1976 Legislative Session: ist Session, 3ist Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 29, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

269 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

BCR

schedule disruption due to bridge fire. Hon. Mr. Phillips — 269

Motion

Adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of public importance.

Mr. King — 269

Mr. Speaker — 269

Mr. King — 270

Mr. Speaker — 270

Mr. Gibson — 270

Mr. Speaker — 270

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 271

Mr. King — 271

Mr. Speaker — 271

Mr. Macdonald — 271

Mr. Speaker — 271

Mr. King — 271

Mr. Speaker — 271

Mr. King — 272

Mr. Gibson — 272

Mr. Speaker — 272

Mr. King — 272

Mr. Gibson — 274

Mr. Lauk — 274

Mr. Speaker — 274

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Motor-vehicle Act (Bill 32) Mr. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 275

Oral questions

Release of Thompson River task force report. Mr. Lea — 275

Urgency of restructured grants. Mr. Gibson — 275

Additional ferry sailings. Mr. Wallace — 275

Student summer employment programme. Mr. King — 275

Mining in provincial parks. Mr. Skelly — 276

ELUC report on mining. Mr. Lauk — 276

AIB agreement with federal government. Mr. Wallace — 276

Distribution of budget speech. Mrs. Dailly — 277

Federal-provincial cable TV negotiations. Mr. Lockstead — 277

Disposition of MacNeil Place. Mr. Nicolson — 277

Value of B.C. Tel and Westcoast Transmission shares. Hon. Mr. Wolfe answers

— 278

Budget debate (continued).

Mr. Stupich — 278

Mr. Gibson — 289

Mr. Wallace — 300

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask

this assembly to join me in welcoming this afternoon two groups from

the great constituency of Omineca; Mr. and Mrs. Bradford and their

family of four, from Talkwa, Mr. and Mrs. Carl McKilligan and daughter

Carol, and my good wife — all of whom are in the gallery today.

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

House to welcome three of my friends from Alberni: Mrs. Edna Souther,

who was our candidate in '72; Mr. Bud Schroeder, who was our candidate

in '75; and Mrs. Elsie McGillivray, our membership secretary.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery

today are three people from Comox constituency who are taking advantage

of the school spring break in order to come down to see the legislators

at work. I would like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. and Mrs.

Harry Dougan and Mr. Peter Sanford.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, we

are honoured today by the presence of Harry Jerome in our gallery. I

would like the House to join me in welcoming one of the outstanding

great athletes of British Columbia as well as one of the new directors

of the Pacific National Exhibition.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would ask

the House to welcome two people, two very distinguished school teachers

from Vancouver Centre, Neville and Cathy Thomas, who are here on their

spring break.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to introduce to you and through you, two people situated in the

gallery today, my wife Sheila and my young son Gregory.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I

would acknowledge the presence in the gallery today of Mr. and Mrs.

Randy Phillips of North Vancouver, and family and friends.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to

welcome my constituency secretary, someone who helps me represent that constituency

of South Okanagan so well, Mrs. Jan Duncan and her husband, who are visiting

with us today.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): I ask leave of the House to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to report to the House

that a bridge located at mile 147.3 of the British Columbia Railway,

approximately 10 miles south of Lillooet, caught fire and burned this

morning at approximately 11 o'clock.

In view of disruption of shipments caused by recent labour disputes,

and the resumption of railway operations this morning, I want to report

to this House that the railway is moving as quickly as possible to

restore service. By 4 o'clock this afternoon, the railway will have

determined whether the crossing can be shoe-flied, making it possible

to resume service within the next 24 to 36 hours.

In the event that this is not possible, it is hoped that a new

bridge can be in place within three to four days. The management of the

railway has advised me that they are moving with all possible haste to

restore service so that the needs of the British Columbia Railway

shippers can be met at the earliest moment.

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

would ask that the rules of the House be suspended for a matter of

urgent public importance relating to statements contained in the budget

speech of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) — specifically those

statements which cast a reflection of improper conduct upon sister

nations of the British Commonwealth.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, if you're rising on a point to

suggest a matter of urgent public importance for debate, then you

should have prepared a motion about the matter, stating the matter for

presentation to the Chair in a written form so I can read the motion

and declare, after a short time, whether it is in order or not. But I

have nothing before me.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'd be quite prepared to prepare the

motion, given a few moments. I would point out that the matter of

urgency relates to the fact that the budget, as I understand it, is

under mass production at this time and will be distributed throughout

the nations of the world. I think the unfortunate references to other

nations and their sovereign matters should be removed from that budget

before any such distribution.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would draw your attention to the rules of the House, the standing

[ Page 270 ]

orders, on page 10, where a member rises to move a

motion for the adjournment of the House for the purposes of discussing

a definite matter of urgent public importance. In order to do that, the

member stands in his place to move such a motion and then hands a

written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr.

Speaker, who, if he thinks it is in order and of urgent public

importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of

the House.

At this point, I have nothing before me to indicate...or for me to

look at before I could even make a judgment on the matter. I

respectfully suggest that because of the rules of the House and our

standing orders, that would be the first prerequisite before I could

even determine whether the matter was in order concerning a debate of

urgent public importance.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling. I

would point out that I think, alternatively, it's quite within the

rules of the House to raise this matter on a point of order. There is a

statement before the House contained in the budget. The references to

which I object are clearly spelled out in the budget, and I think that

on a matter of a point of order the House would want to withdraw any

insulting references to other nations. I am sure the government would

agree that the references contained in the budget go beyond an attack

on the official opposition in this province and insult the integrity of

another nation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! That is not a proper point of order you

are raising, hon. member. It would seem to me that if you or any other

member takes exception to what is said, or something that was printed

in the budget address, there will be ample opportunity to debate that

matter in the debate that's presently taking place.

MR. KING: That's quite true, Mr. Speaker. I would point out,

however, that the main emergent aspect of this is the fact that the

budget will be distributed, and it is under printing now....

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. KING: ...and if this matter is to be deleted action would have to be taken.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I have no written submission before me.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I have just suggested that it was not a proper point of order. Is this on the same matter?

MR. G.F. GIBSON (Vancouver-Capilano): Yes, it is, Mr. Speaker, and this is a point of order, I assure you, and I will cite you references.

MR. SPEAKER: Please do.

