1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, MARCH 14, 1975

Morning Sitting

[ Page

643 ]

CONTENTS

Resource Revenue and Sharing Act (Bill 37). Mr. Bennett.

Introduction and first reading — 643

Municipal Consultation Act (Bill 38). Mr. Bennett.

Introduction and first reading — 643

Budget debate (continued)

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 643

Mr. Curtis — 651

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 657

Division — 663

Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates lion.

Mrs. Dailly — 663

Statement Purchase of Aberdeen Hospital.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 663

Mr. Curtis — 664

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 664

FRIDAY, MARCH 14, 1975

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I know

you'll be pleased to know that in the gallery and touring the

buildings this morning we have 11 students from George Elliot

high school, whose home is the community of Winfield, part of

the fruit bowl of the world, the Okanagan.

We have a very strong bond of pride among all our people in

the area, but we're particularly proud today because we have

among the students Graham Marshall, who won the right to

represent British Columbia at the national finals of the

Hammarskjold debating competition, and Bonny Young, who won

third affirmative speaker's position. They were competing —

that little group from that little community of Winfield —

against 43 other teams from around British Columbia. They're

here with their classmates and their chaperons: Mr. and Mrs.

Young, Mr. Tucker, and their vice-principal and also debating

coach, Mr. David Aspinall. I would ask the House to give them a

very warm welcome and to wish our debaters luck.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to welcome today the Hon. Jeanne Sauvé, Minister

of the Environment for Canada who is meeting with us throughout the morning,

and Mr. Len Marchand, parliamentary secretary to Madame Sauvé.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, because

of the distance between the capital and my riding, it's not too

often I get the opportunity to ask the Members to join with me

in welcoming people from my riding, but I have that honour and

privilege today. Seated in the Members' gallery are members of

the Prince Rupert senior high school girls' basketball team,

the Rambirds. They've been down here taking

part in the

provincial tournament and are with their coach, Mr. Kim Mah. I

would ask the Members of the House to join me in welcoming

Prince Rupert people to Victoria and to the House.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I have the

honour of welcoming, and hope the House will also welcome,

several members of our Vancouver South constituency association

who are seated in the Members' gallery.

Introduction of bills.

RESOURCE REVENUE AND SHARING ACT

On a motion by Mr. Bennett, Bill 37, Resource Revenue and

Sharing Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

MUNICIPAL CONSULTATION ACT

On a motion by Mr. Bennett, Bill 38, Municipal Consultation

Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I was going to join in

welcoming the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mme. Sauvé) and Len

Marchand, the parliamentary secretary, but I see that the

provincial Minister's need for advice is so great that they and

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams) have left to get on with their discussions. They

certainly need help and we are glad that Len and Madame Sauvé

are able to come and provide it.

My 40 minutes today will be devoted first to outlining some

of the changes which we think are necessary in the whole

structure of government which has been outlined by the budget

presented by the Premier, and then to go on and deal with a

couple of other subjects which I believe are of considerable

importance: namely, the credibility of this government and the

problem of labour relations in the public sector. These three

subjects are, I believe, of critical importance to us at the

present time, and I will try to stay within the 40 minutes

allotted to me.

Mr. Speaker, it's no secret that at the present time....

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): You have no choice.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Except by leave. At the present time

governments are growing and budgets are growing at an enormous

rate. The Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) mentioned a

moment ago that when he came to this House, only six years ago,

the budget was below the $1 billion mark. We've gone from under

$1 billion dollars to over $3 billion, essentially in the first

five years of this decade. As the Hon. Member mentioned to me,

there has been a phenomenal growth, and this growth is matched

by governments at the federal and municipal levels. The total

amount taken from the public to support these governments is

increasing exponentially. We are even

[ Page 644 ]

reaching the point where disincentive is taking place, where,

because of tax rates and the fact that people do not get the reward for

which they work, they are refusing promotions and they are refusing

transfers;

they are refusing the type of thing which, up to now, has kept our society very productive.

We have, I think, what is approaching a crisis problem. It's not the only time.

I would refer you to 1932 when Premier Tolmie appointed a committee to investigate

the finances of British Columbia. This committee, I might add, made some dramatic

suggestions for change, including reducing the size of this Legislature to 28

Members.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): He wanted

to close UBC, too.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That may well be, Mr. Minister.

Conditions have changed a great deal since the '30s. The

committee reporting to Premier Tolmie was talking about a total

government budget of under $30 million. We are now talking

about a total government budget of $3.2 billion, an enormous

increase in expenditure. But the essential problem was the

same. There was the concern about the total level of

expenditures and the direction these expenditures were

taking.

Just last week my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey, in

the alternate Liberal budget, pointed out, with his usual

modesty, that he had been right every year he had put in an

alternate budget. He was right last year. He was 99 per cent

accurate; I think his error was less than 1 per cent. As I

mentioned, with his becoming modesty he pointed out that his

budget this year would similarly be far more accurate than that

provided by the government. I am sure that will be true. Year

after year it happens and year after year the Hon. Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey is proved to be correct.

His budget was cast in conventional terms, the conventional

terms of the Social Credit administration that preceded the

present NDP administration, the conventional terms in terms of

government organization. We are wondering in this party whether

or not this is the correct approach to the whole question of

government organization.

Government in British Columbia, like Topsy, "just growed."

It got bigger and bigger for a variety of reasons: programmes

were virtually never terminated; new programmes were added; new

Ministers were added; new divisions within those Ministries

were added. We have enormous transfers of money within the

community. We have a vast increase in the number of civil

servants, and there has not been a stopping — a sitting back —

a look at the direction we are going and an examination of the

benefits.

We know what happens to a government; we've seen it here. Members on the back

bench wish a promotion; new Ministries are added. It has happened with the Ministers

Without Portfolio and new Ministries — Consumer Services, Housing and Communications.

The government simply growed, just as Topsy did. That's what has happened in

the past three years.

It was happening before. The difference is that previously

we had a penny-pinching Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett), now we do

not. That was the check previously. That check no longer

exists.

Mr. Speaker, I think that while the government, particularly

the frontbenchers of the government, read the newspaper

political pages and react with enormous sensitivity to what

they read, they should perhaps look at the gardening pages as

well. What we really need in this government is a pruning of

the government itself, an attempt to cut back in areas where

the plant may be worn out or dying, an attempt to put in

something which better suits the needs of the late '70s.

So my first recommendation is a proper look at the

government of this province. It does not mean we reduce

services; it does not mean at all that we should reduce

services which people consider necessary. Indeed, it is just

the opposite. It is a reapportioning of the moneys we have

available so that they go where they can best be utilized.

There is plenty of evidence that such an examination is

needed. All Members saw a report, I'm sure, dealing with the

attitude of the students who worked for the government last

year. An enormous number of them doubted whether the work they

were doing was worthwhile and, worse, doubted whether the work

their colleagues in the permanent civil service were doing was

worthwhile.

We had the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) get up and

state that when he first entered a civil service, the federal

civil service as it was, I understand, he was told by a

colleague that he should keep his nose clean, keep out of

trouble and he would get to the top. He has indeed done just

that thing.

The fact is that in the civil service this attitude does

exist, both provincially and federally, not because the civil

servants themselves are in any way badly motivated or ill

disposed but simply because the system in which they work, as

the Minister of Highways made clear, doesn't lend itself to

innovation, change and the type of pruning that I talked about

and which he talked about.

If we look at the present budget brought down by this

government, we find one or two fantastic things. We first find

a phenomenal increase in advertising expenditure, which was

referred to by the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

Gardom) — this enormous increase in money spent puffing up the

government — of over $6 million.

The second thing that I noticed was the enormous amount of

the budget devoted strictly to

[ Page 645 ]

administration. Approximately a third of the budget,

approximately $1 billion, is simply going into administration

and not into programmes. It is maladministration in many

instances. It is money wasted. It is money which is not put to

any productive use. It is money which is not transferred to any

group in society which needs assistance. It is simply money

taken off the top for administration, reducing the work force

for more constructive work elsewhere, reducing the amount of

money in tax revenues that can be put into positive,

constructive programmes.

So the first step is an examination of the government

institutions in this province. We think we should get advice

not only from people in the public sector but also in the

private bureaucracies as well. Let us face it, most of the

major companies in British Columbia are bureaucracies in their

own way, not dissimilar to the bureaucracy of the government.

We should consult people in the private bureaucracies, people

in the public bureaucracies — people at the universities such

as Dr. Perry, who is currently establishing a school of

administration at the University of Victoria, or Prof. Bourlet

who is a visiting professor at UBC and who has made a life

study of this area of government.

I am convinced that such an inquiry would point to

substantial savings of public money with no sacrifice of

efficiency — indeed, in the end result an increase in

programmes for the citizens of British Columbia.

It might even mean a smaller civil service. I trust it

would. But in my view, the remaining civil servants would have

more interesting, challenging and productive jobs. Some of the

frustrations they now feel in their work would disappear.

Mr. Speaker, in a report prepared for Premier Tolmie many

years ago, the suggestion was made that this province could be

run by five Ministers in addition to the Premier. This, for

reasons that are obvious, instantly appealed to the Liberal

caucus. We thought there was something really worthwhile in a

suggestion that five men could run the province. However, we

looked at it a little closer — we realized that we intended to

win a few more seats — and we decided that the breakdown of the

Tolmie report was inadequate under the present circumstances.

In it there would have been a Premier, an Attorney-General, a

Minister of Finance, a Minister of Social Services, a Minister

of Public Works, and a Minister of Natural Resources.

At the present time there is a much greater range of demands

for services from the government. Obviously, six Ministers

would not be adequate.

But it is time we started asking some basic questions about

the role of government in British Columbia over the next 25

years and the ability of the current machinery to handle those

needs.

Institutions created years ago are no longer appropriate in

many instances. Are they giving good value for money?

