1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

595 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Appointment of David Brown. Mr. King — 595

Explanation of special warrants. Hon. Mr. Wolfe answers — 595

Abridged budget. Mr. Wallace — 596

Money for vocational training recoverable. Mrs. Dailly — 596

$1 million deductible school fire insurance. Mr. Gibson — 596

Status of Mr. Newell Morrison. Mr. Macdonald — 597

Autoplan instalment accounts receivable. Mr. Stupich — 597

Pay cuts for Crown corporation senior executives. Mr. Wallace —

Insurance coverage of B.C. car owners. Mr. Barnes — 598

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 598

Mr. Nicolson — 599

Mr. Lloyd — 604

Mr. Lea — 610

Mr. Hewitt — 617

Mr. Haddad — 621

Mr. Veitch — 625

TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, in the legislative

buildings today, and in the gallery, is a group of mayors and aldermen

representing northern communities who have been discussing serious

problems affecting their communities with the government. I would like

this assembly to welcome Mayor Fraser of Williams Lake, Mayor Tingley

of Quesnel, Mayor Stewart of Squamish, Mayor Underhill of Pemberton,

Mayor Adams of Clinton, Mayor Hoy of Fort St. James, Mayor Richard of

Lillooet, Mayor Dahlen of Dawson Creek, Alderman Galbraith of Fort St.

John, Mayor Moffat of Prince George, Mayor Marks of 100 Mile House and

Mayor Lassor of Chetwynd.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, in

the gallery today are friends from North Vancouver, Maurice and Vi

Rodin. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Oral questions.

APPOINTMENT OF DAVID BROWN

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I

would like to direct a question to the Provincial Secretary. Can the

Provincial Secretary tell me whether or not David Brown, who was

appointed special adviser to the government by order-in-council No. 215

has taken the oath subscribed to by persons appointed to the public

service?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): I'll have to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary and if the

Provincial Secretary would also take as notice: if, indeed, it's the

case that he has taken the oath, could the Provincial Secretary provide

the time such oath was taken and by whom?

EXPLANATION OF SPECIAL WARRANTS

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would like an opportunity to reply to questions asked recently of myself regarding certain special warrants.

The first one I would like to reply to is to the member for North Burnaby (Mrs.

Dailly) She asked for the explanation for special warrant No. 703, dated March

2, 1976, which was supplementing vote 46 for post-secondary education and training

in the amount of $3,855,000.

Mr. Speaker, this warrant is required due to an over-expenditure on

post-secondary education. for vocational training which exceeded the

original budget by 10 per cent. The Department of Education received

Treasury Board approval on July 15, 1975, for an additional $3.8

million for vocational training programmes, about 10 per cent of the

original budget. The additional costs arose from two factors: first,

additional costs arising from higher per diem costs and smaller

classes. These were escalated as a direct result of the vocational

instructors collective agreement settlement. Secondly, the Department

of Labour increased the number of apprentice ship referrals to

provincial institutions, A substantial share of the additional

expenditures is recoverable from the federal government.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the former government really did fail to anticipate these changes in their original budget.

The second question I would like to reply to today came from the

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) regarding special warrant No. 705,

dated March 2, 1976. It was a supplementary to vote 146, the scaling

fund, in the amount of $887,000 and originated, of course, from the

Minister of Forests.

This warrant was specifically due to overexpenditures in the scaling

fund as the direct result of retaining regular employees with more than

two years service seniority, and who are not subject to layoff. You

should refer to

article 13, layoff and recall, in the BCGEU master

agreement which, in effect, created the situation.

This vote should have been a zero balance, as you have indicated

earlier, Mr. Member. Mr. Williams, the former Minister of Forests, was

aware of this situation in November of 1975, as was the former Minister

of Finance, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who asked the

question. In effect, they failed to act at that time when they still

had responsibility to do so, which left it for our government to face

this expenditure by special warrant. This special warrant was obviously

urgently required, as indicated by the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) to the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, a third question originated from the member for Prince

Rupert (Mr. Lea) It was regarding special warrant 709, dated March 2,

having to do with the Department of Public Works, in the amount of

$595,000. I don't think he identified the nature of the warrant, but

what it covered was matters urgently required to cover over

expenditures under vote 236, safety inspection division, in the amount

of $325,000, and vote 237, Glendale laundry operation, in the amount of

$270,000, for a total of $595,000. They were straight over expenditures

on the original estimates for the year.

The last one I would like to reply to today, Mr.

[ Page 596 ]

Speaker, originated from the member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), regarding special warrant 708, dated

March 2, 1976, in the amount of $2,860,000, originating from the hon.

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). This warrant covered over

expenditures on a series of votes within her department, listed as

follows: vote 193, postal branch, additional requirement $200,000. The

original re-estimate was made at the time the constituency mailing

policy for MLAs was instituted, and the decision to mail out the

magazine Land was made; these are the matters which created the over

expenditure.

Vote 202 was $350,000 required for the Workers' Compensation Board.

This was an assessment on class 13 of the Workers' Compensation Act and

was created largely due to two fatal accidents, a higher cost of

settling claims, added coverage and increased pensions due to the

cost-of-living adjustments.

Thirdly, vote 203 had to do with unemployment insurance expense. The

original estimate was too low as we did not anticipate salary

adjustments and cost-of-living costs due to a negotiated agreement. In

addition, the federal government increased the premiums and the maximum

contribution, effective January 1, 1976.

Vote 219, an overexpenditure of $160,000 for the Public Service

Gratuities account. These gratuities are paid out on the death of a

public servant. Our forecast was based on prior costs. If the incidence

of death is higher, we simply do not have sufficient funds. So there

was an underestimate of the incidence of deaths accruing to that

account.

Lastly, vote 227, Public Service Medical Plan, $250,000. This was to

cover the added provincial employer's share, as a result of the

province increasing its payment from 50 per cent to 70 per cent of the

premium, effective January 1, 1976. I think that should cover the

answers to those four questions, Mr. Speaker.

ABRIDGED BUDGET

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask

a question of the Minister of Finance with regard to the matter of the

concluding paragraphs on the budget speech, which have been edited in

regard to the version being sent outside of British Columbia. I would

like to ask the minister: since the budget was presented to the House,

has the Minister of Finance, or any official in his department, been in

contact by telephone, telegram or letter with Mr. MacEachen, the

Secretary of State for External Affairs, or any member of his

department?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member for Oak Bay, not to my knowledge.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Under these

circumstances, and because of the controversy that has been created,

has any decision been made by the Minister of Finance to initiate, even

as a courtesy, contact with the Secretary of State for External

Affairs, at least to put B.C.'s position to him privately?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't view this as being a necessary action for this province to take.

MR. WALLACE: Not even as a courtesy?

HON. MR. WOLFE: No.

MONEY FOR VOCATIONAL

TRAINING RECOVERABLE

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby-North): Mr. Speaker, I wish to

thank the Minister of Finance for his reply on the warrants, and

therefore my question is to do with one of your replies re the

post-secondary warrant for vocational training. Is it not true, to the

hon. minister, that that money is recoverable from federal Manpower?

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, he did say that. How do you list it then?

Do you still list it at this time as an over expenditure in the

Department of Education? In the Clarkson, Gordon report it's still

listed as an over expenditure, although the money is recoverable. I

just want to have that made clear.

MR. GIBSON: If the minister wanted to answer, I would be....

MR. SPEAKER: Would you defer to the minister, hon. member?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Just in reply to the statement made by the hon. member for North Burnaby, the answer is yes.

$1 MILLION DEDUCTIBLE

SCHOOL FIRE INSURANCE

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of

Education: with respect to the minister's unilateral decision to make

school fire insurance $1 million deductible, is the minister aware that

the B.C. School Trustees Association has received a legal opinion

indicating that in the absence of special regulation, this action

places school trustees retroactively in contravention of

section 178 of

the

[ Page 597 ]

Public Schools Act and puts a personal legal liability on the trustees in the event of fire?

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

opinion is not shared by the legal advice to the government, and we

will be meeting with the school trustees on this question tomorrow.

MR. GIBSON: A supplementary: I would wonder why he didn't

meet with the trustees before taking this action, but is he prepared to

assure this House that he will guarantee them again such legal

liability caused by the government's action?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we give that guarantee,

and at the meeting with the school trustees we will be discussing this

and other questions, Mr. Member.

STATUS OF MR. NEWELL MORRISON

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

ask the Minister of Finance whether Newell Morrison assisted his

department, and, if he did, during what period and what did he do? Did

he help with the budget?

MR. SPEAKER: I think, hon. member, that that question was asked before.

MR. MACDONALD: The Premier said he referred it to the Minister of Finance.

MR. SPEAKER: It was taken as notice by the Premier on behalf of the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. WOLFE: In reply to the member, Mr. Speaker, I had in

mind to reply to that today, as a matter of fact. I just overlooked it

when I was on my feet earlier.

The question asked of the Premier which has been referred to me from

last Thursday, I believe, was whether Mr. Newell Morrison, a former MLA

of this House, has been assisting the government in any capacity,

either as a consultant or in a voluntary capacity. The answer to that

question is that he has been assisting me in a voluntary capacity, I

believe for a total of about three days.

The second question was: has he been assisting in any way in

connection with the preparation of the current budget? The answer is

no, definitely no, not at all.

AUTOPLAN INSTALMENT

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): To the Minister of Education:

does he know the amount outstanding in installment accounts receivable

for ICBC Autoplan as at February 28 or March 31, or whatever —

installment accounts receivable on premiums?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the plan

initiated by the NDP two years ago, there is still approximately $1.5

million in bad debts from that programme still unresolved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. McGEER: So far, with our programme, there are no bad

debts. I'll endeavour to get for the member the number of people who

are on the instalment plan, but I want to say that it's a matter of

some distress to the corporation to have had these bad debts left over

from the NDP days.

PAY CUTS FOR CROWN

CORPORATION SENIOR EXECUTIVES

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of

Finance, in view of his reported statement that there's a great deal of

sensitivity to higher salary levels in Crown corporations, and since

we've already had the budget statement that there will be pay cuts for

ministers and MI-As: have any senior executives in Crown corporations

been asked to take a pay cut, or have they volunteered to do so?

AN HON. MEMBER: Bob Bonner.

HON. MR. WOLFE: We'll take that question as notice, Mr. Member. To my knowledge there's been no request made.

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask a quick supplementary, perhaps to

the Minister of Transport responsible for Hydro: has the Minister of

Transport taken any initiatives to set up meetings between the

government and senior executives of B.C. Hydro to discuss the issue of

either freezing or reducing their salaries?

MR. SPEAKER: Might I suggest, before the minister answers,

that that was not a supplemental question. That's another question

directed to another minister.

MR. WALLACE: The minister responsible for a Crown corporation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. In fairness to other people who

want to ask questions, I must try to recognize members who have been

trying to get into the debate.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and

[ Page 598 ]

Communications): The answer, Mr. Speaker, to the member for Oak Bay

to his last supplementary question is no.

INSURANCE COVERAGE OF B.C. CAR OWNERS

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): This is to the Minister

of Education. Recent reports indicate automobile traffic throughout the

province is down considerably from what has been experienced in the

past. My question to the minister is: could he tell the House the

number of registered car owners in the province of British Columbia,

and now that motorists are required to carry only public liability and

property damage, what number of registered owners are now covered?

