[ Page 6963 ]

CONTENTS

Compensation Stabilization Act (Bill 28). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 6963

Legislative Assembly Allowances (Limitation) Act (Bill 19). Hon. Mr. Wolfe

Introduction and first reading –– 6963

Revenue Sharing Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 15). Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Introduction and first reading –– 6964

Education (Interim) Finance Act (Bill 27). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 6964

Mineral Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 33). Hon. Mr. McClelland

Introduction and first reading –– 6964

Oral Questions

Purchase of shares in Inland Natural Gas. Mr. Macdonald –– 6964

Mr. Barrett –– 6965

Carolin Mines cyanide spill. Mr. Skelly –– 6965

Government information. Mrs. Dailly –– 6966

Budget Debate

Mr. Mussallem –– 6966

Mr. King –– 6970

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 6973

Mr. Lauk –– 6977

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 6982

Errata –– 6987

TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I regret to inform the House today of the passing of a member of this House who served well between the years 1966 and 1972. Mrs. Isabel Dawson served our House as minister without portfolio during those six years. Mrs. Dawson was born in Camrose, Alberta. She married Charles John (Jack) Dawson of Princeton. They had one child, John Frederick.

Isabel's career spans many areas of endeavour. While she was working in private life outside the Legislature, she was a very well-known, well-respected and beloved Post Office rural mail carrier at a time when women did not take on those kinds of responsibilities. That was in Powell River. She was a member of the CWAC, a member of the Noble Grand Rebekah Lodge of the Eastern Star and past president of the ladies' auxiliary of the Royal Canadian Legion. She was appointed to the local centennial committee and the senior citizens' committee by her local council.

She was first elected to this Legislature in 1966, and was re-elected in the general election of 1969. During those times when she served our Legislature, her service to senior citizens was renowned throughout the province. Her concern for the elderly spans many areas of interest. I recall, as will other members of this House, how she fought for long-term care for the elderly, and how she introduced a unique program which has been hailed throughout North America — the senior citizens' counsellors program — which our senior citizens still enjoy today. She introduced the senior citizens' bus pass throughout our province and she addressed the hearing-aid program for seniors, for which she had a very great concern.

After her career in politics ended at the age of 54, in 1972 she returned to school. I think it is a great credit to her and to all women in British Columbia that she took up her career to address the needs of the elderly yet again when she entered the University of Victoria — and later the University of Oregon — where she obtained her Master of Science in gerontology. Her Master's thesis was a history of the services for senior citizens in British Columbia, and no one knew it better than she.

In these last few years she has been active in the hospice movement in the Vancouver Island area, and she has also taken that cause throughout British Columbia. She has worked on applied gerontology, and she has continued to work in the community in a volunteer way. I know that she will be very much missed by her friends and by all those who have been touched by her life, her son John and members of this House — on both sides — who have served with her. She did serve us all so very well.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On behalf of myself and the people on this side of the House, I would like to concur in and endorse the statement made by the hon. minister and to let the House know that I worked with — and against — Mrs. Dawson for many, many years. There was no MLA in that riding more highly respected than Isabel Dawson for complete dedication to her job, within the riding particularly. We in Mackenzie all appreciate that.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the House that the Chair express these feelings? So ordered.

MS. SANFORD: I have constituents visiting today from Courtenay. I would like the House to welcome Dave and Maggie Storring and their three children Judith, Katy and Rebecca.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I'm sure all members of the House will join me in welcoming a young constituent, Miss Andrea Merk from Winfield. Andrea is the daughter of an orchardist in the Winfield area and has been selected for an entry interview for the Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific, She is here in Victoria visiting today and will go for her interview tomorrow. I'm sure all members will join me in congratulating her in achieving this stage of success and wish her the best of luck tomorrow.

I would also like to share with the House the fact that Mr. Gordon Roston, who is the director-general of the tourism marketing branch for the Canadian Government Office of Tourism, is in British Columbia today and in the I L) use this afternoon. You will recall that Hon. Charles Lapointe is the federal minister responsible for the Canadian Government Office of Tourism, a government agency with which our ministry and this government have shared an excellent relationship. We look together to the future for many joint projects. I am pleased to welcome Mr. Roston here and would ask all of the House to welcome him in British Columbia style.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome to the House, from West Vancouver, Jeanne Burgess. She is with her three-month-old son, Justin Alexander Burgess. Jeanie is the wife of David Burgess, one of our hardworking legislative interns. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have two introductions: first of all, two visitors from Vancouver East, Lionel and Lean Kearns, who are in the House; and Mrs. Robert Stone from North Vancouver. Mrs. Stone shares with my wife the frequent — but not so much lately — occurrence of being a rugby widow. I ask the House to welcome them.

Introduction of Bills

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Compensation Stabilization Act.

Bill 28 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ALLOWANCES
(LIMITATION) ACT

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Legislative Assembly Allowances (Limitation) Act.

[ Page 6964 ]

Bill 19 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

REVENUE SHARING AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Revenue Sharing Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill 15 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE ACT

Hon. Mr. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Education (Interim) Finance Act.

Bill 27 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MINERAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. McClelland presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Mineral Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill 33 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, last week I raised with the House a question of privilege relating to certain comments made by the member for Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan). I would point out that, by any standard, justice delayed is justice denied. Those were extremely serious allegations and slanderous in nature against an unnamed individual in my riding as well as me individually, and I would expect and request an early decision by Your Honour with respect to that particular matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, an early decision is underway and will be here just as quickly as possible.

Oral Questions

PURCHASE OF SHARES IN INLAND NATURAL GAS

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question to the Minister of Energy and Petroleum Resources, with a short preamble — mercifully short. Tonight at midnight the offer of TMA Western Resources to pick up for $20 the shares of Inland Natural Gas with its 100,000 customers expires. The applicants, who are Ben Macdonald and Trans Mountain Pipe Line and Jim Anderson, have 72 percent of the shares in their pocket as of today — in the trust company, ready to be taken possession of at midnight tonight. Anderson says he can't be stopped, because the commission can't force him to divest himself of those shares.

I'm asking the minister: when a public hearing of the Utilities Commission was called for April 2, as the minister well knows, why did he not insist, to protect the public interest, that that hearing proceed?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: As the member knows, Mr. Speaker, the government indicated its intention to intervene in the public hearing. The public hearing must be held by the British Columbia Utilities Commission under the provisions of its act. When an adjournment was requested, the commission, in its wisdom, and in the way that it saw its duty, accepted that motion for adjournment. The public hearing will still be held, and while other matters are under review, at the present time it's the intention of the government to intervene at that point in time.

MR. MACDONALD: Why didn't the minister, in view of the amendment of the TMA offer extending it to midnight tonight, and in view of the fact that they cut out the condition of prior approval of the commission so that they can get de facto control before the commission can do anything, when it's too late for the commission to do anything, insist that his council go before that commission and ask them why they wiped out a public hearing that had been called by notice? They didn't even convene it. I was the only person present. Was any objection made to that wiping out of a public meeting called pursuant to order of the commission, with no opportunity for anybody to speak to the question of adjournment?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'm not a lawyer and I'm not so sure what the member's qualifications are, and I don't know if what that member says is true. I think that's a legal matter, one which will have to be interpreted by those people who are responsible for both the commission and its council, and interveners and others who are interested. The hearing was called. I assume, because that hearing was called for a certain time, that people who were interested in intervening at that time had the opportunity to appear and make their position known.

MR. MACDONALD: No, they didn't.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I've no way of forcing people to appear before that commission, nor at that point did I have any opportunity, legal opportunity, to intervene at that point.

MR. MACDONALD: Why did the minister wait until March 31, which is 48 hours before this hearing for April 2, before instructing anybody to intervene on behalf of the people of British Columbia, so that on April 2 nothing happened so far as the government was concerned? They had no brief or preparation, and the hearing just disappeared. Why did you wait so long to make that decision to intervene — in effect, to wait until it was too late?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's the member for Vancouver East's opinion that the government waited too long. I don't share that opinion. The important thing is that the government did intervene, and will intervene at the public hearing and make our position quite clearly known in that intervention.

[ Page 6965 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Did the Premier himself, or through any of his ministers or council in his behalf, make any representations whatsoever that the public hearing that was scheduled for April 2 be taken off the rails?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answer is absolutely no.

MR. MACDONALD: Has the Premier instructed anyone to act on behalf of the government before midnight tonight to request that the Utilities Commission make an order — as they can under section 106 of the act — to restrain the TMA group from taking possession of the 72 percent of shares which has been offered pursuant to their cash offer? Have you asked the commission to get a restraining order?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I haven't, Mr. Speaker. It would be quite improper for the Premier's office to intervene. First of all, there are two ministers who would carry any responsibility for making any decisions on intervention: the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland), probably in concert with the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams).

MR. MACDONALD: In view of this deadline, has the Premier discussed with the Attorney-General going into the Supreme Court of British Columbia for an injunction to restrain this takeover — which after midnight tonight may very well be too late? That's what Anderson is saying and he may very well be right. Have you discussed with the Attorney-General the question of having a supreme court injunction issued to prevent a de facto merger of Trans Mountain Pipe Line and Inland Natural Gas by this new group contrary to the Utilities Commission Act?

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's a very difficult question to answer, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure if the member is seeking information to do with actions the Attorney-General may or may not take, he should address the question to the Attorney-General.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a final question for the Premier: will he take under consideration immediate action to prevent this merger, which is going to lead to increased natural gas prices for the consuming public of the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member has made a presumption in advance of a hearing which is to make that determination, which indicates to me that, as usual, his mind is made up, and now he'll look for facts to support his conclusion. I'll take all of the substantial information he's brought to the House under consideration.

MR. BARRETT: Can the Premier assure this House that, regardless of the merger taking place after midnight tonight, the government's position will still be presented to the Utilities Commission, and that the government does not recognize a de facto merger after midnight tonight, which would set the stage for any presentation it makes to the Utilities Commission being irrelevant?

HON. MR. BENNETT: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I know of no merger that's taken place or is about to take place. I'm sure the Energy minister responded on his responsibilities to the Utilities Commission and the public. Any responsible course of action the government should take would be made in consultation between the Attorney-General and the Minister of Energy.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, can the Attorney-General assure this House that after midnight tonight, when this offer is accepted, the government will still be in a position to protect the gas users in British Columbia through the Utilities Commission at the eventual hearing, or is the statement by Mr. Anderson that it's too late after midnight for the Utilities Commission to have any legal right to interfere correct?

MR. SPEAKER: Is the member seeking a legal opinion?

MR. BARRETT: I want the government to assure the people.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't propose to give the Leader of the Opposition a legal opinion, but I can assure him that counsel for the government will appear at the public hearing for the purpose of ensuring the public interest with respect to the transmission of gas energy supplies in this province, and that the pricing thereof remains within the jurisdiction of the Utilities Commission to decide what is correct and proper in the circumstances.

MR. BARRETT: It's after the fact.

CAROLIN MINES CYANIDE SPILL

MR. SKELLY: I direct a question to the Minister of Environment with respect to the Carolin Mines cyanide spill. Has the minister determined why there was such a long delay between the time of the spill and the time residents of the area were notified of possible cyanide poisoning of their domestic water? In view of the gross inadequacies in the waste management branch's reporting system, as identified in the auditor-general's report, has the minister decided on a new procedure to be established to prevent possible loss of life and health in areas affected by such pollution emergencies?

HON. MR. ROGERS: At the present time we're having an investigation to find out just why it is, when this particular emergency took place, the reporting procedures which are in place did not work as they should have. The first notification I had of this was late Thursday afternoon, some time after the spill occurred. The staff of the Ministry of Environment, federal Fisheries and Oceans and the Ministry of Health are currently conducting investigations. If charges are warranted they will make recommendations to regional Crown counsel.

The answer to your second question is probably a little longer than that, but essentially the answer is: no, not at the present time, but the matter is under consideration.

MR. SKELLY: In view of the almost total loss of the summer steelhead stock in the Coquihalla and the continuing losses of species which prey on poisoned fish, as well as the loss of safe domestic water supplies for people living in the area, has the minister decided to recover costs from Carolin Mines in order to restore the resources to their original quality and state, and has he decided to lay charges under the Pollution Control Act?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I believe I said earlier that the decision on whether or not to lay charges has not yet been made. I expect it will be made within the next two to three days. A decision on whether or not we will try to get compensation for charges will also be made at that time.

[ Page 6966 ]

GOVERNMENT INFORMATION

MRS. DAILLY: Can the Provincial Secretary confirm that his deputy, Doug Heal, has been negotiating with the Canada News-Wire service at a cost of over $200,000 yearly to provide an instant propaganda network for government news releases?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I can confirm that government information services, through Mr. Heal, have been giving consideration to providing a more efficient method of providing material to more rural communities — smaller newspapers. I wouldn't interpret that to be a method of disseminating propaganda, as the member refers to it. But he is investigating a more efficient method used by other governments in Canada of transmitting press-release material more instantly to publications which need to have it.

MRS. DAILLY: Would the minister tell the House whether or not the restraint program is going to apply to Social Credit government propaganda emanating from his office?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I don't really think that's a proper question. Perhaps the question would indicate that we should suppress material and not have it go to the people of this province.

MRS. DAILLY: Perhaps I should rephrase the question, because the answer certainly needs some rephrasing.

Mr. Speaker, could the minister explain to the House whether he considers a possible expenditure of $200,000 for government propaganda necessary in this time of restraint?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I don't know where the member gets her information on the cost of this program. I can assure her that no decision has been made to adopt this service, but I think all members would agree that there is a need to examine ways of providing material more expeditiously to all areas of this province, not just to the major press media. That's the crux of this whole matter. Many, many publications in the outlying areas of this province do not have material necessary for them to have for several days after material is distributed. That is what is being examined in the interests of proper information throughout this province, not just the lower mainland.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, it's a great pleasure for me to stand again in this marvellous House, which few of us have the privilege to attend. This special group of men and women who take their part in the development, extension and the future of British Columbia have a great honour, privilege and responsibility. I take it seriously, and I know we all do. After all, some people say "they talk and they fight," but it is that marvellous gift of speech that must be the prelude to all action. The prelude to all action in British Columbia is here. It is the speaking, debate and criticism — of course the criticism — that is the constructive development which creates what we know as parliament: the tradition of the British system, the tradition of democracy, brought down to us through hundreds of years. I believe this House, despite what we may hear from some who are ill-informed, is a great example of this principle of democracy. It gives me great pleasure when I hear our people debating issues that will affect the lives of people in this decade, in the next, and perhaps further on,

Since we became the government in 1975 we have produced constructive developments. I have to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) for the latest budget, the best budget I have heard in this House in the many years I have been here. It is a constructive one. To imagine that a minister could, at a time like this, stand in his place and produce a budget with an increasing future for British Columbia, and at the same time not increase taxation — no one thought it was possible. I myself could not have imagined how it would be possible; the shortfalls seemed so imminent. At a time when the whole economy is in recession and when Canada, especially the central and eastern parts of Canada, is in almost total recession, the province of British Columbia has been able to develop a budget without an increase in taxation. I think it's the upward trend, the positive nature of this government; this has always been done in the past, and it continues to be done.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Some would. We welcome constructive criticism, but we haven't had any constructive criticism — none. The opposition of this House, I regret to say, has deteriorated since I first entered this chamber in 1967. It has deteriorated gradually, but steadily, until today we have arrived at a new low. What do we find? We find a group of men and women with a no-development policy; a no-development party, and no-development people with a totally negative attitude. The worst thing of all is the negative attitude. The other things are passing but that attitude is ingrained, and that is what is hurting our province. If it weren't for the upward swing of our own members, we would be in deep despair if we listened to the opposition at all.

