[ Page 6921 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Provincial enumeration. Mr. Barrett –– 6921

Fish-processing plant licence fees. Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 6922

B.C. Packers. Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 6922

Auditor-general's report. Mr. Hall –– 6922

Overrun in office of Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mr. Barber –– 6923

Office expense of Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Mr. Gabelmann –– 6923

Budget debate

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 6923

Mr. Passarell –– 6926

Hon. Mrs. Jordan –– 6929

Mrs. Dailly –– 6934

Mr. Richmond –– 6937

Mr. Nicolson –– 6939

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Human Resources annual report, 1980-81.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 6944

Auditor-general's annual report, March 31, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 6944

Ministry of Transportation and Highways annual report, March 1981.

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 6944

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I know that all members of the assembly will be very, very sorry to hear of the death of the very fine and well-respected former member of the legislative press gallery of this province, Mr. Alan White. Alan, as we all knew him, began his news career in 1967 as a reporter for the Victoria Times. In 1969 he went to the Canadian Press, and in 1971 he joined the Vancouver Province, where from 1972 to 1975 he served as assistant city editor. After that he moved to the Yukon and was on the staff of the Whitehorse Star. He then completed his studies at Dalhousie University in McMaster, graduating with a bachelor of philosophy, history and economics in 1977. He then came back to his first love, the gallery. He again served there until 1978 and left the Province to join the Ministry of Deregulation and after that the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I'd say without qualification that Alan White enjoyed a good career. He researched well and was a most fair-minded gentleman in all his endeavours and activities. I indeed know that he will be very sorely missed. I am sure all members of the House will join with me in expressing most sincere regrets to his wife Cheryl, his three sons and all members of the family.

MR. BARRETT: I, too, would wish to echo the words of the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. What is particularly tragic about his passing is that Alan White was really at the beginning of a career. For one so young to be taken from us quickly always comes as a shock. Mr. White's professional conduct was a credit not only to the press gallery but a credit to this chamber as well. His leaving the press gallery and going into government service was a wise decision by the government, to pick up a professional with his skills and energy and the services he provided all the people of British Columbia in that capacity.

We wish more than anything else to express our sincere regret to the widow and three sons, who, with some comfort we hope, understand that all of us who knew Alan White and had the privilege of working with him, or as a result of his work being known to him, will miss him as deeply as anyone. As for his three children, they can be particularly proud of the fact that their father had an outstanding reputation and is a terrific model to follow.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the House that this expression be passed on to the family? So ordered.

MR. BARNES: I would like the House to join with me in welcoming three members of the B.C. Recreation Association: Mr. Mike Brow, president elect; Mr. Doug Thring, past president; and Mr. Bob Vaughn, our provincial director.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon are several individuals: first, Mr. Colin MacPherson, director of the Committee on Crown Corporations, and his good wife Pam; Mr. Johan de Rooy, Mr. Ken Bayne, Mr. Yves Larrue and, although I don't see her, our girl Friday for the committee, Pat Dexter. I'd like all of the House to make them welcome.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to welcome Mr. Gordon Bryenton, the executive director of the College Institute Educators Association, who is over here to get the bad news from the budget.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, that gentleman is certainly in for a surprise — a pleasant one I would say.

In our galleries today we've got the president of a newly founded British Columbia corporation, Pacific Isotopes and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., which has been founded to exploit the exciting new field of biotechnology. The gentleman's name is Dr. John Armstrong, and I'd like the House to bid him welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm privileged today to introduce a well-known and beloved pioneer of British Columbia. In the gallery today is Mr. Gerry Hill of Yellowpoint Lodge, accompanied by his manager Ron Friend. I bid them welcome and ask the House to join me.

MR. RICHMOND: In the gallery today is a fine family from Ollek Street in Kamloops. I'd like the House to welcome please Ron Fawcett, his wife Joan and their two children Jason and Kelly.

MR. STRACHAN: I'm sure all the members of the House are aware of the fine people we have working in our respective caucuses. One of our fine employees is a fellow by the name of Mike Rogers. This afternoon I would like to introduce Mr. Rogers' mother- and father-in-law. Would the House please welcome Bernice and Vern Stewart from Lethbridge, Alberta.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to welcome Mr. Carl Tarkicker, his good wife Jennifer and lovely daughter Johanna, who are today visiting the sunny shores of the Pacific from the snowy climes of the Okanagan.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, members of my family are here today: my brother's wife Dianna and young son Jason, who is deciding today whether or not he's preparing for membership in this place.

Oral Questions

PROVINCIAL ENUMERATION

MR. BARRETT: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. I would like to ask the minister if he can assure this House that every citizen in British Columbia who has recently been registered at the doorstep will be on the voters' list and be eligible to vote prior to the next provincial election.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, I think he is well aware of the fact that we're in the process of conducting a full provincewide enumeration of all eligible voters in the province. The physical enumeration at the door-to-door level has been basically completed. We want to remind everyone, notwithstanding that, to fill out their registrations if they weren't visited or called upon. The registrar of voters is presently engaged in completing the list, which will probably take until the latter part of June or possibly July. Until such time as that has been

[ Page 6922 ]

done, with all due dispatch, the list cannot possibly be certified to be used for the purpose of an election. So it's difficult to estimate exactly the date upon which the new list would be the official list.

MR. BARRETT: Did the Provincial Secretary not assure the people of British Columbia that a complete enumeration would take place before the next provincial election was called? Now that the enumeration has been virtually completed at the doorstep — now that those cards are in the possession of the registrar of voters — is the minister able to assure us that, since that part has been completed, those people who have now been registered at the doorstep will be included as eligible voters, regardless of when the election is called from this day forward?

HON. MR. WOLFE: We certainly wouldn't want to confuse anybody in terms of the fact that there is presently a voters' list, which is the official voters' list in this province. We're engaged in having applications received for a completely new, provincewide voters' list, which will, we hope, be much better than the one it will replace.

Anyone who was missed in the process should not be confused that the new application removes their responsibility to make sure they're on the former list in the event that an election is called or writ is dropped. It will still be necessary for them to make sure that they're on any voters' list. In that event, as always is the case, there will be considerable public awareness of the fact that it is necessary for people to become registered after the writ is dropped to make sure that they're on the voters' list. It is necessary at any time for a citizen to take his own initiative to make sure that he is on a voters' list, whether it is the former one or the new one.

MR. BARRETT: On a supplementary to the minister, Mr. Speaker, as I understand what the minister is saying today, if an election is called within the next day or two or before the work of the registrar of voters is completed — as you said, in June or July — everybody who has recently been registered at the doorstep will not necessarily be a registered voter when that election takes place, if it is before June or July of this year.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I don't think it would be a good idea for any member of this House to try to scare the people of the province into thinking that they may not be on a voters' list. There will be an official voters' list at any time an election is called.

I might remind the members of this House that this is the first full enumeration which has been conducted in this province for many years, including the years in which that member was Premier of this province, during which period no attempt was made to upgrade the provincial voters' list or to conduct any enumeration. I just want to make sure that we're trying our level best to make this a good list and to give all people every opportunity to have their names placed on the new voters' list.

MR. BARRETT: On a supplementary to the minister, it is true that this is the first full enumeration in many years, but it is now in a position, as I understand it.... Perhaps you can answer this question for me. It will be the first full registration of voters in the history of British Columbia that will not count unless an election takes place after the registrar of voters completes all of his work. I've asked the minister this simple question: will the minister assure this House and every citizen of British Columbia who has been recently registered to vote, at the doorstep, that regardless of the timing of the next election they will have that card recognized and will be eligible to vote as a result of that card?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I can assure the Leader of the Opposition and any other member of this House that any citizen of British Columbia who is eligible to vote will have an opportunity to make sure their name is on any voters' list. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, might I remind the members that we've already announced many times that there will be legislation to be considered here which will provide for polling-day registration of all voters. This is a new initiative in British Columbia so that citizens who for any reason are not on the voters' list will have an opportunity to become registered on polling day.

MR. BARRETT: The minister has still not answered the question, and obviously he doesn't care to answer the question. Will the minister tell this House whether or not the statement he made on November 25, 1981, to this House is still — in the words of the late president of the United States, Richard Nixon — operative? Is the statement still operative, Mr. Minister? "First of all there are three actions that are to be taken about the voters' list. Firstly, there will be a full and formal enumeration before the next election to establish a new voters list." Is that statement made by the minister, given with his word as an honourable member, still operative after the information he's given today?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think I've answered the question.

FISH-PROCESSING PLANT LICENCE FEES

HON. MR. ROGERS: Yesterday I took as notice a question from the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) about cold-storage licence fee increases. The specific size I wanted to get was 80 cubic metres.

What we have decided to do is increase the fees for inspecting plants to be more reflective of the actual costs of inspecting the plants. Therefore the fees for plants below 80 cubic meters has gone from $25 to $50, which will better reflect the cost of inspecting the plant. It is not our intention to raise the fees to a punitive level but just to have them cover the cost of the services we provide.

B.C. PACKERS

HON. MR. ROGERS: The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) asked a supplementary question about British Columbia Packers consolidation at Prince Rupert, and he suggested that they were going to move their operation to Vancouver. That is not correct. It's a consolidation from their Port Edward plant to their Oceanside plant in Prince Rupert. I wanted to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to answer questions I took on notice yesterday.

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT

MR. HALL: I have a question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister received the auditor-general's fourth report yet?

[ Page 6923 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it has just been received. It is my intention to present it to this House at the earliest possible moment.

MR. HALL: Has he decided that "the earliest possible moment" will be tomorrow?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I believe that I have answered the question. I received the report a matter of an hour ago. I was in consultation with a member of the auditor-general's staff, and because of the mechanics involved it is suggested that it would be appropriate to table it later in today's sitting.

MR. HALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The reason I want to be specific is that the statute does call for the specific tabling of the report within a certain period of time.

OVERRUN IN OFFICE OF MINISTER OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for a member of the overrun gang over there. It is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who overran his personal budget by $25,000 in the last year. On March 30 a special warrant in the amount of $25,000 was passed to cover a spending overrun in the personal budget of the office of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

The spending estimates tabled yesterday show a further 10.1 percent increase in his office budget for the new fiscal year. His office is up 10.1 percent, but the department itself is down 2.5 percent.

MR. SPEAKER: The question, please.

MR. BARBER: What rationale, justification or explanation, if any, can the minister offer having committed an overrun of $25,000 last year himself, for an increase in his office budget of 10.1 percent while his whole department is down 2.5 percent?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The purpose of question period is to ask questions, not to bring information to the House.

MR. BARBER: That's a question.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the question is in order.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't see this to be a matter of urgency today, and certainly this can be fully discussed during the budget estimates.

MR. BARBER: That's not a satisfactory reply. It is urgent to us and to the people of British Columbia, who look for consistency. We're debating a budget, and these matters can be raised. But in question period it's an urgent matter. Your overrun was $25,000, and you covered it up with a special warrant on March 30. Your budget for your own office is up 10.1 percent and your department's budget is down 2.5 percent. Can you explain this apparent inconsistency to the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm sure that an explanation satisfactory to the member will be given in very few days.

OFFICE EXPENSE OF MINISTER OF LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING

MR. GABELMANN: On March 13, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing's office was the subject of a special warrant in the amount of $11,000 to cover the cost overrun for 1981-82. The spending estimates tabled on Monday appear to show a further $30,000 increase over last year's estimated expenditure in the minister's office. Can the minister explain the benefit to British Columbians of more spending in his office in light, particularly, of a total of 4.4 percent spending increase for his department?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll be glad to respond in full detail to that question, and possibly take up the full question period tomorrow. Therefore I'll take that question as notice and bring a reply back as quickly as I possibly can so all the details, pennies and dollars, are enumerated so everybody in British Columbia will have an opportunity to know where those dollars were spent on behalf of and for the people of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the minister took the question on notice.

Before we proceed, hon. members, I would like to take the honour of presenting the report of the Legislative Library's activities for the year 1981. I would like to table a reply over the signature of Dr. Soufy Abou Taleb dated December 30 — this is my first opportunity to file — and also I would like to file the statement of expenditures of the auditor-general of British Columbia, dated March 31, 1981.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that yesterday afternoon we had a debate between the negative, doubting people and the socially conscious people. We had a lot of gloom and bad news from the negative, doubting people. We've heard all of that before. I've promised the House that today we would have a positive message from the socially conscious people, something that British Columbians could look forward to and not dread.

Of course, one of the important necessities of being socially conscious is that you be economically conscious as well. You can't eat a pie unless you bake it first. If all your efforts are devoted to complaining, asking for second and third helpings and complaining about the first helping, you can't really be socially conscious. You've got to bake that pie first. Of course, the greatest difficulty the socially conscious people had was the mess that was left in the kitchen in 1975. There was a lot of heat in that kitchen too, I can tell you, when it came time to clean it up.

It is all very well for the people on the other side to keep asking for these extra helpings and suggesting different recipes — all of which, I might add, would ruin the pie. One of the matters that our Minister of Finance and all of his assistants deserve to be congratulated upon is the fact that they

[ Page 6924 ]

have baked one dickens of a pie for the people of British Columbia. There are lots of people in North America — how lucky we are in British Columbia! — who are not getting a piece of pie at all. One of the things that the Premier did with his restraint program, that all of you negative, doubting people will have an opportunity to vote upon soon, is apportion fair slices of that pie in a time of international difficulty, but at a time when British Columbians, because of prudent work in the kitchen, are still going to have a generous piece, an ample supply, even though there aren't all those second and third helpings that the negative, doubting people always want to have.

One of the most important objectives of people in the kitchen is to be thinking where the opportunities are going to lie in the future. There is no point in trying to bake a pie if the necessary ingredients aren't growing. But if the opportunity is there, if growth is possible, then of course much more can be served to the people of British Columbia in the future. That is why we look, in this government, to those areas where we can anticipate extraordinary growth in the next decade or so.