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. minister take the question as notice?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I don't think we have any hard

evidence that the traffic is down. We do have hard evidence that the

accidents are down, which is the good effect of our new policy.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed further this

afternoon I'd just like to draw to your attention a couple of things

with respect to the question period. One of them is the type of

question that is asked and which would be more properly put on the

order paper because you are soliciting or asking for information that

is difficult, I'm sure, for a minister to reply to immediately, and

that results in the question being taken as notice.

The other is that there's a tendency, both by the questioner and by

hon. ministers answering questions, to editorialize a little bit more

than I think should be done in the question period. I'd ask you, in

fairness to all of the members who wish to participate, to make your

questions a little briefer in the future and more to the point. Thank

you.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): And what about the answers?

MR. SPEAKER: The same applies to the answers. If they are

long, they should be filed as a return to the House, or on leave to

make a statement.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr.

Speaker, hon. members, since this is my maiden address I hope that I

too may be spared as much of the heckling as possible. I realize it's

perhaps difficult at times. Although I attempted to refrain from it

myself as often as I could, very often it was difficult when listening

to some of the rhetoric that has taken place in the House over the last

several weeks.

Actually, Mr. Speaker, one of my greatest disappointments since

taking my seat in the House has been the obvious waste of time through

a lot of unnecessary filibustering. When you consider all that must be

done to this great province, and when you are a doer, your patience

tends to wear a little thin. Waste is waste, and it's the one thing we

have had lots of and could well do without.

Perhaps too many legislators underestimate the intelligence of the

citizens. The majority basically know what has to be done and it's up

to us to do these things and do them well. In the final analysis the

results will speak for themselves.

I have, of course, been especially disappointed with the debate from

the opposition, not so much because of what was said or what was not

said, but because of the many inconsistencies and contradictions that

I've heard.

I recall that during the ICBC debate a great deal was said by the

opposition regarding the sacredness of the automobile, that subsidizing

fenders over people was really all right. Yet the Member for Prince

Rupert (Mr. Lea) will well remember the Scott Road kerfuffle in my

constituency when his former department would not province the bus bays

in the redesigned road, reasoning that it was better to stop the bus in

the middle of the road and let the cars pile up behind as this would

create such lengthy delays and a nuisance to people that they would

leave their cars at home and take the bus. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's what they used to say.

I recall the Member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) saying, while speaking

to Bill 3, that government is not like people. My question is: if

government is comprised of people, or if government is people, how can

it be not like people? The same member admitted that this bill was a

culmination of, mismanagement of British Columbia's financial affairs.

He admitted he was not opposed to the bill. He acknowledged the mess;

he accepted the remedy as being proper. Yet at the very same time this

same member charged that the bill was a deliberate punishment to the

voters of British Columbia, especially the low-income people.

If ever the poor and unfortunate suffered, it was during the years

of the previous administration. While the ministers' offices were being

lavishly refurbished with expensive furniture, the Woodlands School for

the mentally retarded saw only three gallons of paint in 1975.

[ Page 599 ]

While ministerial staff were being highly awarded in large numbers

and while many local supporters of the previous administration rallied

around the cause and were given large grants, the staff at Woodlands

School, Tranquille and Glendale saw drastic cuts.

While executives were being hired at top-level pay with fantastic

half-secret pension plans, the welfare recipients had not received an

increase for almost two y ears.

Day care had been

practically ignored for two years and the people providing the services

to the needy had their pleas for increased rates ignored and were

having an impossible time in attempting to collect the moneys payable

to them.

This budget does mean

higher taxes. The people are being forced to burden the results of

financial mismanagement but they are a better pill now than the cost of

a funeral later. No one likes higher taxes. No one likes to pay. No one

likes to tighten his belt.

But British Columbians

are proud people and will sacrifice a little in order to return their

province to prosperity and progress. A well-intentioned province cannot

provide for its needy unless it has the resources, and the resources

are only of real value when they are producing for the people.

This budget clearly

sets out government priorities. It provides more money for people

services than any other budget in B.C.'s history. No other budget has

ever placed such obvious emphasis on people needs, but this government

knows that people are British Columbia's greatest resource and that

this resource is at its best when well fed, clothed, educated and

enjoying a high standard of health.

I represent the

most populated area of British Columbia's largest municipality, Surrey.

This municipality has long suffered from burgeoning urban pressures,

Taxes have been generally higher than elsewhere, and the needs of the

community are so many that it was impossible for a municipal council

alone to resolve them. The municipality needs more thriving industry,

not only because industry provides a better tax base but also because

jobs must be provided close by if we are to stem off, at least for a

time, a total transportation disaster because of inadequate river

crossings, poor highways and a yet incomplete transportation system. I

trust that during this year, in cooperation with my colleagues, many of these pressing problems may and will receive attention.

I am pleased that this budget provides considerable assistance to

municipalities at their time of greatest need. It provides an

additional 50 per cent revenue from the natural gas tax, added grants

to municipalities for new housing development, interest-free loans to

builders for construction of low-rental units, an increased second

mortgage allotment, and added homeowner tax relief for senior citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased also that this government so

quickly and efficiently approved Surrey's $33 million water and sewer

programme, the greatest step yet taken towards alleviating the housing

shortage.

British Columbia is once again moving ahead and the beneficiaries are the people.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and take my place in this debate on the budget on behalf of the people of Nelson-Creston.

During my absence in the introductions someone recognized Mr. and

Mrs. Hyssop from Nelson-Creston and might have introduced them, but

they are here in the gallery and I would ask the members to make them

welcome.

This budget is a punitive, vengeful budget. The previous speaker

alluded to some of the positive parts in the budget — to some of the

initiatives taken in housing. I don't quarrel with incentives taken in

housing. I don't quarrel with incentives given to municipalities in

terms of grants for housing starts. Although there were municipalities

that responded to the need for housing — municipalities like Burnaby,

which over the past couple of years moved ahead, cooperated with the

provincial government and recognized their responsibility — there were

other municipalities...and it just so happens, by some coincidence,

that the previous speaker was the mayor of one of the municipalities in

which we saw a drop, year by year, in the number of units under

construction.

He has just announced that some plans have been approved for

expenditures on sewer and water programmes, but, you know, during the

time that I was Minister of Housing we tried to do something positive

about the Bridgeview problem. I wonder if that expenditure includes the

Bridgeview problem. Is it going to mean that the people who have had to

put up with septic tank seepage above the ground level over the past

years...is that problem going to be rectified by that? Under the

previous government I was successful in getting a multimillion dollar

programme approved which would have provided for an innovative type of

pumping which would have enabled sewage programmes to go in for those

residential units. But then Surrey bet up the ante.

No, they didn't want about a $2.5 million programme; they want a

$5.6 million programme, one that would serve the industrial community.

We were trying to help people, and that council, led by that former

mayor and now minister of the Crown, tried to up the ante.

You know, it reminds me of a game that I sometimes play when my wife

is trying to get me to do something. The one thing you can do if you

want to procrastinate is enlarge upon the project until it becomes so

impossible a task that it.... I notice the

[ Page 600 ]

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) smiling; I think he's perhaps

used this technique, this ruse, himself. But a bookshelf becomes the

renovation of an entire room, with the necessity to knock out a wall,

and by the....

I see no acknowledgment from the minister whether or not Bridgeview is included in that expansion. He doesn't nod his head.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's a municipal decision.

MR. NICOLSON: It's a municipal decision, Bridgeview. Well, I

would hope that at least this new government would stand by what we had

approved through Treasury and through inter-departmental committee,

both at the ministerial level and at the departmental level for

Bridgeview, because we felt that the people in Bridgeview and Surrey

were most important. We felt that they had a problem not of their own

making, and that they deserved some special kind of assistance.

The budget contains punitive taxes. While there might be some

positive incentives in the field of housing, at the same time we've

seen that they aren't really adding a programme; they are substituting

a programme.

We've seen that the government is intending to sell housing units

that are badly needed as rental housing units. Again, it becomes part

of the so-called "manufactured" deficit. Part of the plans of the

previous government would have eliminated some $60 million to $70

million from the manufactured deficit which was directed in the

Clarkson, Gordon report.

We would have created a Crown corporation, and certain long-term

mortgages could be held in the name of that corporation because they

are assets. In fact, they are quite convertible assets, as the

government is proving.

We built the 216 units on Government Road. We had many other

projects underway. Several units are under construction in Simon Fraser

Hills — I don't know the exact figure, but at least 100 or 200 — and

all over the province. It brings into question: what is the fate, for

instance, of the programme which we had to encourage the private sector

to build small housing units suitable for families, and which the

federal and provincial government partnership could take over as family

rental housing?

What is the fate in Vancouver of the Granger project at West 13th

Avenue and Laurel Street? Those 14 units — they were completed in

December, 1975 — are they to be sold? Are the people to be given a

one-year lease and then, perhaps, a choice of coming up with a down

payment? Are they to be sold?

In Richmond, what about the remainder of that project that hasn't

been filled? In Matsqui, the Cedarhurst project on the McCallum Road in

Abbotsford, 53 units — are they to be rented or are they to be sold? Or

a combination?

Mission, Abbotsford, Nanaimo, Port Alberni, Campbell River, Prince

Rupert: in Prince Rupert there are three projects underway; also in

Princeton, Vanderhoof and Castlegar. Furthermore, there are other

projects being done entirely by Dunhill Development or the provincial

government.

There is a project which was initiated in the city of North

Vancouver, almost on the insistence of the city of North Vancouver. In

fact, there was quite a debate in here about units, which Dunhill

Development had built for profit, called Ashby House. Some of the

members who now sit on those government benches made quite a to-do

about it, about Ashby House. Then it was being sold as a strata unit.

We made a promise to the city of North Vancouver that we would build

rental housing in response to the need which they demonstrated,

especially for single-parent families and for others who needed rental

housing. In response to that we went ahead and we built a project which

was called McNeil Place in honour of Grant McNeil. I've asked the

minister questions about the fate of that project; he's taken it as

notice and he hasn't answered.

I notice in the paper that Pemco Holdings, which was a shell company

— the assets of which had all been disposed of, the one asset being the

Marigold Housing project lands, which were turned over to the

Department of Housing, and the other asset being a piece of land up

here which is now under construction for the Department of Public Works

for needed office space.... But the shell of that company which was

acquired by the Department of Housing is now going to be used as a

corporation set up as a means for getting federal government loans for

housing.

I don't oppose that move, Mr. Speaker, but I can only imagine what

would have happened had we decided to use Pemco Holdings. Oh, what a

future there would have been. They would have said that I had promised

that if we were going to have a full-fledged housing corporation there

would be legislation governing it. We would bring it in before doing

such a thing, and that's what we intended to do.

Now, of course, this instrument — Pemco Holdings — could be used for

many things. It could be used to generate profits; it could be used to

take the capital dollars which were spent in the Department of Housing

last year and, with the sale of these units, which are worth well in

excess of their cost value...for instance, the units in Burnaby

could be easily sold for $70,000 a unit, and their cost is about

$44,000 per unit. These things could be used to generate profits which

will help to create a surplus

[ Page 601 ]

position in the next year.

