[ Page 7087 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents

Forest and range resource program 1982-1987.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 7087

Oral Questions

Royal Bank forecast of B.C. economic growth. Mr. Hall –– 7087

Sale of Kootenay Forest Products Ltd. Mr. King –– 7088

Northeast coal. Mr. Leggatt –– 7088

Budget Debate

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 7089

Mr. Gabelmann –– 7092

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 7096

Ms. Brown –– 7099

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 7103

Tabling Documents

Report of committee of selection.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 7107

Mr. Howard

Mr. Barrett

Division

TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Today I should like to introduce three persons, one of whom normally plays a very important daily part in proceedings on the floor here. Mr. Alan Hutchinson joined the staff of the Sergeant-at-Arms' office almost 25 years ago and for more than a decade has been our Sergeant- at-Arms. During that time, Mr. Speaker, the record shows that the mace has been well protected. The record also shows that even the largest of our members, when asked by him to do so, have left this chamber peaceably in the face of the impressive countenance of Mr. Hutchinson. He at all times has been a very conscientious custodian of the best traditions of the office of Sergeant-at-Arms.

Would members therefore today please join me in welcoming three persons to the House today: Mr. Alan Hutchinson and his wife Nel, both from Victoria, and their daughter visiting from St. Albert, Alberta, Mrs. Margaret Minty.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The priest who led us in prayers a few minutes ago is from the constituency of Saanich and the Islands. Perhaps the House could acknowledge the presence today of the Rev. Ivan Futter of the parish of South Saanich.

MS. SANFORD: I'm going to ask the members to pay particular attention this afternoon to the parliamentary rules, because in the gallery today we have a group of people from the Parksville-Coombs area who are members of the Toastmistress Club there, and they will be watching us very carefully this afternoon. I would like to introduce Kathleen Davies, Alice Denslow, Irene Wood, Marion Johnson, Phyllis James, Margery Bates and Claire Garthus. I ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries today is Mrs. Angelina Degrazio from Golden. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming her.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'd like the House to welcome a delegation from the National Farmers Union. They are in the gallery this afternoon and they met with the Social Credit committee this morning.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome Nelson Riis, the Member of Parliament for Kamloops, who is in the precinct today.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce today the largest delegation of young people that have ever come to this Legislature. I think it's a record up to the present time. We have 170 grade 11 students here from Maple Ridge Secondary School, and some of them are in the gallery at the present time. They are under the direction of Mr. Edmonds. I can assure you that moving a contingent of this size is almost like moving an army, and I think Mr. Edmonds should be congratulated. They also have with them Mr. Ken Dockendorf, Mrs. Pat Robinson, Mrs. Raymond, Mr. Archibald and Mr. Wiens. These teachers are doing this on their own time, and I must compliment them on the effort they take in this work for the children of our schools.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, Mayor Mike Harcourt and Alderman Harry Rankin of the city of Vancouver are in the precinct. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today are two prominent forestry consultants: Mr. Bob Wood, formerly the chairman of the Forest Policy Advisory Committee, and Wes Cheston, who is also a former member of that committee and an associate of Mr. Wood. Would the House please welcome them.

Hon. Mr. Waterland tabled the five-year forest and range resource program for the years 1982 to 1987.

Oral Questions

ROYAL BANK FORECAST OF B.C. ECONOMIC GROWTH

MR. HALL: My question is to the Minister of Finance. On page 5 of the budget background papers the minister buttressed his optimistic claims about B.C.'s economic growth by citing the Royal Bank of Canada forecast of 1.5 percent growth for 1982. Following the budget, the Royal Bank dropped its forecast to zero growth for 1982. Has the minister now decided to table revised estimates and a revised revenue forecast in view of this further evidence that he has overestimated revenues to balance the budget?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the question makes a couple of observations with which I do not agree, but I will attempt to answer the member. For the record, it should be observed, I think, that the background papers do not go out over my signature; they are the Ministry of Finance's.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Let's hear the answer, hon. members.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the opposition would not find it possible to understand the full accountability which we have provided through the Ministry of Finance. The background papers, therefore, are produced by the ministry, whereas the budget speech which was delivered in this House is the statement of the government.

With respect to the specific question: yes, I'm aware that the Royal Bank of Canada has, as of yesterday, forecast a lower growth rate than that on which the budget and our estimates forecasts were predicated. I think, however, that there are those on both sides of the House who know that economists do tend to disagree with each other from time to time. We have not based our forecast on any one particular forecast from any one particular source. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that to do so would be irresponsible.

MR. HALL: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker In view of the fact that the Royal Bank — over the last ten years certainly one of the most optimistic forecasters in the Canadian economic community — shows in their forecast issued yesterday that B.C.'s economic growth is for the first time in memory below the Canadian average, is the minister now prepared to recognize that his taxation policies have ground economic growth to a halt in this province?

[ Page 7088 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's a conclusion with which I do not agree.

MR. HALL: Although the minister may not agree with me, if B.C.'s economic problems are the fault, as he and his leader say, of international and extraneous conditions, does the minister have an explanation for the fact that, unlike previous recessions, B.C. Is now projected behind the Atlantic provinces in economic growth?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Again, I refer the member to the fact that we have one forecast at one particular part of the year. The question overlooks the main theme of the budget and policies of this government — that is, for the stimulation of employment through the course of this fiscal year, job creation and activities which I think will perhaps within a relatively short space of time indicate that the Royal Bank forecast is very pessimistic, as I think was admitted yesterday by one of the spokesmen for the bank.

SALE OF KOOTENAY FOREST PRODUCTS LTD.

MR. KING: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. Yesterday it was announced that B.C. Timber had agreed to sell Kootenay Forest Products to Crestbrook Forest Industries, subject to the approval of the minister. The minister has frequently expressed concern regarding increased corporate concentration in the forest industry. Since Crestbrook has a foreign parent, and in view of the fact that recent mergers have resulted in substantial losses of jobs, has the minister decided to hold a full public inquiry into this proposed sale, and has he decided to report the results of that inquiry to the House?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In answer to the member's question, no.

MR. KING: Has the minister decided to use the power granted to him under section 50 of the Forest Act to require Crestbrook to maintain all existing jobs at Kootenay Forest Products and at Crestbrook Forest Industries in the event the sale is approved?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The ministry, or the minister, has not yet decided what the outcome will be of this proposed agreement between two companies in the private sector. However, if it is to the benefit of the province of British Columbia and the employees of these companies, then I think it would have a good chance of being approved. One of the things that would concern me most is the continuation of employment, and if indeed the transfer is approved I would make it a condition of the licence that the company maintain a manufacturing plant in Nelson. I cannot assure the member that every existing job will continue forever, because forever is a long time. They will be required to maintain manufacturing plants in Nelson if it indeed is approved.

MR. KING: As I understand it, the minister has appended that kind of caveat to a merger or a sale in only one incident so far. I hope he will not only give an undertaking through section 50 that the jobs will be preserved, but that all of the existing plants will be kept in operation as a condition of that sale.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and concerns another aspect of the northeast coal project. Would the minister confirm to the House that the security for the public investment in the northeast coal project in the Quintette section is a floating charge against the assets of Quintette mines issued in the form of a debenture?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I am very glad the member asked the question, because never before in the history of British Columbia has a project been put together in which there are so many guarantees and so much protection for the taxpayers of British Columbia. Furthermore, never before has there been a project with so many provisions for cost recovery, and never in the history of this province, or of any other province in Canada or any state in the union, has there been a provision for cost recovery of public highways. We have, Mr. Speaker, a $60 million debenture signed by Quintette which protects the taxpayers of British Columbia for every cent that's been spent. Furthermore, I would like to inform the House, since the question was asked, that last summer, when the province was proceeding with this great project and we were building highways and a powerline, when we were making provisions and doing our homework for the construction of that great railway so that the project could be brought in on time, the taxpayers were protected for every cent this province was spending.

MR. LEGGATT: In view of all the guarantees that he's told us the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia are receiving in this wonderful coal project, would he advise us whether or not the taxpayers are protected against those people who loan money to the Quintette project and get security against the assets of that mine? Is the British Columbia government in number one position or in number two position in terms of loans to the Quintette project?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The opposition, no matter what kind of a guarantee we had, would be picayune. Whether it is the James Bay project, the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Athabasca Tar Sands, the Pine Point railway or the development of the southeast, there have never before been guarantees like the ones we have on this project to protect the people of British Columbia.

MR. LEGGATT: In the event that the Japanese advance money for the Quintette project, and the Quintette people are now seeking that investment, I take it the minister is telling us that the taxpayers of British Columbia are going to rank ahead of the Japanese investors. Is that what he is telling us? Come on, stand up in the House and tell us that is the position on that mine.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'll never convince these negative nellies on the other side of the House. I listened to the Leader of the Opposition the other day talk about overruns. I want to tell all the taxpayers in British Columbia that there are no overruns on the construction of the British Columbia Railway Anzac line. It is on schedule and there are no overruns. I know you're trying to find something wrong with that. We did our homework. We weren't like the NDP when they announced northeast coal. There were no

[ Page 7089 ]

studies done. In one breath they say they're against it; in another breath they say it didn't make any sense 50 years ago; in another breath they say they'd close it down. They're all over the map on northeast coal, and they will continue to throw doubt on that project. In a year when we need employment in this province, it is creating over 10 percent of the construction jobs in British Columbia — 5,800 jobs. It's not a make-work project; it's a project that is going to leave over 10,000 permanent jobs in its wake, and those negative nellies, those negative NDP, continue to harp and be critical. The entire Japanese steel federation is behind it. The banking system in Japan is behind it. The Japanese government is behind it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The scope of an answer should not exceed the scope of the question. However, I must remind hon. members that those who wish the protection of the Chair in calling for order should first of all be sure that they themselves are in order.

MR. LEGGATT: I hope the minister will calm down a little, because I realize there's a blood pressure problem in the House, and we don't want to get too excited. I hope the minister will listen very carefully.

What are the assets to which this floating charge debenture is going to be attached when and if the government is called upon to realize its security on the project?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Quintette coal is owned 45-odd percent by Denison Mines Ltd., a Canadian mining company. It also has two major partners in France who are investing and who will also, as I've said time and time before in this House.... Investment brings a market and that's what we're after. Coal happens to be the most stable commodity that we are exporting from British Columbia today, in spite of their negative...and they'd close it down. Coal today is — and will continue to be — the most stable commodity that British Columbia is exporting, because there are long-term contracts with built-in prices and built-in escalation.

We also have some partners in Japan, just as the Greenhills project has with their partner in Korea. B.C. Coal — Kaiser — when they started out had a list of ten companies including some steel companies in Japan which had partners.

It has all been done before, but never with a guarantee, Mr. Speaker, and I can't make those negative nellies across the floor realize that.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET
(continued debate)

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It is with pleasure but with traditional regret that I rise in my place to speak to this motion before the House, Mr. Speaker. As has always been the case in the past, we are aware that the passage of this main motion will result in your leaving the chair for a period of time while we deal with other matters, and therefore it is a matter of regret.

I suppose it is also a matter of regret in speaking to this motion that the members of the opposition traditionally have been so incapable of placing before this House matters of a positive, constructive nature with respect to budgetary and economic affairs of this province upon which this House might deliberate. Instead, as has been traditional in the past, we have been treated to a repetition of speeches which those of us who have been in this chamber for many years have heard before. This morning's contribution by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) was an example of the recycling of an old speech with a few new twists added. We've heard it all before. We've also heard the twists before, because it is something we have come to expect from that member. He is more concerned with innuendo and smear than he is with facts. He is more concerned with the headline which he has carefully orchestrated for himself than he is with a careful consideration of matters which should be before this House.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Having heard that aside, may I say that it has been a matter of tradition for lawyers to say that the client who represents himself has a fool for a lawyer and a fool for a client. The only circumstance that I have ever known where that failed to be the case was when the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) represented the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) in a recent lawsuit in this province. The client may have been a fool, but he engaged a lawyer, which made him a double fool.

The second member for Vancouver East raised a matter with respect to the acquisition of a company in this province which is a public utility, namely Inland Natural Gas. I just want to comment very briefly upon what has taken place in order that there may be no doubt about the actual circumstances, not those that have been placed before this House in sort of a comic-opera way by the second member for Vancouver East. When the notice was first made public of the intention of a corporation to acquire a controlling interest in Inland Natural Gas, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) of this province and I were naturally concerned, as was the government, because in the regulation of public utilities in this province, throughout this country and throughout all of North America, one must always be concerned when there is an indication of change in ownership and control of a public utility, being the monopoly which it so often is. We also recognized, however, that in the offer that was being made to acquire the shares in the company it was clearly specified that the offer was conditional upon the receipt of the approval of the Utilities Commission of this province — which, again, is quite proper. It was determined by me that it was inappropriate in those circumstances for the government of British Columbia to intervene before one of its own regulatory agencies. This is standard practice in all jurisdictions which regulate public utilities.

The offer was made public and then we recognized that there was a change in the offer. The amended offer removed the condition requiring approval by the Utilities Commission of British Columbia for the transfer of shares which might be acquired as a result of that offer. The government was then concerned that there might be attempts on the part of persons acquiring the shareholding control of Inland Natural Gas to circumvent the approval requirements of the Utilities Commission. Without hesitation, in consultation with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and with the

[ Page 7090 ]

government, I gave instructions that the government of British Columbia would intervene in those proceedings, not for the purpose of opposing such applications as might come before the Utilities Commission but of ensuring that in the course of hearings before the Utilities Commission all those factors would be elicited which need to be properly considered in order to reach a decision in the public interest. There is no question that when changes take place in ownership of public utilities, there is the prospect that there might be an impact upon the customers who use the services of those utilities. There is a range of matters which need the careful consideration of the regulatory agency.