By extraordinary growth I don't mean industries that may grow 5 or 10 percent a year; I think of industries where one might anticipate growth of the order of a thousand-fold, ten thousand-fold or more, in world terms, so that no matter what the general state of the economy may be — no matter what kind of recession may strike the established industries — there will be others to take their place, where the growth will be extraordinary and dynamic.

I want to speak about one or two of those this afternoon and apprise you of the general policies that we're putting in place to take advantage of those extraordinary growth opportunities. Mr. Speaker, we're into a new age of information transfer involving satellites and new techniques for telecommunications. They offer to people in our province industrial, commercial and educational opportunities that meet the criterion of thousands-fold growth in the time-scale of 10 to 20 years. The reason they do this is that satellites, once launched into stationary orbit above the equator, place all people in an equal position in terms of geography and commercial opportunity. Therefore, for industrial and communications purposes, and educational and cultural opportunities, it doesn't matter whether you live in the most remote parts of British Columbia or in the heart of one of our largest industrial cities.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) has suggested that I have just flipped out, but I want to remind him that I'm not in orbit, much as my ambition is to put the industry of this province into orbit. I want to explain, if that member will have the patience to listen, why the people in his home town can and will have those opportunities. It is not a result of negative, doubting people.

A characteristic of satellites is that they may be in stationary orbit or moving orbit, as was Skylab. There were many negative, doubting people — not here in Canada, but in the United States — who complained about the cost of the United States' space missions which first put our satellites into orbit.

AN HON. MEMBER: You watch "60 Minutes."

HON. MR. McGEER: No, I don't watch "60 Minutes." One of the responses to the complainers was that the final mission of Skylab, which caused so much criticism from the equivalents of the negative, doubting people in the United States about the wasted cost, discovered in one of the least publicized aspects of that mission a copper-ore deposit in Nevada worth many times the total cost of all of the United States' space missions until that point in time. So there's little doubt that one of the important activities that can be carried out by satellites is simply prospecting for mineral deposits, whether in British Columbia or in other parts of North America.

As a result of forward-looking policy on the part of our Canadian government and cooperation with NASA in the United States, Canada has developed for its population a satellite capacity that is truly extraordinary in today's terms. Canadians have pioneered the uses of satellite technology demonstrating, in particular, the ease with which ground stations can communicate with the transponders in the sky. We've pioneered the capacity. We have established the practicality. But if we don't change our policies — and I want to speak briefly about that — we will be, in this nation, blowing the greatest commercial opportunity we've had in this half century.

I want to speak briefly about what I consider to be the areas of major opportunity for Canadians and for British Columbians in exploiting the lead which we have conspicuously established in this nation.

The first of these is with respect to the development of hardware components. I don't know how many of you realize that British Columbia is the premier manufacturer in the world of the essential component for satellite receiving devices which is gallium arsenide. It is anticipated that world markets for gallium arsenide devices in the next decade or so will run in excess of $10 billion. Last year's business was, at best, a million or two. Because it is not in generous supply, British Columbia will have an opportunity of controlling the precious material which will be utilized for the hardware components in television receiving stations from satellites all around the world.

You've all heard of Silicon Valley. It would have been a term twenty years ago, when I first entered this House, that would have caused the member for Revelstoke to "flip out" as being absurd. Silicon Valley is synonymous now with high technology and is the most successful and wealthy industrial area in the world.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'll let the member from Revelstoke flip out on this one: one day — a decade from now — there will be a gallium arsenide mountain looking down on Silicon Valley. We don't know where it will be located. It is the hope of the socially conscious people that it will be here in British Columbia, because we know that one of the prime manufacturers of the essential component is in Trail, British Columbia.

Of course, this is why we have an open-skies policy. Because we want every single British Columbian to be able to take full advantage of the new educational, new informational and new data systems that will be transmitted around the world by satellite. Advances in technology have already brought the cost of TVROs down into the range of $1,000 to $3,000.

The next generation of devices, using gallium arsenide as the basic receiving material, will be in the range of a television set or less. And in the future, much of the information that is transmitted into the homes of each of us in this room and every British Columbian will come by satellite.

Because that satellite is 22,400 miles over the Equator with its footprint extending at a minimum to an area the size of British Columbia and Alberta and the northwest States,

[ Page 6925 ]

and at a maximum, the continental United States, Canada and Alaska, because of that, each of us in a communications sense will be on an equal footing — something that has never happened before in the history of man.

For the purposes of those who initiate what will be received all over North America from those satellites, it will not matter whether the initiators are located on the roof of this building, from the railroad station in Revelstoke, from the most remote community in British Columbia, or from the heart of Times Square.

In communications parlance, and in effect, it's all the same. But what will matter, Mr. Speaker, is who gets into space first; who develops the industries first; in what locations the first superstations begin to broadcast, and so forth.

This is where our second opportunity lies. The first to review is to be major participants in the manufacture of hardware that will be as common in every home as today's television set. The second is to be the initiator of those communications services, whether it be access to computer banks, voice transmission, teleconferencing systems or new data and information services that have not yet been conceived. It will not matter where the heart of that business commences from — it could be Victoria, Vancouver, Revelstoke — but once those businesses have started, then of course they will remain concentrated at their place of origin. The time to do that is not tomorrow but now; that is why our business opportunities are so tremendous.

Finally, the same applies for entertainment, culture and education. In the past Canadians have always been defensive about their culture, wishing to erect some kind of curtain between themselves and our much more populous neighbours to the south. But now we have a golden opportunity to have an entertainment, an educational and cultural centre that any Canadian city with initiative and determination....

All it would take to turn CHEK television here in Victoria into an international network is merely putting one uplink on the roof of that building, at today's cost of about half a million dollars and tomorrow's cost at a fraction of that. Then, instead of broadcasting perhaps the budget debate from British Columbia at some future time.... I know there will be many in North America who will be in some wonder at the financial miracles that our Minister of Finance is annually capable of providing, as a result of the wise management in his province. So that would be a good international program. Some of the economists in the United States and Canada, including the Bank of Canada, might be interested in how one jurisdiction can manage its affairs.

I don't want to wax too eloquent on the opportunities, but I can tell you this: in the future those areas that will become the centres for entertainment and cultural development will be those that become superstations, those that erect the first uplink and have access to the transponders. It's based upon these opportunities that our socially conscious people have developed a set of policies — not defensive policies but ones designed to make British Columbia a major participant in what is going to be an industry that will grow a thousand-fold in the future.

First of all, our policy is one of open skies. That means that we encourage all of our people to make use of the many satellite signals which are now available and the many more that will become available in the future. This carries with it a determination on our part to be catalysts in getting TVRO — that is, television-received-only — devices available to the pocketbook of every British Columbian. If we can do it here, it will be done everywhere in the world. That is why we encourage both the use and the manufacture of satellite receiving devices. It is our policy to make it easier for Canadians to gain access to our own satellite transponders.

I have a sad story to tell. While Canada is committed to putting up five new satellites in the next three years, the national policies are so restrictive that Canadians have been unable to use their own transponders. Early this year Telesat Canada signed leases to turn over 16 satellite channels to American organizations. On behalf of the people of British Columbia, last Friday I issued a protest about that transfer. The eastern papers did not carry that protest. Instead, a story appeared in the eastern press that Canada had leased four more channels to yet another common carrier in the United States, giving away even more of our future. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker. Those transponders that Canada has sold down the river will be used by American companies to start up new enterprises that we as Canadians will be buying back at premium prices in the future.

The difficulty with our national policy, which I believe must be changed for the good of British Columbians and all Canadians, is one that fails to recognize that the footprint from satellites does not respect international boundaries. It is not possible for this country to erect an electronic curtain between Canada and the United States, even if we wanted to do it. But we shouldn't want to do it, because we have established leadership in this new field. We have got the transponder capacity. If these transponders are made available to Canadians, if all the restrictive practices are thrown out and Canadians entrepreneurs are allowed to use their imagination, then we won't be restricted to small populations like British Columbia or northern Canada. We'll have access to North America and the world. It is through the exportation of our technology, our educational ability, our culture and our entertainment that we will take advantage of these opportunities that are before us now. Canadians will enjoy, in disproportionate measure, the fruits of the new technology, and in the future we'll be able to bake even a bigger pie than the Minister of Finance has been able to do this year.

I want particularly to congratulate the Minister of Finance on initiatives he has taken to encourage the utilization of our British Columbian and Canadian fuel as opposed to the OPEC fuel. I don't know how many members of this House realize that last year $6.5 billion, half of Canada's deficit, was paid to oil refiners in Canada. Why was that money paid to oil refiners? That money was paid to oil refiners so they could buy OPEC oil. They bought OPEC oil while British Columbia and Alberta gas was shut in, where we had take-or-pay contracts and where we paid because we couldn't take. Our national government subsidizes OPEC oil to the tune of $20 a barrel, perhaps a little less now. You get 20 gallons of gasoline out of a barrel, so that $1 for every gallon of OPEC gasoline is paid by the federal government in subsidy. At the same time, the federal government introduces new taxes on Canadian fuel — we subsidize what the Arabs have, and we tax what we have. Nothing could be more foolish or counterproductive. That's why the moves made by the Minister of Finance are so positive for British Columbians and for Canadians.

I should warn, Mr. Speaker, that despite reduced consumption — the so-called conservation move that has been developed in Canada and other western nations — we are as dependent on OPEC oil as we were in 1973 when the first oil crisis started. The man with the most effective weapon in the

[ Page 6926 ]

world is not the President of the United States; it's Sheik Yamani of Saudi Arabia. The person who sees the world energy situation most clearly and expresses it most articulately is Sheik Yamani of Saudi Arabia. He is in a position to do this because Saudi Arabia pumps a third of the free world's oil. If Saudi Arabia ups its production to a maximum, there is a glut of oil. You've all heard in our media, that analyze the world situation with such fine precision, about the fact that we have a glut of oil in the world. If Saudi Arabia's production is shut down tomorrow, we will be on gas rationing along with the rest of the free world in three months. There is simply not enough oil in the world today to keep the automobiles moving, to keep the industrial machine of the west functioning, without Saudi Arabian oil now being pumped at six million barrels a day. You have to make your own judgment, Mr. Speaker, as does every individual, how secure that supply line in Saudi Arabia is, but if it's cut off, we will be on gas rationing in Canada because we have not developed an alternative fuel program.

So, Mr. Speaker, it's important for national reasons that we should develop our natural gas alternative. If we do that, at least our part of the world will not become dependent on Sheik Yamani, as is the United States and every country that has dug its head in the sand and not listened to what this world leader — indeed, world dictator — has had to say. He has pointed out to Saudi Arabia and to the OPEC nations that they must never increase either the price of oil or reduce its availability to the point where western nations will seriously consider alternatives, because if they do that, they will lose the oil weapon and thus their opportunity to control world politics.

We have had much distress in Canada because the Alsands project was cancelled. That's a direct result of Sheik Yamani's policy. It was supposed that this would go a long way to give Canada energy independence. In my opinion that's baloney. The cost was so high, the output so low, that it would do no more than look after 15 percent of the automobiles in Canada, whereas for the price of that Alsands project it would have been possible to give away a conversion kit for every automobile driver in Canada, freeing us forever from OPEC and turning us into oil exporters. That's the sense of proportion we're dealing with.

It's my hope that as a result of the incentives introduced by the Minister of Finance and others finally introduced by the federal government, in this province of ours we will develop an infrastructure which will give us the opportunity before too long to thumb our nose at Sheik Yamani and all of of the other oil-cartel gougers.

I just want to conclude by mentioning very briefly the policy with respect to universities, because the member for Comox was complaining about the insecurity of our universities and the very difficult position that they are alleged to be in as a result in reductions of federal transfer payments to the provinces. How wrong that member was, Mr. Speaker, and how wrong have been our academics in British Columbia to become as nervous as their jittery eastern counterparts.

We had a protest out on the lawns of this legislative building, and many of the people there honestly did not know what they were protesting about. They had been told to do something by the National Union of Students and some of the nervous academics from the east; but when you have a solid economy, when you have had sound finances, then it becomes possible to serve your institutions and serve them well. That's why, once again, the universities in British Columbia are the most favoured in Canada.

She mentioned the time I first came to this Legislature and alluded to the "Back Mac Campaign," in which some 250,000 students signed a petition for better opportunities. At that time there was exactly one university and one college in British Columbia. The system had been unchanged for over 25 years. In the past 20 years, while I've been in this House, post-secondary education has gone through the most dynamic growth in its history, probably never again to be equalled in British Columbia. Three public universities, 15 colleges, seven provincial institutes, the Knowledge Network and Open Learning Institute — all there.

Our academics are among the most highly paid in the world. We discovered, when somebody challenged on the bet that I had made, that if academics in British Columbia were paid the same as Harvard professors — assistant professors, associate professors and full professors — and we gave them the 21 or 22 percent exchange rate that applies — if we took all our academics, gave them Harvard salaries and paid them the exchange rate — we'd be able to save about a million of the faculty bill. So our people are well paid, our system is the most comprehensive system today in North America, and it's continuing.... I might add that the fees the students pay are among the lowest in Canada.

There isn't as much money as we would like to have to go around in all the fields. But certainly, whether it's universities, hospitals, schools or colleges, or any aspect of the social services to people in British Columbia, our citizens can be proud and consider themselves fortunate.

Mr. Speaker, it's because in all these years there have been socially conscious people in government — those who knew how to bake a pie. Those who only know how to eat the pie — they were rejected in 1933, in 1937, in 1941, in 1945, in 1949, in 1952, in 1953, in 1956 and '60, '63, '66, and '69. Only in '72 did they put people who did not know how to cook into the kitchen, and we had to clean the mess up in '75. The pie was only 12 percent bigger in '79, but after the next election, after the policies are put into effect, then the people of British Columbia will have as much as they can eat and I hope then the negative, doubting people will be satisfied.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, that's the nicest ovation the government has ever given me.

The previous member spoke about pie, and it was an interesting logic he had involved in that. But I think what he missed, Mr. Speaker, is that the share of the pie is constantly being given to places like Point Grey, Oak Bay and West Vancouver, and it's high time that the share of pie started working its way into the rural and northern ridings of this province.

