first elected they raised the sales tax to seven points to say that they had to do that to clean up the problems inherited from the NDP. Then they cleaned those problems up, they said, and they reduced the sales tax to four points. Now it's back up to six points. Whose problems are they trying to clean up now? I'll tell you whose fault it is. It's Pierre Elliott Trudeau's fault. That's whose fault it is. You listen to that budget, and every single problem here in British Columbia is directly attributable to the desk of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, that Liberal mastermind down there in Ottawa who's messing up ever single one of Social Credit's plans, including the jetfoil, B.C. Place, Pier B-C, northeast coal, the moon being eclipsed by the sun, or any other reversal they want to throw in.

MR. KING: Did Pierre do that?

MR. BARRETT: Pierre did it all. We ought to be the luckiest people in the whole world to have a Prime Minister with all his power. He frazzles their imagination, Whatever the trouble is now, it's all Ottawa's fault.

Room tax is up 5 percent to 8 percent.

Cigarettes are up from 8 cents under the NDP to 34 cents. Who's the arsonist? Who's lighting all these matches?

Car licences are up from $22 under the NDP to almost $70 in some instances under the Social Credit Party.

Medicare premiums are now up from $60 for an individual and $150 per family to $102 and $255 respectively, and going up a major amount.

Gasoline tax up north. I haven't heard one northern MLA complain about the dramatic increase in the gasoline tax. The gasoline tax has gone up from 17 cents a gallon under the New Democratic Party to 24 cents a gallon under Social Credit. Furthermore, it is one of the new indexed taxes — indexing taxes to ensure that as inflation goes up the government will build in increases related to inflation without ever having to come back to this House and face accountability in those dramatically increased taxes. That's a COLA clause in taxation.

The first person to explain that to me in simple terms was the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). Last night the Minister of Municipal Affairs was on television explaining why he would not support the GVRD proposal for escalating clauses in taxes to support light rapid transit. I saw the minister myself. Being part masochist, I watched the whole two-minute interview. What did I discover? There was a minister of the Crown saying clearly to all who would be listeners that there is no way he will support any cost-of-living or increases on indexing in any taxation formula, and he went further and said: "I'd go back to growing bulbs before I support a program like that." Well, we've got a brand new returnee to bulb-growing in British Columbia today when we see how he votes on this budget. He was the one who said that the GVRD had no right to propose this kind of taxation formula; it lacks accountability; he would not support it personally. Well, we'll see whether or not he meant what he said on television, come the time for the vote for this budget.

Really, did he know what he was saying, or was this his first overt move towards a leadership bid which he so modestly said a week ago Friday that he would not make any effort to reach for unless it was offered to him or he tripped on the way to the room and it was in his hand. He said he's not going to vote for an indexed tax; he'd rather go back to growing bulbs. Do you want to know something, Mr. Speaker? We

[ Page 4659 ]

can't predict the final outcome of any member's vote, but I'll bet you that within 24 hours that minister will put the lie to his own statements and stand up for indexing taxes right in this budget. Who do they think they're trying to fool!

Let's go on to the rest of the proposals in this so-called balanced budget and pay-as-you-go. It's skin-as-you-go, Mr. Speaker — a little strip of skin off the taxpayer in B.C. and then throwing salt in the wounds, through every page of it.

For the first time, all gasoline, diesel fuel, motor fuel, aviation fuel, coloured gas and tobacco taxes are to be indexed. Now that is a fact in this budget, and it is a fact that the Minister of Municipal Affairs said that he's opposed to indexing taxes. He said so last night. Now we'll get a chance to see whether or not the minister is to be believed, when he says on television that he's opposed to it.

We know that the automatically increased taxation is built in on the hope of inflation. The only purpose of indexing taxes is the hope that inflation will indeed bring them that turn. He only gets to vote against the budget once, but seven of the budget tax increases are indexing — all of the indexing that he says he's opposed to. Again, I want to quote an editorial from that socialist morning daily, the Vancouver Province, which says: "...a tax smoke-screen." I can appreciate why the former Attorney-General didn't want to talk about the budget. Would you want to talk about the budget if you were faced with the kind of hypocrisy that budget is laden with? The best thing to do is to wrap yourself in the flag and avoid any mention at all of what's happening here at home to the ordinary homeowner or taxpayer. This is what the Vancouver Province said:

"What is worrisome, though, is the apparent intention to build in an escalating regimen to take advantage, for tax purposes, of inflated price rises. The budget achieves this by adopting percentage tax increases that will be adjusted periodically in some measures. Government revenues may therefore accelerate at rates faster than necessary to meet rising expenditures. The government should be prepared to deal with its cost problems as they arise, rather than try to build in automatic revenue increases."

Who was it that ran around this province? What was his name then — when he ran around this province and said: "Not a dime without debate"? It's the Premier of this province who made that a slogan of his campaign. For the first time in the history of B.C., and to the shame of that coalition government over there, we're going to have seven taxes indexed. It won't be a dime without a debate, it will be millions of dollars locked in without debate, under this government.

Now I want to go back to some other statements that are contradicted by this budget. Again I'm quoting from that morning newspaper — no slight against the afternoon paper. I hope that I get to some material there from some nonfeature column articles — just facts, like today's headline saying that the Premier announced a new policy in the forest industry: "You can grow, but you can't. BCRIC can, but you can't — but I don't interfere in BCRIC." We'll come to that under his estimates.

Let's take a look at this beautiful interview of December 21, 1977, four days before Christmas. Here is the Premier lecturing the people of British Columbia on how the fiscal policy of his government is going to be maintained.

"The Premier said if we could restrict borrowing for operating costs and then restrict our dependence on outside capital it would make a significant difference in the dollar deficiency. Over the long run there would be lower prices in Canada. But he wants to study the borrowing levels of the B.C. Crown corporations. There should be limits on what we can borrow. We should impose those limits."

This is what he said in 1977 about borrowing. This is another part of this budget. He says in the Vancouver Provincethat we should restrict our dependency on outside capital, yet a few weeks ago he went to Wall Street to talk to the bond borrowers and try to get $100 million more. Or was it Europe he went to, Mr. Speaker? We don't know where this government went, cap in hand, looking for money — but we know they failed in direct contradiction to what the Premier was telling the people. This year we are going to be increasing the borrowing by the Crown corporations by $1 billion. Next year we will be increasing the borrowing of the Crown corporations by an additional $1.6 billion. At the same time, the then Minister of Finance said anything over 12 percent of the GPP was runaway inflation.

Let us tie together these two statements by the Premier and the former Minister of Finance. There has been absolutely no limitation on borrowing for the Crown corporations, and the budget presented by the new Minister of Finance is about 161/2 percent ahead of the GPP in Canada. Is the former Minister of Finance going to vote for this budget contrary to his own theories? You want to bet he is, Mr. Speaker? Why do they say one thing out there, like the Minister of Municipal Affairs saying he's opposed to the indexing of taxes, and today he'll come up and stand and vote for indexing of taxes? Why would the former Minister of Finance say that the government should stop runaway inflation and not spend over 12 percent of the GPP when he'll stand up today and vote for a budget that goes up to 161/2 percent of the GPP? Why do they say these things outside and do something else in here? If school children did that they'd call them fibbers. We ask our young people to grow up and be straight and to tell the truth. It's a matter of courtesy, Mr. Speaker, to expect the truth from government, yet you wait and see.

I'm not through yet with examples of conflicting statements, mis-statements and desertions from the truth, as to their regular policies. Number one, the Minister of Municipal Affairs will vote today for indexing of taxes, something he said last night he would not do. He'd rather go back to growing bulbs instead of doing it.

Number two, the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) will stand up today and vote for a budget that is 161/2 points ahead of the GPP when he said that anything over 12 percent was runaway inflation. I ask that member through you, Mr. Speaker: is this budget, under your definition, "runaway inflation"? I ask the member to speak. I'd gladly give him the opportunity to respond. Is this budget within your definition of runaway inflation? Did you say it was Pierre's fault? No, Mr. Speaker, silence. That's two ministers.

Then we get to number three, the former minister, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), who stands up in this House and attempts to play the guardian angel of the touchstone of reality for this government. Oh, there's a little tippytoe criticism here and a little tippytoe criticism there, hoping against hope that those editorials written about this maverick will get him back in the cabinet. How many times does that member have to be kicked in the

[ Page 4660 ]

head to know that he will never be back in that cabinet? The member for North Vancouver–Seymour, who gets up and criticizes the coal deal and the budget, will also get up and vote for the budget. You wait and see.

That's three of them. If I'm wrong, Mr. Speaker, I'll buy you a steak dinner. I want to tell you that I am not the kind of guy traditionally and culturally that goes around offering to buy people steak dinners. But in this case, Mr. Speaker, I make you that offer. You wait and see how they vote regardless of what they say.