MR. GIBSON: First of all, as Your Honour is aware, our first and general rule of this House is that:

"In all cases not provided for hereafter or by

sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of the House of

Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as

in force at the time shall be followed as far as may be applicable to

this House."

Now I would draw Your Honour's attention to May, 18th edition, page

417. It is a

section entitled "Reflections upon the Sovereign," et

cetera. It deals, Mr. Speaker, with the propriety in debate in the

House, which debate, of course, includes the budget address, on

reflections that may be properly cast or not.

"A reflection that may not be properly cast is as

follows: Nor may opprobrious reflections be cast in debate on

sovereigns and rulers over, or governments of, independent commonwealth

territories or countries in amity with Her Majesty or their

representative in this country."

To buttress that submission, Mr. Speaker, I might draw to your attention Beauchesne ,

4th edition, citation 171, where Beauchesne sets out some of the

matters which are improper in oral question period, which gives us some

guidance as to the things that may properly be said in the House, and

no. 0 of citation 171 notes that: "A question, oral or written, must

not refer discourteously to a friendly foreign country." I would

suggest, Sir, that if you consider the language on the penultimate and

final pages of the spoken text of the budget address you will find a

proper point of order when considered within that term of reference.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, in rising in your place on this

point of order, you referred to general rule No. 1 which applies

specifically when we have nothing in our own standing orders or our own

standing orders are mute upon the matter. I refer you to page 12 of our

standing orders, rule no. 40, which reads:

"No member shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty, nor

of any of the royal family, nor of the Governor-General or person administrating

the Government of this province. No member shall use offensive words against

any member of this House, nor shall he

[ Page 271 ]

speak beside the question in debate. No member shall reflect

upon any vote of the House passed during the current session except for the

purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded."

I would suggest, hon. member, that the rule is quite specific. It is

in our rules, in our standing orders, and on the basis of our own rules

and standing orders, I do not see that you have a proper point of order

at this time.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to reach an

understanding of this serious problem, I would suggest, Your Honour,

that the fact that our standing orders prohibit the expression of

disrespect to one class of persons does not mean that it permits the

expression of disrespect towards another class of persons.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: And where our rules are silent, the rules of the British House set down in May prevail; and I suggest, Your Honour, that May

says very clearly that friendly, foreign countries are not to be spoken

of disrespectfully in this House. I would ask Your Honour to consider

the budget in that context.

MR. SPEAKER: I have before me now a statement signed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King). The statement says, and I'll read it:

"On pages 34 and 35 of the budget speech derogatory

references are made to other commonwealth nations. The budget is under

printing for worldwide distribution. Accordingly it is urgent that this

House debate the acceptability of transmitting insulting language to

other nations."

It is moved by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'd like to ask whether the derogatory word

is "socialist". I've been reading it. I'm just asking what the

derogatory words are.

MR. KING: The Premier's question is directed to me. I would

be happy to respond, and read the portion of the budget speech which I

find insulting to other nations and quite inappropriate.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, will you just take your seat for a

moment, because before you can go further than the statement that I

have before me, I have to rule whether it is in order or not.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): The urgency of debate is

distribution at this time. That's not the kind of thing that can wait

until the conclusion of the budget debate and putting of the motion on

the budget. That makes it an urgent matter of public importance: that

the question of distribution be debated and decided today, before it is

too late.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please! The pertinent words

in the motion that is before me are that references are made to other

commonwealth nations — derogatory references are made to other

commonwealth nations. It would appear very clear to me that on the

basis of our own standing order 40, and on the basis of the urgency of

the matter as defined in standing order 35, the matter does not qualify

as a matter to be debated at this moment on a motion of urgent public

importance.

I would point out to the hon. members that we are embarking, this afternoon, on a full debate of the budget.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order!

Reference will be made, I'm sure, to remarks contained within the

budget and, as long as they are proper references, they will be

accepted by the Chair. My duty as Speaker is to rule on the matter with

respect to the urgency of debate. I rule that, because of the fact we

are in debate on this particular matter at the present time, the motion

of the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) does not qualify for

another urgent public debate on the same matter.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I regret your decision in this regard

because as my colleague, the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald),

has pointed out, the budget is under mass production, and if anything

is to be done regarding the substance of the motion, it can only be

done at this point, certainly not after the fact. However, if that is

your decision, Mr. Speaker, so be it. The Premier has asked questions,

indicating his interest in determining the validity of the concern

expressed by the opposition. In light of his good will, in light of his

willingness to discuss the matter, which he has already demonstrated,

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the unanimous leave of the House to

discuss this matter. Because I am sure that no one, regardless of the

party they represent, would want to be guilty of insulting our sister

nations in the commonwealth.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sure it is a matter that will be debated

within the remaining hours this afternoon and the days that will follow

in the budget debate.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am asking for unanimous leave of the House. I believe the Chair has an obligation to put that question.

[ Page 272 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down!

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. KING: Are you backing out now?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, under our

standing orders, even for me to put a motion to the House asking

unanimous consent I have to give my opinion as to whether that is in

order at this time or not. I have told you that the rules of the House

will allow ample scope and opportunity for debate. It's not a matter of

appeal or not at this time. It's a matter that the rules of the House

prevail and that we are, in fact, in the budget debate at this time.

Further, it is my opinion that it is not a matter of urgent public

importance that would be debated as a separate motion at this

particular time.

MR. KING: You have ruled on that, Mr. Speaker, but I have

never seen a situation where the Speaker of the House denies the House

the right to set their own priorities and their own order of business.

We have no indication whatsoever as to whether or not the government

benches would be prepared to accept this important matter. I think that

it's reasonable to find out what the consensus of the House is in this

regard. Now that has nothing to do with the ruling you have just made.

I think that the House certainly sets its own business — its own orders

of procedure. I request unanimous consent of this House to discuss this

important matter before we are placed in the position of international

embarrassment in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker — and I would

make it very clear that I am not now referring to standing order 35

under which Your Honour has ruled — but I would point out that under

standing order 9, "Mr. Speaker shall decide questions of order." I have

raised a question of order, Sir; the question is whether the abusive

language used towards some of our sister commonwealth nations is, under

the practice in this House and in the British House of

Commons...whether that language as contained in the budget is

parliamentary or not. I would appreciate a ruling on that, Sir.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are no statements of that kind.