The minister also spoke of a protest to Ottawa about television. Now if we have our priorities for television now.... Why couldn't that minister, speaking for his government, make a protest about high interest rates in this country, or about the hundreds of thousands of workers in this province who are unemployed, or about tax benefits for the residents of the northern part of the province? But no, it's only on television.

On to the budget, Mr. Speaker. We notice that revenues this year are $7.3 billion, expenditures $7.68 billion. Expenditures are up over $1 billion over last year. For what, Mr. Speaker? To build football stadiums in Vancouver? To present a world circus called Expo? Is that what we're spending money for while hundreds of thousands of people in this province are unemployed? And we notice that among the

[ Page 6927 ]

sources of tax revenues corporate income tax is down $31 million while personal income tax is up $347 million. Revenues from minerals and forestry are at all-time lows, but then the net profit from liquor has increased $27 million to $365 million.

We notice an article in the Province, April 7, 1982: "B.C. Hits Its Taxpayers More." It's a comparison of individual taxes and fees paid across this country. The first paragraph says: "B.C. taxpayers pay far more in fees and taxes than their counterparts in Alberta and Saskatchewan."

Secondly, Saskatchewan, with no hospital insurance premiums, is the lowest on the list with $1,108. It appears that we're paying much, too much for frills in this province.

We also looked at some of the hidden taxes, Mr. Speaker. Free miner certificates are up 150 percent since April 1, 1982, for corporations, and up 400 percent for individuals. All placer mining fees are up 100 percent since April 1, 1982. Guide outfitters, assistant guides and angling guides: their fees have been increased 100 percent since April. Fisheries: small storage plant licences have been increased 100 percent. Fish-buying stations: $50 to $100 for a new fee. Fish-processing plants: 100 to 300 percent.

We've seen that B.C. Hydro has increased its rates by 300 percent. And then on April 1, 1982, B.C. Hydro was granted a rate increase for industrial users of 31.5 percent.

Those are for basic industries, Mr. Speaker, and we can look at how it's battering our citizens. Medicare in the past two years is up 76.5 percent for single people, 64.7 percent for couples and 50.6 percent for families. Driver's licence, licence plates and vehicle inspections are all up.

Provincial camping parks are up 17 to 33 percent on March 1, 1982. Angling licences for B.C. residents are up 100 percent. Hunting licences are up 100 percent. ICBC rates in the lower mainland are up 21 percent. These are all hidden taxes that don't come out in this budget.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we see that the Premier's.... He isn't in the House right now. The bunker is up 15 percent. But then the government can tell school boards, BCGEU employees and school teachers to hold their wages for restraint between 8 and 10 and possibly 12 percent. But the Premier can increase his office to 15 percent.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, or something like that.

I guess it's difficult for a government of millionaires to realize the problems that hundreds of thousands of people who are unemployed in this province are facing.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: It's an oligarchy.

We have a Minister of Industry and Small Business (Hon. Mr. Phillips) who came up on a little jaunt to the north with a couple of other cabinet ministers. They flew around in helicopters, had private luncheons with people at taxpayers' expense, met with some communities for 30 minutes and then got on their helicopters and airplanes and flew off. It was almost like "Apocalypse Now" for some of those communities. But then the Minister of Industry and Small Business was quoted in the Cassiar Courier in March 1982 as saying: "If you don't like the north, move south."

MR. BARRETT: Then he flew off in his helicopter.

MR. PASSARELL: That's right. I wonder if that Minister of Industry and Small Business is going to tell the thousands of workers for northeast coal in the Chetwynd area to move south if they don't like the area. Move south to what?

AN HON. MEMBER: Omineca.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, we could move them south to Omineca. The western separatist party would certainly like that.

Going through the budget here, we see a cutback of $11 million in post-secondary colleges and institutes. Cutbacks for what? To build football stadiums? We're going to find it more difficult for high-school graduates in the north to go south with cutbacks starting at $11 million. Other cutbacks in education are affecting the skills in the north particularly. School programs are down by $155,000, teacher services are down by $335,000, and grants to reduce local school taxes down by $500,000. We also see that post-secondary management, which includes grants through the Canadian student loan program, provincial grants and scholarships to students, is down by over $70,000. It's funny and almost ironic that while this government is battering public schools, they've increased grants to the independent schools by $4.9 million. They take away from the public schools to give to the independent schools.

On to further constituency problems. The north is built by people who are concerned about their environment and their surroundings.

MR. KEMPF: How would you know? What part of it did you build?

MR. PASSARELL: Did you ever work in your life? All it is is grants, grants, grants.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: Can you control the member for Omineca? That sounds like a racist statement, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, Would the member who has the floor please continue to address the Chair to assist us in maintaining order.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for bringing the member for Omineca and the rest of the House to order.

We see that the energy reserve division responsible for research in energy is down by $1.7 million and water management is down by over $1 million. Why? Is it so this government can turn its back on the Nishga Indians once again and not do a proper public hearing and study into the surface-water management around Alice Arm? Why is this government so afraid to hold some type of a public inquiry into the whole aspect of Amax for the residents who live in the north? They've been awfully quiet about that. Maybe that's why they've cut back on water management by over $1 million.

I think everything we're discussing in this House for the next four or five days is related to the Premier's media blitz on television a few weeks ago. A stabilization program to stabil-

[ Page 6928 ]

ize things. Does it stabilize when you start cutting back in education the way the government is? We see in the budget presented to us that this compensation stabilization program that the Premier initiated on television has a budget allocation of $882,890. The puzzling aspect is that with $800,000 for this program the Premier is talking about, when you look in the budget under "staff," it is blank. Maybe that tells you something. You put $800,000 into a program that the Premier initiates on television, but then you have no staff. Under the budget, where it says "staff " it's a blank. Maybe it is a blank like the decision to penalize public-sector employees in this province. It is blank.

Another puzzling aspect is forestry. I am glad the minister is here. We will just take our time on forestry for the time being. The Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. McClelland) isn't in here right now, but it might be pertinent to ask him this question. There was a study done with a task force by the federal minister, Judy Erola. An interesting aspect is that the Minister of Energy has been included in this program to do a study on single-industry towns. He has been very quiet about it. I wonder what this cheek-to-cheek involvement is here with the federal government, that nobody is making any statements about single-industry towns. We are seeing hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people unemployed in this province. Why is the minister so quiet? When he has a direct line to the federal government on this aspect, we hear nothing, not even a press release.

Where are the presentations in this budget for securing northern tax benefits? Here the minister is cheek-to-cheek with Judy Erola, and we see nothing on northern tax benefits. But the minister is responsible for this. He is responsible for having a northern tax benefit secured in this budget, and there is nothing. He likes to take the responsibility for new jobs but he never likes to take the responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of people who are unemployed in this province.

On the aspect of forestry and the harvesting program, the budget discusses the sale and disposal of Crown provincial timber and wood resources under the heading of "Forest Range Resource Management." Last year's figures were $54,183,000; this year it is $57,437,000. Then this year, across the page from it, it has two different figures from last year and this year. This year it is $41,346,000 and last year $51,116,000. Are these figures based on recoveries from the Forest and Range Resource Fund, a fund that appears to be taking away money that is needed for silviculture in this province? How is this resource fund benefiting the hundreds of thousands of people who are unemployed in this province? it appears not to be.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Another aspect is in health. Community care, which has the responsibility for many health services, shows on page 141 of the budget that the funding allocation is down by almost $1 million. The dental plan is down by almost $10 million and grants for services to seniors in Human Resources are down by over $2 million. In Industry and Small Business Development, economic analysis and research has been cut in the ministry's budget. After what we heard from the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) this morning, I wonder why he didn't get up and state that he was opposed to this cutback in research. Program implementation and coordination has been cut in half. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) cuts his budget in half in these difficult economic times. Why cut the labour budget in half? If there is anything I'd like to see cut in half, it's some of the programs that fall under the Ministry of Municipal, Affairs. Is that football stadiums and world circuses?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Are you against Expo? Are you against B.C. Place?

MR. PASSARELL: As a northerner, you're right. I'm against them. I've put in Hansard my record of opposing the football stadium while hundreds of thousands of people are unemployed in this province. You build monuments to yourself. This should be increased to provide jobs, this cutback in labour.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the member for Atlin has the floor.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, we seem to have the peanut gallery roast here this afternoon.

On to the cutbacks in the Labour budget — why not be positive instead of cutting back? The government is so negative. It cuts back in Labour. They make negative cutbacks while hundreds of thousands of people are unemployed in this province. That's a joke. Single parents are being cut back. The young are finding it more difficult to get jobs.

Another negative aspect of this budget was that there was no mention whatsoever of land claims. When is this government going to put some positive solutions forward on land claims?

There has been a decrease of $1.4 million in the First Citizens Fund.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, that's the policy I would think, after looking at some of the statements the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) made concerning land claims back in 1979. There has been no mention whatsoever of this age-old problem we've been faced with concerning getting an equal settlement for the first citizens of this province.

Manpower has been cut from $43 million to $7 million at the same time that there are hundreds of thousands of people unemployed in this province. This program includes apprenticeship and industrial training.

Grants, contributions and subsidies are down by 17 percent in Municipal Affairs. What effect will this have on northern municipalities like Stewart, Terrace or Burns Lake? You're putting the financial problems of your government squarely on the back of the local taxpayers of this province.Revenue sharing is down by $17 million. That's another cutback by the Social Credit government affecting northern residents.

Another program that is of utmost importance to the north is the cultural heritage and recreational program. It's been cut by 27 percent. While we're cutting programs that benefit the north, we see that the Election Act has been increased by 400 percent. We're cutting back on manpower and educational programs, but we're increasing the provincial elections budget by 400 percent. If we're going to increase it by 400 percent, let's get on with the job.

[ Page 6929 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Drop the writ.

MR. PASSARELL: We can't drop the writ. You guys get your leader to drop the writ. Let's get out there. Come on. If you want to talk in this House, talk to the Premier, and show some guts by dropping the writ in this province and get on to an election.

MR. KEMPF: You'd be sorry if we ever did.

MR. PASSARELL: I'll be out there and I'll be running for a political party that's recognized in this province — not the western separatist.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, that's it. There will be two members in the west: Jack Kempf and Gordon Kesler. They can wear their cowboy boots together.

We also see that there has been an increase of 20 percent in rural property taxes which is going to have a drastic effect on northern residents. It will affect every homeowner in the north. Communities like Dease Lake have seen their assessment rates for property in their community raised by 400,500 and 600 percent over the previous year. Now we're increasing the rural property taxes by 20 percent.

A number of the ministers who aren't in the House right now who went up to Dease Lake would have known and understood these problems if they would have stayed for longer than a half hour, meeting with the community of Dease Lake and having a sandwich.

On to my old friend, Highways. Paving construction is down by 41 percent. Road construction and improvements are down by $16 million. Another aspect is the air transportation assistance program, down by $2 million. I wonder what effect these cutbacks will have on the north. As the minister is quite aware from his travels on Highway 37, more money needs to be put into this budget increase in service areas in the northern parts of this province.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is a budget that penalizes northern residents through cutbacks in service, restraints on public servants, service employees' salaries, increase in rural property taxes and highway construction cutbacks. I won't be supporting this budget.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're kidding.

MR. PASSARELL: That Minister of Municipal Affairs is quick.

Mr. Speaker, once again, for the minister's understanding, as a northern MLA I won't be supporting this budget. Hopefully the Premier will have enough guts in this....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Oh, I'll be sitting on the opposite side of the House as this party forms government, once the Premier gets enough guts and drops the writ.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: You've got to be a lawyer, Mr. Member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty).

I'd like to leave my eminent friends across with this closing thought from the Atlin Ragtime newspaper. It's a little article from the Sunshine Magazine.

AN HON. MEMBER: Written by Passarell.

MR. PASSARELL: No, it isn't, sir. Maybe if you read the newspapers every once in a while....

I would like to read it. I think this is directed right to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), after seeing those gorgeous pictures of that $2 million house he is building on the southern part of the Island and another $100,000 house further up north. The minister of real estate here....

"Ancient Persia had a quick method of dealing with the inequalities of property-holding among its people. In the year A.D. 996 that country was visited by a devastating famine in which hundreds of thousands of people died from hunger, while the possessions of the rich were far in excess of their needs. The ruler, named Agu, proclaimed that for every poor man who died of starvation, a rich person would be executed. Therefore no one starved."

Thoughts for you, Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: And there we have socialist philosophy: kill them off if they accomplish something.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to hear my colleague call that socialist philosophy, because I'm afraid I didn't detect either any thing or any philosophy in that presentation. I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that it's not often I feel sorry for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), but I have felt lately, and certainly since we came into this House and listened to the debate, that he certainly has a lot of problems. They're after his hide; they're split on leadership, on policy and on positions. But to hear the threat that we've heard just now, the Leader of the Opposition must be quaking to think that not only might he have to go through an election with that member, but should he — and he won't — but should he ever even in his own mind contemplate forming the cabinet, to have that member in the cabinet! It's almost enough, Mr. Speaker, to make you feel sorry for the Leader of the Opposition.

He's a nice young man, Mr. Speaker, but as I listen to him and I listen very intently, as we always do — and as I got the reports that came back from the economic development committee time in the Atlin area, I have to say with all charitableness: no wonder he has never been a success in his life. He simply can't understand that (a) in life you have to understand what life is about; (b) it doesn't matter what your education is, but you have to know how to work and you have to be willing to work; and (c), above all, Mr. Speaker, mountains have been moved by small people because they were positive. I have never yet seen anything built by a knocker and by a negative person. That young man, if he cares about his constituents, would do best to resign, because he offers them no leadership, no constructive thoughts and no positive representation in this Legislature. I would suggest he is not really a credit to the NDP members at large.