It was also clear that explicit in the public offer for the acquisition of shares in Inland there was to be considered in the future, before the end of this year, the possibility of a merger with a company which is federally regulated. There is also the possibility that if a satisfactory merger cannot be achieved, there might be some further changes in the exercise of control over Inland Natural Gas. All of these matters require the careful consideration of the Utilities Commission.

Since intervening, it has been the consistent position of the government of British Columbia to ensure that the hearings before the Utilities Commission be conducted in such a way that the fullest possible examination can be made of whatever plans may be in store for Inland Natural Gas, again to ensure that the public interest is fully protected.

All of these suggestions made by the second member for Vancouver East with respect to other private matters associated with this transaction are of no consequence as far as the Utilities Commission or the government of the province of British Columbia are concerned. We are there to ensure that the public interest is protected, and we have taken such steps as we can appropriately take under the legislation of the day to ensure that that public interest is protected.

MR. LAUK: What about the integrity of the government?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have no need to be concerned about the integrity of the government, because it has taken the position before the Utilities Commission and will do so as required to ensure that the public interest is protected. The customers of Inland Natural Gas, and all those persons who may be affected in any respect by a change in control, will be matters to which this government will direct its attention.

MR. MACDONALD: You're kind of late, aren't you?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the second member for Vancouver East speaks about being kind of late. The only thing that is worrying the second member for Vancouver East is that he had prepared himself for the speech he made this morning and the actions of the government have proven that he's wrong.

The difficulty that the member for Vancouver East has is twofold. One is that he can't recognize that the legislation which is being followed in this respect is legislation which he introduced on the floor of this House — obviously another piece of legislation which he hasn't bothered to read. The other thing that he doesn't quite understand is that the steps that have been taken by this government under the amendments to that legislation, which we introduced, have given us the opportunity of giving specific directions to the Utilities Commission with respect to the way in which they will handle this particular application.

So far as credibility of a government is concerned, the actions of this government, since we have intervened, have shown clearly that the government has no interest in the matter except the public interest, which is our responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, there's only one further thing I wish to say about this matter, because it is pending before the Utilities Commission and we will await the outcome of the public hearings that will take place. But I must say one thing. The second member for Vancouver East sometimes is so candid that I don't believe he knows what he says or writes. He appeared before the Utilities Commission in this matter and, in his anxiety — as is always the case — to get his version of the story on the record, he filed his submission with the Utilities Commission. I want to refer only to one part of his filing.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's the one significant part. I'd be happy to file the whole document. I'm sure that the member will be so embarrassed when I'm finished that he won't want to have it read.

He went through the same kind of fictional story in his submission that he went through in this House this morning. He concluded that it was a grand design. Those were his words. "This is the grand design," he said in his submission to the Utilities Commission. He says: "However, there are just two obstacles. One is the B.C. Utilities Commission" — and obviously the hearings that they are going to hold — "appointed by the government of British Columbia." He admits that's one of the obstacles to the grand design, and the other is — and I quote: "the winning of the provincial election by the Social Credit government" — that's the second obstacle that stands in the way of that man being able to ensure that his grand design takes place.

That's a solid admission from that member that he is hoping, in his opposition to this matter, that those two obstacles prove to be the case: firstly, the hearing before the public utilities commission; and secondly, the winning of the next election by this government. I want to assure the member, Mr. Speaker, that the public utilities commission will do its job, and I also wish to assure him that this government will win the next election.

I'm sure that the Leader of the Opposition is wishing now that he hadn't put that member up as a smokescreen in the competition with Bob Williams. He's saying: "My God, I chose the wrong man."

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy the opportunity to comment on matters which are raised by members opposite, but I think it's more appropriate that we address ourselves more seriously to the matters which affect this province and this country.

During his remarks last Wednesday, the hon. Leader of the Opposition had things to say about our new constitution. The events of last weekend attended by the hon. Premier and some of his colleagues, and by the Leader of the Opposition, were significant ones as far as Canada and its future are concerned. There isn't any person in Canada who has not carefully considered that the stage which we have presently reached in our constitutional development is but a beginning point for a new, exciting Canada, one in which we can make our own destiny. I trust that we will in the future, with the support of all of our sister provinces, be able to ensure that the design is one which will meet the needs and aspirations of Canadians now and in the future.

[ Page 7091 ]

I must, however, make a couple of comments about the process through which we have been, and in so doing I would like to pay my particular regards to the hon. Premier and the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) for the role which they have played in the process to date. It's not recognized, and I think it is time that it is placed on the record.

Following the failure of the constitutional conference in September 1980 and the decision by the national government to proceed in its own direction towards constitutional change, I was associated with four of the provincial Attorneys-General in the initiation of the legal action which eventually resulted in the important and significant decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. But legal actions in themselves, Mr. Speaker, are not sufficient, nor are judicial decisions. I have to advise you, sir, that those actions, once launched, were followed very quietly by a decision taken by the hon. Premier and the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Relations that they would work, and continue to work, with the other provinces and with the national government in attempting to achieve a solution to the impasse which was reached in September 1980.

Very quietly, steadily, with a great deal of effort, it was possible to achieve a measure of accord amongst the provinces in April 1981, which in turn led to further discussions at the national level. Representations were made in Britain. When the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada came down, the work done by the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations with his colleagues in the other provinces placed us in a position whereby under the leadership of the Premier of this province we were able to bring the matter full circle until in November 1981 the accord was reached that enabled the government of Canada and nine provinces to indicate their support for patriation and a new constitution from which we could make this beginning. We still have a long way to go, but without that hard work and dedication of the Premier and my colleague, I am satisfied that the events of last weekend would never have occurred. Canada would, I am certain, still exist, but we would still be in the throes of bitter debate with respect to the future of this nation. Instead today we are in a position where we can commence to build the Canada which we all desire and deserve.

We are debating the budget. The budget of this province for the forthcoming fiscal year is one which has been presented by the Minister of Finance after the most difficult review and consideration that has ever had to be made in this province. As a province and a nation, with the other nations of the world, we are facing difficult economic times. We in this province are fortunate that by the exercise of reasonable and timely restraint with this budget we can provide for the people of British Columbia the measure of public service which we have come to expect to be our good fortune. I unhesitatingly support the budget introduced just a few weeks ago by the Minister of Finance because it provides for the people of British Columbia a solution to these current problems without, as has been the case in other jurisdictions, creating a level of despair and causing even greater concern than that which the economy itself brings to bear upon us all.

We are concerned about the level of unemployment, yet if one carefully reads this budget and considers the implications of the measures which the Minister of Finance has introduced, it will be clear that with every effort that can be made those people who are suffering loss of employment today will be restored to their gainful employment at the earliest possible opportunity.

I sometimes wonder what it is that we are trying to do in this country by creating attitudes of despair. It was emphasized by the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke in this House last Wednesday. He had the benefit of one of our newspapers. The headline published that day was: "300 to Lose Jobs in Coppermine Shutdown." This headline helped the Leader of the Opposition make his speech which was critical of this government and its budget.

As I read that same newspaper on Tuesday of last week, I found, not on the front page or in banner headlines, but in section B, page 12, down under an advertisement for career opportunities — an internal auditor, a junior estimator — a story which I thought would be given headlines. "200 Workers Called Back. B.C. Forest Products' plywood division in Victoria will call 200 employees back." It seems to me that our priorities are a little mixed up. I would have thought that 200 employees called back to work would have got the headlines. What kind of a society have we developed? What kind of an attitude are we to develop in this country which will ensure restoration of the confidence which is so important for us? We have headlines which are bad news, and on page B-12, hidden at the bottom of the trust ads, is all the good news.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I thought the Leader of the Opposition was quoting this paper with delight. I thought he was indicating support for what this paper did. I would have thought that the opposition, being so interested in ensuring that what was right was considered before this House, would have referred to the Tuesday story rather than the Wednesday story. I suppose it is not appropriate to talk about good news,

I hate to disappoint the opposition because I've got some more good news — good in one respect and bad in another. In the Ministry of the Attorney-General we have one of our most important responsibilities in the administration of justice, which is the provision of court services throughout the length and breadth of this province. One of the problems which faces us is the growing use of our courts and our judiciary. Just by way of example, we handled 278,000 cases in 1976-77. I might point out that in the provincial court of this province in 1976-77 we handled 278,000 cases. By 1982-83 that had risen to 364,000, and in the next fiscal year we expect to handle more than half a million cases in the court system in British Columbia. That is excluding traffic. If we include traffic cases, we will add to that another 330,000 cases a year.

The growth from 1975 to 1985, excluding traffic, is estimated at 3,000 cases per month. This places very great strains upon our system. That is why I was delighted, during the course of the budget introduced by the Minister of Finance, to hear that among those ministries whose capital projects have been approved was the Ministry of the Attorney-General. Therefore, because we are all concerned about unemployment, I think that the opposition might be interested to know that projects have been approved to completion in this budget — some of them at the tender stage today — to a total value of $91.5 million, providing 700 man-years of employment. They include a new courthouse in Kamloops with twelve courtrooms; a new courthouse in North Vancouver with four courtrooms; in Port Alberni — the member's not here — a new courthouse costing $3.6 million, with two courtrooms and a hearing room; in Vanderhoof $1.3 million for a one-room courthouse; in Ashcroft

[ Page 7092 ]

$1.1 million for one courtroom and one hearing room; in Kitimat — the member's not here — $1.1 million for another one-courtroom courthouse. In addition, on the corrections side, we are already engaged and will continue over the next two years in the replacement of Vancouver Island Regional Correctional Centre — normally known as Wilkinson Road Jail — for a cost of $38.9 million.

Those are the projects for which design has been completed and tenders have been or are being called. In addition, we have been given authority to commence planning and design for projects totalling $263 million, which will create another 1,400 man-years of employment.

Mr. Speaker, that optimistic forecast has been made by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) who recognizes the strength of the economy of this province and the strength engendered not only by the private sector but by the kind of budgetary support that is available from this government. These create jobs. During question period today we heard more questions about northeast coal and I think it's appropriate that these questions are asked. But when one is asked questions which seem to probe into the northeast coal concept, one fears that criticism is being expressed. For once, I wish the opposition would let us know whether or not they want northeast coal to go ahead. Nod your heads.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're winkin' and blinkin' but they aren't noddin'.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Do you want those 8,000 jobs or don't you want those 8,000 jobs? I'll tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker. If the opposition doesn't want it to go ahead and doesn't want those 8,000 jobs, I wish they would leave this House for a couple of days — we can look after it — and go up to the Anzac Mine. Go around those construction camps Go through each one and say: "We don't want northeast coal We don't want you to have a job." I wish they would do that. If they did that and could then come back and report to this House that all those workers in all those camps said to them, "Go back and tell the government we don't want our jobs," maybe we could listen to some of the criticisms they offer with respect to northeast coal.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the working men and women in this province recognize that it is the programs, the projects, the policies of this government, including the policies implicit in this budget, that ensure they have jobs now, and will have jobs in the future.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

What we are seeing in the course of the debate in this House so far is the reaction of, as one of my colleagues said, "the negative, doubting people." I think that's wrong. Not negative, doubting people; negative, desperate people is what they are. They're so desperate for something they can put forward, apparently as a position to support their political ambitions, that they would attack the working men and women of this province, and would espouse attitudes which, if accepted by the government, would ensure that those working men and women join the ranks of the unemployment.

Mr. Speaker, in support of this budget I have this to say in conclusion: This budget, like previous budgets of this government, will provide for the future of this province. It is realistic. It is one within the scope of the people of this province to sustain and it is one designed for their betterment.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I would like to make an introduction. I would ask you and the House to join with me in welcoming 40-odd senior citizens and their organizer, Mrs. Eleanor Down, here from the Vernon and District area to enjoy the legislative proceedings this afternoon. We will all have dinner together tonight and they will continue a very happy visit throughout Victoria. Would you please extend them a warm welcome.

MR. GABELMANN: When I became involved in politics, I never thought we would be reduced to debating issues using questions such as, "Have you stopped beating your dog?" That is really the closest parallel I can think of in terms of the question that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) puts to us in talking about northeast coal, and that other members of that side of the House have put in terms of other projects and proposals in British Columbia. Politics is a little more complicated than simply phrasing a question in that way and then demanding a yes or a no answer.

Before I begin my comments this afternoon, I want to say that a month or so ago I spent three or four days in the southeast coal region of British Columbia. I've not had the benefit of the helicopter tours of the proposed northeast project, but as a result of that southeast tour, and the realization that within three and a half years there will be twice as much coal being produced in the southeast as is proposed for the northeast, I think I have some idea of the scope and monumental nature of such projects. There is no one in this province, not in this party or in the other party, or in any other political party, who is opposed to the rational and proper development of those resources and other resources in this province. We want to do it in an open way, we want to do it in an economical way, in a rational way, and we want to make sure that unemployed taxpayers in many parts of this province are not using their limited resources to subsidize foreign interests. That is what we are afraid is happening, and the questions we ask have a lot to do with trying to get more information about it. So to the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker, I would not answer, nor would I expect him to answer the question: Have I stopped beating my dog lately?

I do want to say one good thing about the Attorney-General. He has carried on a fine tradition in that ministry, one which has existed, as far as I can recollect, through the latter years of W.A.C. Bennett, through our administration and through both of the current Socred Attorneys-General: a tradition of the non-partisan, non-political administration of the justice system, particularly in the probation services and in that area of corrections. I say that honestly and unabashedly. I think the service is very good; it's non-political and, as a result, is held in high esteem in most communities, if not all communities, in this province. I think every person who has held the job of Attorney-General during the last 15 years, every person I know about in respect to this particular part of that ministry, should be proud of the way that has been handled. I wish I could say the same about Human Resources lately, Mr. Speaker.