So while the government can maybe lay claim to a few positive

programmes, such as including single-parent families under the

provisions of the new, abridged Mincome programme, which is a partial

step in the right direction, there are many aspects that give us no

cause for joy.

There is a 40 per cent increase in sales tax, and yet there is no

intention by this government to modernize the Social Services Tax Act

as it applies to agriculture. What are you doing about such obsolete

exemptions which are now contained within the Act? Mr. Speaker, if a

farmer goes out to buy milk cans.... Farmers don't use milk cans today.

They have modern, mechanized, automated dairy operations, so they're in

rather limited demand. But if he's going to buy a scythe or a sickle,

that is sales tax exempt.

I hope the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) listens to this, and

I hope the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is listening.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What did you do in three and a half years, Mississippi Mouth?

MR. NICOLSON: Sickles and scythes.... Well, you're in government now, Mr. Minister — you oppressive, intimidating minister, you. (Laughter.)

But if you're going to buy something like auxiliary generating

equipment — and often there are power failures in these rural areas

which are served by Hydro or West Kootenay Power. If you're going to

buy dairy detergents to protect against diseases in the dairy industry,

if you're going to buy fence posts or greenhouse equipment, growth

inhibitors or regulators, or heating fuel for greenhouse...that's once

again a fairly flourishing industry, the greenhouse industry. And I see

the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has left the

House. If you're going to buy salt blocks — now that's something that

is still used. If you're going to buy these things, or peat pots or

planting bands or sanitizers or steel pipe cattle guards or tank

cleaners or veterinary drugs, these items are not exempt from sales tax.

We certainly did make some moves when we were government in terms of

used clothing and certain textbooks — technical books and so on, We did

make some moves. In fact, I introduced a motion which requested the

consideration of such anomalies in the sales tax Act, and I'm going to

continue to fight against the anomalies in the social services tax. I'm

not going to be intimidated by that Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mississippi Mouth!

MR. NICOLSON: I know he's been here more years than I have. I

know that the volume of his voice is almost deafening, but I won't be

shouted down by that minister when it comes to defending the farmers

from this ridiculous anachronism, this holdover in the social services

tax.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: I hope that minister would meet more frequently

with the various commodity groups, particularly the ones under farm

income assurance. Is that minister aware that because of recent freight

rate increases and such granted to the CPR, there's about a 50 cent

freight rate differential between British Columbia to Ontario bound

apples and Washington to Ontario bound apples? There is a 50 cent

differential, from what I've been informed. What does the minister

intend to do about that? Is he interested in the fruit farmers? Is he

interested in the dairy farmers and the other commodity groups under

farm income assurance? What does he intend to do to bring this up?

There is nothing encouraging in this budget for the agricultural

industry. You know, the farm income assurance is just a constant

figure, $27 million, so that isn't much encouragement.

Of course, agriculture is one of the major industries in my riding,

and particularly in the Creston Valley — Swan Valley Foods Limited, of

course. Some of the initiatives of the previous government were in

creating jobs and also encouraging agricultural diversification and a

more competitive type of an industry.

One of the other major parts in my riding, of course, is Notre Dame University.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, there are so many things in a rural

riding, Mr. Member. I have mines in my riding — I have a mine that

reopened while we were government, Mr. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr.

Waterland).

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, we had one close down back in early 1972

when Social Credit was government, in fact, and another one that was

being wound down. I think that while we were government we had one open

and one close.

Mr. Speaker, I know they don't want to hear about Notre Dame

University and I know that the Minister of Education is once again out

of his seat and probably on Scare West winging his way back to

Vancouver and his security blanket.

Mr. Speaker, Notre Dame University has been under some rather constant attack from this

[ Page 602 ]

government, and yet they try to claim that isn't the case. You know,

it goes back to an

article which came from the Province Victoria bureau

on Thursday, February 19, 1976. It says: "Government Won't Interfere if

NDU Closed."

"The provincial government will not interfere if the

universities council decides Notre Dame University in Nelson must be

closed down, Education minister Pat McGeer said Tuesday.

"McGeer emphasized the decision will be that of the

council, not the government, but he refused to answer questions about

whether the government will provide extra funds to the council so it

can fund the small interior university."

Now that created a little bit of alarm — I should say more than just

a little. Other things came out, and people were trying to get in touch

with the Minister. The Minister took the point of view that everything

had to come from the universities council. In spite of the fact that it

wasn't in the terms of reference of the universities council under the

Act, he tried to hide behind the universities council.

So we became rather concerned when the universities council started

to talk about what it might do, having kept in mind that the Minister

of Education had said that if the universities council decides to close

down Notre Dame he wouldn't object, it would be okay with him. He said

that on Friday, March 19, in an

article in the Ubyssey arising from an

interview with Dr. William Armstrong of the universities council:

"Notre Dame University will offer degrees from the

three coast universities in two years, universities council chairman

William Armstrong said Thursday.

"Armstrong said the coast degrees would be offered to

correspondence courses, tutorials, the media, through radio and

television, and some face-to-face lectures where there are large enough

audiences.

"No specific programme has been designed for the

correspondence degrees yet, Armstrong said, but he said Education

minister McGeer would soon set up a task force to examine the

possibility of the programme."

Further on it was said:

"If the NDU board does not accept the recommendations,

Armstrong said, it is unlikely that the provincial government will

provide any funds for the upcoming year."

Slightly later, on March 22 of 1976, there was an article: "$7 Million for UBC, 30 Days for NDU."

"Deputy Education minister Walter Hardwick said: 'The

fiscal year ends March 31, and I would be in a hurry to settle if I

were in their position.'"

He was referring to Notre Dame University.

However, he denied the government has issued a 30-day ultimatum. He

denied it! But in another

article the NDU president, Dr. Val George,

substantiated the ultimatum. Just following upon that, the

article says

the deputy minister of Education, Walter Hardwick, is wrong in telling

the press that NDU has not received a 30-day ultimatum.

"Said acting NDU president, Val George: 'We have

today, Monday, received a letter from Dr. William Armstrong, which has

the ultimatum in writing. The letter says in part: "The deputy minister

has advised the Universities Council of B.C. that funds intended for

NDU will not be held beyond the deadline announced. These funds will be

reallocated elsewhere in the post-secondary system, should curtailment

proceedings not actually be initiated by April 15, 1976."'"

So we have the minister saying that the decision will be made by the

universities council, and then I must acknowledge that the minister

tabled that very letter with this House in which that direct threat

exists. He said that he wouldn't interfere with the decision of the

universities council, but then he said, on March 24, in a news release

from his office on Notre Dame, release 33, 1976:

"Education minister Pat McGeer said today that funding

will be available for the continuation of programmes at Notre Dame

University in Nelson. He emphasized also that the interior university

has not been presented with a deadline to respond to a proposal from

the Universities Council of B.C. for the continuation of programmes."

I don't see how the minister could possibly table that letter,

unless he hadn't read it. How could he table that letter and put out

something like that? You know, what is going on with the minister? Who

has an axe to grind? I'm quite concerned. I think somebody is being set

up. Somebody is being set up, and I don't think that it's the minister

who's being set up.

Either the deputy minister is being set up, and he's being told to

direct the president of the universities council, and the president of

the universities council and the council are being the willing servants

of the government, and they are making recommendations which they think

are the pleasure of the government, only to be cut off, to have denials

issued by the minister. But Dr. Armstrong sends a letter, and in the

letter he says that the deputy minister has advised the Universities

Council of B.C. that funds intended for NDU will not be held beyond the

deadline announced. These funds will be reallocated elsewhere in the

post-secondary system, should curtailment proceedings not actually be

initiated by April 15, 1976.

If that isn't a 30-day ultimatum, I don't know

[ Page 603 ]

what is. Is the minister trying to set up Dr. Armstrong for

dismissal? Is he trying to sabotage the universities council? Is he

trying to use Notre Dame as a pawn in his plan to wreck the

universities council and, perhaps, also Notre Dame in the process? Or

might Dr. Hardwick become the victim? Dr. Hardwick worked on the

Macdonald report. The Macdonald report....

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Never mind straying away....

MR. NICOLSON: Perhaps I've listened to you too often, my

friend. Dr. Hardwick worked on the Macdonald report. His specific task

was, I believe, on the demographic data and information. The decision

to go ahead and build Selkirk College in the Kootenay area was

predicated upon population statistics of about 100,000 people

anticipated by the time that the college was to be constructed. There

was some shortfall there, in fact, a shortfall of about 40,000 people.

I only say this inside this House because it is being said outside this

House, that Dr. Hardwick has an axe to grind. He has to justify and

ensure the success of Selkirk College, which is doing pretty good but

has some problems of its own. In that it's felt that when ultimatums

are given, people are threatened.

When a minister gives a statement conflicting with the word of the

president of the universities council, then people start to wonder. I

say this for Dr. Hardwick's protection, because I look to Dr. Hardwick

as one who might be able to help solve the problem of NDU. He has

already spent a great deal of time on NDU while we were government, and

he could have played a very important role.

So who is the messenger — Dr. Armstrong, Dr. Hardwick? Or is the

minister deliberately setting up something to the detriment of one or

the other, or perhaps both of these esteemed gentlemen in education? I

only mention a deputy minister, Mr. Speaker, because outside of the

House people who feel threatened will lash out and attack even the

civil servants when only one person can be taking the responsibility

for this. It is not the mandate of the universities council to set

government policy about Notre Dame University. There is only one

person, and that is the minister, the minister who I understand, in the

first couple of months of his office, spent only one and a half days on

education matters and the rest of the time on other matters.

What this province needs is a full-time Minister of Education. If

you want to extend those cabinet benches, if you want to take some of

this raw talent that you have in the back benches, you couldn't do

worse than to split up the duties of the Minister of Education.

MR. R.L. Loewen (Burnaby-Edmonds): What this province needs is a good opposition. (Laughter.)

MR. NICOLSON: Also tabled by the Minister of Education that

day, and I thank him for that, was a report prepared by the

Universities Council of British Columbia. In its

summary, one of the

things it says is: "minimal future capital expenditures". Well, it

points out the problem there.

Recommendation No. 3:

"Per-student costs for several programmes at Notre

Dame University are well beyond the ability of the province to

support," it says. "Two programmes, for example, cost over $15,000 and

$21,000

per student respectively. Coastal university costs for similar

offerings run at approximately one-fifth to one-seventh of such

figures."

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the minister would get some

information, for instance, from Simon Fraser University or from UBC or

from the University of Victoria.

One of the things that they flail away at in the report are the

physical sciences, chemistry and mathematics. Now I'm informed that

there were some, I believe, six students enrolled in either the honours

or majors programmes in physics at Simon Fraser University last year

and there were, I believe, some 25 faculty. Those figures I'm quoting

you are from memory, but I can substantiate them, or at least I could

correct them, but it certainly is in that order of magnitude. What this

report has done, what the report of the Universities Council of British

Columbia on Notre Dame, prepared by the council staff, has done, is to

zero in on the number of people seeking graduation in certain

programmes and try to 'work out the expense of educating those persons,

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that it neglects to look at is the

fact that faculty don't just teach people in third and fourth year;

faculty teach people in first and second-year programmes, and

programmes for entry into many, many professional fields. I would

submit that this is in very grave error, and I think that the

universities council should apply the very same criteria to the third-

and fourth-year programmes at Simon Fraser University in chemistry and

physics. Being a physics graduate from the University of British

Columbia, I was alarmed to note, and I couldn't really believe the

figures myself, that the number of physics graduates combined in majors

and honours is down to about 25, but the faculty is well in excess of

that amount. There are more faculty than there are people graduating in

physics.