Having come down here last week with a great deal of enthusiasm for this session of the Legislature and hoping to hear, as a minister. along with our colleagues, some constructive suggestions from the opposition, to get a feeling

[ Page 6930 ]

that maybe the people of British Columbia could have some confidence in the opposition — while they may not support this party or all of its policies, that there would be representation for them in this Legislature by responsible, prudent and factual people....

Unfortunately we're all disappointed — and I believe, somewhat shocked — to find in what complete disarray we find them; to find a continuing split on all the policy positions they're taking; to find them making untrue statements not only in this House but outside the House; to find them so cynical, so terribly cynical. What has happened to what enthusiasm there was in the NDP? A few of them used to have enthusiasm, but we can't even see that. We've been treated — if that's the word — these last few days to a lack of constructive thought in terms of acceptance or criticism or discussion of the budget.

We've had no positive suggestions in terms of what policies they might place before the people, nor have we had any sense that within themselves they're gaining in confidence in their own representation and their policy development for the future. I suggest that this is very frightening for the people of British Columbia and is really little short of an insult to the traditions of this Legislature, and to the taxpayers who are supporting them, as their representatives, in this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I also must call to your attention the concern that the media of the interior has in relation to that foolish, very foolish — if I can be charitable — move by the NDP on opening day. We can stay here in Victoria or in Vancouver and suggest that it was a travesty for democracy. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, the people outside of the metropolitan area know what this is about for the first time. For the first time, our interior media had an opportunity to plug into a system whereby the traditional televising of the budget debate would be available to them — not as the CBC or BCTV, who have always had the privileged position, want to transmit it to them, but as it was taking place, for their use in their selected way as they saw fit within their charter areas.

Mr. Speaker, they are deeply disappointed and very concerned, but feel that this, of course, is just one of the classic types of moves that the NDP make. They don't seem to want the people of the interior to know what their positions are. They don't want the people of the interior to have an opportunity to learn totally and freely what's going on in the province, and they don't want the people in the interior to have free access to the media. It is this government and the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications who are bringing freedom of the airways into reality in British Columbia. And what help has he had from the opposition?

The example on opening day is very classic, but I must bring it to your attention because the people in the interior asked me to mention it.

Mr. Speaker, I also was very interested to note, in speaking to this budget, which I feel is designed so that many will make minor concessions so that a few won't have to carry the full burden of any corrections that we must make — any stabilization that we must make in British Columbia due to international economic circumstances.... In listening to the debate, I think that we can now understand why the people of Newfoundland have, in our headlines today....

I mentioned that we've listened here in this Legislature to nothing positive, to lack of confidence, to pie-in-the-sky suggestions. I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland, who have very serious problems — much more serious than ours — found they couldn't afford the NDP and their pie-in-the-sky ideas, and they threw them out, just as the people in British Columbia, after three years, found they could not afford the NDP and threw them out. You cannot afford this NDP anywhere, in any jurisdiction, unless you are very wealthy and are prepared to put them in to squander for three years.

The people out there who are members of their party are asking: "What happened?" What happened to the idealism of the true socialists? What happened to those policies that were melded together when the CCF joined with the NDP in British Columbia to try and offer an alternative — not born out of despair, not born out of a quest for power, but born out of a sincere effort in their own philosophies and a belief in their own philosophies?

What has happened to that party today, Mr. Speaker? What has happened to those socialist people who went into this with true heartfelt intent, when they find today they have a party that is in a quest for power, whose word cannot be trusted, whose statement after statement must be questioned for authenticity?

Mr. Speaker, the people in the area that I represent are asking me why they, if they believe in their union, if they want membership in their union, should be in the position where they're finding themselves being forced, through this party's leadership, to betray their own personal political feelings. They don't like being forced by their union to contribute to a political party, and they've asked me to bring this to your attention, Mr. Speaker. They want to know why their affinity with a union cannot be their choice, why their affinity as far as politics are concerned cannot be their choice, why they cannot contribute freely as they choose, and why they have to suffer harassment if they don't want to follow the particular political affiliation of a few wildly outspoken and somewhat radical labour leaders who are in bed with one of the leaders of the B.C. NDP, and who are on a quest for power. Kinniard and King — what a beautiful combination if you don't believe in justice. They're not concerned about the true rights and responsibilities of the average member of a union in British Columbia. All they ask is their right to their union membership, to their political affiliation, to a secret ballot and to freedom of expression, whether at home, socially or on the job, and they ask not to have to fear harassment because of those political expressions.

I was mentioning and intend to mention a little more the confusion in which the people of British Columbia find themselves when they listen to the NDP. Do you wonder why they can't understand what their policies are? Do you wonder why members will stand up in this House and pretend to support or lean as if they are supporting a position for development in this province and then say something different in their own riding?

We have an example in Port Alberni, which is a one-industry town, as we all know. It is a community and a riding in which this government, through many ministries, including this ministry, has tried to help the people design a new and wider economic base for themselves. Their own city member has little more on his mind than a special self-supporting alternate fuel development. When one of the future leaders of the NDP opposition, the member-in-waiting for Coquitlam, went over and was asked in Alberni if the NDP government would take over the mills if they were shut down, he said they'd have to develop and manage it on an individual basis.

[ Page 6931 ]

Their own representative, a member of the NDP, said yes, they would take it over. The current leader of the NDP has said quite clearly that the socialist government would take over all natural resources if they could be socialized. The people in Port Alberni are wondering just what the policies of that opposition party are. They know the policies of this government. They know that while their own member does not stress any opportunities to broaden their economic base, this government is working to assist them to broaden their economic base, and that we have a plan.

It is important that the people of this province know some of the suggestions that are coming out of the NDP conventions in relation to their policies. I would just like to recite two or three of them from the NDP convention in 1981, when the Capilano NDP said they would mandate gas rationing throughout Canada. Is that a great, positive policy for energy resource management in Canada and a great policy for the development of tourism? I don't think so. I wonder if the people of British Columbia know that Mission–Port Moody is calling for massive naturalization of resource extraction, processing and distribution. This is from the riding of the leader-in-waiting from Coquitlam. That fits in with the Leader of the Opposition, who has made it very clear in Ottawa, if not in British Columbia, that he does stand for the nationalization of our natural resources, providing they are socialized. Then, of course, the Vancouver Centre one would give UIC entitlement to self-employed artists.

These are just tiny examples of the consistent and continuing irresponsibility, lack of planning and absolutely unaccountable policies of the NDP government. I would like to recite another one for you that was presented, along with many others, by the Leader of the Opposition in British Columbia. As you know, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), the health critic, has been proposing a number of health programs for which there has been no accountability in terms of dollars. In the last few weeks we have heard of program after program for which there is no dollar accountability. The one I would like to take as an example is when the Leader of the Opposition proposed his $1 billion fund to assist housing. That report states that the provincial government, if the Leader of the Opposition were Premier, would immediately pump $1 billion into a fund to provide mortgages at 13 or 14 percent for first-time home buyers. The money to subsidize such a program would come from an added penny or two on the price of booze, so he said. He said another penny on booze wouldn't hurt anybody.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, an analysis will show us that between 15,000 and 17,000 first-time home buyers come into the housing market each year. One billion dollars would provide $50,000 mortgages to 20,000 people, so the amount of the suggested fund is not too realistic, but bear in mind that that would be $1 billion each year, as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. If we look at his proposed manner of funding we see that from August 1980 through July 1981 the social service tax revenue on liquor sold in the province was approximately $65 million. In order to increase this amount by $1 billion per year we would have to increase these revenues 16 1/7 times. As a result of this, Mr. Speaker, the social service tax on liquor would have to increase from 7 percent to 115.5 percent.

The credibility of the Leader of the Opposition's programming comes into question many times. In terms of his housing development program and proposal, it comes into question when you realize that his source of revenue for his proposal would increase one tax on one product from 7 percent to 115.5 percent per year. That would mean that the tax on a $10 bottle of Scotch would increase from the present 70 cents to $11.55.

Mr. Speaker, this is what the people of British Columbia are concerned about in terms of this opposition and the policies — or lack of policies — that are being put forward. This is why the credibility of the opposition is very much at stake, and this is why you can't seem to trust anything that the opposition or the Leader of the Opposition say.

I'd like to talk for a moment, Mr. Speaker, about tourism in British Columbia. Once again we have an example of what happened to this province when we had a fledgling tourism industry and the philosophy and policies of the NDP came into effect. First of all, they blatantly told the tourists to go home. I have a series of articles, which I won't bring to your attention now, all headlining cabinet ministers who told the tourists to go home. The then minister, a very nice gentleman, effective in his portfolio, said that he would study the situation. Now that I look through the records I find that he studied, and then he studied the studies, and then he studied the studies again. There were no policies and there was no planning not only for the province as a whole but certainly for tourism.

Mr. Speaker, the capital investment of the private sector in tourism in British Columbia under the NDP went from approximately $39 million in 1973 to $33 million in 1975. So it dropped under the NDP from $39 million to $33 million. As near as we can guess, the capital investment solely in the private sector and all over the province under Social Credit and our policies for tourism have gone from $19 million in 1975 to $52 million in 1980. That does not include any of the major projects that are on the drawing board at this time. The multiplicity of new hotels, not only in the lower mainland but in all parts of the province — whether it's the Peace River, the North Island, the Central Island, the Okanagan, the Kootenays or the lower mainland.... It went from $39 million to $33 million under the NDP, and from $19 million to $45 million in capital investment in the private sector in tourism in this province in 1979. Do you wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the tourism industry becomes frightened and very anxious when they hear the NDP talk about tourism as part of their interest?

Mr. Speaker, what did they do for tourism? Well, not very much. They did decide that once they got out of government they should learn more about this industry, and they made their venture into what they call the hotel business. I would like to bring to your attention the concern that was expressed by this side of the House. First of all, how could a political party that was government be involved in a business in which they were to be the arbitrator, the catalyst and the mediator? However, the tourism industry needn't worry, because not only did that party show their true colours when they decided they wanted to go into business and show how it was done, but they stood up and said that if it weren't for their office hotel complex in downtown Nanaimo, the downtown core of Nanaimo would die.

Mr. Speaker, after exceptions made for zoning regulations, after exceptions made in terms of requesting the city to give them special privileges for the design of the building,

[ Page 6932 ]

and the poor judgment displayed designing a highrise building for a hotel right on the waterfront — with the exception of the road, which would preclude any development behind them in terms of tourist development, or any developments behind them in terms of living and any view of the waterfront — they asked the city to come together with them and develop a common parkade, because in their eagerness to get into business they hadn't acquired enough property to meet the requirements of the city. After they were given all these concessions for the Hilton Hotel of Comrades in Nanaimo, they then found they still couldn't, if you'll pardon the expression, get it off the ground.

So then they tried to go into negotiations with a major international chain, which again concerned the tourism industry. How could a political party that had wanted to be government, that couldn't make a success of business itself, call upon an international chain and become a partner with that international chain and still be able to adjudicate an industry within this province on a fair and equitable basis? To this day their adjudication can't be without bias, even though they're in opposition.

I go by that development project quite often, as I do many others, and it is just amazing. The other day I went by and looked, and I thought, my goodness, the NDP have done a wonderful thing: they've combined with the city of Nanaimo to develop a reflecting pool in the downtown core as part of the redevelopment program. You can imagine my horror, Mr. Speaker, when I found that it was much deeper. I looked and I thought, no, it must be a swimming pool. But when I got up close, I found that it was an excavation with no foundations, full of water.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the city of Nanaimo was forced to give the NDP an ultimatum that either they proceed with their development or come to terms with the city. In the meantime, what is most interesting to note is that in spite of the NDP and their predictions, and their major effort to revitalize the downtown core of Nanaimo, it has not died. In fact, Nanaimo, in cooperation with this government, is developing a thriving industrial base.

Mr. Speaker, tourism in British Columbia under this government has this year reached an all-time peak. With the philosophy of this government, the philosophy of the free enterprise system, the work and energy of the industry in cooperation with our ministry, and with the type of research, development and planning needed in this province, which is shared by all ministries in this government — and which could have been the opportunity of that party when it was in government — we have brought tourism to the point where our skills see us with our goal of $2 billion in revenues reached this year.

We also have seen over the last three or four years an increase in employment in the tourism industry from 65,000 to 75,000 people directly employed in this province. These are jobs, and we in this industry can provide more opportunity for more people to work with a greater variety of skills than any other industry possible. That is our objective, Mr. Speaker: to develop tourism in British Columbia; to create not only more jobs, but also more opportunities for professional careers in this industry.

When the NDP were in opposition, one of their ministers described those working in jobs in the tourism industry as menial, as demeaned. We don't feel that. The industry and this government feel that jobs in the tourism industry are jobs to be proud of. We have a very professional group of people in those 75,000 employees. Instead of knocking the industry, as the NDP did, this ministry and this government came forth with a program — the "Good Show" program — that has seen all people at all levels in our industry develop a sense of pride in their work, pride in their job, pride in their industry and pride in themselves, and a feeling of professionalism about their jobs, about our industry and about their future.

Mr. Speaker, we've seen a major increase in capital investment by the private sector in our industry. The objectives which we will carry forth this year will be to, among other things, increase tourism revenues, increase travel to British Columbia by non-residents, increase travel by British Columbians within British Columbia, increase the duration of visits in British Columbia, improve facilities and services and hospitality for our tourists, encourage the development of four-season travel, promote British Columbia as a convention and incentive-travel destination, and develop the film industry in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, every member in this House, every section of this province, every individual in this province has an opportunity to share in that development and to share in those rewards. They will be possible because of the type of budget that we're debating here today, which, of course, I'm supporting. Because the Minister of Finance's budget has brought down the type of prudent and confident management and leadership that this province and this economy must have so that our industry, along with its talents, can see itself remain as one of the major industries in which a person can find a job and a career, but even more importantly, in which a person who has an idea, who will give service and who will work, can get into his own business.... Approximately 98 percent of our tourism industry in British Columbia is family- and independently owned; we have only about 2 percent chains. We are determined, and this budget will assist us in seeing that those opportunities are there for the future of our citizens.