Without prejudging that study that we recommend, we feel

there are questions that could be asked. Do we really need a

separate Department of Highways and a separate Department of

Transport and Communications? Even a government Minister has

suggested that there is no need for the division. We wonder

whether Agriculture should be a separate department. Certainly,

people in the agricultural industry would like that, but

perhaps, if more money was available through savings in

administration — more money available for programmes for them — they might be quite happy with the change. There will always

be complaints in any restructuring from what you might call

"client groups" that want their own Minister, that want to have

a special advocate or spokesman who, somehow, they hope, will

distort the system in their direction.

It should be possible to reorganize the structure of

government in British Columbia so as to provide substantial

savings and improve services in every area of government

activity.

At the present time we've got 19 cabinet Ministers

overseeing 20 departments. I believe that an objective look at

the cabinet of British Columbia would reduce that number of

cabinet Ministers to 10 Ministers, each responsible for newly

defined ranges of responsibilities. It would result in a direct

saving through elimination of the cost of the offices of these

nine Ministers. The average cost, I might add, just for the

office of each Minister of this government is just under $1

million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Whew!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The resultant streamlining would provide

better services at lower cost.

People will say: "Look, we need all those Ministers —

they've got so much to do." But the United States federal

cabinet has 11 cabinet Ministers, and the United States federal

budget is over 100 times the budget of the Province of British

Columbia.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): They're not doing anything.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We have 19, for 1 per cent of the work

that they have.

The federal Canadian cabinet has 29 members, and that

number, in my view, is far too many. The federal budget is 10

times ours, and that budget figure is probably excessive as

well.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Probably? You've got to be kidding.

[ Page 646 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the point is this. If this

Minister here, who does so little with the money he has, and

who gets paid so much — more than the Prime Minister of Great

Britain — for doing so little, would only start analyzing what

he actually has and hasn't done, he would quickly realize that

the number of cabinet Ministers in B.C. and the work they have

bear no relation whatsoever to bureaucracies and political

systems elsewhere.

We have two-thirds as many Members as the federal cabinet

and we have a budget one-tenth as large. Proportionately, in

financial terms, even considering the already swollen federal

cabinet, on a per-Member basis, each of them has six times the

workload of our provincial cabinet Ministers here.

HON. MR. LAUK: What a bunch of nonsense!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Each provincial cabinet member of B.C.

has only one-sixth the responsibility in financial terms — the

yardstick I'm using — of his federal counterpart. Mr. Speaker,

if Ottawa is top-heavy, we must admit that we're even more so

and that there is a great opportunity to get rid of the

administrative burden on top and put the money saved into

productive programmes.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't have one-tenth of the

ability.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, it's true. It was mentioned that

when you have Ministers here with only one-tenth of the

ability, it's sometimes necessary to have more of them.

Perhaps reorganizing might give some of the Ministers over

there, who are now being so critical....

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): That's what Ron

Basford was saying.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I do hope they'll be quiet

because at the end of my outline of the 10 Ministries, I'm

going to name the 10 cabinet Ministers, sonic of whom are in

the room, and some of whom, of course, will be fired under my

revised cabinet. (Laughter.) So wait, Mr. Minister of Highways

(Hon. Mr. Lea) and Mr. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King),

before you be too critical until you discover whether you're on

the list or off it, because then you'll be able to tell whether

or not this brilliant idea, which will give you twice the

responsibility, a better workload and less annoying, stupid

cabinet colleagues to deal with, will indeed be an advantage or

a disadvantage.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Who else do you love

besides yourself?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I am looking hard at the list, and I see

that the Minister of Labour...he may be on it, Mr. Speaker,

but I ask him to wait.

Obviously, we need a Premier — this is on my list — even

though cynics might say we don't have one at the present time.

He and his support staff should take on the co-coordinating

task, free from any direct departmental responsibilities,

including that of Finance. We need a separate Minister of

Finance who would combine his budgeting responsibility with

co-ordination of the administration of government. It would be

the job of the Minister of Finance to see that the budget is

made and responsibly adhered to.

Let me digress for a moment on that, Mr. Speaker. One of the

problems the government civil service in British Columbia faces

is that all budgeting has been up to the present time

essentially phony. Therefore they did not have to abide by the

budgeting rules put down by the budget developed within their

department that went into this House. They knew full well that

there would be overruns; they knew full well there would be

supplementary estimates; they knew full well that the budget,

indeed, was a fraud. The result was that the public service of

British Columbia was not working through a proper

framework.

Public servants and Ministers must learn that they must live

within their means. They must live within the budget, and they

can't have champagne on a beer budget and them later on revise

the beer budget in order to pay for their champagne tastes. So

a proper financial department is necessary.

We need a chief law officer, and we think the

Attorney-General's title is appropriate. It's his role to

ensure protection of people and property, and he should have

grouped under his care many of his present responsibilities —

except in the energy field — plus responsibility for the

protection of consumers, the safety aspects of Transport and

Communications and probably some of the responsibilities of the

present Department of Labour that involve protection of the

worker.

Since the main role of that department is to protect workers

from adverse conditions and the public from adverse

labour-management relations, we feel these could be done better

under the framework of the Attorney-General.

We need a department of natural resources, and this could

cover the jobs presently handled by the Ministers of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources, Recreation and Conservation, and

Mines and Petroleum Resources. Agriculture could quite well be

in that area as well. The public housing responsibilities of

the latter department would be part of Human Resources.

However, stimulation of the private initiative area, which

has to be the bulk of the housing provided in British Columbia,

has to come from the private

[ Page 647 ]

sector. Stimulation of the private initiative in the housing

field would be the job of a Minister of Economic Development

who would have wider tasks and a larger share of the budget

than at present. I see the Minister's (Hon. Mr. Lauk) ears

beginning to prick up.

A regrouping of functions from such departments as Travel

Industry, Recreation and Conservation, Lands, Forests and Water

Resources, Mines and Petroleum Resources would be undertaken,

and this Minister would be the link with the people who create

wealth in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I see he has now adopted a statesmanlike pose —

nose in the air, thinking of some Churchillian phrase no doubt.

I would like to say a word or two about this great little

Minister.

His job is to deal with wealth creation in the private

sector of the economy of British Columbia, as well as the

public sector. My colleagues, the Members for Vancouver-Point

Grey in particular, outlined the various types of expenditure

that a government or society can make, and laid particular

stress on wealth creation. I would like to underline what was

said by them.

The socialists opposite spend a great deal of their time and

energy in this House attacking profit. They spend a great deal

of their time figuring out redistribution of the province's

gross provincial product by way of tax transfers and payments

to citizens' groups. In this they are not unique; all

governments, in varying degrees, show concern for

redistribution.

But adjusting the size of the slices of a pie does

absolutely nothing to increase the size of the pie. Unless we

can increase the size of the pie, unless we get worthwhile

economic development, there will be no extra money for new

social programmes, and the overall wealth of our economy will

diminish. A successful, innovative, investing private sector is

vital if the amount of wealth that we all share is to increase.

Only a vital, energetic private sector can provide the tax

revenue that we need for redistribution or other social

programmes.

It is a matter of great pain that the present government is

simply ignoring this fact. The Minister of Economic Development

(Hon. Mr. Lauk), in his speech earlier to this House, spoke

glowingly about the women's division in his department but he

said nothing about his responsibility, which is to create

wealth, I trust, as he is reaching for his microphone, that he

will interject a small comment or two in this debate after I

have finished speaking.

The present government simply is not doing what it should to

assist the private sector in creating wealth.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I have spent a great deal of my life in the foreign

service of Canada, and I've been abroad in many countries with resources that

equal ours, with people just as intelligent as ours, just as

well-fed and just as able. But their level of wealth is

infinitely lower because the social organization of their

society simply does not lend itself to wealth creation. The

attitude of the people in positions of power simply does not

lend itself to wealth creation. While this province is a

wealthy province, while this province has a reasonably

well-educated and certainly an intelligent a population as any

other, we are suffering from essentially the same problem — a

lack of understanding by the government that wealth creation

increases the pie for all of us.

In addition — and I refer specifically to the Minister of

Economic Development — when you have such an active,

innovative, investing society, you can pick and choose among

the programmes that come forward. You don't have to take a

steel mill, if that is what the Japanese are offering to us;

you don't have to do it. You can pick and choose among a number

of industries, one of which may be substantially better than

the other three or four. But when you are only offered one, or

when you have to go out and encourage, entice one to locate,

you have no bargaining position whatsoever.

The Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) has managed to

give us, at great expense, the worst of all possible worlds. We

have a stagnant private sector and a faltering public sector.

There is simply not the slightest glimmering of understanding

in his mind of the need to create a healthy private sector in

the housing industry. The idea that society as a whole will

benefit if there is an adequate supply of housing, provided

without taking any money from social programmes in the health

or education fields, has simply not entered his head.

Mr. Speaker, the new Minister that I mentioned is

responsible for wealth creation. He is specifically charged

with ensuring that the size of the pie in British Columbia that

we all share, our gross provincial product, expands to meet

growing social needs.

His clients and his interests would be balanced by a

Minister for the environment who would be the guardian of the

public interest and the future of our province. He would take

over the tasks of Recreation and Conservation, Lands, Forests

and Water Resources, and elsewhere, and would not be caught in

the conflict of interests which plagues the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources at the present time. He will not be

charged with managing companies or being responsible for the

profits of individual companies. He will not sit as a director

of some of the companies he is supposed to regulate, He will

not be responsible for the conflicting objectives that have

created such problems for the present Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). The public

interest is not served when those responsible for protecting

the public

[ Page 648 ]

interest are also given the responsibility for the economic

performance of the companies they are meant to regulate.

Next we need a Minister of government, a provincial

secretary — a secretary of state, but let's call him provincial

secretary — who will be the Minister responsible for intra- and

inter-governmental relations. He'll be the province's link with

the junior and the senior levels of government. He would take

over many of the tasks currently performed by the Provincial

Secretary, the Minister of Public Works, and the Minister of

Municipal Affairs.