I regret to say this, but I must say it. I recall a meeting of the Crown corporations where we asked Inspector Lucy why we have so many accidents in British Columbia. He said: "I want to tell you why. There's a special reason for that. It's not that the drivers aren't trained; they are as good as anywhere, but they have a wrong and a negative attitude." That's the trouble — the attitude.

AN HON. MEMBER: How come the Socreds have more accidents than NDPers?

MR. MUSSALLEM: I'll give you an example.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) heckles. I don't hear him, so don't worry, boys.

This party at my right — I hate to say that, and I shouldn't be sitting over here — had the effrontery to.... I sat in my seat and could not believe what I was hearing. I said to myself that this just couldn't be, there must have been some mistake, I didn't hear it properly. I sat here, almost dumbfounded, when, during the opening of the session, during the budget speech, the television cameras did not roll. I tell you, that is a terrible negative attitude, and that is the attitude that's killing our province today: suspicion of the Speaker's Chair, suspicion that those cameras somehow could have been altered and changed so that the right story wouldn't get out. How can you be so small?

[ Page 6967 ]

Mr. Speaker, I stand here in total amazement that the province was denied the right to see its parliament in action at that most important time. It is important for the people to see their parliament in action. That is one of the great reasons for having television. They can see their parliament. That important debate should have been televised. The blame is right on that side — with deep regret, negative, no development. I am telling you we have arrived at a sorry time with that opposition, downhill since '67, downhill and going on.

I want to give you an example of a different attitude, the attitude of the members on this side of the House — that side. I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, it becomes extremely difficult for me to address my attacks while looking at the good guys over there. I have to turn to my right.

Let me quote the member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond). He said the budget "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." Just a point, but the point is helping others, which is something the opposition does not understand — making British Columbia a better place to live in.

I give you something from the member from Penticton, Does he complain? No. He said northeast coal is giving contracts to Kelowna, Kamloops, Prince George and Penticton; not only in that area, but it's spreading. The upraising attitude of the debate on that side of the House....

I would go on to the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty), one of the fine addresses we heard in this House, just the other day. He said, very clearly, and I think it is very important:

There are some in this province who would be willing to jeopardize our future for their own personal gain and to protect an antiquated and failed philosophical position. We must reject that attitude clearly and firmly.... We must continue together with one another and with other Canadians to maintain that commitment so that we may work out our differences with integrity, with tolerance and with mutual respect.... We must work together, focusing our energy and creativity so that all Canadians will grow and share with one another the hard-earned rewards of future prosperity. I congratulate the member from Kootenay. I think those are prophetic words.

In contrast, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), whom I respect and admire — she is not in the House at the present time — said she likes to reduce everything to a common denominator. She asked this question: "What has the budget done for me?" Well, I don't have to ask many questions to tell you what the budget has done for her — the same as it did for everybody in British Columbia. For example, it kept the sales tax level, when anybody else would expect it to be equal to other sales taxes in Canada — 8, 9, 10 or 11 percent. But the sales tax remained level. Special funding for health costs — the highest priority in this government has always been for health. Health, Mr. Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), the highest priority. Many great things were done in health by this administration — not by the administration of '72 to '75. Every positive thing done in health, all the hospital allowances, the whole thing, was done by this government. Not one thing by that, except talk — talk through three and a half years of misadventure — 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975. That was the difference between these governments.

I would also say to the member for Burnaby North that the finest educational system in Canada is in British Columbia, funded without extra cost. As a matter of fact, to the amazement of all concerned, the taxes on homeowners will be reduced by this budget. Can you believe it, in a time of recession?

AN HON. MEMBER: Except in the rural areas.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Never mind what areas, but it is reduced.

The best and the finest educational and health-care system in Canada is here. I stand in my place with pride to be a member of that party and that government which was able to do it at this time.

Let me take another one. I'm talking about the downtrend the no-development policy, the no-development party, the no-development people. Let me quote the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). He believes in a balanced budget. Yes, he said that. I said: "They've changed." Except he said this: "I believe in a balanced budget, except if it's necessary to expand." In other words, if you want to go anywhere, you've got to spend more money than you've got. Borrow it and charge it up to somebody else. Our government does not borrow. Our government continues with money we have in hand, and a spend-as-we-go-policy has been in effect since 1972 and continues to this day.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the Crown corporations, George?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Let me answer that Crown corporation thing. Yes, I only wish.... I say this in the House for the umpteenth time. I think I'm being baited each time, but I'm going to say it again. Let us take B.C. Hydro for an example, and we'll go through the whole thing. B.C. Hydro continues to borrow money to create more power and more industry for the province so that we can have industry in the north and all through this province — the Peace River project, the two-river policy, the Columbia policy. All this together created a greater, finer and stronger British Columbia. It couldn't have been done without that. It took courage in those years — in the fifties and the sixties — to develop the principle that that party opposed.

Let me talk about Hydro: they were borrowing money to build these dams. What disaster would we be in today if we had not borrowed" There would be no Prince George, there'd be no mills in the north and no industry up there. There just wouldn't be any without the power developed by those dams and those projects. Yet they say Hydro is in debt. They call that public debt. That's not public debt; that is Hydro debt. I'll put it to you this way....

MR. COCKE: Who pays the interest?

MR. MUSSALLEM: The people who pay the bills for light pay the interest, of course. But I want to tell you this. If Hydro was put up for sale — now put this in your pipe and smoke it — if Hydro was put up for sale today, heaven forbid, it would be sold at probably ten times the book value of its cost and this government could operate on the funds received from that for the next five or six years without taxing anybody. But then we wouldn't own Hydro.

[ Page 6968 ]

There are more assets there than there is debt — ten times the assets. Now understand that. Ten times more asset than debt. Do you understand that? It's so simple. I think that anybody should be able to understand that simple little problem in arithmetic. That is not a debt. There are assets to correspond with that. Now I hear silence from them.

AN HON. MEMBER: B.C. Rail is not a debt?

MR. MUSSALLEM: B.C. Rail is not a debt. I won't answer these questions. Well, I might as well while I'm at it. B.C. Rail opened up British Columbia. It opened up Prince George, Fort St. John and all the towns on the line. It brought in the mills and brought in millions of dollars to British Columbia without which British Columbia would be a dead, carrier-of-water and hewer-of-wood province. That was the line that opened up the centre of British Columbia. Of course, it's not a debt. It's the greatest railway, it's the heart, it's the main artery of the north of British Columbia today. Without the north there'd be, no south; there'd be a little hamlet down here.

There's nothing down here that creates wealth. The wealth is created in the hinterland below the Fraser Valley. Let's understand that. We must expand our sights beyond this comfortable south. We must realize that those men and women who work hard up there — not always for a great deal — make British Columbia a better place to live in, this southern part of this province.

I think we should be deeply indebted. When you say that BCR was a debt on British Columbia, I tell you it's our greatest asset. It is the main trunkline and blood vessel of this province. Are there any other things that you can think of? That's what you have to consider. And they call it a debt! What would they do — liquidate? I remember them talking in a public meeting on Crown corporations. Liquidate the BCR. Close up the line to Fort St. John. Don't worry about the future. Only think about what's at hand.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) said that if you had expansion, you had to have debt. I say to you it is quite unnecessary, because we have had expansion in British Columbia without debt. Through twenty years of Social Credit administration up until 1972, and from 1975 on, this province increased tremendously and prospered without going into debt — not a nickel, not one cent of debt. That's because of proper administration and a foresighted government that looked after every dollar and looked after the people at the same time.

Had the previous administration considered debt — and we had a debt load tremendously like that of, for example, Ontario and Quebec.... The interest on the debt of Ontario and Quebec would pay almost the entire budget of the third-largest province, British Columbia. Do you understand that? The interest on the debt of Ontario and Quebec alone would totally pay the operating of this province — health, schools, the whole business. Yet they talk about debt. We just cannot afford that.

Let me tell you that most bankruptcies happening today are not because the businesses are not getting business. That is not what is creating bankruptcy. Let me tell these people who talk about bankruptcies. The bankruptcies are happening because people during good times expanded too fiercely and got into too much debt. When the time came to repay, the hammer came down. That is one thing this province and this government will not allow. That is one reason why today we have an expansive budget in a time of depression.

It is regrettable — I say this now — that the principles espoused by the Social Credit administration in 1952 were not also in Canada. Had the Prime Minister of Canada been the Premier of British Columbia at that time, W.A.C. Bennett, I tell you, as have many good articles written before, that there would be no debt in Canada today. As hon. members of this House remember, he said we would retire the debt of Canada at the rate of 10 percent per year. We would buy the bonds back. We would at the same time reduce the tariff barrier by 10 percent a year. In ten years there would be no tariff at the international boundary. We would have economic union. Had that happened, which it did not, Canada would today be the industrial heartland of North America, because that is where the raw materials are. That is where the people would be.

The writing was on the wall not that long ago. In the late 50s the federal government placed a railway line from Windsor to Ungava, Labrador. Why did they place that line? They placed that line because the great iron mountain in Pennsylvania petered out. There was not sufficient iron for the steel mills of the United States. So the line went to Ungava to bring the steel down from Ungava to Pittsburgh to create the steel that was necessary. The writing was on the wall at that time, but it wasn't taken hold of. We continued to go into debt.

I don't know of any other government in Canada, except maybe Alberta, that is not in debt. The policy of no debt pervades today, which gives us the strength, even in tough times, to be able to say to the public: "No increase in taxes."

Do you hear a kind word from that negative party, those negative people and that negative attitude? Not one single word. That party should be showing signs of appreciation, should be suggesting how we can improve it, not why it shouldn't be done. I am telling you, this opposition has come to a new low. In 15 years of depreciating bit by bit by bit, you do not recognize the parliament of 1967 in the parliament of 1982 — you cannot recognize that opposition.

The negative attitude pervades and we've got to get away from it. We've got to get away from the negative attitude and negative policies. Let me reiterate to you what our own members are saying: "Lift up, proceed, create." That is our policy. That is what we stand for. Let me quote a little bit from the first member for Victoria. I read this and I can't believe it, but I'll read it anyway. MLA Charles Barber is quoted in Hansard, page 4474, as having called our government's plan for northeast coal "ridiculous and unnecessary." Is that the policy of that party? Forty thousand jobs and billions of dollars for the coffers of British Columbia and Canada.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's hear the member who has the floor.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Do I believe it? It's in Hansard. It's almost unbelievable, but the first member for Victoria.... Let me tell you about northeast coal. Northeast coal brings economic stability — long-term contracts. This is what the first member for Victoria would close down. He'd close down northeast coal, which brings stability, long-term contracts, 5,800 jobs during construction and 10,600 permanent jobs. Northeast coal is the catalyst. That party would close down northeast coal. Not only the first member for

[ Page 6969 ]

Victoria said that; the hon. Leader of the Opposition said the same thing. I stand here in disbelief, Mr. Speaker and hon. members, that anybody could say at any time that he would close down northeast coal, which brings 5,800 jobs during construction and 10,600 permanent jobs.

The investment by Canada and British Columbia will be returned by taxes from the first contracts with a surplus of $5.5 billion in escalated dollars to the province and $9.4 billion to the federal government. In other words, we get the infrastructure paid for plus a surplus for both governments of nearly $15 billion to be used for other industry.

The first member for Victoria would close it down. He didn't say it once, but several times. How much more negative, destructive, and lower in attitude can you get than to espouse this kind of statement. I tell you it's high time some changes were made to that negative party with its negative attitude. There's a danger which worries me just a little that they do not know what they do. I don't think that party, which has been depreciating from 1967 to 1982, realizes how slowly they have depreciated downward, until today they're not recognizable from 15 or 16 years ago.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

We have before us today a budget of great courage. It was a great act of courage to develop a budget that could have an upward swing in the economy of British Columbia when it's badly needed. This government, this party, was the one that did it, and no other. Do not take my word for it. It was hailed by the chief economist of the B.C. Central Credit Union. I never heard of that before with any budget of this government through the last 25 years. But this time he hailed it. It was also hailed by the president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Can you believe it? Yet this negative group would stand there and say it is not a proper budget. It's also hailed by the most important group of all: the workers, the men and women in the street. That's the first time there have ever been such accolades. Never before have we heard such accolades for a single budget. And I think, at a time when we have to admit there's a recession, to have accolades like this for a budget on an upward swing is something to be very proud of.

It's obvious that these people have not been listening to those negative, doubting people and their no-development policy — a no-development party absolutely sunk in their destructive, negative attitude. I am sad that that great party of the past.... It had a past. There was a time when it was a respectable, businesslike organization, struggling for a purpose, but the purpose has been lost, and now they're bent on destruction. They would destroy the budget and the Social Credit Party. Do they realize when they talk like this that they're talking about destroying British Columbia? The negative, destructive attitude must cease.

Through all this there is a danger. I have to tell you that there's been a new attitude afoot in that party, and I can't understand it. I can't understand what is going on there. I tell you all these things because it's important. We have an attitude of destruction, an attitude of no development, a policy of standing still or backing up. Yet we have another facet, Mr. Speaker, and this is the part I can't understand. Barbara McLintock wrote about the Leader of the Opposition, and she entitled it: "Barrett, the Flying Fish."

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Well, I'm only quoting from the paper, not my words. "Maintaining the leadership theme, NDP leader Dave Barrett will wear suits to the Legislature, refrain from performing the famous flying fish acts and otherwise maintain as much a dignified low-key, moderate image as possible."

Now we go on further. Jim Hume wrote: "Barrett, the Moderate." I quote again: "Dave Barrett, the moderate, in his three-piece suit, rubbing shoulders and commiserating with the business community, is nice for image."

What worries me a little bit is, what is happening here? Is this a ruse to take in the non-suspecting people of British Columbia? I can see it developing and I hope the people will reject it when the time comes, because it's wrong. It is terrifying. I am not saying in any way that the NDP are communist. Don't misunderstand me. But I can say that if you extrapolate socialism, you come to communism. I was in church on Sunday and what the minister said stuck in my mind. He said: "The principles of communism and fascism have the seed of self-destruction in them." And I said to myself: "How true." Fascism has already destroyed itself; communism is well on the way.