But, Mr. Speaker, people on the physics faculty teach

undergraduates, they teach people going into engineering, they teach

people going into education and other fields. They even, indeed, teach

people in faculties such as engineering, but for them to point

[ Page 604 ]

out that comparable programmes at UBC are one-fifth to one-seventh

this value is absolutely misleading and absolutely erroneous. It's his

responsibility to get involved. He has to spend more than one and a

half days per two months on education.

Also, in the field of fine arts they came up with horrendous costs,

not realizing that there are two different programmes being taught in

the same classes, that the fine arts programme instruction at Notre

Dame University goes on in cooperation with the Kootenay School of Fine

Arts. While there might be two or three pupils from Notre Dame enrolled

in such a programme, the total class enrolment in those senior years is

well in excess of that. In fact, the Kootenay School of Fine Arts is so

well subscribed that they had to turn away as many as 100 applicants.

I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that the report makes some good

recommendations, as well as having some poorly warmed-over

misinformation in it.

One of the ironic things in it, though — and which I must say before

I be positive about it — is that they say that only about 15 per cent

of the students attending university from the Kootenays go to Notre

Dame University — that is, of all the students going to coast

universities and so on. They say that this is some reason to call the

viability of the institution into question. They also say that only 21

per cent of the students there are from the Kootenay area, and

therefore it isn't really serving its purpose.

You know, it would be rather interesting to take the very fine

programmes which are offered in the vocational school up in Dawson

Creek.... Take the farrier programme: now I wonder what percentage of

the people who want to become skilled in looking after the hooves of

horses become farriers. People who want to take up that trade — and

there's a great demand for that trade; good money to be made in it, Mr.

Speaker, should we ever fall on hard times — but I would wonder what

percentage of those people come from the Peace River area. Does it then

follow that the programme should be shut down, should be moved down to

Chilliwack or somewhere else in the lower mainland because a small

percentage of the people who take that farrier programme come from the

Peace River area? I know that people from Nelson have gone up there to

take the programme.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you were as smart as you think you are, you'd know it has already been moved.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, it shouldn't have been moved, Mr. Member, and you shouldn't have let it happen. You should have fought for those people.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It was your Minister of Education who moved it.

MR. NICOLSON: If you'd only come and spoken to me. If you'd only spoken to me I could have helped you. I could have helped you.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It was a logical move.

MR. NICOLSON: I don't think it's a logical move, Mr. Member.

I think it's about time that some of the people got out of the lower

mainland, got out of the southern end of Vancouver Island, and saw the

rest of this province.

I would like to point out one of the major reasons for keeping the option of at least one small interior university.

I see my two minutes are starting, Mr. Speaker. In summing up: this

is an undergraduate programme, and if we can encourage people to even

leave Vancouver or even leave Victoria, where they do have university

facilities, or leave Burnaby, and go to the interior, maybe get some

taste of what life in the interior can be, then perhaps if they

graduate in the arts or science then they come down here and if they

take law or if they take medicine, or some other professional

programme, dentistry, then perhaps these people will feel motivated to

once again move up into the interior where they are so badly needed.

It isn't so much that we have a shortage of professionals; it is the

distribution of professionals in this province that's inequitable. It

isn't as hard to get a dental appointment here in Victoria where the

climate and everything else has attracted people, but it's very

difficult to get a dental appointment in the north, So if we can

continue this type of an institution, if we can look beyond some of

these figures, and if the minister would make a positive, encouraging

statement that Notre Dame is going to continue not just next year, not

just the year after, but the year after that and the year after that

and the year after that, and as long as he's minister and as long as he

has breath in his body, then Notre Dame will flourish, students will go

there, and the people of Nelson-Creston and the Kootenays will rest

assured.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): Mr. Speaker, I'm making my

maiden speech in this House. I feel that quite a point of topical

interest is the delegation that was introduced by our Premier, and

which is down on a matter of grave concern to all the mayors of the

cities along the BCR, and I'll be dealing with that directly in my

speech today. So I think it's quite topical.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to represent the great riding of Fort

George, which was one of the ridings recommended for two MLAs in the

redistribution study the previous government commissioned but did not

utilize. The reasons that Fort George was recommended for increased

representation was because of the tremendous growth

[ Page 605 ]

our area has sustained — growth in industrial output, forest

industry expansion but, most important, a tremendous growth in

population.

Mr. Speaker, before I continue with my speech in support of the

first budget presented by this Social Credit administration, I would

like to add my congratulations to the others on the appointment of the

Member for North Peace (Hon. Mr. Smith) as Speaker of the House. I feel

his impartiality and sense of fair play will sustain him very well

during his term of office. My congratulations also to yourself, Mr.

Deputy Speaker (Mr. Schroeder). I am sure your sense of humour and

your appreciation of high moral standards will assist you a great deal

in your role as Deputy Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate our

Premier on his choice of cabinet members. I feel the legislative

experience and the expertise in their respective fields which the

cabinet members possess will be of tremendous benefit to our government

in the difficult tasks of restoring our province's battered economy.

The challenge is not only to restore financial stability to our

province — the greater challenge in B.C. may be to restore the sense of

pride in accomplishment as well as the concern for one's fellow

citizens. During the last three years the previous government created

an attitude of distrust, suspicion and antagonism among different

segments of our society. The legislative powers that were

indiscriminately given to cabinet ministers — the power to embark on

spending sprees with public moneys without scrutiny or debate by the

Legislature — these are powers that will be rescinded, our Premier has

assured this assembly.

Mr. Speaker, because of much of the future that has been caused by

Bill 3, the B.C. Deficit Repayment Act, the charges and counter-charges

of juggling of provincial deficits, I feel it's very timely and because

of these ongoing political ramifications I am very relieved that our

Premier has pledged an auditor-general will be established and

quarterly financial reports will be available to the public as soon as

practical.

I would readily concur with many of my fellow MLAs' previous

statements that this House should get on with the business we were

elected to carry out. I would welcome an indication that the hon.

opposition members, many of whom have espoused this same sentiment, are

seriously prepared to allow the province's affairs to be dealt with in

a rational manner. I am sure my constituents would not appreciate the

waste of taxpayers' money that has been involved in these

time-consuming, politically motivated, constant delaying tactics.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to impress upon this House what I feel the

constituents from that dynamic riding of Fort George really expect in

legislative guidance and financial responsibility from this government.

First, however, I should like to familiarize this assembly with some

pertinent facts regarding the fastest growing riding in our province,

the newly amalgamated City of Prince George covering some 79,180 acres

and having a population fast approaching 70,000 people. I say "fast

approaching" because a few years ago Prince George's birth rate, on a

per capita basis, almost surpassed that of Calcutta's.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh? (Laughter).

MR. LLOYD: While Prince George is our major population

centre, it is only one of the dynamic communities in. my riding. Going

south-east of Prince George 120 miles, we have the village of McBride

situated in a beautiful mountain setting. While lumbering is important

in McBride's economy, the fertile farmland of the Fraser Valley

supports survival farming and a dairying industry. Still further to the

cast, another 60 miles, Valemount sits also in an alpine setting and,

again, though lumbering is most important, the potential tourist and

recreational industry is only beginning to be capitalized on.

Helicopters are utilized to whisk skiers to some of the best

powder-skiing slopes in British Columbia. Fishing and hunting lure

tourists to practically a virgin area of our province at Valemount,

Tete Jaime Cache and McBride in the summer season.

Other pioneer sawmill communities located on the Fraser on the CNR

mainline, also east of Prince George, are Lamming Mills, Dome Creek,

Penny, Sinclair Mills, Upper Fraser, Aleza Lake, Giscome, Willow River

and Shelley. Of these only Upper Fraser and Shelley are still operating

sawmills. Both these are owned by Northwood Pulp and Timber together

with their pulp mill and sawmills located in Prince George.

Besides extending east for over 180 miles, the Fort George riding

extends west some 40 miles to Bednesti and east some 30 miles past

Stoner. To the north our riding goes 120 miles to the instant town of

Mackenzie on Williston lake. Mackenzie is almost totally dependent on

the forest industry, having two pulp mills and three major sawmill

complexes operating. Mackenzie has experienced many growing pains but

with a young, energetic population of over 6,000 people and a

dedicated, capable council, they can look forward to a bright future.

They have rail facilities, at times, and they have built themselves

an air strip that they pioneered themselves and they have a very good

access road to

[ Page 606 ]

the out-dated Hart Highway linking them to Prince George. Mr.

Speaker, I say out-dated Hart Highway. Perhaps I should add out-lived.

The Hart Highway, 90 miles north from Prince George towards Mackenzie,

was completed some 22 years ago with a 24-foot paved service, the

narrowest paved major highway in British Columbia. The alignment is

poor and the shoulders are non-existent on most sections, earning this

highway the title of suicide road.

Only just recently, I have been informed, a man, retired for only

two weeks after a lifetime of work...this man and his wife were both

killed in a collision with a freight truck, due largely to the poor

conditions of the Hart Highway. They were the latest in an

ever-increasing toll.

In the last several weeks, due directly to the B.C. Rail strike

situation, this road is also being pounded and cut to pieces. The old

blacktop is crumbling due to the heavy freight traffic when the road

should rightfully be limited to partial loading.

It is only due to the compassion for the forest industries and their

employees at Mackenzie and Bear Lake, which is 42 miles from Prince

George, that the road weight restrictions have not been imposed.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask this House: how much longer are we going to stand

by and let the selfish demands of a small segment of our labour force dictate

to the detriment of their fellow workers and the rest of the public, depending

on the services of an efficient rail transportation system? Mackenzie will suffer

a death blow if industry is again forced to close. Finlay Forest Industries,

I understand, have lost some 40 per cent of the working days in the last two

years due to labour strife.

Mackenzie has not recovered from last year's disastrous pulp mill

strike. Mackenzie's forest industry relies on the BCR for economical,

viable transportation of her forest products and supplies. This they

have not enjoyed for the last three years in particular.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from the budget speech that the public is

being asked to show restraint and sacrifice. Industry and labour alike

are facing tax increases to re-establish our province's financial

credibility. An ever-increasing portion of the budget has been

allocated for health care, welfare and education, very commendable

areas of concern which I support fully. However, our highways budget

has been decreased in spite of the already small highways programme of

the last several years.

Still, Mr. Speaker, I can agree with the budget priorities, so we

may plan an extensive highway rebuilding programme next year and in the

future when the provincial economy can sustain a realistic programme.

However, I repeat: how can we as MLAs, as responsible

representatives of our constituents, let any segment of our society

inflict such havoc on our economy, when everyone else is sacrificing

and enduring hardship to build a brighter future? We are faced with the

paradox. Do we sensibly impose weight restrictions to salvage a

worn-out highway that we cannot afford to replace and thereby create

untold hardship for the communities and industries depending on the

movement of their supplies and produce, or, Mr. Speaker, is it our duty

to restore leadership and concern for the majority of our citizens and

follow the recommendations strongly urged on us by the mayors and the

councils of the communities affected? Should we declare the BCR system

an essential service and legislate a settlement?

