1977 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 3ist Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1977

Morning Sitting

[ Page

643 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Celebration of Queen's Silver Jubilee. Hon. Mr. Bennett — 643

Routine Proceedings

Budget debate

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 643

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 651

Mr. Macdonald — 653

Ms. Brown — 656

Hon. Mr. McClelland — 659

Mrs. Wallace — 660

Hon. Mr. Wolfe closes the debate — 665

Division on the motion that Mr. Speaker leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply — 667

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): I would like to

introduce to the House today a group of high school students that will

be here a bit later from Lake Cowichan. I think Lake Cowichan is

perhaps the only school that has a parliamentary forum in operation,

complete with Mr. Speaker and Clerks. They do an excellent job there. I

would ask the House to join me in welcoming them and their teacher.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, in the buildings, and

hopefully in the gallery later on today, we have with us this morning

the Minister Without Portfolio responsible for physical fitness and

sport, the MP for Skeena, the Hon. Iona Campagnolo. I would like this

House to welcome her.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, as a lonely Liberal in the House I would like to welcome a colleague from Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. McGeer files a report on the state of research and research funding in British Columbia by Dr. Roger Gaudry.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, as you and all members of this

assembly know, on Sunday we will mark the 25th anniversary of the

ascension of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth to the throne. As such this

province has declared a proclamation that the week of February 6 to

February 12 inclusive be declared Her Majesty's Silver Anniversary Week

in the province of British Columbia.

Further, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government and the people of

the province of British Columbia, we've sent the following telegram to

Her Majesty in honour of the anniversary which all of us celebrate on

Sunday. It reads:

ON BEHALF OF ALL CITIZENS AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PROVINCE

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, I HAVE THE PLEASURE AND HONOUR TO SEND YOU OUR WARMEST

GREETINGS ON THE SILVER ANNIVERSARY OF YOUR ASCENSION TO THE THRONE. WE ARE

PROUD OF OUR ASSOCIATION WITHIN THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH AND OF YOUR DEVOTED

AND DEDICATED SERVICE TO ALL PEOPLE THROUGHOUT 25 YEARS. WE SEND TO YOU AND

YOUR FAMILY WARMEST WISHES AND GREETINGS FOR THE FUTURE AND TRUST THAT YOU WILL

GRACE US WITH ANOTHER VISIT TO BRITISH COLUMBIA SHORTLY.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): I want to commend the

government for their appropriate message to Her Majesty. Certainly we

in the loyal opposition want to associate ourselves with the message.

Particularly you may also be assured that King of the official

opposition is a very dedicated monarchist.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would wish to be associated

with the words of the Premier in paying tribute to the example and

inspiration Her Majesty and her family have been to the people of the

Commonwealth for the last 25 years.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, as a person who once

looked very closely at Scottish nationalism I would still like to make

it plain that we owe all our honour and respect to Queen Elizabeth II

and would like the Conservative Party to go on record, without

equivocation, as strongly supporting the telegram and extending our

best wishes to the Queen for many more years.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): I appreciate that welcome, and certainly I appreciate the large attendance in the public gallery this morning. (Laughter.)

I am happy to take

part in this budget debate as the MLA for the

Cariboo. First of all, in case I forget, I want to say that I certainly

want to support this excellent budget, Mr. Speaker. It has a modest

increase of 5.9 per cent. Sixty-five cents of every dollar in this

budget goes to three ministries of government: namely, Health,

Education and Human Resources, commonly referred to as "the people

departments." So I think that with all the carping criticism we get

from the opposition, the people certainly will be well served by this

portion of the budget.

This government was elected on December 11, 1976, and I feel that

one of the reasons for our resounding victory was the fact that the

citizens of this province wanted a stop put to the wastage of public

funds. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that all the money that the

government has is trust funds, and the people of this province want

them treated as such and certainly not thrown around with abandon

[ Page 644 ]

like the prior NDP did so well for a little over three years.

Mr. Speaker, this government wants to honour that mandate we were

given, and we will see that public funds are spent justly and properly.

We have done that for the last year, and we intend to do that

throughout our mandate. It really is the reason that we are sitting

here and the reason they are sitting over there. I believe, Mr.

Speaker, sincerely in this great province of ours that the NDP will

always sit over there because of their record between 1972 and 1975.

They will never again be on this side, which is the government side, of

this Legislature. The people of this province gave them an opportunity

to govern and they muffed it completely. I don't think they will ever

be given another opportunity to try again.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Keep on talking, Alec.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: As the MLA for Cariboo.... There is that man

chirping away there, the MLA for New Westminster, the man responsible

for the $181 million loss in ICBC — probably the one most at fault

because you were director of ICBC from beginning to end.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: They should have dispatched you to London as well. (Laughter.)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. FRASER: You are the only minister of the former

government who was a director of ICBC from beginning to end — they

changed other ones — so you have to assume the largest responsibility

for the $181 million loss in that corporation.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: As the MLA for Cariboo, I know the citizens

of the great Cariboo riding will be happy with the reduction in taxes

on mobile homes, Mr. Speaker, and the reduction of tax on propane. I

would just like to say that all during the time of that prior

administration, while propane was increasing in price and tax, they

were approached constantly by citizens of this province to do something

about it and they never did do anything.

Now under tougher conditions this government has done something to

bring that fuel, which is so important to isolated residents, back in

line with other fuels. I think that everybody in the remote areas will

be happy about that.

1 would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the greatest problem they

have had in the riding of Cariboo, and in central and northern British

Columbia, has been the British Columbia Railway. I would just like to

make this observation: during most of the term of the NDP government

this Crown railway had more non-operating time than it had operating

time.

I would remind the House that the directors of that railway were the

prior Premier (Mr. Barrett) and the hog-head from Revelstoke-Slocan,

who was a director for a while until he came in conflict and they

replaced him with the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). He ended

up being the prior Minister of Mines. As a matter of fact, that member

for Vancouver Centre, Mr. Speaker, did make a record for himself as he

was known during the latter part of the NDP administration as the best

Minister of Mines the Yukon ever had. (Laughter.)

But back to the British Columbia Railway: when this government

assumed power it was still not operating properly. I want today to tell

you that the railway has now been running with continual operation for

approximately the last six months. I want to pay thanks to the workers

on that railway, the management of that railway and the unions for

accomplishing this feat that was not accomplished in the three years

prior to that. At the present time, all the freight has been delivered

on time and the people of the interior and the north of British

Columbia can get their vital products to market. Consequently, this has

saved thousands of jobs from going down the tube.

I don't think that I should conclude my remarks about the railway

without giving great credit to the Minister of Economic Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips), who worked all 1976 to achieve stability in this

railway.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Is this a testimonial dinner?

HON. MR. FRASER: It was he who had to pick up all the mess.

The member here from Vancouver Centre is always chirping about what

they would do. He got it sorted out, and everybody in the interior and

north of British Columbia want to thank him immensely for that great

effort.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give him the gold watch!

HON. MR. BENNETT: We had to do it without files, too!

HON. MR. FRASER: As you know, the official opposition call

themselves the New Democratic Party. I think in view of their record in

government, and now their record in opposition, they should be given a

new title. They love to use the initials NDP, so we'll

[ Page 645 ]

stick with that, but I call them the Notorious Disaster Party, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: You're not very nice.

HON. MR. FRASER: They were a disaster in government. The

people of this province saw through their ballyhoo and threw them out

where they belong — in opposition. They are now a disaster in

opposition because they are continually shooting off at the hip without

anything to back it up as far as facts are concerned. They certainly

belong in opposition, and as I said earlier, I am sure that's where

they'll stay.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: You know, Mr. Speaker, they keep chirping

away. They don't like to be reminded of what they did, but do you know

the treasury was over-filled with money when they took over? There's no

government or jurisdiction that has ever taken over what they took

over. There was money everywhere in surplus accounts, and you know what

we ended up with. The surplus was all gone, hundreds of millions of

dollars were spent and we ended up with red ink. That's what we

inherited when we took over.

lnterjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: They wonder why, and they blame us for the

economy not recovering. No wonder the economy isn't recovering as fast

as it should recover with the record they left behind. It will

certainly take a while to live that one down.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): You admit it's not recovering.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, that notorious disaster party over there

never paid any attention to highways. As a matter of fact, they nicknamed

their minister, the now member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), Mr. Peter Pothole.

He was well named because that's all we inherited from them in the highways

system of British Columbia that is so vital to all our citizens, no matter what

they're doing, and, of course, as well to our commercial life and our economy.

MR. LAUK: Are you filling potholes?

HON. MR. FRASER: They allowed the highways system to deteriorate. I might say to you, Mr. Member: are we filling...? They're filled already.

MR. LAUK: You haven't even paved in front of the buildings here.

HON. MR. FRASER: If some of these members here from the lower

mainland would get out beyond Granville and Georgia, maybe they'd find

out what's going on. They would know that this work has already been

done.

MR. LAUK: Did you say between Granville and Georgia? That's a city.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: For a moment I'd like to talk about the

repaving programme — and I emphasize repaving, not paving of newly

constructed roads but repaving of the existing system.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): You topped it in my riding.

HON. MR. FRASER: Now there is that member for Mackenzie

chirping over there and, you know, he said that we stopped them. As a

matter of fact, he had the nerve to go into the Cariboo riding and tell

the Cariboo people that he was pleased to see the highway programme

continuing the programme they had started. You know, they just about

ran him out on a rail after that announcement. (Laughter.)

I'd just like to tell him that I was in his riding, as well as many

others this last year, and I went into the riding of Bella Coola. I was

amazed to find out that that riding of Mackenzie — the Bella Coola

community — hadn't seen that member since December, 1975.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Shame!

HON. MR. FRASER: And I'm surprised at that. I thought that

member got around. But they did indicate to me that they weren't

interested whether they ever saw him again. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: One thing he forgot to tell you, Mr.

Speaker, is that on the road to Bella Coola, because of the Northland

minister's here to hear that — the Ministry of Highways is upgrading

the road to Bella Coola so they'll have land access as well as water

access. They're working right today on improving that road. He never

mentioned that.

MR. LAUK: They're not working on it.

HON. MR. FRASER: Anyway, back to the

[ Page 646 ]

repaving of the existing highway system.

MR. LAUK: You've got your nephew out there with a shovel.

HON. MR. FRASER: The average life of the asphalt pavement is 12.4

years, Mr. Speaker, and the asphalt pavement we have in the system now has a

life already spent of 11.5 years. So, you can see that our paving throughout

the province is not in very good condition. It has very little life left in

it. Of the total highway inventory of 25,000-odd miles, 24 per cent of this

inventory of public roads is paved. If we base the average life expectancy of

the pavement on 15 years rather than 12.4 years, we would have to pave 475 miles

of the existing black-top roads per year to keep the current inventory in reasonable

condition.

Mr. Speaker, the NDP government, that did not believe in roads or

proper transportation systems, paved an average of 15 8 miles per year.

You can see from that that they paved only about one-third of the

existing system, of what was required to keep our system up to date,

just to keep even. That's how far behind we were getting.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: If we would have kept up with their policies, Mr. Speaker...

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Shocking!