On to the budget. What is the purpose of a budget, Mr. Speaker? I'm not sure that question has been asked or dealt with in much detail during this debate. Some would say, I think, that a budget is simply an accounting process. Some others would say that it is a device governments can use to maintain the status quo in society, if the government of the day feels the particular status quo is appropriate. Or I think we could say that a budget is a statement of the government's

[ Page 7093 ]

position on where the economy is, and where it should go. I would argue that a budget should be the instrument in our society for dealing with distribution of income. While it does also in some ways affect the creation of wealth, something that's very important in our economy and that must never be neglected, it must also spend some time dealing with the redistribution of income. That is particularly true at a time when income is being redistributed in a faster way than ever before out of the hands of the poor and into the hands of the rich, simply because of high interest rates. Today, those who have make, and those who haven't don't make. While that massive redistribution of income is going on in the private sector, any government with any sense of social purpose would understand that it has a responsibility to attempt to stem that tide, to attempt to redress that imbalance.

In looking at how the budget impacts on the economy of the province, if you were to put it in simplistic terms you could say to yourself: Okay, we will do as Sterling Lyon and others — notably the federal government lately — have attempted to do. That is, we will put all of our eggs in the baskets of megaprojects, and we will hope that the jobs that can be created by that massive infusion of billions of dollars in a small number of projects will be the fuse that kindles the economy.

I would argue that on the other hand, putting money into the hands of consumers, who would then buy consumer products that are needed — essentials in life — would, in fact, create more jobs in this province and would create, in the long term, a healthier economy than trying to revive the economy through megaprojects. If those people who are now not spending on house-building, automobiles, new kettles and various products, such as a new pair of shoes, a jacket or a new pair of running shoes for the kids.... If people were spending money on those kinds of items, we would generate more revenue, more jobs and would create a better society than we do through the megaproject choice. That's not to say, given good times, that each and every one of the particular projects that's underway at the present time wouldn't be worthwhile.

I think I've said before in this House that I'm a bit of a sports fan and a bit of a jock in that sense. I enjoy the fact that we're going to have a football stadium in Vancouver, but I don't think anybody in my riding can afford to pay for that football stadium this year, and it doesn't look like they can afford to pay for it next year. Why can't we wait until times are better before we build a football stadium? That's the kind of question that needs to be debated and answered. Why all of a sudden do we have all of these projects at a time when we can't afford any of them? I suspect that there's only one reason for it, and that's that we're on the slippery path down to an election. There needs to be some visible evidence of activity by the government before and during that election, and they're hoping that the hosting of a Grey Cup game, or the opening night Whitecaps game might give them some particular leg-up in a 1983 election, which is when I happen to think it will be called.

Those things are going on at a time when unemployment is at record levels, not only in this province and this country but, in particular, in those parts of this province that produce the wealth — areas like in my constituency. Those areas do produce the wealth, I say to the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. A community like Tahsis estimates that approximately $17 million to $20 million worth of income tax is generated in that community. The net benefit they receive from government services in exchange for that is about $1 million or $1.5 million, and they put in $17 million. They don't go to Vancouver to enjoy the football stadium. They're not employed in northeast coal. They're forgotten at a time when soon, in many cases, unemployment insurance cheques are going to run out. If you think there's a crisis now in this province, just wait until the UIC entitlement begins to run out, as it will, for thousands of loggers and lumber-employed people in this province.

There was some laughter in the House the other day about soup kitchens. I noticed the Premier giggling at the time about the symbolic soup kitchen that was outside the buildings on opening day, April 5. In my riding there is a real soup kitchen that fills a real need and is feeding — it varies — 30 to 40 people a day. Most of those people would not otherwise be having lunch. Many of those people — and I have talked to some of them — have not eaten for some time. For many of those people that is the one meal they get. That's a fact of life that's a reality that I don't think is understood at all by members of the government in this province.

I don't think there's any understanding at all about the increase in wife-beating and child abuse as a result of that unemployment. There are massive increases. I don't think there's any understanding about the increases in stress, tension, family breakdown and, in fact, suicides, as a result of that high unemployment. As a result of that high unemployment, at a time when those kinds of stresses and strains occur within the family, we don't get what we need, which is increased and improved social services; we get cutbacks. Just when we need the improved services, we get the cutbacks. What kind of rational, intelligent government would make those kinds of decisions?

Mr. Speaker, there is much to do, many jobs to create. There are forestry rehabilitation projects, silvicultural projects, replanting, thinning, spacing and fertilizing — a variety of things that need to be done that could create hundreds and perhaps thousands of jobs now when we need them, which in turn would create jobs 60, 70, 80 and 90 years from now, when we will also need them, because our forests will be in better shape. But what do we do? We eliminate the one fund that was established to provide that kind of job creation and forest rehabilitation.

What's going on in terms of programs by this government for enhancing the resources of our oceans, lakes and rivers — the fish and seafood resources that could help to feed a hungry world? How much work, energy and effort is being put into that? About as much as is being put into land-based agriculture — just about nothing.

Tourism is another area in which jobs could be created around this province — not just in downtown Vancouver but around this province — if there was some effort to enhance the tourist facilities, if there was some effort on the part of the government to do things that would enable those people involved in the tourist industry to better attract people to this province. But it doesn't happen.

Those are just three simple areas — forestry, fishery and tourism — which are all labour-intensive, all designed to enhance the future of the province, all designed to make people's lives better today and much better tomorrow. What happens? Nothing.

We get major projects like B.C. Place. An opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to house perhaps thousands of people who are not properly housed now because they cannot afford the cost of rental accommodation in the lower mainland. An oppor-

[ Page 7094 ]

tunity to say: "We will put a reasonable mix of housing on the north shore of False Creek; we will make sure that we do not continue to saturate the market with luxury apartments; we will provide affordable housing in the downtown area, so that people who work in the service industry in that part of the city of Vancouver will be able to live there, putting less strain on the transportation system." What's the response? Minimal, window-dressing, enough only to try to be able to say they're doing something.

We have a chance today with the amount of land that's available in this province to say to the co-op housing movement, which is bursting at the seams in one sense, in the sense of waiting lists, and is straining the seams in another sense — in terms of how much co-op housing is available — "Okay, there is all this land. Let's go to it. We will contribute to the co-op housing movement in this province by writing down the cost of land in the way the federal government writes down the cost of the mortgage." What do we get? Nothing. It would create jobs as well as better housing. Carpenters could go to work and so could many others in the building trades.

There are a variety of programs and initiatives that could be taken, Mr. Speaker, but none of them have and none of them will, simply because there is no more money. Having committed a billion dollars or so to one project, they have no more money for a variety of projects which could enhance and preserve communities which are dying in this province — some of those communities are dying literally and some emotionally, but many of them are in death throes in one way or another. I don't say that we can come out of this recession all by ourselves in British Columbia — we obviously can't — but there could be much more done by a government that wanted to make sure that they were doing something to alleviate particularly bad economic times. Their answer is one or two major projects. My answer is yes to those projects when the time is right and when the money is available; but in the meantime there should be a redirection of that kind of money into job- and labour-intensive projects in the community that serve a community need.

What does the budget do for health and education, two particular concerns of mine? We have a severe alcoholism problem in this province; it is probably the most abused drug. It is certainly a fact in my constituency, where lifestyle is such that alcoholism is very much a part of day-to-day living. We have very few resources for treatment of alcoholics in this province. Two very valuable sources were located in the constituency of my colleague in Comox, Pidcock House and Pacific House, which were funded through the Ministry of Human Resources. They, quite properly, said this should be a responsibility of the Minister of Health — Health looks after alcohol and drugs — so they passed it on. But in the passing on of it, of course, it gets dropped, and a valuable, cheap resource for the taxpayer — not $300 a day, like the acute-care hospital beds will cost, but 10 percent of that or less — is now lost.

We have a change in the delivery of alcohol and drug treatment programs. What is the result of that? We lost a community-based, active alcohol and drug program that relied on numerous volunteers and certainly was very effective in my riding, and is now dispirited and not very effective at all. It will come back in sometime, but in the meantime we lose a few years.

What does the budget do for public health programs which, in my riding particularly, are in desperate shape? In the Upper Island Health District, which is mostly my riding and also includes that of the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), we don't have enough public health inspectors, we don't have enough public health nurses, we have virtually no speech pathologists or nutrition services. Mental-health programs and nurses are in desperate supply. There is a shortage of audiologists, home-care nurses, VD nurses — although I understand there is a new term for VD.... All those kinds of public health programs which save taxpayers' money in the long run are not being provided. Why? Because the government is determined to cut back its spending this year. It doesn't matter much to the government what the costs are going to be in 3 years or 5 years or 15 years, because they know they will not be in government then and they will not be responsible for the budgets that have to be presented to pick up the pieces that are created by the desperate shortages in public health that exist all over the province, I think, and certainly in my riding. Restaurants are not inspected, swimming pools are not inspected. Why!

Then you look at hospitals. It is the effect of the restraint program. I know we can't talk about that in detail, and I won't. In Port McNeill, what do the people who run the hospital say? They can't live within its budget now. We are already down to a skeleton, and now they are faced with a 6.1 percent increase in a rapidly growing area in an inflationary industry, health care. In Alert Bay they just don't know how they're going to deal with the situation. That also goes on in the other hospitals.

I mentioned education. Again, we can't talk in detail at this point about the changes proposed by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) with respect to property tax. I won't go into that kind of detail except to say that in Vancouver Island West School District, which primarily includes Gold River, Tahsis and Zeballos, they have effectively lost 92 percent of their tax base by this change; 8 percent of their tax base is left to the district. Residential property taxes will double and triple in many cases.

Worse than that, in many respects — very much worse than that, in my view — is the fact that education itself will have to be cut back. Some of the programs that they're trying to implement in that area will have to be eliminated: special education, giving kids a chance to get out of the bush and into an urban area perhaps once a year; sports; travel; and a whole variety of important programs. Computer technology is a good one. Wouldn't it be nice to have a computer machine that belonged to the school district, so that in this computer age kids could look at computers and see what they're all about? One of the teachers in Gold River loans the school his own computer. That's with the existing structure. What's going to happen with the new one? What kind of job training and job-skill programs are being provided at a time when we know we're going to need skilled people? We're talking about importing 20,000 people from outside the province to do various jobs for which B.C. unemployed people are not trained. At the same time, they have cut down the programs at the various community colleges. They have cut back on the computer science programs at the university. What kind of logic and sense is there to that kind of budgetary process?

I think it means that they know they're going to lose the election, but they want to end up the year in the black and lead us into the succeeding two to four years. We would have to pick up all of those costs and those debts, and that they could say that we're spendthrifts. Mr. Speaker, the public is beyond that in their thinking. We no longer have to worry about that scenario working. It may have worked for them in 1972-75, but it won't ever work again.

[ Page 7095 ]

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I started these comments talking about the purpose of the budget. For the rest of the time that I have, I want to talk specifically about one group of people in our society who are always left out. They are referred to on occasion but never with any regularity or any consistency by governments at all. They are the working poor. My colleague, the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), made some reference yesterday to problems faced by the working poor. I want to do the same today.

Society has recognized very clearly those people who are on welfare. We know who they are. We know how many of them exist. We can identify them. We usually scapegoat them, too, but that's another issue.

We can identify those unemployed people because we can look at the StatsCan figures and the UIC figures. We know how many they are. They're identifiable because many of them are trade union members and their unions keep records as well. They're identifiable, they're there, they are visible, and we show some concern for them.

But we don't very often pay much attention to a group which in 1977 numbered about 51,000 families in B.C. according to the National Council of Welfare — a number which I now think would be well over 60,000. You might say these families are part of the working poor.

Here are just a few figures. I know they're dry, but I want to put them on the record, Mr. Speaker. Of all of the families who are poor in British Columbia, 50 percent are employed. In British Columbia today — I should say last year, the latest figures — we have 12 percent of Canada's working poor. We are one of the have provinces, one of the rich provinces with about 10 percent of the country's population, and we have 12 percent of the country's working poor families. In 1973 we only had eight percent. That's a 50 percent increase in our share since 1973.

Two-thirds — or 65 percent — of the working-poor families in this province rent. Obviously, 35 percent are homeowners. Interestingly, we learn that the working poor under the age of 25 in this country and this province are highly educated — many with high school and many with post-secondary training. The only kinds of jobs they are able to get are not the ones they were trained for or have studied for, but rather are service industry jobs at a minimum wage or not much more.

Finally, in this list of figures, an important one: nearly 70 percent of single-parent, working-poor families are headed by women. So what we have in this province are about 60,000 working-poor families, and 70 percent of them are headed by women who are actually working but are poor by minimal standards defined by the National Council of Welfare.

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems that face the working poor is the question of mobility, and education is one of the things that gives people mobility. I think the National Council of Welfare puts it very well when they say that the working poor are confined to a marginal labour market characterized by low pay, limited opportunities for advancement and often unstable jobs and enterprises. I think that says it very well.

What are some of the solutions? What are some of the things that we could be doing if those people who drafted budget were interested in doing so? Well, the first thing that immediately occurred to me was that the minimum wage could be increased. In my naivete I thought that would be a simple comprehensive solution: simply increase the minimum wage. There would no longer be any working poor. On closer examination I discover that that is only a partial solution.

Those who suffer most are family heads who work at minimum-wage levels. The larger the family, the greater the distance between its income and the poverty line. More often than not, the family might be financially better off on welfare, even if we were to increase the minimum wage level by 50 percent overnight. Even though it is not by itself the answer, it is a partial answer and a part of the solution.

Yesterday the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) unwittingly used some figures that I had planned to use, and I'm going to use them again and repeat them. The minimum wage in B.C. in 1974 was 48 percent of the average income. Today it's 35 percent. In other words, eight years ago people on the minimum wage were making about one-half of the average income in the province and they're now making one-third.