I am not suggesting that this party is communistic, but I am saying that step by step up the ladder it is the process of control by a few over the many. It is this principle of totalitarianism that they stand for. For the New Democratic Party the word "democratic" does not belong in that title, because there is nothing about democracy in socialism. Socialism is a master-serf relationship. I hope that as time goes on the people of British Columbia will understand the danger of socialism in all its facets. The only system in society that has ever worked is the system of private enterprise. The system that has always failed is the system of socialism — the master over the few. I say to you today that the time will come one of these days for the people to make their judgment again. The reason I am here is because I dread the hour that we become the serfs of the leaders of any parliament, and that is the danger we stand for in one form or another. Certainly we've got the British North America Act. We had it....well, we still have it. We have that to protect us. We have the new Constitution. We have all these things while we're a province. But step by step, is it not possible that this great danger, this cancer, within our system could pervade us and eventually we'd come under.... . ? Once you are there, Mr. Speaker, there is no way back.

The tremendous country of Russia, even though it had a totalitarian monarchy, private enterprises stood there. It was able to feed its people and was able to grow enough grain in the Ukraine to supply much of the world. Much of the world was supplied by the Ukraine. It was called the bread basket of the world. But today the Ukraine cannot feed itself. What happened in that great totalitarian system? I tell you, when the few dictate the many, that is the element of disaster. Those are the seeds of destruction. Remember those words very clearly. I certainly hope and pray that we realize that before it's too late and understand the meaning of it.

The individual is a supreme element in our society. It is the individual that must succeed; it is the individual that must create, not the parliament and not the leaders. They may show the course and point the way, but the individual is the one that must produce. The individual must have the will and desire to produce and must be given the privileges of the production and pay for his work — a reward for his enterprise. But you do not find it under the other system. I say

[ Page 6970 ]

again that we have to have positive influence. We do not want no-development, no-thinking, negative-attitude people. We cannot have that in British Columbia. The time is getting late. We must remember our people here.... This polarized society frightens me a little. I hope as the time goes on we'll be able to understand that there is no system that works except the private-enterprise system. I say to you, my hon. friends, that the budget we have today proves the principle of the initiative of the individual over the totalitarian system of "do as you're told."

MR. KING: Before I address myself to the budget, I want to make a few comments with respect to a statement that was made by the member for Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) last Wednesday. I do not intend to address that matter, which is before the Speaker for deliberation now as a question of privilege. Although I am concerned at the length of time being taken, I appreciate that the Speaker is giving serious weight and thought to that question of privilege.

But a new matter relating to that particular incident has arisen, subsequent to my request to file the motion. That question relates to evidence which has come forward from the individual involved in the member for Okanagan North's comments, a man who allegedly insulted her and her officials during a conference in my riding. The minister did say that the man had been sent to the conference representing me. Subsequently, the man was located and interviewed by the media and indicated that in fact he had been invited by the ministry. I too was invited by the ministry and couldn't attend, but I note that the invitation is in the name of the Hon. Patricia Jordan, with the seal of the province of British Columbia attached thereto. I would suggest that at the appropriate time a question does present itself to the Legislature as to whether or not the member for Okanagan North deliberately misled the House by suggesting that the man was sent by me, when in fact she knew, or at least should have known, that he was on her guest list and had been, in fact, invited by her office. That is a new matter and is not related per se to the question of privilege that I raised at the earliest opportunity I had last week.

When any visiting MLA comes to my riding, be that person a minister of the crown or an MLA, it would certainly be my wish that constituents extend every courtesy to them and to their office, whether or not they like the individual involved. I am certainly somewhat concerned, to say the least, that any member of this Legislature should be treated in a boorish fashion when they are in my riding or any other riding in the province. I can only say that apparently intoxication was involved in this case on the part of an individual whom I do not even know. Sometimes intoxication does produce boorish behaviour which is regretted by the individual in a moment of sobriety.

One thing about intoxication is that people usually recover from it. It can produce sickness of the stomach and temporary lack of intellectual judgment. Diseases of the mind, born out of slander, malicious thoughts and hatred, are not so easy to recover from. I regret that the member for Okanagan North chose not only to embarrass the individual involved, but to infer and indeed to allege that his conduct was in some way associated with my office.

I look forward to an early decision by the Chair with respect to the matter I raised earlier, and, as I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time, the next question which has come to light subsequent to that first motion should be addressed by this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I find it instructive that a very malicious charge, which has unquestionably proved to be wrong and invalid, should be left hanging by the member without an attempt to apologize or correct the record.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the Chair recognizes the position of the member, and I would hope that the member as well recognizes the position of the Chair in permitting a debate which obviously is now beginning more and more to encompass the motion that the member put forward. I would ask the member if he could bear that in mind and return to something that would be more appropriately in order in this debate.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'm in the difficult position of not knowing — nor, indeed, with respect, does the Chair — whether or not a motion has been put forward. We don't know whether the motion is accepted. At this point, it has not been ruled upon. I certainly do not wish to stray beyond the bounds of what is appropriate for discussion while the Speaker has a matter under advisement, but I would simply make this observation in general terms. I guess Jack Kelly said it best for the Social Credit Party when he was their chief research director and said candidly: "Yes, we play dirty, and that's okay." Because that statement was made public, Jack Kelly was fired by the Social Credit caucus. I suggest that what he had put forward in a candid fashion is given proof positive by the member for Okanagan North's conduct, and I wonder why she still retains her cabinet portfolio. It's another Social Credit dirty trick, pure and simple, and I shall not forget it, Mr. Speaker.

The budget that was introduced has been called a lot of things. It's been called deceptive; it's been called dishonest. I just want to trace for the House the effects of the budget on the area of British Columbia that I represent, the riding of Shuswap- Revelstoke. I want to identify what I think is a commonality of interest between all the interior points of British Columbia, whether it be the East or West Kootenays, the Okanagan or the north-central part of our province.

The previous speaker acknowledged that the wealth of our province is, in substantial fashion, extracted from the interior, the less-populated areas of our province — the resource wealth that funds the social programs of our province and provides the material and the resources for the industrial breadbasket of greater Vancouver and the lower mainland. It is one thing for a member of the government to recognize that and comment on it, but I wonder what kind of mental gymnastics it takes to make that recognition and then stand idly by while the budget that he gives praise to refuses to recognize that simple fact and instead discriminates in very harsh and punitive fashion against the outlying area which is the resource breadbasket of this province.

The forest industry, it goes without saying, is the main underpinning of our economy. Just to show you, as an example, what is happening to our forest industry in the interior, we have a press release issued by the Ministry of Forests, the Nelson forest region, on January 13 of this year, setting the annual allowable cut for Cranbrook forest district. The Cranbrook forest district begins the new year with a revised annual allowable cut. The setting of the AAC follows the 1981 publication of the Cranbrook timber supply yield analysis report. Here are the salient points. The annual allowable cut determined by the chief forester has been set for the next five years at 900,000 cubic metres. In line with provincial

[ Page 6971 ]

policy, the new rate of harvest is considered effective January 1, 1981, and is a reduction of 320,000 cubic metres, 26 percent, from the previous allowable rate of harvest for the same area: a 26 percent reduction in the annual harvest of our forest crop in the Cranbrook forest region....

We have seen similar reductions in the Revelstoke timber supply area, the West Kootenays, the East Kootenays and the Okanagan. While all the apportionments have not yet been set, this represents an appalling and grave reduction in employment opportunity and economic activity throughout the interior of the north-central part of our province. That means the loss of jobs. At a time when this is happening, one would expect that the government of the province of British Columbia would be allocating more funding to renewing our forest crop at a more rapid pace.

We had a provision before us in this Legislature in 1980 the Forest and Range Resource Fund, a special fund set up by the government, which the opposition supported — providing for an annual allocation over a five-year period to improve and accelerate the growth of our forest resource so that we would not be facing the kind of falldown which we see and which I have outlined just now. In this year's budget that Forest and Range Resource Fund has been wiped out, totally eliminated, so that Social Credit with its strange economic, monetary policies can balance the books, on the face of it. What kind of financial and economic stewardship is it when we undermine the number one financial resource producer of our province at a time when we are experiencing falldowns so that there can be short-term accounting for the budget of this government.

At a time when there's economic stagnation in the forest industry and hundreds — indeed thousands — of people are laid off, we should be taking this opportunity of the lull in harvesting because of poor markets to increase our investment, to institute thinning programs in our forests so our trees have room to grow, to institute accelerated planting of seedlings, and to recapture some of the unsatisfactory stock land that now sits dormant, supporting weed species rather than merchantable trees. We don't see that kind of commitment to the forest industry — an industry that we'll have to rely on in the future to fund our social programs. Rather we see chiseling on the appropriations voted by this Legislature to settle the Social Credit books rather than to provide any ongoing commitment to the forest industry.

Mr. Speaker, what's happening in those areas — the Premier's own area and the area I serve in this Legislature, the Okanagan-Shuswap and Columbia-Thompson areas? There's a letter here to the hon. Premier from the economic development commission for the regional district of Columbia-Shuswap. I'm going to read it into the record so that the House knows this is not my assessment of the dire straits of the economy in that region, but a factual assessment of the depressed state of our economy which this government sits blandly watching deepen into worse recession. Indeed, they plunge it into further depression because of their insensitive and stupid economic policies.

Salmon Arm — Shuswap Forest Industry and
B.C. Southern Interior Forest Industry

Dear Mr. Bennett:

Our unemployment picture is growing worse very rapidly, as shown on the attached data sheets marked in red. These do not yet include any new major layoffs in our regional forest industry.

Because of this alarming data and the potential for a much worse picture, we ask you and the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development to give urgent consideration to our brief forwarded to you under cover of my letter of February 17, 1982.

Anything you can do to fortify the hopes of our regional forest industry in its difficult effort to continue operating would be of great help in maintaining the thousands of local jobs that are so crucial to our economy.

Richard Dolman,
Commissioner

He attaches the unemployment statistics for the previous years going back to 1975. In Region 91, East Kootenay, in January 1982, we had an unemployment rate of 9.5 percent; Region 92, Central Kootenay, 12.4 percent; Region 93, Kootenay-Boundary-Okanagan, 10.6 percent; Southern Interior, 11.6 percent. The average for Canada was down to 9.5 percent.

The percentage increase in unemployment in the following communities is absolutely alarming. Indeed, it's a catastrophe for those particular towns that are living with this dilemma without any prospect of assistance from the provincial government. In Salmon Arm we've had an increase from December 1981 to February 1982 of 50 percent; in Revelstoke, 73 percent; in Cranbrook to Golden, 46 percent; in Nelson, the West Kootenays, 101 percent; in Trail, 65 percent; in Penticton, 62 percent; in Kelowna, the Premier's own riding, 60 percent; in Vernon, 58 percent; in Kamloops, 73 percent.

Mr. Speaker, that spells disaster for many of those communities. The part that alarms and angers me is the fact that we see no initiative in the budget either to recognize the problem or to offer some interim measure that would alleviate it.

The member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) thinks it's amusing and smiles.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It's not just the economic development officer who is concerned about this matter. A special presentation with a visual slide show was presented by the Shuswap-Okanagan Forest Association, which has their office in Westbank and has mills throughout the Shuswap-Okanagan. They wrote to the minister, and a variety of communities wrote to the government, requesting that action be taken.

I want to read into the record some of the things that SOFA has said. They were asked to comment on what percentage of profits the industry sinks back into silviculture. The answer was, in part, as follows:

'A five year average profit study of the southern interior conducted by Price Waterhouse for the years 1976 to 1980 inclusive reveals that if silvicultural costs and profit were combined, the silvicultural portion of that combined number would be approximately 26 percent of the total. The cost of planting trees in that area is about $3.95 per tree. Under the current stumpage appraisal system, less than an equitable share of stumpage revenue is being returned to forestry in that area which would support and guarantee a sustained yield of forest products for our industries and employment in that particular area."

[ Page 6972 ]

We have ample evidence of what's happening. Here's a headline from March 31 saying: "Federated Co-op's Mill at Canoe Lays Off 250 From Their Sawmill." It's not just in that region. Others say: "MacMillan Bloedel (Wharnock) in the Red" — sure, the industry is in trouble — "Forest Firms' Share Near Low, and Grim 1982 for Forest Industry."

Every responsible agency of the forest industry is projecting that there will be no market turnaround for the forest industry in 1982. In the annual report of Canfor, Peter Bentley says: "It is a serious and unhappy time for all of us, and I do not see any early signs of recovery." How is it, then, that we have a government that eliminates the Forest and Range Resource Fund, which would take advantage of this market lull to increase the management of our forests, to accelerate the growth of our stock and to replant and recapture some of the unsatisfactorily stocked land? They eliminate that investment, but in the budget they project an increased revenue flowing from the forest industry in 1982-83 of between 26 and 33 percent, depending on whose interpretation one takes.

When all of the competent, knowledgeable people in the industry are saying "no turnaround for 1982," the government obviously can't anticipate higher revenue from the industry. It's pretty clear that this is a government desperate to hide their incompetent financial stewardship of this province. They are prepared to pirate every fund available, no matter how that may hamstring the long-term interests of our forest resource, just to hide their financial incompetence.

The record is beyond repeating in this Legislature. "B.C. Timber Closing Plant"; "Pulp Mill Closing in MB Cutback"; "Forest Future Dismal"; "MB to Close Island Mill for Five Weeks"; "MacMillan Bloedel to Shut Down Powell Pulp Complex for Two Weeks"; "No Tears for MB — Cuts for Company Executives"; "Family Life Felled By Forest Industry Failures"; "Forest City Swaps Glitter for Gloom."

We heard a great deal about dire straits in reaction to the federal budget. Dire straits became a euphemism for all of those communities affected by a harsh budget, introduced by the federal Liberals. What does this government call the effects of their policies? We don't pretend that they are totally responsible. We recognize that market forces outside this province have created a problem. But surely there are some positive things that can be done in the interim which would alleviate the suffering of thousands of British Columbians and at the same time make a positive investment in our resource supply for the future, so that when the economy does rebound and the market improves we will be in a stronger economic position to take advantage of it. No, we see them eliminating the very fund that would support increased employment in the forest industry and would in fact put us in a stronger position with respect to timber supply when the economy does rebound.

The young gentleman, the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), defies all of the records, and he thinks that if you repeat often enough that the opposition is only negative, people will believe it. Our leader released to the press a positive program for economic recovery in the province of British Columbia. It's available to the member for Dewdney and to the government, and we commend it to them. It would address some of the problems that should be recognized even by Social Credit members with blinkers on.

That program provided not only for the preservation of the five-year Forest and Range Resource Fund but for the infusion of an additional $63 million this year into intensive treatment of our forest resource. It is a program that would create in the area of 5,000 jobs in the forest industry — an investment, if you will, in the future that would place us in a stronger market position when the market rebounds. It is a program that would allow idle workers who are now sitting at home on unemployment insurance while their resource goes to hell in a hand basket....