HON. MR. FRASER: ...it wouldn't have been very long until

most of our highway system that is paved — and I might say I would like

to see a lot more than 24 per cent of it paved — would have decreased

and we would have got down to gravel. As a matter of fact, that's what

happened in a lot of areas in the province — our main arteries were

down to gravel. I might say that that gravel has now been covered. It

was done in 1976.

We in the Highways ministry are also stepping up passing lanes and

we intend to have around 75 miles of these in place, hopefully, for the

big tourist season we're going to have in 1977, so our motorists aren't

continually confronted with long lineups and frustrations that they

have become used to in the past.

We will continue to accelerate the paving programme, Mr. Speaker.

I'd just like to mention a few facts regarding grading contracts.

They're referred to as grading contracts by the professional engineers

but, Mr. Speaker, in laymen's language, these are the large road

construction projects which are put out to contract and done by the

large road-building contractors in the province. I might say that all

these large jobs are put out to tender and, in all cases, awarded to

the low bidder as long as he conforms to the specifications in the

tender called.

We have awarded contracts right here in the city of Victoria on the

Trans-Canada Highway. That contractor is at work. I believe that in the

capital city area here they've been waiting for something to happen to

the Trans-Canada for seven or eight years. In the short time that we've

been government they are actually at work to four-lane that road so the

commuting traffic will have better access to the downtown core area.

While we're dealing with the capital area I might just comment on

the Trans-Canada. I see a few councils in the area re-engineering the

project, but we don't consider this will be any big problem. This

project will be completed, hopefully, this time next year. I just would

like to mention, for the benefit of the Victoria people, that the

Blanshard Street extension, I believe, has been talked about since 1960

or 1961. I recall quite well, Mr. Speaker, in the dying hours of the

House last year, when the MLA for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) gave quite a

dissertation on the history of the Blanshard Street extension...

MR. WALLACE: I'm glad you were listening, Alex.

HON. MR. FRASER: ...and he pointed out the fact that it had

finally gone underground. The prior NDP had decided to build a tunnel

underneath the shopping centre.

AN HON. MEMBER: All the way to Prince Rupert.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, they even mentioned they were going to

build a tunnel from Vancouver to Prince Rupert, but they were thrown

out of office before they got around to that.

But anyway, regarding the Blanshard Street extension, I would just

like to advise this House that it is going ahead. We expect to make the

tender call on that on or around April 1, and I think by the fall of

1978 it will all be a fact and in place. I only say to the MLAs from

this area, regardless of party, I wish you'd get hold of your

respective councils and tell them not to start arguing now and

re-engineering that project, because all it will do is delay this

long-needed project. We will compromise with these people but, you

know, our engineers have worked a long time — so have theirs — and I

don't think this is the time now to start debating whether what

intersection should be at what level and so on. I don't think they have

to argue any longer. They should get together and get it resolved.

Yes, large grading contracts have been let on Vancouver Island. I heard somebody mention

[ Page 647 ]

Cowichan. There is roadwork going on in that riding

— more roadwork than they've seen in many years. There is roadwork

going on, and hopefully by the fall of 1978, for the first time,

there'll be a decent road from Victoria right through to Port Hardy and

Port McNeill on the north end of Vancouver Island. As a matter of fact,

Mr. Speaker, I expect the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) will be voting

for this excellent budget, because if she votes against it it really

means that she doesn't want the roadwork to go ahead in the Comox

riding.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: I would just like to tell her that if she

does vote against it, that's the message we get as the government — she

doesn't want this long, long road project to be completed. There's

$20-odd million in highway money alone in the Comox riding to complete

that to the north end of Vancouver Island. I can assure her that if she

does vote against the budget we will tell them all in the Comox riding

her position.

MR. WALLACE: That's Cariboo budget, Karen.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, regarding other road projects

which are all over the province, I'd just like to detail another one. I

refer to a project in the Coquitlam riding. You know, they had an MLA

in Coquitlam from 1960 to 1975, until the public there caught up with

him. He was the ex-Premier of the province (Mr. Barrett); he's now the

Leader of the Opposition...

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he?

HON. MR. FRASER: ...or I think he is; we never see him around here, and....

AN HON. MEMBER: Pro tem.

HON. MR. FRASER: I think he's just pro tem. They've got their problems over there.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Boy, do they have problems!

HON. MR. FRASER: At their next convention I imagine he'll be put on the skids and....

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, the prior Minister of Lands and Forests (Mr. Williams) got $80,000 out of out of them to....

HON. MR. CURTIS: What was his name?

HON. MR. FRASER: You know, I just forget the name, but I'm

sorry the first member — and I think he is the first member — for

Vancouver East is not in his seat.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Speak to his chair!

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, I'll speak to his chair and warn him

that he better look out because that prior Minister of Lands and

Forests in the NDP government I notice is really after him, and they've

got him on the skids, too. I hate to see a Scotchman on the skids and

on the way out of this House. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. CURTIS: Do you think he's getting advice from Gordon Dowding? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, I did see, Mr. Speaker, the former

Speaker of the House here this morning. I hope he enjoys his stay here,

but I hope he doesn't pass out too much of his legal advice because

that'll be problems for whoever gets it.

MR. WALLACE: Vicious attack. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. CURTIS: A streetcar named "defeat." (Laughter.)

HON. MR. FRASER: We have 160 or 170 miles under contract, in

the large contracts, Mr. Speaker. This compares with a whole total of

28 miles under the prior NDP government in the year 1975.

Another higher-profile project in the Highways department, as you

probably know, is that the Highways department hopes to upgrade the

approaches to Stanley Park to give better access for bus service to the

North Shore. We are also looking at further work on the Lions Gate

Bridge — the north end has been done, but the main span has not. The

engineers haven't made their minds up what to do there, but we hope to

make announcements shortly.

MR. LAUK: It's a dangerous bridge right now because of you.

HON. MR. FRASER: Something else we've done in the Highways

department, Mr. Speaker, is decentralize the handling of subdivision

approvals. What we have done there is appoint approving officers in

each region of the province. The Highways department at the present

time is in four regions: headquarters are located in Burnaby, Kamloops,

Nelson and Prince George. We have approving officers in each one of

these areas, and instead of them looking over approvals in a cursory

manner, then sending them to head office in Victoria, we've asked

[ Page 648 ]

them to give final approval except where there is a

large commercial development involved. We want to cut down the red tape

on approval of subdivisions, and we have started to do that. The other

thing we intend to have out shortly is a booklet on how to proceed for

and through the bureaucracy of subdivision approvals so our citizens

will know more what they're confronted with and have it in black and

white in front of them.

I want to tell you that in this last year — and it's been a great

pleasure for me — I have travelled over all the roads in this province,

or a great many of them.

MR. LAUK: On foot?

HON. MR. FRASER: No, I travelled by car, and not by helicopter.

MR. LAUK: On foot; you can't travel by car on those roads.

HON. MR. FRASER: I've been in the northwest from Prince

Rupert to Terrace, to Stewart, to Cassiar and over to Atlin. I've

travelled Highway 16 from Rupert through Hazelton, Smithers, Burns

Lake, Vanderhoof and Prince George. In the northeast I have travelled

from Fort Nelson to Dawson Creek, down the Hart Highway to Mackenzie

and Prince George. I have travelled throughout the central interior,

all over the Okanagan — and believe me there are lots of problems there

— Kamloops, Merritt, Lillooet and the Fraser Canyon. On at least two

occasions I've been in the East and West Kootenays. I have been

throughout the lower mainland and Vancouver Island. I have looked at

the roads and the establishments of the Highways and Public Works

departments, and I have met with practically all the city councils in

this province — the regional districts, chambers of commerce and

interested groups.

It is, as I say, a very happy experience for me and I intend to continue that

because it's the only way you can find out what's going on. I did find

it interesting. A lot of communities said they hadn't seen the prior minister,

and I even find out that they are writing editorials about him in the Prince

Rupert News: "Do I you remember us, Mr. Member? We voted for you — have

you forgotten?" They haven't seen him even in his own riding since

he has been in opposition.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Where's he living now?

HON. MR. FRASER: I don't know; it's very interesting.

Mr. Speaker, this crowd of socialists over there discouraged investment with

their selfish philosophical ideas of building more space for government use

than they needed, destroying the incentive of a market for the private sector.

MR. LAUK: Who's paving that front road out there?

HON. MR. FRASER: An excellent example is right here in the

city of Victoria where buildings are now coming on stream, and others

have reached a stage where it's too late to stop construction.

MR. LAUK: Is that M.E.L. Paving out there?

HON. MR. FRASER: They are costing more per square foot than

any private-sector commercial building. The mayor of Victoria claims

that there are 400,000 square feet of vacant space in the city, and I

might say the mayor made a fine speech when he made his great speech

here a while back, in my opinion. I'd like to tell the mayor and the

city of Victoria that the NDP had a further million square feet of

space on the drawing boards for this city. I would like to say that

this government does not plan to dump this one million square feet into

the Victoria marketplace. I would like to say that this government has

now taken a responsible approach to the construction and management of

public buildings in this province by establishing, through Bill 23, the

British Columbia Buildings Corporation.

Government ministries will now be accountable for their space

demands. I would like to emphasize the word "accountable" as, under the

past regime, the Department of Public Works was not only scrambling to

build buildings as quickly as they could; they also increased their

annual rentals from $3 million to $17 million a year.

The British Columbia Buildings Corporation will now charge the

client ministries fair market value for their space requirements. Of

course, the members will know that that is in their estimate books now.

MR. LAUK: Sam wants to know if you're going to pay your taxes.

HON. MR. FRASER: Never again will the taxpayers in this

province be faced with the irresponsible decision of moving civil

servants into space that is costing several times the amount paid by he

private sector.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that when the NDP were the government

there was a great furor about the rental of empty office space. I want

to report to you today that that is now a thing of the past.

Since we have taken over we have reduced the eased vacant space to

approximately 12,000 square get at a cost of $4,600. This is a

reduction from a peak of 131,221 square feet at a monthly cost to the

taxpayers of $65,000-odd. So we have effectively educed that waste by

approximately $60,000 a

[ Page 649 ]

month, or approximately $750,000 a year.

The structuring of the B.C. Buildings Corporation is well advanced.

It will be operational by April 1, 1977. This is the first Crown

corporation in Canada to take such a responsible approach to government

coming here shortly to find out how it happened so that they can

probably look at it.

Just a note or two about the Coquihalla, which was announced in the

speech. This new route that was announced in the throne speech

commences on the Hope-Princeton Highway about four miles east of Hope

and follows the Coquihalla River to the old Porteous siding on the

Kettle Valley. At this point the alignment leaves the Coquihalla River

and follows Boston Bar Creek to its headwater. From the summit the

route drops to the Coquihalla Lakes, then follows the Coldwater River

valley to Merritt. The saving in distance between Vancouver and

Kamloops amounts to 40 miles.

An alternate route suggested by outside parties was the

Vancouver-Pemberton-Kamloops. This route is 30 miles longer than the

route we have selected to construct. I hope and anticipate that we will

get going on that soon.

The reason for this new route — we have to have a third route to the

coast — is because we estimate that by 1982 Highway 1 and Highway 3

will be loaded with so much traffic, if the increases happen as in the

past, that it will be almost intolerable for the motorist. So we intend

to get on with that as soon as possible.