Another statistic picks the last 15 years and divides them into groups of five. We look at what the real change in the minimum wage has been. Between 1965 and 1970 the real net benefit change in the minimum wage was a positive plus 20 percent. Between 1970 and 1975 it was a plus 23 percent. So there were some gains being made by the working poor at hat end. But between 1975 and 1980 there has been a net drop of 14 percent — minus 14 percent in relation to the minimum wage and its real percent of change compared to wages in general. They were making gains from 1965 to 1975, and they're dropping back now.

What can the government do and what could the budget do to begin to redress some of those imbalances? One of the facts of life, as I pointed out earlier, is that 70 percent of the people who are in this category are women. Many others are disadvantaged for other reasons. That's one of the reasons I support the affirmative action concept of equal pay for work of equal value. Because by those kinds of mechanisms, by the reverse discrimination — and I acknowledge it — of affirmative action, we could begin to pull that group of our society but of that perpetual poverty. We can be guaranteed that most of the children from those families will carry on in that poverty, as will their children and their children after.

Even the Employers Council is more progressive on this issue than this government is. Even our friend Bill Hamilton, an honest Tory, is more progressive than this particular government. In March 1982 the council urged employers and government to concentrate on greater accessibility for women to job opportunities as the best way to address the problem.

Mr. Speaker, what we require is some very real income redistribution through the mechanism of the budget, and we've not seen it. Over the last few years we've seen an increase in what is one of the most regressive taxation mechanisms in our society, the sales tax — a 50 percent increase from 4 percent to 6 percent. The user-fee concept for every possible government service is a regressive tax. It hits the poor first and hardest. As a philosophical approach to taxation income tax was developed to attempt to allow for a system which had the people who could afford to pay paying, and those who couldn't afford to pay not paying. That has een subverted in spades by this government this year.

How do poor people face the reality of medicare increases when the limit on their income goes up by 2.8 percent this year, in terms of their eligibility for a subsidy under medicare and denticare, a program that now requires that poor people

[ Page 7096 ]

pay at least 25 percent of their dental bills? I'm not talking about people on welfare, as I said earlier. I'm talking about the other 50 percent of the poor in this province who are actually working and who do not receive the benefit of these subsidies. That 50 percent of our society is supported by social assistance of every kind, which includes medicare subsidies, denticare subsidies and those other kinds of subsidies that exist, to the extent of 4 percent of their total income. These are people who are making $5,000 to $10,000 a year. They get 4 percent from social assistance, so they receive virtually none of it. What changes have been made in the income tax exemptions in this budget to deal with that problem? Nothing. I could go on and on with a whole list of fee increases, but I won't.

I want to talk about day care. In this province, more than half of all mothers work, but there are only 4.1 day-care spaces for every 100 preschool kids. Where are those kids in the daytime? Where are those preschoolers when the mothers are working? They're not in licensed day care. Where are they? Has the minister responsible ever wondered, when she goes to sleep at night, just where those kids spent yesterday and today, and where they're going to spend tomorrow? I think if anybody studied that question the answers would be appalling.

I said earlier that 65 percent of those working poor are renters, yet rent control is being eliminated by the government as part of its budgetary approach to favour the rich once again. Where do those people live? Does the government have any understanding at all of a family situation where a mother and three kids are in two-bedroom apartments, and what stresses that creates? They're trying to pay the rent every month: as much — and I can document it — as 60 percent and 70 percent of their income. I wonder if the government has ever given that any consideration.

In the face of all of those problems, which are identifiable and demonstrable, what does the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) do? He decides to end, by phasing out the assisted rental program, a program by which poor people can have part of their rent paid by government on a needs-tested basis. But, no, this government decides that that program is not necessary any longer. Their commitment to public housing is nil. It's demonstrable also by the fact that there are still 10,000 people on the waiting list for subsidized housing at the B.C. Housing Management Commission. There are tens of thousands of others who, if they knew about it or thought it was worthwhile, would also put their names on that list.

I'm going to close by quoting from a brief that was presented to the NDP economic task force for the family. This is a brief from a person who works in the government service and has the benefit of a union contract. She describes the fact that she is among those working poor. The evidence is clear in that respect.

What does she suggest governments do? First, it should provide inexpensive, quality day care. Her net income is $1,100 a month. Two kids cost $440 a month for day care. Her apartment's $600. What's left? Does the government have any understanding of the fact that people in its employ — people who are members of the B.C. Government Employees Union — can in this day and age take home $1,100 a month and have to pay $600 for rent and $440 for child care? What do they have left for anything else, particularly when their husbands take off and don't pay the maintenance?

She talks about affordable and comfortable low-income housing and cheap, reliable transportation. I'm going to close with a direct quotation from her brief:

"When the union that negotiates on my behalf goes to the bargaining table this summer, the least they can ask for is an increase of 20 percent in our wages, yet we have already been told the most we will get under the wage restraint program is 10 percent. The government must understand that if they do not wish to spend money on wages, then they must spend it on services. Should those services be available to low-income families, our earning power would rise without a penny increase in income. However, if the government persists with their policy of taking money from the low-income family through cutbacks in social programs and wages, there will be hell to pay. The legacy of this government will be felt by many generations of British Columbians; it will be seen in the faces of our children and their children.

"I trust that you will point out to those legislators who have perpetuated this cruel and ruthless administration that the sins of the father are indeed visited upon the son."

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I want to say I'm very happy to take my place in the budget debate, the first opportunity I've had to say a few words, and I'd like you all to listen — not compulsory, of course, but it would be appreciated.

I would like to first of all say a word or two about the riding of Cariboo, that I have the honour to represent, and to tell you that things are pretty rough in the riding of Cariboo. But the people have determination. It's heavily oriented to forestry, cattle-ranching and mining. Over and above the economic problems, we've had a very difficult winter. I get a kick out of hearing other members of this House say how difficult things are. I appreciate that, but at the present time we have loggers trying to make a living in the riding of Cariboo who are today working in eight feet of snow. So weather has been a downer since the New Year, as well as the economic climate for the products we produce in the Cariboo, caused by world and Canadian prices. In spite of all that, Mr. Speaker, they have maintained about 65 percent production and they have alternated their employment. I would just like to go on record publicly to thank the employees and the employers, whether they're big or small, for the terrific job they've done under very trying conditions since last fall. They're not prone to blame government for everything and expect everything from government, but they are certainly very concerned about the produce that they send to the world markets and the poor return they get on that.

For the forest products there isn't much sign of improvement in that market, which is mainly dependent on the U.S. market. Of course, in the Canadian market there is no big sign of an increase in price. As a matter of fact, to get orders at any price is a problem throughout the province and certainly not peculiar to the Cariboo. So under these conditions it's very difficult. We have companies in the riding of Cariboo — not large companies — that last fall had equities of five million dollars. Today their equity is gone, because it's been used up in trying to keep their business and their crews in operation. The straight operating loss is eroding their equity position and naturally they're concerned — everyone is concerned. We can only hope that things will turn for the better, and the sooner the better.

[ Page 7097 ]

Regarding the cattle market and the producers of beef, I guess the Cariboo ships more to the markets than anywhere else in the province. They're operating at an all-round loss in their operations because of the market price for beef at home in Canada as well as in the United States, and it's very difficult for them. On top of that, the heavy winter they've experienced has increased their feed costs and so on, which really only adds insult to injury.

I might say that in the riding of Cariboo, in spite of all this, a new pulp mill went on stream in my hometown of Quesnel in November, 1981, with an investment of $100 million. It is working first-class, and that company is to be congratulated for getting that on stream under the difficult conditions that existed.

Another observation I have is that while government can help somewhat in the case of the forest industry.... I don't hear anybody in here say this, on either side of the House, but the government is assisting the forest industry. Our operators are on minimum stumpage throughout the province and I am sure that our operators appreciate that. The government is also doing other things in the interior that the operators appreciate. If they can find timber a little closer to the location of the production of that timber — and where they hadn't planned on logging, but it is more economic now, with the depressed market — the Forest Service is allowing some of this to happen. I just say that all of these things are greatly appreciated, but we certainly haven't got the solution to the long-term problem, which is: when are we going to have decent markets so our operators can at least recover their costs? It is quite a serious condition that they are operating under at the present time and have been since about October 1981, created by world prices, world markets, world financing, whatever.

So much for the Cariboo. I would like to say a few things about job creation and what this government has done about job creation. It is spelled out, it has had lots of publicity, but I'd like to name a few megaprojects, as I think they are referred to by some of the press. Call them whatever you want, but B.C. Place I consider to be a big asset to all the citizens of British Columbia. It is under construction. Our citizens can now see the stadium, and I am sure all citizens will be proud when it is completed. As far as the stadium part is concerned, my information is that we will use it in the fall of 1983. That has been subject to many things that have happened — a lot of criticism and so on. Basically, in my opinion, the majority of the citizens of the province agree with this and are glad to see it going ahead. With the jobs it is creating, it is certainly a good asset for the province.

I would like to make this observation. I know the people on the other side haven't been sure — as they aren't of so many things — whether to criticize it or not, but mainly they have criticized it for what, in their opinion, it lacks. I get a big kick out of all the greater Vancouver projects and the attitude of Alderman Rankin and Mayor Harcourt. I understand they are in the precincts today, and I hope they are listening. Whether you like it or not, Alderman Rankin and Mayor Harcourt criticize everything, and we in British Columbia all know that that is a foregone conclusion, no matter what it is unless they thought of it.

The B.C. trade and convention centre. Thanks to our Premier and our government, that is sorted out and now going ahead, along with Expo 86. That was really quite a deal. Ottawa didn't have $8 million to close the other deal. When our Premier got through with them, they put up $134 million.

I am going to take the Premier to the racetrack with me someday. It would be a big help to me, I'll tell you, when you can make deals like that.

I hear the Leader of the Opposition being critical about lotteries. I'd remind the Leader of the Opposition that he's let me down very badly. Where is he today? The, Leader of the Opposition yapped his head off from January until March: "Call the Legislature. Get on with the public business." But he uses his usual hit-and-run tactics: he hits and then he runs and we don't see him for another week.

Back to lotteries, I think the opposition was quite critical of a lottery to raise funds. I'd like to get the record straight, Mr. Speaker. I stood in this House and sat in this House roughly where that man is sitting that came from Ottawa. He still hasn't found himself. I stood up and voted for Premier Barrett and his government when he made lotteries legal in this province in 1974. It was his government that brought them in and made them legal, and I can't understand what's turned him. I really can't understand it, but it's the usual doubletalk that I do understand. Just read the records of this House for 1974 and it'll give you quite a story on who voted for and against authorizing and legalizing lotteries. The former Provincial Secretary, now the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), brought the legislation in, if I recall. I wish the second member for Surrey would have a little quiet discussion with his leader and tell him to straighten himself out regarding his position on lotteries. As usual he's saying one thing and acting another way. There're a shining example.

Rapid transit is going ahead too — $700 million or $800 million by this government. We've had talk about that for 30 years and now we're finally getting some action. Construction is starting in 1982.

Interjection:

HON. MR. FRASER: I don't know whether Mayor Harcourt and Alderman Rankin agree with that or not. The last time I saw them talking about it, they couldn't agree between themselves. Stay tuned. I think whoever is running for election for mayor of Vancouver better be careful under the conditions that exist there now.

Another item, Mr. Speaker, that you'd be interested in is the Annacis Island crossing. That gang over there is against that. I just want to reaffirm that it is going ahead. Thirty million dollars has been spent on it, and $30 million more will be spent in this fiscal year. It is in the budget and will create jobs.

Interjections:

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, The minister has the floor.

HON. MR. FRASER: Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, if they want to heckle, tell them to get to their own seats.

For the information of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) the Annacis Island crossing is going ahead. When you go home on the weekend be sure to tell your friends in Burnaby. The Burnaby council thinks it's great.

Northeast coal. We've heard a few words from the House about northeast coal — all very interesting. We have that former MP from Ottawa saying a lot about it. He really hasn't got himself oriented back in British Columbia yet. I'll take you up there sometime, Mr. Member, and show you around.

[ Page 7098 ]

Northeast coal is going ahead, as well as the port at Prince Rupert. We will have another port in our province — again talked about for the last 50 years. I heard a very interesting story, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has banned the Leader of the Opposition from going to his riding because he's saying some pretty bad things about northeast coal, which the member for Prince Rupert doesn't want repeated in his riding.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, they're against it. The member goes home and says that they're all for it.

I have a few more things to say, but all this northeast coal is going ahead and people are at work at the present time. While I'm discussing northeast coal, Mr. Speaker, I have also heard the opposition say that it creates job for people in Tokyo and Toronto. I'd like to report to this House only the contracts that have been awarded by this ministry in relation to northeast coal and who actually got the jobs. I'm referring to the building of the new road from Chetwynd to Tumbler Ridge, a distance of 58 miles. I'm going to read them off and allay the fears of citizens of the province as to who are actually getting these jobs. These jobs have all been awarded, and the people are all at work or about to start work.

First section from Chetwynd to Martin Creek, awarded to Geddes Contracting, Kelowna. Kelowna is in British Columbia; it's not in Japan or Ontario.

I might also say, with reference to all these contracts to which I'm referring, that they were awarded on the basis of low bidders. The Geddes contract was awarded for $3, 424,000 and will create 50 jobs in 1981-82 and another 50 jobs in 1982-83.

The next contract is from Martin Creek to Upper Martin Creek and is awarded to Miller Contracting in Langley, B.C., in the amount of $6,295,000. They're either at work or about to commence work, weather permitting. I want to repeat that their address is Langley and not Tokyo or Toronto.