Mr. Speaker, it should be put on the record that the yearly revenues for our industry are in excess of $700 per person — man, woman or child — in this province now. We are one of the cleanest industries; we offer great social advantages to our citizens; we offer a great variety of opportunity for them, both for investment and for recreation. We offer an opportunity for the development of cultural activities, because tourists like to attend functions. A little theatre or a music appreciation group, a private person who is a magician — people who have something to share — whatever part of the province they're in, they will tie into the tourist industry and can have the opportunity of inviting tourists to attend. Not only will they have an audience, which is sometimes rare on those occasions, but the tourist is quite prepared to pay an admission fee. So not only can we see this opportunity for testing cultural activities or our own talents with an audience or having the fun of performing, but we can see cultural activities developing a great deal of economic independence in the province.

I would also like to draw it to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that these revenues from the tourism industry — and we market with maximum effectiveness with a minimum amount of dollars — are the dollars that help provide the hospitals, the schools and the human resource services to the people in this province. You will see in examining the budget that that opportunity and that goal are very clear for this coming year and for the future,

[ Page 6933 ]

I'd like to mention just for a moment the trade and convention centre which will be going ahead in British Columbia and which will be of tremendous advantage to our own citizens. It's a shame, Mr. Speaker, that even right here this afternoon we have heard members of the opposition speak against such a development. There seems to be no understanding on their part that you don't create jobs out of thin air, that you don't take money and create a job for five days and consider yourself doing anything to develop security for people. You develop productive programs that have social and economic value and which can have a rippling effect, not only for people but for investment throughout the province. That's how you create jobs.

We've seen many of the opposition being against the trade and convention centre. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to put it on the record for those members who are still against it or who play both sides against the middle and say one thing in the Legislature or in the lower mainland — and we have a list of these — and then go into the other parts of the province and say something different. I would also like to draw to the attention of the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), who was so depressed in his presentation and who hasn't offered his constituents any positive facts, what he can do for his constituents. The management of Pier B-C estimates that there will be $642 million in revenue over five years from the pier. The pier revenues pay $61 million to British Columbia over those five years in direct taxes. The pier itself will pay $116 million to Ottawa in direct taxes in five years. Mr. Speaker, our ministry has been very pleased to be involved in booking events for the trade and convention centre, and we have approximately 130 which we believe will move on and be part of that development.

I think, Mr. Speaker, we have to remember the magnitude of the economic benefits associated with the centre, but also realize that it is difficult to estimate precisely what and where they will be. We understand that there will be construction employment directly at the centre as well as around the province, because other parts of the tourism industry, other parts of the trade and convention interests, will benefit, as they start to develop in the province. There will be direct employment in the tourism and hospitality industries, not only in Vancouver but around the province. There will be direct employment in related supply industries. Over $100 million in annual expenditures will be made in this province through that centre by the delegates and their families during trade shows and conventions. That doesn't include the spending by those families or those individual delegates at pre- and post-convention meetings or pre- and post-convention holidays in other parts of the province.

There will be over $50 million in annual expenditures in that area. On top of this there will be additional dollars of provincial tax revenues each year, through income tax, through sales tax and through hotel tax. There will be millions of additional dollars in federal tax revenues each year through manufacturing taxes, through personal income taxes, corporate income taxes, excise tax, harbour fees, and extra trade revenues from trade shows. Of course, the city of Vancouver will benefit directly in property taxes and business taxes, not just from the trade and convention centre itself and not just from Transpo itself, but from all the other capital investments that will come from all the other jobs that will be created because of these two microprojects. Much of this will flow to other parts of the province. I am not at liberty to divulge details at this time, but there are millions of dollars not only on the drawing board, but nearing completion of their planning, for tourist facilities in Vancouver at this time. That will increase as we move on to Transpo and to the fruition of our complex over the next five years.

There are also millions of dollars in the planning stage to develop capital construction again in other parts of the province, because the great thing about our industry is that the people, as I mentioned, who have a desire, who have a plan, who have a willingness to work, who will give good service can develop hotels, motels and restaurants around the province. But also the effect of this investment will reach such people as cleaners in Fort St. John, shoe repair people, people we don't traditionally think of as being in the tourist industry. They will all benefit, and they will create jobs, and again there will be room for other types of capital investment.

In relation to the centre itself, I would like to suggest that accommodation should bring in about $55 million directly to Vancouver; meals, $45 million; retail businesses, $30 million; and entertainment, $30 million.

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to talk about my own constituency, North Okanagan, which I have the honour to represent, but time is passing and other members want to take part in the debate.

I would like to say in closing that the people of North Okanagan, including our teachers who've listened to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) with great interest and are very pleased at the suggestions that he has been making in terms of education in the future in British Columbia, understand that part of the government's policy — whether it's at the municipal level locally in the North Okanagan, whether it's local school boards or hospitals or the teachers themselves — is designed to assist all our citizens. It is designed to assist as much the teachers themselves, to keep them all employed, productive and sharing in the economy.

The response in our area to the budget has been very positive from all levels. My constituents have asked me to support the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), and naturally I intend to. The North Okanagan has seen unprecedented growth over the last few years. We've seen the development of two forestry research silviculture stations: one a combination of private enterprise and government under the Ministry of Forests and the other one a direct provincial government forestry development. My constituents have seen the development of a brand new regional college and an addition before it was opened, which was all paid for by the provincial government. They see the development of an ambulance centre in our downtown core. They are witnessing and taking part in the development of our hospital — both acute-care and annex extended-care. It is the largest contract that has ever been issued in the North Okanagan — $27 million. They have seen responsible road development and private-sector business development and have shared in a stable economy of this province to see major private housing development in the North Okanagan. They support this government and they applaud this budget.

In closing, I would like to refer to what the Minister of Finance said in his opening statement. Essentially the budget framework for 1982 is one of restraint, but it is restraint with a difference. It is restraint that serves the goals of fairness and equity among all British Columbians. It is restraint which serves the goals of continued financial responsibility in government. It is restraint that creates rather than suppresses opportunity by allowing us to do more with less and, I would add, by challenging us all as citizens to be responsible and

[ Page 6934 ]

fair, to share and work together in the spirit of British Columbia.

MRS. DAILLY: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I take my place.... [Applause.]

I hope I will get the same applause at the end of my speech.

I would like to start off and continue in this somewhat humorous vein, but when one has to follow the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), who brought this House to a new low in debate, I find it very difficult to remain humorous. I don't think this is the place to indulge in personal invective, so I wish to say nothing more in reference to that.

As that minister also did take some licence in moving off the debate on the budget, I hope you will indulge me for just a couple of minutes to do so and also respond to a couple of remarks she made which were directed at this party. As she placed in Hansard just a few moments ago the fact that the majority of the NDP members were not here earning their money, I would like to make a point for Hansard also. The majority of the NDP members who are not sitting in here at this moment are in their offices trying to attend with volumes of mail and delegations of people across this province who have had enough of this government.

MS. BROWN: She's so stupid she can't even count.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please, hon. member. The hon. member for Burnaby North has the floor.

MRS. DAILLY: The other comment referred to television, and I think I would like to place something in Hansard that may straighten up some of the shall I say distortions that are coming from that side of the House regarding the NDP action on the opening day of the budget.

The NDP has believed for many years that the whole proceedings of this House should be televised, as in almost every other jurisdiction in Canada and, of course, in the Mother of Parliaments.

Mr. Speaker, I think the public should be aware of the fact that what the NDP was against on opening day was an edited version of the proceedings. In other words, we did not see why the television cameras could not feature the whole proceedings, including whatever the opposition have to say, and hopefully the public then would have a balanced view through the Legislature of its proceedings.

Mr. Speaker, surely that is only fair. We will continue to point out to the people of British Columbia that we are not afraid to have our speeches recorded, so why is the Social Credit afraid to have the NDP members televised as they make their speeches? Apparently they only wish to see themselves recorded for the province.

I will leave that now and get to the budget, Mr. Speaker. When I analyze a budget, I always try to keep it in simple terms, as I'm basically a simple person when it comes to figures. I look at the people who have come into my office in the last several years — and particularly in the last year — and I look at the problems that they bring to me as their MLA. Then I look at this budget and I ask myself if, when I go back to Burnaby North following this budget, I can give any hope to those people that the budget brought down by the Social Credit government in 1982 is going to give them some hope that their problems will be relieved to some degree.

No one expects any government, let alone the Social Credit government, to perform miracles in these times. We're quite aware of the situation of the economy which has many worldwide repercussions. So we cannot hold this government entirely responsible. But surely, Mr. Speaker, as members of the opposition we have a right and a duty to say to the people of B.C. that we have analyzed this budget and we must point out that we do not feel the present government is really capable of producing a budget which will meet some of the basic needs of people even in a time of great economic strain. I think of the people who come into my office wanting work, particularly young people, Mr. Speaker, as I know you must have in your riding, and I look at senior citizens, who want to get out of apartments where the rents are getting enormously high, and they have no place else to go. I say to myself, what has the Social Credit budget done for them?

Well, when it comes to jobs, housing and general cost increases, I really have to say that this budget has failed miserably. The budget, once again, was read admirably — may I say, superbly — by the Minister of Finance, but once again it appears to be a budget that has far more style than substance.

As a matter of fact, it was a masterful, miraculous budget when it comes to the whole area of juggling and balancing figures around. It may have a few moments of good PR, there may have been some good show-biz with it for a while, but really when we get right down to it, as a logger said on the CBC the day after the budget came out, "all I know is I don't see that it's doing anything for me."

Therefore, we have to say to ourselves, why not? What is wrong with this budget? First of all, it's always a matter of priorities, isn't it? We have to look not only at this year but at the history of the Social Credit government since they assumed office, which seems interminable not only to me but to many other people.

What have they done since they assumed office that perhaps could have prevented some of the tragedies that I see in my office every day and that I'm sure you do, Mr. Speaker? One thing that certainly stands out is that this obsession with balancing the budget seems to take over everything else. I believe it was a Minister of Finance under the Labour government in England who said — and I'm paraphrasing — let's get away from this obsession with balancing the budget and let's look at balancing the whole economy.

Anyone who sat in here yesterday and listened to our financial critic would be well aware that to say the budget is balanced and then completely ignore the fact of the tremendous debt, where over $2 billion more is going to have to be borrowed, and get assent from this House to prop up our Crown corporations.... Sure, it's in the books, but then why stand up as Minister of Finance and say: "We have kept this budget balanced. We are not incurring debt. We don't believe in debt." Yet everyone in this House and many other people in the province know that the debt outside of the general operating is growing enormously.

If I may just repeat the point our speaker made yesterday on that, he said that first thing one should note, despite what the Minister of Finance said, is that the total spending under the Social Credit since the NDP was in office has increased from slightly over $3 billion to almost $7.6 billion. This is the government that is supposed to have been so much more businesslike than an NDP government. Mr. Speaker, all you have to do is look at the facts.

[ Page 6935 ]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

There has been a phenomenal growth in government spending under that Social Credit government. In fact, the compound annual growth rate over the past seven years, as pointed out by our opposition critic, has been 13.65 percent. That means that government spending has far exceeded the compound growth rate in inflation. In fact, 144.8 percent compares with an approximate increase of 90 percent in the consumer price index during that period. I'm sure that government will go on the campaign platform individually as members and say: "We must keep down government spending. You don't want back that NDP." The irony of it is that government spending, particularly in ministries that aren't really benefiting anyone except that government's own image, has increased enormously. The biggest growth in that government has really been in those ministries which provide service to government itself. We're trying to think, as we analyze the budget: is that helping the average citizen? This is what we're all here for.

Well, let's see what they've done for the average citizen in the last year. When they go out and do their hotlines and so on, I really find it most interesting when they're patting themselves on the back, saying: "We brought in a budget without any increased taxes this year." Let's take a look at some of the taxes that have been imposed by the Social Credit government on the people of B.C. during the last year. Let's look at the percentage increases. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the health premiums and user fees in medicare have gone up 21 percent? Are you aware that Pharmacare premiums have gone up 21.7 percent? If you have to go into an acute-care hospital today there has been an increase of 15.4 percent. Are you aware that if you need emergency care, it has gone up 100 percent?

I notice Mr. Speaker is resting his head. I'm sure you're saying to yourself: "Is that really a fact?" It is, Mr. Speaker. The people of this province have had these enormous increases imposed upon them by that government during the last year. We have ambulance fees going up 13.6 percent. We can go on and on. You can look anywhere. Even to get married now you have to pay more; the licence fee has gone up for marriage.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Against marriage, I suppose. They're certainly not encouraging people. Divorces have gone down. Miners' certificates are up. This is the group that says they want to encourage mining. The Mineral Act: even for recording documents, it's gone up 100 percent. Petroleum and Natural Gas Act: increases in the drilling and production regulations are up 100 percent. It goes on and on and on. To get your motor licence and licence plate there has been an increase of 38 percent; there's an increase of 100 percent just to get your driver's licence. We accept that as times march on certain things must go up. But the point I'm trying to make here is that there has been a political falsehood perpetuated by that government over there when they try to say to the people of the province: "Look how good we are; we have not raised taxes." At the same time they have placed upon the people of B.C. these enormous user fees in almost everything, the services are going down. So where is the balance there? Why is it necessary to put these enormous increases on the citizens of B.C., who at the same time see very little increased servicing?

I think that particularly shows in the whole area of bus transit. The cost to ride a bus now, as you know — I don't know of anybody in this place except the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who was attempting to drive a bus on television the other night, so maybe he knows — is 75 cents for a ride, even if you go a block. I thought it was very apt that someone said: "Okay, we'll pay the 75 cents if we've got something to show for it." But instead of increased service, the service has become worse under Social Credit.

That Minister of Municipal Affairs not only is arrogant, totalitarian and autocratic, but he is also causing one of the biggest extravagances that any government has ever been faced with, and that is in the whole area of his little pet baby ALRT. I can't understand how the Premier, who is now in his seat, and the Minister of Finance allowed that minister to get away with this massive extravagance to play around with a little baby of his own. I'd cancel it today.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the bon. member please give me an opportunity to silence the House. One member at a time, hon. members.