Mr. Speaker, I wish to strongly state I am not anti-union. I believe

in any person's right to belong to, or not to belong to, any

responsible union of their choice and to withhold their services when

they feel they must to gain recognition of their plight. I also believe

a union member has certain moral responsibilities to his fellow

workers, his employer and to his country.

The last government, under the guidance of the former Minister of

Labour (Mr. King), the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan, created

labour legislation and a powerful labour board, which was supposed to

be the ultimate in labour legislation, to ensure fair treatment of

union members and peaceful, harmonious labour negotiations.

AN HON. MEMBER: It didn't work.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, the BCR is only one situation. Why

did the former government have to implement legislation ordering unions

back to work if this advanced labour legislation was supposed to work

so well?

Mr. Speaker, when I mention the damage to the Hart Highway, I was

not indicating that this was the most serious issue resulting from the

latest strike situation on the BCR. I should also mention Fort Nelson

in your own riding where industry, strictly dependent on the BCR

services, has been forced to close down, losing valuable key personnel

and adding to our already serious unemployment crisis.

I could also mention Taku Lake where forest companies are losing

production and cannot ship log supplies to the mills in Prince George,

or the pulp mills in Prince George who have to curtail production due

to the supply and product shipment problems.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I could mention any town or industry located on

BCR track that has suffered irreconcilable losses due to this stoppage.

There's millions of dollars of wasted chip piles accumulated on the

pulp strike last summer. This current BCR work stoppage has added to

the waste in chips to anyone not able to ship by truck.

[ Page 607 ]

Our provincial budget outlines the critical financial position of

our province. Are we so rich or ignorant that we think we can afford to

continue wasting valuable resources or loss of employment in industrial

production? My constituents cannot afford higher freight rates, so

they're not urging the BCR to buy the unions off at any cost. But their

patience and resources are diminishing rapidly.

The mayors delegation was very pleased with the Labour Minister's

explanations of ongoing negotiations in this very delicate period

during this last strike to try to correct the present difficulties.

Again, their patience is limited.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. members to give consideration to

the ramifications arising as a result of the present labour strife and

the increased costs suffered by the public as a direct result of

prolonged and unnecessary strikes. I would suggest that an economic

survey of the entire service and government labour sector versus the

primary industries' labour wage scale is long overdue. Our province is

pricing our products off the world market while productivity is

steadily decreasing, especially in the service and government labour

sector. Unless the service industries and the government corporations

are prepared to scale their wage demands in line with what our prime

resource industries — forestry, mining, agriculture and the tourist

industry — can afford to pay then B.C.'s bubble of prosperity will

burst, taking with it years of planning, co-ordination, hard work and

sacrifice.

I would now like to give due credit to that most industrious and

record-breaking city which forms the nucleus of my riding, namely

Prince George. Prince George is geographically located in the centre of

our great province, and it's B.C.'s largest city north of New

Westminster. It serves as a cultural and recreation centre as well as

the major distribution centre and trading area for the entire central

and northern area of our province.

Our city has been fortunate in the leadership it has received in the

past, and today's council, under mayor Harold Moffat's capable

guidance, deserves commendation for the forward planning and prudent

direction they give to the city.

Prince George's future is assured with a growth potential

unsurpassed by any city in British Columbia. Major power transmission

lines from the Bennett Dam to the south and west of the province go

through our city. Hydro power is redistributed from the Williston

substation located in Prince George. We have two chemical plants to

supplement our related industries. Is it any wonder that industrial

expansion has exploded in Prince George with power, gas and oil all

available, with major highways intersecting there, with CNR and BCR

freight service both serving our city?

Prince George has long been known as the white spruce capital of the

world, shipping more spruce lumber than any other centre. More

recently, with five pulp mills in the Fort George riding producing some

one million tons in total of unbleached kraft pulp, bleached kraft and

round wood pulp, we must also be the pulp capital.

The Prince George forest district, the largest in the province, has

a cut of over 3.5 million cunits, which sustains some of the most

modern, innovative sawmills in North America, and two plywood plants

plus a veneer mill.

Prince George is also centrally located in relation to the major

coal and mineral deposits which will be developed under an independent-enterprise government.

The fabrication of modern sawmill and logging equipment is another

major industry in our area. Home construction has recently been

expanded by the establishment of plants manufacturing pre-built homes.

In connection with home construction, Prince George's land-assembly

programme, started by Ray Williston in cooperation with the city

administration, has provided the lowest-cost fully serviced lots for

homeowners in our province. I would expect to see this land-assembly

programme initiated in other areas of our province, under the capable

direction of the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the Minister

of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen).

Another service our residents enjoy is a good fresh supply of clean

Nechako water, which is chlorinated and fluoridated. Our dentists state

emphatically that if all the municipal supplies in B.C. were

fluoridated, tooth decay would be drastically reduced, and, of course,

also the related costs.

Prince George is also the headquarters for regional offices of most

federal and provincial departments, which imposes a burden on local

taxpayers somewhat similar to Victoria's government buildings due to

tax relief granted to senior levels of government. This is a situation

that I would also like to see adjusted.

Prince George serves as a major cultural and convention centre. We

have 16 hotels and 27 motels. Plans are underway at the present time

for a major cultural convention centre to provide our residents and the

other northern residents with comparable amenities to their neighbours

in the south.

Unfortunately, this tremendous expansion in growth has been

accompanied by growing pains. Of particular concern to Prince George

taxpayers is the cost of servicing with proper water supplies and

sewage service the new area amalgamated January 1, 1975. Since the city

assumed the province's obligations for servicing these areas and will

in some four years hence also assume the road maintenance and policing

costs, council is rightly concerned that all the obligations under the

amalgamation agreement are lived up to by the province.

This situation also applies to our transit system.

[ Page 608 ]

Prince George is a good example of what Municipal Affairs minister

Hugh Curtis described to the House when the former minister, Mr.

Lorimer, pledged oral commitments that he could not deliver.

Whether the Prince George transit system is subsidized by B.C. Hydro

transit or the B.C. Transit Authority, our city is expecting equal

treatment with the lower mainland residents.

Mr. Speaker, Prince George has similar concerns in regard to

assisting with education costs, since our city serves as a regional

base in college enrolment and accommodates some 21,600 students in our

school district, as of 1975.

Similarly, the health and hospital services are provided on a

regional basis. Although we have a modern 282-bed hospital, with some

70 doctors, we are desperately in need of extended-care facilities to

accommodate the senior citizens and others in less expensive beds. Our

district health unit is in dire need of increased staff, particularly

in the smaller centres of Valemount, McKenzie and McBride, but also in

regard to maintaining an adequate home-care service in Prince George.

I am therefore pleased, Mr. Speaker, to see the provincial budget

reflect our government's concern in both the health and education

fields. I would again like to express the importance of our government

showing leadership in resolving the impasse our province is facing in

regard to the continual labour-management strife which is stifling the

general public and the small, independent businessmen.

Most especially, we cannot afford to continue disruption in the

operation of our province's railway. The BCR, formerly known as the

PGE, has been a political football, off and on, since it was first

conceived. The original charter was granted on February 27, 1912. The

railway operated between Squamish and Quesnel by 1921, but it wasn't

until 1948 that work again started to build the Quesnel-Prince George

link of some 80 miles. Mr. Speaker, it was during this period when the

coalition government of the Liberals and Conservatives fell apart, and

on August 1, 1952, the people of our province elected a grass roots

party, Social Credit, under Premier William A.C. Bennett.

After consolidating his party's strength in a second election,

called on June 9, 1953, Premier Bennett began the reorganization and

revitalizing of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. The first official

train arrived in Prince George on November 1, 1951 — some 40 years

late, but finally recognizing the original goal of connecting the PGE

with the CNR. It also served a far more important goal by linking the

resources-rich Fort George area and the northern area directly to the

lower mainland, and thereby opening a two-way trade by means of rail

service controlled within and by our own province.

Mr. Speaker, to make the PGE fully functional and truly a viable

route between the interior and the lower mainland, it was necessary to

connect the rails between Squamish and Vancouver, and then extend the

rails north from Prince George to the Peace River. The Premier, William

A.C. Bennett, stated in March of 1954:

"Of all the interests I have in public life, none is a greater

challenge. No money in this province could pay me for the satisfaction I would

feel if this railway were changed from a — joke and put on a sound financial

basis."

He said that his government hoped to tap not only British Columbia's

Peace River district, but Alberta's too, and the whole vast Mackenzie

River basin, because the PGE offered then, as now, the shortest route

to the coast.

Mr. Speaker, in 1956 the Squamish-Vancouver link was opened, and in

October, 1958, the 193-mile link between Prince George and Fort St.

John, with a line of 62 miles to Dawson Creek, was completed. From

Kennedy, which is 100 miles north of Prince George, 23 miles of spur

line were constructed to open the resources-rich instant town of

MacKenzie in August of 1966.

By 1968 a 75-mile line from Summit Lake to Fort St. James was

opened. The line was also further extended 250 miles beyond Fort St.

John to Fort Nelson by September 10, 1971, providing some 1,000 miles

of mainline track to the coast.

The line is under construction between Fort St. James to Dease Lake,

some 420 miles, with freight moving on the Takla

section — whenever the

railway is operating. A further link is overdue, and this is the link

from Clinton to join with the CNR.

Probably just as praiseworthy as the fantastic track-laying record

of the PGE in the 18 years between 1952 — when steel first reached

Prince George — and 1968, some 700 miles of rail construction later,

was the operating efficiency and the morale of the PGE. It was North

America's first railway to utilize microwave telephone and teletype

communications, a major advance for safety, traffic control and

efficiency.

Another equally important factor was the financial picture. Economic

development was booming. Natural resources, principally forest

products, were being developed at a record pace. This particular facet,

being able to co-ordinate and accommodate economic development, is

probably the strongest argument against considering turning the BCR

over to a national line, be it CNR or CPR.

Mr. Speaker, while the Bennett Dam was dedicated to W.A.C. Bennett,

I personally believe, and I'm sure the hon. members will concur with

me, that the real monument or achievement that stands out above even

the province's tremendous hydro-electric development, or the assembling

of an efficient ferry service, or the major blacktop highway system

[ Page 609 ]

criss-crossing our province.... Yes, hon. members, the achievement I

refer to is the fulfilment of the challenge that the province's

greatest Premier took upon himself — to rebuild and revitalize the PGE

from obscurity to the modern, efficient operation renamed the British

Columbia Railway, the key to our province's economic development and

the prosperity of its citizens.

Mr. Speaker, the blacktop highways I mentioned have not been

properly maintained or updated or rebuilt during the past three years.

Our ferry system is operating sluggishly and with a huge deficit. B.C.

Hydro has become inefficient and we are fast approaching a power

shortage. Our province has a huge deficit due to the last government's

financial mismanagement.

The last government's performance record is terrible in many

critical areas, but in the management and operation of the British

Columbia Railway they destroyed in three short years the morale, the

reliability, the efficiency and even the credibility of the province's

greatest asset. As Churchill stated, "I do not blame the socialists for

the weather," nor do I blame the NDP entirely for the province's

troubles. What else could anyone realistically expect from a party

where a cabinet minister can misplace $100 million?