MR. KING: A shocking performance!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on the point of order raised by

the member for North Vancouver-Capilano, first of all, I have already

given my opinion as to the matter that was before us and the urgency of

debate. The other thing I must take into consideration is that if there

was an offence, then it would have to be raised at the earliest

opportunity The earliest opportunity would have been last Friday and

not this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order! On the matter raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, if the Hon Leader....

HON. MR. BENNETT: You weren't ashamed of being socialists last Friday.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If the hon. Leader of the

Opposition wishes to ask for unanimous leave of the House, then I would

suggest that he state the matter and ask unanimous leave.

MR. KING: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would be happy

to do that. I would read for the edification of the House the matters

to which the opposition objects. I quote, starting on page 34: "Mr.

Speaker, as I stand here contemplating once again the sad and wretched

state into which our province has fallen in three short years, I...."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, it's not a matter

of debate at the present time; it's a matter of stating concisely the

matter...

MR. KING: That's what I am trying to do, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: ...you wish unanimous leave to debate.

MR. KING: Right, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: So please don't inject debate into the matter before you've got unanimous leave to debate it.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'm reading from the budget speech to

outline and emphasize the wording to which we take objection, the

wording which we consider to be insulting and derogatory to other

nations in the British Commonwealth of Nations and, I might point out,

Mr. Speaker, other nations under

[ Page 273 ]

the same sovereign to which this Legislature pays their allegiance.

I would point out that the

language charges certain improper conduct by not only the opposition

party in British Columbia, but certainly by other nations which are

named here. Specifically it charges, Mr. Speaker, that money was wasted

carelessly, that political expedience replaced sound management, that

there was a disgraceful financial cover-up.

The language goes on, Mr. Speaker, to say....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Mr. Member. You're now entering into

debate on a matter which you have not put before the House for

unanimous leave. It is a matter for the House to decide if unanimous

leave will be given.

Now as I understand it, your point is that you take exception to certain words that are contained within the budget address.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, if I may....

MR. SPEAKER: That would be what you would ask leave to discuss.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, you have asked me, you have invited me

to make a statement specifically indicating what we object to, and

that's what I intend to do in a succinct and brief way, if I may be

allowed to proceed. I do not intend to go beyond emphasizing the

precise language which contains a direct insult to other nations.

Now certainly it seems impossible to ask for unanimous leave unless

the House is aware of precisely that language to which I take objection,

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, take your seat please. Hon. member,

it's not a matter that you can interject in the form of debate at the

present time. It's two separate matters. The matter that you wish to

object to is certain words contained within the budget address.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I never went beyond the words contained in the budget. That's precisely what I am outlining.

MR. SPEAKER: To read the budget address, or parts of it, is

not really proper until you have been given unanimous consent to either

debate or not debate, depending on whether that is given.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: As I understand it, you wish to have a debate on

the substance of certain statements that were made within the budget

address, and you should ask for leave to debate that, and that alone.

MR. KING: That's precisely what I intend to do, Mr. Speaker,

and I want to demonstrate the precise language to which we object,

which you invited me to do. You invited a statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, there is language apparently within the address which you object to.

MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: That will be the matter of debate if unanimous consent is given.

I would suggest to you that the matter you put now is the matter of

unanimous consent to debate language within the budget address, to

which you object, and that and that alone is the matter.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, how can the House possibly make

an intelligent decision on the need for a granting of unanimous consent

unless they are aware precisely of the content of the budget speech to

which we object? I certainly am not intending to debate the entire

budget address at this point. I am drawing reference to a matter which,

in the view of the opposition, is an emergent situation, and I

certainly have to be in a position to identify and outline that wording

to the House before any intelligent decision can be made as to granting

unanimous leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have some respect for the Commonwealth.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I've already outlined to you what,

in my opinion, was the decision respecting the matter of urgent debate.

I now suggest to you that to enter into the debate without unanimous

leave is improper and offends against the rules of our House.

You have stated a number of times the subject matter which you wish

to have debated. I think now it is a matter that you ask for unanimous

leave to debate the matter, and that will be decided by the House.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, if that's your decision, that's

your decision. But I would hope that the Chair is not trying to make a

fool out of the Leader of the Opposition. You invited me to make a

statement. I accepted your invitation at face value, Mr. Speaker, and I

attempted to make that statement only to be constantly interrupted by

Mr. Speaker, after first inviting me to make a brief statement on the

matter which we found objectionable.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can find some approach here that is

going to be constant and that is going to be understandable to the

members of this House, because you have given conflicting direction

[ Page 274 ]

to this point.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I've said a

number of times, and I'll repeat, that you are asking unanimous leave

of the House to debate a matter. The matter, it would appear, is

certain words contained within the budget address. That would be simply

and concisely put, and if that is the matter that you wish to debate,

then put that question to the House and let the House decide.

MR. KING: Could I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to just at least

identify the meat of what we find so objectionable? Otherwise, the

House doesn't even know what phrase, what page, what issue of the

budget speech is at issue here.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think you've in a number of ways

given the substance of the matter that you wish to debate. Now I would

respectfully ask you, sir, to put the question to the members of this

House if that's what you wish to do, and ask for unanimous leave.

MR. KING: All right, Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous leave

of this House to debate the need for deleting from the budget speech

charges that governments in other nations have been guilty of financial

cover-ups, have improperly used public funds, have attempted to stifle

productive growth. I find these statements insulting and certainly

bereft of all the academic and basic fundamental diplomacy that should

be expected from any democratically elected government.

MR. SPEAKER: You have stated the matter. Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, you passed so quickly from your

comments on the point of order that I had raised to the question raised

by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I would like to, just for a

moment, bring your attention back to that in order that I can better

understand the position you're taking.

If I have it correctly, you were suggesting that the matter must be

raised at the earliest opportunity, and that failing that, if I

understand it correctly, Your Honour is prepared to leave on the record

of this House language which by precedent and law of this House is

clearly unparliamentary.

First of all, may I understand if that is the ruling you have made?

Secondly, I would draw to Your Honour's attention the fact that the

earliest possible opportunity to check what was actually said with the

written copy...and, of course, it is only what is actually said that is

under the purview of this House and the publication by this House of

what is exactly said.