These are all B.C.-owned and -operated companies. They're really happy to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that all the jobs are going to Tokyo and Toronto and everywhere else but to our B.C. citizens. He is sure helping your party a lot. Keep on peddling that baloney because it really helps.

The next contract is for the stretch from Upper Martin Creek to Gwillarn Lake and was awarded to Attachie Construction of Fort St. John, B.C. Not Tokyo. Not Toronto.

The next contract from Gwillim Lake to Meikle Creek was awarded to Attachie Construction, Fort St. John — again the low bidder on that section of road.

From Meikle Creek to Bullmoose Creek, the next contract is already awarded to Miller Contracting of Langley, B.C.

From Bullmoose Creek to Tumbler Ridge West the contract went to View Construction of Kamloops. Well, that doesn't sound like Toronto or Tokyo to me.

The next contract from Bullmoose Creek to Tumbler Ridge went to Dawson Construction, Vancouver, owned and operated by a pioneer construction firm in British Columbia and still in operation — I believe third generation.

Two other bridge contracts have been awarded. I think the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) referred to the award to Kenyon Construction of Penticton for the Twidwell Bend bridge.

The last contract awarded so far is to Kingston Construction of Burnaby for the Dickebusch Creek bridge.

In all, Mr. Speaker, $43 million worth of contracts have been awarded under northeast coal, and all to British Columbia contractors — and good ones. So when you hear the pie-in-the-sky from the Leader of the Opposition, give it the credence that is due, which is nil.

I've outlined some of the things our government has done or is doing to create work and advance society in our province. I am aware that the NDP have come out with a platform creating jobs and so on. I didn't cost it exactly, because I stopped when it came to $5 billion and it didn't say anywhere where that money was coming from.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, I could be subject to correction there. I stopped when it hit $5 billion because that was enough for me. I couldn't see how you or anybody else could finance that, other than by running deficits — like they did when they were in government. We are still paying for that. They left us with $260 million and we've paid about half of that. We have the other half that we are still paying on. We've had to put that off so we can have funds to create jobs for 1982.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: He mentions the public debt. I am very well aware of that — guaranteed by the province of British Columbia. While you were government I don't know what you did about it. You continued to increase the public debt for worthy purposes such as B.C. Hydro. Are you suggesting we cut that out and not create that? Don't talk out of both sides of your mouth. You should practise what you preach. You didn't do a thing about retarding Hydro in any shape or form, and that is where the major debt is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, order in the House will be assisted greatly if the minister addresses the Chair and is not interrupted by other hon. members.

HON. MR. FRASER: I would like to mention a matter that comes up from time to time: leadership. I think we have a fine Premier and a fine leader. I would like to sum up his achievements, such as his very hard work on the constitution. I was amazed to hear the member from over in the boonies over there say on television the other day how hard the NDP worked on the constitution. That really amazed me. However, be that as it may, our Premier was the chairman of the premiers, and at least we got it finalized. He certainly doesn't take all the credit, but he deserves a lot more credit than he has been given, not only by the opposition but also by members of the press across this nation. I compare that to the leadership shown by the Leader of the Opposition, particularly his leadership when it comes to nominations. That is really interesting.

They had a little bit of a family squabble in Rossland-Trail. Do you know what the Leader of the Opposition did there? He let the incumbent sit and hang out to dry by himself. But lo and behold, he set up a nomination convention for himself and the second member for Vancouver

[ Page 7099 ]

East (Mr. Macdonald). That was really interesting to follow — the great charade put on for the benefit of the voters and the public of British Columbia. Poor old Mr. Chips, Bob Williams. He got taken in again. They had to buy him off to get him to step down when the Leader of the Opposition lost his seat in Coquitlam in 1975. It was $80,000 to get the member who had been elected to step down. Here they pick on poor Bob again in 1982. I suggest it was just a big pizzazz put on to impress the press and the public. It was all prearranged. Bob had no intention of coming back or winning. You know what happened? The two carpetbaggers won again. The one carpetbagger from Coquitlam got the nomination again and the other one.... It is not really fair to call him a carpetbagger — I am referring to the second member for Vancouver East — but he is certainly borderline inasmuch as he is an aristocrat from Point Grey.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You are attacking my constituents.

HON. MR. FRASER: Sorry. I apologize. As far as Vancouver East is concerned, I have a few friends there too, and they tell me the second member for Vancouver East has no fixed address in that riding at all. However, it was a good exercise for the press. News was dead at that time of the year. The public may or may not have believed it when they read it. I just say it was a charade to try to show a different image; it was all organized; it was all put on. They might fool some of the people some of the time wearing three-piece suits and so on, but they've still got their red underwear. When we go to the polls, they'll find that out.

I'd like a few members of this House to apologize for things they have said here. I don't think it should happen in public life, and if it does happen, I think they should be big enough to stand up and apologize. I refer to the Vogel case. While the former Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the now Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) are well able to handle themselves, I want to speak on behalf of Mr. Vogel and tell you that the most disgraceful episode we'll ever see in this House happened in March of 1980. There were charges and insults by those members over there — and I have a list of their names, which I'm going to read off — over a man who went to the highest court in the land and was found not guilty. What did they use? A reporter. Imagine using his evidence in this House and treating it as fact. It's an absolute and utter disgrace for anybody to do that, let alone elected people who should know better. There's puffery every day in the press, on radio, television or whatever, and you have to have enough brains to figure out what is fact and what is fiction. They chose to ruin an individual who was a really good public servant.

Believe me, regardless of what happened to that man in court, it will affect him and his family for the rest of his life. Don't forget it. I think they are taking advantage of their privilege in this House as elected persons. The least they could do is to apologize. They haven't enough gumption to apologize. Absolute political chicanery is a they were pulling. That's all it was, and that was proven in the highest court in the land. That's, again, why they should apologize. The members are: the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) ; the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) ; the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) ; the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) ; the member for Coquitlam-Port Moody (Mr. Leggatt), that poor fellow who left Ottawa and is still lost; the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) ; the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), and also the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett). They should all apologize to that family, which certainly went through a lot. But you didn't help one little bit, and all of you should be big enough to apologize in this House. It was a disgraceful episode by public people for what they thought would be political advantage. I don't think this place is made a better place by those cheap tactics.

The other item that I want to discuss, and I know you'll be interested, Mr. Speaker, is the next election. I have an announcement to make. I hope the Premier isn't listening. He might be.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: I think, Mr. Speaker, that you could bring those members to order when I have the floor. I didn't bother them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. FRASER: I just want to say this: Yes, there will be an election, and no, it won't be called by Marjorie Nichols of the Vancouver Sun. Neither will it be called by Allen Garr of the Vancouver Province. Neither will it be called by Dave Barrett, the Leader of the Opposition. It will be called in due course by the Premier of British Columbia, who's got the responsibility to do so. I'm sure that he'll call it after he's listened to all sides — he's entitled to listen to everyone. Then we will have an election. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope you appreciate my announcement. I imagine it will put to bed any further talk about an election in British Columbia.

Before I sit down, I want to again congratulate the Minister of Finance for bringing out the only balanced budget in Canada. By the way, it's the first budget — and I wonder why — of any province in Canada. I wonder what they are holding back about, no matter what province it is.

I'm quite happy to support the budget.

MS. BROWN: I think it's a good thing that I'm following the last speaker, because after at least 40 minutes he didn't discuss the budget even once — not one single thing in the budget. I can't say that I blame him, because it's such a disastrous budget. I can understand why he wanted to talk about everything and anything except the budget.

Now it's my turn. I want to talk about the budget. Before doing that, I just want to congratulate that minister on his nerve. It must take a lot of nerve and gall for any member of the government benches to stand in this House and accuse anyone of abusing the privileges of this House. There has never been a government or opposition or any other elected body in the history of this province which has abused the rules of this House the way your government has. It really takes nerve on the part of that minister to stand and talk about demanding apologies and using quotes from the press. You have a minister over there who doesn't even bother to use quotes from the press when she chooses to slander people. It really takes nerve and gall on the part of that particular minister to accuse members of the opposition of abusing the privileges of the House. Even if we tried to emulate them, we couldn't. They are so far ahead of us when it comes to knowing how to abuse and twist the rules of the House. I certainly hope that I don't ever again hear any member over

[ Page 7100 ]

there talk about abuse of the rules and privileges of this House.

As I said before, the other thing I hope they'll be careful about doing is playing around with initials. Everyone is now playing around with initials, including the municipal councils. Whenever they think of "s" all they talk about is sham and shell games.

I see the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is running. That's all that minister can do. Anyway, I'm going to talk about the budget, and I'm going to talk about the Minister of Municipal Affairs and what he's done to the municipalities as a result of this particular budget. I'm going to quote from the newspaper, despite the fact that the Minister of Transportation (Hon. Mr. Fraser) says it's all puffery. I'm going to quote the president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, Jim Tonn, who referred to what that minister and his government have done to municipalities as a scam — using the letter "s" — and a shell game — again using the letter "s." They like to play around with initials; I think we should. When we think of the letter "s," now the municipalities are talking about a scam and shell games. In today's newspaper, Alderman Stusiak, who is not known for his commitment to the New Democratic Party, used that same term. He referred to what that minister is perpetuating on the municipalities as a shell game.

In case you're wondering what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the budget. I'm going to explain to you, Mr. Speaker, what the budget said about this great gift that the budget was going to give to the municipalities. The budget told us that no longer would the municipalities have to bear the cost of welfare. That was going to be taken away from them; they were going to be relieved of this incredible burden; and now they are going to have so much more money to provide services to the members of their municipalities. Lo and behold, to their horror they discovered last Tuesday that not only were their grants going to be slashed almost in half, but in addition four new programs for which they had never had responsibility before were now going to be added to their responsibilities. That, Mr. Speaker, is what they're referring to as a shell game and a scam. I'm just quoting — these are not my words. When I think of the letter "s," I think of the word "sleazy," but they use the words "scam" and "shell game." In talking about the budget, that's how they describe it.

What the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has done through this budget is to say he's going to be lifting the welfare costs, but it's not going to be done this year, it's going to be phased in. This year he's going to start out by lifting $17 million from the revenue-sharing — this is during the transition period. However, Mr. Speaker, because the municipalities operate on a different fiscal year than the provincial government, in fact all of the municipalities have already come up with the first four months of their welfare costs from January to April. That's already been done. The great gift of a year is really worth eight months anyway — it's really not worth a year. In addition, as I said before, what does this really mean to the municipalities? Maybe I'll give some general figures first in terms of the whole province, and then I'll speak more specifically about Burnaby.

Mr. Speaker, under the guise of withdrawing welfare costs from the municipalities, the minister at the same time slashed the unconditional revenue-sharing grants by something like $63 million. So he's giving with one hand and taking with another. I don't think the municipalities would have been upset about that, if he were giving $63 million and taking $63 million, but that is not what he was doing at all. In fact, he has taken something in the neighbourhood of 76 percent of the budget that used to be an unconditional grant and returned something in the neighbourhood of about 42 percent. Who comes off the better on a deal like this? Certainly not the municipalities. That's what triggered Mayor Harcourt, Jim Tonn, and Aldermen Stusiak and Drummond in Burnaby to refer to this gift, which was announced in the budget, as nothing more than a scam and a shell game. Since we are now playing the game of the alphabet — the game which the government started — we should always remember the letter "s." What the letter "s" stands for is not just "social" in Social Credit; it also stands for "scam" and "shell game." As I said, that's not my word; my word is "sleazy." When I think of "s" in terms of Social Credit, that's all I think about.

However, Mr. Speaker, apart from the difference between $63 million and $43 million, there are also these four programs which the municipalities were told on Tuesday of last week that they are now going to be responsible for. These are programs that traditionally have been handled by the minister's department itself.

And now, specifically, Burnaby. What does it mean? In 1981, Mr. Speaker, Burnaby's unconditional revenue from the provincial government was $10,071,201.

Oh, the minister left. You see, this is what happens when you try to discuss these kinds of issues with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) — he takes off.

MR. HALL: There are only four Socreds left.

MS. BROWN: That's right. There are only four of them sitting in the House.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, this year, 1982, the unconditional grant from the government was slashed from $10 million down to $5,758,912 — a decrease of $4,312,389. At the same time the minister said: "Well, we are going to pick up the tab for the welfare costs; you're not going to have to pay that." Well, Burnaby has figured out what its welfare costs are going to be, based on what it has paid out already in welfare costs in the first four months. Burnaby figures that its welfare costs are going to be in the neighbourhood of $2,047,646.

That is what it would have cost Burnaby if they had had to pay all the welfare costs themselves. However, the provincial government has deducted $4,312,389 from that. If the provincial government had given Burnaby exactly the same amount of money as it gave Burnaby in 1981, if in 1982 Burnaby had received the same $10,071,201 that it got in 1981 and had paid its own welfare costs it would have been further ahead by something in the neighbourhood of $3,711,266. As a direct result of this gift which was bragged about in the budget — this wonderful, tremendous, good thing that was being done for the municipalities — Burnaby is going to end up with $3,711,266 less in its pocket than it had in 1981.

To add insult to injury, the minister announced last Tuesday that Burnaby now has to pick up the tab for all its sewage costs, all its undergrounding, all its restructuring in terms of its boundaries and its mobile homes. Not only is Burnaby robbed blind of something in the neighbourhood of $3.7 million, but in addition the taxpayers of Burnaby now have to pick up an additional $964,000 just for the sewage costs alone. I have no idea what the undergrounding and the

[ Page 7101 ]

other costs are going to be. What Burnaby is facing as a result of this budget is a loss over last year's revenue of $4,675,266.