Finally, we would have a Minister of communications whose

role and responsibilities would include much of what is now

Department of Highways and Department of Transport and

Communications.

I mentioned costs earlier. Let's give an example of cost

savings. In 1973 there was a Department of Highways.

Expenditure in the Minister's office was about $55,000. There

was no Minister of Communications, so there were no costs for

his office; but now the two Ministers' offices cost us five

times that amount only two years later. You can see how

escalation takes place at the top.

I said that there would be 10 Ministers. I've left one

vacant for troubleshooter. Now, if the Ministers present will

sit up, I will give you my new breakdown of the

responsibilities. I have not paid any attention to calls for

resignation on the grounds of anything but ability. Laziness is

down here as well as some other factors which should be

considered.

We're leaving the Premier with Mr. Barrett — or the Hon.

Member for Coquitlam. We're giving the Hon. Member for Surrey

(Hon. Mr. Hall) the Finance portfolio. The Attorney-General's

department will remain with the present Minister (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald). I see the Member for Vancouver Centre looking

disappointed here. While the present Attorney-General is

appallingly lazy in his job and while he tends to neglect many

areas that he should be much more energetic in, we feel he has

the competence if he would only exert himself.

Natural resources would go to the present Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich).

HON. MR. LAUK: The House is empty, David.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Don't worry, your name may be on this

list. Human Resources would go to the present Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke). Economic Development would stay with

the present Minister (Hon. Mr. Lauk). We're delighted to see

that.

I see that there's a division in my caucus about that.

HON. MR. LAUK: The professor gave me 9 out of 10, and I'm

grateful.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We gave you three out of 10, Mr.

Minister, but most of your colleagues got one or less.

We think the environment could best be handled by the Member

presently seeking the leadership of the national New Democratic

Party, the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown). She

needs to have her energies directed in a more constructive vein

than she presently is devoting her time to. We feel she would

be a burr under the saddle of some of her cabinet colleagues,

and we think she should definitely get in the cabinet. The

reasons the Premier has not put her in so far are really

irrelevant.

Communications, we feel, should go to the present Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). He

is ill-placed in his present job and should be given a

different one.

The Provincial Secretary will be taken over by the present

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King). And we have an extra space

for troubleshooter which we're giving to the Member for Prince

Rupert (Hon. Mr. Lea).

To the other Ministers who are fired we say, well, we're

sorry about that, but we feel that a smaller cabinet, working

more effectively, might eventually lead to a more effective

government, and they will have to suffer their little losses

for the greater good.

This breakdown is not the final answer, but it seems to make

more sense than the present hodge-podge of programmes with

enormous variety and size and responsibility that we have at

the present time. Again, in financial terms, one department is

1/350th the size of another. That doesn't seem to make a great

deal of sense when all Ministers are considered to be equal at

the cabinet table. We need a proper study, but such an

examination and such a new breakdown would, I feel, be a step

in the right direction.

I would like to turn now to one or two other issues related

to the financial affairs of the province. The first is the

issue of government credibility.

Now when I first commented on this budget, I congratulated

the Premier on what seemed to be his first attempt to honestly

estimate revenues and expenditures. The old Social Credit used

to underestimate revenues, and expenditures were not too far

off. The first of the NDP budgets tended to be wrong in both

revenues and expenditures. Now we have the government returning

at least to honesty on the revenue side. Looking at it closely,

we feel there may well be a lot of padding on the expenditure

side, but at least revenues don't seem to be too far off.

It is important, we feel, for government, and this government in particular,

to be believed and be believable, and I'm afraid this government has done little

to develop basic credibility. We have a Premier making statements in this House

that are contradicted by sworn affidavits, by court testimony and by a

[ Page

649 ]

supreme court judgment — consistently refusing any

examination into that matter. And this does nothing but destroy

the credibility of the government.

We have a Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) with

selective amnesia, a Minister of Agriculture who could not

recollect, either in this House or before a judge, what took

place at a meeting, while all the other witnesses called seem

to remember with great clarity.

We have an Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) who

believes his responsibility as chief law officer does not

extend to the protection of all, but feels that he has a

special responsibility to protect his cabinet colleagues, which

we feel to be wrong.

We have a Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Hon. R.A. Williams) who conveniently forgets what is in his

incoming mail, who forgets who might be an expert on the

treaty, who forgets dates — a Minister who forgets government

policy regarding such things as condominium conversions, a

Minister whose credibility has sunk abysmally low.

We have a Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) who can't

remember any blacklisting procedures on Monday. Indeed, she

said: "I don't know what the opposition is talking about." But

on Tuesday, she recalls all the details. On Wednesday she gives

out a few more details — that's, of course, after the B.C.

Teachers Federation threatens to blow the whistle on her. But

on Monday, she couldn't remember a thing.

We have a Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) whose

statements to the Legislature on such issues as the purchase of

Casa Loma are constantly being contradicted by outside

evidence, by his own officials, and by his own subsequent

statements and by documents that he tabled in this House. That,

Mr. Speaker, leads to tremendous problems of credibility with

him and everyone associated with him.

More recently we've had a Minister of Human Resources (Hon.

Mr. Levi) who would have us believe that there is some direct

connection between money deposited in his bank account on

September 7 and a cheque written two days earlier on another

account, apparently in another bank, signed by his wife. The

connection, Mr. Speaker, has not been established.

Just rushing through those questions of this government's

credibility, we feel it's time that the government started to

look back at some of the practices of the previous government.

I'm quoting from an

article August 1, 1973, written by one

Peter McNelly, "Victoria Comment," in The

Province newspaper where he said: "The critical weakness of

the previous government was former Premier W.A.C. Bennett's

refusal to send his deadwood Ministers packing."

We have essentially the same problem, now complicated by the fact that the

Premier himself is involved in the credibility problem, I'm quoting now from

August 1 again, from the Premier. This is in The Vancouver Sun , page 2: "If

the government's credibility is threatened by the behaviour of any cabinet Minister,

then the government is impaired. It's just as simple as that."

That is precisely our problem today. I doubt whether there

is a government in Canada where the credibility of the Crown

Ministers has been so impaired as this present government here

in British Columbia.

MR. LEWIS: Oh, garbage! You don't read the papers much, my

friend.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): What about Ottawa?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If the Minister of Economic Development

(Hon. Mr. Lauk), who is a lawyer, will allow the RCMP to

investigate some of the matters, particularly the Minister of

Human Resources' cheques, I would be delighted. There happens

to be an RCMP investigation on the case you talked about. When

you start getting RCMP investigations in this province for

Members of this Legislature, we will be very happy to have it

happen, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. LAUK: Are you suggesting there are criminal

charges?

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Oh, be quiet and let the Member

make his speech.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the problem with this

government is that, whenever you really hit, they start

squealing away. But the fact is that the credibility of this

government is appalling. There are no guidelines that have been

published with respect to conflict of interests. Ministers can

accept gifts apparently without any criticism from the Premier,

providing somehow they give another gift away, either before or

after. This government's credibility has just gone all to

pieces. It's time that the government itself started to realize

it.

We've had essentially a back bench in government which

consistently puts forward statements which are very

questionable, which consistently refuses to clarify them, which

consistently refuses any impartial, non-partisan inquiry. It's

time that we had a major change in this government and its

attitude towards its responsibilities. The credibility of this

government is deplorable.

Mr. Speaker, in the time left to me, I'd like to say a few

words about labour relations in the province, particularly in

the public sector. It is clear that we are going to have to

find new techniques to handle strikes in the public sector.

Strike in the industrial sector, as I mentioned the other day,

is an acceptable technique for achieving a settlement in a

labour dispute in most

[ Page 650 ]

instances. The strikes in the private sector are, after all,

aimed directly at the owners of the means of production, and

the public tends to be hurt incidentally. But the problem in

the public sector is totally different.

We presently have a strike in Victoria; we have strikes in

the educational systems in Victoria and Vancouver. At the

moment they are aimed not at public inconvenience, not at the

employer and his profits; they are essentially aimed at the

children involved. That is how the political settlement will be

arrived at. No way that you can relate this to profits and

productivity as you can in the private sector.

It's not the fault of the unions concerned; they are using

the only means at their disposal. What we need are new means.

It's neither fair nor just that our children should be pawns in

labour-management negotiations. What we need in the public

sector is to get away from the adversary system which may have

worked in past years in the private sector.

Personally, I rather like the idea suggested recently by Mr.

Ed Finn of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Transport and

General Workers. Mr. Finn also writes, as you know, Mr.

Speaker, for The Toronto Star . He has suggested a labour

peace commission, and I heartily endorse his proposal.

MR. LIDEN: You better catch up with the news.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He suggests a labour peace commission to

be set up to monitor working agreements in essential industries

and services and to propose equitable terms of settlement in

areas of negotiation. This commission should be impartial of

government. It should establish fair and reasonable standards,

standards which unions and employers could reject only at the

price of public pressure and the forfeiture of public

sympathy.

MR. LIDEN: What's that got to do with the post office?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Member, we have strikes in Victoria

at the present time, and you know it, and that is the

constituency that I represent in this House. You couldn't care

less what happens in that CUPE area and you couldn't care less

what happens to the students who are not getting the education

that the laws that we passed in this Legislature say they

should get! So sit down and be quiet!

MR. LIDEN: You better catch up with the news.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: This commission would establish standards through

impartial inquiry, as I mentioned. It would reduce the area of friction between

unions and employers to a minimum, and provide the criteria for dispute settlement

which would greatly assist us in the essential services, as well as, of course,

in the other public services. It would provide an alternative to the jungle

law which is all we have at the present time. Mr. Finn, in his examples of why

strikes in the public sector really are impossible, mentions our problems of

last year, the problems when the municipal firemen of the greater Vancouver

area had labour disputes and where, indeed, just as soon as they tried to exercise

the right, we met here to take the right away and then later passed an amendment

to the bill which would give us three weeks to assemble in any future case when

a strike was threatened in an essential service. We have left a system intact

paralleling the private sector system and yet we have taken the guts out of

the weapon that the workers have under the private sector system — namely the

right to strike. We have substituted nothing for it.