Interjections.

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, what I do take offence at is why the

NDP refuses to cooperate to restore our province's economy. They

finally realized the financial mess they got the province into when

they called the election, hoping, I believe, that the voters would

replace them and someone else would be responsible to straighten out

the mess. Well, they got that wish and the Social Credit party is

prepared to reorganize and revitalize our province's affairs.

I believe the budget presented by the hon. Minister of Finance is a

realistic forecast of what can be expected in revenue if we get our

economy rolling. I also believe the hon. Minister of Finance has

established the spending priorities in a logical, fair manner.

However, Mr. Speaker, I would repeat: To restore our resource

economy we must first restore the B.C. Railway to an efficient,

reliable and economical transportation system. We must have a

comprehensive review of the entire operation: the management, the

scheduling, the freight tariffs, the maintenance and the development

programmes, the wage structure between different workers, the benefits

and restrictive clauses, the productivity of labour and management, the

possibility of a single bargaining unit, and the possible necessity of

declaring the BCR an essential service.

To carry out this comprehensive review we don't need a royal

commission, we don't need standing committees or special study groups,

but we do require a top-notch executive with proven administrative

experience. I immediately think of one individual, and I must say I was

particularly excited to see a news release suggesting he might be

available. The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) is reported

as saying he would object to the appointment because this individual

had been a past director of the BCR when the NDP alleged there had been

accounting irregularities.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the public to judge and

compare the operation of the BCR over the last three years versus the

expansion and operation during the previous administration's term of

office. I would also ask the public to remember the dedication and the

ability with which the former Minister of Lands and Forests in the

previous Socred administration, the Hon. Ray Williston, MLA for Fort

George, served his constituents and the province. I am sure, Mr.

Speaker, that if Ray Williston was available for the position he could,

and would, restore the BCR to the enviable reputation it formerly held

in our province.

As I mentioned, Ray Williston served as the MLA for Fort George, the

riding I now have the honour to represent. He was responsible in large

part for the growth of our area, realized by establishing the basis for

full utilization in the forest industry and attracting the pulp

industry to our area. As I've already mentioned, he also instigated the

land-assembly programme for residential home sites, reflecting his

concern for individuals as well as industry. Mr. Speaker, I only hope I

may be able to represent my riding with the concern and the dedication

exemplified by my former high school principal, Ray Willison.

While mentioning leading citizens of my riding, I would also ask the

members to join me in paying tribute to a pioneer resident of Prince

George, Mr. Robert Carter, who passed away on November 25, 1975. Mr.

Carter served in Canada's armed forces in World War I, was a life

member of the Canadian Legion, and served on Prince George's town

planning commission for many, many years. Mr. Carter was noted for his

good humour, his honesty and his dedication to serving his community.

He worked for 40 years as the chief clerk of the B.C. Forest Service in

Prince George and offered his assistance and advice to any operators

experiencing problems. It was a pleasure to have known him, and I join

with his family in mourning his loss.

My final remarks, Mr. Speaker, relate to the community spirit and

the involvement of the media in Prince George. As well as sponsoring

such zany

[ Page 610 ]

events as snow golf — golfing in the snow — or sand-blasting —

skiing on sand cut-banks in the summer — the radio stations CJCI and

CKPG radio and TV join with the Prince George Citizen newspaper

and the Prospect to actively promote and advertise the "Take the Car

out of Carnage" programme. Their enthusiasm and drive is reflected in

the success of this programme and it involves the cooperation and

dedication of other concerned committee members such as the RCMP, the

Prince George Medical Society, the ICBC, the Department of Highways,

the BCAA, the motor vehicle branch, the student services of the College

of New Caledonia, the justice council, the Prince George Ambulance, and

many others. There are over 50 organizations participating in the "Take

the Car out of Carnage" committee.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this committee truly exemplifies the spirit

and concern for others that is typical of Fort George constituents in

the many worthy community projects that they participate in so

generously and enthusiastically. I am pleased to see this provincial

budget lay the groundwork for a return to an individual-enterprise way

of life, which should allow freedom of choice in lifestyle and more

gainful employment to our great province's citizens.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): On a point of order. Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member for Fort George in his speech stated that the

NDP — and I assume that was the previous administration — alleged

certain accounting practices were incorrect on the BCR. I wish to

correct that in the member's speech; the auditors, Buttar and Chiene,

resigned and were suspended by the Chartered Accountants' Institute,

and it was found by the new auditors, and reported, that the accounting

practices were not acceptable. It was not the NDP; it was the new

auditors and the Chartered Accountants' Institute.

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to reply to that if I can.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member, it's customary in debate

perhaps, if there's a disagreement of opinion between the person who

has occupied the floor and some other member, that then the other

member rises in their place at the conclusion of your speech to make a

correction. If you're on a point of order, you're in order. But you're

not in order to just make a reply.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in this budget debate. I'm speaking on budget edition No. 2, soft cover.

There's been quite a bit of debate in this House and outside the

House on the actual document itself, No. 1 and No. 2. On Friday, I

received in my mail this copy, which is the second abridged version of

the budget speech, and at that time made it known to our leader, the

hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) that I had received it,

and also talked to some members of the media at that time, as did the

hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan over the weekend.

At that time I heard on the air that the Minister of Finance didn't

know any changes had been made, and it was the Minister of Finance

speaking on a voice clip. Since then he has said yes, he didn't know,

but he takes full responsibility; it was a government decision.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the people of this province can have

faith in a Minister of Finance who isn't even consulted by the

remainder of the cabinet on a government decision to change a speech

that was delivered in this House by the Minister of Finance, and that

was the budget speech. It seems rather strange to me that not only

didn't they consult him, but they didn't even inform him that there had

been changes.

The question remains, of course, as to who authorized the changes.

Who authorized them? I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that looking at the

statement of the Minister of Finance, the government probably didn't

authorize any changes to this speech at all. I would say, Mr. Speaker,

that it was someone else, and that this Legislature and the province

has the right to know who authorized the changes, who authorized the

editing of the budget speech.

Nothing hangs together when you start examining the statements. The

Minister of Finance, further to his original statement, went on

yesterday to say that: "Well, I take responsibility for this, but it's

only going to be distributed outside of the province and not within the

province." Well, Mr. Speaker, I live within the province. It was

distributed to me in the mail. Some got it, some didn't.

As a matter of fact, my secretary went down to the Minister of

Finance, his office, on Monday last and asked for a copy of the budget.

She received the old one, not the new one. But some people in B.C. are

getting the abridged version. I assume that some are getting the

original version, and no one really knows. Some people will probably

get two. I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, what kind of expense it

incurs when you have to print two budget speeches for political

purposes. Obviously when the hon. members from this side of the House

showed the government that they indeed were in error, that they were

jeopardizing the economy of this province by making political speeches

such as they made in the budget speech, that they should withdraw it,

somebody, probably not government, realized that we were making sense

and did it. What we would like to know is who ordered it and if it was

indeed authorized by any member of the government benches, I think we

have a right to know that.

[ Page 611 ]

This budget is for the wealthy and against the poor.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Rubbish! Rubbish!

MR. LEA: It's for the elitists and against the working people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it again.

MR. LEA: It's for the millionaire club and against the small

businessman. That's who this budget is for. When we start to examine

this budget, Mr. Speaker, it's apparent in so many ways, If you'll

recall the budget booklet itself in the last few years, at least there

were one or two pictures of people in it — people taking

part in the

life of British Columbia. This year, one picture, a picture of the hon.

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). Then you look at the opening

page, not even the opening address; it says British Columbia budget,

the Hon. Evan Wolfe, delivered in the Legislative Assembly March 26,

1976, which, of course, it wasn't.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Was it? It wasn't delivered in this House, as this booklet says the contents were. It wasn't.

MR. CHABOT: Rubbish!

MR. LEA: The hon. member for Columbia River says rubbish.

Well, it's obvious to me that this isn't the same budget that was

delivered in the House by the hon. Minister of Finance, and if you

haven't received your copy, Hon. Member, possibly you can come over to

our caucus and we'll show it to you. We are not asking you to cross the

floor, because too many of our constituents would be a little angry at

that. But we are asking you to come over and see the revised edition of

the budget. That's the first thing. It says it was delivered in the

Legislative Assembly on Friday, March 26, 1976. Not true. Not true. So

there's an untruth on the first page of the budget.

Then let's look at the thrust. Let's look at the thrust. It says:

"This budget is a start on the road back, a recovery budget, moving in

a positive direction to restore confidence in British Columbia as a

good place to invest, to work and to live." I agree that it should be a

province which is a good place to invest in, a good place to work in

and a good place to live in. But I suggest to you that if you didn't

have an unfeeling government, probably they would priorize that just a

little differently. They would say that British Columbia should be a

good place to live in, to work in and to invest in. I think that

statement pretty well sums up the kind of government that we have today

— a place to invest in, to work in, to live in instead of to live in,

to work in and to invest in. I think if you really think about that and

if British Columbians really think about that, as I suspect they are

these days, having to face new taxes — new taxes on the working people

of this province, but, really, no taxes on the corporate wealthy....

We start looking at the kind of taxes being imposed on the people of

British Columbia today. We see a sales tax increased 2 per cent, from 5

per cent to 7 per cent. Who does that hit? That hits the average

person. They say: well, sure it does, but it also hits the wealthy.

They have to buy things. They have to pay sales tax. But if you take

the ratio of spending, if you take a person who is making $10,000 a

year, and for a hypothetical figure say he spends $3,000 of that on the

essentials that he would have to pay sales tax on...

Interjection.

MR. LEA: ...then what percentage of that 5 per cent on $3,000

would be the ratio of his earnings? But then you take a look at the

wealthy person, the person who is making $100,000 a year who only needs

to spend that same amount of money for the essentials. Now we are not

talking about the frills and those non-essentials. The essentials of

every human being in this province should be the same, the essentials.

If we are saying that some people should live in mansions and some

should live in hovels. then, of course, the government's direction is a

sound one. But I don't think that most people in this province feel

that way or, indeed, most people in this House.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: So what we are doing is we are saying that this

budget is one of restraint; in other words, saying to the working poor,

"Your children shall have no apples this year," and to the wealthy,

"One less trip to Hawaii this year." They'll show restraint by not

taking that extra trip to Hawaii, and the working people will have to

cut down on certain foodstuffs and other things like clothing because

there's 5 per cent on that. That's the way the budget is. That's what

it's all about.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Let's take a look...oh.

MR. LAUK: What's going on over there?

MR. LEA: ...page 3; there's a mistake there, too — just a little clerical error. It says the conclusion is

[ Page 612 ]

on page 34, but after the document was doctored it ended up on page

35. I think conclusive proof is that they forgot to change the table of

contents. They forgot that. They were in such a hurry to get out a

political document, they even forgot to change the table of contents to

coincide with the page that the conclusion is actually on.

On the other side of the House they say: "We made a little clerical error in the budget." A little clerical error.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Which one did we make, Mr. Member?

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Try $100 million!

MR. LEA: The $100 million — I thought you'd bring that up. I just thought maybe you'd bring that up.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether any of the government

backbenchers.... By the way, just before we get to that, speaker after

speaker I've heard from the government back benches say "we in the

government." You know, one thing I think they should have learned in

their amount of time here is that the government is the cabinet, the

executive council. You only happen to belong to the same political

party that the government is formed from. You are not part of

government. I just thought we'd get that straight and on the record

before more of you make that same mistake in your speeches.