As the representative for Burnaby-Edmonds, there is absolutely no way that I could endorse a budget that does that to my constituency. I cannot sit in this House and remain dumb and silent while that government is robbing the constituency of Burnaby blind. I have to speak out against that, and I am going to have to vote against this budget, if for no other than reason than what that Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and that government are doing to the municipality of Burnaby. I am sure you will understand, Mr. Speaker, why it is that the two aldermen from Burnaby said in today's Sun that as far as they were concerned the minister's announcement was "dishonest, " that it was a "shell game" that the minister was talking about, and that the only way Burnaby is going to be able to deal with this is to ask the staff to accept a reduction in wages and to forgo a salary increase in 1983, to pare $2 million off its own municipal budget and, in addition, to increase commercial and industrial taxes something in the neighbourhood of 30 percent.

That is what is going to happen to Burnaby as a result of this budget. Burnaby is going to find that it has to come up with additional funds to deal with this "scam" and "shell game" which results in their having over $4 million less to deal with in terms of supplying services. It is going to have to increase its commercial and industrial tax by 30 percent, it is going to have to pare $2 million from its budget, and in addition they are going to have to approach the staff and ask them to take a reduction in their wage and to forgo an increase in 1983.

At the same time that Burnaby is having to do this, they are having to deal with all the increases in terms of hidden taxes and user fees visited on them by the provincial government. At the same time as the people who work for the municipality are going to be asked to take a cut in their wages and to forgo an increase in 1983, they are going to have to deal with a 21 percent increase in their medicare rates, a 10 percent increase in their water licence, a 16 percent increase in their motor vehicle licence, an 11 percent increase on cigarettes — that $3 million that suddenly appeared in the Minister of Health's (Hon. Mr. Nielsen's) budget to pay for public health services.... They're going to have to deal with those increases in transportation costs — the bus fares have now gone up for everyone — and in addition, senior citizens with bus passes have to deal with that 60 percent increase in the cost of their bus passes, the 35 percent increase in the cost of long-term care — if they need to use it — and, of course, the 24 percent increase in their Pharmacare cost.

I don't think that the people of Burnaby would begrudge the government's withholding funds if that meant that the services were still there, But what they're finding is that they're paying more in taxes through user fees and hidden taxes, and the services are being cut at the same time. They're expected to stand up and applaud when the Minister of Finance says: "Isn't it wonderful? I didn't increase your taxes." In fact, the taxes have been increased and were increased long before the budget came down. There is absolutely nothing that anyone could do about the announcements of the increase in medicare, Pharmacare, fuel tax, motor vehicle licence, water licence, bus passes, long-term care and all of the others — apparently 131 user fees and hidden taxes — that were inflicted on people.

There is nothing we can do about it, nothing at all. As I said before, I know my constituents well enough to know that they would not have objected to paying the increases if the services had been there. But the services are being cut and the taxes are being increased. The shell game and the scam is being perpetrated on them, and they're supposed to stand up and applaud because there wasn't an increase in sales tax and, allegedly, there was not an increase in personal income tax. On their behalf, I am saying that there is no applause for this budget.

The second group of people who are really clobbered by this budget — and the people I want to talk about — are the senior citizens. I want to quote from page 14 of the budget, where the minister said: "We will not compromise the high standard of services to the needy and the elderly in British Columbia."

Let me tell you how this government does not compromise its services to the needy and the elderly. First of all, we learned from the budget that there is going to be a 23.1 percent decrease in the provincial supplement, Maybe I should give you a bit of information about the provincial supplement. One of the things that the New Democratic Party government did was to put into place a basic supplement for those senior citizens who received old age pensions and the guaranteed income supplement, to ensure that their income didn't fall below $200 a month. That was a commitment made in the 1972 election. and it was one of the very first commitments to be honoured after the government was elected at that time.

In December 1975, it was passed that that supplement should be increased to $38.88 to come into effect on January 1, 1976, and the budget set aside for that supplement to make it possible was $37.3 million. Since that time, there has not been an increase of even one cent to that supplement. Today in 1982, as it was on January 1, 1976, despite inflation, the increase in the cost of living, and everything else, that supplement remains $38.88. You know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, that you cannot buy in 1982 for $38.88 what you could have bought in 1976 for $38.88.

Whether it's bus fares, hydro rates, telephone, electricity, food or housing, everything has increased. But that supplement has not increased by one cent since that time. Furthermore, the amount of the budget put aside to be spent on that supplement has steadily decreased since 1976. As I said, the money put aside was $37 million in 1976. In 1981 it was $25 million. It had dropped by something in the neighbourhood of S 12 million. This year we learn from the budget that there's a further decrease of 23.1 percent — down to $19.6 million. So when this government talks about not compromising the high standard of services to the elderly, bear in mind that $37.3 million has now dropped to $19.6 million, and there has not been a one cent increase in that $38.88 since this government took office in 1976.

The number of people receiving the supplement has also decreased drastically. In 1976, when this government first took office, there were 97,198 senior citizens in this province who received that supplement. As of March 31, 1982, that number had dropped to 67, 569. Bear that in mind, Mr. Speaker, the next time you hear this government talk about its commitment to the elderly of B.C. That number is steadily decreasing and will continue to decrease, because the only commitment that this government has is eventually to wipe out that supplement.

[ Page 7102 ]

If this government is allowed to remain in office very much longer, there will be absolutely nothing in the budget for this supplement and there will be nobody left in the province receiving this supplement, despite the fact that we learn from statistics that there are 11,000 people every year reaching the age of 65. So the seniors' population is growing almost as rapidly, if not more rapidly, than the supplement is decreasing. Eleven thousand people a year reach the age of 65 and the supplement continues to decrease from 97,000 down to 67,000.

You've heard speeches on the floor of this House about British Columbia having the best income assistance to the needy in the province. Let's compare that supplement. As I said, in British Columbia it's $38.88. If you compare other provinces with supplements, in Ontario it's $48.88 and in Alberta it's $85. So keep that in mind, Mr. Speaker, the next time you hear how really great and wonderful we are in terms of treating our elderly.

Let's look at another area in which this budget really has been a hardship on the senior citizens and the elderly of the province. The shelter aid for seniors, the SAFER program, which is supposed to help elderly people to be able to afford decent accommodation.... And there's some convoluted formula worked out whereby if your rent exceeds 30 percent of your income, 75 percent of this will be picked up by the government up to a maximum — to the ceiling. As a result of the government's refusal to raise that ceiling, despite the fact that the cost of housing is increasing, and despite the fact that many houses — or suites or apartments, as the case may be — that were covered by rent control in the past are now outside of that, that ceiling has not been adjusted. We find from this budget that there really is no intention of adjusting that ceiling, because the amount of money in the budget that was set aside to defray the cost of the SAFER program in 1981 is the same amount of money set aside in the budget to defray the cost of the SAFER program in 1982.

We have also discovered that as a result of the government's refusal to adjust that ceiling upwards so that seniors can remain eligible to receive the SAFER, fewer and fewer seniors are qualifying. Rents are going up and the ceiling remains static, so fewer and fewer seniors qualify.

Last year there was something in the neighbourhood of 12,500 seniors who qualified. Of these, only 1,500 were couples. Today we find that number has decreased to 11,350 seniors and that just slightly over 1,000 are couples. In 1978-79, when the program was in its heyday, something in the neighbourhood of $12 million was allocated to defray the cost of it. In the 1982-83 estimates we find it is $9 million, exactly the same amount as was estimated for it in 1981-82. Again, as with the supplement, it is very clear that the government has no commitment to saving the program, but is in fact in the process of phasing the program out, wiping out these kinds of services to seniors. Bear that in mind the next time you hear the Minister of Finance or anyone talk about the high standard of services to the elderly in B.C.

Another area is the day centres for seniors. The day centres are very useful for healthy seniors. The government tends to take the attitude that all the senior citizens in B.C. are sick. In reality it is only 5 percent of the people over the age of 65 who would come under the heading of being not healthy. Most senior citizens in British Columbia, through no fault of the government, are healthy, and they do use the seniors' day centres. What do we find? This year there is 19.5 percent less money in the budget to defray the cost of those day centres than there was in 1978. I wouldn't even compare it with 1981 or 1980 or 1979. There is 19 percent less in the budget than there was in the 1978-79 budget. It is very clear for everyone to see that the government is committed to phasing out this program. The services that the senior citizens have demonstrated they need and that they use — the supplement, SAFER and now the day centres — the government appears to be in the process of phasing out. They're clobbered by this budget.

I am sure that when the critic on Health speaks he will talk about the dental plan, so I don't want to go into too much detail on that except to say again that this is another area in which the service to the seniors has been clobbered by this particular government. There are fewer people eligible for it and it is costing more than when the plan was originally introduced.

There was a 60 percent increase on the bus passes. I want to confess that when I looked at the budget and discovered that the amount of money put aside to cover the cost of bus passes was higher than it was last year, my heart leapt. I was excited. I thought: "Oh, goody, they are doing something for the seniors. They are going to phase out the cost of the bus passes. Now people over the age of 65 who use the public transit system are going to be able to use it and not pay anything for their bus passes, because, in fact, it isn't going to cost the government that much to do just that." Imagine my horror when I discovered that that increase was really just to cover the cost to UTA of the bus passes, that there was no attempt either to cut back or to phase out. I believe that there is one way in which this government can demonstrate its commitment to the elderly of the province. That is to phase out the cost for those bus passes. Once you can demonstrate you are over the age of 65, if you need to use public transit you should be able to use public transit. I think that is the least the government can do, especially when we recognize that they are in the process of phasing out the income supplement, phasing out SAFER, phasing out the day-care plan and increasing the cost of the denticare and Pharmacare premiums.

So I'm making a suggestion to the Minister of Finance which I'm hoping he will take to the Treasury Board on behalf of the Minister of Human Resources, that is that the cost of the bus passes should be eliminated. Senior citizens and disabled people who can use public transit should be allowed to use it free of cost. I think that when the minister sits down to do his permutations and combinations he'll find that it really is not going to cost the government that much. I would like to make that suggestion to the Minister of Finance. I notice he's listening, so I know he is going to rush off and get his calculator and do that. I want to be able to congratulate you, once it happens, so that's the reason I'm suggesting it now.

The other way in which seniors are being badly used by this program, of course, has to do with the 40 percent increase in Pharmacare. In fact, when the deductible was raised from $100 to $125 by this government, it was estimated that that would eliminate something in the order of 100,000 claims. This is another hidden tax. This is another user fee. It is another financial burden that senior citizens have received from this government.

I can't support this budget, as I said earlier. I can't support it because of what it's done to the municipality of Burnaby, and I certainly can't support it when I look at it and see what it is doing to senior citizens in this province.

[ Page 7103 ]

Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing about this job creation; these 5,000 jobs that are going to be created by this budget. Some 207,000 British Columbians are looking for work. How are we supposed to applaud a budget which absolutely robs the treasury of all its savings and everything else and then creates 5,000 jobs. There are 207,000 jobs that need to be created. I notice the Minister of Labour (Hon Mr. Heinrich) listening carefully. There are 207,000 jobs that need to be created, plus all of those jobs for the youth which were wiped out when the youth employment job-creation program was eliminated.

AN HON. MEMBER: Prince George needs 5,000.

MS. BROWN: That's right; his own riding.

We understand that the government is going to take a bold initiative and that in fact the government has established a committee which is going to get into the business of serious job-creation. I was excited about that until I heard who was chairing the committee. It seems that it is going to be the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). I hope I'm wrong, because if the minister of Human Resources is going to be chairing this job-creation program, then we are in serious trouble indeed. Mr. Speaker, all one has to do is to look at that minister's record in the area of job creation. When the minister talks about her individual opportunities program, her job-skills program, and her job-training program — when we look at those things that she brags about, in terms of job creation — we have to say to ourselves that if that's any indication of the quality and quantity of jobs that are going to be created, then forget it; don't even bother. Any of the cabinet members who are invited to sit on the committee with her should decline with thanks.

Her record is very clear. We have never in the history of this province had as many people on welfare as we have now. Not even when the present Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) — who was the worst Minister of Human Resources that we have ever had — was the Minister of Human Resources did we ever have as many people on welfare as we have under this minister, and the number is increasing. This minister stands in this House and brags about job-creation programs, gives a speech in which she talks about three jobs which have been created since her vaunted individual opportunities program was put into place and immediately gets appointed to head a committee to create employment.

I want to plead with the government — and it is not often that I do that — that if in fact that appointment has not been entrenched in the charter of rights, please don't go through with it. If there is any possibility at all of changing that appointment, I think it is the time for the Premier and the cabinet to take a look at it. Under this government and under that minister we now have in this province something in the neighbourhood of 121,000 people in receipt of income assistance.

I didn't get a chance to talk about all the terrible things the budget is doing to education, but I'm going to do that under the Minister of Education's estimates. In particular, I'm going to talk about BCIT in Burnaby and about the very disappointing decisions the school board had to make in terms of closing elementary schools and cutting out special programs and other programs in the education system in Burnaby.

In closing, I just want to point out, as the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) did when he was here, that the burden of debt which this government has visited on this province is increasing. To use his own figures: in 1976 the debt was $4.6 billion; in 1978 it jumped to $6.3 billion; in 1979 it jumped to $7.5 billion; in 1980 it jumped to $8.3 billion; and this year it is going to be $10.4 billion. What this budget means is increased taxation, increased debt and a cutback in services — an absolute burden on the people of British Columbia. They cannot afford this government and they cannot afford this budget, and the first opportunity that this government can give the people of British Columbia to demonstrate that fact to them, I hope they will do so.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It is indeed a pleasure to have the opportunity of participating in this debate, though I must say that being somewhat near the end of the list of speakers, much of what I would like to say has already been said a number of times, so I can really only comment on some of the things as they particularly affect my ministry and similarly also comment on some of the statements made by members of the opposition. Obviously there need to be some corrections made to some of the statements that have been made even this afternoon.