My suggestion is that we get going on working on

alternatives because we cannot have the government, which is

the employer one way or another now of 50 per cent of the work

force in this province and across the country (over 50 per cent

of the labour contracts coming up for negotiation this year, I

understand, are in the public sector) act as we are doing where

we pass the laws meant to be fair for all but we are also

essentially the employer.

MR. LIDEN: Tell that to Ottawa.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There is simply no way we can carry on

our present system where we have this conflict of interest.

Governments are not only custodians of the public interest for

all the public; they are employers. It is impossible for them

to wear both hats and handle both roles effectively, as the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) knows well when he starts

dealing with labour negotiations on the B.C. Railroad. How can

he, as the director of the company, also be the Minister of

Labour in whom the members who are on strike against the

company have confidence? He cannot do it.

If we continue to carry on pretending that the new militancy

of the civil service unions will one day go away, we are

fooling ourselves. There is a scramble going on, a

leapfrogging, an attempt to catch up, but unfortunately no one

is too sure what they are catching up to. We have no way of

judging profitability and productivity in the public sector as

is done in the private sector.

The responsibility of the union leadership of the IWA this

present year — what I have seen of it — impresses me. It

impresses me because they realize there are on the outside

factors of the need for capital investment, which you do not

find present when you start dealing with public service unions.

None of those things are involved in the public service. This

is the difference.

[ Page 651 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time has

expired.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, let me just finish by

saying that this is the major difference between the public

sector and the private sector. Until we start realizing that

there is a basic rift, on the one hand where the private sector

goes for wages out of profitability and, on the other hand, the

public sector where an increase in wages can only come through

political pressure or public inconvenience, until we work out

new models (and I suggest that labour peace commission of Mr.

Finn), only then can we start dealing with the root causes of

our problems in British Columbia.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To find myself in

wrap-up position for the official opposition after two weeks'

debate on the 1975-76 budget as presented by

the Minister of Finance carries both advantages and

disadvantages. That disadvantage will be found in the fact that

so many points have been well covered by members of the

government and other opposition speakers. Page-by-page review

has been carefully undertaken by a number of Members. There is

in fact at this point little so-called "new ground" to be

explored.

HON. MR. LAUK: Then sit down.

MR. CURTIS: On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, there has been

an opportunity to listen to varying points of view and to get

an overall impression of comments from both sides of the House

in these two weeks.

I think it is correct to say that the fundamental approach

of the government speakers, particularly the NDP Ministers who

have taken their turn in this debate, can be described as a

diversionary tactic, to the point where many of them have given

the impression that they, too, know that it is not a good

document.

As a result, they've attempted to shift attention from the

budget itself by way of an attack on the opposition. In fact, I

think at times, Mr. Speaker, that a detached observer would be

understood for thinking that this was a replay of the

1972 election campaign.

Rather than to report in detail on achievements in their

specific departments — their areas of responsibility —

Ministers have tried to turn back the clock with repeated

references to the shortcomings of the former government. With

respect, that is not what the citizens of British Columbia want

to hear. That's an old tune. It's a very old tune now and a

scratchy record which has been played too often by the present

group in power. This is 1975; it is not

1972. We should have received throughout this

debate from

Members of the cabinet benchers a stewardship report. Now I

know that's an old term, but it's a pretty important one in

local government and in areas of service to one's community or

to one's province or country.

Stewardship — from each Minister in turn — that's what we

should have heard in two weeks, as to how he or she views the

past 12 months and what is proposed for the new

fiscal year. Stewardship involves so many things. The leader of

the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) spoke just a little while

ago about credibility. Stewardship is apparently of concern to

the Premier as well, in view of his statements yesterday.

Stewardship involves matters of unanswered questions. The

events of yesterday, I suggest, must...

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Where's your

leader?

MR. CURTIS: ...be discussed in this House. In the Premier's

own terms, from Hansard :

I took the matter most seriously. You know of the

incident to which I refer. That is precisely the

position that we took then and that we take today. We take very

seriously the possibility that we may have here a manufactured defence.

If the Premier, who is not in his seat....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CURTIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Yesterday the Hon. Member asked leave of the

House to make a statement. Actually, what he is now raising is

on the same line as what he did yesterday. I pointed out then

and I point out now that charges of a personal nature against

another Member of the House are not permitted unless you pursue

the proper course. You have not done so. Therefore, I point out

to you....

MR. CURTIS: You are attempting again to deny a speaker on

behalf of the opposition the right to pursue a matter which

should be of concern to this House.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that when a

Member of this House makes a statement of a personal nature to

the House, we are obliged by the rules to accept that

statement? If you dispute that statement, there is a

well-recognized parliamentary course to follow, which you have

not followed. My job is to be the guardian of the rules. That

is what I am trying to do, and if you want any citations, I

would be prepared to give them to you.

I have on many occasions stopped other Members precisely for

the same reason, and I will have to

[ Page 652 ]

continue to do so if I am to discharge my duty fairly and

correctly.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, you are telling this House that I

am not permitted to make fair comment on an incident which is

of concern to this House and which should be dealt with in this

House.

MR. SPEAKER: If you are saying that you are doubting the

word of the Hon. Member who spoke yesterday — and that is what

I presume from your words you are saying — you are not

permitted to do that by the rules.

MR. CURTIS: I am questioning a number of aspects which have

been raised inside and outside this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Then the proper course is to do it by a

substantive motion, as I have indicated to you dozens of times.

Why should I change the rules for you?

MR. CURTIS: I will resist any comment.

MR. SPEAKER: I suggest to the Hon. Member, if you dispute my

word on this question of the rules, that you find me the rule

that permits you to do what you are trying to do.

MR. CURTIS: Well, you are telling me that I cannot raise

questions related to this situation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Of course we can.

MR. SPEAKER: What I am saying is that you cannot doubt the

word of an Hon. Member or challenge his integrity in the manner

that you are seeking to do. If you wish to do so, there is a

substantive method which I have read out to you on many

occasions from May . That is your route and that is what you are

supposed to do.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the issue before us in this

connection is a moral not a criminal one. It is a moral

question. I am very sorry....

MR. SPEAKER: If you are attacking the moral character of

another Member of this House, you are in exactly the same boat

as if it were from a standpoint of a criminal.

MR. CURTIS: No, I said, Mr. Speaker, that it is a moral

question. I am not attacking the moral integrity of any

individual in this House. I am attempting to raise the moral

question which is before us.

Very well, Mr. Speaker, let the record show, as it will....

MR. SPEAKER: Let the record show that the rules are

observed.

MR. CURTIS: Let the record show that I have been denied the opportunity,

as I take my place in this debate, to ask a number of questions which I believe

should be of concern to you, Sir, as well as to the people in this House and

the people of British Columbia. So be it. So be it.

Interjection.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the Hon. Member to withdraw that

statement that the Speaker runs interference for anyone.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. CHABOT: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

MR. CURTIS: Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, back at the ranch, there

has been considerable comment in this debate with regard to

province-wide advertising, and I trust that I am not offending

any rule with this.

This isn't a complete newspaper; it is from the Victoria

Daily Colonist , March 4, 1975. It is a full-page advertisement

dealing with the budget, over the name of the Minister of

Finance and Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett). Another one from my own

constituency, the Saanich Courier , March 5, 1975. Of course, it

has been widely publicized in weekly and daily newspapers.

Interjection.

MR. CURTIS: I'm not tabling the material — I think it has

been well-circulated. But, Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw

your attention to the flip-flop attitude of the Premier and

Minister of Finance with regard to advertising. You might be

interested to have me quote very briefly from the Victoria

Times of March 21, 1972, just about three years ago to the day.

This is headlined: "Tax Money Being Used for Ads to Push Bill

3, NDP Charges."

Well, what did the then Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barrett) have to say about advertising?

"We think the government's action in placing this ad is an

arrogant disregard for the traditions, usages, authority and

dignity of this Legislature. It is reprehensible that the

government would use public funds to further its case on the

debate that is not yet completed in this House,

[ Page 653 ]

and it's reprehensible that the government would use public funds to subvert the deliberations of the

Legislature."

Another paragraph from the same newspaper article, March 21,

1972, quoting the then Leader of the Opposition, now the

Premier and Minister of Finance:

"It means now that a government has the right to use public funds to buy newspaper space without

compensating funds for the opposition. The reason the Speaker

couldn't find a precedent is because no government has ever

gone that far before, and it is a crass misuse of public funds,

in my opinion."

The statement of the Premier when in opposition. And on the

other hand, Mr. Speaker, advertisements throughout the province

stating the NDP's version of this budget.

The Member for Delta (Mr. Liden), on the government side,

seemed to be enjoying himself the other evening in this House

when he took a few minutes to read quotes of remarks that I

made a few years ago, statements in which I was highly critical

of the former government in matters relating to municipal

affairs. I want to deal at some length with the relationship

between the provincial government and municipalities in British

Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I make absolutely no apologies for that

earlier criticism because those statements were made — the

criticism was made — when I held offices as mayor and chairman

of the regional district, in what I believed to be the best

interests of local government and its difficulties with the

provincial government of that time.

MR. LIDEN: Now you're trying to bring back those days.

MR. CURTIS: I hope the Member for Delta will listen to this

carefully rather than interject.

The relationship between the province and its municipalities

is rarely easygoing, relaxed and totally pleasant. That's still

the case with the NDP government, particularly in view of the

fact that the present Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer) is obviously not a strong member of the cabinet. But

some of the fault lies squarely with the Union of B.C.

Municipalities, which from time to time, as I well know, is too

quiet, too meek in its contacts with the Minister, the

government and with other departments of the government. Often

it would appear that the UBCM is perhaps even intimidated by

the province and its various Ministers, regardless of the party

in power.