We have done some environmental studies on it through the fish and

wildlife branch and Environment Canada. More are done, but we'll get on

with that as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, 1977 is the year of conversion to the metric system for

all highways in Canada. We have been working all year in preparing for

conversion. This metric conversion is scheduled to take place

throughout the nation in September this year. In June of this year

there will be a province-wide newspaper advertising campaign to inform

the public of the metric speed limit changes. In August a similar

province-wide campaign will be held.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, there have been four regions in the

highway system up to the past. We are now going to expand that to six

regions, and take off the large territories and responsibilities

regions 1 and 4 have had. We'll be establishing another region in the

northwest with headquarters at Terrace; we will establish another

region headquartered in Nanaimo to look after Vancouver Island, which

has formerly come under Burnaby and all the lower mainland. It was just

too much. We'll be going ahead with that during this year.

The ministry has been restructured. With the advent of the British

Columbia Buildings Corporation, the public works programme within the

Ministry of Highways and Public Works will be much reduced. In order to

amalgamate the two former portfolios into one efficient ministry, we

have restructured our organization. As of April 1, we will have only

one deputy minister, with two assistant deputy ministers. One assistant

deputy minister will be responsible for that which is left in the

former Department of Public Works, such as the safety engineering

division. The same assistant deputy minister will be charged with the

responsibility of administration and will be the comptroller of

functions. The second assistant deputy minister will be the chief

engineer of highways and will be in charge of the four divisions that

are being set up there.

Heading into the new fiscal year, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that

this ministry has had a substantial increase in funds provided for its

operation. Again this year we have a very ambitious programme in

construction, paving and day labour. We are going to pay special

attention to upgrading and maintenance programmes.

As the minister responsible, I'd like to say I'm still not satisfied

with the maintenance programme in the highways

section of the ministry.

I think that we can still get better service without adding to the

money — that is quite substantial there — and we are working to that

end. We are restructuring the ministry and there will be a new man in

charge of the maintenance programme. I hope this will bring better

service to all our motorists and citizens of the province.

The opposition has been talking here ever since the session opened

that we never did anything about unemployment. I knew all the time that

it was just carping criticism without any substantive fact. I want to

tell you here this morning that the Highways ministry, because of their

expanded programme, have 2,400 people at work today who would not be at

work if we had continued on the way the NDP were running the Highways

ministry. These people are at work and have been at work. You know, one

thing I've found out in the department since I've been there as the

minister is the fact that they all wanted to stop work about October.

They always did because the money was shut off. This year, because of

our excellent weather, the money was supplied and this work is still

continuing today. The only thing that will stop it is the weather. Of

course, that hasn't happened so far and we don't anticipate stopping at

all right through the winter. All through the highways system they had

been trained to say "no" to our people who wanted improvements to the

roads, whether it was patching a pothole or grading roads. My biggest

problem is to turn them around and get them lifted up so they can say

"yes" once in a while, and I'll continue to do that.

[ Page 650 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. minister, may I draw your attention to the fact you're on your final three minutes.

HON. MR. FRASER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would

just like to comment regarding some of the building construction going

on, more specifically to the large downtown Vancouver building, and

remind this House that when we assumed government we had a hole in the

ground over there with the funds — that were provided by the prior

Social Credit government — spent, the amount of S25 million.

MR. LAUK: Oh, come on!

HON. MR. FRASER: The prior government had made no accommodation — not one five-cent piece — for the continued construction of this building.

MR. LAUK: Nonsense!

HON. MR. FRASER: Because of the creation of the B.C. Building

Corporation, those funds have now been supplied. That project is going

ahead. Part of it will be completed in 1978. We're hoping that all of

it will be completed in 1979.

MR. LAUK: Three years behind schedule.

HON. MR. FRASER: So, I would just like to remind the House

that, while they had grandiose plans over there when they were the

government, they didn't supply the bucks. They hadn't done a thing

about it, as near as we could find out from any records they left

behind. They didn't leave that many records, Mr. Speaker. That little

noisy man from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) has most of them in his

basement. I believe he stole all the files that were around.

MR. LOEWEN: Chicken little.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'd just conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that....

MR. LAUK: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. minister said

that I stole files. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland)

repeats the charge. The charge has never been made outside the

corridors of this House. I invite that hon. minister to do so. In the

meantime, would he withdraw that statement?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: That minister knows that if he said it outside, in

the corridor of this House, I would take him to court. That is a false,

political lie and that minister should withdraw it immediately.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I'll be glad to

withdraw if he doesn't like the word "stolen." I guess "taken" is

better. I understand they were taken.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are they? Tell him where they are.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister withdraws the word "stolen," though. Does the hon. minister withdraw the word "stolen"?

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, I certainly do. Mr. Speaker, I'd just

like to conclude by saying that the highway programme has been stepped

up. It will continue to be stepped up. As far as the economy of this

province is concerned, it is going to improve. As a matter of fact, I

saw an

article in — believe it, of all places — the Victoria Times just

a couple of days ago that said B.C. and Alberta would lead the nation

in economic recovery for the next 15 years. Alberta would be ahead of

us and B.C. would be second. I have great faith in the future of

British Columbia, not like the notorious disaster party over there. I

will take great pleasure, when it comes time to vote, to support this

budget.

MR. LAUK: Point of order: I rise under standing order 42 to

correct statements made by the hon. minister. His statements, made

about the construction of the government building complex in the centre

of the downtown part of the city that is in my constituency, were

absolutely erroneous and incorrect. The funds had been provided for the

completion....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That's not a correct point of order under that standing order, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: It says: "No member may speak twice to a question

except in explanation of a material part of his speech," and then any

member may get up under....Well, that's not under 42. But any member

can get up and correct a statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Only if you are correcting a statement, or a

misrepresentation of a statement, that you, hon. member, used in debate

on the floor of this House.

[ Page 651 ]

MR. LAUK: Well, I recall making a speech about this last spring...

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong again!

MR, SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: ...outlining the finances. The minister shouldn't try and deceive the House that way.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong again!

MR. SPEAKER: That is not a correct point of order.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, like

the Minister of Highways, I want to make it quite clear to you that

I'll be supporting this wonderful budget that the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has brought down for the people of British Columbia. I

want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if there is only enough tax money

in this province to increase the budget by 5.4 per cent, and your

portfolio gets a 12 per cent lift, you are very grateful, not only

grateful to the Minister of Finance, but grateful to your colleagues in

cabinet who take such a generous view toward what must be a high

priority in our province: namely, the provision of education for our

young people.

I want to disagree very strongly, Mr. Speaker, with some of the

statements that were made by the official opposition and by some of the

independent members on the other side. That is that it is responsible,

appropriate, just to spend money as you wish without giving any thought

at all to the future. The Minister of Finance, I think, made a key

statement in his budget speech when lie said: "You cannot borrow your

way to prosperity." I don't know anybody who has ever succeeded in that

in life, and our government would be no exception to the example of

history.

It started back in the late 1940s, Mr. Speaker, that this province

became not only self-sufficient in operating, but partially

self-sufficient, through current revenues, in the provision of capital

needs. As our province improved its economic base during the 1950s and

1960s, it became totally self-sufficient in the provision of operating

and capital for its burgeoning Crown corporations. Then, Mr. Speaker,

the NDP came to office in 1972. In a period of three years this

province not only lost its position of self-sufficiency in operating

and capital; it lost its self-sufficiency in operating alone.

Mr. Speaker, when this government took over, we were faced with an

operating deficit — let alone capital — of between $300 million and

$500 million. I can tell you it has been a tremendous struggle for the

Premier, the Minister of Finance, and all the ministries, to bring us

back finally to a state where we can be self-sufficient on the

operating side.

But let there be no doubt that the province faces tremendous capital

needs in the future that are going to have to be obtained by borrowing.

This province, because it is resource-based, has capital-intensive

industry — the most capital-intensive industry of any province in

Canada. Before new jobs can be provided, this investment has to be put

in place. Some of it, through the Crown corporations of government,

will bridge that gap between the private sector and the public sector.

They are instruments of economic strategy. The job they do cannot

entirely be done by private enterprise and, therefore, they must borrow

so the citizens of this province will have jobs.

That is what the budget is all about. Some have suggested, on the

other side, and, I might say, some have suggested in the press, that it

would be appropriate and responsible for this province to go ahead and

spend and spend and spend on operating account — pay no attention to

the cost of education or hospitals, just build highways if we want to.

But if we do that kind of thing, Mr. Speaker, we not only leave an

impediment to those who come after us in this House, but we also make

it more difficult to borrow on capital account for those things that

must be done to provide jobs.

Some would have us tax and tax and tax to pay for education. But,

Mr. Speaker, that simply cannot be done and still have jobs for those

students when they graduate. There has to be a balance. I say to those

who are the professionals in the educational system: we want to pay

them well. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, they are the best-paid people in the

educational profession anywhere in Canada.

But with the tax situation as it is and with the need to provide

jobs, it's unrealistic to expect everybody in the educational system or

everybody in the public service in any of its facets to have national

guidelines, plus fringe benefits, plus increments. Because if the total

of these exceed the ability of taxes to support them, then we're just

going to get ourselves into the kind of morass that the NDP drove us to

in their three short years in office. Mr. Speaker, if we are to have

prosperity provided again in British Columbia to get out of this

economic dilemma that the NDP placed us in, we're going to have to have

an effective economic strategy.

MR. COCKE: Come on, now!

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Member, you did that. In the three

short years you were in office you destroyed the ability of the

province to finance. You took away our self-sufficiency in capital; you

even took away our self-sufficiency in operating. When we came to

office, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't just the $340

[ Page 652 ]

million that we were short on current account, it was all the bills

that kept coming in, all the promises that t had been made, the

expectations, unrealistic expectations that were out there on the part

of people who had been trained to feed at the government table by the

NDP when the food wasn't in the cupboard.

MR. LOEWEN: They still don't know it. They're not smart enough to realize it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Coverup by the NDP!

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, in the educational system the

primary and secondary system is more or less static now as far as

population is concerned. There's still a little rippling going on as

far as different grades are concerned, but the population is not

moving at a fairly rapid rate. It's not that way at the post-secondary

level, just to refute the argument raised by the member for Prince

Rupert (Mr. Lea).

At the university level there's a 10 per cent increase this year in

population; in technical and vocational schools there is an 11 per

cent increase. These are the people who are closest to entering the job

market.

This is where the huge bulge is. This is where expenditures have to be made

to provide the skills; this is where the link-up between education and the economy

of British Columbia has to be tightened up.

Just today I tabled the report by Professor Roger Gaudry with regard to the

state of research and research funding in British Columbia. Professor Gaudry,

as probably most of the members know, was the developer of the largest private

research establishment existing in Canada. For 10 years he was president of

the University of Montreal. He was a founding member and the second president

of the Science Council of Canada. We wanted to find how we could improve our

technological base here in British Columbia to give a new arm to the industrial

development of this province and to provide more and better jobs for our citizens.

He has given us some advice and it's in the report that I have just tabled.

Remember, this was prepared for us by someone from the province of Quebec whose

ties through the Science Council had been to the federal government.