The budget, without a doubt, is the best budget ever in that it is no trick to come up with a budget when there is plenty of revenue coming in and when the economy of the province and the country and the world is reasonably buoyant, but when the whole continent, the whole country and all of the provinces are in trouble and economies everywhere are affected by world trends, for a minister to come forth — as our Minister of Finance did — with such a positive budget is certainly a matter for congratulations and for commendations. It is not only a balanced budget, but it is a budget which has relatively no tax increases and it is a budget which creates almost 50,000 jobs. It is a budget such as we have not seen presented anywhere in the country and a budget which probably no other government anywhere could present in this day and age. I am certainly pleased that we have such a very positive budget, a budget which will help build British Columbia and which will make it a still better place in the country and in the world.

I am also pleased that although a decision was made in early 1976 that we should pay off the debt which was left to us by the NDP government before that, a decision was made to try to spread the repayment of that over a number of years to spread the shock.

I'm pleased that this year we will introduce legislation allowing us to refinance the debt left to the province by the NDP so that this money can be used in job creation. That's extremely important, because I think the decision in 1976 was the right decision. It was certainly a decision for government to make as to whether it would shock the people with the NDP debt immediately in one year, or whether it would spread it out. The decision was made to spread the NDP debt.

This year there will be legislation, so we're told by the Minister of Finance, allowing us to use for job creation the moneys that would otherwise go to repay that NDP debt. It's a wise choice, it's a good choice. I think certainly it also tells British Columbians that we have to consider very seriously where our province would be, had the socialists been given the opportunity to carry on. Where would this province be, had the socialists been able to carry on? Where would we be with respect to industry, with respect to jobs? And what

[ Page 7104 ]

would the unemployment situation be in the province today had the socialists carried on as they did during the years 1973, 1974 and 1975?

Again, Mr. Speaker, I believe we have the best budget ever, and that it provides many opportunities for growth at a time when growth is needed. The budget was well presented. It's a pity, and certainly unfortunate for British Columbians that they were not able to watch the presentation of the budget on television, as they did in other years. It's a shame that the NDP opposition, and in particular their leader, denied British Columbians the opportunity to view the budget presentation, the most important event in the House during the whole of the year. It denied them the opportunity to see that on television. And to add to the ridiculousness of that situation, somehow that NDP group in opposition today — as I expect they always will be, should they even survive as an opposition — failed to communicate to the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) that it certainly would not be appropriate to come back the very next day after denying people television viewing of the budget presentation and to present a bill on televising the House. How ridiculous; how disorganized those people are, and how it shows up time and time again, especially during these debates.

I go back to the opportunities provided in this budget with respect to job creation: the northeast coal project; the development at Prince Rupert; the southeast coal development and all of its tremendous growth in that beautiful Elk Valley. The jobs created by the Roberts Bank development in the lower mainland are all extremely welcomed and much promoted by the government as a very important part of the economic development in the province today. And yet, for years in this Legislature the NDP has time and time again opposed all of those developments. Only in the last several months have they done a bit of a turnaround and said: "Maybe we can support northeast coal, but we'll renegotiate." Well, we know how they negotiated with Alaska when they were proposing to run American oil to America by way of a railway through British Columbia. We know what negotiations took place then, or how the negotiations took place then. Frankly, that argument they're putting forth now about "we're supportive of it but we'd renegotiate" doesn't hold much water — the "however" gang.

The NDP proposes getting the forestry back in full steam. They say they can certainly devise ways in their economic recovery plan by which they can get the forestry working again, regardless of whether or not there is a market. They'll simply keep stockpiling it; they'll buy the mills and get some large lots, in the ALR, I suppose, and keep stacking the lumber. Certainly if there were something they could present in the House which might indicate clearly that there was something to that proposal, then I'm sure every member, no matter where in the House, would welcome it. But they have not brought forth anything constructive in that regard. Instead, they are still attempting to fight many of the other proposals, although much of the fight is gone. They said that Pier B-C was a monument to Social Credit and that in no way could they support it. During the last several months I have heard the first member from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), in whose constituency Pier B-C is located, say: "Oh, but we would support Pier B-C." He's done a complete turnaround. "Yes, we're now supporting Pier B-C because we realize it will create many thousands of jobs in construction and many thousands of jobs ongoing after its construction."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: That's because Mikey likes it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: They were against B.C. Place — bad B.C. Place, no good at all — but we haven't heard much about B.C. Place from the NDP opposition during all of this debate. They haven't really said much about B.C. Place because they know full well that all of these projects create thousands of jobs and help to build the economy and help to build British Columbia.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I noticed today that the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer)...and I respect him and certainly I believe that he attempts to be truthful. He may be misguided, and he probably lacks a lot of good information. Because he has served at one time in the capacity of Minister of Municipal Affairs, I would certainly discuss with him any matters involving municipal affairs. If he asked me, I would make the time available. I would give him the information that perhaps would ease his role as critic of municipal affairs. The information is available in the ministry. But today, again, he stood up and he criticized ALRT. I gather from his remarks — and from remarks that were made yesterday — that the NDP is opposed to light rapid transit in greater Vancouver. They're opposed to the ALRT system.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, they couldn't be.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, it may be that they're opposed to ALRT, and possibly they would instead go back to what they proposed in 1973-74, when they said that the best type of transit is the buses, without a pull-off on the road. If you continually stop the buses on the middle of the road, then people will get out of their cars and into the buses and that way you'll build a transit system. That was the approach that was advanced by the NDP back in 1973 and 1974 and early 1975.

They did buy a whole lot of secondhand buses that the NDP government in Saskatchewan had in storage somewhere in Saskatoon. They made the purchase and those wrecks are still sitting someplace. Unfortunately, we don't dare put them on the road. Neither did they, but they now maintain that they bought them for parts.

Similarly, they bought a streetcar in Germany, and again that was a part of their transit system — this lone streetcar that was shipped from Germany to British Columbia and put in storage in a barn because it somehow wouldn't fit the track or the platforms along the track should they put it into service in British Columbia.

The Germans got a big bang out of that. At one time, we thought maybe we could sell it back to them, but they just laughed. I suppose they regretted that they hadn't sold more streetcars to the NDP at that time. But they sold this lone streetcar which was the NDP transit program. But, says the member for Burnaby-Willington, "We're against ALRT." He says it's ugly and more expensive and not proven. No, he says, we would scrap ALRT. But, he goes on to say, we don't think that this government is going to go ahead with ALRT either. I'm just quoting, in broad terms, about what was said with respect to ALRT. But again I should inform the member — and as I mentioned earlier, I would be very pleased to make all available information to him — that ALRT is being

[ Page 7105 ]

built right now. We are building it. There has been $33 million expended to date. We have let the contracts. The civil engineering for each and every section is proceeding. We are similarly engineering the sections or the extensions into Coquitlam and Surrey. ALRT is proceeding. ALRT will be a reality. The demonstration section will be in place in 1983, and the whole of the system to New Westminster will be built by 1986.

One of the things that really has bothered me in much of the debate about ALRT over the last number of months — and it certainly disappoints me in the NDP as a group — is that they are opposed to ALRT when they know full well that we are promoting a Canadian system. The member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) made reference to several headlines in the paper. One of the headlines read "Turkey System" and quoted some unknown person back in England who had never seen the system, but he was a physicist of some sort. He later denied having said it. However, that was the article which was quoted by the member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

I guess we as British Columbians and Canadians really have to ask ourselves if that system — ALRT or call it what you will — had been built in Japan, Germany or the United States, we would have questioned the system. Would we have had all that criticism and all those headlines in the paper? No, but unfortunately we as British Columbians and as Canadians too often really do not accept or appreciate the ability of Canadians to be involved in developing new technologies, developing secondary industries and developing the opportunity for exports to other countries. Where were the NDP?

We, as a government, have consistently fought to buy British Columbian or Canadian at every opportunity. When the contracts were let for SeaBus, it was Canadian. When we bought 250 new trolley buses — the largest single purchase of buses in the history of British Columbia — and the first was delivered only a few weeks ago, it was Canadian. They were built in Manitoba. All the member for Burnaby-Willingdon had to say, as the critic for transit, in this House today was something negative about the fact that I should take the opportunity to be the first to drive that bus for a short distance in the yard in Vancouver. He made some ridiculous remark about it. That's all he had to say.

Why couldn't he, along with us, regardless of whether he is NDP or Social Credit, stand up as a British Columbian and say: "I'm proud. We're buying Canadian. We're creating work for Canadians"? Whether he's talking about SeaBus, trolley buses or ALRT, why couldn't he and those other members in the opposition just for once get up and say: "It's good. It's Canadian. It's going to create jobs for Canadians"? Contracts have been let. We'll be building not only for Vancouver; we'll be building for Detroit and other cities in the U.S. and the world. They too will see this to be an effective system of transit, and they'll want it for all those other cities, or a good many of them, and the manufacturing will be done in British Columbia. But no, they couldn't get up and recognize that. Somehow, even with that, they have to be negative. They talk about providing opportunities for jobs or for people to be employed in British Columbia or in Canada, yet when something very positive is done — be it any of those systems I've mentioned; be it northeast coal, southeast coal, Pier B-C or B.C. Place — all they can do is knock. All those are jobs for Canadians and British Columbians. We should, regardless of our political stripe, be supportive of that and have something positive to say in regard to it.

The member for Burnaby-Willingdon, again commenting on transit as a part of my portfolio, said: "Nothing has happened in transit since 1976."

HON. MR. CURTIS: Shame!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: "Shame" is right. It is absolutely ridiculous for any member, regardless of where he sits in the House and regardless of the debate, not to recognize the fact that the transit systems in British Columbia in the last several years have grown at a more rapid pace than transit anywhere in the whole of Canada, possibly the whole of North America. As a province with little more than 2.5 million we ought to be tremendously proud, regardless of where we sit in this House, that the taxpayers of British Columbia — all the taxpayers, and they don't care whether they're NDP, Social Credit, Liberal, Conservative or whatever — have made possible the opportunity for citizens in 28 communities throughout British Columbia in the last several years to have a transit system. Two and a half million people in British Columbia have made available an improved transit system for Vancouver. the coming of ALRT and all these other expansions, including the best handicapped service in transit that has ever existed anywhere and which is growing at a pace like none other anywhere, and which is recognized by people in other political parties in other provinces. Somehow the NDP not only fails to recognize this but has certainly decided they won't recognize it.

Mr. Speaker, I will not comment much more on the transit. Certainly that will be canvassed in more detail during my estimates, but I did wish to comment on the remarks that had been made by the member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

I guess I should make one other comment, because I hear that the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke).... You know, Mr. Speaker, I think that my ministry working with other ministries is clear proof that we work for all of the communities in all the cities regardless of where they are, and that member for New Westminster is probably the most negative member who ever sat anywhere in the House. His city of New Westminster has received more benefit from this government than any city in British Columbia has ever received. We have brought about the whole of the redevelopment in New Westminster. That city of New Westminster was run down, and when the member for New Westminster was a minister in the government of '73, '74 and '75, he did little more than purchase a little piece of land on Royal Avenue. We have taken that city and things are happening in New Westminster. That place is being redeveloped, and if it hadn't been for the initiatives of Social Credit, New Westminster would still be going downhill. But it's building, there are cranes, there is lots of activity in New Westminster and the place is growing. It's not all because of Social Credit, granted, Mr. Member, but we gave that stimulus, that initiative, and private enterprise. They have faith in our system of government, because they believe that we can make it happen with them. They are participating and New Westminster is really changing and changing for the better. New Westminster will also get transit. of course. I think the member for New Westminster should stand up when his turn comes and say what benefits will flow from the light rapid transit system to New Westminster. New Westminster will benefit tremendously.

He mentioned — and this is the reason I'm on transit again — as did the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer), that ALRT is more expensive than conventional

[ Page 7106 ]

transit. I agree. So is a Cadillac more expensive than a Ford, and so is a Lincoln more expensive than a Ford and a Rolls Royce more expensive than an Austin. It's apples and oranges. The people of British Columbia, as we felt following much study by GVRD and many other agencies, were not prepared to accept a system of transit which would create 36 level crossings between Vancouver and New Westminster, each of which could see the gates come down every 90 seconds. It would be chaotic.

If you want the sort of transit system which, incidentally, the NDP, during its term of '73, '74 and '75, never agreed upon.... They were still involved in a system of buses stopping in the middle of the street so people would be forced into the bus out of the car. They did not decide on conventional transit, but they're now saying that conventional transit is cheaper. I agree. If you'll accept 36 level crossings with the gates coming down every 90 seconds, then conventional transit is cheaper. If you'll accept the fact that the train must slow down at every one of those crossings, and that therefore the travel time from New Westminster to Vancouver becomes 45 minutes instead of 30 minutes, and because of that you move less people, then, granted, conventional transit is cheaper than ALRT. But if we're building a transit system for Vancouver that is going to last 100 years, why not have the best? Why not have a Canadian system?

Furthermore, I'm sure that if the NDP had their way and we were to instead build a conventional system, we would soon be trying to bury it anyway, and the cost of burying a conventional system is $50 million per mile.

I notice the member for New Westminster suddenly left when the facts started coming out. But I wish these members would accept my invitation. If you want information from the ministry, as some of your members do — they come to me and that's fine — I'll provide you with the information. But don't get up and make a whole lot of statements about a transit system when you really don't have a clue as to what is involved or what it is all about.

I was rather disappointed in the statements made by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). Unfortunately he is not here again today, but he is the finance critic, after all. We look to the finance critic to provide some positive alternatives or suggestions or proposals from the opposition, proposals that perhaps we might in some way adopt or something that would give the public the opportunity to compare the opposition's alternative to the budget as we have it today. The only comment I can recall that the finance critic dwelt upon — he certainly didn't have any proposals to offer — was to say that the budget was misleading, dishonest, a budget of despair. Those were his statements.