So whether it's the former government or the present government, or a future

government formed by this party, the official opposition, it is absolutely vital

at all times that the UBCM speak out publicly when it believes that the province

is not dealing fairly with our organized communities and regional districts.

It must do so. It must do so with strength and with well-researched material

and statistics.

I say to the Union of B.C. Municipalities — I believe one of

their representatives is in the gallery at this time — and I

also say to cities and districts towns, regional districts and

villages which form its membership: be strong, be critical

regardless of the party in power, as and when necessary, and

make your case with as much conviction as is necessary. No

government in this province, past, present or future, no matter

how hard it tries, can possibly score 100 per cent in its

association with municipalities and regional districts.

It's the duty, it's the responsibility, of the municipal

association in B.C. to make certain that the public — the local

property taxpayer and tenant — clearly understands the position

of local government.

Throughout the budget debate when cabinet Ministers and

government backbenchers have not been attacking the official

opposition and there have been just a few moments of that when

they haven't been restaging the battle of 1972, a number of

speakers for the government have listed off the manner in which

the NDP has increased its assistance to local government.

We've heard considerable praise for the sewerage facilities

fund, the Community Recreational Facilities Fund, the reduction

in the percentage share of social assistance costs to local

government. When kept in perspective, these programmes are

useful and welcome — no one will deny that.

However, what many of the government speakers have failed to

point out is this: the largest portion of local government

expenditure in any given year is in salaries, in wages — the

payroll costs for its employees. I did a random sample of nine

municipalities in this connection in the last few days and

determined that this total payroll cost in relation to the

general tax levy by a municipality — that is, excluding

business taxes, licences, permit fees and senior government

grants, provincial and federal — averages 78 per cent of their

general tax levy, which is a significantly high percentage.

If we are to assume that the payroll cost will increase by

20 per cent in 1975, and I think that's a reasonable estimate

if one is to include fringe benefits and other expenses

directly related to payroll, then it's quite clear that

municipalities will be faced with the choice of only two

options this year and in 1976: a drastic increase in the

property tax levy or a severe curtailment of services which

have come to be expected of local government. There is no other

answer. Capital grants for sewerage facilities or recreation

centres are of no use at all when a municipal council sits down

to evaluate its payroll budget.

[ Page 654 ]

Now that the Premier has been fishing to learn about that

business, and he's now in the Cariboo experiencing work on a

green chain, I would like again to ask the Premier, as Minister

of Finance, to sit in with a municipal council when it is

working on its budget in the spring of the year to see how

municipalities have to wrestle with limited income and very

pressing outgo.

Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, considerable space in the budget

document has been devoted to a detailed listing of the projects

involved and approved under the Community Recreational

Facilities Fund. This list, as you well know, occupies pages 36

to 45 inclusive, and identifies, I believe, about 181

individual grants. For those Members of government who referred

to this as "assistance to municipalities," 77 of the

receiving communities out of the total of 181 are not

municipalities at all. Almost half of them are not

municipalities at all in terms of the Municipal Act, or as we

identify local government. So let us not continue to

smokescreen all of this money under that broad, catch-all

heading of "assistance to municipalities."

Earlier I mentioned the increases facing local government

payrolls during 1975. I'm going to expand on that briefly. As

the situation becomes clearer for the current municipal year,

for 1975 budget purposes, it now appears that the typical mill

rate increase for education alone in the average municipality

over 1974 will be around 8 mills, and for general purposes —

payroll, road work, park maintenance, and so on — 6 to 7 mills.

Combine the two, Mr. Speaker, for a total of between 14- and

15-mill increases at the municipal level in this province

during the current year. That, naturally, excludes

municipalities where lockouts or strike situations apply,

resulting in total budget reductions in this troubled area of

local government.

What does it mean, Mr. Speaker? Well, mill rate increases of

even 10 — speaking positively, perhaps, about the increase — 12

or 14 mills in one year would not appear to support the

contention of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer), who is not in his seat, and others to the effect that

municipalities have never had it so good. Mr. Speaker, that

government position is not supported by the facts in this

budget and in municipalities in British Columbia today.

Finally, on the subject of local government, I think it is

time for the people of this province to recognize that the

present provincial government is not friendly to, nor

understanding of, the municipalities. In spite of the grants,

in spite of the highly publicized revenue-sharing which the

Minister of Finance spoke of in his budget, it is a government

which encourages and condones interference in purely municipal

and regional district jurisdictions by the Department of

Highways, the Land Commission, the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, the Environment and Land

Use Committee secretariat, and other agencies. Community

resources boards are clearly intended to gradually dilute the

authority, the autonomy and the responsibility of elected

councils, and this can only be to the detriment of the citizens

in our cities and towns and districts.

While all of this is going on we have a Minister of

Municipal Affairs who is not powerful enough to combat the

situation in the cabinet and, secondly, passively stands by

while this government continues its programme of undermining

and eroding local government throughout the province.

I want to quote briefly from a statement prepared recently

by the Cariboo Regional District on this very subject, a

further indication of the downgrading of local or regional

district responsibility:

"The board (that is, the Cariboo Regional District Board)

and the public have obtained the impression, particularly

during the past two years, that the function of the regional

district board is to endorse and execute decisions of the

provincial government which appear, to the board to be often

unreasoned or unreasonable."

Later in the same statement:

"It is difficult to conceive that the provincial cabinet

should be vitally concerned with, for example, a zoning bylaw

amendment to permit the location of a mobile home in a

residential area or a minor commercial use in an appropriate

location, particularly when the cabinet and its staff are not

familiar with local conditions and requirements."

And further:

"The board wishes to cooperate as fully as possible with

the provincial government and its departments. It wishes to

contribute to the decisions of the Environment and Land Use

Committee, its secretariat, and the deliberations of the

inter-sector committees and any other committees. There has, to

date, been little or no communication between the regional

district and these bodies. The board questions the apparent

lack of co-ordination between these various bodies and resource

departments which is reflected in the delays experienced in

obtaining government approval of regional district bylaws and

amendments."

Just a few days ago we had the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Lorimer) indicate that the delays were occurring at

the municipal level. They are occurring because local

government — regional government — is not being consulted, is

not being involved in the decision-making process by this

government. That is bad news for people in municipalities and

regional districts. Not the mayors and aldermen; I'm not

speaking of the mayors

[ Page 655 ]

and the aldermen and the senior staff. I'm speaking of

people who have come to expect certain services and decisions

and actions by their municipalities. They pay for them, they

deserve them, and they do not deserve interference and being

ignored at the provincial level.

In addition to this growing interference with regional

districts and municipalities, we have the statements of the

Minister of Municipal Affairs himself, speaking in the budget

debate on March 4, where he said, and I believe the quote is

complete:

I'm concerned by the actions of some municipalities or, alternatively, the non-action by some municipalities,

and delays in preventing needed housing units going ahead. This

is not a widespread problem, but it's a very big problem in two

or three municipalities, and they are standing in the way of

building and housing.

The Minister then went on to threaten local government with

this statement:

The government is going to have to take a look at the situation

and take action to circumvent this type of action by some of the municipalities.

Big stick! Big Brother!

The Minister could not, or would not, tell this House which

municipalities offend him in this regard. He didn't indicate

that he's made any attempt to meet with the troublesome

councils to communicate with them and discuss where the problem

might lie. Instead he chose his budget debate to indulge in

general condemnation of local government. If that latest

example of NDP scorn and displeasure doesn't provoke strong

resistance from the UBCM and its member communities, then I'm

going to be very surprised and disappointed.

It can be described as a big-stick or Big Brother attitude,

an increasing hostility towards its own municipalities. The

Members of this party and other opposition speakers have

criticized this budget in two weeks because it is inflationary.

The budget will do as much as any other single force over which

British Columbians have control to contribute to, to stimulate,

to support an unacceptable rate of inflation in British

Columbia.

I cannot tell you what an acceptable rate of inflation may

be, but I can tell you that 12 per cent inflation in one year

is unacceptable to the people of British Columbia.

I want to outline briefly what the forces of inflation have

been doing in the province over the past five years. The

consumer price index is perhaps the best measure of inflation

that we have available. It isn't perfect, but it's the

best.

In 1970 the consumer price index rose by 1.6 per cent; in

1971 by 4.9 per cent; in 1972 the increase was 5.7 per cent;

in 1973 it was 9.1 per cent, and in 1974 it was 12.1 per

cent.

HON. MR. LAUK: What about the rest of Canada?

MR. CURTIS: These figures indicate one thing only:

accelerating inflation in Canada and, to a greater extent than

the national average, here in British Columbia.

HON. MR. LAUK: Nonsense!

MR. CURTIS: The Minister of nothing says: "Nonsense."

HON. MR. LAUK: That's not true, and you know it. That's not

true. You're only talking.

MR. CURTIS: These percentage figures, reflecting increasing

inflation, have been coupled — as the leader of the Liberal

Party said — with declining productivity. That's an extremely

dangerous collision course. In simple terms, it means that the

value of a wage-earner's dollar is declining. The figures mean

that the value of a working person's time is becoming less.

In B.C., a province that has always placed the value of work

among its highest priorities, people are now getting less for

their money, getting less for their work — less value for

money, less value for work, less buying power. I don't think

there's a family in British Columbia which believes that work

and money bring more today than two and a half years ago.

Inflation, Mr. Speaker, as others have told you, is the

cruelest tax of all. It strains family budgets, it brings added

problems to the collective bargaining table — and we have clear

evidence of that this year. If last year's 12.1 per cent

consumer index increase continues over a period of years, and

not too many, really, inflation will then fully threaten the

social and economic fabric of our society.

In my constituency there are many taxpayers who live on what

is called a fixed income and many more who live on a relatively

inflexible income. Many have earned their place in society;

they're not interested in getting more from society and they're

not asking more from the economy than they already have now.