The first opportunity arises with the Blues which arrived today, and therefore

this is the first opportunity to raise the issue. Lastly, may I refer Your Honour

to page 430 of the 18th edition of May where it is suggested that it is the

duty of the Speaker to interfere in the first instance when questions of this

kind arise?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I thank you for your comments. As

you know, I have ruled on this matter; we have also put the matter of a

debate to the House to ask unanimously.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm just shocked, just shocked!

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I thought about half an hour ago we

were on Introduction of Bills and I am just trying to introduce a bill,

but I'm not sure what's going on down here.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the Clerk tried to get on to the

business of Introduction of Bills and then he gave way to a matter

which came to the floor of the House. I would presume that we would

then get back to the Introduction of Bills, hon. member, as soon as

this particular matter that we were dealing with is settled.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the

Liberal leader, I'm wondering whether that point of order is

understood. The point of order that he was making was that at this

first opportunity he is asking the Speaker to demand the withdrawal of

language by a speaker of this House, a person standing in his place, at

the first available opportunity. The language that is impugned is now

before Your Honour and you should now rule whether or not that language

should be withdrawn from the body of this speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope you never let Dan Campbell get you into this mess again. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, that matter of whether language is

within the accepted concepts of parliamentary language or not is

sometimes very debatable; it's sometimes very difficult to ascertain.

MR. KING: Let's debate it.

MR. SPEAKER: I am prepared to take what the hon. member for

North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) brought up as a point of order

under advisement and consider the matter.

[ Page 275 ]

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): On the point, Mr. Speaker, are you prepared to make a ruling on what you've just alluded to?

MR. SPEAKER: I presume the hon. member did not hear what I said. I said I would take it under advisement.

Interjections.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

MOTOR-VEHICLE ACT

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 32,

An Act to Amend the

Motor-vehicle Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

the House after today.

Oral questions.

RELEASE OF THOMPSON

RIVER TASK FORCE REPORT

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): This is a question directed to

the Minister of Environment: has the Thompson River task force report,

which was prepared jointly between the provincial government and the

federal government, been released and, if so, on what date?

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, in

reply, I do not believe the report has been released to this time. If

the hon. member would like a further answer, I will be happy to find

out from department officials when it is anticipated it will be

released.

MR. LEA: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it,

there were representatives of the city of Kamloops and/or

representatives of Weyerhauser, who operate a pulp mill on the Thompson

River.... Were these representatives of either Weyerhauser or the city

of Kamloops, or both, given an opportunity to see the report in the

month of January, prior to that report going to the Queen's Printer?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I will have to take that portion of your question as notice.

URGENCY OF RESTRUCTURED GRANTS

MR. GIBSON: A question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs:

under the provision of the Audit Act on March 1, order-in-council 701

issued, allotting $9 million to the cities of Nanaimo, Prince George,

Kelowna and Kamloops for what is called restructured grants. Could

the minister explain to the House why, as the order-in-council states,

the money was considered urgently and immediately required for the

public good?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, because it was clear, on the basis of my information and a

review of the matter, that the former government was very tardy in

making payments to these restructured cities and, in fact, to the hon.

member, in the case of Kamloops and Kelowna, there were delegations

here seeking these payments at the earliest possible opportunity.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since my

understanding is that the city fathers of some of the cities concerned

were surprised by the receipt of these grants, would the minister

assure the House that the purpose was not simply to press expenditures

from one fiscal year to another?

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe the question is

improper. If the hon. member would care to indicate which "city

fathers" were surprised, I would be happy to have the information.

Interjections.

ADDITIONAL FERRY SAILINGS

MR. WALLACE: I'd like to ask the Minister of Transportation

and Communications a question regarding the ferry service, which is

getting a lot of attention these days. Is it a fact that the ferry

system will not be running the additional services usually provided

between Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen from May 1 which in the past have

been provided by extra sailings by the Queen of Sidney?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

STUDENT SUMMER

EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMME

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the hon. Provincial

Secretary: in light of the information given to the House by the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) that it took a matter of some

months to recover moneys granted to a Social Credit constituency

association for the student summer employment programme, is it still

the Provincial Secretary's policy to prevail upon constituency

associations of the Social Credit Party to make

[ Page 276 ]

application for these funds?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Mr. Member.

First of all, to the hon. Leader of the Opposition: you are

reflecting now on a question that was put to the House and answered by

the Minister of Labour. You have enlarged upon that question now to the

hon. Provincial Secretary. I feel it should have been a separate

question, and it's not a question of her responsibility if it's a

matter of the Minister of Labour's decision.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you are not aware that last

year the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), publicly

stated that she was making these applications on behalf of Social

Credit constituency organizations. I wonder if she intends to pursue

that policy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Hon. members, as the Leader of the

Opposition well knows, last year the hon. Provincial Secretary was not

the Provincial Secretary; there was a different government in office at

that time.

MR. KING: She was Social Credit's Provincial Secretary. She still is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MINING IN PROVINCIAL PARKS

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, a question directed

to the Minister of Recreation and Travel Industry. Has the minister, or

her department, been approached by any mining company or by the

Department of Mines to approve exploration and development for mining

purposes within provincial parks?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, but if the

member would like to have assurance from my department, I am pleased to

give it at this time that that very sensitive matter of mining in

parks, and the situation of parklands, is under very, very good study

by our two departments, and there will be a statement of policy from

this department in the very near future.

MR. SKELLY: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: can the

Minister of Recreation and Travel Industry assure the House that no

mining exploration or development will be permitted in parks, and no

deletions will be made from provincial parks for the purposes of mining

and exploration?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think the hon. minister did give

you an indication that there will be a policy announcement. I suggest

you hold that question until that policy announcement is made.

ELUC REPORT ON MINING

MR. LAUK: A question directed to the Minister of Mines: is

the report and recommended guidelines of the Environment and Land Use

Secretariat's report on guidelines for coal mining, open-pit, strip and

underground mining, as far as environmental procedures are concerned,

completed? And if it is completed, when can we expect that that report

will be made public?

MR. SPEAKER: Do you wish to transfer that question to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), hon. member?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that this question

can best be directed to the Minister of Mines. The Minister of Mines

has received the report. Is it complete and when will it be released?

Interjections.

MR. KING: Will the Premier let the Minister answer?