I saw that member on television talking about the budget, the coal deal and the energy problems in this province. Do you know what he said? He said the energy bill was a socialist bill brought in by the Socred government. Then a caller phoned in and said: "But you voted for it and the NDP voted against it." "Aha," he said, "that was their mistake." That's what he said, and that's the way he explained it on television.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a Rhodes Scholar.

MR. BARRETT: That's right, he's a Rhodes Scholar. Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness, he's actually one of the most tragic figures in this House. One of the most tragic figures in this House is the member for North Vancouver–Seymour. When we hear sanctimonious cant from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) saying that we shouldn't criticize the oil companies because they haven't yet been found guilty, who was it that let that minister sit for three days and let rumours spread throughout this whole province without taking any action on the basis of what ultimately led to his dismissal? It's pretty scandalous, and we hear the sanctimonious cant of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs saying we're being naughty about attacking the oil companies. Oh, that the member for North Vancouver had the same caution from the government that they're giving to the oil companies.

They're harsh statements, but they're the truth. The more the truth has begun to be said about this government, the more we can hasten its departure from office. If there was ever a government that double-talked, flim-flammed, and was full of hypocrisy and contradictory statements, there was never one to match that coalition group over there and their twisting and turning in office.

Let us examine the record of this government with debt. When the NDP left office this province was in debt $4.5 billion. Most of that debt was incurred by B.C. Rail and by B.C. Hydro. In relation to the B.C. Rail debt, a little unnoticed note, almost a footnote in history, has gone by related to some of that B.C. Rail debt. The provincial government was this year convicted in court of civil fraud — that's right, civil fraud. Contractors had sued the government over B.C. Rail contracts and they proved their case in court that the previous Social Credit government had lied to them about contracts on the B.C. Rail.

MR. BRUMMET: That's not true.

MR. BARRETT: That is not true? Would you stake your seat on the statement which I have just made? I will repeat it. The courts of British Columbia have found that B.C. Rail was guilty of civil fraud in the contracts that were let by that Crown corporation under the administration of W.A. C. Bennett. Do you contradict that statement?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) is reminded that the Leader of the Opposition has the floor, and I'd remind all members that it's a courtesy in debate to use parliamentary language.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, civil fraud is what I'm quoting. If it's not parliamentary, that's something the voters have to decide. The government — its Crown corporation — was convicted of civil fraud because of decisions made by the previous Social Credit administration in deliberately fudging contracts on the B.C. Rail. The court has ordered that $9 million in taxpayers' money must go to cover up this fraud and pay for the fraud that was perpetrated by Social Credit. That is a fact, and I challenge that member or any other government member to deny that that indeed was the finding of the court. Contractors were lied to by Social Credit. Contractors went to court and won their case, and the taxpayers have to pay $9 million because of that fraud and lying — some record for you to have around your necks, some record to be bragging about, some distortions that the courts of this province finally had to clarify. And the total debt on B.C. Rail now takes over $70 million a year out of the taxpayers' pockets because of the stupid and fraudulent policies of the Social Credit government who lied to contractors about how much was involved.

Here is the Vancouver Province from Tuesday, January 20, 1981. The headline says: "Court Defeat Stuns BCR Directors" — stuns BCR directors; it stings the B.C. taxpayer. Because of the fraud taxes are going up in this province. The case is a matter of record; there's no point in my going through it in detail at this point, but I certainly will later on. So don't let any member walk away from this House thinking that this so-called "great" Social Credit government hasn't been caught committing fraud through one of its Crown corporations.

Let's come back to the budget itself. When we left office there was a debt in this province of $4.5 billion. By December 1982 the debt under Social Credit will be up to $10.5 billion. That's an increase in debt, in six short years under the administration of W. R. Bennett and every one of those Social Credit cabinet ministers, of 135 percent — a guaranteed increase in debt for every taxpayer of 20 percent a year. This government is absolutely out of control and those Crown corporations are doing anything they want. This budget, along with the previous Social Credit budget, will increase the per capita debt to the people of British Columbia from $1,800 per person when we left office in 1975 to $3,900 per person by the end of 1982.

AN HON. MEMBER: Debt-as-you-go.

MR. BARRETT: The member has coined the best phrase I've heard yet in this debate. There's "debt- as-you-go" in this budget — debt-as-you-go, not pay-as-you-go. I will go further. I will publicly put my seat at stake to the Premier of this province if my figures are incorrect. I challenge him: if my figures are correct, let him have the decency to call an election and put an end to this madness of Crown corporations saddling us with debt in every corner of the province. We are swimming, gasping and trying to hang on through a quagmire of debt that has no public explanation. The Crown

[ Page 4661 ]

corporations have not been compelled to come to the Crown corporations committee. Requests to get information by our members at those committees have been denied. Accessibility to information concerning B.C. Rail or the B.C. Systems Corporation has from time to time been stifled through that committee. The debt load under Social Credit will have gone from $1,800 per person to $3,900 per person — every single person in the province of British Columbia — by December 31, 1982.

I saw a front-page quote from the Minister of Finance saying: "Well, the NDP and the Vancouver Sun don't understand the difference between borrowing for operating costs and borrowing for capital costs." Having read that, I say to the absent Minister of Finance: name one time in the last 25 years in the province of British Columbia when any government, Social Credit or NDP, borrowed any money for operating. The closest a government in the province of British Columbia came to having to borrow money for operating costs was when W.A.C. Bennett's administration seized B.C. Electric. He didn't nationalize or expropriate it. He seized it by bringing a bill into this House seizing private property that those free enterprisers always say they defend. The bungling of that seizure cost the taxpayers of this province tens of millions of dollars to clean up that mess, and at one point we were very close to having to go out and borrow money for operating. But we survived that crisis, and no government in this province in the last 25 years has borrowed a ten cent piece for operating. All of the borrowing has been for capital purposes. It is absolute nonsense when the Minister of Finance is trying to dismiss the front-page story in the Vancouver Sun by saying that we don't know the difference between operating or capital borrowing.

I don't think that we need to belabour the point too much, but the fact is that every single member of the government that votes for this budget is going to be voting for a huge increase in the debt and the borrowing powers of those Crown corporations. Who is going to supervise that money? For the last two weeks we've asked questions in this House about the accountability of the B.C. Rail proposal to build two tunnels through Tumbler Ridge. We haven't had any answers of any consequence to this great northeast coal mystery. The fact is that almost a billion dollars will be borrowed to put into that project. That borrowing will be hidden in some areas and in other areas the expenditures will come out of the operating budgets of other departments that had been depending upon general revenue.

On top of that, the government has also shifted ferry costs, computers and public works out of the budgets and into Crown corporations, so that by second-hand methods they are borrowing money for operating. By moving Crown corporations out of traditional pay-as-you-go expenditures, they have been the first government in 25 years in this province to use a ruse and guile to borrow money for operating costs. The computer and ferry services were sold, and we're buying them back. The public works.... All were moved out of the budget by this government in an attempt to hide the fact that by that device they're actually borrowing money for operating costs for the first time in 25 years. It was that government, Mr. Speaker.

I won't even touch upon the special funds because I've only got five minutes left. The fact is that they have moved those general operating services out of general revenue into Crown corporations and have been borrowing money for operating costs and piling up debt after debt because of mismanagement, and they piously say that it's different.

I expect that the Premier will be voting against this budget. He's the one who said there should be some limit put on the borrowing. He said so in that interview. Mr. Speaker, I'll pass over the giving away of coal resources under the royalties and the coal licences. It was raised and they were warned about it by the former member for North Vancouver Capilano, who stood in this House and said that those coal licences were being given away. We were given a promise by the Premier. He said that his government would have a whole new look at policy and nothing would happen. That is another mis-statement of fact, Mr. Speaker. Nothing was done and those coal licences were given away. The coal royalty losses alone, as pointed out in a most conservative estimate by the member from Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), are $102 million since 1975.

Mr. Speaker, we lost the natural gas export profits between 1976 and 1979 because we sold gas at an underpriced level into the U.S. market. We're told by the Minister of Mines, Energy and Petroleum Resources (hon. Mr. McClelland) that there is a mining boom in British Columbia. That's right. He said so. But listen to this, my colleagues. While we have a mining boom, this is what this budget proposes to do: mining tax revenue, cut $8 million: mineral land tax, cut $500,000; coal and mineral royalty revenue, cut $800,000; oil and gas fees and permit revenues, cut $100 million. That's a gift to the oil companies. That's what it is — hand-in-hand with the Premier of Alberta. fighting the good fight on behalf of the oil companies to ensure that they maintain vast profits. Forest taxes and royalty revenues are cut $65 million. The total natural resource revenue taxation, Mr. Speaker, is down 57 percent — down 57 percent on the corporations and on resources. But to make up for it the taxpayers of British Columbia have had an increase in income tax. sales tax, services tax, indexed to a 37 percent increase, Mr. Speaker, while there is a reduction of 57 percent on the resource area.