When I hear statements like that and when I listen, as I did earlier, to the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and I hear mention of dishonesty and misleading, I can't help but again follow on the statements made a little earlier by the member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser) when he said that the members of the opposition, one and all, should individually and collectively stand up and apologize for the dishonesty and the deceptiveness and the cruelty that has been displayed by them. To hear this talk from the member for Nanaimo when he should remember a certain judgment which was brought down by the courts.... He can't really complain too much about his lawyer, because his lawyer was the second member for Vancouver East. He has to be reminded of that, but I agree with the member for Cariboo when I say that they should apologize. When you use a reporter's findings for something purely political, that is one thing. But when you attempt to use a reporter's findings to try to destroy a man and his family, as you tried to do with Mr. Vogel, I think an apology should be called for time and time again. I still think that was the most shameful thing that we've seen in this House for a good while. I know that many members on the other side were involved. The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) perhaps will show some leadership on that side, and during his remarks will make an apology for that whole affair. I think it would certainly be a good effort on his part.

I'm sorry the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) is not here. I didn't know she was the new critic for Municipal Affairs. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds has suddenly become the critic for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Now that I am aware of that, I will try to provide her as well with certain information. She talked about the revenue-sharing program, but she failed to mention that we have been reducing the welfare charge against municipalities. If the charge had remained at 10 percent, as it was only a few years ago, the welfare charges against municipalities today would be $62.3 million.

She failed to mention as well that when you transfer, as we did, the sewer program to revenue sharing and you take away the welfare program, it may, as it did and as I mentioned at the time, create a burden initially on some of the municipalities. The total cost of the sewer program is much dependent on the rate of interest on bonds, and it can vary. As recently as two or three years ago, the projections were that the whole of the sewer program would hit its cost limit in 1980-81 at $44 million, and from then on would decline in total cost. But the welfare program, as a percentage of a total budget, is not tied into the interest rate on a bond or whatever, and thus is more likely to increase. The municipalities, as I've pointed out — and I'll certainly be pleased once more to provide details in that regard during my estimates — will be better off in the long run with the new formula, and I think many municipalities very clearly recognize that. It should also be mentioned, and the member once more failed to recognize this, that since 1975 the amount of increase in financial assistance to municipalities has been 260 percent. The revenues to municipalities have increased by 260 percent. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) nods his head in agreement. I really wish you would get up and recognize that in your remarks, Mr. Member.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) had a solution of her own with respect to recession and restraint. She said: "What we need is more social programs, and what we need is a budget to provide a subsidy to put every youth to work." She also said: "We need free bus passes." That was the extent of the alternative from the member representing Burnaby-Edmonds.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) proposed an economic program, mainly housing, costing $2.4 billion by their own estimates. The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) mentioned that his calculations indicated it would cost approximately $5.3 billion. I've seen another calculation of $6.6 billion, but regardless of what figure you accept, if you were to accept somewhere between their figure and the highest figure that I've heard, you'd be looking at an increase in the sales tax about

[ Page 7107 ]

25 or 30 percent to meet that program alone. The sales tax would have to be increased to 25 or 30 percent just to meet that proposed housing program.

MR. KEMPF: Could you accept that, Em?

HON MR. VANDER ZALM: They would have to accept that, Mr. Member from Omineca. If they didn't accept that they would have to cut back on certain other things. Would they cut back on health? Would they cut back on education? This budget provides additional money for health and education. What would they do? That's a fair question.

The Leader of the Opposition, in his program, also proposed the takeover of credit unions. He was going to establish mini-banks, and he was going to establish a B.C. export corporation. I guess one of the members on the opposite side would have to be the president of it. The only member that has ever been able to explain his way around a $100 million figure is the member from Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), and maybe he would accept the presidency of the new B.C. export corporation for the NDP.

MR. LEVI: I would.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Maybe you would. Then again, I suppose they may need you and many others in all of those storefront offices you propose to open in every small community in order to advise business — another NDP proposal.

Mr. Speaker, they have no solutions. They only have more deficit and higher taxes and more inflation. But then we don't really know what the position of the opposition is on inflation. I've heard it said from the opposite side that inflation really isn't so bad after all. When you look at it purely as a socialist — or a democratic socialist — maybe that begins to make sense. If you're a socialist and you're totally honest, you'll agree that the goals are to take over industry, small, medium and large, to get control of resources. But if you're a democratic socialist, maybe you do it by way of inflation. If you can create or cause enough inflation, you'll get everybody equal and you'll get control anyway. Perhaps there is some motive for that quiet support that was mentioned by the members of the opposition.

I should make some comments on the statement by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to Canadian unity. The Leader of the Opposition maintains that Social Credit is not definitively in favour of a united Canada. We've clearly said that we are supportive of a united Canada, and I don't think there are any doubts about that. I'm sure that it's very evident to all British Columbians that there is no one who worked harder than the Premier towards a united Canada. I will admit that in some respects we've not gone as far as the NDP. We in this party certainly didn't say what the Leader of the Opposition, who was the then Premier in 1974, said when he was quoted during a conference in Ottawa, that the NDP would fully support resource revenues going to Ottawa, providing all of the industry was nationalized. We didn't go as far as the NDP, when the provincial party obviously agreed with the stand of their federal counterpart: they would agree with the Bill of Rights as a part of the constitution, providing that private property ownership rights be removed from the bill. That was the NDP position federally, and I guess they must have received some considerable support from the provincial NDP.

So if that's your way of providing more unification in Canada, then I agree that we haven't gone as far. We've not been prepared to give away all of those resource revenues that belong to British Columbians, and we're never prepared to agree to the removal of the ownership of land as a right.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Your time has expired.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry that I can't cover all of the other aspects that I wanted to make mention of during this debate, but hopefully during my estimates I'll have a further opportunity.

Mr. Barnes moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tabled the report of the special committee appointed to select the standing committees of the House for the present session.

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

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments on the motion to adopt this report with particular reference to the part of it: "...and membership from the government side on the public accounts and economic affairs committee." I do so because on that committee and in that report, named as members, there are three sinners.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. HOWARD: Well, I only read that in May's Parliamentary Practice, the rules that govern us. Perhaps if someone thinks it's not in order, Mr. Speaker, I should make reference to page 683 of the nineteenth edition of May, talking about excess votes and overruns, expenditures beyond that which was allocated by the House in the estimates. It tells what the result is of spending more money than has been voted for its service. This is a financial sin, and to that extent those who participated in it, in my book, are sinners. The department in question, having had to answer for its conduct to the treasury and appear before the public accounts committee, has then to get absolution from the Committee of Supply. If the committee grants the money necessary, then it's okay.

Mr. Speaker, the excess votes, the overexpenditures, the overruns and the inability of certain cabinet ministers to restrain themselves in their squandering of public funds, I think, makes them unsuited to be members of the public accounts committee, which is going, I presume, to be inquiring particularly into the expenditures incurred by those ministers.

Let me refer to them. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) was identified in the motion before the House to be a member of the public accounts committee. He was allocated $30,000 by this House to his office for travelling in the 1980-81 estimates. It was the public accounts for that fiscal year that were referred on April 5 to the public accounts committee. He spent $31,992 himself just for his own personal travelling account. He spent more for his own personal travelling than was allocated for his whole minister's office.

[ Page 7108 ]

The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is another financial sinner. He overspent for his own personal travel to such exotic places as Korea and Japan and wherever else he went. He overexpended the amount allocated to his office. There are seven people working in his office and he spent more himself than was allocated for his own office. The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) did the same thing. He spent over $20,000 on travel and had only $16,000 allocated to him.

I want to submit that if the public accounts committee seeks to call these ministers before it, as it is entitled to do pursuant to what I have just read from May, then these ministers that I have identified are in a conflict-of-interest position. I don't see how a minister of the Crown, being a member of a committee, can in fact be a witness before it or be placed in the position, if there is a motion to inquire into the travelling excesses of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, of being able to block the very inquiry into their own travelling. It would seem to me that a government with concern about propriety and the honourable way of doing things would not have placed upon a committee the very people who are guilty of that financial sin. Speaking of financial sinners, at least the government members on the selection committee had the decency to keep the Premier off the public accounts committee, because his was the most excessive of any.

With those words, I put that to the House as being a reason to doubt the sincerity of the government in wanting to approach the public accounts in a fair, open and honourable way.

MR. SPEAKER: Without interrupting the member who had the floor, I think all members should be aware of Sir Erskine May's words on page 636: "The appointment of a select committee and the nomination of the members of the committee must be the subject of separate motions; nor is it in order, on a motion for the appointment of a select committee, to discuss the names of the members who, it is proposed, shall compose it." I would suggest that all members take a look at that paragraph as they prepare their statements.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I don't think there's any point in dignifying the hon. member's statements by reply.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena has raised a very important point: that public accounts must be responsible to examine all overruns, regardless of whether or not the ministers concerned are named. It is a fact that we have had an excess in warrants for travels and offices of minister after minister, expenditures unparalleled, and coming back for more and more money. In the Premier's office alone an additional $150,000, in a year of restraint, has been poured down the drain in first-class travel and high living by a government that has shown no restraint whatsoever when the people of this province are suffering.

I remember when they were on opposition benches and they questioned salaries and expenditures of the government. Public accounts were fully open.

Never in the history of this province have we seen cabinet ministers travel so much and so lavishly as we've seen since this group has been in office — first-class air tickets all over the world, showing no restraint and no caution. The living accommodation and the expenditures of cabinet ministers by this government is a separate, distinct scandal unparalleled in the supervision of public funds in this province. Mr. Speaker, there is no policy of restraint by that cabinet. They use first-class travel everywhere. They don't allow themselves to be seen in the back seats of an airplane where the taxpayers sit. First-class accommodation everywhere in the world. They don't allow themselves to be accommodated in lesser hotels. First-class expenditures all over this world. We've never really had reports from any of them in terms of details of where they've been and what they've been doing.

My colleague from Skeena has raised a valid point. The point is public accountability, especially at a time of restraint, when we have had warrants and, for example, $150,000 worth of additional expenditures in the Premier's office alone.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: My friend, mumbling up there from Peace River country, you explain to the people of British Columbia how one cabinet tour can spend $100,000 travelling around the province, tripping into town and throwing meals for political purposes and spending money for liquor out of taxpayers' pockets — inviting guests for political purposes, spending money for the Social Credit Party under the guise of a cabinet tour, and then announcing that the justification for a warrant was that, "We spent more than we thought we would" and, "The Premier needs $150,000 more in his office because of travel."

My friend the member for Skeena has raised an important point, Mr. Speaker, beyond just the comments here today. The province of British Columbia has been told to show restraint. So you show me any other group of cabinet ministers that travels higher than this group — first class like this group does — and squanders money like this group does. And they've got the nerve to put these people on to judge themselves in committee. Shame! It is a matter of record that warrant after warrant has been poured through by order-in-council to protect them and their expenditures, while they come to this House and say through the budget: "This is all we really need and this is our estimate, but nothing beyond that."

I remember the comment about not a dime without debate. Well, isn't it interesting that there's a dime without debate, a dime without question, by packing that committee with the cabinet ministers who are partly responsible. How they could sit there and smile and think it's all funny, little games, when $134 million in warrants have been pushed through in the last week and a significant amount of that went for their own travel habits.... Do they have a policy of travelling first class? You bet they do. They all travel first class. It's a Bacchanalian feast for these people when they're on the airlines. The wine shall flow; the food shall be served. First-class tickets are used frequently all over the world by cabinet ministers. They criss-cross the oceans, criss-cross over the world, travelling back and forth to meetings or conferences. They even change their itinerary in the middle, as the minister for North Okanagan (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) did. She arrived when the conference was over.

Mr. Speaker, I have not yet heard this government announce that they will show some restraint in their spending habits. I've not yet heard one minister explain their overruns

[ Page 7109 ]

and their expenditures. They're running around this province saying we have to be cautious. It's not good enough. It's simply not good enough.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Quit your bellyaching.

MR. BARRETT: Quit my bellyaching? Only a rich man, fat and sassy and comfortable in this Legislature, would make a statement like that, Mr. Speaker. In this province there are thousands of people on welfare who would like to have the crumbs off the table of the members' first-class travel. There are thousands of senior citizens and thousands of disadvantaged people who would love to have just one meal a month in first-class travel — not like the travelling these people do practically every day of the week.

Oh, Mr. Speaker, they all think it's very humorous that at a time of restraint they can travel around first class. They go first class while the peasants who pay the bills are kept in the back of the bus, in the back of the plane. We have never had a full accounting that whole cabinet tour — that whole cabinet circus that went around this province. We've never had a detailed accounting of how much was spent on food, how much on liquor, tripping through town after town. When an estimate was given of over $100,000, the government said: "Well, it does cost quite a bit of money."

No matter how often they tell the people of this province to show restraint, no matter how many judgments they make about other people's habits, they have condemned themselves by putting on that committee members who have shown absolutely no restraint, no caution or prudence in the handling of taxpayers' money. First-class travel, first-class hotels, first-class everything; overexpenditures on their travel budget, overexpenditures time after time and time, and no restraint. And they sit there smiling, as our Premier does with his tongue in cheek, knowing that his accounting will be protected by those other cabinet ministers on the committee.

I would suggest that the most decent thing to do would be to take all cabinet ministers off the committee and put on backbenchers. At least they haven't had a chance to get to the trough, Mr. Speaker. I would think that a government shamed with the record of its overruns, its overexpenditures and its high living habits would at least show the decency to keep cabinet ministers off that committee so we can get right down to the very basics in examining what's going on.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 24

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:04 p.m.