Interjection.

MR. KING: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker, if I've offended the minister. Goes to the dogs in a hand basket.

It would allow them to look forward to a productive summer, to earn the unemployment insurance stamps that would enable them to live and maintain their families over the winter months. Many of them are not going to be able to do that, If we don't put them to work now, their unemployment insurance benefits will be exhausted by this fall and they will be facing a bleak winter at the tender mercies of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), and under this government that's a prospect no one looks forward to.

Mr. Speaker, it's not just the forest industry. We have suggested a positive program for the expenditure of some $300 million, which with a change of priority by that government could have been made available out of existing revenue to generate some 43,000 jobs in the province of British Columbia, related to the forest industry, the tourist industry, the mining industry, agriculture. If the member for Dewdney and his government do not wish to listen, or indeed examine, the practicability of ideas put forward by the opposition, then that's on their heads. But to suggest that we do nothing over here but apply negative criticism is simply a refusal to open one's ears, or to open one's eyes and read what is put before them for debate. Mr. Speaker, there is much that could be done.

I have a telegram I received this morning from Okanagan College. It has three campuses: one in the city of Kelowna, which the Premier represents; one in the city of Vernon, which I assume someone represents; and one in Salmon Arm, which I represent. I am going to read the contents, and I want my colleague the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) to listen closely.

B.C. HAS THE LOWEST POST-SECONDARY PARTICIPATION RATE IN CANADA. AS RECENTLY AS 1968 WE HAD THE HIGHEST RATE. EDUCATION AT THE COMMUNITY-COLLEGE LEVEL BENEFITS THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY IN THE INTERIOR WHERE THERE IS SIMPLY NO AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVE.

OKANAGAN COLLEGE PROVIDES COMPREHENSIVE POST-SECONDARY SERVICES TO OVER 3,000 FULLTIME AND 3,600 PART-TIME STUDENTS, DRAWN FROM A REGIONAL POPULATION OF 200,000, EXTENDING FROM OSOYOOS TO REVELSTOKE. OKANAGAN COLLEGE OPERATES IN FOUR PERMANENT CAMPUSES AT A COST PER STUDENT BELOW THAT OF SINGLE-CAMPUS INSTITUTIONS OF SIMILAR SIZE. FROM ITS INCEPTION, OKANAGAN COLLEGE HAS BEEN CONTINUOUSLY UNDERFUNDED IN RELATION TO ITS MANDATE. THE ADDED COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH MULTI-CAMPUS OPERATION HAVE NEVER BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED OR FULLY FUNDED BY THE MINISTRY. IN 1981 OKANAGAN COLLEGE ACCOUNTED FOR 5.6 PERCENT OF THE PROVINCIAL TOTAL OF STUDENT CONTRACT HOURS, BUT RECEIVED ONLY 5.4 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL BUDGET FOR COLLEGES. THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE EQUITABLE TREATMENT, BUT REPRESENTS AN UNDERFUNDING IN COMPARISON WITH OTHER COLLEGES. THROUGH MANY YEARS OF INADEQUATE FUNDING OKANAGAN COLLEGE HAS MAINTAINED

[ Page 6973 ]

SERVICE AT A LEVEL OF QUALITY AS GOOD OR BETTER THAN OTHER INSTITUTIONS. ANY FURTHER REDUCTION IN FUNDING AT THIS TIME WILL SERIOUSLY JEOPARDIZE THE COLLEGE'S ABILITY TO CONTINUE THESE SERVICES. THE MOST VULNERABLE TARGETS FOR SERVICE REDUCTION WILL BE THE PERMANENT OFFERINGS IN PENTICTON, VERNON AND SALMON ARM, WHERE EVEN MINIMAL CUTBACKS MAY THREATEN THE FUTURE EXISTENCE OF THE OPERATION.

WE CHALLENGE THIS GOVERNMENT TO RECONSIDER ITS STANCE WITH REGARD TO THE DESTRUCTION OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION IN B.C. WE CALL ON YOU AS AN ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE TO SUPPORT CONTINUATION OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION AND TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES AT THIS TIME IN OUR PROVINCE'S HISTORY WHEN WE ARE MOST IN NEED OF THE COMMON EFFORT OF ALL CITIZENS IN SUR PORT OF ECONOMIC RECOVERY. CONSIDER THE NEEDS OF OUR YOUNG PEOPLE. IT IS YOUR DECISION AND THEIR FUTURE.

ERIC BUCKLEY, PRESIDENT,

OKANAGAN COLLEGE
FACULTY ASSOCIATION.

Mr. Speaker, it's not just the forest industry in the interior where extraction is taking place and reinvestment is failing. It is the educational facilities. It is the health facilities, where we see home-care programs cut back. It is the highway program, where we have petitions to coroners from the high school principal at Falkland appealing for action to prod the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) into doing something to make the roadways safer for the children of that school, where the accident rate has been alarming. The interior is being squeezed and denied safety on the highways. It is being denied equitable opportunity and access to education and health care throughout the province.

What do we see at one and the same time? We see $1 billion worth of investment in downtown Vancouver and another billion and some for northeast coal. And the government says: "Are you against northeast coal?" If they would be honest and put the facts on the table and tell us how much they are going to subsidize the mining companies and the Japanese for the export of that coal, we would give a definitive answer. But they remain less than frank with the Legislature. They don't reveal the nature of any contracts that may or may not be let, and they fail and refuse to give a full accounting of the freight rates for the export of the coal and the royalty payments on it.

I am not a very provincial person, in the sense that I don't believe that we should be so parochial as to say: "Well, we have to have X number of dollars invested in Shuswap-Revelstoke to match downtown Vancouver." But I say there is gross and patent and unconscionable disparity between the economic megaprojects which this government has instituted and the suffering that is taking place in my part of the province. How is it that we can come up with the dollars to invest in football stadiums and in Transpo '86, but we can't find the funds for Okanagan College? How is it we can make this kind of heavy investment when our highways pose a danger to the travelling public and the local people in my area? How is it that we're having to cut home-care programs for the seniors and the indigent all through the interior and north-central part of the province when we see these kinds of lavish programs in downtown Vancouver? No wonder western separatism is taking root in this province under the maladministration of that group of opportunists over there. That is the very stuff that regional unrest, regional dissatisfaction, is born out of. There is no equity in what this government is doing. They are pouring the funds into the area where they think they can win the most political seats. That's what is happening.

I hold no brief for the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who some time ago had in her charge the Pier B-C complex, but I would observe that it was strange that she was suggesting that there should be a financial contribution from the downtown business community. I saw Senator Perrault on television and he said the downtown management group, and apparently the cabinet of the Social Credit Party, were dissatisfied and concerned about the management at that time. That was the minister and Mr. Shrum.

So the Liberal conspiracy went to work, the Liberal conspiracy that took over the Social Credit Party in 1975, composed of the then Attorney-General, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), Dr. Strangelove and the two senators from British Columbia, Perrault and — what's the other guy's name? — Austin. Senator Ray got on television and said yes, they weren't satisfied with the management, so something had to be done. And what did they do? They did an end run around the Premier. They said: "How can we change things with the Premier commissioning his colleague, the Minister of Human Resources?" Senator Ray told them how to do it. He said: "He's an intellectual Tinkerbell. He's no problem. When he came east to negotiate the constitution, we did an end run around him when he couldn't perform as chairman. We simply called a meeting at 8:30 at night, after he'd gone to bed." Then they did the end run around him, and they installed the Liberal boys to run the project.

The interesting part of it is that the senator knew precisely what level of support existed in the provincial cabinet for Gordon and Grace. How did he know that? It wasn't a coalition that took place in 1975; it was a Liberal takeover of the Social Credit Party. That's what took place. That's who's determining the economic policies of this government now. Who's in charge? — Paul Manning, Ron Basford, the three Liberals here and the two Liberal senators. That's the power structure determining the economic destiny of this province. They are the ones who are prepared to rape the resources of the interior and plough them into their own back yards; they are the ones who are prepared to deny common, basic services to children and seniors throughout the length and breadth of the interior. It was a sorry day for Social Credit when the Liberals seized control of that party, and it's instructive to see the contempt with which they move the Premier aside.

In conclusion, I remind you that the Minister of Universities, Science and Technology (Hon. Mr. McGeer) was right when he said: "The Premier doesn't sparkle in debate." Indeed!

HON. MR. HEINRICH: In the U.S. there is the annual state of the nation address; in our nation it's budget day. It has the same connotation, because finance ministers, both federal and provincial, are really addressing their citizens on the economic health of their community.

You need not be a chartered accountant to appreciate the fact that the economic stewardship of the province is in capable hands. For six and one half years the B.C. ship of state has avoided the turbulent waters and other hazards that have beset and are besetting others.

[ Page 6974 ]

If we can digress for a moment, I think you might draw a comparison between some of the provinces in central Canada and the Maritimes, some of which have called elections before presenting their budgets, and also examine the indebtedness of central Canada, the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. British Columbia, through the guidance of our Premier, has chartered a fiscally responsible course and has avoided the easy route of more and more debt which has affected the headway of others. It's often said, but it's often even more difficult to deliver upon.

The Minister of Finance described and had an examination of the global economic view. I take this opportunity to express on behalf of this House our appreciation for a budget of hope and encouragement in a period of constraint. I also invite the members of the opposition to examine the reaction to the budget compared to the one brought down by our Minister of Finance's federal counterpart not so long ago. Sometimes it's easy to be critical, but when I found some excerpts in the newspaper shortly after the budget was delivered, I went through and came to the last paragraph, and in the following line there was an admission and acknowledgement in the editorial in the Vancouver Sun — and heaven only knows it hasn't always been supportive of the government. I quote: " But it appears to be a responsible budget, on the right track between restraint and confidence. It will not afflict British Columbians in hard times."

Perhaps we can also examine an analysis done by Eli Sopow in the Vancouver Province, and the closing comment by the chief economist of the B.C. Central Credit Union. "This budget," he said, "is exactly the right formula to carry us through the recession."

AN HON. MEMBER: What was his name?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: His name was Richard McAlary.

Or we can go to Ken Bell, the business editor for the Vancouver Province, and his analysis. There's one paragraph. "Nevertheless," he says, "I believe that the current budget is as good as possible under the circumstances."

As a matter of fact, the headline in the Vancouver Province is "A Good News Budget." That does not happen that often in this province.

"The budget didn't forget about the needy either" — I refer to an article by Barbara McLintock. "Estimates Give Hope to the Needy." We'll see that there is a substantial amount of money available for them.

Probably the best column of all was written by Mike Tytherleigh. Mr. Speaker, the important thing about the budget is that it does encourage investment, and it demonstrates the leadership of the government. He says, referring to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett).

"Doesn't he understand that these investments will stimulate construction and create jobs for today's students in labour-intensive tourist industries that likely will surpass the resource industries in growth, and as a future revenue producer in our province?"

And something which we have always proposed,

"The revenue provides governments with money for educational and teacher salaries, whose militant leaders appear determined to destroy the credibility of the federation and anger the general public again.

"Ironically" — Tytherleigh continues — "while the militants are attacking edifices and monuments, the NDP's new economic recovery program says: 'Tourism is a major generator of external revenue for the B.C. economy. It is an industry which requires planning, financial support and cooperation between the private and public sectors.' And they add that the trade and convention centres in Vancouver and Victoria are long overdue. Yet no sooner do those trade and convention centres and a number of other developments get on the block then there's criticism — harping criticism — and it never stops. I don't know why that particular political party always seems to attract those who are against everything, those who are militants. It continues again and again and again."

This particular budget provides a framework for recovery and is not one that imposes a burden on the future. I have felt for some time that something should be said about the state of labour relations in the province, given a changing population, workforce, skills and expectations. I believe we face a future not of more, but of better — a future that requires more thorough use of what we have and a substantial reduction in what we waste. It means a society based more on serious deliberation than on serious conflict. It means an economic community of industry — labour and management more interested in effective competition with others than ineffective competition between themselves.

Long before I became involved in labour relations, someone once observed: "Collective agreements do not buy groceries." How true that is, Mr. Speaker. Paycheques buy groceries, dividends buy groceries and profits create investment and jobs. There's nothing wrong with profit.

That is the ground on which we as a society must stand. While they are all commendable things in themselves, they require enlightened mutual self-interest and not the blind pursuit of selfish interest. We have only to look at successful economies to see that. We have only to look at unsuccessful economies to know that.

In our relationships with labour, there at times have been some unfortunate comments. But I want to remind you that it wasn't us who declared anarchy. It wasn't us who referred to the Labour Relations Board as a "group of right-wing thugs." It wasn't us who said there would be blood in the streets. And it wasn't us who said: "Go to hell." I also note the tremendous change in attitude and approach of its author the day immediately following that particular statement — more destructive debate from negative doubting people. I never thought I would say that, but after almost three years in this House, I think it's true.

The people of British Columbia have had a Socred government in 27 out of 30 years, and three years of opposite. That's 10 percent. There's always a tantalizing: "Well, let's go to the mattresses and have an election." Well, people in British Columbia have said what they want 27 out of 30 years, and I'm quite confident they'll say it again and again and again.

MR. COCKE: That sounds like false courage.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, that doesn't sound like false courage, Mr. Member. Any time you want.

It's refreshing to know that some of these issues were discussed at the founding convention of the Canadian Federation of Labour, a new group. Let us hope that it is a sign of a spring thaw that can lead to a crop of new ideas and new concepts of labour-management cooperation, and not the

[ Page 6975 ]

constant affiliation by some members of labour with the members opposite. How, I'd like to know, can you pursue the legitimate aspirations of labour when you constantly align yourself with one political party or the other? You can't do it — there's an immediate conflict. Remember, Mr. Speaker, that labour disgraced no man. Unfortunately, you'll occasionally find men who disgrace labour.

The government embarked on a period of restraint in the public sector which included compensation. What I believe is unique in this is the overwhelming support this program has received from the public at large. There's been criticism. Of course you can expect criticism, but it's muted. I believe the sobering reality of the 1980s has impressed all our citizens and all our interest groups.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Getting to you, Mr. Member? I suppose in a perfect world there would be no need to monitor or constrain various aspects of our social and economic life. Well, life in British Columbia is of a very high quality but it is not yet ready to submit to perfection. Therefore, with rights and freedoms, there must be responsibility and accountability.

In the private sector there has been the bottom line in the financial statement. In the public sector there is only the resolve of governments to say no. When common sense dictates it, it must be said. For the abrogation of that responsibility by governments, by increasing the burden to their citizens who are at the same time their customers.... If, Mr. Speaker — and I say "if " — the overriding constraint of ability to pay is not the categorical imperative in the public sector as it is in the private sector, then other measures of accountability must be brought into play. There may very we" be good reasons for that, but I do not believe the public sector should be immune from some sort of economic sacrifice. Its ultimate well-being is dependent on the health of the private sector. I'm sure that those people who are unemployed at this time support that view.