People taxes. This is my last point, because I want to be brief, but, Mr. Speaker. before this budget under Social Credit the per capita taxes in British Columbia were $1,091 last year. After this budget today, the per-capita taxes are going up from $1,091 to $1,492 — $400 per capita increase in taxes in one year to the ordinary citizen. In winding up, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that the natural resource revenues last year brought in $443 per capita, but that has been reduced to $254 per capita. The taxpayers of this province are being asked through their taxes to subsidize the loss in revenue in what is supposed to be a booming economy based on resources.

I had so much more to talk about — the problems of housing, health facilities, secondary employment, those great boondoggles that are the monuments that Social Credit is building — but I don't have the time. Mr. Speaker, in winding up let me tell you that before I even get a chance to talk about BCRIC in detail, my last question is to the Minister of Finance. Will the Minister of Finance tell this House whether or not we'll ever vet the $20 million of taxpayers' money back that was used to float BCRIC? Will we get back that money that was taken out of the pockets of taxpayers and was used to float BCRIC? Will you be sending a bill to BCRIC for that money?

Mr. Speaker, I had intended to answer the former Attorney-General's constitutional debate in detail; however, I've been blocked by time, and I will address myself to his facetious arguments and impacted statements and other traditional words that have been brought into the lexicon of high

[ Page 4662 ]

level of debate in this province later. Let me conclude by guessing again. The formula of the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) will be violated today. Will he vote for the budget?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: The formula of the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) on indexing taxes will be broken today. Will he vote for the budget?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: The Premier's formula on borrowing will be broken, Mr. Speaker. Will he vote for the budget?

And last but not least, Mr. Speaker, will the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), whose formula will also be broken, as expounded in this budget, vote for it? Let us see if they will vote as they speak, or is it just sheer politics? Mr. Speaker, for your information, I'm voting against this hypocritical, debt-as-you-go budget.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I take my place in this debate with great satisfaction and pleasure. But I do so with the deepest regret after having heard the Leader of the Opposition regale and insult to a degree that I didn't think possible an hon. member in this House. The hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour is a gentleman of the highest calibre, a man of honour. He will never stop the proverbial needling to create dissatisfaction and dissension, no matter what the cost. He knows very well that a judge carefully said the man did no wrong. Yet on a technicality in British justice he had to be treated as he was, when he did only what members of business concerns always do when they can take their trips one way or another, either in cash or by car or whatever. Large corporations in other jurisdictions do the same thing, but a technicality of British justice called for judgment and it was given.

To think that the Leader of the Opposition would suggest that the Premier maliciously charged that member in this House.... I think it reduced the stature of the Leader of the Opposition, and it reduces the element of this debate to a disgusting extreme. I tell you today that I am honoured to consider that member my friend. He's a friend of every member in the House. He has never served a purpose greater than he serves today. He is a man of deep intelligence, impeccable character and honour. He is serving the caucus as I've never seen it served before. To think that the Leader of the Opposition would use this floor to regale and insult an hon. member is beneath the judgment of this debate. I say he should forever hang his head in shame. I say it sincerely.

He said: "Will the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) take the challenge that this government is not in debt to the tune of $3,000 per person. Would he take that challenge? Would he give up his seat if it's true?" I'll take the challenge. I'll give up my seat if it's true. I tell him that distinctly. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) smiles. He's so smart and so clever; they're so intelligent, so all-knowing and so supreme. Well, I take the challenge.

On the small technicality of direct debt or indirect debt — whatever you wish to call it — they're riding on the slim thread of possibility. There's no debt in the province of British Columbia except for the $261 million that that government left us in debt. That is all. It will be paid off in ten years' time at 10 percent a year. The bill is before the House today.

Let me carefully tell this House when it happened. How many times have I said it before? But I must say it again. During the days of the W.A.C. Bennett government school boards, hospitals and municipalities were finding it difficult to borrow money because of high interest rates and the lack of a credit rating. Some municipalities were unable to borrow at all, while some had better rates than the other. The government of that day saw fit and proper to guarantee the bonds of the municipalities, hospitals and schools, and in that way got them a lower and constant rate of interest. At the present time we have triple-A rating. Does this party over here find any fault with that? Would they prefer that we got off that thing and shot up the cost of bonds and the cost of borrowing? Would they prefer that? Would they prefer that Hydro borrow at a higher rate, and our schools borrow at a price they could not afford? Do they not understand that it would almost stop the construction of schools and hospitals? Yet they sit there with complete disregard. That's the reason we have this contingent liability — not an indirect debt.

Let's discuss Hydro. Sanctimoniously — and I use the word advisedly — they say that Hydro is always borrowing. Well, they have to borrow for the construction which is necessary for the power required to run this province — the industry and the jobs.

If we had decided to get rid of Hydro, it would be a very simple matter for Hydro to be sold. Let us go to Detroit Edison and say to them: "Hydro's for sale. We'll sell it to you." Well, we could sell Hydro. They'd be lining up to buy Hydro and would probably pay over $10 billion over the debt we owe — maybe $20 billion. I don't know the figures, but the assets are there. We could run the province for the next five or six years without a cent of taxes. Is that what these great businessmen want?

It is essential to understand the facts and necessities of life. The proper operation of the business of this province is that the government of British Columbia guarantees the debt of Hydro, of schools, of municipalities, and of their bonds, for the sole purpose of getting them a better rate of interest. Would these great businessmen over there say that is not good business? Would they do it differently during their term of office? Listen to this. During their term of office Hydro borrowed over $1.3 billion, probably the greatest borrowing in any three years that Hydro has been in debt. That wasn't their fault, because that's the way it came up.

When Hydro needs more money Hydro will borrow. I'm going to say this a little cautiously. I have a feeling that the day Hydro stops borrowing this province is in trouble, because that means the province has stopped growing. These power generators are necessary for industry. The only reason we have power today is because Hydro borrowed. Hydro is a child of the government. Certainly it is. It must be that. It's too big to be any private organization. The Americans have their private corporations, but here we have it for the benefit of the people of British Columbia. Where else can you find a postage-stamp rate for power for people in the Peace with the same price for power as in Vancouver. I tell you, it's a great day for this country....

I hope the Leader of the Opposition will take my challenge and put his seat on the line. I challenge him now that I'll put my seat on the line in saying that there is no debt in the province of British Columbia. There's none whatever. I know what he's going to say — that we're hiding behind a tech-

[ Page 4663 ]

nicality. There's no technicality when they talk about finance. I don't pretend to be as smart as many hon. members of this House, but I'm certainly equal to the Leader of the Opposition.

I heard, with some concern, the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) speak of racial discrimination in this House today and it bothered me a little. I know it must be a concern to everyone here. Racial discrimination is one of the terrible things of society, but I have an optimistic view of it. I see it much better than it was ten years ago and many times better than it was 40 years ago. Looking back on history, I see it is the best it's ever been. Yes, racial discrimination raises its ugly head, and I'm glad to hear members bring out issues that come up so they can be stepped on quickly. I know that the white race sort of considers itself in a position of superiority, but I tell the hon. member for Vancouver Centre: fear not, worry not. As I said before, the white race is doomed anyway. Three-quarters of the world is either yellow or black, and the few white people left are eventually going to be gone. Have patience — in another 100 years there'll be none of us left. The only ones will be in the museums. The question of racial discrimination is one of the sad things in our society. I don't think we'll ever get rid of it, because it's the individual person. It's nice to hear it brought up, but let's not put too much importance on it. I respect his point of view in bringing it to the attention of this House.

It was interesting to me when the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) brought up the question again of Buttle Lake and Western Mines. I remember one night in this House when the matter of Western Mines was debated extensively, and I recall that the Leader of the Opposition of that day, Mr. Strachan, had a bottle of water from Buttle Lake here which sat on his desk. He told us that that polluted water came from Buttle Lake, and we looked at it and said: "Isn't that awful." The next day, after investigation, we found out that this certain lake in the Buttle Lake area is always polluted like that. It has that milky colour to it.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: That's true. It was always that way, and if you want to find out you find it out from the biology station at Nanaimo. I went to the trouble to phone them the following day, and the next day I was in the debate. They said to me: "Oh, yes, that murky water comes from" — they gave the name of the lake at the time, I can't remember it now — "and that's always that way." They pointed out at that time that the tailings that are put into Buttle Lake are returning to the ground exactly the same stuff that was taken out elsewhere. There's no difference. The biology station from Nanaimo also told me, much to my surprise — and you can find this out — that they had a sample of this water that is the tailings from the mine and they put fish in it, and they said when they put the fish in that water the fish got friskier and seemed to enjoy the water more than the regular water of the lake. I'm just telling you what they told me.