The report says that the steady decline in the real value of federal government

support of research projects, coupled with increasing costs, has placed B.C.

in a real danger of falling below a basic level of research activity in certain

areas and failing to provide for the future of highly skilled scientific manpower

in the needs of this province.

He recommends, Mr. Speaker, that an industrial park be created in B.C. as a

stimulus to industrial innovation. He says that we should have a provincial

mechanism to define and administer a detailed provincial research policy. He

suggests that some of he non-renewable resources of this province be placed

in a fund to stimulate applied research and development so that we can have

jobs to replace hose that depend on these depleting resources.

Just yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Premier of this province was

explaining to the House that if we take all of the income that we get

from non-renewable resources like natural gas and blow them on current

account, we have nothing put away for the future to provide jobs that

replace others. Remember, it was he NDP that introduced this large

source of new revenue from natural gas. But it was all blown, Mr.

Speaker! Nothing was put in the kitty from that! There was no provision

at all for a heritage fund like he Premier suggested so that jobs would

come in the future.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Wrong, wrong, wrong!

HON. MR. McGEER: Shovel it all out! Shovel it all out! There was no thought for the future at all, no thought even to the present.

But that's not the counsel we've got from Professor Gaudry. He tells

us in his report, Mr. Speaker, that the policies of the federal

government with respect to research have placed the technological base

of our province in jeopardy.

He says that the conditions created by the policies of the federal

government have stretched the depreciating value of the research dollar

insufferably and it has resulted in the diminution of the research

which is going on in our universities, upon which our future technology

will be based.

So the advice he gives this province, Mr. Speaker, as an interim

measure, is to preserve the technology of our province which is

presently in jeopardy as a result, to use his words, "of the

insufferable policy of he federal government." I'm sure that's

something which the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) will recognize as being true, and perhaps he can get on

the telephone to Ottawa and try and straighten that out. Through you,

Mr. Speaker, to the member, give them some instruction instead of taking all the instruction yourself from the other direction.

MR. GIBSON: I have enough trouble keeping you fellows straightened out.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Education has

been able to initiate some new programmes in the past year as a result

of moneys provided by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), and

we're going to have sufficient funds in this budget to carry on and

develop some of these. We are making the dollars stretch as far as we

possibly can.

[ Page 653 ]

We created the Haney Educational Institute, taking over a correction

facility from the Department of the Attorney-General. We started a new

educational facility going at the former Riverview educational facility

for nurses, and we got that from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

McClelland). We've expanded our aircraft-maintenance training by

buying a hangar from Pacific Western Airlines. So we'll obtain

educational facilities from anybody we can get them from because the

pressures are so great for providing new technical and vocational

programmes in this province.

The increase in population is so high, 11 per cent this year, the

fastest growing area of education in our province, and so poorly

served, I might say, Mr. Speaker, by the former government, and so

poorly served by the federal government in the transfer payments it is

allowing to this province — the lowest in all of Canada.

We are putting in new core facilities. Malaspina has now been

finished — as the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) should know. In

Prince George it's well underway, nearing completion, and in Kelowna we

have just commenced.

Mr. Speaker, in the budget this year — and of which I am very proud

and pleased — funds are set aside for the delivery of third- and

fourth-year programmes to the interior of British Columbia, and we're

going to be paying aggressive attention to all of that. We are

stretching the dollars. We're making every single one count, unlike our

predecessors in office, and because of that and because of the balanced

and well-thought-out budget of the Minister of Finance we are going to

make substantial progress in education in the coming year.

It's part of the economic strategy of British Columbia, and

something that will be elaborated on by the other ministers, showing

how this cabinet is working together to provide British Columbia with

prosperity that it's never known before. Mr. Speaker, I support this

budget.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, because of

the imminence of the vote I am going to speak very shortly and try and

hold my remarks to no more than 20 minutes, and I'm sure that meets

approval in the back bench down there. As the member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) would know, there's an old Scottish saying that it takes a

learned man five hours to prepare a 20-minute speech, but to prepare a

40-minute speech it takes a dunce no time at all. So I had to devote a

lot of time to this particular address.

I want to talk — just two or three lines — about the fiction propagated by

the Minister of Education. Does that minister know that in every year, 1973, 1974

and 1975, even though '75 was a bad year, total capital investment increased

in the province of British Columbia?

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): He didn't say that.

MR. MACDONALD: No. Well, you know, they are propagating pure

fiction for the political interests of that unholy coalition opposite

there, and they've been going around the province besmirching the NDP

financial record. Now we had some difficulties in the year 1975, but on

the whole it was a record of balanced budgets and industrial expansion

in this province. Mr. Speaker, for him to say that BCPC did not have

reserves in the bank account...go back and look at the figures. When we

went out of office they had about $75 million in reserve in BCPC for

future development. That member doesn't know what he is talking about.

I wish I could spend more time on that, but I can't.

Mr. Speaker, just a few pleasantries before I begin my speech. I was

interested that Premier Bennett went to the Under-40 Millionaires' Club

at the Four Seasons while the Socred hordes were meeting over at the

Hyatt Regency for their convention. The Under-40 Millionaires' Club —

self-made — and all the millionaires were standing around there and he

was assuring them...

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Were you there?

MR. MACDONALD: ...that the world would be made safe for Rolls

Royces. They were all standing up and saying: "We're self-made men. We

have become millionaires in only three generations." (Laughter.) In the

case of the Premier, it's in only two generations. But it makes you

kind of worry, you know — the A-G's department — because I think when

you see that hospital scene with the old millionaire possibly on the

death bed, and the death duties abolished, and the foot of the son and

heir possibly straying toward that oxygen hose — Agatha Christie stuff

— it's kind of dangerous. Well, we haven't time for that.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I want to say something about the way this government has covered up

on what is a very serious matter. It was brought up by the member for

Revelstoke-Slocan, the House Leader, and their response was to

investigate the leak, the public servants, the disappearance of the

letters. It was an admission of guilt on the charge. The only response

of the Premier to this serious charge of circulating a political

blacklist is instantly to mount an investigation to find out who

brought this improper conduct to light. That is an admission of guilt,

a plumbers' unit to investigate the leak but not the fire.

[ Page 654 ]

The Premier says it didn't matter that documents identifying public

servants as NDP or Socred went out from his office. It is against all

constitutional proprieties. It is fact, and, in fact, one Norman

Pearson, Deputy Minister of the Department of Lands, identified on that

list, was summarily fired five days after the memorandum was sent out

from the Premier's office. Will you investigate that...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. MACDONALD: ...or will you investigate the leak? You've got

more in-house investigations going on around here on everything but

what matters. I ask this....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Who's this? Well, it was the butcher store.

(Laughter.) I don't know that one. I know where the liquor store is in

Kerrisdale, but I don't know where the butcher store is.

But I want to ask this, Mr. Speaker: were there other lists that

went out with other names, and was Terry Ison of the Workers'

Compensation Board, who was summarily fired shortly thereafter — even

though his resignation as of next June in a proper manner was in the

hands of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) — was he on

somebody's list? Because that man, too, was summarily fired for nothing

else but political revenge by this government.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: The Hon. Minister of Consumer Affairs was

kidding me a little bit about the price of scotch. He said the British

pound had fallen but we had laid in a lot of liquor — I knew that —

but, you know, the pound was down to $1.88, he said, when we bought a

stock. He didn't say that it had already fallen then from $2.30, and he

didn't explain really that...if it's falling, you don't increase the

price, eh? Oh, I don't want to talk more about that.

That man doesn't know. He says we did nothing in liquor in the whole

three and a half.... I wish that man who now has charge of that

portfolio would go back and read the files of the accomplishments of

those three and a half years.

I want to say something a little more serious about the Hon. Rafe Mair, because speaking to the....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs, which, Mr. Speaker, is an ungodly mixture, because you're not

going to protect corporations and consumers. You may protect neither,

but you will never protect both. So I hate to give him that title, but

I do. That was done when the MLAs had been sent home, eh — done by

order-in-council under that reorganization bill?

MS. SANFORD: Right.

MR. MACDONALD: Anyway, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs, speaking to the members of the Victoria Real Estate Board in

Victoria, December 16 last, dismissed Dr. Gideon Rosenbluth's report —

the real estate report — as, "not particularly inspiring." What a

surprise coming from that hon. minister! A hot-shot real estate

speculator appointed to Consumer and Corporate Affairs by the Premier

says the Rosenbluth report has nothing in it that calls for any great

change. I say that's baloney. A man with speculative real estate

holdings as long as your arm.... I notice the disclosure statements of

the hon. minister, and this is real estate — just be patient — real

estate, real estate, real estate, real estate, real estate, real

estate, real estate. And this hon. minister says that the Rosenbluth

report isn't worth considering!

In this quotation in the paper from that meeting, he says that his

job is "to perform the role of a policeman for a fair market." In other

words, "It's every man for himself," said the great Root Bear as he

danced among the chickens. (Laughter.)

Whose interest does the hon. minister represent? It is not the

public interest, but the real estate promoter's interest. How can he

think otherwise? Quite within the law, and I make that plain, the hon.

minister took an option in 1975 from the widow of Donald Haughtom — the

parcels are on that disclosure, just part of it — to purchase an

historic ranch south of Kamloops, the Haughton Ranch, formerly the Long

Lake Ranch. The Haughtons put it together, assembling the separate

titles over many years. They were all separate titles.

This is an opportunity, eh? There were 6,000 acres of deeded land

for cattle; for feed and adjacent grazing leases, about 9,000 acres.

Mair's term to the widow Houghton: $10,000 down for the option;

$240,000 in six months; the balance, to a total of $500,000, in 10

years. Is this private business or a matter of public concern? In this

case it is both.

Before the ink was dry on the option, the separate titles — and this

was the opportunity to break it up — some as small as 86 acres, were

listed for sale, The listed price total $1,326,000.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MACDONALD: The breakup with the public providing the

services.... That's what happens when you break up historic, ranches.

The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) knows that. The roads,

[ Page 655 ]

the sewers, the police, the school and all the services have to be

provided for the public. There's nothing wrong about this. It was

simply a smart real estate promotion. To break up an historic ranch and

sell the pieces is quite within the letter, perhaps even the spirit, of

the law. But would you put this promoter in charge of real estate in

the province of British Columbia? Premier Bennett did, and the

buccaneer philosophy was installed in public office.

The clear, simple message of the Rosenbluth report is that real

estate commissions the public are paying are too high — read the

report; that this has increased housing costs and held back land from

development; that people entering the real estate pre-licensing courses

are grist for the big realtor's mill and drop out — 850 of them in the

year 1974 — when they have been used up and can't any longer make a

living in real estate.

In 1973-4, 733 new people entered the real estate business as

salesmen. They pay their fee; they take the pre-licensing course. The

total number of salesmen in B.C. that year was far too many — 6,628.

Eight hundred and fifty dropped out in that same year. It's a free run

of people for the industry. "Bad luck and good-bye," after a very

bitter experience for the 850. There were too many salesmen, a

fantastic turnover. The average earnings for 55 per cent of them were

under $9,600 a year, with a 200-hour-a-month average work load. The

result: inefficiency, low productivity, high real estate commissions,

and a slackening of ethics in the industry. Commissions had been fixed

contrary to the new competition Act: 5 per cent for residential, 7 per

cent for multiple listing, 10 per cent for farmland and vacant

property. The industry says that it no longer sets commissions, but Dr.