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): In reply to the question from the hon. member, yes, the report is completed, and it will be released very shortly.

AIB AGREEMENT WITH

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier,

since he stated on February 27 that an agreement with the federal

government would shortly be signed giving the Anti-Inflation Board

control over the public sector in British Columbia, has a date been set

for such a signing, and has the Ontario court decision that their

agreement with Ottawa is unconstitutional caused any delay in British

Columbia signing?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member for Oak

Bay, the signing is still being worked upon between our government and

for delay. This government is proceeding with discussions. On question

two, our government is taking a position of an intervention in those

proceedings, and will make the British Columbia position known — that

while we support the federal guidelines, we will not support it to the

detriment of provincial jurisdiction.

[ Page 277 ]

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Premier's comments

very much. I just ask a supplemental: are we awaiting any further court

decisions from any of the other provinces or from Ontario until British

Columbia does sign, or has a date been set for British Columbia?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, we are not awaiting any other court decisions, and negotiations are proceeding.

DISTRIBUTION OF BUDGET SPEECH

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, to the hon.

Provincial Secretary (Mrs. McCarthy): have copies of the budget been

printed to date? Also, my supplementary question, if I can ask it now,

as it is tied in with it: what is the time and date for distribution of

the budget?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I shall take that question as notice because I don't have that information at hand.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Supplemental, Mr. Speaker.

Is it too late, in the event that the House decides for changes to be

made in the text of the budget that is being printed?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the question about the budget was

taken as notice. I would assume that your question is on the same

matter. It would best be put to the minister when she replies to the

first question.

MS. BROWN: I am just asking the minister whether it is too late, or indeed whether there is still time.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would like to point out

something to all the members of the House, and that is that there is a

tendency for hon. members to place a supplemental question to a

minister after the minister has taken the question as notice. I suggest

to you that the proper time to place the supplemental would be after

the question is answered by the minister. A question is taken as

notice; that ends the matter until the answer comes back to the floor

of the House.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister be willing to accept it as a brand new question, not a supplemental?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I hope you understand what I was

saying, and that is: a new question is just another way of asking a

supplemental on the same thing when it's the same subject matter. I

would hope that you would wait until the answer to the original

question comes back.

MS. BROWN: Thank you.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

CABLE TV NEGOTIATIONS

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, a question to

the hon. Minister of Transport and Communications: I would like to know

what the status is of the federal-provincial negotiations on redefining

their respective roles and responsibilities.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, in respect to what matters?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm sorry. This is the matter of the

negotiations now going on between the federal and provincial

governments in regard to community and jurisdiction of cable television.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You left that part out — it made it hard to answer.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: My mistake, sir.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications

for Canada (Hon. Mme. Sauvé) has stated her intention of having

bilateral meetings individually with members of the provincial

governments across Canada. I expect to be meeting with her some time in

the next month or two.

DISPOSITION OF MACNEIL PLACE

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Housing: are there any plans to dispose of MacNeil Place in North

Vancouver by any method other than rental?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member could give a further identification of MacNeil Place. Is that 2nd Avenue?

MR. NICOLSON: Yes.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Talisman Tower?

MR. NICOLSON: No. There are two....

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with....

MR. SPEAKER: Do you say there is a problem of identification? Could you narrow it down?

MR. NICOLSON: Through you, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 278 ]

there are two properties on 2nd Avenue, I think, presently under

construction: one is the tower, which I believe will be.... This is a

low-rise complex which was designed for family use.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You've started to do your homework.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, thank you. Yes, there is confusion because of the two properties on 2nd. I'll take the question as notice.

VALUE OF B.C. TEL AND

WESTCOAST TRANSMISSION SHARES

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to a question from the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace).

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

HON. MR. WOLFE: He asked a question a few days ago regarding

the present values of the shares now held in B.C. Telephone and

Westcoast Transmission. I have that information now, Mr. Member, if you

wish to make a note of it.

B.C. Telephone shares, incidentally, are held in our government

pension plan. We hold 1,001,955 shares at a current market value on

March 23 or $11.75 a share, or the total value of $11,772,971.

Westcoast Transmission: we hold in the provincial government

treasury 1,157,125 shares. The current market value at March 23 of

this year is $23.25, for a total valuation of $26,903,156. I trust

that is the information you required, Mr. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's

response. I just wondered.... As part of the question I also asked

whether or not there had been any selling and buying of any shares

since the Minister of Finance took office.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The answer is no, Mr. Member.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, I notice that the

Premier seems anxious to have a quick vote. I don't blame him a bit — I

wouldn't want this budget talked about neither, were I sitting where he

is. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: That's "either."

MR. STUPICH: I'd like to start....

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Look who's talking about language.

MR. STUPICH: I'd like to start, if I may, Mr. Speaker, by

welcoming and asking the members to welcome, in the galleries several

carloads of people who came from my constituency to listen to what will

be a fair appraisal of the budget speech.

Also, Mr. Speaker, since this is my first opportunity in one of the

formal debates, I would like to congratulate you on being chosen to be

Speaker of the House. While we did have some disagreement in the

beginning — and I don't think we really had any hopes that anyone else

would be chosen — perhaps, if anything, what we were hoping to impress

upon you was the importance of your position and the importance of your

having the general confidence of the House, and not of just some

members in the House. Nevertheless, we do congratulate you. Perhaps

today wasn't the best day to raise that matter, but it's my first

opportunity and I will raise it.

Secondly is something that was a feature of the House when I first

entered in 1963, and that I really haven't heard since: the reference

to this House as being an exclusive club, perhaps the most exclusive

club in the whole province. Membership is very tightly limited. It may

be changed, of course, from time to time as the club may decide, but it

is an exclusive club — an exclusive club that provides for membership

of 55 members at the present time, and a club that is very important in

the life and in the affairs of this province.

It is a real honour to be chosen, Mr. Speaker, to be a member of

this club. I think it is an honour that we should all treasure and try

to live up to in the best way that we may, regardless of where we

happen to sit in this House today or in any time in the future.

I notice the Premier has followed through on his promise to cut the

salary for the members of this club. While I don't intend to get

involved in the discussion of this at this time, I would like to point

out that the members of this club are really the directors of a

province and of a provincial economy within the direct expenditures and

revenue of the government itself. We are now reaching $3.6 billion and,

apart from that, there are the Crown corporations and the Crown

agencies that really come under the control of the members of this

House, directly or indirectly.