When it comes to environment and to looking after the environment, this government has done more for the environment and the control of pollution than any other jurisdiction in Canada. Certainly it couldn't have been done quicker or faster. The Pollution Control Act of 1967 or 1968 was such that it seemed at that time impossible to accomplish what it set out to do. But today we see the results: not one sewer outlet of any major size in the Fraser River and no homes can be built except where the land will percolate. All these things are developing: fly ash is practically nonexistent and power is being developed from wood chips.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Pollution in the environment is a major concern of this government and always has been. I heard hardly anything about it during the three years of the NDP government. No change happened; they left things as they were — thank goodness. The only thing that happened in those three years was more debt. Let us not concern ourselves with little issues. The important issues are the things we have to deal with in this House, and that is happening today.

Speaking on the budget, the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) got my attention in his speech. The NDP would stop everything. I want to refer to a debate some years ago in this House when the W.A.C. Bennett government came forward with the two-river policy. The two-river policy was the Peace and the Columbia. You have no idea of the howl that went up from these benches. It was too soon; there was no need of that power. We didn't need it till 1984. I have something here on it if I can find it. Mr. Strachan was the Leader of the Opposition then.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: No relation — I'm glad to hear it. He's a nice man; there was nothing wrong with him. He was the instigator of ICBC — the $25-a-year insurance man. That's the financial wizardry of the NDP. This $25-a-year insurance never came out of the air. It came from somewhere particularly. The provincial government insures its own vehicles, and at that time it was found that the cost of insurance for those vehicles was $25 a year, for this reason: they were only used eight or nine hours a day — sometimes not that — and so they had self-insurance. So Mr. Strachan said: "Everybody will get the same deal." But he forgot that the cars on the highway drive differently and have different drivers. That's a different story, but that's the financial wizardry of this party over here. Let's just remember that and not make any issue of it. They just do not understand financial matters. They've proved that during their three years in government.

Now this is a statement from Mr. Strachan regarding the Peace River: "The Social Credit government is obsessed with dam building and disposal of our primary natural resources at any cost, providing it pays political dividends. Expediency was the sole reason for the Peace River development — a monument to the party." You're hearing that all over again. They were talking about monuments then. "The Leader of the Opposition is very fond of travelling around occasionally in his pin-stripe suit as if he was the first to do it."

But he was not the first: Mr. Strachan was doing it a long time ago. Mr. Strachan was talking to the Bond Dealers Association at their monthly luncheon on this Thursday last. It's interesting that when he was talking to them he made certain statements — almost a repeat of what the Leader of the Opposition is doing here today. We are hearing now that this Leader of the Opposition has a brand new role to play talking to the bond dealers, the businessmen and the chamber of commerce. Mr. Strachan was doing that then as a standard procedure. A pin-stripe suit is not a new phenomenon. It's worn by....

[ Page 4664 ]

MR. LEGGATT: By the Speaker himself.

MR. MUSSALLEM: The Speaker himself has a pinstripe suit.

Mr. Strachan continued. His party favoured the development of one power source — Columbia or Peace — at the time, since there was no market available in B.C. or in the United States for that power. If we had waited till they had said go, where would be we today? The lowest-priced power we have is the Columbia, and had we not developed the Columbia at that time, it would have been impossible to develop it today, Mr. Speaker. I could go on with this.

Northeast coal. They tell us now that it's too soon for northeast coal, far too soon. They say to wait for a while. We're too soon for northeast coal the same way they said we were too soon for the two-river policy. When would you have northeast coal? When would you develop this coal? When would you put in this infrastructure? When? According to your deal, never. But this government is going ahead with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're going to give it away.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Even at this late date — a session ago — Mr. Barrett in his speech here in the Legislative Assembly said: "The previous administration felt that their government needed to do something spectacular, and so they got involved in the two-river policy." I want to ask you: where would we be today if we had never had the two-river policy?

AN HON. MEMBER: In the dark.

MR. MUSSALLEM: In the dark; that's the answer.

Mr. Speaker, this budget is a great budget. The hon. Leader of the Opposition says that it will create inflation. It's the most uninflationary budget that could be imagined. It simply supplies the needs of British Columbians; it supplies our needs for a progressing economy. The budget maintains the fiscal integrity of the government's finances; it sustains a public service of the highest quality; and it ensures that efficiencies are achieved in the delivery of programs. The budget provides additional funding for certain high-priority areas, and it is not a tax on future generations. If we dealt in the fancy theories of the opposition, we would be borrowing money and deficit-financing. We would have a limited budget and borrow money for the future and tax future generations, but we will not do that.

For example, in what is an election budget today, Quebec has budgeted for a deficit of $3 billion. If we would do the same pro rata as Quebec, we would be budgeting for a deficit of $1 billion. Can you imagine the horror that would overcome this province? Could you imagine how the province would begin to recede, and how employment would diminish? That is what your opposition would have us do, by implication.

The government and the Minister of Finance had three options: cut progress, raise taxes or go into debt. Going into debt is absolutely unthinkable. Employment is high in British Columbia and continues to be higher. We always hear the consistent story: "Why are you giving away your natural resources?" We're not giving them away; they'll be sold at high prices. But we are developing industries that are possible in our area. At the present time in British Columbia we are developing, through the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications, high-technology industries. We're encouraging them to come here into parks, and they're coming.

I am delighted to tell you that we have areas where this is happening right now. In my constituency of Dewdney, we have the Pitt Meadows airport — the busiest airport in Canada bar none. But the runways are not long enough, and we're hoping to get a study. I'm hoping to ask the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) if he'll allocate money for a study to prove to the federal government that the runways in that airport should be extended to 5,000 feet. Then we could bring in small-business jets, and the new industrial areas of Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge could move into the high-technology industry. These industries need to be situated near airports. I'm hoping that I will be able to get him to develop a study to prove the necessity of increasing the runways. At one time Boundary Bay was mooted as such an airport. That apparently has gone by the board, as it's too close to Vancouver. I do think that Pitt Meadows will be an ideal site, and I do hope that the minister will give me that consideration and assist with the study.

Do you recall, hon. members, the trauma of Ocean Falls? Do you recall how our government decided they had to be shut down? Do you recall 1972 when we were defeated? You will recall that when the NDP came back in tears were falling all over the place for the poor people of Ocean Falls who had to leave their homes. That was a sad thing, I agree. But Ocean Falls became impractical and a little impossible, and it had to go. So they went back into Ocean Falls with arms flailing wildly, saying, "It will never stop while we're here," but they forgot that to run a mill you need wood, and there was no wood. They were defeated in 1975 when the facts came out. There was no wood to run Ocean Falls. In the same way they went flying into Squamish to build railway cars. There was no steel and no need for the cars and the cars cost many times more than what you could buy them for. That's the kind of economics that kills employment and the enthusiasm of the people. There's nothing worse than working at a job when you know that it's costing the government, the people and your neighbours money.

What about Ocean Falls today? By dint of a very marvellous person, Mr. Ray Williston, a former minister of this House, we found out that it's possible to develop a new kind of board to be part of the plywood industry. It's called oriented fibreboard. That will be the answer to Ocean Falls: low-grade wood making the equivalent of plywood. That's what I call inventive ability and making things work, and that's what this government stands for and always has.

Another little thing yesterday was one of the most heartwarming incidents I've had sitting in this House. I was invited by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) to go and see a little operation just a few blocks away. Everyone here should go to see it. It's called Individual Opportunity Plan — the British Columbia way. Mr. Speaker, if you want your heart warmed, if you want to see people in action, if you want to see bright young faces looking to the future instead of depression, if you want to see people finding something they can do, Individual Opportunity Plan, an idea of the Minister of Human Resources, is working today. It's also working in Surrey. I've asked the minister to see if it can be done in Maple Ridge and other places where there is a high incidence of Human Resources people.

The minister's own note in this folder says: "The opportunity plan is a way out of a life of income assistance. It is a commitment by each individual to work towards independence. It is also a commitment by our government to help you to a more productive and enjoyable life." Signed, Grace McCarthy. I think that's a tremendous statement.

[ Page 4665 ]

I was there yesterday. I saw these bright young people — not hundreds of them, but a few, because it's the sort of thing where you do a few at a time. There were maybe 15 there. They were not being trained to do a job, but being trained how to find a job. We looked at the record of some of them. Some have not only found jobs but they've created new jobs. These young people have been on welfare most of their lives — third generation.

Mr. Speaker, that was one thing that made my day. I didn't think it was possible to see that. It's what this government stands for: initiative, making people creative — not expecting the government to help. What did the opposition do? That's part of the budget. This budget says we want initiative and we have initiative. What did they do? They shovelled money out of a truck. Everybody had a job at the public's expense. The Finance critic, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), stood up and said: "Instead of spending all this money trying to do something, why not give everybody $3,000?" Well, that's the negative way of doing things. Will they ever learn the principle of enterprise, personal effort, doing something for oneself and standing, with friends or alone, and succeeding? That's the only thing that works. It's a process of nature. The socialist system defies nature. That's why it never works. Wherever socialism is in operation in the world, that country has gone down to defeat — every single one; there is no exception. Even Britain was brought to its knees. Will it ever rise again? I'm not sure.

MR. LEGGATT: How about West Germany? How about Denmark?