These measures of accountability can be skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions in one circumstance, and security of employment and total compensation in another. But make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, there must be a bottom line. We cannot have two classes of citizens in this province: one which is always vulnerable to the business cycle, and one which is not. Until we can distribute our revenues without limitation, then as a government we have an obligation to ensure that the burdens of restraint are not borne by the private sector alone. That's the cruellest restraint of all. The principle which is enunciated in the restraint program is one that no responsible government can ignore, Mr. Speaker, and this is a responsible government.

The compensation stabilization program introduced today, for example, is much more preferable than the alternative — and we know what that alternative is: it's cruel, and it's unemployment. You know, I think we're making a mistake out there, because I believe those in the public sector want to help. This was the avenue they had available to them, and I would venture to say that there is significant support. Surely that small sacrifice by some who have job security is not an unreasonable request. While collective bargaining in the traditional sense shall continue with one equitable and flexible limitation, it does not contain the hammer that we once found in this province under the guise of what was called the Collective Bargaining Continuation Act, where bargaining continued until the bill had royal assent, and then ended. Not only did collective bargaining not continue, but neither did the government that introduced the bill.

The opposition has been silent, and in my view a well-known dictum applies: silence indicates consent. Did any of you see the response of the Leader of the Opposition after the program was announced?

HON. MR. HEWITT: What response?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's it: "What response?"

Our important social programs will continue, because this government did its jobs. Those social programs for which our Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) has responsibility are outstanding: health premiums are the world's best bargain. How often it seems that we forget about the good things. An editorial from the Times-Colonist said: "Health Care — Still a Good Buy," and it's worth repeating: "The howls of anguish are understandable — no one likes to pay more. But provincial health-care costs over the past decade have grown at an astounding rate, from $260 million in 1971 to $2 billion in the fiscal year just ending — almost an eightfold increase."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote it?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I don't know who wrote it, but I can tell you that editorial writers are not people whose clippings I often take.

"On the other hand, in December 1965 medical insurance premiums were set at $5 for a single person, $10 for a couple and $12.50 for a family of three or more. There was no increase in premiums until 1976." Now we look at the costs: "Health Care, the World's Best Bargain" — an editorial.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide this House with a little lesson in history. In 1975, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre, there was a budget address by the present Leader of the Opposition in his capacity as former Minister of Finance — mind you, he sacked that member as well. He had this to say to the House: "It is a goal of this government to direct British Columbia's economy toward the need of all people rather than those who possess power because of their wealth or influence." May I editorialize there for a moment? I have a feeling that he was referring to some of the militants as well as the corporations.

He continues: "Our government is committed to win the long-term fight to root out inequality and to achieve a humane society which responds through the democratic process to the actual needs of all our citizens." Well, Mr. Speaker, if that remains the objective of the members opposite and of the Leader of the Opposition, I invite them to join our government in support of the budget, because it is the policies, determination and foresight of this government which is making that objective a reality.

During the last few days we've heard words of sound and fury signifying nothing, as usual. But like ships in our harbour out here, they are most noisy when they are in the fog. After three years, I believe it now. You know, members, you never get a second chance to make a good first impression. You had that once and I'll bet you'd like to do it over again. In 1975 you went to the people before a budget was presented. Why?

[ Page 6976 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Several more. The halo is starting to choke me, Mr. Member.

The opposition's motto was "a new deal for the people." In fact, it was a new death for the people. There are never any comments from the members opposite about a triple-A rating. Nothing mentioned by the opposition at all. What do the newspapers and commentators say? You complain about the projects. On one hand you say we've got to do these things to increase the tourism. "You need Expo, you need a pier, you need a convention centre." We do it and what do you say? Expo, Pier B-C, ALRT, B.C. Place, northeast coal, railroad expansion upgrading, court facilities and petrochemical plants are the realities. They are funded and they promote commerce. Where do you think we find the jobs? Each requires substantial intensive capital investment.

You know, I was looking for some material the other day, and you were against the Peace River project too. I don't believe it. You'd have no power if it hadn't gone through.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) passed this over the other day and I found it somewhat strange. This is an article from the Financial Times interviewing the Leader of the Opposition. "(1) All oil and gas should be publicly owned." But (2) — and why would anybody say this? — "If you were the Premier, what would you do about northeast coal?" Answer: "If we were in we'd stop it tomorrow."

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the date on that?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: June 8, 1981 — less than a year ago.

Coal. One idea and one vision made it possible. I look down to our Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and, you know, I think he has the energy of a hummingbird. I really do. Persistence over a few years and hard, hard work. As a result, what do we have in British Columbia? A northern seaport and cooperation with the federal government. Is that not in your program? Upgrading of the CNR and the BCR. Do you have any idea the amount of capital invested? If some of you would travel into the north you'd find that out. It's right from the northeast to the coast. And what about a new town? Did you ever put together a new town? Do you have any idea how many people are involved and how much is shoved into it? A new power line, new highway, and ten unit trains, 100 cars each plus the locomotive, the financing, rail costs and the recovery plan, the freight rates and the surcharge. It's never been done before. And they're concerned about the contracts awarded — to date $413 million. Do you know how many of those dollars were in British Columbia? Three hundred and fifty million dollars. The value of contracts awarded outside of Canada is $26 million. Inside Canada the value is $37 million, but in B.C. It's 84.6 percent — $350 million. And you are concerned about a few dollars that are going to the Japanese to handle the loaders at the terminal in Prince Rupert. Did you ever consider the exchange of commerce between one country and another? Interchange foreign trade. You are as proud as can be when we sell but, you know, there is a quid pro quo sometimes and it works both ways.

Where does your party stand when it comes down to the Crow rate?

And what happens with northeast coal stability? The economy and the workforce from Chetwynd, Tumbler Ridge, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Prince Rupert, rail upgrading, transportation of other products like lumber, grain minerals and petrochemicals, and a workforce — the construction industry — of about 10 percent of the existing construction workforce, about 5,000 people in that area....

Our government, Mr. Speaker, believes in a vibrant and healthy economy, and a productive economy is necessary as a basis for sound social programs. You can't have one without the other. That vibrance and health can only be a reality when there is full participation from the private sector. If there was ever a time to appreciate the value and contribution made by the private sector to our economy and our standard of living, it is now. All we need to do is go outside and find some of the difficulties that the private sector are having and how it's reflected in their employees.

We can never forget a hard-working and thrifty population is the means whereby these goals are achieved. They're not like the members of the opposition, too many of whom quit looking for work as soon as they got a job. When they failed to deliver on their announcement of northeast coal development, as the member for Vancouver Centre did.... They failed and they seek comfort in opposition. I tell you, you're worn out. Not our Minister of Industry and Small Business Development.... It's better to wear out than rust out. You over there: I think you are rusted out.

SOME HON. MEMBER: There's sure a lot of unemployment in Prince George.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: There are great people in that area, and I'm sure they'll rebound, Madam Member. The nearly destructive party — negative doubting. I'd like to quote something that they usually use themselves.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Welfare.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, welfare.

On the value of a strong commitment to the private sector in the formulation of an economic development strategy, let me make reference to a statement by the Minister of Labour in the former Labour government in Great Britain: "For the immediate future, the new strategy will mean giving priority to industrial development over consumption, even at the expense of social reform. There is no other way of developing the industrial base on which the government's whole program of economic and social reform depends." You can't have it both ways, members opposite.

State socialism has no plan for production. It doesn't produce, it consumes. Our policy is to provide a climate where individuals and industry can flourish under government assistance and encouragement, not by state control and ownership. It's possible to plan an economy without owning it. If the opposition had their way, they'd even regulate the bluebird of happiness.

The wisdom of experience tell us the private sector will do a better job, and let's keep it that way. It must be remembered that investors examine the climate and do not speculate on the weather.

[ Page 6977 ]

There hasn't been a great deal said lately about.... I think it's time to pay tribute to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers), who's also been involved in B.C. Place, and the tremendous job which he has done. He's quiet, does his job and doesn't look for any fanfare. I was never so impressed in all my life with how fortunate people in Vancouver are, and the rest of the province is going to benefit eventually as this development comes to fruition. But when you look to a downtown development such as the city of Vancouver is going to have with B.C. Place, the spinoffs, the amount of work involved, the number of jobs, the capital investment, preservation of property values, interchange of commerce.... That's a plus: downtown British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I have concluded my remarks. There are a number of other things that I'd like to take a run at.

When we add up all the projects which go on in this province — and for those of you who haven't been travelling around, have a look. When you take the rail lines from the northeast, through Prince George, out to the west, and when you travel into the southeast and the developments are there.... The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) said it well when he said: "Without development in the north, the south has nothing."

I don't know if that's totally true. I think there is a little humility in here. It was nice to hear that from a southern member, but I want you to know that there is a lot of truth in it. What this budget does is encourage investment. Remember, the investors look for the climate, not the weather. What we have done, as all of the articles have said in support of the budget.... "It is a good budget, and they couldn't have done it better for the time in which we're now living."

MR. LAUK: That's considered — by "that," I mean the speech of the Minister of Labour — a smokescreen speech. He started off as Minister of Labour in this province, and he extended his hand to ordinary working people and organized labour and said: "I'm your friend. I'm defending you against these right-wingers who want to bring in right-to-work and take away your collective bargaining process. I'm going to stand up and defend the ordinary workers against my colleagues." We knew better on this side of the House. We knew that that young minister could only do what any other young minister on the back bench of the front benches there could do, and that is do what he's told.

He had to eat crow this year. They brought in restraint packages. They've been labour-bashing and going through that process, and the minister has been very silent about defending ordinary working people in the province, You'd think he'd deliver a speech today about the trade union movement, the Ministry of Labour and what new things we have in store for ordinary working people. We wanted to hear new policies, but he came in and delivered this great big smokescreen. As if that isn't bad enough, it was the longest string of uninterrupted clichés I've ever heard in this House. Not a subject or predicate got within striking distance of one another. For clichés — nine out of ten for content — it falls off the chart at the bottom end.

I have a couple of clichés for the minister. I figure giving him the same thing is better than making a speech that's intelligible, so I'll throw a couple of clichés his way. I took your speech as a speech of a person who lives in a glass house and, overall, with a grain of salt.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The budget which has been delivered to us took this government a great deal of time. There is a great controversy about whether the Leader of the Opposition should debate the Premier over the economy, and so on and so forth, but I think that controversy was incorrect. I think the Leader of the Opposition should challenge the real governors of this province to a debate. I think the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) should go on TV and debate the real Premiers of this province. I think he should challenge Patrick Kinsella to a debate. I think he should challenge Doug Heal and Mr. Spector to a debate. Let's get the real leaders of the Social Credit government out front where we can see them.

MR. HOWARD: But they're easterners.

MR. LAUK: Oh, yes, I know they're easterners, and they don't understand that in British Columbia we don't buy that line of.... Is that on the list, Mr. Speaker? The people of this province do not buy the Blue Machine line from Ontario.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Bring back Eliesen.

MR. LAUK: Marc Eliesen — listen to these guys!

Spector and Kinsella, the chief architect of dirty tricks in Ontario on behalf of the Tory Party, who proclaimed how proud he was of these dirty tricks in Ontario.... The difference between Ontario and B.C. Is that they've had a patronage system in Ontario that has controlled that province, county by county, for 40 years. That's what they have there. They don't have it here. There's no patronage system here — only in the Premier's office — and we'll deal with that in due course.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, the Patrick Kinsellas and the Spectors of the world are now in charge of the government of British Columbia. The people know what's happening to them.

The government brings in this so-called rainy-day budget, and they act so surprised. The Minister of Finance is not in his seat right now. I don't know where he is. He should be listening to this debate. Maybe he feels he's a know-it-all and doesn't need to be in this chamber listening to the debate. I don't know what he's doing. The budget is down; it's terrible. He calls it a rainy-day budget.

It wasn't as if they weren't warned. As a matter of fact, on July 6, 1981, the Premier mentioned that he was warned. He stood up in this House — that's 1981, not very long ago — and he said:

You want to talk about high interest rates...? I've heard a lot about the negative economic policies of the NDP.... I'll tell you, you have one member among you who is known to be the most credible economic spokesman for your caucus. That's the member who was given the job of leading economic development when your party was government.

Do you remember that speech, Mr. Speaker? He said:

I'd like to share with this House then — I wasn't going to do this — what your own member predicted. After the election of 1979 and in the report of a speech by the economic development minister in the NDP government, we had a set of economic predictions, which, I presume, were the official New Democratic Party predictions of what was going to happen to the B.C. economy in 1980 and 1981. It is useful, now that we have some time to look at how these predictions worked out. Here is the headline from the Sun: 'B.C. Faces Depression, Lauk Tells Convention.... British Columbia faces a major depression in the early 1980s, NDP MLA Gary Lauk said Saturday. He said

[ Page 6978 ]

'continuing oil-price increases and massive public and private debt will send unemployment soaring.'

The Premier went on to say:

Well, since he gave that advice...land has gone up, houses have gone up, unemployment has gone down and employment has gone up.

Fifty thousand more jobs had been created in the province, he said, and he asked what happened to these predictions.

What I am thankful for is that almost two years after that set of predictions we have a far different situation. I am glad of it. We have more people working than ever before...and, yes, as part of Canada, we share that opportunity with other Canadians.... We're now having to deal with the problems of our own success.

Well, right now, through this budget, we're having to deal with the problems of that government's failure, that government's ineptitude. I don't see that he's too willing to respond to the humble predictions this hon. member made three years ago. You were warned, Mr. Premier. You took no action. Now you've raided the private treasury. You've raided the sacred funds that were set aside for the First Citizens Fund in this province. We have walked over native Indians in this province for generations. The only sign of hope for them on a provincial basis has been the First Citizens Fund. They've raided that fund. They've taken the cash out of other funds. They said: "We had it there all along for this purpose." Nonsense! These programs and the cultural-fund programs are going to suffer because you didn't take the warning that was given in good faith by this side of the House, saying: "Get smart. Start saving. Start knowing what you're going to do in the next four or five years, because a recession is on the way." We said it; they didn't listen. Instead, they came back in this House two years later and made fun of this side of the House for making the predictions — a dog-in-the-manger attitude.

Lean and fat budgets have been talked about for a long time. I'll tell you what this government has done with this budget. They've taken the lean and sliced it in half and moved it over to the fat portion of the budget. The lean is for programs for people — ordinary citizens; children going to school; senior citizens who need hospital care and home maker services; the emergency hospital services, such as the ambulance service and the expansion of the emergency unit in New Westminster that handles severe traffic accidents on the freeways; services to the public in health and education. Those are the services that have been cut. The lean has been cut and moved over to the fat. What's the fat? The fat is advertising budgets. The fat is to create a newswire service out of the government for news propaganda. The fat is in glossy $100,000 brochures with the Premier's visage on the front, advertising a new spirit for British Columbia. The fat is in hiring Spector and Kinsella and Heal and in buying furniture for their offices and in spending $82 million more on advertising and ministers' travel last year alone. They cut the lean and added to the fat.