Rosenbluth says at page 29: "While the rates are no longer fixed by

collusive agreement, the rates typically charged have not, in fact,

declined from the levels established earlier."

For example, if you go to sell property and you want the multiple

listing, you pay the 7 per cent. If you go through Block Brothers, in

the person of Henry Block.... Henry Block is defending that minister,

and I have to take on both of them. He says commission rates are not

too high, but you know when you go through Block Brothers how the

commission is 7 per cent on the house you're moving out of and 7 per

cent on the house you're moving into. Then they do the financing and

make something more on that. That minister, who is supposed to be

protecting the consumers of the province of British Columbia, says:

"That isn't too high." The Rosenbluth report says it is.

I say the hon. Minister of Consumer Affairs is not protecting the

consumer interest. He is not protecting the public interest; he is not

engaging in a fight against inflation. I referred to the disclosure

statement. The hon. minister has put his real estate holdings in trust

since becoming a minister.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: The word is "in trust"; they're there. But I

say, Mr. Speaker, that there is no such thing as a blind trust for a

seeing-eye promoter. Commissions won't come down. The number of

salesmen who are going to be exploited in this industry won't be

helped; the consumer will not be helped by that minister.

Mr. Speaker, I'm watching my time. I've got about 10 minutes more.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Five, two, one!

I just want to say a word about separatism. I believe that it is an

important issue for British Columbians, but I believe this wave of

separatism will crest, break and recede. But we can't save Canada by

just wringing our hands. Federal encroachments on provincial affairs

should be rolled back.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) is over there. He

mentioned yesterday when answering a question that they come in with

federal civil servants to take a bit of the parimutuel track. It's

ridiculous!

Duplication of services, federal and provincial. A dual court

system: the federal court is handling the same cases as have been

handled well for years in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Two

sets of Consumer Affairs offices throughout Vancouver and parts of B.C.

— why this duplication and overlapping? And while Rene Levesque is

wrong about separation, we are all victims of what is a mindlessly

burgeoning federal bureaucracy. It applies in environment, jails,

forests, securities, legal aid, credit unions — they want to inspect

them — police. Federal prosecutors are sitting around waiting to take

their time in provincial courts. It's a useless overlapping of

services, even in consumer advertising. The taxpayer is losing his

shirt paying for the same services twice.

The government answer is legalistic, constitutional reform,

patriation of the Constitution, a B.C. Judge on the Supreme Court of

Canada, B.C. senators, eh? And a constitutional conference was called

for by the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson). But I say, Mr. Speaker, a

conference of that kind now would be disastrous, a sounding board for

separatism and agreement on nothing. I can't agree with that.

Why don't you join this little group? A Liberal after all is only a

socialist with his brains knocked out. Come over. (Laughter.) Repent,

repent! What am I saying?

Separatism is a worldwide phenomenon. Tribal loyalties in Africa,

civil war in Lebanon and Ireland, Indian land claims — even the Queen

Charlotte Islands want to separate; husbands want to separate

[ Page 656 ]

from their wives. The tide will flood and ebb but it will get worse

before it gets better. And the consequences are that if Canada breaks

up, the parts, one by one, will fall into the United States and we will

have the continental sharing of our resources of trees and water and

all the rest of it, with a vengeance. So Rene Levesque should be told.

He keeps saying — he and his ministers — that Quebec will separate and

remain nicely friendly and a customs union in Canada. He should be

told: "No way." British Columbia sells its products on the world market

at competitive world prices and we would not buy Quebec-manufactured

goods produced under a tariff wall and receiving a preference in the

province of British Columbia. If there was separation, we would buy as

we sell, on the competitive world market.

I wish I had time to say — and I'll do it very quickly now —

something about the oil patch up at Fort St. John. The giveaway: 45,000

barrels of oil — and the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) knows what I'm saying is true — come down per day to the

coast. I'll admit that these companies went on a little slowdown strike

with the NDP when I was the Minister of Energy. But you've got to bear

in mind that when we set royalty rates we took into account that they

were old wells dug long ago before inflation set in — all paid off, the

machinery operating, pumping out the oil. Our royalties were fair. We

did not give in to that particular strike. But look what the Social

Credit government has given to these companies in one year. What a

giveaway to settle a strike. The price of a barrel of oil has gone up

$2 in that year, from $8 to $9.75, that nets, incidentally, in the

Peace River only $9.20. But still, it's a $2 increase up there. That

means, with the $2 increase, that these producers in the north have

been given — 6,000,000 barrels a year times $2 — an extra $32 million a

year gross increase. And I admit that's gross. Then you apply the

royalty. And every time the minister speaks, he says prices are in the

right direction and we're going to catch the Arabs. We've got to have

replacement costs charged to our consumers for oil, whether it's the

arctic $15 or the tar sands $12. When prices go up, he says that's the

right direction.

The $32 million that I mentioned is subject, under our government, to a royalty

of 46.9 per cent. Despite the tremendous cash windfall given those particular

branches of international companies for the existing old oil, the minister reduced

the royalty rate from 46.9 per cent to 40.48 per cent. This means that at the

40 per cent royalty rate, the companies are receiving an extra $19 million a

year for the old oil and the royalty rate reduction has given them an extra

$7 million a year. The Social Credit, therefore, has given to the oil companies

with the old oil of British Columbia another $26 million a year, while they

go out to the people of the province and say: "Practise restraint."

There is no restraint for the international oil companies, and they are not

spending on exploration and development anything like the profits they have

reached in the last year. They came to this government like Oliver Twist and

asked for more and they sure got it. The Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications

(Hon. Mr. Davis) says he has the trickle-down theory. That's the theory

of this government: what's good for General Motors is good for you. It'll

all come down. Crumbs from the table will fall to the common people. The golden

shower. That's their philosophy.

In the oil fields we put in an incentive. When we gave an increase,

we gave them a part of it as an incentive bonus. It could only be

cashed if it was reinvested in the oil fields and the gas fields of

British Columbia. While these increases have gone on they haven't

increased the incentive a bit.

They are operating on the hope that the international oil companies

— with the money that is flying out of British Columbia, with their

greatly increased profits — may, they hope, reinvest part or all of

that money in Canada. The NDP's answer to that is that for resource

development there has to be planning and partnership and public

control. With that kind of a programme, in terms of sheer expansion,

conservation, and development of our resources — mineral, oil, gas and

timber — we in the NDP can do better for Canada and better for British

Columbia than the trickle-down theory that what's good for General

Motors is good for you.

And I wasn't playing squash the other night; I was speaking to some Anglican students.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Thank you for the answer. You told me they were coming back. Answer that one.

MR. MACDONALD: Two o'clock on Monday.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you waiting?

MR. MACDONALD: Ask me at 2 o'clock.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, unlike the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. McGeer), neither of whom is in his seat just now, I am not

rising to support this budget.

I cannot support this budget which carries on in the tradition of

the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance in 1976 of being

destructive, not just to the economy of this province, but certainly

very destructive to the people as well. A number of members from the

opposition have outlined reasons why the promise made by the Minister

of Finance and the Premier that this budget was going to be good

[ Page 657 ]

for the economy, and good for the people of British Columbia as

well, is a false promise and certainly not one which is carried out by

the facts of the budget itself.

So what I want to do, very briefly, is just talk about some of the

impact this budget is going to have on the constituents whom I

represent, the people of Vancouver-Burrard — as well as the people in

this province — who depend on the government for services and also one

particular group which depends on the government for its income. Mr.

Speaker, as far as the economy is concerned, those people who consider

themselves the small-business sector of British Columbia are suffering

as a result of the fiscal and economic policies which this government

first instituted when it came in, and which it is continuing to the

present time.

The second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi), and myself

issued a questionnaire, the results of which we are going to make

public within a couple of weeks. But I just want to touch, very

briefly, on a couple of the points which came out. This questionnaire

was directed specifically at the small businesses in the riding of

Vancouver-Burrard — an urban riding, as you know. Without doubt, the

response coming says that as a result of the increase in the sales tax,

which was introduced with the first budget, as a result of what has

happened to gasoline, as a result of the wiping out of the rent ceiling

for commercial establishments, as a result of the increase in ICBC

rates, as a result of the increase in ferry rates and as a result of

the government's policy which wiped out $300 million out circulating

money in the province, last year and this year a number of those

businesses are declaring bankruptcy. They are going belly-up, Mr.

Speaker.

It is interesting to note that it is not just Vancouver-Burrard that

is suffering from an increase in bankruptcies over the first six months

in 1976 — and there was an increase of over 15 per cent. The second

member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) tells us that certainly small

businesses, such as restaurants and motels in Victoria, are also

reeling from the fiscal bungling of the Social Credit government, and

certainly from its fiscal policies. Even the Premier's own riding is

suffering from the fiscal policies. HOMECO a business in that area that

builds recreational vehicles and mobile homes, is also on the verge of

bankruptcy as a result of some of the fiscal policies of this

government.

Allan Emory — I don't know if he is on the government's blacklist or

not, but who certainly is not a member of the NDP — is the president of

the Victoria Chamber of Commerce, and says that this government has

done nothing to assist either the industrial or tourist economies. He

said that the government has crippled the tourist industry, and he is

crying out to the government for help. The only help that he received,

of course, was a further blow from this government in the form of its

budget which is doing even more to destroy the secondary industry base

in this country, to wipe out the small industry in this country and,

certainly, to further hurt the tourist industry and the motel industry.

Mr. Speaker, the second group of people I'd like to talk about

specifically are those people who depend on the government for their

services.

Now in the throne speech, which I did not hear because I was not

here, but which I have certainly read over a number of times, a number

of promises were made, Mr. Speaker. Even some of the government

speakers made promises in terms of the throne speech. Those promises,

we hoped, were going to be honoured in the budget.

Promises were made to senior citizens; promises were made to

children; promises were made to people in need. Even the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) stood in the House and made promises to

the women of this province. In fact, what we've discovered from the

budget is that the budget has designated that, really, the people in

need in this province are those who leave estates of over $200,000 when

they die. Consequently, those are the ones who are going to receive

benefits under this budget.

The budget also designated the mining companies as the ones that are

in need. They are the ones who are going to be allowed, as it is

euphemistically put, a greater flexibility in writing off the

explorations and other taxes.

It's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that even though we have the

capability of measuring the disastrous economic impact of this budget

on the economy and on the people of British Columbia, we really have no

way of measuring the disastrous impact on the people in terms of

services to children and the long-term results of that, services to our

senior citizens and the long-term results to that, services to the

handicapped and the long-term results to that. Because, in fact, we're

going to pay for these things in the long run.

We may not have to pay for them in the duration of the lifetime of

this government, but certainly the future governments and the future

people in British Columbia are going to have to pay for the disastrous

cutbacks in services to the mentally ill; services to the handicapped;

services to the children with emotional problems, to the youth in this

province; the wiping out of groups like, as I mentioned earlier, the

handicapped group; the cutting of funding to groups like Aurora House,

which gives a service to women who have problems with alcoholism.