MR. MUSSALLEM: West Germany is not a socialist country. They call themselves democratic socialists, but you don't go by name. I don't call them communists, for example. I wouldn't do that. They're not socialists. They're very much akin, mind you. I'd be careful of that word. It reminds me of something that Mr. Khrushchev said when he was travelling in the United States. He was asked: "Do you have socialists in your country?" He replied: "Oh, no. We don't have any socialists in Russia. Socialists are gutless communists." Those are his own words. I don't say that; I don't use those terms at all, but just mention it.

MR LEGGATT: What would that make a fascist, George?

MR. MUSSALLEM: These terms mean very little. You can call it socialism, you can call it communism, you can call it democracy — the principle is that private enterprise....

Where our systems lose out is when the initiative of people is lost when you defy the principle of nature. Nature itself is aggressive. We defy the principle of nature and say that everybody has to be treated absolutely equally; everybody will get the same; nobody need worry, as they'll all be fed by somebody. It's got to die, That's why socialism collapses. If the Lord had wanted to create everything perfectly he'd have made the world a round ball with no mountains. But the socialists want to press down the mountains and raise up the valleys — everything nice and even.

One of the sad things that we have to face today is the Trudeau-Broadbent unholy alliance. If there's any sadness in this House, that's where the sadness must be. That Leader of the Opposition speaks so highly of that alliance. Where will the members for B.C. be when the vote is taken? Will they be courageous like the members of that same party in Saskatchewan? That unholy alliance.... Today I'm sorry that as time goes on and the constitution is repatriated, which I presume it will be, we will be the poorer for railroading by a government unthinkable, unthinking, unfair and unjust, a government that has practically forgotten that there's a Canada in the west, a government that is central and is more dangerous to the unity of this country than the ancient Family Compact ever was, a government that will have destroyed the unity of this country by the very act of pretending to create its unity by taking for itself power that enabled it to put the iron heel of central government on the western provinces forever. That is the sad day that we face with this government. The unholy Trudeau-Broadbent alliance has cost us dearly. Surely the people of Canada will understand. Surely they will hear us. Surely somewhere the song will be heard.

Here the four western provinces have to accept, because we are loyal to the Crown and to the great Canada, a position that may take 100 years to overcome — a position of subservience to central Canada, because that's all it means. It may take 100 years, but I tell you that I'm not a separatist. I will never join separatism. I'd sooner suffer. We have suffered for the past 100 years to some extent, more or less. We could tolerate it when we were small but now the west is growing up. The time has come when we should be able to flex the muscles of the west to create a greater Canada. But no, we cannot flex the muscles. We must stamp the iron heel of central government in the face of our whole nation — the eastern seaboard and the west. The very terms that they bring forth for the constitution will be the terms that create the full power of the central government on all of Canada. If they do what they've done in the past, it will be done for the benefit of central Canada and not for the benefit of all Canadians. That's the only fault we have. none other.

I have the pleasure of suggesting to you now that all the matters that have been brought up in this debate have been, in one way or another, attempting to suggest that the government is all wrong in the budget. The government cannot be all wrong in the budget, because the government's budget is a proper fiscal budget. It is a free, private enterprise budget. It is not a socialistic budget. It is not a dead budget.

MR. LEGGATT: It's a socialist budget; it's a big spending budget.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Yes, it is a big-spending budget for one reason only. The main reason that this is a spending budget is because B.C. is growing. There was a time, five years ago, when there was no time for this kind of thing at all; we had to hold back the string. Now is the time to open the power that's within the province. The inherent power of B.C. must proceed, and it will with money, planning and a future ahead of us. Socialism would have us stand back — wait, do not develop northeast coal.

I remember Kaiser Coal. They said to us that it was a terrible disaster. Everybody would lose money in Kaiser Coal. The people would lose and the country would be polluted. It would dig great holes out of the land and it would be a disaster area. Now what have we got today? Go up to Kaiser Coal and see how they've dug the mine and refilled the open-pit mine and planted grass on it that the cows, the goats and the chickens are eating. Isn't that something? Yet these people would have returned the rocky, useless land to agricultural land. If these people had their way, there would have

[ Page 4666 ]

been no Kaiser Coal. They talked about pollution. Today they're so proud of Kaiser Coal. Unless you have the enthusiasm and the idea of developing something, they don't develop it.

They were asked in this debate: "What have you developed?" The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) was speaking at the time. He was asked what his government had done. He stood there as if in shock and said: "We started the air ambulance system." Well, Mr. Speaker, I wish he had thought of something else, but he couldn't because there was nothing else. They didn't start it at all; it was started by this government about three years ago — not by them at all. These are the things that bother you a little bit.

I'm delighted to have the privilege to speak in this debate bringing to your attention the policies of this government and the issues brought forward by the Minister of Finance by the desire to create a going, strong, forward-moving economy that is creating jobs for the people in this province. We are having the lowest unemployment today that we have had for many years. There would be no unemployment if we had enough skills. The only reason we haven't got full employment is because the people who are unemployed are without skills. There are jobs for everybody. British Columbia has got a brighter and greater future only because this government has the strength, imagination and courage to do things that have not been done before.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to participate in this debate. I'm only sorry there are so few members of the opposition here, but certainly that isn't too unusual. I guess five is perhaps not a bad number compared to what we normally see across the way.

I'm sure that a lot of people here must certainly have been wondering what the NDP strategy really is as it applies to all programs, projects and proposals, but particularly as it is applicable to the budget discussion. We've been waiting to hear from the NDP as to what they would see government do for British Columbia, or how they might do it differently. I think I've just figured out the NDP strategy this afternoon, and I'm sorry it took so long. I realize now that their approach is that if you don't do anything or say anything worthwhile and don't offer any alternatives, perhaps then the public won't really have anything to criticize you for. I think possibly the public is going to catch on. Really, you can't fool them all the time. They're possibly becoming more and more aware that during all these last number of days we've heard nothing from the opposition as to what they might propose with respect to the needs for the people of British Columbia in the year ahead.

This afternoon we heard speeches from various members there, and the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) certainly went on and on and said nothing other than: "Bob Williams is such a wonderful guy; it's too bad he isn't here. Bob Williams can do all things." Bob Williams is no longer here, and he'll possibly not return because he got a very fine pension plan to stay where he is.

The second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) went on to talk about racism, which he went on and on about, which I thought was most unfortunate. He somehow related this to the budget by saying that during tough times there is a greater amount of racial discrimination. Somehow he considers what's happening in British Columbia this year, or now, as tough times. I'd like to again remind the member that when you compare today with what it was in 1975 and just before, we're living in wonderful times. There's prosperity and progress in every part of this province. We do not have the 10 percent unemployment that existed then. We don't have the industry leaving and the builders moving to other provinces or across the line in great numbers to do their thing there as opposed to British Columbia. We do live in good times. I only wish the members from the opposition would offer some alternatives with respect to the budget instead of bringing up these non-related issues. Perhaps the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) came closest to it. He suggested there ought to be a greater effort in taxing natural resources. His solution was to sock it to the people who are helping to build the province and to create all the jobs.

We can look back to just before 1975 and remember that there was no more mining left; forestry was going down, and industries weren't establishing themselves in British Columbia. If you tax industry to the point where they see no benefits or results from their efforts, they are simply not going to produce in British Columbia. They'll do it elsewhere, and in the process, we lose tens of thousands of jobs.

Mention was made about young people, that in fact we should provide more moneys in the budget for youth employment programs — that was possibly one of the suggestions directly related to the budgets. It is, of course, directed at the approach developed for this coming year with respect to that program, where the government is really saying to private enterprise: "We'll help you employ people. You provide the training so they can go on to good and lasting jobs in years ahead." The NDP or the socialist solution is that government should somehow provide make-work programs in order to assist the young people. By and large, the young people in British Columbia would much prefer to be a part of a learning process and do it for themselves, as opposed to getting some sort of government handout.

This is a responsible budget. It allows us to carry on with the many wonderful programs that the people of British Columbia enjoy. Certainly it's recognized by all that two thirds of the total budget is taken up by the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Human Resources and the Ministry of Education. There haven't been any proposals from the opposition as to how some of those programs might be cut back or whether in fact they would recommend they be cut back. Well, the position of the government now is that we not only want to carry forth those programs but also to continue to improve upon them. A good example of a program that I'm extremely proud of, which is the responsibility of the Minister of Human Resources, is the infant development program. It is one of a great many wonderful programs in the Ministry of Human Resources which have not only been encouraged by this government but have been expanded by this government and are proposed to be expanded in many other areas of British Columbia. The infant development program is assisting infants and families and making it possible for people to cope with some very, very difficult problems.

We want to carry forth with an ambitious health program. I'm very pleased that in my own constituency of Surrey there is now a greater building program for hospitals than we've seen for perhaps the last dozen years. It's an expanding program. Contrary to some remarks made by the opposition, the people of Surrey recognize that the health programs are steadily being improved upon and that we do have a building program with respect to hospitals such as we've not previously seen.