MRS. DAILLY: I think that for the money we've spent to date, and for what it's going to cost us for this baby of that minister's, it might be better to stop it right now. I ask the Premier to please take hold of that minister and realize that he could be your albatross if you allow him to continue with this ridiculous expenditure for ALRT.

Before we get into the cost of it, remember how he brought it about. The GVRD didn't want it. They were involved in very important studies for their own area. Do you know what he said? He said: "We haven't got any time." We don't have time for democracy. He doesn't have time for local autonomy. That minister has decided to override everything.

I’ll try to relate this to the budget. Why I'm speaking on this particularly is that this government, who claim that they have to squeeze everything out of the individual, particularly the lower income, because of the economic mess we're in today, at the same time have allowed that minister to embark on one of the most extravagant transit systems we have ever seen. Millions of dollars are going for him to indulge himself in something he thinks may help save him. I don't know from what, though, because I think he's going to have great difficulty in his own riding anyway.

Just to make my point a little clearer, do you know that the latest estimates put the cost of a line from Vancouver to New Westminster — just 21.4 kilometres — at $718 million? It is expected to reach that by 1986. Even if the costs don't escalate, which we're sure they will, we will be paying almost $34 million per kilometre for that minister's pet project which he rammed down the throats of the members of the GVRD. The Premier and the Minister of Finance have allowed that minister to do it. It makes one wonder why.

Just to compare figures, remember I said that it would cost $34 million per kilometre. Do you know what Edmonton — I hope the Premier is listening — completed their system for? They built 7.2 kilometres for $65 million. Calgary opened the first 12-kilometre leg of its rapid transit system last May at a cost of $167 million. That means that Edmonton paid about $9 million per kilometre for their system and Calgary paid about $14 million.

[ Page 6936 ]

Even if times were great and affluent, and money was pouring into their coffers, one would have to question this extravagance. But can you imagine? At a time when the schools are being told to cut back, school boards are being warned that they have to watch their money and the Premier brings in this restraint program for schools and public servants, that member can go ahead and waste money on a system that hasn't even been proved.

I'm not going to get into that area, because I know our critic from Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) will be dealing with that extensively. I am particularly bringing this up because, when this government says that everybody has to pull in and watch themselves during this and that restraints are being put on everyone, I want to know why no restraint was put on that minister. That is my question to the Premier and to the Minister of Finance.

The thing that has always troubled me greatly about this government — it really hasn't changed too much from the days of the old Socred government; they may have a few new faces and so on.... You notice that when they're in difficulty the first thing to go are the services to people who really need them. Yet the big megaprojects still continue. I know we hear that line about, "Oh, but it's only through those projects we will get money and the economy stimulated," but we can't really answer whether that is correct or not because, as members of the opposition, we have never been given an opportunity to fully sit down with that government and go over the figures of northeast coal or the other megaprojects. Look at B.C. Place. It is being rammed down the throats of Vancouver city council with a great deal of arrogance. They want a certain kind of housing. B.C. Place officials, through this government, are insisting that it has to be their way.

If we didn't doubt, we wouldn't be doing our job in the opposition here. That is our role — to doubt for the people of B.C. The people of B.C. are full of doubt about your government, Mr. Premier. This talk about negative, negative, over and over again.... Unfortunately we don't have time right here to deal with that, but there will come a time out there on the platform when we will.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Premier and the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) will come to order.

MRS. DAILLY: All I am saying is: how can we really judge the value of these megaprojects unless we as opposition have been included in the basic discussions and know exactly what the costs are? Until that government decides to treat the opposition in our role as we are — perhaps — in the Crown corporations committee, which is a good example of where both parties can sit down and analyze what is going on in Crown corporations.... Why cannot we do that with things such as northeast coal? I am just saying that if that government would set up that kind of an all-party committee, perhaps some of the criticism would go, or perhaps they would listen to us and we could come forward with some positive ideas. But that is not being done, and therefore the people of B.C. are not being truly given the correct picture. They are only given what comes through the PR mouthpieces of the Premier's office.

What we want to do is to be able to give them accurate figures on the costs of these major projects. I don't see why certain people should be singled out in this economy to be restrained when that government can go ahead without any restraint in many areas. They have no right to select a certain few groups for restraint, Mr. Speaker. Let's look at their own restraint for a moment.

Travel budgets for Premier Bennett and several of his cabinet ministers are well above — I am quoting from the paper this morning — the government's spending restraint guidelines. Isn't that great, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: I didn't think you did your own research.

MRS. DAILLY: The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) just said: "Why can't we do our own research?" He missed my point a few minutes ago. I would like very much to be able to sit down with that Minister of Highways and help him with his policy.

I would like to get back to this matter of travel. You know, really, to have the Premier go on provincial television and tell people this is a time for restraint, and yet we find that in his own office there has been very little restraint.... If he wants everyone to set an example, he'd better set the example first. The Premier's office has a travel budget 27 percent above what was originally estimated for his office in the fiscal year that ended March 31. The Minister of Finance, who just preached to the whole province about restraint, gets 25 percent more for travel than was originally estimated. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) — can you imagine? — is going to get another 59 percent more for trips. For what purpose? We've yet to find out. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) — a 166 percent increase, from $29,000 to $79,000, in his travel budget. At the same time, out of the minister's office comes press release upon press release telling the school boards and the teachers they'd better start restraining themselves.

You know, a point is often made when it comes to picking certain people out of our economy and singling them out, as the Premier has done. I notice there has been a particular point made by the Premier at times, Mr. Speaker, that the teachers have security and so on and are not like people in the private sector who can be laid off. I want to talk to the Premier about this for a moment. I don't think that he can be aware that when the enrolments go down in schools and schools are closed, which can happen not just because of restraint but because of what's happened to the population.... Surely he is aware that teachers have to be laid off anyway. Why should he try to say that they never have to face that? He is not aware of that. You are not aware of that, Mr. Premier. The teachers themselves often have to face that. As you were saying, it's only faced in the private marketplace. I'm sure we will have further debate on the restraint program later this session.

There is one area that is very difficult to discuss financially but I would really like to discuss it because of the way the estimates were placed before us this year. I'm very concerned about the whole area of day care, because I feel that if there is one area this government really should be ashamed of, it's their handling of day-care facilities in this province. Yet when one looks at the estimates book it is very hard to break down how much money has been given for day care this year. We are hoping that when the estimates come we can get that from the Minister, but I just want to make a couple of points on it.

[ Page 6937 ]

I am bringing day care up at this time because it symbolizes to me the weaknesses in the priorities of the Social Credit government. They have sat back for the last five or six years doing very little about increasing day-care centres in this province. Then suddenly the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) decides that most single parents with babies over six months old should go back to work. She has said that they should go back to work and put them in day care. Isn't that interesting, Mr. Speaker, when for years the Minister of Human Resources and the Minister of Tourism, who just took her seat, have never endorsed day care. As a matter of fact, I remember way back in 1967 when the Minister of Tourism, who was then a Minister Without Portfolio, actually accused me, when I brought up the need for day care in the province in those years, of wanting to brainwash all the children of this province through the state. With that kind of an attitude prevailing from that government it's no wonder that it wasn't until the NDP came into power that we finally saw a real commitment to the importance of day care.

Yet we have a budget brought down and from reading it we are unable to say whether the services to children, particularly in this vital area, are going to be increased. As you know, more and more women are having to go to work — if they can find work — to help out with the income when their husbands are not working and vice versa. The husband is staying home so the wife can go to work. At times day care — in fact many times — is essential, but this government throws these women out. "No more welfare. Put your child in day care." Yet they have done nothing about day care. That is what seems to be symbolic of a government that doesn't seem to have any real concept or real commitment to looking at the needs of people ahead of trying to do a massive PR job to get elected.

Speaking of that, Mr. Speaker, we notice again that the whole area of public relations is still there and strong. Well over $20 million was spent to promote this government's image for a future election, whenever it will be. What about the whole matter of the government propaganda sheet, "B.C. Today"? Are those issues going to be cut down at a time of restraint? I think if we had heard the Minister of Finance refer to cutbacks in those areas we might have said to ourselves, maybe they are finally beginning to get the picture. There are more important things out there than just building up your own PR. If you still emphasize money for public relations first, it means you are more interested in getting re-elected than in serving the needs of the people today.

We could go on for a long time on the matter of jobs. The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) will be speaking on this in later debates and certainly spoke on it yesterday.

It's interesting to note that despite all the PR hype about this increased money for jobs in the budget, part of that money has been brought together by simply amalgamating job-creation programs from different departments. So again, as somebody said, it is not really a straight budget; it is more a budget that is questionable in its honesty. As far as the NDP is concerned, Mr. Speaker, it most certainly does not give hope to the people out there who are suffering from lack of housing, lack of jobs and unnecessary cost increases imposed by their own government.

Mr. Speaker, I hope I will have an opportunity to speak later, particularly in the area of housing, which I consider to be one of the biggest disgraces of this whole government throughout their whole tenure. I am looking forward to getting into that debate later.

MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice to that of the thousands around this province who agree wholeheartedly with the budget brought in by the Minister of Finance the day before yesterday. I would like to personally congratulate the minister for producing a budget that is truly in tune with the times, a budget that is in touch with reality and does not have to make irresponsible promises, as is done continually by the members opposite — promises such as buying up all the mills and putting everyone back to work. It is a budget that goes a long way toward ensuring that thousands of British Columbians will have the opportunity to work. There will be 9,000 new jobs through special funding provisions alone, 40,000 new jobs due to the foresight and planning of this government, planning and bringing to reality projects such as northeast coal, B.C. Place, Expo 86, Pier B-C and the new light rapid transit system for the lower mainland — all projects which are very necessary for our province and projects which will ensure these thousands of jobs for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, this budget is in tune not only with the times but with the people of British Columbia. It treats all British Columbians equally, with special favours to none. It asks all of us to show a little restraint to get us through these difficult economic times. It gives high priority to those ministries that require additional funding, such as the GAIN program, long-term care and of course the family services mentioned in the minister's budget. These social programs will not be held to the government's 12 percent restraint guidelines. This budget also reduces spending in some ministries that are better able to manage with less during these difficult times; they will be kept below the 12 percent guideline. But it does share the tax burden on private homes equitably throughout the province; in fact, many homeowners will pay less in the coming year due to the new educational tax formula.

Mr. Speaker, it is much easier to run a government or a business when the economy is buoyant than when it is not. When times are tough, some tough decisions have to be made. Some tough decisions were made in this budget, Mr. Speaker, but they were made fairly and with common sense and foresight. They were made to provide the stimulation necessary to create employment and to get us through the current period of recession without asking British Columbians to accept less than the level of service to which they have become accustomed. The decisions that were made were made to ensure that no one in this province would share the hardship of restraint any more than anyone else. I think the most important aspect of all, Mr. Speaker, is that everything in this budget — and it is considerable — will be done without additional borrowing and without running this province deeply into debt and leaving that legacy for our children.

The message I'm getting from the majority of my constituents, Mr. Speaker, is: "Thank God we've got the government we have in Victoria." Like me they shudder to think what would happen if we had the NDP with their irresponsible policies, at the controls of government. They would undoubtedly borrow this province to the brink of bankruptcy and probably beyond. One has only to total up the cost of some of their suggestions to see that with them at the helm we would be hopelessly in debt in a very short period of time without any doubt.

While I'm on the subject of responsibility — or the lack of it — I cannot help, like several of my colleagues, but point out the example that they showed the people of British Co-

[ Page 6938 ]

lumbia a couple of days ago in this House when they refused to permit the taxpayers of this province to view the budget speech live, as is their traditional right. But far beyond playing their little political games of which they are so fond, they questioned the integrity of the Speaker and of the Clerks of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I have only been in this House a short time, a far shorter time than many of them over there, so I'm not as experienced in the ways of this House, nor probably as articulate as many of them — or as I would like to be. But the other day in this House I was embarrassed by their performance. I was embarrassed to sit through their display with all of our invited guests. It is the first time in my short tenure in this Legislature that I have truly been embarrassed.

Interjection.

MR. RICHMOND: I guess I was only slightly embarrassed before, but the other day I was very deeply embarrassed.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to think that either the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) or the Leader of the Opposition or, surely, some member from that party would stand in his place today and apologize to you and the Clerks who work so hard on our behalf. Surely, I think one of them must feel as embarrassed about what was said as I do. But I have my doubts. In fact, I feel fairly certain, Mr. Speaker, that that will not happen. So on behalf of the members of this House, and just simply as a parliamentarian who is supposed to show leadership to the people of this province, I am offering my sincerest apologies to you, Mr. Speaker, the Clerks and the technicians for what happened here the other day, and I trust you will accept this in the spirit that it is given.

My constituency, like many others — like most others, I suppose — is suffering in spite of the diversity of the industries in that constituency and in our area. It is suffering along with the rest of the province. The people who work in the industries in the constituency of Kamloops don't have to be told or reminded that the markets are tough. They know it. They also don't need the irresponsible promises that come from the Leader of the Opposition when he's in my constituency. And they don't need the so-called committees travelling around this province holding out false hopes and magic solutions — committees thinly disguised, I might add, as a committee of this House.

What the people of my constituency are looking for is what they got, a budget of which one businessman said to me: "I couldn't have written it better myself." They needed and received a budget that shows leadership and restraint, a budget that is truly in touch with the times and with the people of this province.

My colleague from Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) mentioned several companies that will be employing thousands of people in the northeast because of this government's policies, not because of some pie-in-the-sky promises. These are actual projects which will employ real people by the thousands, and I am proud to say that Kamloops firms will be enjoying that prosperity.

I really don't know who the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) talks to when he quotes small and medium-size businessmen. But he doesn't talk to the same businessmen I do. They aren't fooled by the funny lines, Mr. Member, and the false promises and the fancy rhetoric. They remember when he was Minister of Highways and how he handled that portfolio. He also talked about self-serving government. If ever there was a self-serving government it had to be theirs.