We can't measure the cost, in terms of human suffering and human

impact, of these kinds of fiscal decisions, but what we do know is that

we are going to pay for it in the long run. We may pay for it in terms

of increased population in our jails; we may pay for it in all kinds of

socially destructive ways for

[ Page 658 ]

our population in the long run. That is the reason why I think it is

so sad that we have a government that hasn't taken that into account

and hasn't really come to grips with the real disastrous consequences

of its short-sighted fiscal policies.

The Premier of this province promised to make British Columbia the

Texas of the world. He really did when he was running this campaign,

and he's living up to that promise. That certainly is one promise he's

living up to. Texas also brought down a budget just after Christmas.

Although they have a budget which, like ours, is well over $3 billion —

if anything, they have a surplus budget — they have done precisely the

same thing that this government has done. They have cut back on their

services to people; they have cut back on their services to senior citizens and dependent mothers.

If I can quote from this, Texas, like this government, has written

into its budget all kinds of benefits in terms of its oil rich and its

corporate and business interests. If you'll remember, Mr. Speaker,

Texas is that state which is among the wealthiest of the United States,

yet which has the highest incidence of people living in poverty and

certainly the worst social services for anybody in all of the

United States.

Mr. Speaker, my time is running out so I want to touch very briefly

on two other groups of people. One is a group of people who are

directly dependent on this government for their income. I'm talking

about the constituency secretaries. As you know, each member in this

Legislature is allowed a certain sum of money to hire a secretary to

work for them in the constituency. Those secretaries have not received

any kind of an increase to their income since this government took

office — not one cent. As the result of the government's increase in

taxes, as the result of the government's fiscal policies, the cost of

living in this province has gone up for everyone. As a result of

inflation, the cost of living has gone up in this province for

everyone. Yet these people, who are dependent on this government for

their income, have not received one cent in increase from this

government since they took office.

Now maybe it is that the government doesn't realize that most of the

people working as constituency secretaries not all of them, but

certainly most of them are women. Maybe this government doesn't realize

that a number of those people working as constituency secretaries are

the sole support of their families. But surely, at the same time when

the members of that government were fighting to have their income

increased by the 10 per cent which it was increased, a battle could

have been put up on behalf of the constituency secretaries too.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I'm not arguing with you whether you want to take

it off or not, Mr. Premier. What I'm saying to you is that in the same

way you can wipe out succession duties on people who make over $200,000

in this province, and the same way you can take into account wiping out

tax benefits and gift duties...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, kindly address the chair.

MS. BROWN: ...through you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier spoke to

me without going through you. But through you, Mr. Speaker, to the

Premier, at the same time that that government made those kinds of

concessions on behalf of people in this province who don't need it,

surely they could have taken into account that the people working for

MLAs, who are having to live on $700 a month and a little bit more,

were entitled to some kind of increase. I say shame — not shame to the

Premier. I'm saying shame to all of the members of the government back

bench, as well as to the members of cabinet, that you didn't go to bat

on behalf of those women who are working in your constituency on your

behalf, even to see to it that they get a cost-of-living increase in

terms of their income. You sit in this House and tell me that you are

supporting a budget that is supposed to be so good. The people working

for you are not getting any kind of benefits out of it whatsoever. You

are a disgrace, Mr. Minister. You are a disgrace, Mr. Speaker. The

government is disgraceful in the way it treats its own employees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order! Order!

MS. BROWN: It's disgraceful the way the government treats its own employees. Okay, so the truth hurts!

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Apologize to the Speaker.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry. That must have been a slip of the tongue. I did not include the Speaker in my statements.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that a slip of the tongue also?

MS. BROWN: No. What I have to say about the members of the

government benches not speaking on behalf of their constituency

secretaries stands — it's disgraceful. You could have gone to bat for

them the same way you went to bat for yourselves.

In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I want to make one brief statement about

something that I know is also of no interest to the members of the

House over there. That is the fact that the budget totally ignores the

[ Page

659 ]

existence of the rest of the world. This is a selfish and

self-centred budget. There's no question about it. Now under the New

Democratic Party government, a small sum of money was set aside that

was to be used in those parts of the world that needed some kind of

assistance. The first thing that the administration when they came in

was to wipe out that money, to recapture that fund as they said it was.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Okay, the understanding was surely that....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Members, the first member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor.

MS. BROWN: It's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that whenever

anything is being said that really comes home, everyone over there

starts chirping. So I take it as a compliment that they've heard what

I've said for a change. So please, don't disrupt them.

MR. LOEWEN: I didn't hear it. Repeat it again for me.

MS. BROWN: You can't hear. There is no point to talk to you; you can't hear.

Mr. Speaker, what I want to talk about is the fact that this

province — that surely must be considered one of the more fortunate

parts of the world, one of the more prosperous parts of the world — in

this budget could have taken into account that there are other parts of

the world that could benefit from some of the surplus and some of the

good things that we have. That they not only recaptured and wiped out

the agricultural fund that was in existence to aid developing countries

but, in fact, have not included anything in this budget in terms of our

responsibility to the rest of the world must be deplored.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that for those reasons, as

well as for other reasons mentioned by members on the opposition side,

I cannot support this selfish, self-centred budget which is so

destructive — not just in terms of the economy of this province, but

certainly in terms of people and their needs as well. Through you, Mr.

Speaker, to that government, it is a disgrace and a shame, and I

certainly hope that it is going to be withdrawn and rewritten, taking

into account that we are not an island unto ourselves and that we do

have some kind of responsibility to other people outside of those

people in this province who die and leave an estate of $200,000 or who

are involved in mining explorations. Thank you.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'll be very brief, I just want to make a few

comments about some of the things that have been said, and certainly add my

support to this budget — the finest budget that's been presented to this

province in many years.

I'd like to welcome back the member for Vancouver-Burrard before she leaves. Say hello to your mother for me, Madam Member.

There's been a lot of comment in this House about the employment

opportunities that this budget will provide. Mark my words, Mr.

Speaker, this budget does provide employment opportunities and we will

provide jobs in British Columbia. I think it needs to be noted before

we go any further that in the past year, this government has provided

30,000 new jobs for British Columbia people.

It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that this budget provides for a

hefty, healthy 18.5 per cent increase in the budget of the Economic

Development ministry. Mr. Speaker, that 18.5 per cent increase is jobs

— that's what that department is all about — and for the first time in

many years, Mr. Speaker, this government is giving real meaning to the

Department of Economic Development, and it has a minister (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), not a token, as was the case in the last government.

Just one example of the many things that the department intends to

do in order to create jobs is the announcement that was made by the

real member for New Westminster over there in terms of the new

development that's going to happen in the city of New Westminster. I

want to tell you that that doesn't only mean jobs; that means new life

to a city which was having severe difficulties.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The Minister of Human Resources (Hon.

Mr. Vander Zalm) has announced the PREP programme, which is finding

thousands of jobs for people on welfare in British Columbia. Do you

know what makes the people on the other side of the House mad about

that PREP programme? It cuts red tape. It cuts down the bureaucracy. It

gets jobs directly for people, and those people don't understand that.

If it isn't built up in bureaucracy and red tape, then it doesn't fit

into the mould of the opposition.

It must be noted, Mr. Speaker, that the highways budget for this

coming fiscal year is up $70 million, and who do you think builds

highways, Mr. Speaker? People. And that's jobs — jobs for British

Columbians in expanding the highways programme in this province that

was left to rack and ruin by the previous government. That which also

must be noted are the initiatives by the Minister of Municipal Affairs

and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) in developing new housing proposals and

initiatives for British Columbians. Who do you think builds houses, Mr.

Speaker? People. Jobs for British Columbians. It must

[ Page 660 ]

be noted that there is $15 million additional in the Ministry of

Labour for summer employment for students and what do you think that

is? Jobs for British Columbians. I must apologize to the member for

Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot). (Laughter.)

I have to tell you, too, that in my own ministry this government has

seen fit to allow me $100 million extra in this upcoming fiscal year to

provide health services for British Columbians. I'd like to say that in

the past year several major projects were completed, or at least

substantially completed, in British Columbia for a cost of almost $35

million in hospitals. Our emphasis, as mentioned in the throne speech,

is on extended-care beds in this province, and we have now over 4,000

extended-care beds in British Columbia with over 1,600 now under

construction. About 500 of them will open by the end of this fiscal

year — and that's just a start. Who do you think builds hospitals?

People. British Columbians getting jobs by the positive policies of

this government.

This government is providing the people of this province with new

jobs, new investment opportunities, and a totally new climate for the

financial affairs of the province of British Columbia. I don't usually

like reading newspaper articles, but this is a really good one, so I

would like to pass it on to the members of the House. It's from the

Victoria Times of Wednesday, February 2, 1977, in which it is pointed

out in an

article by the Times business editor that over the next 15

years British Columbia will grow faster than any other province except

Alberta; B.C. second only to Alberta.

MR. LOEWEN: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: This

article mentions that our one major

problem may be union problems over this summer. If we can get over

that, we are in good shape. But I would like to quote just one item

from this article...

MR. LAUK: One year and we're falling behind Alberta.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You were falling behind Newfoundland. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: ...and I wish you would listen, Mr. Member.

HON. MR. MAIR: Way behind!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: But it says: "In saying that B.C. is second

only to Alberta in its 15-year growth forecast, over the past four years the

main problem in B.C. had been ill-advised taxation policies..."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: ...but these have either been changed or

their efforts have been moderated," and the

article goes on to say:

"Now the future is quite bright." Now the future is quite bright for

British Columbia because of the policies of this government. The

opposition talks about tax increases in the last year. Why do you think

those tax increases were necessary? Because of the ill-advised taxation

policies of the former government.

I'll tell you that this government just got here in time, Mr.

Speaker, to turn it around or we'd have been going down the hill like

England was. I could go on and list the priorities of this government

in the field of health services, which is the ministry for which I am

responsible, significant developments in the field of medical teaching;

200 new pediatric beds on stream and moving forward; 92 maternity beds

on stream and moving forward in the province of British Columbia; new

health units at Lumby, Pender Harbour and Mayne Island; new health

centres, integrating health and social services, have been announced

for Terrace, for Prince George, for Vernon and for Kamloops; expansion

of the programme for forensic psychiatric services in this province;

improvement of air ambulance services; restoration of escort

services; extended training for ambulance attendants; the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has announced the new educational centre at

Riverview Hospital, now under Douglas College; the increased emphasis

on health education in this province in terms of preventive health,

which is the way we're going to go for the future; Action B.C., now

under the Department of Recreation and Conservation in a direct

marriage of the two departments in providing preventive health-care

services; government approval for a 30-bed residential treatment centre

for the Lower Fraser Valley for intensive therapy programmes for

alcoholics; a new detox unit in Maple Cottage at Woodland School will

serve South Burnaby, New Westminster, Surrey, Richmond, Delta and

Coquitlam. Eighteen major hospital programmes completed.

I could go on and on and outline the significant advances of this

government in terms of health services for the people of British

Columbia. But, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to embarrass the opposition

too much today. It's Friday and everybody wants to go back to their own

home constituencies, so all I'll say in closing is that I support this

budget, and so does every British Columbian who's interested in the

future of this province.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker....