[ Page 4667 ]

The government does not want to deficit-finance. To deficit-finance is to further burden the young people in future years. If we can pay now for the things we want today as opposed to leaving a debt for young people, then I think that's a commendable course that people throughout British Columbia would support.

The NDP came to power in 1973. They had a $500 million surplus which they inherited. In 1973 $500 million was possibly like a billion dollars today. They came in with that amount of money available to them as a surplus to develop programs provided by government. What happened? In only three years they not only blew the $500 million but they also left a further debt of $261 million. Mr. Speaker, we don't want deficit financing, because if we ever get caught in that trap, as the federal government has, then we'll be paying a whole lot of taxes just to keep up with the interest going to the bankers in New York or some other place. We pay as we go. We act responsibly. We budget responsibly. That's a whole lot more than we can say for what the socialists did when they were in power. The budget recognizes the plight of the low-income earner and small businesses and makes special provisions for this.

I want to briefly touch again on this idea that the opposition put forth with respect to placing further taxes on the producers, on the resources. As I mentioned already, when they took that tack back in 1973, 1974 and 1975 industry left British Columbia. While maintaining that more revenues ought to be obtained from resources, let us remind everyone that in 1974 the Leader of the Opposition went to Ottawa and said to Mr. Trudeau: "You take all the resource revenues from gas and oil in British Columbia and we'll agree, as long as you nationalize all of those industries." Obviously that's still their position.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The opposition leader, Dave Barrett, said that very thing. There is certainly a contradiction there. On the one hand they say: "Take more;" on the other hand, they're agreeing to give it to Ottawa. Certainly everyone in British Columbia ought to be totally aware that the NDP in British Columbia are in bed — as are the federal NDP — with Trudeau and a Trudeau government in Ottawa. I for one don't trust one socialist in bed, let alone two. But that's a contradiction if ever there was one. They wish to give all those resource revenues away. If they ever had the opportunity of turning over all those resource revenues to Ottawa, where would they get the revenues to provide all those good social programs which we introduced and they must carry on?

Once more, if you compare the record of programs, of benefits to people for the last five years as opposed to those three socialist years, there's simply no comparison at all. Yesterday the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) came up with only two examples of programs which had been introduced by the socialists during those three years. He mentioned ICBC, I believe, and he mentioned Pharmacare, but he failed to mention that the Pharmacare program has been tremendously improved upon since by this government. Once more, compare the records; there's certainly a message there.

The budget certainly recommends or provides that moneys be invested in various development enterprises. Over the last number of days there's once again been some criticism from the opposition about northeast coal. But, as was mentioned by one of my colleagues here, they felt similarly towards southeast coal, and it would appear they would certainly feel similarly towards any major industry establishing anywhere in British Columbia, if their record holds true. I've been to the southeast sector; I travelled with my colleague the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty). It's certainly very evident there that the people are employed, they're making good salaries, the area is progressing and there's tremendous opportunity. Similarly so in the northeast. There will be a further boom. There will be thousands of jobs provided in the northeast. We're investing a little bit of money, but we're investing in the future of British Columbia, knowing that there will be security for the young people who might be looking for employment a few years or five years down the road. If government today simply sits back and doesn't take a responsible position in assuring that those jobs are available, then what will our young people do and where will the government of that day obtain its taxes if everyone is unemployed?

The NDP solution during 1973, 1974 and 1975 was creating not employment but more welfare: pay people for not working, provide them with welfare. They had the greatest welfare record in the whole of Canada. They shovelled it out, they gave it away, they asked no questions. Anyone could come in and make application; there was nothing to it. You received a cheque at the drop of a hat. Simple as that. They had a record of welfare. Well, the people of British Columbia would much prefer a record of opportunity as opposed to welfare. That's the difference between this side and that side of the House. Here the people are wanting to build. Social Credit wants to build; it's a builder. NDP drags it down, tears it away; they are coasters. Instead they provide welfare.

We have some other examples of where the government followed a similar approach to what is now proposed for the northeast sector: some investment for tremendous returns over a number of years in the future and the creation of thousands of jobs. We certainly put a few dollars into Whistler. Something like $9 million was invested in the development of Whistler, because someone then had the foresight to recognize that this could be a destination resort which would assist tourism tremendously. Nine million dollars went into Whistler, and now the projections are that over the next number of years a total of $342 million will be invested by private enterprise, creating 11,000 man-years of work in the building of Whistler. They don't believe in that; they don't support this sort of approach. Again, they would prefer the welfare approach, as opposed to the building approach. Whistler is a prime example of where government can take the lead and make it happen, where we can attract private enterprise to come in and help build this province and in the process provide thousands of jobs for young people and for people who are looking for a future in British Columbia.

A similar example is New Westminster, where once more the government took the lead. The Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development took the bull by the horns and said, "We're going to make it happen. This is going to be a vibrant community," despite the many remarks that were made by the NDP MLA from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who probably would have seen the place go downhill further to the point where there wouldn't be a business left. No, this Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) said: "We're going to change all of that. We're

[ Page 4668 ]

going to take the lead, invest possibly just a little bit of money and make that community come alive." Now there's a building program in New Westminster second to none. It will be a tremendously vibrant community, once again providing the opportunity for thousands of jobs.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) said a moment ago: "Socialism isn't so bad. Look what happens to western Europe." Well, Mr. Speaker, there's still an awful lot of people in western Europe that would love to come to Canada, but there are very few western Europeans moving back to western Europe. They see the opportunities in British Columbia, and they don't want for British Columbia what they had in western Europe.

I recently had the pleasure of paying a short visit to Holland, where too they had a taste of socialism. I'm rather embarrassed about that, because certainly the people of Holland had a reputation over the centuries of being a people who were fighters. They fought the sea. They were a small country. They had to make it happen themselves through hard work, by simply tackling the problem and getting things done. That's the reputation the people of Holland had. They were doers. They were builders. I'm very much ashamed that at least for a period of history they fell into the socialistic trap. A number of people, especially in the bigger cities, thought that because they had socialism they could now get away with not working and instead somehow receive grants from government and possibly become a part of some welfare program and receive a bit of a pension indirectly through whatever benefits government could provide.

There too they were taxing their natural resources — namely, the gas in the ground in a province in northern Holland. Now they find that the gas is beginning to run out, and possibly all those revenues may no longer be available. They've got horrendous problems. Fortunately a year ago the Dutch kicked out the socialists. Now they're turning back and hopefully the Dutch, through a variety of ways, will become very productive again, and they'll not have to return to socialism once more.

To the member for Coquitlam-Moody: do not hold forth socialism as an example because you say it worked in western Europe. I can assure you there are tens and hundreds of thousands of western Europeans that would love to come to British Columbia, because they recognize that this is where the opportunity is. They don't want socialism here either.

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly proud of the provisions in this budget, especially for that opportunity I mentioned. It recognizes that we mustn't provide only for today, but as a responsible government we have to give consideration as well to the young people that will be coming into the workforce over the next three or four or five years. This government has a record of assuring that the job opportunities are available, which is why we in British Columbia now have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the whole of Canada.

British Columbia is a wonderful province. I feel very positive about British Columbia and its future. I'm sure the people of British Columbia will not only support the budget but the government, and will continue to support it, because this is where progress lies.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, before addressing the question of the budget, I know members presently on the floor might be interested in some of the early returns from the Ontario provincial election. I'm advised that the Conservatives, who held 58 seats in the last House, have already elected 69 and are reported to be on the way to a landslide. The Liberal Party is apparently holding its own: 34 seats in the old House and apparently 34 leading or elected. The NDP held 33 seats in the last House; their seats apparently elected and leading now total 18.

In taking just a few moments in this budget debate — and I'm glad the Minister of Finance is here — I think it's timely that we all check the crystal ball of members opposite. We're aware that a major economic prediction about the fortunes of this province at this time was made about a year and a half ago to the convention of the Young New Democrats by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), the former Minister of Economic Development in the government from 1972 to 1975. Because this is the year when that member's predictions on behalf of the official opposition were to come into effect, I think those predictions should be matched against the record of this Minister of Finance in the course of this debate.

I refer, of course, to the famous Vancouver Sun headline of August 1979: "B.C. Faces Depression, Lauk Tells Convention." About a year and a half ago the first member for Vancouver Centre, one of the economic spokesmen of the opposition, had these predictions to make to the Young New Democrats about what the early 1980s held in store for British Columbia. As we all await the further comments of the Minister of Finance in this budget debate, I think we should refresh our memories so we can compare the official NDP prediction and view of life in British Columbia with the facts as they are today.

Quoting from the Vancouver Sun, the story is as follows:

"'British Columbia faces a major depression in the early 1980s,' NDP MLA Gary Lauk said Saturday. 'Continuing oil price increases and massive public and private debts will send unemployment soaring and land values plummeting,' Lauk told the annual convention of the B.C. Young New Democrats at the Britannia community centre."