But to put it in impersonal economic terms, these people are

satisfied with their standard of living as it has been. They

don't want more, but they do not deserve less. Yet it's the

type of leadership given this province by this government, and

reflected in this budget, which more than anything else fuels

the fires of inflation. It has been characterized as a "big

number budget." It is big numbers, but it's also smaller value

for the dollar. These people that I've described in my

constituency and in the province generally can blame this

government when in the months to come they find themselves

unable to maintain that level standard of living to which they

are entitled — not a better standard, just a constant

[ Page 656 ]

standard.

Citizens on fixed incomes suffer the most from inflation,

but as well there's not a family in British Columbia today

which is not aware of and which has not suffered at the hands

of inflation. There's not a family in British Columbia today

which has not learned that inflation means not increases but

cutbacks to hold the family budget in some kind of balanced

position.

With this provincial budget before us now, it seems that the

only budget maker who doesn't understand the situation is the

Minister of Finance. Families in every community are cutting

back on their inessentials; they're searching their budgets to

provide less for leisure and luxuries, more of the family

budget for essentials — food, clothing and shelter. These same

families have learned, as has mine, that one of a few ways left

for people to cope with inflation is to cut back where they

can.

It has become a principle of sound family budgeting in every

community in the province to place a high priority on the

elimination of waste. In fact, the downturn in demand for pulp

products which is now occurring, and which has been discussed

in the debate, can be blamed in part on the increased attack on

waste by consumers and companies alike. Consumers are buying

fewer plastic garbage bags, fewer paper towels. Supermarkets,

you will notice, have abandoned the old practice of double

bagging at the checkout counter. Newspapers have tightened

their pages and rearranged their makeup to conserve newsprint.

All of these steps are inflation fighters and all are concerned

with eliminating waste.

Once again I have to suggest — and I think the people of the

province agree and understand — that it is only the NDP

government and the Minister of Finance which do not yet have

the message. The waste and the extravagance of this little

provincial government are unequalled anywhere in Canada today.

Nowhere in this $3.2 billion budget is there any indication —

we see no sign at all — that this government wants to eliminate

waste and to control its spending.

The budget is inflationary because, first of all, as others

have told you, it shows absolutely no restraint. It's a

freewheeling budget. Families throughout B.C. have been forced

to restrain their spending habits; they have no choice. Yet the

Minister of Finance has raised people taxes, gone to the

taxpaying money tree to keep on spending at will — at whim,

indeed.

The budget shows no leadership at all to encourage restraint

and to bring about the beginning of the end of inflation. It

shows no desire to take leadership in the society. Who is more

powerful, Mr. Speaker, to do this job than government? There is

no one else. There is no leadership. Who will follow when there

is no leadership?

The inflation psychology which is reflected on virtually every page of this

budget is not a laughing matter. As government insists on taking more of the

pie — and I have to use the same analogy as the previous speaker — our people

are forced to do the same: more and more of the pie for everyone. Mr. Speaker,

someday soon there will be no pie left. People in every community are cutting

back, municipalities are cutting back, family budgets are being cut back to

cope with inflation, and yet there's not a red cent of cutback in this Minister

of Finance's budget.

What the Minister of Finance is telling the people of B.C.

in this budget is that his government is going to increase

spending by 40 per cent. Well, I hope that he realizes that his

government, again, is the only budget maker in British Columbia

capable of doing that.

It would be great in a family to say: "We're going to

increase our spending by 40 per cent." It would be a pretty

great time for a short while. What is even more spectacular

about the deceit of this budget is the estimate of revenue. The

leader of the official opposition has commented at length on

the revenue estimates, and I won't. I would make one short

comment.

When this budget was prepared, the Minister got together

with the quarter-million-dollar gurus who infest this place and

told him how much they wanted to spend this year — $3.2

billion, to be exact. They told their gurus: "We will spend

that much, so cook us up some figures that will balance the

budget." That is about how accurate those estimate figures are.

Keep the inflation pots boiling and we might balance the

budget.

The budget is inflationary for a second important reason. I

refer to the effort among our people to eliminate waste. If

there is one thing that this government has proven so far in

its short life, it is its unquestioned ability to waste the

money of the taxpayers of British Columbia waste through

mismanagement! Waste through lack of planning! Those

characteristics are the trademarks of this government. If this

government could just stop some of its waste, who knows how

many millions of dollars could be saved — tens, perhaps even

hundreds, of millions of dollars — without cutting back, Mr.

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), on essential programmes.

Don't misunderstand. Cutting back on waste — you know the point

I make.

The question in this budget is not whether services to

people should be cut. It is unfortunately already a fact that

they will be. The services-to-people departments of this

government will spend 61 per cent of revenues, down almost 10

per cent from 68 per cent. The biggest budget in our history is

up 40 per cent, and services to people, the real purpose of

government after all, are down 10 per cent.

We believe that the policies and the programmes of

[ Page 657 ]

this government have not only resulted in declining

services to people, not only threatened municipal governments

and the job that they have to do, the services which they have

to provide, but this budge and its figures threaten the revenue

base of this province which will ensure that those services can

continue. Indeed, this budget is the beginning of the trend of

declining services to people. To ensure that those services

will continue, government must be responsible.

We see no sign of responsibility on the part of this present

arrogant NDP government. It must provide leadership in the

economy. This government must do it. If it does not, no one

else in the province will. It must provide leadership in the

economy to ensure the protection of the revenue base. This,

above all else, is where the government has failed.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): I'm the

windup speaker on the budget debate.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Somebody wind

him up.

HON. MR. LAUK: He has been waiting all session to say that,

and off he goes. There he goes. Out for coffee. Let's hear it

for whoever that man is.

I received a note from the Clerk's table, Mr. Speaker, and

it says: "In your windup, let's hear it for the Clerks." So

let's hear it for the Clerks, everybody. (Applause.)

I thought I'd get the niceties out of the way right

away.

MR. SPEAKER: Highly irregular, as a matter of fact.

HON. MR. LAUK: The last opposition speaker described himself

as the last opposition Member to bat. He says he is the cleanup

hitter. I know what his political history is, and I would

describe him as a switch hitter.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. LAUK: I was disturbed when he started out in his

speech to guttersnipe in the House. Then he went on...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order, please.

HON. MR. LAUK: ...to get to substantive matters. I would

prefer he went back to guttersniping.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think....

HON. MR. LAUK: That seems to be his style, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think it is regular to call another

Member a guttersnipe.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a type of bird.

MR. SPEAKER: Quite unparliamentary.

HON. MR. LAUK: I said "guttersnipe tactics," didn't

I? I thought that is what I said.

MR. SPEAKER: I doubt it.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, I will withdraw that and say

"guttersnipe tactics," Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I really can't accept that either as being

parliamentary.

HON. MR. LAUK: If he is going to do it, Mr. Speaker, why

doesn't he stand behind it?

MR. CURTIS: Tell us about your department.

HON. MR. LAUK: Why don't you do something about it instead

of spreading innuendo and guttersniping in this House, Mr.

Member? The people of British Columbia are used to

irresponsible comments from the opposition and cowardly

acts.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order, please. I would ask the Hon.

Member to observe the rules of parliament, which also include

not using unparliamentary expressions like "guttersnipe," "guttersnipe tactics," or "cowardly." Would the

Hon. Member please withdraw those expressions?

HON. MR. LAUK: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will withdraw those

phrases. Thank you. The people of the province know full

well.

MR. CURTIS: Tell us about your department.

HON. MR. LAUK: The Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr.

Curtis), Mr. Speaker, when he was discussing the budget talked

about inflation and, as usual, misused statistics (I'm sure not

deliberately) to mislead the House — twisted statistics. He

used the consumer price index. Everybody in this province,

especially the Liberals, knows that the people in this province

pay higher prices for consumer goods because of the tariff

protection of the federal government that protects the central

manufacturing base. He knows that. Look at all the

inflationary

[ Page 658 ]

factors. We are not above the national average, in spite of

the fact that we have to pay higher consumer prices because of

federal government policies.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. LAUK: You know that, Mr. Member, and standing up

here to pretend you don't is nonsense.

MR. CURTIS: Tell us about your department — that's what

you're here for. Give us a report.

HON. MR. LAUK: The Hon. Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson)

made a speech. It was like a professor, sitting on the

sidelines, marking us all out of 10, which is typical of the

Hon. Liberal leader.

He talked about the civil service. You know, there are many

other factors to consider except giving a simplistic story

about the civil service in this province. When we took office

the civil service was the lowest paid civil service anywhere in

the country. There were some people that would qualify for

welfare benefits in the civil service. You people would keep

them there, as the previous administration did for 20

years.

In addition to that, the numbers that presently reflect the

numbers of the civil service include the largest ferry system

in the world. They include a large Highways department. They

include Liquor Control Board employees, which other civil

service figures do not include. In spite of that, Mr. Speaker,

we are exactly where we should be in the national average of

civil servants in terms of our population: fourth, one civil

servant per 68, as opposed to Ontario and others that are much

higher. So let's look at the real facts before we get running

off in several different directions, Mr. Speaker.

The increase in the size of the pie is another point that

was made by opposition Members. "Let's get involved in the

investment world; let's encourage this private industry." They

haven't noticed that for the first time since we entered

Confederation this province has a development corporation which

is creating jobs all over this province, which is creating

loans to small businesses all over this province. To the man

who laughs from Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), there are three

loan applications from his area.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: There's three. Shall I say that he's against

them, Mr. Speaker? Shall I go up there and tell the people of

Columbia River that he's against the development

corporation?

MR. CHABOT: Come right up any time you want.

HON. MR. LAUK: Are you against it, Mr. Member? Are you

against the development corporation in your riding?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure he is!

HON. MR. LAUK: All right, I'll tell those three applicants

that you're against them.