MR. LAUK: Hey, look who's in the House.

[ Page

661 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Oh, welcome back, Mr. Attorney-General. It's nice to see you again. I hope you're feeling much better.

The Minister of Health is one of the ministers in that cabinet who

has a very innovative way of bringing improvements to this province. He

makes cutbacks one year and then the next year he reintroduces those

programmes and calls them improvements. That is the tone that

department has taken; that is the tone this cabinet has taken.

Mr. Speaker, we have sat through many long hours of debate on this budget.

MR. LOEWEN: Where's the opposition?

MRS. WALLACE: Well, the budget debate is grinding to a halt

today and as this happens, Mr. Speaker, I'm wondering whether or not

the long hours of debate had any effect on the people who sit across

from me. They either don't listen or they don't understand. The Premier

of this province stood in the debate recently and said that there had

been no constructive criticism offered. Every member who has gotten up

on this side of the House had made constructive criticism. The

mud-slinging does not come from this side, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LOEWEN: Kitchen economics.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Who circulated the blacklist?

MRS. WALLACE: You people don't seem to realize a very

important point: you are the government; your job is to come up with

policies and programmes, and to present those policies and programmes.

We are the opposition: our job is to criticize, and that is what we are

doing. Instead of coming up with some supportive statements, in nearly

90 per cent of the cases the people who have stood up have spent the

time of their speech in this debate in going back with the same old

phrases: "It's all your fault; it's the NDP's fault" — trying to blame

it on the previous administration, and not standing up and taking

responsibility yourselves.

You, through your policies, have done more to effect the economic

downturn in this province than any other one factor. You have created a

tax-fed depression here by taking out of the pockets of the people who

spend money for consumer goods and drawing it into the government

coffers.

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

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, what are the policies that are portrayed

in this budget? I don't think the government members know what those policies

are. They haven't told us what they are. That government approaches the

business of governing the province like they were running a chain of hardware

stores.

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MRS. WALLACE: They think they are handling bins full of nuts

and bolts. They don't realize that they are dealing with people, human

beings with problems.

MR. LOEWEN: Who uses hospitals? Tell us who uses hospitals.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, for God's sake!

MRS. WALLACE: Their whole approach to government is one only

related to dollars and cents, not to the human need. Where is the

opportunity for youth? Where is the right to the seniors, the

handicapped and the sick to some degree of dignity in this province?

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Nothing.

In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, one does not judge people by the amount

of wealth they amass, but rather by their sensitivity and their degree

of perception. The same rule applies to governments. I stand to

criticize this government for lack of sensitivity and for lack of

perception.

They are preoccupied with nothing but figures, figures in the books.

Let us just look at this preoccupation for a moment, Mr. Speaker. Last

year that preoccupation with figures led us into a gymnastic feat of

fiscal juggling unprecedented anywhere in the world. The Clarkson

Gordon report was a report, not an audit. It would have been in order

to have an audit at a change of government, but it wasn't an audit; it

was a report, a reassembly of figures provided by the ministers of the

Crown. That report indicated a deficit of $541 million.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have the public accounts. We know what that

deficit was. It wasn't $541 million, it was $261 million. Let's look at

what made up that deficit: $181 million, that very strange come-to-me,

go-from-me kind of manoeuvre between ICBC and the Minister of Finance.

Just for that little manoeuvre, it's costing the taxpayers of this

province $18 million a year in interest to loan $181 million to ICBC

and borrow it back the next day, to give it to ICBC and borrow it back

the next day. That cost $18 million. We know now that they didn't need

it because they have, according to your own answer, on the order

papers, Mr. Minister, accumulated $272 million without any funds from

this year's payments

[ Page 662 ]

on insurance. Shake your head; hide your head, Mr. Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: No deficit. This ranks with the so-called deficit of the ICBC, $300 million ripoff.

MRS. WALLACE: That's right.

In that $261 million, as well as the $181 million, there were

special warrants; payments to the universities; payments to the towns

and villages of this province; payments to the farmers, the beef

producers; payments that weren't expected until April, or June, or even

into September. They were paid off to try and accumulate that deficit.

You've cooked the books, Mr. Ministers.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

You can prove anything with figures. That was a manipulated deficit

to try and make the former administration look bad; now we are having a

manipulated budget presented to us this year.

We are told there is a 5.9 per cent increase. They are holding the

line: restraint, balance, no deficits. But that is not so, Mr. Speaker.

What about the expenses of the Crown corporations that were included in

last year's budget? Those are gone now. We have B.C. Hydro, B.C.

Ferries, the B.C. Buildings Corporation — a nice spot to hide our

deficit. Those corporations are not even responsible to this

Legislature. All they have to do is bring in a statement of assets and

liabilities once a year. There is no response, no opportunity to find

out what is really going on there. The taxpayers of this province are

underwriting for Crown corporations over $1 billion in debt, and you

say you have a balanced budget. Ridiculous! You are comparing apples

and oranges.

MR. COCKE: Hear, hear!

MRS. WALLACE: You can't compare a budget that only covers

part of the total expense with a budget that covered a much greater

part of that expense. When you talk about holding the line to 5.9 per

cent, that is an incorrect statement, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker.

What about the revenue side of the budget. What about the revenue? I

suggest that those ministers over there are talking out of both sides

of their mouths at once. I think this has been mentioned in the House

before but it bears repeating. On page 10 of the budget, it talks about

the economic outlook. The gross provincial product will be up 5 to 6

per cent. Improving conditions around the world are going to make this

happen. Forest products will be up and are expected to increase. Real

gains in business investments, in the tourist and travel

industry...gains, gains, gains on page 10. The economy will round that

proverbial corner. The economy has made the upturn. That's according to

the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe).

Well, one would think with all that fine, economic activity we would

see some much more substantial revenue. Instead, on page 25, in the

total revenue forecast, there is not enough increase in there to even

cover the inflationary factor, Mr. Speaker. And when you look at the

sales tax, as has been pointed out by several members, that's a good

indicator of what's happening out there in the hustings among the

people. You see that that sales tax increase is just not there. There

is no room for any greater purchasing power in the hands of the people,

the people spending money — and that's a good indicator of what the

economic situation is in any area.

That budget suggests one of two things. Either the Minister of

Finance really doesn't expect the economy to take an upturn.... I might

be inclined to agree with that, but the Premier doesn't agree with

that, Mr. Speaker. The Premier said in this House that he's hoping for

a surplus. And if he has a surplus, he's going to have a heritage fund.

Well, a heritage fund, by any other name, I guess, would be called a

pre-election fund.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MRS. WALLACE: Right on! Yes, that's right. That's what it

would be and that's what it will be. You're putting together a

deliberate surplus so you can give handouts when it comes to an

election, because you didn't indicate that you were going to take any

portion of that which might have accrued from non-renewable resources

for that fund this year. You said that that was....

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: Oh, yes, that was the intent. But what you

said, Mr. Premier, was that if there was a surplus this year from

whatever source, it would go into that heritage fund. That's what I

read in your remarks in Hansard , Mr. Premier.

Mr. Premier, you don't save for a rainy day in the middle of a

rainstorm, and we're in a rainstorm now. We're in an economic

rainstorm. We need every bit of money that you can possibly spare

pumped into this economy to provide the jobs and the services that

people need. Instead, you're talking about saving for the future.

AN HON. MEMBER: Instead of leaving it in the ground, we'll put it in the bank.

AN HON. MEMBER: You won't have a future the way you're going.

[ Page

663 ]

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Your Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm), Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, brags about

underspending his budget. And when I go out and see the amount of human

suffering that is out there in my constituency and around this province

as a result of that minister's legislation, I recognize that be is a

minority of one who thinks that he is such a great guy. He gets up here

and tells us that everybody loves him. But, Mr. Speaker, there is a

terrific amount of concern and upset that that minister's legislation

has created.

The Minister of Health has talked about jobs and this government,

like its Socred predecessor, seems to hang everything on a highway

programme. Seventy miles of highway. That's the answer: build 70 miles

of highway.

MR. LOEWEN: Who uses highways?

MRS. WALLACE: Seventy miles of highway.

MR. LOEWEN: Who uses highways?

AN HON. MEMBER: Persons use highways.

MRS. WALLACE: That minister told us that he knew exactly how

many miles and at how much cost, but he didn't say how many jobs. He

didn't tell us when. How many years? Is it all going to be spent this

year? When is he going to start? The day after the budget came down, he

said he was going to have an environmental study. When is the

environmental study going to be held? Was that just more

window-dressing or are we going to have an environmental study? Is

there going to be a highway?

MR. LOEWEN: Who uses that highway?

MRS. WALLACE: We'll see how many jobs that creates. But one

thing we do know for sure: $15 million for summer employment. Do you

know that's less than has been provided by previous governments for

summer employment? Less!

Do you know, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, that we have

nearly 100,000 unemployed people out there and you're providing $15

million? Do you know what that amounts to, Mr. Speaker? — $150 per

person. That's what you're providing for jobs, $150 for each unemployed

person out there, and that's a shameful amount. Shameful.

There is nothing in this budget for the small, independent businessman. There is nothing for the farmer. Nothing at all.

Talking about the farmer, there are some interesting possibilities

this government could undertake. I have a letter here from the

secretary-manager o f the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association.

He's talking about some of the problems in the beef industry, He says:

"You will note that we mainly produce calves and

feeders which are shipped out of the province to be finished to market

weight. With proper policies and incentives for finishing cattle we

could stimulate the provincial economy and supply close to 50 per cent

of our own demand for beef."

This is a document put out by the Agricultural Economics Research

Council of Canada, and it gives some very interesting figures on what

can be done. In B.C. it is estimated that 22 per cent of the total

economic activity generated is directly or indirectly associated with

agriculture and food production and distribution. For every dollar of

beef produced from the province's own resources and sold at retail,

approximately $2.85 worth of economic activity is generated. The full

economic effects from production and sale of an extra dollar's worth of

beef, however, are more persuasive. When this new wealth in the form of

wages, salaries and other income is spent, a total of $5.50 worth of

economic activity is generated throughout the province. It's estimated

that in B.C. for every calf that we ship out of this province we lose

$2,000 of economic activity. How about feedlots and processing plants,

Mr. Speaker?

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): How much did you lose?

MRS. WALLACE: How about something for the farmers? That would

provide jobs, that would stimulate the economy but, no, the budget is

strangely silent on that. And they are even threatening the Farm Income

Assurance Programme. Now there has been a lot of talk about this and

I'm sorry the Minister of Agriculture is not in the House.

MR. LAUK: It wouldn't make any difference.

MRS. WALLACE: I want to read into the record a statement from

the B.C. Fruit Growers Association executive. This statement is headed:

"A response to the address by the Hon. J.J. Hewitt." I won't read it

all, but it says in part:

"What are people really talking about when they apply

the word 'viable' to any economic enterprise in B.C. or, for that

matter, in Canada? Is the Canadian automobile industry viable? Is our

forest industry or mining industry viable — the economic return of our

professional people of the labour unions, or of our civil servants, our

manufacturing industries and banking institutions? We suggest that the

minister examine and study these and he will soon learn that the sole

reason for their level of

[ Page 664 ]

economic operation and income is that the government legislation had

made it so. Governments, federal or provincial — and, sometimes both —

make these endeavours viable.