That is the disaster of this kind of budgeting. A cynical government advised by a right-wing, cynical, Blue Machine group from Ontario, telling us people out here what to do. The city-slicker easterners from Ontario, who have been doing the bidding of the great, blue, Tory machine in central Canada, have been sent out here in their 13-piece suits to advise us poor little hicks out here who don't know any better. They can be fooled, Mr. Premier. Send us out to advise old Bill. We'll tell them how to hoodwink those country burnpkins. Let's send them out there. They've advised this city slicker from the Okanagan — he's only spent a little time in the Okanagan; most of it has been in Palm Springs. In Palm Springs, somebody from Los Angeles or Wall Street whispered in this poor little guy's ear and said: "Look, Bill, don't take any of that nonsense up there. That's just unbridled democracy. We all know the dangers in that. You've got to get some advisers from the east. Get three of these henchmen, these dirty-tricks artists, to tell you how to put makeup on and sell a phony, dishonest budget." And he did it.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I want to talk about education. If you could bring the House to order, Mr. Speaker.... I accept part responsibility for bringing it into disorder.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to talk about education. The Social Credit government has never publicized, and will not publicize, its philosophy of education, and don't wonder why. Their philosophy is one of elitism: curtailing access to schools and colleges; making our schools narrowly based on parochial institutions, or making them as parochial institutions; and making our colleges and universities upper middle-class preserves. These are the goals of the Social Credit education policy. The NDP believes in the survival of democracy. Democracy will not flourish unless there is mass education available to ordinary people everywhere.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) was lecturing us in history. Forgive me if I point out to the Minister of Labour and to all hon. members.... Compare Britain, Canada, the United States and Europe, where there is high literacy and fairly good access to education, to the semi literate countries of the world, where they fall into the hands of totalitarianism every time. Their populations have not received the benefits and the independence and the mastery of getting a good education, because ignorance is slavery. This government understands that ignorance is slavery. They want to keep the educational institutions of this province in a narrow political view, a medieval view. It was started by the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and is continued by the professor from Oak Bay — continuing that elitism to keep people down and undereducated.

Let me tell you how mass education also means better decisions and informed judgments by our young people, both in terms of living their own lives and in running the affairs of British Columbia. They've also centralized control over education to an extent that has not been seen anywhere in the free world. Nowhere in the free world has any government done what this minister and this government have done in centralizing control over almost every aspect of education: universities, colleges, schools and kindergartens. They are trying to impose their view of the economic system through consumer education courses and interfering with the social studies curriculum. It is central control by one of the most right-wing governments in North America. It is the most right-wing government in North America. There is nothing to compare with it.

I want to quote from Pope Pius XI. Everybody will know this reference. It is "Quadeagesimo Anno," which is his second encyclical: "It is gravely wrong to take from individ-

[ Page 6979 ]

uals what they can accomplish by their own initiative in industry and give to a higher community. It is also a grave injustice to assign to a greater and higher association what a lesser and subordinate organization can do." We now have word that what this government is doing is also unethical and immoral in terms of education. His comments were made in reference to education.

There are three unpleasant facts of life in British Columbia. Unemployment, as measured by the number of unemployment insurance claimants, has never been higher in the history of this province. Over half of our unemployed are well-educated young people under 25 years of age.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Heinrich) is very amused by this. Ten percent unemployment in this province, over half of whom are under 25 years of age, and they're well educated in our school system so far. These unemployed people have to sit by because the jobs generated by these grand projects the Minister of Labour has talked about demand skills of our unemployed that they do not have and cannot obtain in this jurisdiction. How can this be? I say it is a result of the bungling by this government, a failure to plan, to manage our resources and to be prudent with our resources. A major portion of the responsibility lies with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), and it is his failure to develop priorities that relate to the needs of British Columbians as a whole that bedevils education at all levels. The minister has failed to secure from Treasury Board the financial resources that are essential if a quality education is to be given our children. It is government by TV. The Minister of Education followed the Premier on television, and all government is to them is image — the spectral crowd on the government side.

The school boards are closing schools because of the so-called restraint program. Our children are suffering unnecessarily as a result of government's bungled approach to this program. The minister himself has decreed that the restraint program shall apply to public schools beginning September 1982. Accordingly he thinks he can get away with about a 6.4 percent increase in education expenditures this year.

However, some people are doing much better than that. There are the independent schools, for example, whose grants rise this year by 40 percent. The explanation for this substantial increase in a restraint year lies in the absurdity of tying aid to independent schools to the changes in the previous year's public schools' expenditures. There was a slight increase in enrolment this year and then there was the government allowing partially qualifying students to enter that independent-aid program. Under this scheme the student moving to a new school in mid-year has some financial provision made for him at the new school on a pro rata basis. It is very fair overall but you do not make the comparable provision for the public school system, so the 40 percent increase is directly the result of government policy. Sure, the independent schools will feel the pinch in 1983-84 when they have had a whole year to plan and budget for the impact of the restraint. The government has not given the school boards of British Columbia — the public school system — the same opportunity. If your program was equitable, Mr. Minister, you would have done just that.

The school boards this year settled with their teachers for around 17 percent. That is average overall. Some of those were negotiated settlements made, I presume, by cost-conscious trustees relating to particular local circumstances. Many of them, however, were not negotiated. They were arbitrated because the School Act provides a timetable for bargaining that stipulates binding arbitration if there is no agreement by November 15, I think, each year. The School Act is also Social Credit government policy. They changed it. That policy generated a raft of 17 percent contracts this year. That meant that Socred ineptitude produced a policy they did not like, so the government comes in and says school boards must be restrained. The opposition says that the school boards and teachers are being arbitrated to death and that they should be left to bargain like any other group of employers and employees, to leave to them a real atmosphere of collective bargaining. The Premier and the minister object to the level of settlement the teachers got this year, and yet it's the Premier's and the minister's policy that brought them to that position. It is the old double shuffle again. We have allowed this process of arbitration to continue, and yet now that the arbitration awards are too high we're going to pull back and play the game by different rules.

The Premier's restraint program compounds the difficulties of the school boards themselves. They are locked into a 17 percent budget increase this year, and they are subsequently advised that for the last three months they have to cut their budget by an amount yet to be passed by this House.

HON. MR. SMITH: Are you against compulsory arbitration for teachers?

MR. LAUK: I am not going to answer any of the minister's questions. We'll do that later.

The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) described the budget speech as a masterpiece of deception, and that is so, true. Add to that deception one new education finance formula that temporarily limits school property taxes in urban areas at the expense of people living in the rural areas. The result is inequitable and purely arbitrary. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I would like to discuss some of those pronouncements in the education finance formula. The government claims to be meeting 75 percent of school board operating costs. This figure comes from the recommendation of the McMath commission report that 75 percent of school costs should be met from provincial general revenues — that is from sales tax and corporate and personal income tax — and 25 percent should come from local property tax. That was the McMath commission report. We all remember that. To meet this recommendation the government did what it does best: it cooked the books; it manipulated the figures; it proclaimed that industrial and commercial property tax shall henceforth be known as — you've got it — "provincial revenue," instead of the local school boards' tax base.

They are trying to sell their education finance formula as a means of saving money for the people of B.C. — nothing could be farther from the truth. The minister is using statistical distortion in an effort to convince taxpayers that Victoria is shouldering a larger share of education costs. Contrary to the government's statements, the funding formula will mean a larger increase in homeowner taxes in 1982. The B.C. School Trustees Association calculates that residential taxes will rise by an average of 44 percent over 1981, while the

[ Page 6980 ]

provincial share, in the sense the McMath commission meant it, will be 32 percent — that's down from 34 percent in 1981 and 48 percent in 1975, the last year of the New Democratic Party government.

In 1981 school boards raised $414 million from residential property taxes and $531 million from commercial and industrial taxes. The non-residential property tax represented 56 percent of school board revenue. In 1982 the government is taking 100 percent of the commercial and industrial property taxes — about $660 million — and renaming it provincial money. The government, therefore, is not assuming 75 percent of the cost of operating public schools, but playing the shell game of taking away all of that property tax base, commercial and industrial, from school boards and renaming it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair. I

I'm quoting from the budget speech: "The provincial government assumes responsibility for the financing of some 90 percent of school operating costs." Did I misread that? The figures in the budget do not total 90 percent of the restrained school board budgets. The claim is extravagant, inaccurate, and suggests that the budget is as phony on this topic as on all the others. Contrary to the Minister of Education's (Hon. Mr. Smith's) statement — that "the burden on residential property owners will be eased," British Columbian homeowners can expect on average to pay 44 percent more in school taxes in 1982 than in 1981. However, the education tax burden will not be equally distributed to all B.C. homeowners. As school boards must now get all their revenue from residential property tax, districts with a high density of residential property owners will obviously collect more revenue for their programs than low-density areas. Now, do you follow that, I ask the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) ? In his area in Prince George, he's got this very serious problem, and the good people there have told me that they want to ask him about it if and when they ever see him.

This means that districts like North Vancouver Island will have to raise property taxes by between $100 and $200 per house over 1981, while other districts with a high residential tax base like West Vancouver — and we all know where that is — will have their taxes go down by an average of $640 per house.

Not only will there not be equality in property taxes for educational purposes, but the quality of education itself will depend on the district in which one lives. Now, how often have we said over how many years in this province: "Let's keep things on a relatively equal plane between school districts, so that the kids up in Creston and the Peace River can get the same opportunity for education as the kids in Vancouver"? This government, with one stroke of the pen, has stabbed the rural jurisdictions in the back, as far as education is concerned; now there will be inequality.

MS. BROWN: You always hurt the ones you love!

MR. LAUK: Yes, it's taking away the best rural plank in the Social Credit platform: "We take care of the rural folks; we take care of the people outside of the city." The minister, who indeed should be blushing, said in an interview on CBC "Good Morning Radio" on January 26:

"This is what the province will pay for in school education: it will pay for it totally; it will not be paid for locally, and it will be raised out of general revenue. And if you want to do anything over and above that in a local district, if you want to lower your pupil-teacher ratio" — that's an extra — "or want to have additional courses that aren't part of the prescribed core" — like math — "then you can go and do that, but you must raise that on local property tax."

This means that children with a relatively low residential tax base in their district will get core education and very little else — I suppose the core education will be the fundamentals of Major Douglas and consumer education — while children in richer districts will be able to get enriched programs without the mill rate being sent through the roof.

What's the impact of the government's policy? Let's take a few examples that a lot of you know full well.

English. Teachers are expected to deal with great ranges in basic skills and ability levels, widely varying interests and needs, and widely divergent cultural and linguistic backgrounds. In the city of Vancouver, over 45 percent of the elementary school population have English as a second language. What are the opportunities for them to achieve higher education and post-secondary education? As the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) would say, who inherited all his wealth and power on earth: "Have the gumption to do what I did."

This government is turning its back on the programs that have been carefully and efficiently developed in the school districts. School boards working with their teachers have developed courses in English as a second language, developmental and remedial reading, modified — or what they call minimum essentials — courses and learning-assistance centres. All of us have had children from one time or another, or know of people who have had children at one time or another, who have needed this program to get through and go on to become the brain surgeons, lawyers, judges, doctors and heavy-duty mechanics that we need. The budget of this government cuts, eats into and forces the boards to increase class sizes — this is what's happening already — and to decrease teaching staff, and the first things that go are these remedial programs. These programs are now — not tomorrow or next year — being devastated by these cuts.

As we well know in this House, speaking and listening can be taught and practised effectively only with great difficulty. In a classroom crowded with over 30 students, what are you asking of a teacher?

The study of language — I point it out as a third point under the heading of the teaching of English, and how it's affected by this budget — loses its relevance for students if the growth in class size increases the teachers' marking load to the extent that they set fewer assignments to monitor a child's progress. I refer the minister to his own ministerial study recently done on this aspect. How does a teacher allot his time? He has to cut back with fewer assignments. You can't monitor a child's progress, or give him proper reinforcement or encouragement, if you don't know what the hell he's doing in the classroom.

The second problem with this budget is that it cuts into learning-assistance teachers. They're going to be cut by boards because of the restraints. The rationale forced on boards will be that the principle of greatest good for greatest number has to apply, but you can't always run an education system that way. Kids who can't cope with large classes run into difficulties. Learning-assistance teachers identify and prepare programs to help children with learning disabilities

[ Page 6981 ]

progress through the school system and keep them from dropping out. Again, I refer you to the mandate of education: it's not to educate the elite, but to have the greatest number in our country educated to support a democratic and industrial economic system.

Social Credit policy was to increase the number of children with learning disabilities in the schools by integration of disabled students who used to be in institutions like Jericho Hill School. Let's be clear that the NDP is totally in favour of that. Teachers report that this step has been effective in improving the learning and attitude of all students, both disabled and general students. Last week I visited my son's high school and saw people with learning disabilities integrated in that school, and the impact has been tremendous. The learning that's gone on, the tolerance, the give and take, the understanding of relating, growing up and learning with people who are disabled have enhanced my son's education beyond anything I could have taught at home.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I don't think it's funny. I think it's an important point to make, because the integration of the disabled kids into the regular school system is one of the greatest advances of our educational system in some years. I give full credit to the former Minister of Education, the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who brought in that program. But integration requires support services. The integration that came about as a result of this government's policy is now being jeopardized, also as a result of the government's bungled approach.

Most classroom teachers in the system today, we know, are not equipped to identify learning disabilities. They need the support of specialized staff for that. Learning-assistance teachers provide vital support functions to the regular classroom professional and advise on alternative methods and materials appropriate to the needs of the special-needs students. Since the Social Credit policy of integration is recently introduced, the support systems are also very recent. We don't know how much more we're going to need. If any of them are cut, education for any but the average student in B.C. will be set back significantly because this government bungled. No thought has gone into the government's approach to restraining school boards.

Here's something that's closer to the heart, closer to the more materialistic type of personality that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) obviously is, judging from his speech this afternoon. Let's talk about computer education and business and industrial education for a moment.

The province is going to be critically short of computer specialists in the next few years. His own department gave me that information. Thanks to this government, this province is far behind other provinces in educating our students about computers, and we're the third most industrialized province in the country.

Finally, in 1981, the province had a pilot study and planned an extensive computer education program. Well, I say better late than never. But now that the restraint program is in, it is jeopardizing this very overdue initiative.

Libraries are going to be cut back. Business and industrial education will be cut back.

What's wrong with the minister's approach? He's got a "press-the-flesh and procrastinate" attitude towards his ministry. He announces and reannounces minor reforms, reorganizes the bureaucracy to give the appearance of progress, and is now embarked, following on the Premier's coat-tails, on government by TV.