That was August 1979, predicting for the early 1980s unemployment soaring and land values plummeting.

The article continues:

"The former Mines minister in the previous NDP government claimed a recession sparked by higher energy costs will boost unemployment to more than 14 percent. Lauk said the recession will turn into a depression when unemployment forces homeowners to turn over heavily mortgaged property to banks and mortgage companies. 'Once there is a decline in land values it will be a depression not a recession.'

"While disclaiming any skills as an investment counsellor, Lauk said: 'People who are now buying gold will be in a good position in a recession, while investment in land and buildings will not be safe. People who are buying stocks and bonds are insane,' he said."

Well, Mr. Speaker, I simply think it's timely that the August 1979 prediction of the official opposition in this province as to what the early 1980s would hold should be compared with the fact of performance of this provincial economy under the stewardship of this Minister of Finance. To recap, the prediction was: a recession turning into a depression; unemployment soaring to 14 percent and higher; land values plummeting; and that "investment in land and buildings will not be safe."

[ Page 4669 ]

I think that perhaps sets the tone for the comparative views of what's ahead for British Columbia in these very exciting years. I'm hoping the Minister of Finance, when he concludes debate, will refresh us all as to the state of the provincial economy and a comparative look at the facts compared to that prediction.

Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, may I just make one comment about a major point made this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), who took some considerable exception to the suggestions in the budget debate from this side that the fiscal and monetary policies of Ottawa required a certain response in the budget we're now debating. I think we all heard the Leader of the Opposition say that that was not true; that it was not accurate or fair to suggest in any way that this budget had to take account of fiscal and monetary measures in Ottawa; that we were blaming somebody else and that this was not the case. It's an old adage, but I suppose where you stand depends on where you sit, because in 1975, when the Leader of the Opposition was the then Minister of Finance, he had exactly the opposite to say in his budget address. Indeed, he agreed with the position taken by this government and the Minister of Finance. He said this in the budget debate of 1975: "Mr. Speaker, I should point out that the means of dealing most effectively with unemployment and inflation in Canada are in the hands of the federal government. It alone has the necessary fiscal and monetary leverage to have a significant impact on the economy."

The Leader of the Opposition in 1975, as Minister of Finance, said that Ottawa alone had the necessary fiscal and monetary leverage to have a significant impact on this economy. Today he states precisely the opposite. Mr. Speaker, I suggest he cannot have it both ways. I would suggest that he fully recognizes that, in fact, what Ottawa does or doesn't do in the realm of fiscal and monetary policy must impact on measures which our Minister of Finance here has to take.

With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, may I conclude by congratulating the minister on a budget which is realistic, frank and responsible and leads us into the 1980s with a sound and progressive view of some great years ahead.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, many words have been spoken in the last two weeks since the 1981-82 budget was presented to the people of British Columbia. In some cases we've refought past battles, some of which I'm tiring of, but I say that personally and that isn't necessarily a criticism of any particular part of this House.... We've had some hyperbole; we've had something at least approaching a misunderstanding of the 1981-82 budget for the province of B.C. I won't suggest there's been a distortion by members opposite, as that's not parliamentary, but at least a misunderstanding — a very serious indication of an inability to appreciate the openness of this budget. That is the one characteristic which I hope I can leave for those who follow in this particular portfolio in governments to come, whenever that may be — openness and accountability. The word has been thrown back two or three times by the socialists on the other side of the House in interjections. But in the last budget a year ago and in this one I have attempted to be completely open and to offer as much information as it's possible to offer with respect to the money which is in our trust — entrusted to us by the people of British Columbia.

The budget, a word we hear all the time, is that which represents my view of where we have been, where we are now and where we are going in the future. In the purest sense of the word, this is a political document. It is a document prepared by someone who has first been elected as an MLA and then appointed to a portfolio within a government.

Not much has been said with respect to the second document. I show it to the Chair now. All members have it and it has been distributed quite widely. It is entitled "Background Papers to the 1981 Budget." This is not my document. This is a document prepared by officials within the Ministry of Finance and not referred to me for editing, alteration or changes — for the kind of thing of which I have been accused a number of times in the past two weeks. This is how senior public servants — who serve not a party, but the people of British Columbia — perceive our situation to be in the short, medium and long term. Let us not in other debates confuse the two: the budget presented by the Minister of Finance in a government and the background papers. I said last year and I say again, it was with the greatest of pleasure that I was able to introduce for the first time in this jurisdiction — and frankly, for one of the first times in many jurisdictions — this kind of supportive information, supplementary information. I saw it on budget day morning and that is the way it should be — no matter who is the Minister of Finance, no matter what party may be authorized to form the government.

It is an open and completely straightforward budget, backed up by the background material — the detailed analysis contained in those papers. Few other governments, to be repetitious, have ever presented as much detailed, financial information. Therefore I was distressed and angered from time to time when members opposite suggested that this was a sleight-of-hand budget, that somehow we had wrapped in a number of factors about which we knew but which we were not prepared to discuss with this House or with the people who send us here to do their business. If we have erred, then we have erred in that very difficult business of forecasting revenues and expenditures, and that kind of error is understood by all members of this House regardless of where we stand with respect to this particular budget.

It has been suggested that our revenue figures are unduly and unreasonably pessimistic. I wish I could say otherwise. I'm satisfied that there is reason for pessimism with respect to provincial revenues from the natural resource sector. To reiterate, we do not see, in natural gas, an improvement in export volumes in the next year — the year about which this budget speaks. We see that new federal export taxes on natural gas have eroded the competitive position of British Columbia gas in our traditional United States markets. We see that there has been a massive jump in take-or-pay payments to the extent of over $100 million. We also see and know that both the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation and the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources offer indeed even more pessimistic forecasts of natural gas revenue than does the ministry I have the pleasure to head.

Recovery in United States housing starts, which as we all know is the main market for British Columbia forest revenue, is not expected to improve until late in this calendar year of 1981. In terms of forest revenue, 1982-83 is expected to be a good year, as we've shown in our five-year forecasts, but again it has to be said that 1981-82 revenue will be down substantially. The strength in the revenue received in the year 1980-81 was largely the result of a one-time collection of outstanding bills and a strong demand from the Japanese market. Neither of these factors is expected to be present in 1981-82. Finally, the Ministry of Forests is at least as pessi-

[ Page 4670 ]

mistic as the Ministry of Finance in its forecast for forestry revenue during the 1981-82 fiscal year.

I said earlier that it's possible that our forecasts and those who assist in the forecasting process could be proven to be wrong, as we know that resource markets are extremely volatile. They are susceptible to a whole range of unpredictable events. A severe winter, a worldwide oil crisis or an oil crisis in a particular part of the world — all of these, combined or singly, could lead to an increased demand for British Columbia natural gas. A more rapid economic recovery in the United States than is currently forecast or reasonably expected could also lead to a sharp rebound in housing starts — that market upon which we depend so much. The members opposite who served in cabinet between 1972 and 1975 — in particular the Leader of the Opposition, who was the Minister of Finance for virtually all of the time during which the socialists were in power — know full well that a budget must be prepared and delivered on the basis of the best available estimates. There's no other way to do it.

I don't want to stress pessimism, Mr. Speaker; I simply want to stress the need, in developing this budget from late in November through the Treasury Board process of December, January and February, to be realistic. If there are more revenues than we expect, then I will be the first to happily say that we were wrong. What do others say, Mr. Speaker, about the reality which I have attempted to inject into the report on the province's finances for the year 1981-82? Well, Mr. Speaker, Stan Stedola, the editor of what can only be described as a smaller community newspaper in Osoyoos, wrote an editorial about "paying our own way." He perhaps said it better than I could or did. Here are just three quotes from an editorial.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, Mr. Member, through the Chair, we found a number. I offer this one as an example of how I perceive the people of British Columbia, in the main, to have reacted to this budget. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to just read these two or three quotes. The first paragraph:

"The budget brought down in Victoria on Monday is one of the first in which a provincial government has attempted to show the people the harsh realities of life. Tax increases in one form or another will extract money from every person within the province — and this reflects the facts of life."

Later in the editorial:

"What faces our province is the stark fact that the amount of money that our government can collect is not enough to pay the bills that we are asking 'our government' to incur."

Thirdly:

"The Minister of Finance is being very honest when he says that deficit financing for ordinary operations of our affairs is not in the best interest of the people. No person and no government can go on and on by living beyond their means, and that means we cannot keep spending money which we do not have. In the budget that was brought in this week" — referring to budget day — "the government has faced this situation openly by increasing taxes in many areas and did not hide behind the sugar-coating tactics so often resorted to."

Finally, the last paragraph from this editorial:

"Even with the increases, British Columbians are still living in a province that provides most generously for its people and is very aware of their needs. The people are asking for many things, the government is supplying them, and people should be prepared to pay for them."