It is a very important club and I am not sure that it really holds

up the importance of that club in the way that it should when the

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) will receive a salary for his

participation in this club less than what a tradesman in one of the

pulp mills in that constituency will be receiving.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): You'll be

[ Page 279 ]

showing leadership.

MR. STUPICH: However, at this point, Mr. Speaker, as I said,

I really didn't want to make an issue of this. I simply wanted to

stress what I feel is the importance of this club in the affairs of

this province.

Mr. Speaker, the budget. It's called a budget: British Columbia

budget, March, 1976. It's not original but it's the first opportunity

that anyone has had to say in this House that rather than a budget we

should be calling it a campaign leaflet, the first leaflet to be

produced for the by-election campaign in Vancouver East. As a campaign

leaflet, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that it is too long: 41 numbered

pages. It's doubtful if the people will really read the details of this

— that is, the voters in Vancouver East. So I think it should have been

shorter if it were going to be used as a campaign leaflet. Too wordy to

be read. It should have photographs in it if it is really going to be

useful as a campaign document. So it is lacking that way as well,

We've heard all kinds of talk as to who it was who really drafted

this budget. I think perhaps for the rest of their leaflets the party

might well look to someone else. It has one advantage from the point

of view of the Social Credit Party, Mr. Speaker, and that is that it is

economic from the point of view of that party because the taxpayers of

British Columbia will be paying the costs of printing this campaign

leaflet for the Vancouver East by-election.

However, there's one omission that I have not yet mentioned. It's

the most important of all from the point of view of using it as a

campaign leaflet and that is that there isn't a picture and there isn't

even the name of the candidate in the by-election. If they held up long

enough they surely could have included the name of the candidate, even

though they haven't officially chosen him yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was introduced today.

MR. STUPICH: As a campaign leaflet then, Mr. Speaker, it is lacking. But as a budget speech....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I know you are giving your undivided attention, even though some others might not be.

As a budget speech it is even worse than it is as a campaign

leaflet. Mr. Speaker, it is a speech of revenge. I'm disappointed but

not surprised that some of the people are so anxious to take this

revenge on the voters of British Columbia. The hon. Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Wolfe) who presented this budget speech was one of those who

suffered defeat in the 1972 election, and he took this opportunity of

getting his personal revenge. Mr. Speaker, the Premier didn't lose his

seat in 1972 but his father lost an election campaign. So I am

disappointed but not surprised that he, too, is taking

part in this

method of revenge against the voters of British Columbia.

One of the authors, no doubt, of the budget speech, a Mr. Campbell,

is also one of those who lost his seat in the 1972 general election

campaign. So I say I am disappointed but not surprised at the note of

revenge that persists throughout this budget.

In addition to being a speech of revenge, it is a speech full of

insults. There has been some attempt to discuss that this afternoon.

However, we were not allowed to discuss it, although we spent the best

part of half an hour deciding whether or not we would discuss it. We

were not allowed to discuss it. So I think I now have an opportunity to

say something about the insults in this speech, Mr. Speaker, insults

against the people of our sister dominions of New Zealand and

Australia. But while they say in this speech that the Labour parties in

those dominions no longer hold the government, nevertheless there is a

substantial body of people in both of those sister dominions who still

support the Labour Party.

It was an insult against the people in those sister dominions. It

was an insult against the people of the United Kingdom where the Labour

government, Mr. Speaker, is still in power. It was an insult by

implication against the social democratic governments in the

Scandinavian countries, in many parts of Europe including the

Netherlands, West Germany and Holland as well as the governments of

Israel and Iceland. It was an insult against all of these places where

the social democratic parties form the government and in other places

where they have a strong body of support among the people, whether or

not they form the government. It was an insulting speech, Mr. Speaker,

and one that is not worthy of the Government of the Province of British

Columbia.

It was an insult, Mr. Speaker, against the voters of Vancouver East

because it said that if the voters of Vancouver East do decide to

re-elect the New Democratic Party member as their MLA, they will be

participating in an effort to allow someone to slide into this House,

Mr. Speaker.

I said in my opening remarks that I consider this to be a very

exclusive club; I'm honored to be a member of it. And people don't

slide into this House, Mr. Speaker. People win the right to be in this

House by offering themselves to the voters of their constituencies.

This, Mr. Speaker, is an insult to the House, to suggest that people

slide into what is the most important Organization in the province of

British Columbia.

I say again: I'm not surprised but I am disappointed that the

Premier and the Minister of Finance should be party to this kind of a

document today in the history of British Columbia.

[ Page 280 ]

Mr. Speaker, if it were just my opinion, perhaps you wouldn't be

terribly interested. Mr. Speaker, if it were the opinion of the fellow

members of the New Democratic Party caucus, perhaps you wouldn't be all

that interested. But it is the opinion of many people who are not known

for their support of the New Democratic Party — for example, an

editorial in The Vancouver Sun , Saturday's Vancouver Sun .

Certainly this paper has never been known to say anything good about

the New Democratic Party — government or opposition or caucus. As an

editorial policy they support the Social Credit government, they

supported the Social Credit in opposition, but they don't really like

the NDP.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: I'm not going to read the whole editorial. Sure,

the whole editorial is sympathetic to the government, and it talks

about the need for this kind of a budget. But they do say: "There was,

unfortunately," — you know, they have to put that in — "an excess of

partisan stridency in Finance Minister Wolfe's rhetoric." Even the Sun has to join in that kind of condemnation of the language in this budget.

Another columnist who is not known for her support of the New Democratic Party....

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are you talking about?

MR. STUPICH: In the same paper it's Marjorie Nichols who

talks about this budget speech as being one of political invectiveness.

She goes on to say: "There is evidence that the sacrifices that will be

demanded of literally every individual in B.C., as a consequence of

this budget, are excessive...are products of an ideologically based

prejudice."

Mr. Speaker, another columnist in the Sun , Alan Fotheringham, who has never

been known to support anything: "Either way...."

HON. MR. BENNETT: Vicious attack!

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I know you are giving me your attention. You're not interrupting at all; I must be in order.