The minister's 1980 tour produced a glossy report of bafflegab that cost about $6 each. His travel budget for 1980 was a mere $24,300. His predecessor, who liked to travel, had a budget of $13,000. You know what his travel this year is? It's $79,053. That's an average annual increase over what McGeer needed of 78.3 percent, and an increase of 166 percent over last year. This year the minister wants nearly six times the amount his predecessor required and over three times what he needed to go round B.C. on his 1980 tour.

The minister has announced that he's going to consult again when the new School Act is released in June — maybe he needs the $80,000 for that. But since his travel budget is up so high, the question is: where is he going to go — the Riviera, the Moon?

MR. LEA: Oak Bay?

MR. LAUK: He'd never go to Oak Bay, Mr. Speaker. He believes in that old political adage: familiarity breeds contempt.

All the results of his fall 1980 tour — and we all remember that very well — were announced in August 1981, and they've been announced again. The glossy report says, at page 7.... I won't go into that, but it's another announcement.

If all of that's true, if he's done all of that studying, why does he need another look at the School Act and why does he have to make another tour? I'll tell you why: he's got a pathological fear of making a decision. Rumour has it that the first memo asking him a question is still on his desk. He's reorganized the bureaucracy; this will be moderately amusing to those of us who are sitting here enjoying a nice lifestyle. At a time when services to children should be at the forefront of the minister's mind, the signs of preoccupation with internal matters relating to the bureaucracy are there. The deputy minister's office has 11 more staff assigned, education finance has 38 people — that's because they grabbed the local tax base — and management operations has another 40 people. Overall the establishment remains fixed — and this is probably a paper reorganization, with no practical effect on services; they're just shuffling people around — while this minister wants $602,000 for furnishings this year. That's over $1,000 for every person in his ministry. Everyone wants the Public Service to work in satisfactory conditions, but I bet they would put up with their present furniture for another year if they had a chance to have their $1,000 support services for children.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude. I will balance off what I've said before about the Social Credit attitude towards elitist education as opposed to the philosophy of the NDP, which is mass education in a democratic system.

The government believes that an ignorant public is to their best interest. They have instanced this by anti-educational rhetoric in the budget and by their failure to develop student-oriented priorities at all levels of the system.

We on this side tend to agree with Thomas Jefferson, whom I'm sure the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) will call a "commie symp," when he said: "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves. And if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with wholesome discretion, the remedy

[ Page 6982 ]

is not to take away from them, but to inform their discretion by education."

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the member who just took his seat has improved in his delivery of speeches. I congratulate him for that. He's learning to lift the words off the printed page much better than before. I was wondering for a moment if his colleague beside him, a former broadcaster, was not actually uttering the words and his mouth just simulating the attack; but I believe it was you, and your improved effort this year over last is noted by all.

MR. SPEAKER: Please address the Chair.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the words have been fast and furious from members on both sides of the House in response to the minister's budget speech. I would like to say to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) that he has good reason to be proud of the document he tabled in the House earlier this session. The budget produced for this fiscal year is an example, I think, of a tremendous effort on behalf of the Minister of Finance, other ministries and those who are involved in the financial structure of the government of British Columbia. It's an adventurous budget in times of restraint right across Canada and North America, and worldwide. It's a realistic budget that attempts to look at the problems of today in a contemporary way to determine how we can best maintain the services provided to our citizens in this province without going into some form of crippling debt.

The minister has produced a budget of which all British Columbians I think can be very pleased and proud, much to the surprise and chagrin of so many of the critics who felt the minister would have no choice but to bring down a budget that would demand either deficit financing or massive increases in taxation. It was no unexpected pleasure to witness the critics scrambling for methods of attacking the budget after their initial hopes were dashed by the product produced by the minister. Some of our speakers today have reflected upon the attitudes of certain columnists, reporters and others whom they choose to quote in good times, not always in bad times, as to what their attitude may have been with regard to the budget, and I think it was generally agreed that it was a good budget for the times. And the times are tough; the times are tough in almost all jurisdictions, certainly in those that would compare in any way to British Columbia.

It's confusing to some as to why the members opposite appear to be so negative all the time; why they live in such a gloomy world; if we were to look at their world by listening to the words they say, why they are eternally negative; why they seem to be so full of rage and hate and anger; why some of them are prepared to engage in activities and words that would promote fear and anxiety in the minds of many of the people in the province. It's been suggested that they do this to try to pick up a few votes here and there by scaring people enough and then offering themselves as the saviour to the problems they've invented. One would wonder if any hon. member of this House would stoop so low as to do that.

I think it's a disservice to the people of the province and a disservice to our system — deliberately trying to provoke anger, anxiety and fear among people, hoping later on to collect politically because of that. We've had many, many examples of this being done by some of the members opposite. We've seen information that has been released to the public with absolutely no research of any kind, absolutely no verification of the facts discussed, absolutely no understanding of the document that was purloined and then produced, and then announced with all the amazement one could imagine from a member who didn't know what he was talking about and didn't know what the material said, or even why the material was even produced. Mr. Speaker, the outrage that was heard for a few moments quickly subsided after the responsible people for the institution advised the person who had leaked the document to pay very close attention to their actions or they might be held responsible to the board for their actions. No more was heard. Since then, many of those problems have been resolved.

I haven't mentioned which member was using a purloined document or misinterpreting the information, but the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) seems to be very agitated by that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It wasn't purloined at all? Are we speaking about the same document? Oh, goodness gracious!

AN HON. MEMBER: He wouldn't do a thing like that. He's an honourable man.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I suppose that if one offered enough accusations as to misconduct with respect to documents and statements, eventually each of them would deny they were involved in that action, even though neither the actions nor any member were identified.

It comes to no one as a surprise that some of these members are so quick to jump in, because we've listened to their statements for so many years. We, along with many of the people in the province, have enjoyed their statements, their inconsistencies, their contradictions, their promises, their other statements that pretty well cover all categories. I remember my friend across the aisle, the member for New Westminster, was telling us one day, a few years back, about how the New Democratic Party has consistency across the nation. The member said in effect that they stick together, they share policies, they share programs and that one person speaking on behalf of the New Democratic Party, no matter what level or province, is speaking for all other members of that party.

MR. COCKE: That is nonsense.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Member, I will take your advice, and I will find the quote and share it with you at the appropriate time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You will assist greatly in maintaining order if you address the Chair, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I am very pleased that the member for New Westminster asked that we find that reference. That will be my pleasure, indeed, because without that type of reference, without having a member of the NDP say that their party sticks together and that they speak with one voice, or words to that effect, and share policies and programs at all levels, we wouldn't understand the inconsistencies between the actions of those who perform in government elsewhere in the country and in opposition, and the members here who iterate all those statements. We look at uranium mining, as an

[ Page 6983 ]

example, in British Columbia and in Saskatchewan. We look at the concept with respect to balance billing in British Columbia and in other provinces. We look to many programs which seem to be inconsistent. I suppose it is reasonable and fair to suggest that circumstances will be different in other jurisdictions. I think most people would agree, of course, there would be differences in circumstances, whether you are in Saskatchewan, Ontario, British Columbia, the federal level or any other area where there may be fundamental differences in the area you govern and in policies which, out of necessity, must be implemented. I wouldn't disagree with that, but I do know that we've been told in this House before that that is not so with the opposition. Their programs are consistent: they share policies right across the country, no matter at what level.

I think the people of British Columbia were offered a considerable amount of relief when they recognized that this budget did not impose upon them major increases in income tax, sales tax and other traditional taxes, and it did not impose upon them, at a time of fiscal restraint and economic recession, additional taxation in those very traditional methods. I think many people felt that the government was on the right track when it introduced its program of restraint, when it said, in effect: "Those areas over which we have jurisdiction — the public sector — will be held under restraint. Those other people in the province who are responsible for consuming the public's tax dollar, be they school boards, municipalities or others, will also be expected to live within a restraint program." I was recently in Washington state, paying attention to their legislative session and their problems during their emergency session, their problems trying to balance their budget which, in a stroke of someone's intelligence in the past, indicated by way of their constitution that they are prohibited by the constitution from going into a deficit. So they have to sit down and decide what the priorities are going to be, where the money is coming from and what programs will be cut. The people in Washington look to British Columbia and our budget and think: "Wouldn't we be pleased to have the same problems they have in British Columbia! "

As an example, the Washington State Legislative Assembly adjourned last night. They have increased taxes, cut programs, established a freeze on salaries and wages — not a restraint program of up to 12 percent, but a freeze. Along with cutting actual programs, mainly in education, they have increased their taxes to come out with a balanced budget. Other states in the U.S. and provinces across Canada are considering similar action in order to come in with a budget which is responsible to some degree.

We are in a very, very difficult time in the economic sense in Canada and elsewhere. If we were to listen to our opponents — our main critics, the New Democratic Party — and if we were to follow their concept of responding to difficult economic times.... Their concept, of course, is to polish the mirrors and get the smoke going — get the smoke and mirror act going to confuse and entice the population into believing that more can be produced though less revenue is collected, that there are free lunches, there are giveaway programs, government can grow, and more and more can be spent and consumed without providing the wherewithal — the jobs and the taxes — that go to pay for it.

Under the Social Credit government in the last six and a half years, there has been a tremendous amount of growth in the private sector of our economy, with some 200,000 new jobs, There has also been a tremendous growth in services to people. The services to people still represent the largest share of the provincial budget. My Ministry of Health will again this year exceed the 30 percent cost factor in providing what has been described by many objective people as one of the best health programs anywhere in the world. The health-care program we have in British Columbia is the envy of many jurisdictions and certainly of many people who have seen the ravages on their own personal lives effected by the extremely high cost of health care.

We have been able to expand our health-care program over the past number of years. We are continuing to improve facilities. We are continuing to build and open hospitals, replace older structures and expand newer buildings. The program is not confined to one specific area of the province but is over the entire province.

Over the past number of years we've also been able to introduce very important programs with respect to health, particularly of benefit to senior citizens and young children in our province. Our long-term care program has mushroomed beyond belief into the twenties of thousands of people now receiving that; the homemaker program is up many millions of dollars this year, providing about 28,000 people with those services. We have added to other programs major benefits to children in the field of dental health and pediatric wards in many of our hospitals, and the work is continuing. We have attracted to British Columbia some of the finest specialists in medicine from across Canada. We've also attracted many more doctors than our economists would probably wish we had, because they know that British Columbia has a good health program and that they have the opportunity to provide themselves with the necessary medical facilities to carry out their duties in life.

Governments are always engaged.... Those who would criticize, those who would chip away and those who seldom have an alternative that is intelligent or workable are very quick to jump onto something, even if they don't know what the facts are. Why get confused with facts? They're very quick to agitate and to attempt to get others to do the dirty work for them, to promote dissension among organized people, to promote dissension among groups of people who are basically humanitarian in their efforts and are seeking to assist others. There are those who go to such people, attempt to frighten them by advising them that they're not going to receive the necessary funding and that they must become militant and political if they're going to see their programs continue. That action is a major disservice to those people who have taken much of their time and effort to assist others in need, particularly in areas of health which are seldom understood at an early stage, and require a tremendous amount of promotion and understanding before governments move into those areas of responsibility. To try to convince those people to become militant and politically partisan is a major disservice. They are interested in the well-being of certain groups of people within our society who are frequently ill because of a specific problem, be it physical or mental, and they devote much of their time and energy to assisting these people. Government has also always assisted them. For them to be encouraged to become militant or political, I would suggest again, is a major disservice to them.

The member who spoke before me spent most of his time in the education world, as one would expect, being the critic. But I think it's of some interest to respond to that which I have

[ Page 6984 ]

heard from the people in my constituency of Richmond. Those youngsters who require special care in schools require that special care for obvious reasons. I was pleased to hear the member say how pleased he was about the integration program, because I know that in Richmond they have integrated handicapped children with so-called normal children and have had tremendous success. But I also remember that when that program was introduced, the attitude of the critics was that it wouldn't work, that they wouldn't be able to take care of these youngsters and that it would create major hardships. They are the same people who are complaining today that now they won't be able to respond to the needs of these children. A few years ago they were saying they didn't want them in school. That was only a few years ago. I agree that the integration program has been an outstanding success. I remember the critics who were complaining about Jericho High School and other schools — Crestwood School in Richmond — that you can't take these youngsters out of the school and put them in a normal setting because it will disrupt the other kids and they won't be able to learn. Well, they've learned something, as that member said. They've learned something they would never learn otherwise, and it doesn't take someone who has had many years of formal education to understand that. The teachers who took these youngsters under their wing in their classrooms quickly learned what those kids needed. All the kids have benefited from that.

Mr. Speaker, the people in my constituency have been discussing that which has been so popular lately: assessments, taxes, restraint and other programs. Not one of those people who is not employed by the school board has suggested to me that the $63.5 million school budget is not high enough.

In speaking to some of the trustees, I have asked them very simply: are you suggesting to me that you cannot reduce that budget, or are you suggesting that your budget is so efficient that it can't be trimmed back? They've agreed with me that, well, perhaps there are some areas where it can be trimmed back.

Mr. Speaker, I expect that over the next while we're going to see efforts by some people to embarrass government in the area of restraint by suggesting that the only area where you can cut back in services — be it in education, health or any other area — is by taking these very special programs and cutting them. The programs for the handicapped, for the underprivileged, and those who require special attention will have to be cut, not some of the run-of-the-mill programs which may be fat and can be reduced without harming anyone.

My 15-year-old daughter asked me the other night: "What would you consider to be the worst example of the use of the English language?" She suggested television. I said that no, television is not necessarily a poor example because if the programs are scripted, they're written by professional people. I said that she could tell her teacher that the worst example of the use of the English language is the product from our school system. We all know the problems that youngsters have in attending higher-education programs at universities with respect to the English programs. We're asked to spend hundreds of millions and billions of dollars in that program, and we look at the product and wonder: where have we gone wrong?

We are told now, and I find it very objectionable, that the reason some of our kids can't speak English, can't properly construct a composition — we are told this by some — is because too much attention is now being paid to those youngsters who require special attention in our school system. I find it interesting that those people who today are educators and were educated at a time when they claim the class sizes were too big somehow acquired that paramount knowledge that can make that determination today. I would suggest that if we listen, as we should, to our educators, and if we agree that they have knowledge and a capability to reason, then I should also suggest that the system they learned under couldn't have been that bad. I am not particularly persuaded by those who would say, "You must constantly increase the tax upon people to build and expand," when the product, in my opinion, does not improve that much.

We will be hearing very much over the next while with respect to the plight of our social services within British Columbia. I have had the opportunity over the past while to spend some time with ministers of health and those involved in the delivery of social services from every province in Canada and from other jurisdictions. I find that the average expenditure for health is about 30 percent of what British Columbia's is. But without exception the ministers have agreed that the major problem and fear they face in the delivery of health care is that the fiscal weight of health care could cause the system itself to collapse. There are those who consider themselves to be expert within the health world who suggest that our medical-care system could be in danger of collapsing. The people who deliver health care to our citizens in British Columbia — there are many tens of thousands of them — are beginning, I think, to appreciate and understand that we all must be extremely cautious about watching the continued escalation of health care to our citizens for fear the government may someday realize or recognize that the load is too heavy, and rather than increasing premiums and per diem rates in a modest way, will have to decide on cutting into major programs that today are taken for granted. If we are to continue to provide a first-class health-care program to our citizens in the province, we must be doubly cautious in a fiscal sense; not only the Ministry of Health, but every person who is a recipient of funding or health care in this province must take it upon himself, as a personal responsibility, to see that waste does not occur.