I want to touch for just a minute on an item that's been largely overlooked in this budget, except by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). I think that over the coming years it will prove to be a very important item indeed. That is the removal of the provincial fuel tax on propane and compressed natural gas for motor vehicles and a $200 grant to individuals towards the cost of converting their vehicles. I am pleased to have played a part in bringing about the incentives included in the budget relating to the conversion of automobiles to compressed natural gas. After a meeting with the operator of a local taxi fleet in Kamloops, who expressed a desire to convert his fleet, I passed on some of his suggestions and some of my own to the ministers responsible, and suggested that we as government do everything possible to encourage such conversions.

The $200 grant coupled with the removal of the road tax, when added to the $600 allowance from the federal government, will enable fleet users to save many hundreds of dollars in operating costs over a relatively short period of time. It will also substantially reduce our dependence on gasoline as natural gas is in plentiful supply in British Columbia, and it will reduce the cost of fuel by as much as 50 percent. There is also the added benefit of reduced maintenance on the vehicles, a significant factor when large yearly distances are travelled.

When some of the large fleets of automobiles in the province convert to natural gas, tremendous savings will be effected. Not only will it take us a long way towards energy self-sufficiency, but it will help to break the back of the OPEC oil cartel, which has been holding the free world to ransom for far too long. We can only hope that other administrations in this country and on this continent will follow our lead.

I just want to go over again, very briefly, some of the pertinent highlights of this budget, just to ensure that they don't get lost in the irresponsible rhetoric coming from the other side of this House. Most British Columbians agree with this budget and are fully supportive of it, but there are a few who can't see beyond their own narrow sphere of operation and who are continually shouting in the media, and wherever else they can get an audience, that they are being hurt. It seems to me that the ones who holler the loudest about being hurt by the restraint program are those that are being hurt the very least.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names!

MR. RICHMOND: All right, I will name some names. I will refer you to Mike Tytherleigh's column in today's issue of the Province. Since you refer to the newspapers, I will refer to the newspaper, and I would refer to the executive of the BCTF, when I refer to those who holler the loudest:

"Although the teachers voted 59 percent against seeking the right to strike, that hasn't stopped the militants from threatening the government with job action over its restraint program.

"However, these supposedly intelligent people have a poor grasp of political and economic reality. Federation president Larry Kuech, in his keynote speech, gave further evidence of this. He bases his attack on the government on the premise that the children will be hurt if the teachers don't get what they

[ Page 6939 ]

want, something that didn't bother them in the pension dispute."

I have had many meetings with the teachers in my constituency, and I can tell you that the majority of them do not support the stand taken by the executive of the BCTF. The wisdom of the Premier's words seem to have escaped them; if they were to sacrifice a little, then fewer people would be hurt a lot. They don't seem to comprehend this philosophy, and every time they appear in the media or are quoted in print, all they, along with others, can talk about is a fight, which is hardly on the minds of most of the people of this province. This budget will accomplish what it was intended to accomplish and that is to see us through these difficult economic times, to stimulate some new employment, to ensure that we all share in the sacrifices equally. It will maintain the level of service we have become accustomed to, and it will do it all without running this province into debt, as has been done in other administrations across this country.

Once again, I commend the Premier for his stand and his policies, and the Minister of Finance for this budget.

MR. NICOLSON: First of all, I'd like to congratulate the member for Kamloops. I believe that was his maiden speech.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, wrong again.

MR. NICOLSON: It wasn't his maiden speech? Then I withdraw my.... The Premier's writers are doing very well.

I would like to address myself to the budget and to some of the problems that are facing us today. I notice the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is here today, as he is a good attender of this House. I suppose that in framing remarks it is always good to prepare your speech notes around forestry, not only because it is important but because that is at least one minister who is liable to be here listening.

I think that one of the most important things that this government can do in addressing itself to the problems of this province is to recognize that forecasts for housing starts in the United States are so realistically gloomy as to be down at a level of 1.2 million per annum until and through to 1986, and that they will not return to an average of 1.6 million per annum, which is the normal expected housing starts, until sometime after that date. It is time that the government started to face some of the realities instead of looking for some kind of an immediate upturn in the economy, holding out that in six months or so external forces are going to be mitigated.

A second thing this government can do is to realize that in spending government money in order to meet the present crisis that we find ourselves in, we should not be spending money to build new industries which are going to create a job-skill shortage and lead to the importation of labour from other parts of Canada, North America and offshore. We should be addressing ourselves to the skilled people that we have in this province that are presently unemployed. We should be looking at investment today and creating jobs today in order to create lasting assets for tomorrow.

MR. BRUMMET: Sounds like the northeast coal project.

MR. NICOLSON: What I propose is the antithesis of the northeast coal project. We have a shortage of skilled miners for the northeast coal project. We even have a shortage of some of the skilled tradesmen required during the construction phase. But we have an abundance of people who are trained in the forest industry, trained in the woods, people who know how to build forest roads. We have an abundance of people who know how to clear the forests, do silviculture and many of these very much needed investments in our future. We're facing a shortage and withdrawal of annual allowable cut in almost all the forest districts and regions in the province, yet this government is going out and spending money in absolutely unrelated areas. When all these megaprojects come on stream at once, we're going to be drastically short of skilled electricians and various other kinds of trades people, but we cannot just take the skilled people that we already have in this province and simply put them into those areas. What I am saying is that we should do in this province what we do best. We are skilled in certain areas, and those are the things that we should be concentrating on in terms of megaprojects. The Premier's own words were that the forest industry is the biggest megaproject in B.C. Why doesn't the Premier put some money and commitment behind that and recognize it, instead of holding out these pie-in-the-sky types of dreams, all of which will be okay in their own time? Today we have many things that we could be doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cut the lumber even if you can't sell it.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, I've said that housing starts in the United States are going to be down, and indications that I've had from people in the industry are that we could be running 20 percent down until 1986. We should stop looking for an immediate turnaround. We've been looking for a turnaround in the next six months for the last 15 months. All indications are that matters in that area are getting worse.

What can we do in the meantime? With the skilled labour that we have, we could be building roads ahead of time into forest areas that will be required when there is an upturn. We could be clearing and restocking areas which I have shown pictures of to the minister which were improperly seeded or seeded by natural regeneration after fires 300 years ago and which are so densely packed that the forests are virtually useless and will never really contribute to the fibre supply of the province. We should be catching up on the residual backlog of reforestation that has to be undertaken. All of these are things that could employ the unemployed IWA workers in the already present tree-planting industry. We could be building roads ahead of time. There is a seedling shortage right now.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: I will say to the minister who has just interjected.... I won't speak for the entire province, but I do know that in the Nelson forest region, according to statistics supplied to me by the regional forester, Mr. Maurice Isenor, there were more trees planted in 1975 than have been planted there in any year since. That region includes the east and west Kootenay, Revelstoke and a whole bunch of other areas.

Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to assist the minister. He needs some help to get a priority for his ministry, which seems to be

[ Page 6940 ]

so badly neglected and which is the backbone of this province. You don't have to go to the Kootenays; you can go to almost any part of the interior of this province and find virtually total unemployment in certain areas and other areas with reduced shifts. But Kootenay Forest Products has been going through total layoffs and intermittent recalls and layoffs now for several months. Louisiana Pacific in Salmo has been totally shut down since last summer. Other mills somehow seem to be carrying on, but if one looks at the unemployment picture, it is really getting tough out there.

This government comes in and proposes to create a whole bunch of economic activity in the lower mainland, but ignores the skilled people that we have. I say that first we should work toward recovery, doing some of the things that we can do best. We have unemployed equipment operators who are normally employed in the logging industry. What could they be doing? They could be doing streambank protection in some of the rivers that cause floods every doggone year and have been ignored and have extra bed loads because of some of the clearcut logging that was done for the past 20 or so years. There are many things that could be done to put these skilled people and their equipment to work, but we're not going to put them all to work on northeast coal or building ALRT or an Expo site and other things in Vancouver.

This government is not keeping up with the annual rate of cutting in terms of reforestation. Anybody in the Forests ministry — including the deputy minister — will tell you that. Anybody in the industry will tell you that we aren't keeping up, and certainly the tree planters, who have a somewhat vested interest, will tell you that.

Last year Crestbrook wanted to build a nursery in Creston to raise seedlings. They wanted a commitment that the Forest Service would take the surplus of a 7.5 million seedling production per annum, which would be something like three million seedlings per annum over and above the company's needs, and they couldn't get that commitment from the ministry. Yet this year we're short of seedlings and we're importing seedlings from the United States.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, we're not.

MR. NICOLSON: Do you want to bet, George? We are importing seedlings into this province from the United States. Crowsnest Forest Industries went so far as to break ground on a project for seedlings, but they were stopped by the government. There is not one seedling destined this year for the Flathead Valley — an area that has been ravaged by an infestation, probably because it was naturally seeded about 90 years ago when prospectors burned the area off to enable their prospecting activities. It naturally regenerated into a pine species which grows very quickly, but also, because it grows up as a single species if it naturally regenerates, is very susceptible to disease. If something isn't done, there'll be another regeneration in there and again it will regenerate with pine — probably 100 percent — and will repeat the same cycle. I'm informed that there is not one seedling destined for that Flathead Valley this year, which we're cutting under an accelerated rate of cut.

The ministry instead seems to find it more important to spend money on building occupancy charges, on housing the ministry bigger and better. Two years ago the Ministry of Forests was paying $3.5 million to BCBC to shelter the ministry. Last year the budget went up to $10.5 million — a 229.3 percent increase in one year. This year that budget is up to over $19 million. What an enormous growth in the office space of the ministry, but what a diminutive growth in the wood fibre that should be produced in this province for generations to come so that we can harvest that which is left at the most advantageous rate.

It's criminal the way that this province for many years — going back even prior to the old Social Credit government — has mined this forest and not put back into it what we've taken out. You aren't keeping up. Your program sounded so good I was convinced that you guys were planting more trees until I really dug in and looked at the facts and got the facts from our regional forester. It's a very good snow job, and even I was conned by it for a while.

Mr. Speaker, we can produce jobs in the private sector if you'll give a commitment.... I have letters on file that show a very clear undertaking and almost unreserved support given by the local regional office to a local nursery in the Nelson area which is prepared to start by planting one million seedlings and expanding their greenhouse operations. They would assume the financial risk — if those seedlings were to die due to some disease, they would be the ones who would be stuck — they would do the investment, they would get the financing, but the government could not give a commitment that they would take one million or five million seedlings. They have a capability of going up to eight million seedlings if they have a commitment from government.

The seedlings could be produced in our area. We have had seedlings shipped up from the coast in reefer trucks that have arrived frozen and have been thrown right out. We could be producing the seedlings locally. We could be providing some employment locally. We could produce in this one operation, if it were to get started, up to 30 jobs during the season and a constant of about six additional jobs in the area.

There are so many big things and little things that could be done, but the government has to stop looking at the megaprojects and start looking at the very simple little things that can be done. The minister of technology got up and talked about getting a few more satellite channels and how we're being sort of done in by the feds and losing out to the States and so on. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that the minister of technology really knows what is happening in terms of technological revolution in North America. Another book has been written by Toffler called The Third Wave. He talks about the electronic cottage in his books and how the small affordable microcomputer will enable people to do technical jobs in their homes, to live in small cities and have high-technology jobs. Families will be able to work together where they choose to live, because the computer will liberate people from having to commute in cities and having to work in big offices. This is something that Alvin Toffler says, but not only Alvin Toffler says this.

I read an article last year about a lady who worked in a bank and was responsible for a certain type of account. Her husband had a job transfer 180 miles away, and that worker retained her job. The bank set up a computer terminal in her home and it was only necessary for her to go into the main office about twice a month for a staff meeting.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that revolution is taking place. That's one of the very happy stories out of Nelson-Creston this year. This year a firm presently employing 15 people has, through the use of microcomputer technology, established an engineering office in the town of Creston, which would seem a rather unlikely place to establish an engineering office. This office does consulting work in con-

[ Page 6941 ]

junction with a Calgary firm. It sends its reports over the lines....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: This was proposed last year; now it's reality.

I have been in that office, Mr. Speaker. I have seen the reports that they're doing on oil-well drilling and exploration in Oklahoma. Moneys from the United States and activities taking place in high technology and exploration in the United States are now taking place in Creston. It's no longer a dream; it's a reality.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're rehashing the same speech you made last year.

MR. NICOLSON: This speech should be rehashed until that Minister of Industry and Small Business Development is brought into the 1980s and the electronic revolution which is taking place, and stops looking at old solutions. The minister is always looking for one of the old simple solutions. Mr. Speaker, you know it has been said by H.L. Mencken that for every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat, plausible and wrong. That's the way the minister tends to look at things.

This government's actions have been extremely negative. I have assisted a new manufacturing process in Nakusp. It is a re-sawmill. They take high-quality cedar planks which they buy from another lumber manufacturer and remanufacture them into very high-quality interior panelling, tongue-and-groove cedar. In order to do this they require a kiln, and in order to get a kiln in an area that is not served by natural gas, in order to operate it effectively and economically, they made a decision — based on hydro-electric rates of B.C. Hydro — that they could at least be competitive with natural gas by installing heat pumps, another new technology.

I assisted this company with the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development in achieving some assistance. But this new technology is now being applied, after visits from some people from the Boundary-Similkameen riding. This new technology is also leading to similar developments in the riding of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt).

The numbers were run through on this project based on B.C. Hydro costs at the time and reasonable estimates for future increases. They did not take into account the several hundred percent increase in water licences and the absolute pass-through of those costs to consumers.

Increases like that have been a definite factor, and they were mentioned at the meeting which we held last Friday, the Kootenay West Advisory Council, which is an advisory council for the Member of Parliament for Kootenay West and for the MLAs for Rossland-Trail and Nelson-Creston. At that meeting we had representatives from Cominco, B.C. Timber and Slocan Forest Products. We had mayors from almost every municipality, and they are full members of that council which meets about twice a year and in this instance met in an emergency. Representatives from Cominco stressed the seriousness of that very thoughtless type of hidden tax which was passed through to Cominco, and there was no denying that it played a very considerable role in the decision to shut down Cominco for the first time in its history.