Much has been made about government expenditure growth. We have been criticized by members opposite for failing to show restraint in our own expenditures while asking the people of B.C. to exercise restraint. Much was made of the 16.7 percent increase in government expenditure for 1981-82 over 1980-81. I point out that the 16.7 percent increase is in line with anticipated gross provincial product [illegible] for the same fiscal year 1981-82 of 16.8 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member opposite has again missed the point. I guess he can't listen or can't understand. The province's economy is doing very well. The people of B.C. are doing very well — editorial writers have understood that. The difficulty is in the expenditure-revenue pressures facing the government. [Laughter.] Well, laugh if you will. I despair of that kind of laughter and inability to understand the difference between the provincial economy and the provincial government's revenue and expenditure projections. I can't do any more for them than to point out their inability or unwillingness — I think inability — to understand that particular point.

There was a major criticism of this budget — a theme developed by a number of the socialists who spoke in opposition — that the increase in government spending and taxation is a direct result of the major capital projects initiated by this government in recent years. The critics termed such projects as northeast coal and B.C. Place "monuments." My colleague, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), dealt with that at length and effectively in his participation.

An objective examination of the estimates which were presented will find that this criticism is a complete exaggeration. The amount of funding for major capital projects, which were discussed and raised in debate, is very small in this budget. There was $48 million for northeast coal and $2.5 million for Transpo '86. They know — and we have to say it again — that funding for B.C. Place and for the advanced light-rapid transit system is provided from funds put aside in last year's budget. There is no explicit funding for convention centres in Vancouver and Victoria contained in this budget. They know that. They knew it on budget day. They refused to recognize it. I have to say again that expenditure and taxation increases contained in this budget are not the result of funding of major capital projects, which on their own are going to generate more jobs, more opportunities for the people of this province. Don't peddle the misinformation that the taxes went up because of those projects. You know that that is not correct. We'll go into every part of British Columbia and remind people that these members knew then and now that that is not correct.

There were three alternatives facing the government which would face any government in order to make up an anticipated shortfall in revenue. I dealt with this at length on budget day. The first was to cut back on government services to the people of this province. Given the amount of savings that would have been necessary, this could only have been

[ Page 4671 ]

achieved in the major expending ministries — Health, Education, Human Resources. The alternative was rejected. The number one alternative was not acceptable to this government. It was not acceptable to the ministers who are charged with the responsibility for those portfolios. The second alternative, which has been dealt with at length, was to go into deficit financing.

It was significant that, one day following the delivery of the British Columbia budget, Quebec produced its budget for 1981-82. Whether that budget is actually voted on by the assembly in that that province is neither here nor there. A deficit of about 15 percent has been forecast in a so-called election budget. That deficit in Quebec is $2.97 billion. Translated into our budget for 1981-82 that would have been a deficit of $1 billion. Similarly, Ontario is now into deficit financing. It was just going to happen for a year or two; that's what other jurisdictions have said: "It's necessary this year; we don't want to do it next year." "It's necessary for two years, but we're not going to make a habit of it." I said on budget day you can only sart sliding into deficit, and there's no way out of deficit financing.

The third alternative, the honest and forthright alternative which we opted for, was to increase taxes but to attempt to spread that burden across as many people and sectors of the economy as we could. In addition, it hasn't been lost on members in this assembly, I'm sure, and it hasn't been lost on members on either side of the House that contained within this budget there is enrichment of existing programs. There are no cuts in programs and no deficit financing. Certainly, as my colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), indicated earlier this afternoon in a very few words, we're not leaving that for our children or our grandchildren to cope with.

We've introduced a provincial personal income tax credit — and I remind the House of this — in line with the attempt to spread the burden among as wide a segment of the population as we can possibly do. This will offset the impact of the sales tax increase for lower income families and the elderly. We anticipate that approximately 70 percent of the elderly in British Columbia will benefit directly from the provincial personal income tax credit which was introduced two weeks ago. I want to offer a couple of examples with respect to that tax credit because frankly I was disappointed in some instances. In the news media — not all, but in some instances — it was overlooked or ignored; it wasn't really covered very well. It was good news for 40 percent of low-income earners in this province and it was good news for 75 percent of the elderly, but it wasn't dealt with at length in reporting the budget. The tax credit is going to exceed the increase in sales tax for a family of four earning $16,800 or less and for married pensioners earning considerably less. The tax credit is perhaps one of the most generous in Canada today. It's fully refundable, Mr. Speaker, and it's going to put about an extra $70 million into the hands of modest-income families and the elderly.

Along with the renters' tax credit and the low-income tax reduction provided in previous budgets, there's a total of about $100 million of tax relief to be directed toward low-income individuals during 1982-83. We reduced the small business tax rate. We instituted the surcharge on higher income earners. We asked larger corporations to pay an increased tax rate. I spoke of the higher income earners who will have to pay a surtax on their provincial personal income tax. I think it was a very balanced budget in more ways than just dollars and cents. It's balanced in terms of assisting those with the least ability to pay and recognizing that some of us are fortunately in a position to pay a little more. The social service tax was increased to 6 percent. It is still lower than the rate in any province in central or eastern Canada, and it's only fractionally higher now, at the newer level, than the rate in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's a brilliant interjection, Mr. Speaker. "What about Iraq?" It's a brilliant interjection from the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea).

Another point which should not be lost sight of when we speak of sales tax or social services tax is the very wide number of exemptions which apply in British Columbia. I ask those who are interested in comparing province to province to see for themselves the number of exemptions which exist in this province, particularly in areas of those purchases which can be described quite reasonably as essential. There's no tax on mules, meals or food and the list goes on and on.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) is not in his seat at the moment. I heard him criticize the ad valorem aspect of gasoline fuel taxes introduced in this budget with the increase every six months.

MR. HANSON: Ad nauseam.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Ad nauseam, the second member for Victoria says. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that ad valorem tax applies on fuel tax in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon the voice was raised to fever pitch speaking against ad valorem, calling it the worst thing, not coming back to the Legislature. It exists in Saskatchewan. Mr. Member, You are either for it or against it. The NDP government in Saskatchewan will be interested to hear the comments which have been made by the present Leader of the Opposition in British Columbia.

I was also distressed to hear exaggerations concerning the cost of this budget to the average British Columbian family. In one instance a figure of $800 or more a year was cited. The direct costs of the tax measures in the budget for a family of four earning $20,000 a year are as follows: from the 2 percent sales tax increase — $120; gasoline tax based on a consumption of 2,000 litres a year — $34; cigarette tax increase — I think it's based rather low, because I consume more than five packages a week, but if you use five packages a week — $26 a year additional cost; the liquor markup based on average adult per capita consumption — an additional $30 for the whole year. That totals $210. For this family, subtract the provincial personal income tax credit of $38. The total direct cost of the measures introduced one week ago on Monday is $172.

Mr. Member, if you're going to speak about ICBC, then speak about ICBC when you refer to a figure, but don't let one of your colleagues say this is going to cost another $800 a year, because it's not right.

One can only characterize the criticism from the members opposite, Mr. Speaker, as wrong and wrong and wrong again, on every single point.

Interjection.

[ Page 4672 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's not $800. It's going to be considerably less.

We again have to speak about guaranteed debts of the province — that relates to my earlier remarks concerning deficit financing. The criticisms which have been raised from across the floor concerning the increase in provincial guaranteed debt.... May I point out that the increase in British Columbia's guaranteed debt was only 8.2 percent in the calendar year ending December 31, 1980. During the same period the provincial economy grew by over 16 percent. It is, therefore, correct to say that outstanding guaranteed debt, in relation to the province of British Columbia's ability to support that debt, actually declined in 1980.

As we proceed through the estimates, obviously there will be opportunities to discuss a number of other points. I can only reiterate that the budget was prepared on the basis of some difficult choices. It was also prepared on the basis of complete openness and frankness, not just with the members of this assembly but with those who elect us to come here and to be responsible. It is a responsible budget. It is a budget which I believe is going to stand the test of the next year with its surprises, good and bad. It is a budget in which I have confidence. I thank all members who were constructive in their criticism and who suggested that perhaps there are ways in which we can do this in another year — ways in which we can ease the cost of government in another year, or in years to come. The constructive criticism is helpful and frankly I think that is why we should be in this assembly — to be critically constructive, There wasn't a great deal of it from the other side.

I liked the budget on budget day. We've had interesting comments from a number of people around the province who are responding favourably to a government that says: this is the problem; this is where we are; this is what we want to do; this is what we have been doing. These are the services which we will not cut in a difficult short-term period. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased with the budget.

I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 21

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

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

On vote 86: minister's office, $176,348.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tabled the report of the special committee appointed to select the standing committees of the House for the present session, which was taken as read and received.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Motion approved.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if, before he proceeds further, the House Leader might be able to take the House into his confidence and indicate specifically what we'll be doing tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: That's a matter that could perhaps be handled by the Whips.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.