We're going to be receiving a tremendous number of complaints about our health-care service over the next while, because there is an organized lobby underway. We expect to receive them and will not be surprised in any way. But I might mention that hundreds of thousands of citizens each day are the recipients of some level of health care in the province. I think it's a tribute to those people who are responsible for the delivery of health care that we receive very few complaints from the citizens.

In fact, we often receive more complaints from the administrative side than from the citizens receiving health care. When the restraint program was announced — and it was announced that hospitals would come under the program — one person who is prominent in the health world was concerned only that the restraint program also included their salaries, not the budgets, but salaries. That was the first concern and question: will my salary be affected by that restraint program? The answer was yes.

The delivery of health care in the province, along with the other programs usually regarded as social services, is at a very high level. I've had the opportunity of addressing many people in many parts of the province, and will continue to do so, and speak to those people who are responsible for the

[ Page 6985 ]

direct delivery of health care. I'm very pleased that in almost all situations we received excellent cooperation. It seems to fall apart when politics gets involved, when partisan politics are introduced into the caring for people. It's an unfortunate reality, I suppose, that in our province that can't be avoided.

With the talk of elections always before us and a budget which has been brought down that is not only a good budget but a balanced budget, the speculation has increased that it could possibly be an election budget. So some of the people have decided to rev up their engines and become more political. Well, Mr. Speaker, I trust that all persons in this province who are responsible in any way for the delivery of care will not in any way allow their political aspirations or motivations to interfere in any way with their jobs — and I'm sure they won't.

We can be very proud of the people in this province who deliver health care to our citizens. We recognize and we always will recognize that they're going to have problems on the job and are going to be frustrated at work. They're going to see situations that they'd like to see improved, and they'll be advising us of that. We recognize and expect that to be a very normal part of their everyday life. But when we have visitors to our province from areas where they don't have the benefits we offer, they are absolutely amazed that any government at any level can provide that quality and level of care and not have taxes way out of proportion to what we pay in British Columbia.

So again I congratulate the Minister of Finance for producing the budget for this year. We in Health naturally would like to have had more. Those who are the recipients of money through the Ministry of Health would like to have more. There's no end to it, Mr. Speaker. We in the Ministry of Health could very easily consume the entire budget for the province and still have them asking for more funds, because there's really no end to what could be provided under the guise of health care. We have good programs, people are well cared for, and when situations occur and are reported to us in which the service may not be at the level it should be, we respond very quickly, and in most cases the problems are quickly resolved. Congratulations to the Minister of Finance for producing the document. We look forward to the challenge of this fiscal year, as I know all those other people associated with the ministry do. We intend to continue to provide high-level care with absolute fiscal responsibility.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have been overwhelmed by the content in this debate so far to the point that I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we adjourn I would like to take the opportunity to return a decision, which is not yet fully completed, but I wanted to have it done before 6 o'clock; I wanted to have it here at the earliest possible moment. Would the members just remain in their seats for a few moments.

Hon. members, on Wednesday, April 7, the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) rose on a matter of privilege relating to statements made by the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) during debates on that day. The hon. member disagreed with the allegations made by the minister and stated, in part, his position in the following words: "Under these circumstances I believe that my reputation has been slandered by that member untruthfully." The member, with leave of the House, read the motion he intended to move, should a prima facie matter of privilege be established.

During the current session, several matters of privilege have been raised, and it might be useful at this time to review certain practices which bear upon such matters. First, I would caution all hon. members against the growing practice of using matters of privilege as a foundation for the use of unparliamentary language. The description of the alleged offence and the proposed motion must be couched in language acceptable to the House.

Second, a question has been raised as to whether the proposed motion should be read to the House or simply tendered to the Chair when a matter of privilege has been stated. While the Ottawa practice permits the reading of the motion as part of the complaint, our practice follows more closely the Westminster practice, as outlined in the nineteenth edition of May at page 164. It says: "While it is noted that the practice in this House has not previously been clearly defined, leave of the House, direct or implied, appears to be a prerequisite for reading such a motion at the time the matter of privilege is first raised."

It seems to the Chair that the English rule and the British Columbia practice call for the motion after the Speaker's intervention, and accordingly, until the Speaker finds a prima facie case of privilege, the motion should not be read to the House, but simply tendered to the Chair at the conclusion of the member's statement. The statement of the matter, together with the tendered motion, comprise the material which the Chair must examine to determine whether the matter qualifies, prima facie, as a matter of privilege. Accordingly, I rule this to be the correct practice in this House, relating to motions founded on a matter of privilege.

The next matter which frequently arises is the question of the Chair's right to reserve its decision. The Chair is unaware of any authority in this House or elsewhere which requires the Chair to render an immediate decision on points of order or privilege, and common sense alone would militate against such a practice. Many points of order and matters or privilege are of grave importance and require lengthy deliberation. To suggest that such decisions be rendered forthwith, or that the whole process of parliament be brought to a halt while the matter is being considered is not in accordance with the practice in this House or the authorities. I refer the members to a decision of this House recorded in the Journals of May 1980. "Hon. members must accept the Chair's assurance that decisions are considered in a careful and expeditious manner." To end all uncertainty on this subject I confirm the earlier decision of the House as to the Chair's right to reserve its decision.

Dealing with the specific complaint of the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, there is an allegation of improper behaviour at a conference by a person whom the Minister of Tourism describes as follows: "He was, I am told, the campaign manager for the member for Revelstoke." The hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has advised the House that he received an invitation to the conference in question, but that he was unable to attend because of other commitments and he did not send anyone to attend the conference on his behalf. In short, the minister says that someone representing the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke behaved improperly at the conference in question, while the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke says that if anyone behaved improperly at the

[ Page 6986 ]

conference it had nothing to do with him, and that such an improper allegation amounts to a breach of privilege.

It is the Chair's view that the matter falls squarely into the category of decisions described as disputed facts. This whole area of privilege was examined exhaustively in several rulings which may be found in the Journals of this House for March 1975.

Also, Beauchesne's fourth edition, at citation 113, states as follows: "A dispute arising between two members as to allegations of facts does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege."

However aggrieved a member may feel, this does not permit the Chair to extend the law of parliamentary privilege. It is perhaps appropriate to mention here that all hon. members must bear responsibility for their statements made in this House. It would indeed be unfortunate if reckless statements were made merely because of the immunity a member had while speaking in the chamber. This immunity — afforded each member — carries with it a heavy attendant responsibility which every member would wish respected.

Under the circumstances, and in accordance with the authorities quoted above, I am unable to find the complained of statement amounts to a prima facie breach of privilege, and I so rule.

MR. KING: In your ruling, sir, I note that you refer to the member for North Okanagan's comment that the man was my campaign manager. The most salient and objectionable aspect to which I objected were these words: "He sent a gentleman, who took no part in the conference...." She then went on to outline the man's improper conduct.

I ask whether or not the Speaker considered the allegation that the man was acting on my behalf and under my authority, when it was subsequently revealed that the minister herself had invited the gentleman.

MR. SPEAKER: I think in reviewing the Blues the member will see that — without trying to get into the merits of the matter — the ruling does refer to that particular aspect of it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: As I listened closely to your ruling, you referred to one-half of the complaint but not to the salient point raised by the member, which are the words "he sent that person". That is not referred to in your ruling. What is referred to in your ruling is the allegation that the man in question was a campaign manager. The matter of privilege rested mainly on the allegation by the minister that an hon. member had deliberately sent someone there to do mischief. That is the point.

MR. SPEAKER: In the ninth paragraph, which will not appear on page 3 anywhere else but in my own pages here, the decision refers this way to the matter: "The hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has advised the House that he received an invitation to the conference in question, but that he was unable to attend because of other commitments and he did not send anyone to attend the conference on his behalf." That matter is referred to in the decision.

MR. KING: I asked the Chair's instruction on a point of order in terms of what mechanism hon. members of this House may have at their disposal to protect themselves against slander within this institution. Is there no recourse, is there no mechanism within the rules when a matter of serious personal slander is uttered against one, such that the facts of the matter can be ascertained and appropriate remedial action taken by the Legislature? I would remind Mr. Speaker that the House is responsible for its own rules and proceedings. The Speaker, as we all know, is the presiding officer who has a duty to protect the rights of each individual member of the House, and I seek the Chair's guidance with respect to any mechanism that is available to prevent the most irresponsible slander in this institution.

MR. SPEAKER: Under the matter applied for in this instance, under a matter of privilege, the matter of privilege does not cover the complaint to which the member refers. I am sure there are other remedies that are possible. The debate itself should provide some avenue of remedy. That is the content of the ruling. The matter of privilege does not extend to cover that particular complaint.

MR. HOWARD: May I rise on a point of....?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order, the member for Skeena. I hope I have the indulgence of the House, because the matters being considered are important to the House.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I draw to Your Honour's attention as a preliminary that on November 5, 1973, the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland) was on this side of the House as a private member. At that time the member for Langley accused the then Minister of Transportation and Highways, the late Robert Strachan, of lying. He indicated on three or four occasions that it was a lie. On page 1249 of Hansard for that day there is a quotation from Mr. Speaker with respect to that argument and the contestation between the two members, which I submit is identical to this situation. In terms of there being no misunderstanding, the member for North Okanagan has said a certain thing and the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has refuted that and said something else, which is just what Your Honour has identified. That's precisely the case that took place on November 5, 1973. Mr. Speaker said:

I am prepared to say right now that this constitutes a prima facie question of privilege between these two members.

MR. McCLELLAND: it's a time for finding out the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a time for ascertaining what you said or what you thought the other person said. I put it to the House that it is not going any further at this time. This is question period. If any member wants to raise it as a matter of privilege, I say it's a matter of breach of privilege.

That was Mr. Speaker at that time dealing with an identical situation — in terms of there being no misunderstanding — and there being conflicting views between two members as to what was said and what was not said. I submit that on all fours that is what exists right now. That indication by Mr. Speaker of the day may not have been examined, but it does say that that constituted a breach of privilege. I submit that that is the case now.

MR. SPEAKER: The Journals of the House for March 1975 do give an exhaustive study of those matters which fall squarely into the category of a breach of privilege. I would recommend that the member for Skeena also review the

[ Page 6987 ]

Journals of the House for March of 1975, in which the citation from page 113 of Beauchesne's fourth edition is quoted: "A dispute arising between two members as to allegations of fact does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege."

Hon. members, the ruling which has been made is of course open to the usual appeal to the House. But to take the time of the House to debate between the Chair and members matters which have been given lengthy consideration is perhaps not the best use of the time of the House at this time.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave of the House to move a motion relating to a question of the facts presented by the Minister of Tourism, as to whether or not they were truthful and whether or not a prima facie case of a member — in this case a minister — deliberately misleading the House exists. With leave of the House, I have the appropriate motion to put forward. It was my understanding, from the Speaker's comments, that other remedies might be available, and I am exploring just such another remedy at this point.

The motion, moved by myself and seconded by the member for Skeena, is that this House hereby instructs the Special Committee of Selection, appointed on November 23 last, to name a committee on privileges to examine the statements made April 7, 1982, in the House by the member for Okanagan North against the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, that the said committee shall, with all speed, inquire into the said allegations and report its recommendations thereon to this assembly before the end of this session, that the said committee be comprised of eight members to be named by the Special Committee of Selection, and that the said 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.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, I allowed the reading of the motion, because without hearing the motion there is no intelligent way to grant leave or to deny leave. I will now ask the House: shall leave be granted to move such a motion?

Leave not granted.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, on November 5, 1973, when we had a Premier in this office who cared about justice, the initiative was taken by the government of the day to introduce just such a motion — for which the member asked leave — identical in its context and dealing with the same situation. I would appeal through you for the Premier of the day here to be just as concerned about justice and take the initiative himself.

MR. SPEAKER: I do not sense a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: The point of order is trying to get across the fact that the government supports this malicious, contemptuous action on the part of the member for Okanagan North.

MR. SPEAKER: The member is out of order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order regarding your ruling, I ask for interpretation. You are defining this dispute as a matter of a difference of opinion between two members. If the ruling stands now as interpreted to this House — and you seem to agree that you have defined this as a matter of a difference of opinion — it means that if people do not take your admonition to be responsible for statements made in this House with caution and use the licence of the freedom of statements made in the House with responsibility.... People can come in and make any statement that comes into their heads without any substantive proof and be protected by the ruling. Mr. Speaker, no proof was presented to the House by that member that her slanderous statements could be supported by fact, and as a result her statements stand, without an attempt to apologize, withdraw or prove her statements. That's hardly becoming the definition of responsibility that you ask for in your ruling. If that member seeks the protection of your ruling, other people may sink to that low level of behaviour and we may have a repetition in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I take the advice of the Leader of the Opposition very seriously. Nonetheless, I would remind all hon. members that the Chair cannot accept the responsibility to run every statement made in this House past an examination to see whether or not those facts are right or wrong. Hon. members, every member, himself or herself, must accept responsibility for words spoken in this chamber. As a result, if those words bring indictment or shame upon a member, it will show up in debate and certainly in public discussion. I think that is the way it must remain.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

ERRATA

1. April 7, 1982 issue, p. 6926, right-hand column; line 19; should read:

exchange rate — we'd be able to save about $11 million of the

2. April 7, 1982 issue, p. 6933, right-hand column, after line 19: the following was inadvertently omitted from the speech of the Hon. Mrs. Jordan.

I just got a note from one of my members saying that maybe I should shorten my speech because the opposition aren't interested. I appreciate that suggestion, but I'd just like to put it on the record, Mr. Speaker, for all the citizens of this province, that there are only three members of the NDP in this House at this time. That means that 25 NDP members, being paid full time by the citizens of this province. are not here this afternoon at 4:10 to debate this budget. They are not here to hear anything about tourism in British Columbia, and yet they are the very members that do not make any contributions to this industry.

Let me tell you that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) is not here. I was in his area on Saturday and someone came up to me and said: "Mrs. Jordan, it is interesting that we've had three annual conferences on tourism in our region, and there were over 200 people there from Merritt, from Ashcroft, from Revelstoke, from Canoe..."

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Spuzzum.

[ Page 6988 ]

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Yes, they were there from Spuzzum.

"...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's 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 in to where I was meeting with people after all our presentations, and proceeded to tell me that I had kept him waiting four hours for his interview, and 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 in jail, and he was, I am told, the campaign manager for the member for Revelstoke.