MR. CHABOT: Stop lecturing the back bench.

MR. LEA: Well, somebody has to, Mr. Member. Stop lecturing the back bench!

Let's take a look at the hon. member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)

and the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). Now in the old days

when the former Premier, Mr. W.A.C. Bennett, was here, at least he had

come up the hard way and he could tell the fibre of a person. He could

tell whether they could stand it. In those days he had his choice: he

could put the now present hon. Minister of Finance into his cabinet or

the hon. member for Columbia River. He chose the hon. member for

Columbia River to go in his cabinet. The present Premier chose, of

course, the present hon. Minister of Finance.

I can only say, Mr. Member, that I'm sorry. But I'm not the only one. I'm sure the Premier isn't that happy about it either now.

It's been rather enlightening in the last few days to sit on this

side of the House and watch cabinet ministers who haven't even been in

this Legislature before, who don't know the rules and what really goes

on here, to watch their mouths drop, their chin right on their chests,

when all of a sudden they see that there is a procedure in this House

whereby the opposition can question ministers.

Yesterday, on committee stage of Bill 3, when actually this side of

the House could ask questions of that minister, he didn't answer all of

them. As a matter of fact, he was so nervous I noticed he couldn't even

write them all down. He couldn't even write them down! He was breaking

the lead in his pencil, and trying to scratch, and was all nervous. But

he wasn't as nervous as some of those new cabinet ministers who were

observing that there is a system in this democratic House where the

opposition does have their day and they can make government accountable

for the kind of actions that they're taking or the kind of actions that

they're not taking. I can see a little bit of surprise on those new

minister's faces, but looking at the back bench, Mr. Speaker, I looked

around and they said: "Holy standing orders!" They said: "I don't think

our side is doing that well. I thought they were our leaders. I thought

they were just going to crush those socialists under their iron heel

and do away with them forever."

Did you notice, Mr. Speaker, that they're looking a little nervous

these days? They don't really think they're doing that well now because

the democratic system does provide for the opposition to question the

actions of government, something I think they didn't know before coming

to this House, or at least the majority of them.

Now getting back to the $100 million overrun that the government

backbenchers are so fond of yelling out during debate. Do you, hon.

backbenchers, believe that this was the first overrun within that

department? Oh! I assume from the looks on their faces, Mr. Speaker,

that they do. I went to the library the other day and dug out all of

the estimates and all of the public accounts since 1960.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): That's probably the first time you've ever been in the library!

MR. LEA: That's the first time, the hon. Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. Williams) says, I was in the library. That's right, because

I'm a walking library. But this is the first time, Mr. Minister, I had

to go and actually get some records.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you know where it is? It's right out in the hall.

MR. LEA: Now I want the hon. members in the back bench....

You know, Mr. Speaker, because you were here. You know that that

department that they're talking about, that had a $100 million overrun,

they say, they think it was the first time. In 1971, the estimates of

that department were

[ Page 613 ]

$108,113, 045. In public accounts, the actual spending for that year was $147,074, 025.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ohhh!

MR. LEA: Now I believe if the hon. members would take their

mathematics and their pencils and start to figure out the percentage of

overrun in that year against the percentage of overrun which they are

always talking about, they might come up with some interesting

statistics.

AN HON. MEMBER: What year was that?

MR. LEA: 1971.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which department?

MR. LEA: That was the Department of Human Resources but,

going back, the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement,

the Department of Social Welfare. Did you know that, hon. members?

Interjections.

MR. LEA: You did know that? Yet you've been yelling that

across the floor. Well, I'm ashamed of you! You knew all along. You

were doing a little politicking, were you? Was that it?

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Now do you want me to read the rest?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. member please address the Chair?

MR, LEA: You were surprised too, Mr. Speaker? I'm sure you

weren't because, hon. Speaker, you knew all along that that was the

situation. I think that's the reason you didn't speak in this debate,

because you knew. But you can go back, right to 1961, and there has

been an overturn in that department every year.

Now let's take the Department of Highways during the previous

administration. Any overruns there, do you suppose, Mr. Speaker? Oh, a

few, and they coincide very closely with the election years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: I wonder what that was all about. Was that sound

fiscal responsible management, hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford)?

You were here.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Oh, you agree with it? Spend it, eh? Spend it during the election year.

So that's why, Mr. Speaker, we take a look at this year's budget and

we see in absolute dollars the money for capital expenditures in the

Highways department is down. The number of absolute dollars is down,

even in this time of inflationary climbing. So what's going to happen?

Are they going to hold back a little in the Department of Highways and

then, as in the past, we see those big yellow machines out around

election time? Is that what they're doing? Or didn't the Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) have the clout in cabinet to get the kind of

money that the people in this province deserve to get in terms of road

building? Was that it? Or did he try and did the Treasury Board say:

"No, we'll just hang back until election time. Don't worry, Mr.

Minister, there's lots of time. It worked for my pop, and I think it'll

work for me"? But is that really what we want? Do we want

peak-and-valley spending in the Highways department — peak spending at

election time and valley spending in those times in between? Well, I

don't think we want it.

In 1973, in the spring session, the former Premier, Mr. W.A.C.

Bennett, said that we had better use caution over the next three or

four years because, he said, there's going to be a downturn, maybe, in

the economy. So we should proceed with caution over the next three or

four years. He went into the money exchanges of the world and he looked

at international markets. I think that the former Premier, Mr. W.A.C.

Bennett, gave a very worthwhile talk, and I think a worthwhile lecture,

to this House, Dave Barrett was the Premier at that time, and agreed

with Mr. Bennett, and said: "Yes, that is the way we have to go."

But lo and behold, we have this new government saying: "It was all

the dirty, rotten NDP. They brought all this down on us." Yet W.A.C.

Bennett in this House said: "It doesn't matter what government's in;

you'd better look for this possible economic downturn because of the

world situation." It's in Hansard , and I suggest that those new

members who haven't read it do so, because it's worth reading because

that former Premier laid out the reasons that there could probably be a

downturn in the economy. It happened; he was right. I respect a lot of

the judgment that Mr. W.A.C. Bennett has when it comes to fiscal

matters and world situations in terms of dollars and cents and markets.

He said it would happen; it has happened. But the present Premier says:

"Oh, no, never mind what my father told you — I'm right; it was those

dirty, rotten NDPers."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon. member, you are inferring that someone in this House used the

[ Page 614 ]

phrase "dirty rotten NDPers" in debate. I don't recall that sort of

remark being made by any hon. member of this House and I hope you

wouldn't infer that anyone had said that in debate, and I would ask you

to withdraw.

MR. LEA: No, Mr. Speaker, no member in this House has said that, at least not while they're in this House that I know of.

Now we start looking at the kind of taxes they put on. A new social

services tax, up to 7 per cent from 5, as I said, hurts the small

person, but the corporation tax is supposed to be the one that says to

the people out there: "You see, we haven't been bought and paid for;

we're going to tax the little people and we're going to tax the

corporations." But, Mr. Speaker, the government — that group over there

— said for years every time we talked about taxing corporations: "Why

bother doing that? They'll just pass it along to the consumer anyway."

That's what they said all these years. So now they've gone and done it.

They're going to tax the corporations a little more and — according to

their own philosophy, and, I believe, a true one — the corporations are

going to pass on that extra cost to them to the consumers. So the

consumer's going to get it again: higher costs because the corporation

tax has gone up; higher costs because the 5 per cent social service tax

is going to 7. Income tax: as everyone knows, the graduated scale of

income tax doesn't work the way it should. The corporations, by hiring

smart accountants and taking advantage of everything available to them,

could end up paying a smaller share on their taxable income than the

average working person who has none of those smart accountants and none

of the loopholes open to him. Again, working people, and I include

every working person — not just the ones who work in the pulp mill but

every person who works in this province for money on a T4 slip without

any of the benefits that the elitists hold for themselves, like stock

options and little trips to Europe, a little house paid for by the

company, and all those things....

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This budget gets the working person in this province every time and

makes no attempt to try and tax the people in the wealthy segment of

our society. Obviously this government is paying off their debts from

the last election by taxing the poor and letting the wealthy go with

paying no more. It's obvious.

Now part of the reason, Mr. Speaker, that this government says they

have to bring in this kind of budget of restraint is because they have

to make up for the bad management of the previous government. Well,

let's take a look at that question, Mr. Speaker, and see whether

indeed...because this has to tie back to Bill 3. You can't talk about

the budget without talking about what they call "the debt" that the

previous administration left for them to clean up. So let's really take

a look at that. I have nine questions that I'd like to pose to the two

government members in the House — the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr.

Nielsen) and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams). You could

take this back to cabinet.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Oh, it's not going to be bad. Don't prejudge, like you did the people.

Now question No. 1. Do we need this money? Do we have to borrow

money and then jeopardizes this coming year's budget? Why did the

government approve a grant of $26 million out of current revenues for

the 1975-76 fiscal year when the legislation was approved by this House

and has provided for $50 million authorization for capital transit

operations? Twenty-six million dollars — legislation there not needed.

Why did the government not receive back from B.C. Railway in the

1975-76 fiscal year a $20 million payment when BCR minutes clearly show

the intention to repay the government? Another $20 million.

Why did the government make a $32.6 million grant to B.C. Hydro in

the 1975-76 fiscal year? If the grant was related to the operating

transit losses, why is the grant not in this year's estimates? Are

there going to be no losses next year? — $32.6 million when again a

Crown corporation has authorization under legislation to do that.

The ICBC one is the greatest one of all, of course. I think that's

been thoroughly canvassed, Mr. Speaker — that the government wrote out

a rubber cheque to ICBC which they're not going to cash but when they

do cash it they're going to lend it back to the government and the

government's going to pay them interest on it. Everyone knows that

story — $181 million when obviously the money is not needed in this

fiscal year. That could be done the way the NDP proposed to do it — by

transferring money when that money was available from gasoline tax.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: We didn't have to do it, Hon. Minister. The time

hasn't come yet, and it's been admitted by the Minister of Education

(Hon, Mr. McGeer) in this House.

Question No. 6. Why did the province not receive back in

consolidated revenue for 1975-76 the $25 million advance provided to

the B.C. Harbours Board? Why not? Mr. Speaker, there's documentary

proof that that was the intention.

Interjection.

[ Page 615 ]

MR. LEA: Okay. A minister across the way yells, "no money."

Let me read you a memorandum of September 29, 1975, from the Deputy

Minister of Finance to Mr. Marc Eliesen, planning adviser to cabinet,

regarding British Columbia Harbours Board advances in the province.

"It is planned in the very near future to borrow funds

in the market for B.C. Harbours Board. The borrowing would be in the

form of debentures, probably 20-year maturity with interest paid

semi-annually. Any such funds would be used by the B.C. Harbours Board

to pay back to the Crown advances received from the Crown. Before

proceeding further with this matter, could you ensure that the Harbours

Board directors would be in agreement with this procedure, as I would

caution that once a debenture is issued interest must be paid promptly

every six months for the life of the bond."

It was the policy of the previous government to do just that. It makes sense; it isn't being done; that is another $25 million.