"We wish to point out that the government financial

support does not always go under the label of a subsidy" — a term that

some people find objectionable, Mr. Premier — "but rather less obvious

means are employed. What difference is there if stumpage fees or

royalties are reduced or eliminated, or if a direct payment is made to

the industry? Agriculture receives far less financial support than

other enterprises."

What about MacMillan Bloedel? What about Cominco? They're getting

plenty of handouts, but nothing for the farmers, and you're talking

about withdrawing farm income assurance.

Leave job-making to private enterprise, you say. What's happened in

the logging industry? MacMillan Bloedel, the big giant here on the

coast, has laid off thousands of workers. Some of them are back, but

there is no reason they couldn't all be back, the weather being what it

is. Instead, it ranges from 75 per cent back to something like 25 per

cent back to work. Leave it to private enterprise. That's not good

enough, Mr. Members over there, not good enough.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I want to talk just briefly about what's

been happening in the Department of Human Resources. The Minister has

told us how great his GAIN legislation was, what an improvement it

provided for the people of this province. Well, have any of you read

the

article in the Sun : "Has Compassion Left B.C.?"

But let's not leave it to chance. This is a copy of the regulations

for GAIN, and the minister has said that GAIN is going to improve

things. I'd like to quote from page 1.22 — and these are the minister's

regulations on how to apply GAIN. He gives some tables for those in

receipt of income assistance, and afterwards he makes some notes. This

became effective October 1, 1976, and the note says, on page 1.22:

"Applicants in receipt of benefits immediately prior to October 1, 1976,

will not have their benefits reduced by the foregoing policy." Two

classes out there, Mr. Speaker, two classes of pre-GAIN and those who

were post-GAIN — two classes out there.

For example, a family of five living in my constituency, in receipt

of welfare — social assistance — pre-GAIN, that family received $470 a

month. One of those parents was handicapped. The father was accepted

for the handicapped pension, $265 a month. As a result of that

acceptance, Mr. Speaker, that family's income rose to $685 a month

pre-GAIN. That family now — if they were to apply since these

regulations have come into effect — would receive the father's $265

plus, for a unit five — five persons — $345 allowance support and $160 for monthly shelter. Well, it

happens they don't pay $160; they only pay $120. They would receive

that less...because the regulation goes on to say: "Deduct from the

shelter allowance $75 if one parent receives handicapped pension.

Deduct from the family support portion the remaining portion of that

income." Do you know what it comes to for that family? It comes to

$456. It's less now under GAIN than they were receiving before on

social assistance. That's the improvement in GAIN. That's this great,

brave new legislation that that minister has introduced.

Mr. Speaker, that minister has caused heartache and despair to the

people in our province. The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) talked

yesterday about two young men in sleeping bags trying to be first in

line to apply for work. In my constituency, for four nights a young man

slept in his sleeping bag under the bridge at the Cowichan River. In

the morning he got up without food — no breakfast, no food, no money —

and went and stood beside a pay phone waiting hopefully and praying for

a call from a company where he had put his name in and they had

indicated that they might need him and might call him. Four days with

no food, no shelter, no money.

MR. COCKE: That's the smiling minister.

MRS. WALLACE: That's the smiling minister — the man who can

do wrong. That's the kind of thing that's out there. It takes me back —

and I can remember — to the days when the youth of this province rode

back and forth across this country on the rods of the railcars or in

the boxcars. They were unwanted, unclaimed, unneeded, and driven from

town to town. That's what happened then, and we're back into that same

situation — right back in an uncaring society. Those same boys, two of

them starved to death, Mr. Member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot)

— if you're here — in Bowness Park in Calgary. They did an autopsy and

they had grass in their stomachs.

Here, in Vancouver, the illustrious ancestor of one of the members

over there put tear-gas to those boys in the post office because they

could in no way support them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MRS. WALLACE: They drove them from the post office. And a few

months later, what happened? Those boys were heroes because there was a

war. I chose my direction then, Mr. Speaker, and that was a direction

away from the kind of economic system that would allow that kind of

society to prevail.

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) knows how to hurt a person. He said that I didn't

[ Page

665 ]

belong in this party; that I should be with my friend to my right, even if it's my left.

I assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of this House, that I am

in the right party. I'm in the party that stands for human rights and

human dignity, that supports the needs of the people of this province

and not the needs of the rich, the wealthy and the money-lenders.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Finance.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please, hon. minister.

MR. LAUK: A point of order. The Minister of Finance rose to

take his place a second time in the debate. He did not rise on a point

of privilege or under standing order 41, nor did he rise to take a

point of order. Therefore Mr. Speaker recognized him incorrectly under

standing order 42 which states: "A reply shall be allowed to a member

who has moved a substantive motion but not to the mover of an

amendment, the previous question, or an instruction to a committee."

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: We're debating a motion of an instruction to a

committee — there's no question about that. That's been ruled on in

every House in the Commonwealth. However, we rise, Mr. Speaker, to take

objection to recognizing him as a matter of precedent, and we would ask

Mr. Speaker and the House not to take this as precedent. However,

because the opposition critique has been so effective and the response

by the government so weak thus far, we'll grant leave to the hon.

minister to reply. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, in replying to the point of order,

it's not a matter of granting leave to the minister. It's clear in

standing order 42 that he has a right of reply. It is only a question

of the Chair informing all of the members of the House before he is

recognized or when he is recognized that the minister shall close the

debate.

The hon. Minister of Finance shall close the debate.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, we have yet another facetious point of order in a long list of facetious points of order by that same member.

Mr. Speaker, I took the trouble to list some interesting language from that

member's speech yesterday in the budget debate. You would think he would

address himself to the specifics of the debate. Instead, we find language something

like this: "chippy;" "arrogant;" "a bunch of hokey, outlandish

statements;" "oppress;" "a collection of cliches, homilies,

half-truths, no-truths and flim-flam;" "pure and unadulterated treachery."

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is one thing to offer honest criticism, but

when you get into absolute verbal irresponsibility you have to question the

objectivity of any matter he has to raise in this debate.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That was the clean part!

HON. MR. WOLFE: There's more.

AN HON. MEMBER: He should resign.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, before you get the impression that I'm criticizing the opposition...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

HON. MR. WOLFE: ...I want to suggest that they should be

complimented for doing the best they could in an almost impossible job.

After all, for two weeks they've tried to criticize this budget.

They've gone through the library from top to bottom. They've

researched; they've put it in the computer, out of the computer. But

how can you knock this budget? They've failed, Mr. Speaker; they've

failed miserably.

How can you criticize a budget which exercised restraint to the tune

of 5.9 per cent in expenses, which didn't increase taxes, yet which

increased the degree of expenditure for human benefits by a substantial

degree.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Right on!

HON. MR. WOLFE: About all you can say about that party, Mr.

Speaker, is that they left a legacy of $261 million, of which they

accumulated a loss of $400 million in one year. That's no small job.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Debt! The party of debt.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the opposition

speakers during this debate, I'm amazed that not one has considered the

provincial government budget for next year in relation to the total

expectations for the B.C. economy. I would have thought that our recent

experience of double-digit inflation and the serious consequences it

imposed upon everyone, but particularly upon those of our population

who lack the power to protect themselves against its insidious affects

— namely the unorganized, the elderly, the handicapped, the

[ Page 666 ]

unemployable — would have caused someone to analyse the budget in relation to the total economy.

The recovery of the economies of the industrialized countries,

especially the United States and Japan, which started in the first

quarter of 1975 and achieved a real growth of around 6 per cent last

year, is forecast to continue through 1977. It is expected the demand

for British Columbia products will increase in 1977 in response to this

demand.

Obviously, with demand for production increasing, care must be taken

not to create excessive demand within the economy which could trigger

increased bidding in the marketplace for scarce resources, whether they

be labour, money, raw materials or any other products required for

production. It is this government's belief that the main thrust for

long-term economic growth in British Columbia should come through the

private sector.

Certainly the provincial government has a role in this development.

There is a necessary public sector infrastructure that takes the form

of highways, schools, hospitals, housing and the many government

services required for the public good and benefit, as well as electric

power and water and rail transportation facilities. In addition,

government, through its policies, can foster growth in the private

sector to provide more jobs and increase total income that will then

generate the additional revenue to government to augment government

services. But it is the commercial industrial investment which provides

the base for long-term achievement.

It is this government's view that given the promising external

market outlook and the opportunities it presents, the private sector of

our economy will consume more of our resources this year and, in the

process, will remove many of the concerns expressed by the opposition

throughout this debate.

I have just returned, Mr. Speaker, from a meeting of Finance

Ministers in Ottawa and there is concern, right across Canada,

including Saskatchewan and Manitoba, over the danger of overheating the

economy at a time when, even yet, we have not reduced the inflation

rate to an acceptable level. All support the need to restrain

government expenditures and are trying to avoid tax increases.

Mr. Speaker, there is a growing realization in this province and in other jurisdictions

that governments can distribute wealth better than they can create it. It is

the role of industry to seek out opportunity, invest capital and produce wealth.

This process takes time and depends on events in other countries, as well as

what governments do here in British Columbia. An economy such as ours marches

in step with that of our major customers, the United States and Japan. What

can be done is to follow moderate, progressive policies that restore investor

confidence and ensure that British Columbia industry is not disadvantaged in

the international marketplace. This budget has been a positive step toward improved

productivity of British Columbia industry.

First, the 5.9 per cent increase in estimated expenditure signals

that the growth of the government sector of the economy has been

brought under control. Resources are scarce, Mr. Speaker, and resources

committed to the public sector are not available for more productive

use in the private sector. Resources for investment produce wealth,

part of which can then be distributed as social benefits to British

Columbians.

And then we have addressed the source of inflation directly: the unreasonable

expectations by the individual of more than the economy can deliver. Our message

of individual restraint has been matched by the practice of government restraint.

It is a message, Mr. Speaker, that has been well received by the citizens of

the province, who have a better comprehension than some members of the truism

that if you want to distribute aid and benefits to the deserving, you need a

growing and healthy source of wealth from which to draw.

Our message of restraint, of spending only what the economy can

afford on government services, is the true basis for continued progress

in this province. With restraint by individuals and government, many of

the constraints that inhibit economic progress are resolved. Labour and

management have a better basis for agreement, production costs should

stabilize, investment will occur and utilization of the productive

capacity of the labour market and capital structure of this province

should improve.

So, Mr. Speaker, the budget that I brought down on January 24 is a

budget for the times. It is a budget designed to deal with the problems

and uncertainties that still plague the economy of this province. It is

a responsible budget for the present as well as the future. It is a

budget of restraint coming at a time when more examples of restraint

are badly needed. It is a budget to meet the real needs of our people.

We recognize that government cannot solve all of the problems in our

economy or in our society. We have moved to provide help in areas where

it is necessary and feasible, in areas of health and education. We have

moved to provide job opportunities for the unemployed. But the major

part of the necessary expansion in economic activity must come from the

private sector. British Columbia earns its way in the world primarily

through export of the products of our major industries. These exports

have given us a standard of living in this province that is among the

highest in the world. Anything that jeopardizes those exports will