"Either way, no one, including one resident Ottawa

columnist present for the occasion, had ever seen a budget speech

debased for such cheap political shots." It's not my opinion, Mr.

Speaker, but the opinion of someone who, as I said, is not known as a

supporter of the New Democratic Party.

Then we go to the Province and Bob MacMurray who talks about the

budget in his article, but again has to, in some element of fairness,

include some reference to the tone of the budget: "...has to be at

the same time one of the most political budget presentations ever in

B.C. finance."

HON. MR. BENNETT: No politics in this House.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'll come to that. The Premier suggests that there should be no politics in this House, and I will come to that.

An editorial from the Victoria Times , moving along: "It was a

vindictive performance, unworthy of any Legislature, a vitriolic frame

for a harsh budget."

And if I may refer to one more colonist by name, Mr. Speaker — Jim

Hume, whom I accused this morning of once before saying something

unfriendly about the Social Credit government. I do recall once; he

says that it was more than once, but I do recall once. So, to my

knowledge, this is the second time: "Political observers of many year's

standing said they could not recall a budget speech so clearly tailored

as a political document."

As I say, Mr. Speaker, the opinions of people who are not supporters

of the New Democratic Party are unanimous in opposition to the cheap

political attacks in this budget speech.

Mr. Speaker, the election was fought. On December 11th the electors voted. Social Credit won that election.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The people won.

MR. STUPICH: The Social Credit won; the people lost. And the

people are becoming more and more aware of just what they did lose.

Nevertheless, that happened on December 11. Mr. Speaker, why can't we

forget that the election campaign is over?

AN HON. MEMBER: You'd like that, wouldn't you?

MR. STUPICH: Why can't we keep...?

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The Premier has suggested there should be politics in this House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Nanaimo has the floor.

MR. STUPICH: I agree, Mr. Speaker. There is a place for this

kind of political squabbling; it's right here in this House, and it's

here in this province, but it is not in the area of the whole world. We

should not be taking this kind of political squabbling out into the

world when we send this budget speech throughout the world, to the

nations with whom we hope to do business, to the nations where we hope

to trade, where we hope to borrow money. We should not be using this

type of cheap political budget

[ Page 281 ]

speech to try to tell the people of the world what the situation is like in B.C.

Mr., Speaker, we expected more of this government. Many people

expected more. Many people are becoming more and more disappointed with

what they are seeing in this particular government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to get into the budget

speech itself. On page 34 there is a quotation: "Clearly the facts have

revealed the shocking need for...action." Right out of the budget

speech.

Well, let's look further and see just what the facts are. Let's look

on page 6 of the same document. There are references there to another

document that was produced, called "The British Columbia Economy". I

have that document as well, and both of them have facts in them.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has said that the facts have revealed the shocking need for action.

Well, let's look at some of these facts. When we look in this

government publication that is referred to in the budget speech we see

what has happened to certain key indicators as to what is going on in

the province. We look at the gross provincial product, and we see that

it has climbed at a rate faster than ever before in the last three

years. We see that although there was some fall-off in the last year —

and that is reported in the budget speech and in this

summary of

economic activities — we did better than the rest of Canada, even

though our economy is more closely tied to resource industries that

depend so much on international trade and an international booming

economy. In spite of all that, B.C. has done better than other

provinces, better than the average for Canada.

These are the facts. Population growth: if you look at the graph,

Mr. Speaker, it's a steady line showing that the population in B.C. has

continued to grow.

This is a government publication offered by....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I read the one.... More? Are you suggesting...?

Mr. Speaker, the Premier is suggesting I should read another report. Is

he suggesting that the government publication, which his government

produced, is in error, is wrong — that the hon. Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) produced? I haven't read that one; I've

read this one. Now if you want to attack your own report, and stand up

and tell us where it is in error, I will listen. But in the meantime,

Mr. Speaker, I am going to refer to an official government publication,

as is reported in the budget speech.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Total labour force has continued to grow in the province.

The number employed in selected industries: if we look at this table

for the number employed in selected industries, and if we look at one

in particular, the construction industry, the table in this book — this

official government publication deals with 11 years in the history of

British Columbia, from 1965 to 1975 — shows that the lowest index for

employment in the construction industry was in 1972. As you will

recall, Mr. Speaker, that was the last year under the control of the

previous administration, the Social Credit administration. That was the

lowest year, and it shows that since that year, since the election of

the New Democratic Party government in 1972, this index grew at a very

fast rate — evidence of the sort of confidence there was in the

business community with the government of that day.

Capital and repair expenditures: again, Mr. Speaker, if you look at

the table, if you look at the graph, you'll see that in 1972 there was

a falling off. In 1972 the rate was almost the same as for 1971. But

after the defeat of the Social Credit administration in 1972, capital

and repair expenditures went up at a very sharp rate, sharper than ever

before.

There is one other reference I would like to make to one of the

graphs in this book. It is an interesting one, Mr. Speaker, from which

you may draw your own conclusions. But on plate 3 in the appendix of

the British Columbia

summary of activity, there is one for births. It

shows that the birth rate in B.C. was climbing slowly and steadily

right up until 1969, and even for a period of approximately nine months

of the year after that date — after the date of the 1969 election when

people were expecting there was going to be a change in government and

things would improve.

But when they realized that change in government did not materialize

in 1969, and when that caught up nine months later, then note, Mr.

Speaker, how the birth rate dropped in the province as people lost

confidence in what was happening in B.C. (Laughter.) Then it stayed

down at that low rate until approximately nine months after the '72

election when the birth rate started climbing again as people had more

confidence.

It will be interesting to see what happens some nine months to a year from now. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, it's not just our own government publications that tell

us what is happening in the province of British Columbia. There was a

newspaper

[ Page 282 ]

report recently talking about B.C.'s credit rating. B.C. has to

borrow; certainly the Minister of Finance will be very much aware of

that; he is already. The new chairman of B.C. Hydro (Mr. Bonner) has

pointed out the need for B.C. Hydro to borrow will be approaching $1

billion a year not too many years from now. But B.C.'s credit rating

was strong when we assumed office in 1972, and remained strong during

our three years in office. A U.S. banker is telling the Municipal

Financing Authority that B.C.'s credit rating is still strong in New

York. "You" — meaning the Municipal Financing Authority — "and B.C.