You know that they are doing a job in this province. They

are creating jobs all over this province, and where it counts —

labour-intensive industry with small businesses. It's the small

businessman that this government is here to protect, and it is

the small businessman who knows that. For 20 years people

begged you for a development corporation and you laughed.

MR. CHABOT: You have given them higher assessments, but how

many jobs?

HON. MR. LAUK: How many jobs, Mr. Member? Hundreds of jobs

in the province have been created, and many more in the future,

and you know it. I'll table all of those documents during my

estimates.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: You sit here and you don't know what public

information there is. We've announced loan after loan in the

press. Read the newspapers, or have someone read it for you.

(Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the investment climate and the

wealth producing in this province, may I remind the people of

this House and the people of British Columbia that if it

weren't for this government preserving the economy of the great

northwest of this province, there would be thousands of people

on welfare, as there would be if that administration across the

way were still in power. Instead, we have totally reversed the

situation in the northwest, we preserved the jobs for the

people of this area, and we have become the second-highest

corporate earner in this province, Mr. Speaker.

I didn't hear the Hon. Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson)

talk about the federal civil service. He brushed over it, but

he didn't talk about it. He said that he thought the federal

budget was excessive. He thought it was excessive. What a

concession to make. Talk about the thousands and thousands of

people in thy federal civil service gathering statistics and

regurgitating them and passing paper to one another. Infamous!

And he says that he "thinks" the federal budget is

excessive.

Well, so much for the professor, Mr. Speaker. I thank him

for his high marks.

Now for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett). When he

was dealing with the

[ Page 659 ]

budget...it's difficult to criticize the Leader of the

Opposition for his attack on the budget because he didn't say

anything. He really didn't say anything. He said we should have

budgeted a surplus as a hedge against inflation, and that we're

spending too much on civil servants and welfare recipients.

Personal taxes, he says, as a percentage of taxes are

greater than resource taxes. Then I see that this morning he

tabled the bill — of course, I'm not going to debate the bill

at this stage — intituled the Resource Revenue and Sharing Act.

I'm getting the impression that he's calling upon this

government to raise resource taxation.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

He says it's not a big enough percentage of the taxation

pie. He's arguing for an increase. He's ensuring that we

provide them an increase of resource taxation to the

municipalities.

MR. CHABOT: Debate the bill later.

HON. MR. LAUK: He said that it's too small a percentage of

the taxation pie. He's calling for higher resource taxation in

this province. That's what he's calling for. Boy, am I going to

tell MacMillan Bloedel about him. They'll cancel their

cheque.

What programmes would the Social Credit Party cut if they

were in power? I'll tell you what they'd cut — and you know

what they would cut. Because they failed to answer that

question directly, we know what they would cut. They're just

afraid to say. Pharmacare, Mincome, aid to the handicapped...the leave-it-to-charity boys over there. "Are there no

workhouses, no orphanages?" says the Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. Bennett)."Why can't the Red Feather handle it? It was all

right in my daddy's day."

That's the kind of mentality we have over there. We know

what they would cut from the budget.

He says that we're going to have a deficit in this province.

We've had a deficit for the past 15 years because of the

financial bungling of his father on the Columbia River

Treaty.

When we took office, each man, woman and child owed $1,200

through a contingency plan; that he and B.C. Hydro set it up

for us, our children, our children's children. Magnificent

foresight! We're paying the bills now for that financial

bungler, and we'll balance the budget. In spite of the disaster

we've inherited from the previous administration, we're going

to balance the budget, because we only have one set of books.

And we will honestly represent the expenditures and revenues to

the people of this province.

Perhaps the saddest speech from the opposition on this budget was by the Member

for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams). It was a sad speech. He called

for a return to the good old days when your people were grateful to work. Now

they're just bums.

Well, I suppose there are a few bums in society, but the

young people in this province, Mr. Speaker, through you to the

Member, are committed to this province and committed to its

future — not in the old way, not in your way, not in that old

way where there was "come and get it, boys; rip it off, boys," like the previous Premier.

"Nothing is freer than free," said the previous

Premier. He meant that when he called upon foreign exploiters

to come in and take the natural resources without leaving

anything to the province and the people of this province.

"Nothing is freer than free," he said.

That's what the young people are upset about today. They're

upset about their futures being mortgaged by old-time, Huey

Long type politicians of the past.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: And I'll tell you, this Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound called upon, in a most nostalgic way, the

return to the work ethic.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: You know, the former Premier of this province.... What

do you expect from people who see what's happened in the Columbia River treaty?

Do you expect them to be happy about that, to work for the future of this province?

They will. You're only talking about a handful of people.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Ten per cent

unemployment.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: You know, the previous Premier was saved....

Oh, nonsense! You don't know what you're talking about. You

don't know what you're talking about.

The former Leader of the Opposition, the present Minister of

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), warned the

previous Premier, and the previous Premier stayed back from the

Wenner-Gren hoax. He was saved from the Wenner-Gren hoax only

to fall over the cliff again. He's just a rube begging to be

taken, and he was taken.

MR. CHABOT: Tell us about McBride.

HON. MR. LAUK: What was sad about the Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound's speech is that he called upon this

government to protect the

[ Page 660 ]

future for future generations. Do we all remember what stand

that Member took on the Land Commission Act? Do we all remember

how he went on hotline programmes, travelled to constituencies

all over this province, and said that we don't need to protect

farmland? "This is just an example of this government's taking

away private ownership of land." He made the extremist

statements.

Let's say it today, Mr. Member. You know it's a good Act. It

has preserved farmland. It was the first of its kind in the

western world, and it will preserve farmland for future

generations.

Then he complained bitterly about how high the budget was.

He complained about the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr.

Levi) and the over $500 million we're expending on handicapped

people, on old people, on unemployed people.

He said: "Cut it back."

We said: "What would you cut?" He ignored us.

We asked him again: "What would you cut?" He ignored us.

What a complete failure of philosophy. You haven't got the

guts to stand up and tell us what you would cut, Mr. Member.

That is a failure of philosophy.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: He says: "Return to the good old days."

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: If you had a change of philosophy, you

wouldn't have to have one-sixth of the budget for welfare.

HON. MR. LAUK: He's nothing but a semantic stutterer. He

can't stand up in this House in his twilight years of political

life and tell us what he stands for.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: The previous administration calls for jobs.

They keep on saying: "Jobs!" The Hon. Member for Columbia River

(Mr. Chabot), who's only a country boy, says: "Where are the

jobs? My people in Golden want jobs!" There's only one job they

want — his. (Laughter.)

In the previous 20 years where were the job programmes? Not

one. After recession and boom-and-bust, communities shut down

and empty streets and empty schools in our rural communities,

where were the job programmes of the previous administration?

Not one.

Now we have the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), the British Columbia Development

Corp. — all of our processes are operating to provide jobs. All of them.

The Port Simpson cannery, for example.... I noticed in the

paper, the Prince Rupert Daily News — which I know is not

pro-government. The Member for that area (Mr. Dent) told me

that and I believe him. (Laughter.) It says that we've taken over 20 people off welfare, and we haven't

even started full production.

Can-Cel, Port Simpson in the northwest, the BCDC throughout

the province, job programmes through the Minister of Labour,

manpower training, the previous administration? Empty talk,

promises — the Kelowna garter.

Where was the development corporation? Time after time, the

Liberals and the CCF-NDP stood up in this House and said: "Give

us a development corporation. The small businessman is being

squeezed out." And he was. He was. This once grand populist

party took the side of the big corporations and squeezed out

the small businessman in this province so that the number of

small businesses, 20 employees or under, decreased and declined

year after year in this province under that administration.

Under ours, it has increased.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: No attempts to diversify the economy. Just

empty talk, boom and bust, empty streets, empty schools,

deserted communities — that's the kind of party we had over

there. And they have the audacity to stand up in this House and

criticize this job-security budget.

No pressure on the federal government to provide more money

from Industry, Trade and Commerce and the federal Department of

Supply and Services or the Industrial Development Bank. They're

increased by tens of percentage points in this year because of

the pressure and the catalyst provided by my department, my

Ministry and the B.C. Development Corp. That's a fact and you

know it.

We've got more of our share and we'll get more next year

because I'm keeping up the pressure. I don't just stand here

and talk.

They've been talking about steel production in this province

since 1896. They've talked about steel production in this House

since 1896. In 1975 you have action. We've got a feasibility

agreement for the definite substance of building a steel

mill.

What about copper? Talk for 80 years; in 1975 you'll see

action.

MR. GIBSON: What kind?

HON. MR. LAUK: You're going to see lots of action, my

friend.

The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), who said: "While this

government is in office there will not be a

[ Page 661 ]

copper smelter built in this province" — I ask him to put

his seat on that, and if he puts his seat on that, he will have

to resign.

What about trade missions, Mr. Speaker? For 40 years we've

had boondoggles leave this province — boondoggles for trade

missions. In 1975 they come back with signed contracts. That's

the kind of programme we have.

There has been a lot said about the economy and where we are

going from the doom-and-gloom boys — that's all we hear from

them, all the negativism. You'd think that they had no stake in

this province, had no support for it and had no loyalty to the

people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. LAUK: When they stand here and talk about doom and

gloom, they have no faith in the working-class people of this

province who have been the backbone of this province and will

survive this present economic storm.

I'll tell you one thing: the Member for South Peace River

(Mr. Phillips) and the Hon. Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson)

have been very flattering to me during this debate. (Laughter.)

The Member for South Peace River said he places the world

economic problems squarely on my shoulders. He said: "It's

entirely your responsibility." (Laughter.)

I called the White House and I asked to speak to the

president. The janitor replied: "Who shall I say is

calling?"

I told him and he had a chat with the chauffeur. They both

apologized to me, that they hadn't heard who I was.

I said: "Don't you realize that the Member for South Peace

River and I believe that I'm totally responsible for the world

economic recessionary factor? Don't you know that?"

He said: "No, I'm sorry, I didn't." (Laughter.)