No. 7. Why did the government not receive back in consolidated

revenue for 1975-76 the $20 million advances that had been provided for

B.C. Cellulose and Ocean Falls? — $16 million to B.C. Cellulose, $14

million to Ocean Falls, totalling another $20 million. Why have these

not been received back? Both B.C. Cellulose and Ocean Falls have the

power to pay that back by borrowing in their own right.

No. 8. Why did the government not sign — and this is the one that is

really of interest — the federal-provincial agreement on railway

financing which would have brought $117 million to B.C. from the

federal government, of which at least $30 million would have been

received in the fiscal year 1975-76?

1 submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is going to be signed. All the

government has said is: "Its a bad agreement." They won't say why it's

a bad agreement. You know why, Mr. Speaker? Because it's a good

agreement. It took top, well-informed, competent civil servants from

both the federal government and the provincial government two years to

get this agreement, two years of hard work.

It's a good agreement for British Columbia, which that government is

ready to let go down the drain, possibly because they want to have a

deficit for 1975-1976. I think the people of British Columbia should

know why that agreement's no good. It is good. The government has not

said what they're intending to do. I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that the

minute we're out of this session they'll sign that agreement the way it

is and get $117 million from the federal government over the next two

years, probably the greater portion in this next fiscal year. It will

be a nice little cushion, because what they're doing is playing around

with this year's budget, and they know all they have to do is sign and

they've got this money coming in.

The House should know, the people of British Columbia....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Would you stake your seat on that, Graham?

MR. LEA: Would you stake yours on it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. LEA: Who?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: That you are going to give us the reasons? You're going to sign it?

AN HON. MEMBER: They haven't signed it.

MR. LEA: All we want to know, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

MR. LEA: All we want to know is why it is a bad deal. If you

say it's a bad deal, tell us why it's a bad deal. I don't think anybody

is going to stand up and tell us it's a bad deal, because it's a good

deal. It's a good deal for British Columbia.

The last point: why did the government change existing policy by not

proceeding with the B.C. Housing Corp., which would have brought

consolidated revenue of this province for 1975-1976 up by $63 million?

That was in the works by the former government. Why not?

You total up those figures that I've read out, Mr. Speaker, and it

comes to $423.6 million, money that would have come into consolidated

revenue in 1975-1976 if that new government had followed the policies.

When we question them on each specific they're hard put. The Minister

of Finance sits there, either gets up and doesn't answer the question

at all, or sits there and won't get up at all, and looks around and

says: why am I not back at Wolfe Motors where it was safe? Men you add

up these figures to $423.6 million, then you take the money that is in

consolidated revenue of $143 million; it comes to $556.6 million.

Subtract the amount away, that they say the deficit is, of $541

million, and you're left with $25.6 million in consolidated revenue at

the end of the 1975-1976 fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, it could have been done. It would have been to the

betterment of British Columbia if these policies had been carried out

by this new government. There's only one reason, and one reason alone,

Mr. Speaker, why they wouldn't consider any

[ Page 616 ]

of these measures. That's because, as other members have said, they

had to fulfil the prophecy that they'd made on the campaign trail.

MR. LOEWEN: Why did he call the election?

MR. LEA: That's what they had to do. Now they talk about

providing services to people. When the former Minister of Health, the

hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), brought the Ambulance

Service Act into this House it was endorsed by, I believe, all members,

all Social Credit, all parties. As a matter of fact, during that debate

the now Minister of Health, the member for Langley (Hon. Mr.

McClelland)....

AN HON. MEMBER: What date are you quoting?

MR. LEA: April 5, 1973, page 2299.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you quoting from?

MR. LEA: From Hansard .

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, we support this legislation as

well. There's one comment I want to make. I would ask the minister that

when upgrading both the training of ambulance personnel and the

equipment of ambulances that are being used, I hope the minister will

take it into account that many communities are already up against the

wall now with regard to financing ambulance services. Certainly the

upgrading cannot come without some financial help.

I would hope that the minister is taking that into account, and will

provide that extra financial help one way or another before ordering

these kind of services. I agree with that. But what's the real

situation now that that member is Minister of Health? Cutbacks. Now in

my community of Prince Rupert it's a real problem. I'd like to read

something into the record, because I think this would be of interest to

all members in this House. It's from William Smith, city administrator,

City of Prince Rupert, to Emergency Health Services Commission, 2840

Nanaimo Street, Victoria, British Columbia, attention Director of

Ambulance Services:

"Dear Sir,

"The matter of ambulance service in the city of Prince

Rupert has recently been the subject of much criticism by the public

and Prince Rupert City Council.

"An incident last week, in which it took an ambulance

22 minutes to reach the scene of an accident in the downtown

section of

the city, has heightened council's concern. I am attaching a copy of

the station record of that particular call.

"Our information is that the ambulance station manning

policy is the reason for the poor response time of an ambulance.

Apparently the station is manned by a driver only, and when a call is

received for an ambulance the driver is required to proceed to the

residence of the attendant and from there to the point of call.

"It is conceivable that while proceeding to the

residence of the attendant, after receiving a call for service, the

driver could come upon the scene of the call only to have to go on by

and then return with the attendant. City council feels quite strongly

that the commission should make immediate arrangements to increase its

ambulance personnel in Prince Rupert to ensure that a full crew, driver

and attendant, is available to the station to respond to emergency

calls. Yours very truly, William Smith."

Now I don't think there's anyone in this House who can argue with

the logic of what that city council is asking for. I met, just before

the election, with the people who operate that ambulance centre and the

ambulance calls, and from A to Z. I then took it up with the former

Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke) and had his words that that is one area

of concern that we are definitely going to make sure does not go on any

longer.

Now I agree that it's a new service; there were many kinks to be

ironed out, and I cannot blame the government for making a great many

mistakes with the ambulance service. All I'm saying is: that situation

is intolerable. It did happen that an ambulance went right by the scene

of an accident, came back to the scene of the accident. That's just not

good enough for the city of Prince Rupert residents or for anybody in

this province. So when you're talking about bringing in a restraint

budget, Mr. Speaker, make sure that the restraint doesn't go on this

kind of service, because it's something that our society cannot afford

to have any restraint put on — health services.

I am not criticizing the present Minister of Health; I am only bringing it

to this House's attention. It has already been brought to the Minister's

attention, and

I would only hope that government would make a concerted effort,

especially Treasury Board, to make sure that the money is available

throughout this whole province to make sure that there's a driver and

an attendant on duty 24 hours a day in every area of this province. I

think that the people of this province can ask no less and should

receive no less. I bring that up in this House because I think all hon.

members are interested, regardless of party.

Two final items, Mr. Speaker; one is an editorial that I would like

to enter into the records of today's House, from the Victoria Times ,

Tuesday, April 6. The editorial is entitled: "When in Doubt, Double

Up."

[ Page 617 ]

"A government that issues one version of the budget

for domestic consumption and another for financial markets is a

government that speaks with a forked tongue. Omitted from the export

edition of the provincial budget were all but the first three

paragraphs of a vituperative attack on the former government, unique in

the annals of B.C. history. The question of why two editions were

necessary was not adequately answered by Finance Minister Evan Wolfe on

Monday.

"The minister's flaccid explanation bears analysis. To

say that previous budgets were not the same in their final printed

versions as they appeared in Hansard misses the point. What we have

here is two different printed versions. Naturally Hansard's version is

always slightly different from the printed version because of asides in

the House and oral expansions of certain points. It's hard to follow

Wolfe's statements that basic financial and economic information

remains the same in both editions. Yet the deletions involved highly

political remarks, remarks that might make this government look bush

league in more sophisticated jurisdictions with money to lend.

"When pressed by another reporter, Wolfe said the

deletions were made in order not to complicate the document with local

issues. Are the governments of Britain, New Zealand and Australia local

issues? In part, it was references to socialist regimes in those

countries that were deleted.

"And what about the matter of who ordered the editing?

In Vancouver the minister said he knew nothing about the budget

deletions. In his subsequent press conference here Monday he said he

would take full responsibility for the deletions. Two budgets. Two

explanations. But no answer as to who ordered the deletions.

"It was bound to come. First we had two oil prices in

Canada. Now the government of B, C. has inaugurated a two-budget

system. Whenever unpleasantness crops up, we can always make two of

everything so the contents are palatable to everyone.

"It's an admirable system for fairy tales, but it

doesn't work in governing. As the press conference heated up with more

urgent questions, the minister said: 'I think that concludes the

interview, gentlemen.' It was an arrogant performance from a novice

minister. Evan Wolfe is the Minister of Finance and the government will

spend more than $3.6 billion this year. He owes the public some

answers, not the cute...."

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Well, you are right — there is a word I don't know what it means.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I interrupt you long enough to remind you that you're in your final two minutes?

MR. LEA: Okay, fine, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you reading from?

MR. LEA: From the Victoria Times , the editorial today: "When in Doubt, Double Up." I mentioned that.

I would like to sum up, Mr. Speaker, with a quotation from F. Scott

Fitzgerald because I began my speech by saying that this was a budget

for the millionaires, a budget for the elitists and a budget for those

who have become millionaires, either through wealth inherited, or come

up the hard way. F. Scott Fitzgerald says:

"Let me tell you about the very rich; they're

different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early and it does

something to them: it makes them soft where we are hard and cynical

where we are trustful in a way that unless you were born rich, it's

difficult to understand. They think deep in their hearts that they are

better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and the

refuge of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world

or sink below us they still think that they are better than we are.

They are different."

Mr. Speaker, I think this budget proves this. I think it is a budget

for the rich and one that hurts every working person in this province.

Thank you very much.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, I am

pleased to rise on this occasion to speak on the budget that has been

presented to us. I found the hon. member for Prince Rupert's (Mr.

Lea'

s) talk very entertaining; it is amazing how he can weave very

little into 40 minutes. I would like to leave him with one question,

though, before he leaves the assembly hall, and the question is really

to him. If it wasn't as bad as we make it out to be, I ask him: why did

the Premier call an election? Then I might answer that for him, because

he may not understand: I don't think the Premier or that government

dared wait until after the budget had to be brought down this spring.

They coudn't afford to wait because they had overspent and they had to

get that mandate before they could deal with their financial problems.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Finance stated that this is a budget

of restraint — a budget to hold the line, to cope with inflation. It's

very difficult to deal with the problem of inflation, to hold the line,

[ Page 618 ]

to hold services. It's very easy to add to, or to give away. It's

very easy to provide services, more and more services. But this

government has to take the stand that you have to be able to afford

those services, those people services, those public services. You have

to be able to afford them because in the end the taxpayers — all

taxpayers, whether rich or whether poor, pensioners, working mothers —

have to pay the costs of those services. I admire a Minister of Finance

who can deal with the problem set the problem straight and say to the

people: "This is a budget of restraint, and this government is going to

make it work so we won't have to go through what we had to go through

in the last three and a half months to pull the mess together."

Mr. Speaker, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) called it

political revenge. The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) called it a

political tirade. The member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson)

called it a very partisan document. The Vancouver Sun said that

it was tough. I say it had to be tough because this new government had

to face a loss of $541 million which included the $170-odd million for

ICBC. But whether it was $541 million or whether it was $250 million,

the trend was there. The t