The very same decision was questioned in these economic times by Slocan Forest Products, a logging company which is still managing to stay in production on one shift. It was mentioned by almost every industrial user that was present at that meeting, and yet this government has gone about actually destroying jobs, shutting down jobs, at a time when we cannot make these types of shifts in policy — these sudden radical departures from policy — simply to meet the needs of fulfilling a so-called balanced budget.

Now this budget is not balanced. You know that in this budget we're not keeping the books the same way that they were kept in 1975, when public works was pay-as-you-go, when ferry costs were pay-as-you-go, when a whole host of things.... Computer charges were pay-as-you-go, and buildings were built as you go and paid up.

This government has cashed in the assets that were built up during that government. You've cashed in millions of dollars in the Housing Fund and in the Home Acquisition Fund that were built up and saved and nurtured during those years and during the years of the previous Social Credit administration.

Mr. Speaker, the whole adherence to the con game of a so-called balanced budget, where we've come up with a new system of accounting this year, called accrual-basis accounting, rather than cash-basis accounting — which means that overruns from the previous fiscal year have been put into this fiscal year as a special warrant.... All of these things indicate that we have really gone into a deficit. What you really have to look at is revenues and at expenditures, and I don't think this government has for three years been able to match revenues against expenditures.

What price is there in paying homage to this so-called sacred cow? I think that enough statements have been made from this side of the House that the government has it both ways. As a responsible opposition we have allowed that the government, having gotten into this mess, should stop feigning this so-called balanced budget, which doesn't really exist, by burying money in Crown corporations, by borrowing in Crown corporations that didn't exist before and that were always on a pay-as-you-go basis, by changing this from a cash basis to an accrual basis and not even providing a basis of comparison for the previous fiscal year on the two bases.

What price are we paying for this? We're paying the price of having 40 percent, 50 percent and, in certain localized areas, 80 percent unemployment. The big megaprojects are not going to stimulate the economy in Salmo or in the Lardeau Valley. There are many things that could stimulate the economy. We could look at building roads ahead. We could look at building along the west side of Trout Lake and at building the bridge that has to be built in that area, solving not only the needs of the local chamber of commerce but also the needs of B.C. Timber which could rationalize its timber supply and operate more effectively.

What other things could we do? Instead of subsidizing some of these megaprojects, would it not he more rational to assist B.C. Timber to get on with the job of increasing its pulp mill capacity in Castlegar so that we can take that wood which is being decked out in the woods in certain areas which are being cut such as Wilson Creek, which is being cut by Slocan Forest Products. Eighty percent of the logs that they're cutting are pulp logs. In order to run a sawmill they have to cut down 100 logs for every 20 they can put through the sawmill. They have to take out and deck the other logs in the hope that there will be a pulp mill built. If you're going to

[ Page 6942 ]

subsidize Teck and Denison and are going to take a big gamble that other companies are going to come into northeast coal, then take a sure bet and show that you have some faith in BCRIC and subsidize the interest rates that would be needed to build a pulp mill at Castlegar down to a reasonable, affordable interest rate, give them an incentive to get on with that job today, create jobs in British Columbia, so that we can do what we do best in our areas, so that we can use the skills that we have in our areas and not have to train people for new skills. That's something else that must be done, but first we must look after the skilled people that we have.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: We're not going to have any trouble selling the seedlings if they're properly put to use. I'm calling for a pulp mill, so that the lumber mills that are still surviving will make it through the next four years.

Mr. Speaker, we also do need to address ourselves to apprenticeship training and to creating job skills, because in spite of what I've said we're going to need more tradesmen. We can no longer raid other countries for their skilled employees. The attractions of B.C. to immigrants are not as great as they were in war-torn or post-war Europe.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: I guess that the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) is proposing that we continue to bring in foreign tradesmen and continue raiding other countries and not have apprenticeship training, but I propose that we have apprenticeship training, and I propose that one of the other positive thrusts would be to convert some of the unemployed into students. I think that we should experiment with a new type of apprenticeship training. We have the very well-established on-the-job approaches in the established building industries, but there are new technologies coming. As an example, I think that in computer technology we could look at an approach to apprenticeship training which could include on-the-job training but would emphasize academic training in order that when the next boom does come, as surely it will, we will be prepared and we will have many people either fully trained or partially trained and ready to put into more specified training. This would not conflict with the established building trades and practices in industry, because this is a new field. I think that what we should establish in this province, and what this province desperately needs, is a second British Columbia Institute of Technology, and it should be in the interior. It wouldn't be a bad idea if it were in Nelson-Creston. If it is in the interior, if it is in Prince George, so be it. It would be a very good proposal.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you proposing, Lorne?

MR. NICOLSON: I am proposing a new BCIT.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's wrong with the old one?

MR. NICOLSON: A second one. I will tell you what is wrong with the other one. While this government is saying that we have to have high-tech skills and so on, people are being turned away from electronics. They have actually cut back the number of people being trained in electronics at BCIT in computers and in a whole bunch of the high-technology fields that we are going to need so desperately, that we need so desperately today. We are actually turning down people.

Another thing that is needed is consideration of special incentives toward putting the educators into those institutions. I can say that the University of Victoria, for instance, has this year introduced new programs in computer science, and yet the quality of teaching in some of the areas is not up to scratch. I must say that in a few instances they have had to put warm bodies into a classroom, because the discrepancies between salaries which are obtainable in industry and obtainable in the university are so great that industry, in its own best interest, must second more people into the universities for a few years to give top-level people who are fully up to speed in their industry....rather than people who take a rather cavalier attitude toward their educating. I think that rather than needing academics who are interested in research.... I can say with some first-hand knowledge, and with some information that has been confessed to me by members of the faculty, that we have got people in there whose heart is not in teaching, helping and instructing — and I say some. It is a tragedy when that befalls somebody. It's a tragedy when that befalls people and discourages young people who have heard from almost every quarter that the place to get into today is computer science.

As a positive recommendation I would say that an all-out effort should be made to second first-rate people from industry into computer science in BCIT, UBC, Simon Fraser and UVic and places where they're running computer science faculties, co-op programs and instruction programs.

Mr. Speaker, there are several things that a government can do in a time when we are faced with very large problems, but the government seems to be cutting down in areas. They have created a real discrimination between the urban developed area, which is not suffering nearly as much as the rural areas that depend on the forest industry. It seems that during these times you've cut back programs like the recreational facilities fund which creates activity and has probably been more successful in rural areas.

The Minister of Finance has proposed that they impose a 12-mill levy on rural residents saying that there hasn't been a tax increase since 1910. Well, I'll tell you that the way assessments have been going up, everybody's been getting a tax increase. The day that somebody comes out from the provincial government and fixes my septic tank, or the day that somebody comes out from the provincial government and helps some senior citizen to replace a $500 pump that has gone wrong in their water well and starts providing services, then I say the provincial government should start dipping more into the pockets of rural people and not before. And I'll hope that some of the other people that purport to be representatives of rural people will have the guts to stand up in this House on that issue as well.

I look at another innovation of the government, Mr. Speaker, and that is the new lottery that has been created. As I see it, it is competition for a lottery scheme that is working quite well. Either that or you're going to the very same people and the people who can probably least afford even a voluntary increase of tax in order to fund, again, an extravaganza in the lower mainland.

We have had a lot of good facilities turned down in our local areas. I can think of an opportunity which this government has not encouraged, and that was the opportunity to build an auditorium adjacent to the new Prince Charles Sec-

[ Page 6943 ]

ondary School being reconstructed in Creston as the result of a fire. For a $40,000 government contribution, we could have changed what will be just an activity room and an instruction centre for drama into an auditorium that would have served that community so that they could have brought in drama, events such as the RCMP band, and many other types of attractions, possibly the travelling symphony orchestras and so on. For the lack of $40,000 to take advantage of a system that already has a power plant, the heating capacity and janitor services for operation that community is going to lose a facility that would probably be worth $300,000. That was denied from the lottery funds.

We need more money going out to all parts of this province, not just a new grab, a new tax on the poor, a new voluntary tax for the people addicted to lotteries. I noticed, just in closing, that every cabinet minister interviewed said that he didn't buy lottery tickets. I don't buy lottery tickets. Very few of us do. It is the poor people, the people who can't afford them, who buy lottery tickets. I think that is shameful.

MR. KING: I rise on a point of privilege, as this is the earliest opportunity that I have had, regarding comments made by the member for Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) in her speech this afternoon. I obtained a copy of the Hansard record of her comments at the earliest opportunity so there could be no disagreement about the exact contents of the member's remarks. Those remarks were as follows:

"Yes, they were there from Spuzzurn '...talking about tourism in our area.' They said: 'Mrs. Jordan, why is it you've been here three times since you've been minister, to our regional meetings, and our sitting member has not been here once?' That was the NDP member from Revelstoke. Because he is not in the House I feel inclined to share with you what his contribution was to this particular conference. He sent a gentleman, who took no part in the conference, who finally came into where I was meeting with people after all our presentations, proceeded to tell me that I had kept him waiting four hours for his interview, proceeded to tell my staff that they didn't know anything about the province and generally to insult them. At this point our staff took his name and said they'd call on him. Mr. Speaker, I regret to advise you that this gentleman not only insulted the people at the conference, he insulted his host by going into the dining room where the maids were setting it up and disgracing himself. That man ended up in jail, and he was, I am told, the campaign manager for the member for Revelstoke."

Mr. Speaker, I intend to move a motion related to these slanderous remarks by the member for Okanagan, on the grounds that I did receive an invitation from the minister — a gold-embossed invitation sent out at public expense. There's a notation on the invitation I received — from me to my secretary — to hold that invitation, to determine whether or not my calendar would allow me to attend. Subsequently, regrets were phoned by my secretary, Mrs. Jean Elphick, on March 23.

I did not send or delegate any individual to attend that conference on my behalf or on behalf of my office. The comments in the minister's remarks are untruthful and a lie. On the second count, I do not have a campaign manager.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I suggest that the hon. member can find more temperate language in which to couch his allegations.

MR. KING: The question of my motion, I think, will deal with whether or not the minister has deliberately lied to the House. I have taken the opportunity to phone my constituency secretary in Salmon Arm, who is as totally mystified by the incident the member alleges as I am. I still don't know who the individual she's referring to is. I do not have a campaign manager at the present time.

Mr. Speaker, I have checked with the RCMP in Salmon Arm. and they have no record of charges being laid against any individual concerning the incident the member outlined.

Under these circumstances, I believe that my reputation has been slandered by that member untruthfully, to say nothing of the unfair and cowardly attack on some unnamed individual in my riding who is not able to defend himself in the Legislature.

It is cowardly to use the immunity of this House to make a scatter-gun attack on individuals unnamed. It conflicts with all of the basic tenets of justice that this Legislature is supposed to represent. Accordingly, I would move....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I think that the member is now entering into the merits of the case, which would be debated if a motion was allowed. I think we'll follow the practice that if we find a case of prima facie privilege does exist, then the attending motion can be moved.

MR. KING: Fine, Mr. Speaker. The motion I intend to move is that a special committee of privileges be appointed.

MR. SPEAKER: If we find that a prima facie case of privilege does exist, at that time the motion can be moved. Is that okay?

MR. KING: Do you wish to have the motion submitted now, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: As long as the motion is tabled, that's all that is required.

MR. KING: Very good.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the best example of a question of privilege is the one which successfully led to referral to a committee. I believe at that time the motion was read and that it is the practice of the House to read the motion which one is prepared to move if a prima facie case is found later on.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the practice that we have been using in this House — one which I have checked, because a question came up either yesterday or the day before on the same question — is one in which the motion is moved as soon as the prima facie case of privilege is established. Until that time, of course, the motion itself is premature. All that is required is an indication that a motion is attending, and if that motion is tabled, that satisfies the House. If the House wishes to go in another direction, the Chair is willing to be guided.

[ Page 6944 ]

MR. HOWARD: The motion the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke intends to move is framed and worded precisely and founded, except for the dates and that, on the motion moved by the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who is the only person who's been able to succeed so far in this parliament in having a question of privilege approved and accepted by the Chair. At that time your Honour permitted the then-Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to read to the House the motion that he intended to move in its entirety, just as the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has sought to do now. I submit, Your Honour....

MR. SPEAKER: Was there no caution?

MR. HOWARD: No caution, nothing. Once having done that to the minister, then, I think the same should prevail now.

MR. SPEAKER: To the best of my memory — by the way, I don't have each instance in front of me — I have in each instance cautioned as to what the procedure needs to be. I know that in some instances there has been an attempt to read the motion itself. As you know, it is the practice of this Speaker to exercise the fewest possible interruptions and exercise the greatest amount of leniency. But the practice we would love to adhere to is the one which is acceptable. The motion itself is premature until we find a prima facie case. In the absence of leave, as all members know, the House can direct the Chair to go in any direction at all.

MR. BARRETT: As directed by the Chair, I ask leave of the House that the rules be suspended and the member be given permission to state his motion.

Leave granted.

MR. KING: The motion I intend to move is that a Special Committee of Privileges be appointed to consider the matter of the false accusation against the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke brought to the attention of the House on April 7, 1982, and that the said committee report its findings to the House. The said committee to be comprised of eight members, to be named by the Special Committee of Selection, and that the committee so appointed have the following powers: namely, to have all the powers and privileges of the legislative assembly under the Legislative Assembly Privilege Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The House understands that this is not a motion now moved. It is strictly for the information of the House.

Hon. members, on the matter of privilege, I will take it under advisement and, perhaps over the adjournment hours, deliberate over it, and return a decision to the House without prejudice to the member.

Mr. Mussallem moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Human Resources for the fiscal year 1980-81.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the report of the auditor-general for the province of British Columbia for the year ended March 31, 1981, in accordance with section 10 of the Auditor General Act, RSBC, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Fraser tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways for the year ending March 1981.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House,

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.