The Hon. Liberal leader wants me to take over the Ministry

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, the Ministry of Mines

and Petroleum Resources and one or two others. I'm flattered —

I'm really flattered, but my wife and child don't think that

I'm home enough as it is. Although I think I have enough to do

and although I think I am great, I don't think I am that great.

(Laughter.)

But it's nice to have that kind of support from the

opposition. Once in awhile they have a clear moment.

(Laughter.)

But what is the economy? Let's talk about the economy. Let's

look at the facts and don't just talk about doom and gloom and

the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), who is nothing

but a "chicken little" leading his chicken-little parade, and,

I hope, right out of this province.

The bond market has improved; the stock market is rallying; interest rates

are lowering; the bank prime lending rate has dropped to 9 per cent. The Royal

Bank of Canada, the Bank of Montreal and five other banks dropped their rates

from 9 per cent at the end of February. Central Mortgage and Housing Corp. is

reducing some of its mortgage interest rates; loans under assisted home ownership

programme lowered to 10 per cent from 10.75 per cent. The automobile industry,

a key industry in the North American economy, shows some sign of recovery from

the recent slump. Price reductions in January and February stimulated auto sales,

and some are planning moderate production increases.

As far as the outlook is concerned, I wish you people would

read more of my speeches, then you would know where the economy

is going. I don't exaggerate on the one hand or become

doom-and-gloom on the other. I give you an honest appraisal. I

feel that's my responsibility; that's what my colleagues have

asked me to do.

The current available information suggests little change

from earlier forecasts of the outlook for 1975. It is the

general consensus that the current economic slack will persist

until mid-year when a gradual expansion and upward turn is

expected. That's the same forecast I gave in the middle of

January.

MR. CHABOT: You're all alone on that forecast.

HON. MR. LAUK: Nonsense! This forecast represents the major

economic forecast throughout North America. How would the

Member for Columbia River know, for heaven's sake — the

previous leader made him Minister of Labour so that he could

get him out of his caucus. He knew that that Minister would be

such a disaster he would lose his seat, and he succeeded beyond

his wildest expectations. He didn't know anything about labour,

let alone the economy. He had to be escorted under armed guard

to get to the House. (Laughter.)

What about the unemployment — as everybody says — as

represented by the real leader of the opposition over there,

the Member for Columbia River? If only he had better family

connections...here he is, an elder statesman, been in this

House for years. All of the ushers know who he is; the only

people who don't know who he is are the people who work in the

library. (Laughter.)

[Mr. Speaker in the chair]

HON. MR. LAUK: He's calling for jobs. But let's tell the truth about

jobs; let's tell the truth about unemployment. Let's tell the truth for a change,

and let the press hear this. This increase of unemployment that we've experienced

in British Columbia reflects, in large part, the continued inward migration

of workers to this province. In the past year our labour

[ Page 662 ]

force grew at a rate of 60 per cent above the Canadian

average. In spite of our increasing rate of unemployment it

should be realized that in the past year the number of

productively employed British Columbia workers increased at a

rate of 35 per cent in excess of the Canadian average. That 's

what this government has done.

I might also say that there are some men in this province

who are worried because the employment market for men is

evening off. On the other hand, the number of working women has

increased by 41,000 or 13 per cent in the past year.

We have the highest standard of living in this country, we

are the fastest-growing province in Canada, and young people

who are coming out here are willing to work. God willing, we'll

find them work in the greatest province in Canada.

One final point: we talk about small businesses — we talk

about the protection of small businesses. In September of 1972

there were 43,000 small businesses in this province. A small

business is defined statistically as a "business with 20

employees or under." And the Masters of Business Administration

from Harvard could tell you that, if nothing else.

HON. MR. LEA: Maybe not even that.

HON. MR. LAUK: In September, 1974, there has been an

increase of 4,000 small businesses in this province. We happen

to know that many of those 43,000 small businesses back in 1972

had grown to medium-sized and larger businesses in this

province because of the progressive, encouraging programmes of

this government towards small businesses.

Since 1972 we have experienced an 11 per cent growth rate in

small businesses in this province, the highest rate since that

former administration took office. In 1974 the highest number

of new incorporations in any one year had occurred in this

province.

HON. MR. COCKE: Right on.

HON. MR. LAUK: And they say we are not interested in

protecting the small businessman in this province. I say

nonsense!

Now what about the budget? The 1975-76 provincial budget

reflects an honest and astute appraisal of the performance of

the provincial economy in the past year and shows we are fully

aware of the need to maintain a healthy economy, especially in

the context of fairly serious problems in the international

economic climate.

HON. MR. LEA: Signed, Robert Bonner.

HON. MR. LAUK: However, we are also aware of the threat —

I'll tell you who wrote this in a minute, Mr. Member — the inflationary spiral poses to the working

man, the elderly, and the other vulnerable citizens, and have

balanced out budget in a responsible manner.

Are you aware that in this current fiscal year only British

Columbia and two other provinces have balanced their budgets —

and those are Alberta and Saskatchewan? I say that if all

levels of government did this, including the federal

government, we would have a serious redressing of the

inflationary problem in this province.

In 1974, we sustained a 5 per cent real growth rate in the

gross provincial product. As the decline of housing starts was

one of the early indicators of the economic downturn, we feel

that we have seen the worst. In the United States, interest

mortgage rates are lowering and housing starts are coming up.

The mid-term upturn, that I predicted in the middle of January

and in December, is coming true.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Oh, don't be so modest.

HON. MR. LAUK: I'll be more modest than that, Mr. Member.

I've got a great staff. We have managed to increase it from 12

people to 80 people from all over this province, many of whom

were formerly working with the federal civil service as senior

economists and now are with us because they have seen the

light.

We were encouraged, and I am encouraged, to see the

suggestion of a new financial institution that may make credit

more available to small businessmen and the general public, and

the tax breaks and exemptions for the small businessmen to

continue our philosophy of protecting the little guy in this

economy, to make sure that free enterprise really works. Free

enterprise is only talked about on that side of the House to

protect the large corporations, to protect the big campaign

donations. They don't talk about the little guy with 20 or 40

people employed.

It's a job-security programme in this budget — $700 million

additional money — because this government has recognized that

inflation, although decreasing, and recessionary factors are at

play. We have got to counteract that by priming the pump and

putting more money in there. That is traditional stuff. It is

good stuff, too. It is going to keep this province the best off

in this country during the present recessionary trend.

I commend the Minister of Finance for his emphasis on the

value of health, education and social services, which are

essential services, from the economic point of view, for the

long-term development, for the skills, the energy and the

health of a working force, a working class that really does

support this province. The budget demonstrates our

responsibilities in securing the people's vested interest

[ Page 663 ]

in the provincial economy. Our abilities have been proven,

showing a profitable return on investment dollars. One of them

is Can-Cel, and so on.

I don't see why we have to budget for a surplus. But I

suppose that the Hon. Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) and

his 12 gnomes in Switzerland, or whoever gave him the advice

when he made his budget reply....

MR. WALLACE: That's the other leader who has the 12

gnomes.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, no, I am talking about the Leader of

the Opposition, the official opposition. I'm sorry. Yes, the

Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett); the man who inherited

the seat of South Okanagan. That gentleman said that he had

consulted 12 economists. Then he said: "Budget for a surplus."

I would like to meet those 12 economists. I really would. I

would like to see who they are.

HON. MR. LEA: There they are. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. LAUK: I couldn't believe my ears. It is like

putting your money in a sock and saying at the end of the year

it is going to be worth more.

MR. WALLACE: It's enough to rot your socks.

HON. MR. LAUK: Anybody knows, even the Member for Oak Bay

knows, that if you keep your money in a sock, it is worth less

at the end of the year. You know that. Even he knows that. They

don't know it.

MR. WALLACE: We used to do that, but no anymore.

HON. MR. LAUK: Take a trip to the library; better still,

read some of my speeches, Member for Columbia River (Mr.

Chabot), and let your leader know.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: What are we doing in this province? It seems

to me the opposition party has failed to comprehend the thrust

and dynamic nature of this budget.

The Liberals suggest we are budgeting for a surplus and yet still want us to

cut back on Human Resources and housing expenditures, while the sanctimonious

Social Credit leader says we are going to have a deficit. If he were sitting

in his seat this morning, he would have learned something. But no, he was over

there, lolligagging some place, wasting his time and the taxpayers' money. (Laughter.)

We are paying his salary to sit in his seat and he is over there lolligagging

with somebody, not in here listening to me when I am telling

him about the facts of the economy. He should be here listening

to me. He says that there will be a deficit in this budget. The

Liberals say that there will be a surplus. They are both wrong,

and that's their usual consistency. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: I take it that the Hon. Minister supports the

motion. The motion is that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair

for the House to go into committee of supply.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 31

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Levi

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 13

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Chabot

Richter

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

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

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves the committee rise and report

progress.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee reports progress and asks leave

to sit again.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I'd

like to make an announcement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. COCKE: There has been a great deal of controversy

in the Capital Regional District recently around the Aberdeen

Hospital and the possible closure of the Aberdeen Hospital,

which would mean

[ Page 664 ]

that there would be a number of people without chronic care

in this area.

We have this morning completed negotiations and we have

purchased the Aberdeen Hospital for the people of the

province.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in response to the statement by the

Minister of Health, we welcome the news that this has been

acquired by negotiation, and that therefore these beds will

remain available in the capital region.

We appreciate it very much.

HON. MR. LAUK: Are you the new leader?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To preserve tradition, and also to point

out that I believe that this is in my riding — I'm not exactly

sure — I would just like to thank the Minister for this.

HON. MR. LAUK: You wouldn't know.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I trust it will be followed by a more

comprehensive policy with respect to chronic care and

government involvement therein.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and I have often

mentioned this to him. I'm sure that we're about to get a major

policy statement in this area. We will welcome it.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did it cost?

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:12 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada