1978 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 31st 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)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12, 1978

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

333 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Use of official government stationery by cabinet members. Mr. Barber ––

Sheep hunting quotas. Mr. Nicolson –– 334

Report on Jack Ulahovic. Mr. Gibson –– 335

Future of CLEU. Mr. Levi –– 335

ICBC staff bonuses. Mr. Cocke –– 336

Hospitality co-ordinator. Mr. King –– 336

Budget debate

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 337

Mr. Lea –– 343

Mr. Loewen –– 349

Mr. Veitch –– 353

Mr. Nicolson –– 356

Mr. Lloyd –– 361

Presenting reports

Interim report, Royal Commission on the British Columbia Railway, Fort Nelson extension.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 365

Financial statement at November 30,1977, Pacific National Exhibition.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 365

Public Service Commission 1977 annual report. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy ––

Universities Council funding recommendations for fiscal year beginning April 1,1978.

Hon. Mr. McGeer ... 365

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. ROGERS : Frank Bernard is here today and I know everybody will want to make him welcome.

MRS. JORDAN : On behalf of the hon. Premier, I would ask the House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Trevor Pickering of Kelowna who are here for their first visit in the Legislature.

MR. SHELFORD : Mr. Speaker, there are two good people here from the city of Victoria. I would like to introduce to the members today Bill Austin and Lloyd Lomas. I would like the members to make them welcome.

HON. MR. NIELSEN : Mr. Speaker, two visitors to Victoria today - not

in the House, however. Their wives are visiting us today. Mr. Jack Brooks, who

is chief engineer for Richmond, and Mr. Norm Donaghy, who is municipal engineer

for Richmond, are attending meetings today. I would like the House to welcome

their wives, Mrs. Brooks and Mrs. Donaghy, who are in the gallery.

MR. MACDONALD : Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery a former provincial secretary of the CCF party, Mrs. Jessie Mendels, with two friends: Miss Torunn Stavness from Norway and her friend from Vancouver, Mr. Iver Holtlien.

HON. MR. McGEER : Mr. Speaker, I have discovered that a wonderful way

to get exercise doing knee-bends is to introduce guests in the House; and this

afternoon in your gallery, sir, we've got some very distinguished representatives

of the constituency of Point Grey.

AN HON. MEMBER : Liberal or Socred?

HON. MR. McGEER : Well, maybe some of both; I don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER : The undecided.

HON. MR. McGEER : Well, they're certainly not Socialists - I don't

think. By that I meant, of course, the CCF; I'm not talking about the New

Democratic Party...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER : ... those unruly constituents in Point Grey. I'm

not introducing them this afternoon, Mr. Speaker; but I will say that the members

are in better form than usual.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MR. McGEER : May I introduce the guests? They are: the president of the Alumni Association of UBC, Charlotte Warren; the past president of the Alumni Association of UBC, James Denholm; the future president of the Alumni Association of UBC, Paul Hazell; the chairman of the government relations division of the UBC Alumni Association, Jack Hetherington; two representatives of UBC: Dr. Eric Bolt and Dr. Peter Lustig; two representatives of the Alumni Association of UBC: Mr. Harry Franklin and Susan McLamon. They're sitting up there with the representative of the alumni of the University of Victoria, my executive assistant, Jim Bennett.

HON. MR. WOLFE : I would ask the members to join me in welcoming the students of John Oliver School, who are in the gallery today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the assembly to welcome to our House Mr. Jose Sanchez, who is the commercial counsellor of the Spanish embassy in Ottawa. He is accompanied by Mr. Vaughan Allin, Mr. O.K. Pedersen and the Consul-General, Mr. Frank Bernard, who has already been introduced. I would ask the House to welcome them warmly.

MRS. WALLACE : I would just like to add my welcome to Mrs. Jessie Mandels, who is sitting in the gallery. She and I worked together as sessional stenos in this House many years ago.

I would also like to ask the House to join me in welcoming my nephew, who is one of the teachers with the John Oliver group, Mr. Steve Brewster.

HON. MR. BAWLF : Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today are two of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. W. Bennett. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

While I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, the members will be aware that this summer we will stage the first ever British Columbia Summer Games, involving more than 3,000 participants from all over British Columbia, ages 13 to 80. I would like to present to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house the flag of those first Games and suggest that perhaps at an appropriate

[ Page

334 ]

time, you might fly that flag here in the legislative, precincts on behalf of all of us who are concerned with sport and fitness in this province.

MR. SPEAKER : Thank you, hon. minister. I would like to fly that flag in Chilliwack.

HON. MR. CURTIS : Mr. Speaker, as an MLA for a greater Victoria constituency - I think it hasn't been done for quite a while - I would like to extend a very warm welcome to everybody who has not yet been introduced.

MR. STEPHENS : Mr. Speaker, as the parachute candidate in Oak Bay, I'd like this House to extend a welcome to one of my constituents, the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. (Laughter.)

Oral questions.

USE OF OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT

STATIONERY BY CABINET MEMBERS

MR. BARBER : My question is to the Provincial Secretary. Does your government have any rules or code of ethics regarding the use of official government stationery by members of cabinet for the purpose of raising money or recruiting members for the Social Credit party of British Columbia?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Mr. Speaker, I think that's a question that is out of order.

MR. SPEAKER : I would like the Provincial Secretary to cite under what basis it would be out of order. However, if the question is asked for purposes of argumentation, then, of course, it would be.

MR. BARBER : If I may repeat the question -because 1, as well as yourself, sir, find no reference in the rules that would rule this out of order - my question to the Provincial Secretary is: does your government have any rules or code of ethics regarding the use of official government stationery by members of cabinet for the purpose of raising money or recruiting members for the Social Credit Party of British Columbia?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY ; Mr. Speaker, I was trying to make the point that

I think the question has been asked today to be argumentative, provocative and

facetious. But if you agree that it needs an answer, may 1 say that the question

is intimating that there has been some misuse of stationery of cabinet ministers.

I can't respond to a question that intimates something of which I have no

knowledge. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the member who asked the question from

Victoria is intimating that there is a lack of ethics within the government

and I can say that there is not.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Hon. members, just for the House's edification I think it is perhaps time to remind all members that we can ask questions, we can hope for answers, we cannot insist upon answers, and we cannot ask questions that have been asked before.

MR. BARBER : We neither intimate nor charge any abuse. My question is simply: does there exist, and if so will you name it, any rule or code of ethics followed by your government regarding misuse of government stationery?

MR. SPEAKER : With respect, hon. member, I think the minister has the question.

MR. BARRETT : But she doesn't have the answer.

SHEEP HUNTING QUOTAS

MR. NICOLSON : A question to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. Did the minister have discussions with the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) prior to the member's address to the B.C. Guides and Outfitters convention that concluded last weekend at Burns Lake?

HON. MR. BAWLF : Mr. Speaker, I talk to that member almost every day that we are here in the precincts together.

MR. NICOLSON : Thanks to the minister for answering a supplementary. If, whether in the precincts or by telephone, he had such discussion, did the minister authorize the member to make a statement on his behalf to the convention?

HON. MR. BAWLF : The member was speaking for himself at that convention. However, he did have the opportunity to relate some views which I've expressed in the past, which are a matter of public record.

MR. NICOLSON : Is that view encompassed within the following quotation from the member's speech: "Bawlf asked me to say a few words to you concerning sheep quotas. He asked me to point out to you that if guides have to

[ Page 335 ]

have quotas, residents must have quotas as well. He told me to tell you a new wildlife Act to be introduced this session will include provisions for tenure."?

Are these statements, then, a true representation of the minister's feelings, and was the member relaying those types of statements with which the minister says he has already associated himself publicly?

MR. SPEAKER : Beauchesne, at

section 171, subsection E, says it is not admissible to ask whether reports in the public media are true or not.

MR. NICOLSON : Mr. Speaker, I'm not quoting the public media. I am quoting the member for Omineca.

HON. MR. BAWLF : I'd like to be clear that it would be out of order to respond on a question of policy. Since the member has asked as regards my view, I've expressed in the past the view that where the stocks of sheep have been depleted and controls are required for hunters, we have commenced those controls with quotas on guide outfitters, and through them the non-resident hunter. But where there is also substantial pressure placed on sheep by virtue of resident hunting pressure, then we will proceed as a second stage to limited entry hunting.

MR. NICOLSON : I quote: "He told me to tell you a new wildlife Act to be introduced this session will include provisions for tenure." Will there be a new wildlife Act? Will it include provisions for tenure?

MR. SPEAKER : That question is inadmissible. It's anticipation.

MRS. JORDAN : Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could bring back a purview. If I recall correctly, Speaker Murray ruled in the debate involving Clearwater and the Hon. Mr. Loffmark that quotations and recording were not admissible in this House.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. members, perhaps at a time, not in question period, I could recite for hon. members the admissible or inadmissible questions in the House.

On a point of order, the member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK : Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for North Okanagan

(Mrs. Jordan) would reflect or try and recall the decision of Speaker Murray

and whether or not it included Shakespeare and Milton. (Laughter.)

MRS. JORDAN : Are you identifying with them?

MR. SPEAKER : May we halt the clock for just a moment at the request of the Chair? I think that it's time again to remind all hon. members that it is not acceptable practice to gain the floor by standing in a member's place and saying, "I have a point of order, " when that point of order indeed is a fraudulent point of order. The practice is not to be taken lightly because the provisions that are made in the authorities are not ones which I would like to use in this House. Can we start the clock again?

REPORT ON JACK VLAHOVIC

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour (Ron. Mr. William ) . It is regarding the report done by his ministry into the Teamsters union hearings concerning member Jack Vlahovic. I would ask the minister if he has received and read the report and whether any action will flow from it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. Yes, the report has been received. Yes, I have read it. The actions to be taken, if any, are in the future and therefore that part of the question is out of order.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that questions as to the future are now out of order. I assume that is the minister's dictum and not yours.

On November 10,1977, the minister is quoted as having said that he would have no hesitation in filing this report in the Legislature. I would like to ask him if he plans to do so now.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : Mr. Speaker, the report is being very carefully considered by officials of the ministry. Recognizing the constraints which the legislation imposes upon me with respect to that report, it may not be filed but a statement will be.

MR. SPEAKER : I would ask the hon. member to review the

section on anticipation.

FUTURE OF CLEU

MR. LEVI : A question to the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker. Is he listening? I hope he is.

[ Page 336 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM : You've got my good ear.

MR. LEVI : I've got his good ear.

Yesterday the minister reported to the House on the resignation of Mr. Hameluck from CLEU -the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit. In the past two months two key members of CLEU have resigned - 1) r. Matheson and Mr. Hameluck. Can the minister inform the House if the govern-ment is winding down the intent of CLEU, which was set up by the NDP government to fight organized crime?

HON. MR. GARDOM : No.

MR. LEVI : Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister: this House has not received any reports on the CLEU operations since November, 1975. Can the minister tell us when he intends to table a report regarding their operations?

HON. MR. GARDOM : I shall take that question as notice.

ICBC STAFF BONUSES

MR. COCKE : Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) . In addition to salaries, stipends and fringe benefits, the minister has now revealed that certain ICBC staff get bonuses. I'll ask the minister: will any bonuses be paid to Mr. Robbie Sherrell in addition to the $80,000 salary he is to receive?

HON. MR. McGEER : Mr. Speaker, that's anticipation. There was certainly nothing in the terms of employment of Mr. Sherrell that would imply any bonus. ICBC, did give two bonuses for the year ending February 28,1977, to the late Mr. Norman Bortnick and one of the senior vice-presidents. Those are the only two bonuses that ICBC has given.

MR. COCKE : Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister.... Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I think we could wreck the question period with this kind of retort, in terms of anticipation, that is a current question.

I'd also like to ask, Mr. Speaker: does Mr. Sherrell receive any fringe benefits in addition to his $80,000 - for example, the use of a car with or without paid car insurance, or any other benefits? Could I jog his memory on that?

HON. MR. MCGEER : Mr. Speaker, ICBC has had a pool of cars since its inception under the NDP. One of those cars was made available to Mr. Norman Bortnick when he was the general manager. I will take as notice and check into whether or not one of the pool cars is being used by the president or is available to him.

MR. COCKE : On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, did I hear the minister clearly? Did the minister say that the only other person in ICBC that received a bonus was Mr. Gillen? Could he answer that?

HON. MR. McGEER : Mr. Gillen is not an employee of ICBC, has never been an employee of ICBC, and has never received any bonus from ICBC.

MR. COCKE : I gather I misunderstood the minister. The minister must have indicated that one other person received a bonus because in his....

HON. MR. McGEER : That's what I said.

MR. COCKE : ... the senior vice-president. Were there any others?

HON. MR. MCGEER : No, Mr. Speaker.

HOSPITALITY CO-ORDINATOR

MR. KING : A question to the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker. When Mrs. Helen Biernes left her position as hospitality co-ordinator, she described the minister as the queen and said the real reason for the programme was to bolster the political image of the queen. Can the queen - I'm sorry, the minister...

HON. MR. PHILLIPS : She is a queen!

MR. KING : ... explain what reason Mrs * Biernes provided to her department for her resignation?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to respond to the member named King. (Laughter.) Mr. Speaker, I'm also pleased to be able to respond to the question which asks something about the hospitality course.

Last year during the session we had an appointment of Mrs. Biernes....

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh! Answer the question!

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Mr. Speaker, I'm answering the question. The appointment of Mrs. Biernes was made last year for a

[ Page 337 ]

three-month period or a six-month period; my memory does not serve me as to which of those two it was. When her time was up, her contract was not renewed. So in answer to Your question as to why or when she resigned, she did not resign. Her contract was not renewed.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Speaker, under the terms of standing order 42 1 would ask to very briefly correct my remarks in Hansard of yesterday. I indicated, in speaking of the Ministry of Human Resources, that extra benefits that would have gone to the handicapped and seniors over the last two years, had those benefits been indexed, would have been approximately $17,500, 000. And then in a too-enthusiastic burst of incorrect syntax I suggested it would be 50 per cent cost-shareable. In fact only a portion of that amount would have been costshareable, not the total.

AN HON. MEMBER : You still support the budget, Gordon, eh?

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

MR. KEMPF : Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in order to correct a statement made by the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) during the question period.

The member told the House that 1, in an address to the Western Guides and Outfitters Association convention in Burns Lake last Friday, made reference to a new Wildlife Act. I would like to tell this house that the member is wrong; he has misquoted me. In order that the member~ get his facts straight, I'd be quite willing to make a copy of that address to those people available to him so he can read the whole of that great speech.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

Hon. members, when corrections are to be made, they're to be made at the first opportunity, which I commend the member for. However, they must be made in temperate language and not so as to be argumentative.

HON. MR. WOLFE : The hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano just made

a correction in his remarks of yesterday. I wish to make a further correction

in his remarks. During his speech he referred to the fact that in the budget

speech it stated that sales taxes for the 11-month period in the comptroller's

report were $83 million over budget. That information is incorrect. The correct

information is that the $83 million is the excess over last year's sales

taxes f or the same period - 12 per cent, Mr. Member.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please, hon. members. We cannot accept corrections of statements made, unless it is at the first opportunity, as I read the standing orders.

MR. COCKE : On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance got up to make a correction of another member's statements...

MR. SPEAKER : That's right.

MR. COCKE : ... and was permitted to make that statement. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, that was quite out of order.

MR. SPEAKER : That's right, a good point.

MR. COCKE : I would ask that the Speaker advise the cabinet that they're not going to get away with that in the future.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. members, the member for New Westminster is quite right. When corrections of statements are to be made, it is corrections in their own statements and not corrections in statements of other members.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I would also begin by taking this

opportunity of congratulating you on your elevation to the position as Speaker

of the House, and I'm very pleased at the way you've been received by

all members on all sides. I certainly wish you well.

Also I wish to congratulate the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rogers) and wish him well in his new-found position.

Finally, I want to welcome the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) , and I hope that he will enjoy his stay in the House more than all of us here.

I'm pleased, Mr. Speaker, to rise in support of this great budget. I'm also very pleased that two out of three opposition parties support this budget, which certainly speaks well for the budget presented by the minister. It's interesting to reflect for a moment on the statements made by some of the opposition members who have spoken so far. I would begin by referring to the second member for Vancouver East, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) , who stated publicly that there was no value in the proposals to build new community health centres, to build court facilities and highways because he said:

[ Page 338 ]

"These projects are needed anyway." And I would like to ask the member: what does he expect? That we build something that's not needed? I certainly believe that statement clearly indicates the difference between the opposing factions here. Where we would provide needed projects, they would suggest that they would provide instead projects which may not be required.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) expressed concern about the tremendous progress in the north and he said: "There must be something wrong when things are so good." Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud and I'm very pleased at the tremendous progress that's being made in the north country and the excellent reports that I receive from the people in my offices in both Dawson Creek Fort St. John, Fort Nelson and all of those great northern communities that are progressing tremendously under this progressive government.

The member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , in response to the Speech from the Throne, said: "Don't cut taxes; we need instead committees." That, to me, is a typical Liberal approach which certainly I don't support. I think the fact that we have here proposed to cut taxes is again a very positive approach to the problems that have beset all of the provinces in Canada.

The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) said the only worthwhile job-creation programme was the proposal to build airports. I think by now, having heard from him since again and him having heard, no doubt, from people throughout British Columbia, he'll find that the people think differently and are very supportive of the many excellent proposals put forth.

I was impressed tremendously by a poll taken locally by a radio station, which would indicate that we have at least 77 per cent of the people supporting this speech, and possibly as many as 90 per cent.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) said: "The government is involved in some scheme to create jobs, building a pulp mill we do not need." I would remind the member that really that's what its all about. Yes, we are involved in schemes, in projects, to make jobs, to provide jobs and to have ongoing employment in the province of British Columbia.

The people are saying: "This is a government of action, a government with positive programmes to restore sound economy in Canada's most beautiful province, and we love it."

Mr. Speaker, repeatedly - and again today, obviously - a reference is being made to the Ministry of Human Resources. The opposition, for lack of material, obviously, has sought to again abuse the handicapped people of this province by again and again and again giving misinformation to this House on the programmes that are provided for handicapped people in this province. No one will ever say that they're getting too much. For that matter, no one will ever say that they should not be doing better or ought not to be getting more. We're all striving for that end.

But let's compare, just for the record so it is clear right now for everyone, the two f first years of the NDP administration and the two first years of the Social Credit administration to see what benefits were provided for the handicapped people of British Columbia.

From April, 1973, to July, 1975 - almost the total term of the NDP administration - the benefits went from $200 per month to $243.83 per month. There was no shelter overage; the homemaker programme was fully charged; the asset requirements were there; the testing was there; that was the program - . Compare that to the first two years of the Social Credit administration.

The benefits from March, 1976, went from $249 per month to $285 per month on July 1,1978. So I suppose monetarily that o s almost an equivalent. But let's add to this all of the other benefits that have been provided in the handicapped programme - innovative proposals that are of real benefit to these people and for which we are continually receiving letters of appreciation from those who are being assisted.

A shelter overage has been provided of up to $57 per month, something that they certainly talked about but never provided. This government provided that benefit - a shelter overage of up to $57 per month.

Ongoing health benefits for handicapped people, whether they were in receipt of HPIA or whether they accepted some form of employment, full- or part-time, is an innovation which was brought about by this ministry, by this administration.

HON. MR. McGEER : Did the member for Burrard (Ms. Brown) know about that?

HON. MR. FRASER : She lost track of that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : The homemaker programme saw the asset exemption increased and the spouse's income exempted so that now a large number of people will qualify for homemaker assistance at no charge, where previously they didn't have that benefit available to them.

[ Page 339 ]

HON. MR. McGEER : Did the member for Burrard know that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : The long-term care programme, which again is of benefit to handicapped people particularly, is a programme that provides not only a real assist, but the peace of mind of knowing that if and when it is required, it's there to help at a difficult time.

HON. MR. McGEER : Did the member for Burrard know that?

AN HON. MEMBER : No, they forgot.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM . The homeowners grant had a $200 increase for handicapped

people, from $280 per year to $480 per year, as proposed in this budget - for

all handicapped people and war veteran recipients.

Increased transportation allowances. They were doubled from $10 to $20 per month.

HON. MR. McGEER : Did the member for Burrard know that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Obviously the member for Vancouver-Burrard, and all of those members, were not aware or they thought not to bring it forth. They tried to use the limited information they had in order to confuse the issue and to make it appear as if we hadn't accelerated their programme considerably during our first two years in office.

Let's compare the rates from province to province and see how British Columbia stands up to the other provinces in Canada: Newfoundland - the basic maximum benefits, $250 per month; Prince Edward Island, $171 per month; Nova Scotia, $192.60 per month; New Brunswick, $221 per month; Quebec, $235 per month; Ontario, $190 per month; Manitoba, $151.40 per month; the great province of Saskatchewan, $115 per month; Alberta, $193 per month; and British Columbia, at the top, $265 per month, going to $285 per month.

Time and time again, Mr. Speaker, we see all this misinformation - we hear it in the House, we see the letters that have been written by the members to the various newspapers. If they would only, for once, get the facts correct, they would certainly be doing the people of this province a far greater service.

Misinformation is not uncommon. Only a few days ago the member for Revelstoke-Slocan

(Mr. King) stood up in his place in the house and suggested that social workers

in Revelstoke were wilfully and maliciously depriving poor people of needed

assistance in his town of Revelstoke. We immediately set out to check the

facts, to obtain them firsthand from the Revelstoke office. The worker involved

advises us as follows: "A mother and daughter and the daughter's child,

living in one home, were receiving $538 per month from the Ministry of Human

Resources. The father of the child, an 18-year-old, moved in with them. The

mother was upset, apparently, because she said: "The turkey sat around

day after day, and didn't make any attempt to help out or, for that matter,

take available work." She wanted him out of the house. The mother complained

to the social worker, and the social worker agreed to reduce her benefits to

$498 per month. The mother's landlord found out about this and complained

to the hon. member, who then sought to have the benefits reinstated to $538 per

month.

A strange twist to the whole affair is that the mother was, at the same time, offered a job but turned it down, complaining she wasn't feeling well. But the social worker checked with the employer some days later, and the mother had made no attempt to contact the employer to secure the job and the job was still available. That's a completely different story firsthand from the worker in Revelstoke.

Mr. Speaker, there is an arrogance and a stupidity that has been espoused by

the opposition: We know what's best and what's good for you, and we'll

do it all for you -the Macdonald syndrome. Don't be independent or self-reliant.

Don't worry about coping on your own. Don't worry about responsibility

for yourself or your family. If you don't like your job, quit. Get on welfare.

If you don't like your youngster, don't worry; we'll apprehend your

youngster. If you don't like your wife, leave her. If you don't make

it in business, sell out to government." Or, as the member for Prince Rupert

(Mr. Lea) said: "Get a government grant." Don't worry about being

competitive. Don't worry about the service you give. Be dependent on government.

We'll do it all for you.

This budget is aimed at providing a climate, an attitude, an environment which will give small business the opportunity to grow and to flourish and to create jobs - a challenge for people to invest in B.C. and do for them elves.

To the members of the opposition, the words "investor" and "prof it" and "retained earnings" and "dividends" have become bad words. Yet without them, our welfare programmes, whatever they may be, are merely pious hopes that can never be realized or will always be in danger. Firms that don't show prof it don't pay taxes and waste resources,

[ Page 340 ]

both human and material. In order to increase production, be competitive, find productive employment, maintain our living standards and provide welfare for those deserving and in need, we must reduce government interference with industry. We must reduce taxes in order that profits may be ploughed back to sustain growth and provide jobs. And we must cut back on the government bureaucracy to essential positions.

Mr. Speaker, labour must also recognize that we need to improve our image, and that a company beaten to the ground with strikes leads to more unemployment and loss of jobs and pension plans.

Industry also needs to realize - and I think this should be of particular interest to the member for Prince Rupert - that subsidies, assistance, protective tariffs and preferential treatment invite government supervision, interference and control, which again only lead to more bureaucracy, more taxes, loss of markets and loss of jobs, because they can't compete.

This budget, Mr. Speaker, helps small business to help themselves and helps us all make jobs. And who will get these jobs? Who will get these jobs that are proposed through this aggressive programme?

You will see that many jobs are largely for those with the least skills. These are jobs for people who may otherwise need. to turn to welfare - clerks, labourers, warehousing people, sales people - a whole range of opportunities for the people who are presently, perhaps, being assisted through the welfare programme or who would, if these were not available, have to turn to the welfare programme.

Three of the mentioned incentives are particularly important here. The sales tax reduction means the general public will have more money to spend and this will, no doubt, create jobs. Yet the government, in doing this, is not saddling our people with debt and wasted interest payments because we have restored sound fiscal management to the affairs of the people of British Columbia. We are able to balance our budget and yet give this tremendous help. The capital tax cut restores confidence. It allows for investment in British Columbia and for business expansion.

The removal of the sales tax on production machinery says to the local manufacturer: "Welcome back to a beautiful B.C. We need you and we'll help you make it happen." We have a tremendous highway programme, a programme which will provide many unskilled jobs in all parts of the province, and which will open up areas where the resources will be of benefit to all people, everywhere in British Columbia.

We have a record airport programme which will provide many opportunities for people with limited skills. They will have the opportunities of being employed and making this come true, while we are opening up areas of the province and providing an inroad which will make these resources available in any number of ways.

We have a $10 million reforestation programme - an area, Mr. Minister of Forests, where we can provide opportunities through PREP to people who are employable but presently are in the welfare system. We will make these opportunities available to these people with your help, as you promised -opportunities that should be provided them and which I know they will welcome. Not only that, but this particular programme, of course, as all realize, will provide long-lasting benefits to the province, an investment in our future, an investment in the future of the young people and in the f future of the province.

Tourism is at an all-time high and the best is yet to come. We welcome people from all other provinces and from that great nation to the south of us. Their coming will employ thousands as clerks, waitresses, clean-up people and so on. Many people, perhaps again with limited skills, will once more see an opportunity here that wasn't there previously, that didn't make itself available before this.

These programmes all have a very positive effect on the 25,000-odd single employable low-skill people on welfare, people with limited skills. They will certainly be benefiting from these tremendous programmes as proposed in this great budget. They have a hope.

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what is so often said by members of the opposition, these people deserve a break; they deserve to be free; they deserve to get out of that system, if at all possible. Welfare is a great help; but I don't for one moment wish welfare on anyone. It's a last resort. When we can provide alternatives which are better, we should make every effort to do so. We should go out of our way to do so; and that's what this budget is proposing.

I think the greatest compliment that a Minister of Human Resources, regardless of party, can pay his government is to say that it has made all of these additional benefits available - to lead the way in Canada, to have the very best of programmes - and yet, year after year, has a budget which declines because the numbers are fewer. We're finding

[ Page 341 ]

alternatives; that s the type of action we need. I would much prefer that these people are assisted by the Minister of Economic Development, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Forests, and the Minister of Travel Industry, providing job opportunities, than I stand there with the welfare cheque. I think they would prefer it; we would prefer it; all would prefer it. And that's the very thing we're doing in British Columbia. That's why we're able to make great progress without huge increases in welfare budgets.

I think also, Mr. Speaker, if we look at these programmes again, we'll find that each of these programmes can give a tremendous training opportunity. We can utilize these programme s - the forestry programme, for example - to, in effect, give them a training which will lead to further employment within that industry - training opportunities which will lead to permanent employment. No FLIP, no LIP, no LEAP, no creep, none of that. All of these are sort of prime-limited; they are there f or a time, and then they are dumped on the province. No, these are solid opportunities which will benefit the province for many, many years to come.

But, Mr. Speaker, we're not out of trouble; and I certainly will be providing more information to the House on a problem which I know will concern us all. We're great and we're appreciative of the tremendous progress that is being made in British Columbia. We're proud of this fact; but this message is getting through also to other provinces in Canada. And, while we're one great nation and wish the best for all people everywhere, it is very difficult for our offices to cope with the in-migration from other provinces that is taking place now.

It is a fact that, when Ontario was able to offer job opportunities over a good many years, when perhaps they ranked near the top in that area, people moved from surrounding provinces - the Maritime and Quebec particularly - for either part-time of full-time employment in the Lakehead area. Now these people are moving to British Columbia in large numbers because Ontario, unfortunately, is not able to provide that opportunity.

We are receiving tremendously large numbers making application for assistance in one way or another at the various offices, especially those in Dawson Creek, Fort St. John, Chetwynd and Revelstoke - places near the boundaries, or places where job opportunities may be in the offing very, very quickly. And we can, through our various programmes reduce the unemployment rate; but if the influx from other provinces is such, and if these people come with not too many resources and are dependent on our programmes, then there is a burden, there is a difficulty which we may find it difficult to cope with.

However, we will do our very best; we will do our utmost. And I will provide f figures to the House as quickly as they become available, since we're presently having a survey in all offices throughout the province.

We're also now experiencing a real problem with the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I receive letters daily, I receive calls - I know all hon. members do - from people who are eligible for unemployment insurance, who make application, and who are simply being referred to the welfare office because, somehow, our unemployment insurance offices in British Columbia are not competent, are unable to deal with those applicants in a reasonable time. People are having to wait eight weeks or three months for their benefits, even though they have faithfully paid their dues and are entitled to their benefits.

They are now being continually referred to the Human Resources offices and I think that is criminal, for a number of reasons.

They are taking from a provincial resource a benefit which should be provided through a federal programme. They are also introducing people to welfare when it isn't necessary. We are attempting to cope with this. A solution must be found; but the solution lies in those offices with those administrators. They can make it happen - they even have it within their means to provide temporary assistance -but they have failed or refused to do so. We will continue to fight that problem, and we will make the federal government aware, again and again.

This budget, Mr. Speaker, also points out the other wonderful programmes that have been brought about by this progressive government in the last several years. Our long-term care programme should be the pride and joy of every member in this House, because there is none like it anywhere in North America, possibly none like it anywhere in the world. This programme provides protection and peace of mind to our elderly people, to our handicapped people, to any British Columbian for that matter.

It's a tremendous programme; and we are receiving many good reports from people everywhere about the effects and about the benefits, particularly from families that long picked up the tab for their father, or their mother, who was forced to stay in a private hospital where the bills ran anywhere from $800 to $1,000 per month. This long-term care programme is the greatest; and I hope that all members, on whichever side of the House, will build it up, will speak it up and will mention

[ Page 342 ]

it with pride.

Within all the ministries, there has been a real effort over the last year, or last several years, to provide a protection for people which allows them to help themselves, which helps them remain independent. In the past it was very common to apprehend a child because there was a problem, to break up the family unit; or there was instant referral to a private hospital or an extended-care facility for those people who required a higher level of service than what might normally be provided in a household or in a home. That was the tendency.

Somehow, too many of us - and I include all members everywhere, particularly all members of municipal and regional governments - had a tendency to say: "Hey, our community needs a tall, concrete, high-rise building so that, when our residents reach the age of 65, we can somehow ship them off and put them in that high-rise building." The measure of progress was the height of the building and the number of these concrete structures.

This government has said: "Hey, there's a better way." People, because they reach the age 65, don't want to be suddenly placed in a cubicle in a tall concrete structure. They would much prefer to remain in their familiar home surroundings - regardless of how humble those might be - remain at home where they have their pets, their neighbours, their friends, a little kitchen garden and some flowers or rosebushes that they have looked at for many years. Why take all of this away? The long-term care programme and the most innovative homemaker programme anywhere available in Canada has made this possible.

(Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Furthermore, our wonder of Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) , probably the greatest this province has ever seen, has made available SAFER. A great many innovations have come from that ministry. I love going back to MY municipality, as I do, and visiting other municipalities, and meeting municipal people whom I have known for many years, and finding the enormous response to the innovative, forward-looking programmes that have come from that ministry.

SAFER is one of those programmes. SAFER says: "Hey, if you're living in your home and suddenly it becomes too burdensome, let's not take you out of that home and ship you of f to that concrete structure. Let's instead attempt to provide some assistance monetarily so you might remain in that home surrounding." It has been made possible, Mr. Minister, thanks to you and your progressive policies and the policies of this government. SAFER is a great programme.

Similarly, within the ministry of Human Resources we've said there's a whole group of people who have long had to reside in various institutions. You know, when I became Minister of Human Resources, I found, naturally, that Woodlands School was one of MY responsibilities. Only a month after taking office, I visited Woodlands School. I found, despite what has been said by some opposition members, that this building had received little attention. The beds were six to eight inches apart, little steel cots; the hallways had maybe received a coat of paint, but the play rooms were small, the facilities were limited.

If that situation had existed in any normal hospital providing for any of us here, we would have been screaming all the way from here to Come-by-Chance, Newfoundland. We would not have stood for it. We would have seen protests.

This ministry immediately set out to say: "Hey, those people also deserve a break." They deserve some of the opportunities provided us. They must share in the resources and wealth that we're creating in this province. Let's give them a chance to live in the community as near a normal a life as possible. Let's make some changes to allow those that can provide for them elves with our assistance that opportunity. Project LIFE will do that very thing. We are providing the resources through project LIFE to make this happen, to make it possible. Give us some time and the progress will be seen.

I know that all members here will speak well of it. Project LIFE holds a tremendous future for people who deserve our every attention.

The guild, of course, also, is a new innovation, and once more will bring about a whole new approach, a whole new strengthening attitude within all of those facilities that provide for our handicapped, who are presently given the help of training or learning or participating through the achievement centres. The achievement centre programme has been strengthened but will be strengthened far more still, and the guild project is making it happen better still.

Mr. Speaker, this is a great province with great opportunities, with great promise. There is none better. All of us should be very proud of it and we should be speaking out very positively about the tremendous opportunities that exist in every part of British Columbia. British Columbians are a proud people who are

[ Page 343 ]

not afraid to pioneer, not afraid to pick up the shovel and pitch in, not afraid to be a part of building this to be a greater province still. This government will provide that opportunity to individuals, to business, to everyone who wishes to participate. People everywhere will benefit from it. This government, through a very progressive budget, is making it happen like it's never happened before.

MR. LEA : Mr. Speaker, during the last speaker's comments, he mentioned that the SAFER programme brought in by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is a good programme. It is and we voted f or it. This budget is lousy and we're voting against it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh!

MR. LEA : There is not one bit of evidence out of this budget that this government is taking any steps whatsoever to create long-term jobs in this province. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the mere fact that they had to put a make-work program in is a living testimony to their lack of direction in creating long-term jobs in this province.

Two years of failure brought around by a political party that couldn't resist the urge to try and get political revenge on the people of this province, and brought in a budget in 1976 that drove this province into the ground and onto its knees economically. That's what it did, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Economic Development has created not one single job through a programme in his department - not one single job. If there is, he can name it in the budget, except possibly he had something to do with the hiring of Robbie Sherrell of ICBC. Maybe through his department they subsidized the man's trip over from England. Maybe that's the only part he had to do with it.

MR. MACDONALD : Name one job.

MR. LEA : Mr. Speaker, it was rather interesting to note that the Minister of Human Resources spent 10 minutes on his department and 30 minutes talking about dividends, profits and business. He has finally come to realize that there isn't a lot to brag about in that department. The only part he can brag about was a programme brought in by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) .

The Minister of Human Resources talked about what can be done, what should be done, but hasn't mentioned a darn thing that they have done. What have they done? In 1976, Mr. Speaker, they raised sales tax two points. What else did they do? They raised personal income tax. They raised the rate for going into a hospital in this province. They raised the rate for paying for medical premiums in this province. Ferry rates, Hydro rates, on and on and on and on, until they took $1,200 a year out of the pockets of the average family in this province.

Today they are offering back, out of that $1,200 a year, $125 for the year. And guess what? The federal government forced them into it and is paying for half of it.

What is their record since they have come to government in creating jobs? In the Pacific northwestern part of this province there is only one hope for economic development in the foreseeable future, and that's for a rail spurline from Terrace to meet up with the Dease Lake extension at or near Groundhog, a railroad to resources that will take workers in there and bring products out to a pulp mill - Eurocan at Kitimat - wood products to the pulp mill in Prince Rupert and supply port facilities in the city of Prince Rupert. If that spurline does not go ahead there will be no economic development in one of the most economically depressed regions in this province.

What did they promise to do? They promised to do a lot when they were in opposition. They promised to be honest.

MR. COCKE : Well, there's the first broken promise!

MR. LEA : They promised that they would be a government of no patronage. They promised that

[ Page 344 ]

there would be no overruns. As a matter of fact, I have a list of some of the promises of the Social Credit Party when they were running for office and, you know, it's quite a long list. That's one sheet, that's two sheets, and part of a third sheet.

How many promises have they met? They promised not to raise taxes; they've raised taxes. Let's see what they promised. They promised - they never explained how they were going to do this, except that they were going to be in existence - to restore confidence in our province to get B.C. moving again. Have they achieved that promise? Have they achieved it? Mr. Speaker, the mere fact that they have to spend millions of dollars in a make-work programme is living proof that they have not met that promise.

Where are the jobs? More people unemployed in this province than in the great Depression, and they say: Well, that's not bad, because there are a lot of people working. There are more people working now than there were during the Depression.

You know, they are a government of statistics. Don't they understand that whether there are more people working in this province today or whether there aren't isn't the question? The question is that there are 120,000 people, Mr. Speaker, who are not working and have no income in this province. Now aside from the fact that there has to be human misery tied into unemployment, there has to be a feeling that they are not contributing, and I believe, as opposed to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) , that people, with the exception of a small minority - a very small minority - do want to contribute to this society, do want to work, and do want those things that work brings.

MR. KEMPF . When are you going to start contributing?

MR. LEA : They want to be able to own their own homes. They want to have a nutritious diet. They want to be able - yes - to take a holiday, the same as the Premier, although they'd probably prefer to take it in Canada.

Interjection.

MR. LEA : Mr. Speaker, this tie is probably the most tasteful tie in the House: you have to admit that. And you know, Mr. Speaker, from that member who probably should take a course in colour co-ordination, 1 find it rather distressing.

But You know, that's the extent of it. You talk about the misery of being unemployed; you talk about the failure of this government to create any long-term employment opportunities, and they say: "Who painted your tie?" Mr. Speaker, I understand it. What other retort could they have?

What else do they promise? They promise to create more jobs in mining by ending punitive legislation. Well, the legislation that they call punitive has been removed, and there are more people unemployed in the mining industry today than there have been for the last five years. What has this government done to help the miners and the people in the mining industry in this province? They've done absolutely nothing, except present retroactive tax legislation. That's the only thing they've done. The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

Chabot) hangs his head in shame because he has the worst record of any mining minister in this province for the last 20 years - the worst record. And it's no surprise, because he has the worst record of any Labour minister in this province for the last 100 years. He was the only Labour minister who had to have an armed escort so the workers wouldn't kill him. An armed escort he had when he was Minister of Labour, and if his record continues in mining, he's going to need another armed escort. Create more jobs -another promise by the Social Credit. Create more jobs in secondary industry by removing roadblocks....

, The comment by the paper that put this out says: "This promise is unclear because it fails to define roadblocks. Impossible to evaluate." I call on this government, before the end of this budget speech, to talk about one roadblock that they've taken out to create more jobs in secondary industry. They have not even been successful; they have been an absolute failure because they have put more roadblocks in the way.

Let's get back to 1976 again...

MR. COCKE : They got B.C. moving backwards.

MR. LEA : ... and the budget they brought in in 1976 because they wanted revenge - not on this political party, but on those people in this province who exercised their democratic right to vote for a party of their choice. That government over there and the party they represent does not believe that anybody should have that democratic choice to vote for a party of their choice. That's why they joined together. That's why, people on this side of the House who sat in the Liberal Party.... Even the ex-leader of the Liberal Party walked across the floor to join people he criticized for years as being nincompoops, know-nothings,

[ Page 345 ]

and.... what else? He called them.... Well, let's see what he called them. In the last speech that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) made when he was on this side of the House as a Liberal, in the last budget brought down by the W.A.C. Bennett government, what did he say? What has he joined? And how he's changed, Mr. Speaker; how he's changed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. members, if you can spare the Chair a moment, actually only one member under our standing orders is allowed to be speaking at one time. If the members of the back bench and members of your own party would be in order, we could hear the member for Prince Rupert. Please continue.

MR. LEA : Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that everyone has seen the list of patronage appointments by this new Social Credit government. Everybody has seen the list. It's been published quite often. Here is what the member for Vancouver-Point Grey, the now Minister of Education, had to say about patronage and the Social Credit. It's short. He said:

"I'd like to say no one in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, has ever understood patronage like Social Credit. No one has ever drawn the kind of campaign funds Social Credit has drawn. No one has put the squeeze on industry, including the liquor companies, like Social Credit has done. Patronage? They make every other government that's ever sat in British Columbia look like children in short pants. That's the only thing they do understand. That's the one thing they do well. Run a government? No. Patronage? Yes."

The Minister of Education, when he was a Liberal. And you know something, Mr. Speaker? I wonder what he'd say today when the government he belongs to has a longer list of patronage than the Social Credit government under W.A.C. Bennett ever had. he has the gall, Mr. Speaker, to sit over there on that government bench and be proud of it.

What else did that member say when he was on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker? When that member was on this side of the House, he thought the BGR was a good thing. He thought that the BCR should be pushed through to the Yukon border for social and economic development for this province. We on this side of the House still believe that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE : Right on!

MR. LEA : We still believe the things that we hold in principle. He has now joined a government where there's a different principle in effect. It makes no difference to the Liberals because they can adapt themselves to any principle at any time. That's what Liberalism is all about. Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are the prostitutes of Canadian politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh

MR. LEA : That's what they are. The Liberals are the prostitutes of Canadian politics. They'll take on any principle at any time for the best results for them.-elves. That's what they are. Mr. Speaker, we have a whole list of them sitting on that side of the floor to prove what I've just said. When you read back their words, they know exactly what I say and why I say it.

What about ferry service, Mr. Speaker? The other day, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Barrett) pleaded with that government to put our shipyards back to work. What did the Minister of Education have to say about building ships in British Columbia when he was a Liberal? He thought it should be done. Oh, he did. He said: "Well, here are some of the tasks for the new Minister of Transport." This is the present Minister of Education when he was a Liberal. I don't think he was ever a Conservative; at least we didn't know about it. But we know now.

First, he said: "This new Minister of Transport must commission a new ferry to be built in our B.C. shipyards. I would have hoped for a little applause from the socialist benches over there, " he said. He's getting the applause now, and what's he doing? He's over there. He's joined the government that's killed the shipyard business in this province and put literally hundreds of people out of work.

Mr. Speaker, he was a little specific. He said:

" Because what this would be, Mr. Speaker, is a companion" - he's talking about this new ship that he wants built -"to the Queen of Prince Rupert. We're going to call it the Queen of the Coast, if the Liberals form the government. It's objectives will be different from the Queen of Prince Rupert, because what I envision is not an express ferry, but one that will stop at the Queen Charlotte Islands, at Kitimat, at Bella Coola, at Bella Bella, at Ocean Falls. This new ferry will take both freight and cars. The objective will be to tie together all our coastal communities." I thoroughly agree with the ex-Liberal. That's exactly what should be done.

[ Page 346 ]

Mr. Speaker, how can a member stand on this side of the House and fight for those things that he said at the time he believed in, and walk to that side of the House, join the government and then shut up? And he asks us on this side of the House, along with the rest of the people of British Columbia, to believe that the budget brought in by his government is an honourable one.

What about the overruns, Mr. Speaker?

MR. BARRETT : Oh, don't mention those!

MR. LEA : What about those overruns that they said were so terrible? The Minister of Finance, when it was drawn to his attention that maybe they were going to have a few overruns this year, said: "But our overruns are different." They're bigger; that's the only difference. And you know what he said? He said: "Our overruns are different because we have the cash in the bank to cover them." Well, Mr. Speaker, so did we.

AN HON. MEMBER : It's right there in public accounts.

MR. LEA : Now let's take a look at the overruns of this government. And it's a long list too: as long as their promises. Their list of promises is exactly the same length as their list of overruns. Where did their government overruns go?

Ten million dollars to the provincial transit fund, an overrun; $970,000 to the public service benefits trust; $7.4 million to forestry; $15.2 million to the transit fund; $9 million restructuring Nanaimo and Prince George; $5.4 million - this is rather nice - for votes 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21 and 27; $3.8 million to post-secondary education; $35 million to medical services and hospital insurance; $1 million finance and forestry; $70,000 to environment and steam gauging; $6 million to Human Resources; $2.8 million to the Provincial Secretary; $595,000 to Highways; $7.5 million to operating grants to universities; $2.5 million to the Pacific North Coast Native Co-op; $300,000 in night school grants; $2 million for provincial buildings; $2 million for emergency health; $4 million for hospital insurance service; $32.6 million for B.C.

Hydro.

MR. BARRETT : How much for hypocrisy?

MR. LEA :* Well, it's incalculable.

There was an overrun of $250,000 for family court; $900,000 for Travel Industry,

and on this one I'd like to stop for a moment and say that I prophesy that

it will be over $3 million before they are through.

MS. BROWN : Smile!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS : "Yankee go home!" Shame on you.

MR. LEA : So that's the list. But, Mr. Speaker, that was only the old list; I have a new one. They have added to it: $3,860, 000 to the Attorney-General's department - to bolster his ego - it's a little short; $152,000 for Education; a further $6009000 to the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) - I better bring down my estimate to $2.4 million yet to come from her department; $4.5 million education money to BCBC.

MR. BARRETT : What's that for?

MR. LEA : Education money to BCBC to acquire land; $14,000 to Consumer and Corporate Affairs - that's to pay back PWA, probably; $345,000 to Education, administration and support service - again, to bolster an ego; $75,000 to Environment for the university golf course; $12,371, 508 to the minister's office in Finance. That's an interesting one, Mr. Speaker: $12,371, 508 to Evan.

MR. BARRETT : What for?

MR. LEA : Support services. He needs it; we'll go along with that. He needs that one. Sixteen million dollars, Highways and Public Works - a further one. Odd, isn't it, Mr. Speaker? Special warrants all through the years and when it comes to the budget for next year, the minister's budget has been cut. He has not said a word about that. He's gone all around the province promising big highway projects but he's got no cash to do it. Every one of those backbenchers for the rural areas who stand up in the House thanking the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) for all that he's doing in the province, do we cut his budget, or is it going to be more overruns next year?

MR. BARRETT : Where's he doing it?

MR. LEA : More overruns next year? You're darn tootin': $4.3 million for Human Resources. Oh, look at this! Another special warrant last year for Highways: $580,000. Let's add those two up, shall we? - $595,000 for Highways on this sheet and $16 million for Highways and Public Works there, and a further $580,000 for Highways on March 30 for general

[ Page

347 ]

administration.

MS. BROWN : What's the total?

MR. LEA : The total? It's up in the millions. It's well over double that $100 million.

MR. KING : Oh, no!

MR. LEA : Oh, yes, well over double that $100 million sum. They used to go around this province talking about overruns, saying: "These kinds of overrun are going to bring this province into chaos; let us into govern~ ment and we'll bring fiscal responsibility to government. And they dutifully tap their desk like good little boys and say: "But our overruns are different than yours - they're bigger.'*

MR. BARRETT : I'm sure the Vancouver Sun criticized them in an editorial - did it?

MR. LEA : Let's talk about newspapers for just a minute. I picked up the Vancouver Province this morning, and I read pretty good coverage about the budget speech given the day before the day before. I thought: I'll just see what they have to say about the Liberal leader's (Mr. Gibson'

s) speech in the House; I'll just see what they have to say about the member from Nanaimo's (Mr. Stupich'

s) speech in the House. You know what the Province newspaper said, Mr. Speaker? Absolutely nothing. As a matter of fact, the only mention of the budget was the Premier's statement that it was not an election budget.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Vancouver Province has finally shown its hand at last; and I'm not talking about political partisanship. I'm talking about a newspaper that does not understand what freedom of the press means. Freedom of the press does not mean that they have the absolute authority to print or not print what they want. Freedom of the press means that they will be an objective press, and they will give people facts and let people make up their minds by those facts.

I believe that the people in this province would like to have known by reading

their morning newspaper if they subscribe to the Vancouver Province what the

official critic for the official opposition said about that budget. Whether

they agreed with what he said or whether they didn't agree, they had a right

to hear what that member said. They had a right to know what the Liberal leader

said about that budget; and they are not going to get it from the Vancouver

Province. The Vancouver Province has proved that it is yellow journalism in

the extreme.

HON. MR. CHABOT : You're looking f or your publicity now.

MR. LEA : I don't expect they'll print a word, Mr. Member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. member, please address the Chair.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Will the House please come to order?

MR. LEA : Mr. Speaker, did you hear the remark from down here? Because I've said what I feel....

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, please. Ron. members, the banter across the floor of the House is beginning to get a little bit out of hand. Would the members please allow the member for Prince Rupert to continue uninterrupted?

MR. LEA : Mr. Speaker, I said what I feel about a newspaper which I do not feel has met its obligations to the citizens of this province. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) said: "You've just ended your political career." He is implying that freedom of speech in this province will end a political career. That's what he's suggesting.

Mr. Speaker, the budget that this government has brought in is, in my opinion, as hypocritical as the promises that they made in 1975. They have not kept their promises, Mr. Speaker. They have broken their promises; and this budget will in the long run break this province.

There is not one positive note in this budget for my area. This government signed an agreement with Ottawa that they would subsidize freight for the coast. When they took $8 million from the federal government, part of that agreement was - and is - that they would subsidize the movement of freight. They are not meeting that obligation; and Canada should take that money back.

MR. LOCKSTEAD : That's a breach of contract.

MR. LEA : They should take that money back until that government meets its contractual obligation with the country, with Canada. They are not meeting it. As a matter of fact, the Premier said in a meeting that he didn't believe - even after the agreement was signed - that this government should or would

[ Page 348 ]

subsidize freight. They have broken their contract with Canada, and they've made people on the coast, in those small coastal communities, suffer high cost of freight -putting up their cost of living, when already, in 1976, the cost of living had soared because of punitive taxation by a government seeking revenge against the voters of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I think the most deplorable thing of all is that there are members in that government who at one time stood on this side of the House and said that they stood for something. They said they stood for equality, both social and economic; and now, on that side of the House, they stand for none of those things. They've joined a party that doesn't keep campaign promises - say anything, do anything to get in power; and once there, resort to the same method to keep themselves there that they used to gain power.

For four hours on budget day, the people of this province were led to believe by the Minister of Finance that this government, through the people's money, was going to drop sales tax two points all on their own. Why would the Finance minister not mention the deal with Ottawa even on budget day in this House? Because he knew that they were going to have a four-hour to five-hour run of claiming all the credit for themselves. That's what they knew.

When did they make that deal with Ottawa? When could they have brought in that reduction in sales tax and picked up some money from Ottawa? Has this whole budget been a hoax? Is the whole thing a hoax? In the throne speech they say they're going to put $20 million into BCDC. The budget says $10 million. In one week, they've already broken another promise. Can the people in this province rely on a government that breaks promise after promise after promise? Can the people in this province rely on a government that, once getting into office, goes mad with the public purse and has overrun, overrun, overrun? No.

Balanced budgets be damned. They've tried to balance the books at the expense of the economy; that's what they have done. They have succeeded. Yes, they've balanced the books. They sold off ferries for $48 million to balance the books. They sold out the Pacific Northwest part of this province, and economic development in terms of transportation. They borrowed $81 million from the federal government to balance the books. Take those away, Mr. Speaker, and they would not have balanced the books. They would not have even done that.

They were in a bind. Sell out the capital resources in this province to balance the books. If you could liken that to an ordinary family, it would be like saying: "We have no groceries for next month. Should we borrow $100 from the bank to get us through or should we sell the garage?"

MS. BROWN : Sell the house.

MR. LEA : "Should we sell the house?" That's what they are doing. They are selling out the capital assets of this province to balance the books. In the long term, Mr. Speaker, who is going to suffer from that? Because you can only sell them once. What do we do after they have had their bargain basement sale? What do we do for new stock? Where do we get our new inventory so that this province can move ahead the way it should?

We have to keep our resources at home for our own use. That's what we have to do. Once we have had the use of those resources, then yes, through fair trade and fair prices for those resources, we should share them with the rest of the world. But by God, we should get fair return for good resources, and not give them away.

Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, selling the ferries for $48 million and then leasing them? Would you sell your house at bargain basement prices and then lease it back and over a period of time, pay the person you sold it to more money than you got? Does it make sense? It makes no sense whatsoever. That government over there is so desperate to stay in power that they are selling the very resources of British Columbia right out from under the people's feet. That's what they are doing.

They are creating no jobs. There are 120,000 people out of work and they sit over there on their fat laurels saying: "What good boys and girls we are. We balanced the books and we sold out the economy and we're hoping that it will keep us in political power for another term of office." That's what they are hoping. They're hoping that people in this province are stupid. I'm telling you that they are not, because if there's one thing that has happened in the last few years in this province, there has been a rise in political awareness like no other province has ever seen. And the people in this province know what they are up to.

I had a phone call the other night from a businessman, the night of the budget. He said: "What in the heck are they doing? All afternoon I thought they reduced the sales tax; I f find out tonight they didn't have a darn thing to do with it. I heard that they were putting $20 million into the B.C. Development Corporation to lend to small business. I look at the budget and I find out

[ Page 349 ]

it's only $10 million. What are they doing?"

We have a Minister of Human Resources who could only defend other ministers' programmes because there is nothing defensible in his own. We have a Minister of Finance, I'm sure, Mr. Speaker.... I have to give him full marks for his reading ability because I'm sure it's the first time he had seen the budget speech. Everybody knows he's not the Minister of Finance. Everybody in this province knows that. You know, the Minister of Education's ego would like me to say that it is him. But I'm not going to. I believe that the ghost Minister of Finance is none other than the Minister of Forests. (Laughter.) Mr. Speaker, it wouldn't surprise me, looking at the budget, if that were true.

Mr. Speaker, this is a political paper designed to try and gather in votes that they know they've lost, but it is not a blueprint for economic prosperity. It is a blueprint for a government that has had not one ounce of direction or incentive to create an economy that will be buoyant and provide jobs in this province for everyone. They have failed. The highest rate of unemployment - 120,000 - since the Depression, and they want people to pound them on the back and call them good guys for bringing in a good budget. Mr. Speaker, it must have been brought up and delivered by the Minister of Forests. It's that bad.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education knows darn well that it's a lousy budget. The Minister of Economic Development knows darn well it's a lousy budget. The Minister of Forests, I believe, thinks it's a good one. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, it is a lousy budget. It is a budget that does nothing for British Columbia but balance the books at the expense of the economy, and in the long run it will cost us more money than this budget wants to in total.

MR. LOEWEN : It's a pleasure to rise in this debate. Before the taxi driver member leaves, I'd like to assure him that I really do hope that he has not committed political suicide by his attack on the press. I truly hope that he does not even have a yellow stripe down his back, because, fellow members, I always enjoy his very invigorating speeches in this House. Therefore, Mr. Member, we know, even though he suffers somewhat from verbal diarrhoea, that we do wish him the best and do trust that his last speech has not caused him to commit political suicide.

MR. BARRETT : It's never been fatal.

MR. LOEWEN : Mr. Member and Mr. Speaker, I'd like to assure the other members of the House that I will join the member who usually sits -or at least sometimes sits - on my immediate right, the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) . I will also join the member who sits on his right, the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , and I'm sure that the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) also will vote in support of this budget...

MR. LOCKSTEAD : Don't bet on it.

MR. LOEWEN : ... after all the assistance we are giving to him in getting rid of some of his vile habits.

MR. LOCKSTEAD : No ferries, no transportation, no jobs.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, please. The member for Mackenzie has already had an opportunity to speak in this debate. Perhaps you would allow the member for Burnaby-Edmonds to use his time.

MR. LOEWEN : Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the members of this House that I will very enthusiastically support this budget.

This budget is particularly exciting because of its contrast to the federal budget which has just come down. The feds at best are in a holding position today. Mr. Speaker, because of the mismanagement and the misguided intellectualism on the federal level over the past 10 or 15 years, they can come up with no better a budget than that of a holding position.

However, here in British Columbia a budget has come down, because of the great management of the past two years, with real potential growth for the people of British Columbia.

I was somewhat [illegible] by the federal Finance minister when he spoke of the unanimity of the provinces. He spoke about Alberta, not minding the fact that they're not participating in the sales tax cut. He also spoke about the wealthy provinces not minding kicking in an extra share. In this day when the very unity of our country is at stake, somewhat tongue in cheek, I can't help but appreciate this token unanimity.

Mr. Speaker, this is a budget for these times, for the people of British Columbia.

Before I go on to the rest of my speech, I would like to ask the members of this House to join me in congratulations to two very worthy citizens of Burnaby-Edmonds - two outstanding citizens.

Firstly, there is a pioneer in Burnaby. I

[ Page 350 ]

believe she is the only one in Canada, in fact, who has reached the ripe age of 108 years old. This person, in fact, is a most outstanding person for many reasons.

Here's just a little background. Mrs. Selina Miles was born in England in 1870 and came to Canada in 1898. She farmed in Saskatchewan at Indian Read for 80 years. She had 13 children, 11 of whom she raised on her own, as her husband died in 1918. She is in good health but has been blind for the past four years. She kept her own home until she was 100 years old.

I had tea with her last year and I asked her whether she believed in women's liberation. And this lady with a tremendous sense of humour said, "Of course I do. What else would I believe?"

I just checked on her today. A note was sent to me by her daughter, as she is in the Burnaby extended care hospital. She is in good health. She sang a song on Sunday and will go for a walk with her daughter today. I would like to ask the members to join me in extending my congratulations to her.

Secondly, I would like to remind the members that our greatest resource in Burnaby-Edmonds are the people. I almost fell off my chair when I got this letter. It so happens that this individual is somebody I play racquet ball with whenever I'm not in Victoria. I never realized who this person really was, I suppose'. I would just like to read you parts of this letter.

"I was prompted, after a discussion, to write to get recognition for a man who has given most generously of his time and effort in the field of women's softball. He is acknowledged with great esteem in the international levels of the game, and very rightly so, for he has put together an amazing string of successes in his 20 years of coaching the game. A few of the foreign countries that he is highly regarded in as a superior softball coach and manager are: United States, New Zealand, Australia, Japan and the Philippines. "The following are a list of some of his successes.

In the province of British Columbia, they won the championship in '69, '71, '72, '73, '74, '75, '76 and '77. They were the all-Canadian national champions in '72, '73, '74, '76 and '77. He was the coach of the Canadian team at the world championship at Stratford, Connecticut in '74. He was the coach of the Canada representative for the trans-Pacific trophy in '74 in Australia. He was the coach of the Canada representative team for the trans- Pacific trophy in '76 in New Zealand and Australia. He was the coach of the Canada representative team which toured the Philippines and Japan in "77.

He was nominated as Canada coach of the year in '77. He is also coach of the Canada senior women's team in the world championships this summer in Japan. They have a very good chance of winning the world championship. Their team is also in the northwest international league, which comprises of teams from northern California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia and won the champion-ships in '74, '75, '76 and '77. 1 cannot think of a person more deserving of winning some special award."

The letter-writer suggests that it be the Queen's commemorative Honour of the Canadian Silver Jubilee. Now it might be a little late for that, but I would hope that we could find some special recognition for this gentleman. I would ask the members to join me in expressing congratulations to Charles Adrian Levine.

Mr. Speaker, it happens that April 10 to April 16 is Canadian Wildlife Week. The people of British Columbia are outstanding in their concern for the environment and for their enjoyment of hunting, fishing, camping and hiking. This government has a particular concern and interest in this, and I would like to ask the members of this House also to join me.

I would like to read several paragraphs:

"Whereas in British Columbia school children in particular will be made aware of the importance of wildlife and the need for protection through an informational campaign conducted by the Canadian Wildlife Federation and its provincial body, the B.C. Wildlife Federation;

"And

whereas it is important that recognition be given and the people of British Columbia for their interest and support in the protection of wildlife and the maintenance of their outdoor heritage;

"Now know ye that we do by these presents proclaim and declare that the week of April 10-16,1978, be designated as Wildlife Week in the province of British Columbia."

Mr. Speaker, back to the budget - the budget of the people, the people of British Columbia. When things get tough, the tough get going. Sone of us realize that you can compile the best of hockey players, that you can compile

[ Page 351 ]

the best of football players, but after you have done that, unless you have the best of leadership, you can still not come up with a winning combination.

Mr. Speaker, this province has had this type of leadership in the past few years. I am very proud of the leadership that our Premier has given this province during the past few years. I'm extremely proud of the leadership that the cabinet has given British Columbia in the past few years. Together today we have a team that's moving. The people of British Columbia have bit the bullet; they have risen to the challenge. British Columbia today is a bright spot in Canada. Inflation is still public enemy No. 1; inflation is still the No. 1 enemy of the people. Inflation is still the enemy of our country.

Inflation is still the enemy of our society, the very social fabric of our society. Inflation is still the enemy of our political system. Inflation is still the enemy of our freedom as we know it today. It is your and my No. 1 enemy.

The only people - there are only a few people - that benefit from the chaos that originates out of the mismanagement that creates the inflation that we have in our society today. And, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to you that there are only a few people, and those few people sit on my right today. They are the only beneficiaries of chaos in our society.

The socialists have one game plan and their game plan can only be realized when in our society we have disorganization, lack of purpose, chaos at the economic and political level. Only as a result of chaos and confusion will the public vote for the type of centralization, the type of total planning that they represent. Only socialists believe in getting for free what some of us worked very hard for. Only socialists politically exploit the poor, the handicapped and the disadvantaged by riding on their backs to personal and political prestige. And after they get elected, they double their wages. They're very swift, and very clever.

Even though, Mr. Speaker, we are the bright spot in Canada today, Canada does have some problems, and there are some simple solutions. However, the academic, professional politicians who have naively led us to believe in simplistic slogans such as "The Just Society, " equal distribution of wealth, zero population growth, urban blight, greenbelts, "This Land is Strong, " "free enterprise isn't free, " planned economy - these so-called professional, intellectual, academic politicians have been exposed. The intellectualism that some of them have masqueraded under in fact has been shown to actually be ignorance.

Mr. Speaker, there are some solutions and I'd like to speak to them as the budget has spoken to them.

First ', of all, there's increased productivity. There's no real secret to increased productivity. It really is as simple as running a small business. Firstly, we must expand on our strength; it would be naive to try to expand on our weaknesses or that 5 per cent growth which really does not amount to that much. We must expand on our strength. It is naive for politicians to suggest: "Keep it in the ground; keep our natural resources for future generations." They've been given to us f or us to use and manage well - manage well for ourselves and manage well for future generations. That includes our mining, our forest products and our fishing.

Secondly, I would like to commend the labour leaders for being understanding. But somehow, imagine, let your minds go for just a moment if you can stand it, if we could settle, just settle for slightly less of the economic pie, slightly less in wages. Imagine what we could do. All that you people talk about in respect to secondary industry, in respect to developing our natural resources, refining our natural resources - all those things would happen if we settled for slightly less individually in respect to wages. And very quickly the economic centre of Canada would not be in the east; it would move to British Columbia.

Thirdly, instead of the golden triangle in the east, very quickly British Columbia. here in the lower mainland, would become the golden triangle of Canada.

We must also return to the work ethic, which made Canada strong. Instead of struggling for less hours in a week, let's rather accentuate production. Let's respect competitiveness. Let's respect the person who says: "I like to work." Only with increased productivity have we gained what we have in our society today; and only with increased productivity can our future generations enjoy what we have today.

Mr. Speaker, we all identify with that which has been laid out in the budget speech in respect to the cutting of red tape. Some of us have been wallowing under red tape now for many years, and I respect my government's attention and direction in this regard.

I also appreciate that this budget is very definitely tied to the gross national product. I would only hope and pray that on the federal level - once we get the federal election out of the way - we will have the sameness of leadership, and of decision-making and of government. The Canadian people are fed up

[ Page 352 ]

with paying through the nose for bureaucrats who simply restrict their freedom and who simply restrict their productivity.

We must also, again, respect true individual creativity. Our opposition on this side believes that success comes somehow through organization and centralization. Mr. Speaker, our country became great as a result of individual creativity; we must respect individual creativity. We have moved so far down the counter-productive road during the past 10 to 15 years of academic-type leadership that we take for granted a centralization which is strangling us today. We must release the entrepreneurial, creative energy that built this country.

We must remove f rom the hands of the centralists, the professional politicians and the professional planners the destiny of our country, and of the people of British Columbia.

We must at least change our attitude from that of counter-productive negative idealism to one of positive appreciation, encouragement and assistance - in every way possible - of the workers, the entrepreneurs, the creative builders in our country which is still a frontier society.

I'd like to suggest a few very simple and extremely productive ways of unleashing this creative, entrepreneurial potential. Some of them are so simple that I suppose that some of us would find it hard to identify with them.

First, I believe that we are strangling our economy and our society under the whole planning philosophy that has evolved over the past 10 to 15 years. Take the question of zoning - some of you cannot identify with this. We have such a multiplicity of zoning today that we don't realize how counter-productive this is. I'm not against zoning; but we cannot afford the luxury of total planning in our cities today. Somehow we have missed the point that much of our society, and what we have today, is the product of people who have something - a plot of land a building which does not serve a useful purpose any more.

For example, the gentleman with a small service station, where for some reason the service-station business has changed - and therefore the gentleman wants to do something else - cannot do anything else; he is stuck until somebody comes along and possibly wants to build a highrise 20 years in the future. In the meantime 10 or 15 jobs go by the board.

We can multiply this time and time again. I think of the gentleman in Burnaby who had a very successful wholesale automobile centre; people were flying in from all over Alberta and Saskatchewan to use his services. However, because of zoning restrictions, he could not develop his own property. I think of a gentleman who had a piece of property and, because of zoning restrictions, could not develop a large sales organization. Developments are not a blight on our cities; but, because of extremely restrictive planning and because of professional planners, today there are more jobs going by the board.

And the cost for the very same services today south of the border is less, partly because we have given over our destiny to the planners in our society.

Secondly, we must change the planners and the politicians from a philosophy of negative control one of positive guidance. Mr. Speaker, please listen to this carefully: if we would only change the attitudes, the philosophy, of politicians generally - particularly on the municipal level - and of the planners from negative control to positive guidance for those who are shakers in our society, who are the shakers and doers.... I say that is their responsibility.

HON. MR. GARDOM : They don't agree.

MR. LOEWEN : They don't understand, but that's why they're sitting over here.

Thirdly, we must not feel that we must create jobs for everybody. That is not our responsibility as elected politicians - to create jobs for everybody. But it is our responsibility to remove the roadblocks and assist those who do want to work and those who do want to create jobs. That is our responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I'm encouraged by the budget's attack on unemployment, the budget's assistance to small business. I'm encouraged by the sales tax reduction, by the removal of that very negative, counter-productive corporation capital tax, and by the $1 million put into the training of small business people. I'm also very pleased with the mention made of the airport development programme. I can speak first-hand on the development program in northwestern Ontario, how it has moved the very large province of Ontario and the small communities of northwestern Ontario together.

The development of the heal the facilities in British Columbia, the capital expenditures on capital projects, the British Columbia investment corporation....

However, I'd also like to make two specific recommendations. One is that the British Columbia Development Corporation in their terms of reference and responsibility consider aggressively taking equity positions in small corporations - not any small corporations, but

[ Page 353 ]

particularly in entrepreneurial companies that have a potential for expanding and creating more jobs.

MR. NICOLSON : That's socialism.

MR. LOEWEN : Mr. Speaker, that is not socialism. It has nothing to do with socialism. It is simply combining the resources of good management and financial resources with true, aggressive, free enterprise - or let's rather call it incentive principles.

Mr. Speaker, secondly, I'd like to recommend that the restrictive controls in zoning be removed and/or at least changed to a philosophy of positive encouragement and guidance. I'd like to suggest that the Minister of Municipal Affairs meet with the municipalities and with planners and try to encourage that type of positive philosophy. I'd even like to take a page out of the Provincial Secretary's (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy'

s) book - her "smile" button campaign. Maybe in British Columbia this is the hour that we could print buttons: "Help an Entrepreneur." Maybe we could give all the bureaucrats, all the people in the municipal offices, buttons: "Help an Entrepreneur Create a Job." We must move together. I appreciate the hon. opposition agreeing with me. Maybe here is a point where instead of the opposition rowing in the opposite direction, we could all row together and release those energies and those creative forces that can create those jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER : It's too positive.

MR. LOEWEN : It's too positive for them.

Thirdly, 1 recommend that the British Columbia Development Corporation be given the responsibility of: (

a) assisting in zoning problems and attempting to remove some of the negative thinking and negative roadblocks that affect investment and jobs; (

b) considerable power to possibly either overrule and at least negotiate with the planners in some of the restrictive, counterproductive, unreasonable positions that we find in many municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, beautiful British Columbia belongs to the people of British Columbia. Let's give British Columbia back to the people of British Columbia, then we will be a land of promise, a land of opportunity, a land of prosperity, a land secure for our children in the next generation.

Mr. Speaker, I will enthusiastically vote for this budget, and will encourage those in a position to take particular leadership in some of my recommendations to follow them.

MR. VEITCH : Mr. Speaker, that is a hard act to follow. The hon. member mentioned slogans. I remember seeing a slogan on a bumper sticker a couple of days ago. It said: "Save a seal, skin a politician." I hope he isn't looking at that sort of a slogan.

I remember a couple of days ago when the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) said that he had asked the Premier to reduce the sales tax by two points. Now I want to call the policy of that to order right now. I know there's a lot of talk around here about backbenchers not having any influence on government. I heard with my own ears the member for Kootenay (Mr. Haddad) on Friday ask the Minister of Finance to reduce the sales tax by two points. What happened on Monday? That's performance, isn't it?

Mr. Speaker, I guess it was about two and a half years ago now that we promised that you brought us to government we would bring good government to British Columbia; we promised that we'd turn around an economy of a province - an economy brought into disrepute by the meddling of a government in the marketplace. Back there in 1972-73-74-75 the resultant effect was a loss of confidence in British Columbia as a place to work, Mr. Speaker, as a place to live and certainly as a place to invest.

The lack of confidence caused a great outflow of talent, industry and capital which, to a great degree, was responsible for the inability to provide jobs for an ever-expanding work force. But thankfully, all that is history. I believe it was a bleak page in our history and I think that the great people of British Columbia will never allow that

chapter of history to be repeated again.

I don't like to have negative thoughts, Mr. Speaker. I believe that we have to push the positive button in British Columbia; we have to forge ahead. We had time for days of doom and gloom, but I only mention it because we must not only look to the future but we must learn from the wisdom of the past. I heard the HON. member for Nanaimo whom I appreciate very much on most occasions, say that the private sector will follow an intelligent government. Now I don't know if that was an admission that the NDP were not intelligent -1 don't think so.

HON. MR. GARDOM : It was a Freudian slip.

MR. VEITCH : It may have been a Freudian slip, hon. Attorney General, but the private sector did not follow them. They lost confidence and a very large number of them did not follow. They left, Mr. Speaker. I remember the graffiti in 1975 on the washroom walls at the Vancouver International Airport. It said:

[ Page 354 ]

"Would the last businessman in British Columbia leaving kindly turn out the lights?" I hardly believe that was following. Well, that changed, and they're coming back.

A lot of things happened in that time which, I believe, mitigated against industry; a lot of things have happened since then that have helped to restore confidence. I'm not necessarily referring to mining, Mr. Speaker, but in both cases that makes an excellent exhibit A. I think we can look with pride to the increase in mineral exploration. Sure, we've got problem in the world market with copper and other minerals, but we are getting ready for that time in British Columbia when our mining industry, which was No. 2, can stay No. 2 and forge ahead in this province with new jobs and new opportunities for the people.

Mr. Speaker, some hon. members of the opposition complain to the Minister of Finance that he only announced a two point sales tax reduction for the people of British Columbia. They complain that part of this payment, part of this small plum, was compensated for by an amount negotiated from the federal government. Well, who do you think sent the money to Ottawa in the first place? It was the people of British Columbia.

Our government, through negotiation rather than confrontation -confrontation that was the rule rather than the exception in British Columbia for far too many years - negotiated approximately $150 million of our people's money back from the federal treasury to British Columbia. The member for Nanaimo stated that it wasn't even their dime, Mr. Speaker, it was the federal government's dime. I guess one thing the socialists will never learn is that governments don't even have a dime of their own. It's the people's money.

It's not the Social Credit government's money; it's not a private enterprise government's money; it's not the government's dime. It's the people's dime and it's the people's dollar. Governments just have no money of their own.

We made a lot of promises and they talked about them today in the House. The opposition, back in 1975, promised we'd get British Columbia moving again, Mr. Speaker, and this budget is the third step in doing just that. We promised we'd move in and we'd stabilize the economy of British Columbia. Well, we had to do that, sir, under very adverse circumstances. That was a tough row to hoe but we did it and we're glad of it, and I believe the people of British Columbia are glad about it at this point in time.

We promised financial aid to the independent schools and we've made it available. We promised to . return high standards of discipline to education and the core curriculum programme was only the first step in effecting that. As the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) announced, we're continuing to improve not only our educational standards but, through new, great plans, we're expanding the opportunities for people. Things like the University of the Air are not just for the elite but for all of the people who wish to partake of higher education in British Columbia, and that is a mammoth step forward.

We said we would make a home available to all who wish to own one, Mr. Speaker, via many great programmes. Now with the new $2,500 grant to families with children, we will expand the opportunity to own a home to even a greater level to more of our citizens. It is one of the best programmes, if not the best, in the Dominion of Canada.

We said back there, as one of our promises in 1975, that we would end waste and mismanagement in government. And we did that. We said government would pay its fair share of municipal taxes on Crown-owned entities and, Mr. Speaker, this budget effects just that. Back there we said that the Minister of Finance would not be allowed to play the stock market with the citizens' dollars and we put an end to that, Mr. Speaker.

We said we would end the pothole highway policy of the previous administration. Sir, the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has repaired the system which existed in 1975 and has built miles and miles of new roads throughout this great province. Mr. Speaker, massive plans are on the boards for this year. The minister had the budget and, above all, the will to make this happen.

I certainly hope that in this year we will be able to complete the Marine Way extension at the foot of my riding. It will be of great benefit to the people not only of Burnaby but to New Westminster and all of the lower mainland.

We said we would help our youth f find summer jobs back then, Mr. Speaker. This year we doubled the funds available for youth employment. Mr. Speaker, we said we would progressively reduce the property tax load imposition which senior citizens carry until it would be completely eliminated. On the road towards this goal we have raised the senior's homeowner grant to $480. There is nothing else like it in the Dominion of Canada.

We're keeping our promises, Mr. Speaker. We're keeping them with the direction of this budget and this government. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) asked where the stimulus for the economy is in this budget. As

[ Page 355 ]

a party, we became government with the promises of good administration and a question we asked was this: will the individual or the state be the cornerstone of public policy in this province? We said that it was important at that time in British Columbia's history, 1975 - and it's important today - to take a look at the philosophical direction which our province was and is taking. We pointed out the difference between Socreds and socialists, and the resounding call from the citizens was for a party with its policy based on private initiative. That's what they got, and they made the correct choice. It's working.

Among other things, the prime ingredient in our stimulus is confidence - confidence in in the ability of the private sector to get on with the job and their obvious confidence in this government. I would like to read, if I could, an example of this confidence, and it comes from a news release from the Ministry of Mines and Petroleum Resources, dated April 7,1978.

"The first sale of oil and natural gas exploration rights in British Columbia for the 1978-79 fiscal year has totalled more than $21.5 million, according to Mines and Petroleum Resources Minister Jim Chabot. The first sale of the last fiscal year totalled $19.8 million. This sale is very encouraging. It is an indication that the industry is committed to developing gas'and oil reserves in the northeastern portion of the province. In the ministry's efforts to continue the interest, we have scheduled an additional two sales in June and October to complement the August and November sales.

The two new additional sales are expected to be related to summer drilling activities, as we expect from 30 to 40 rigs will be operating during that period."

This is just a small example of the confidence that is returning to British Columbia.

The aura of stimulus is rampant throughout the whole budget, Mr. Speaker; $76.1 million will be used in 11 special projects to create 10,000 new jobs. The budget announces an expanding role for small business. It puts $250 million back into the system. That's hardly a dime; that's 250 million big ones.

Expansion of capital and plants used in the production of goods for small business will attract no sales tax at all. Industry asked for help and we gave them that aid. Now it's time for small business, and businesses of all types throughout British Columbia to expand, even if they had to borrow the money. In small business, the negation of sales tax amounts to about half the interest which they would have to pay for the first year. A real potential boost for small business, Mr. Speaker. The business community, the people out there are very confident.

I would like to quote from the Vancouver Province, April 11,1978. The sub-headline is:"Retailers Exultant Over Tax Drop." The

article says: "British Columbia retailers were exultant Monday over the government's decision to return the retail sales tax to 5 per cent. 'This is one of the best budgets in many years from the point of view of the retailer, ' said Don Hudson, senior vice-president for Eaton's." He was glad to see special boosts for small business, because their health is important to the health of the whole economy. Hudson said the cut in sales tax is clearly deflationary, noting the estimated $125 per family is especially significant since it will be in after-tax dollars.

He predicted there would be a resurgence in consumer confidence which would have a rippling effect throughout the whole economy. That's what the people are saying out there, Mr. Speaker, and there's more and more of it.

Mr. Speaker, this is a great budget. It's a budget for all the people of British Columbia -not just business, not just labour. It's a budget that helps those people who are on fixed incomes. It's even a budget that helps those people who are on welfare. It's a budget for everyone.

The hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) mentioned that he would like to see the sales tax reduced by another two points. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, it could have been reduced by another two points, had not a government which was recently in power for three and a half years decided to sacrifice the economy of this province on the experimental altar of socialism. It could have easily been reduced. There's a little table on page 48, if you'd care to look it up, entitled: "British Columbia direct and contingent liability debt, historic 1874 to 1977." In 1970 it shows a direct provincial gross debt of $49,696, 505.

In 1977, sir, it was $261,869, 940, an increase in direct debt of $212,173, 435. As a result of three and a half years of mismanagement, just about two points on that sales tax guide, hon. sir.

You know, we've heard members here speaking about deficit financing, and they said there's nothing wrong with it. But what they don't seem to understand is that prudent governments, governments that are fiscally responsible, garner up money during the good times, during the buoyant times, the times from 1972 to 1975. They don't spend everything

[ Page 356 ]

in sight, they garner it up and when times are tough they pump it back into the system. They don't spend their children's and their children's children's legacy. 1 believe that the legacy we have to leave as politicians and as people in this country is to pass on to future generations at least that which we had when we came upon the scene. The socialists don't seem to believe in that. They said that we should go into direct debt. They don't seem to realize that debt produces a tremendous debt tax load which the people of this jurisdiction or any other cannot contend with over a long period of time.

If you don't believe it, look to the province of Ontario, which has gone so far into debt that it has a tax load of $20 million a week just to service their potential debt. That's $20 million that goes mostly out of this country and doesn't stay with the needy, doesn't stay with the people, and they have to keep on borrowing. I was down there a few weeks ago and they said that they hoped within f five years they could get somewhere close to what we have achieved in British Columbia in just two and one half years.

As I've said before, had that previous government not run up debts during some of the most buoyant economic years in British Columbia's history, we would have easily been able to, in these times, reduce the sales tax by another two points without any problem at all.

But enough of that, Mr. Speaker. This is a great budget. Business is behind it - small business, big business. The pensioners are behind it, labour is behind it, the people are behind it. Let's get on with the job.

MR. NICOLSON : Mr. Speaker, 1 should get up and congratulate you upon your appointment. I was going to do this one day when I got up to speak on an amendment, but you left the House and I didn't get a chance to. So very belatedly, I'll congratulate you. 1 have congratulated the Deputy Speaker earlier. I kind of like the way you're running this House, Mr. Speaker, 1 must say, and I hope that it continues. I look for some real improvements here.

Mr. Speaker, this budget, 1 think, has to be looked at in a businesslike way. If we look at something in a businesslike way, 1 think we have to look at how we audit the books of any business. If you get the annual report of Bethlehem Copper or any public company, you'll find an excerpt, such as I found even in the Crown corporation, B.C. Hydro, annual report. There's a

Section 1n this, Mr. Speaker, called "The report of the auditors." It's usually very short. It's a very perfunctory type of statement, and it is very consistent no matter whether you are looking at a private or public corporation.

It says:

"We have examined the balance sheet of British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority as at 31 March, 1977, the statements of income earnings retained in the business, and changes in financial position for the year then ended, and the statement of long term debts as of 31 March, 1977. Our examination was made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and accordingly included such tests and other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.

"In our opinion, these financial statements present fairly

the financial position of British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority as at 31

March, 1977, and the results of its operations and changes in its financial

position for the year then ended" - and then the very important part, Mr.

Speaker "in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles applied

on a basis consistent with that of the preceding year."

Mr. Speaker, I only wish that we required such an auditor's report on the books of the province of British Columbia and on the budget of the province of British Columbia. This is not a balanced budget; this is a deficit budget. The expenditure for this year is not to be $4.28 billion; it is to be $4.396 billion. Last year's budget was $3.615 billion, and that is an increase this year of 21.6 per cent over last year's budget, if we adopt a system of comparison which is consistent with the previous year.

The Premier and the Minister of Finance have not lived up to their claim that they have kept the growth of government in this province within and less than the growth in real terms of the gross provincial product. They have not done that, and they have failed. That particular

section of this budget which lays that claim is not true, if we keep in the strictest sense of established business practice. Because the change that has taken place is that we have created a corporation called the B.C. Buildings Corporation. It's a public works corporation of British Columbia. We see that there is going to be a borrowing for this year that is expected to be $116 million. That is one corporation alone.

One could look for other areas. I note that there is to be a subsidy given to the Ferry

[ Page 357 ]

Corporation. It appears that for the first time - oh, yes, it was done to some extent last year; construction, I think, to the tune of $16 million - the construction of government buildings will take place not "pay as you go" but by borrowing. If we were to keep a consistent set of records, and if we were to compare things fairly with what they were last year, we would see that this is not a 9.6 per cent increase in budget. With the budget figure that was given last year at this time - not the revised figure, but the figure that was given last year at this time ~ there is a 21 per cent increase in the size of government and government spending.

This government, Mr. Speaker, is going to continue to hide expenditures and make unfair comparisons. If they find that they can't balance the books next year, they'll probably come up with a highways corporation. The corporation will buy the highways. They will borrow money to pay for the highways and then they will lease them to the government at a certain amount each year so that the government can pay.

I should stop right there, Mr. Speaker. I'm giving the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) ideas. I'm sure that as soon as the Minister of Finance and the Premier come back he might put forward this idea and try to get himself a few brownie points in cabinet.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON : Well, in that case, Mr. Speaker, I wish I had recommended to this government that they take this type of a direction back in 1975, and then they might not have created this boondoggle, the B.C. Buildings Corporation, in order to hide the true cost of the growth of government. I think that we should be up front about it. This game that is being played.... The people should know that the size of government has grown not by 9.8 per cent, but by 21.6 per cent.

This year's budget should really be including am units, for expenditures on the building of government buildings, of $116 million. That would give us a true budget of $4.396 billion. And we are sure there will be overruns; so I would compare that with what the budget figure was last year at this time.

The government has also resorted to other things in order to balance their budgets through the past few years. We have pointed out that really there has been a liquidation sale in progress in British Columbia since December, 1975 - liquidating the three ferries, which were built in this province and paid for, and turning them into cash in one of their fiscal years.

We see that that there is a proposal to sell the assets of the Housing Corporation of British Columbia. You know, the minister has hesitated to set a price but I would certainly hate to be presented with a fait accompli that they had sold this at the book value, or had merely sold it at the shareholder-equity value as listed in the annual report. Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid that the people of British Columbia could be shortchanged, and that this government is so desperate to balance its books that it is looking to sell anything.

If we had a monarch resident here in British Columbia, they would sell the Crown jewels to balance their budget. They are selling out our endowment; they are pirating our heritage. Mr. Speaker, they are mining the pockets of the people of British Columbia in order to balance their budget.

I suppose one of the highlights, for them, of last year's revenue picture were the returns from leases, permits, licences, rights and privileges to explore and prove up and eventually exploit various minerals, petroleum, gas, and coal resources. There is certainly an accelerated amount of exploration activity taking place.

Why is it taking place in the mining industry? Certainly mines are closing down under this government. The HB mine in Salmo, with 100-odd jobs, can be added to the list; it will be shutting down in September of this year - I've had that confirmed by Cominco. We would certainly welcome it, if the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) could go in there and find more minerals and reopen that mine. That would be very nice if he could. I'll tell you something that he might be able to do.

He might prevail upon the owners of two mines -adjoining properties in the Salmo area -where, if they were to get together, if they could co-operate, it's felt by many people that there is a good, possible mining venture between the old Reeves Macdonald mine and the Hecla mining property; and it's very badly needed. Under Social Credit we've seen three mines close down in the Nelson-Creston riding: two of them under the old Social Credit government, between 1969 and 1972 and the other one under this government.

While the NDP were in office one mine - which had already been proposed to close down before the election in 1972 - did actually close down.

But in order to cover up the accelerated rate of the closure of mines all over this province - and members across can joke; they can make jibes about it; those with city ridings don't take it so seriously perhaps -this government is desperate to show some

[ Page 358 ]

activity in the mining field. So they have devised a set of inducements that are so great that exploration is taking place. In fact, they have taken environmentally sensitive areas and told various mineral exploration companies to get on with the job there. They want to show some kind of activity in spite of the fact that not a great deal is happening in the mining industry.

Just this week we see an

article in The Province for April 7, headlined: "A Bad Omen For Kaiser Coal? Japanese Cut Price and Quantity in Deal with McIntyre." It shows that along with the gloomy picture we have seen with copper - in spite of some increase in the price of copper - with all the mining closures that have gone on in this province, the one thing that was keeping a fairly steady level of activity was coal mining, particularly for coking coal.

It says a group of eight major Japanese steel-makers has agreed to buy 940,000 metric tons of coking coal this year from McIntyre Coal Mines Ltd. of Toronto at a price of $58.50 U.S. a ton. It says that compares with the $72.39 Canadian a ton price for the previous contract, and at the exchange rate the old price was $65.56 Canadian, so the new contract in Canadian dollars is $6.83 less per metric ton.

But not only did they agree to take less money, they also had to agree to cut back on the production, so that the actual tonnage shipped by McIntyre during the next year could be down 47 per cent from the [illegible] delivered in 1977. Well, that's McIntyre of Toronto, as any astute member over there might point out to me. But the significance of this, Mr. Speaker, is that at this time Kaiser Resources of Vancouver has been declining to comment on the current negotiations with the Japanese under its 15-year contract ending in 1965.

The price of coal on April I of this year and at April, 1980, is to be reviewed under this contract. So they are renegotiating that price. Sources in the industry say that Kaiser and the Japanese have broken off negotiations and the case is now being arbitrated.

Mr. Speaker, we do not have in that area a great climate under which we can point for immediately opening up new coal resources. In fact, if we ever doubted that, we could refer to the submission which was made before the B.C. Rail inquiry, in which representatives of the southeastern coal industry pointed out that demand for Japanese coal was going to be very soft to about 1985, and that a great deal of the increase in their imports wo