Hydro have developed strong credit acceptance in New York, but the

trust you have secured is so fragile it must be jealously guarded;

otherwise, you will lose it."

Mr. Speaker, it was not lost; it was strengthened during the three years that we were in office.

There is concern at the direction being followed by this government,

at the tenor of the budget speech itself, at their preaching of doom

and gloom, and our credit rating may be impaired. That would be a

disaster for the province of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. I would

urge the government to have that in mind, to have some care, to have

some tempering of their remarks when they are talking about the future

of the province of British Columbia lest they impair something that is

very important to us.

It's not just what the U.S. bankers are saying. You will recall, Mr.

Speaker, a reference in the budget speech to a loan from off-shore

sources that was finalized in mid-December. Again, I would point out

that several provinces were after that kind of financing at the same

time as was B.C. and B.C., because of its strong credit rating that had

been maintained and improved during our three years and four months in

office, was the first province to be able to take advantage of that

second issue of off-shore dollars.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. STUPICH: These are the facts, Mr. Speaker. We were talking about facts, and those are some of the facts.

What about unemployment rates? Unemployment rates have been

documented. We know that in the last three years of the Social Credit

administration the average unemployment for B.C. was 7.4 per cent. We

know that for Canada as a whole it was 6.2 per cent. In the last three

years of the Social Credit administration unemployment in B.C. was

running 1.2 per cent higher than the national average. That happens in

B.C. That's really the general pattern.

But, Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to compare that with the three

years during which we had charge of the administration of this

province. B.C. was still higher than Canada, but B.C.'s rate, instead

of being the 7.4 per cent that it was under the Social Credit

administration, had been reduced to 6.9 per cent — 0.5 per cent lower.

Canada's average rate had dropped 0.2 per cent. During our first three

years in office we narrowed the gap between unemployment in B.C. and

Canada from a 1.2 per cent difference to a 0.9 per cent difference.

That's the kind of progress we were working towards. That is the kind

of progress which is disparagingly referred to in this budget.

If you look at the facts in the government's own publications, if

you look at the facts presented in this budget speech before us, and if

you look at the facts of international finance and the high repute in

which we were held in the international markets of the world, this is a

very sharp contrast to the sort of doom and gloom that we heard from

that party before the election campaign, during the election campaign,

and that we are still hearing today, Mr. Speaker, some three and a half

months after that election campaign. I wish they would get on with the

business of governing this province rather than worrying about what

happened before and trying to find the dark side of every shadow that

they imagine appeared on the horizon.

The budgetary position — again referring to the budget on page 8,

those who want to look at the budget — and it says here: "When we took

office, we needed an immediate assessment of the budget position."

Well, Mr. Speaker, that's true, and the comptroller-general provides

a monthly assessment of the budget position. His figures are available

to the Minister of Finance, and to anyone to whom he wishes to make

them available, monthly, within seven days of the end of the previous

month. The Minister of Finance may, if he chooses, make those figures

public. That's up to him.

AN HON. MEMBER: You never did.

MR. STUPICH: We did. That's right. We didn't do it regularly,

monthly. I'm suggesting now that if you want to, that's open to you. I

am saying that that was the basis of the public statement that we did

issue in mid-December. But my point, Mr. Speaker, is that they say:

"When we took office we needed an immediate assessment." They were

getting that regularly, on a monthly basis. That was available to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. STUPICH: The comptroller-general supplied these figures. These figures were the basis....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: They weren't available to the

[ Page 283 ]

public. Granted, Mr. Speaker, they weren't, but they can be now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you make them available?

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Read the speech.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, it's suggested in the speech that

they are going to issue them quarterly. Now it could be done monthly.

Right after the seventh of the month they could issue those figures,

make them available to the press, if they chose to do so.

I am not the government today. I was the Minister of Finance for

five weeks. The new Minister of Finance, if he thinks that is a good

policy, may follow that policy. That choice is open to him.

This is the point, Mr. Speaker: when the hon. first member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) was talking in the throne speech debate

he correctly stated that the firm of Clarkson, Gordon had not been

asked to do an audit but had simply been asked to compile figures that

were supplied by the comptroller-general and the Department of Finance.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The Premier interjected by saying: "But don't you trust the comptroller-general and the staff of the Department of Finance?"

Mr. Speaker, we were not the ones that raised the questions about

trust of our own dedicated, loyal, conscientious, hard-working civil

servants; they're the ones that raised the questions about trust. The

opening part of the Clarkson, Gordon report starts off by saying: "You

asked us to add up certain figures that you were going to get for us

from the comptroller-general and from the Department of Finance." The

implication is that you didn't trust your own comptroller-general to do

this addition.

No, Mr. Speaker, we were not the ones who lacked trust; it's the

government across the way that lacked trust in the figures that are

being supplied to them on a regular monthly basis, and that they may —

and I take some encouragement from the Minister of Finance's

interjections — that they may issue monthly, regularly, publicly, to

tell us where we stand month by month.

Mr. Speaker, I read the speech and it says quarterly, but I gather

from what the Minister of Finance is now saying that he intends to do

this on a monthly basis. We will certainly ask him on a monthly basis

whether or not he has received these figures from the

comptroller-general yet, and whether or not he intends to make them

public this month or would he rather wait until next month.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, on this same.... You know, my speech is

going to be long if these people keep interrupting. I'm just thinking

about the poor members who are going to follow me.

There is another sentence in this budget speech: "The forecast

deficit for British Columbia at March 31,1976, is" — and this is the

word I have underlined — "therefore $541 million." What do they mean by

"therefore"? Mr. Speaker, I'll say it out loud: "...Is therefore $541

million". What he is really saying, and what Clarkson, Gordon

said throughout their report, is not "therefore" but rather that a

politically inspired decision was arrived at to reach a deficit of $541

million.

It was not, Mr. Speaker, a financial axiom, a financial "therefore".

It was a politician's choice. I'm not saying there was anything wrong

with that choice, any more than Clarkson, Gordon did. I'm simply saying

that the politicians in control arrived at a decision that there would

be a deficit of $541 million.

Now even having arrived at that, Mr. Speaker, I think it's an

interesting comparison when one recalls that at a recent meeting, I

think a rather small meeting, the president of Weyerhauser is said to

have replied to a question as to what was the value of the Can-Cel

operation that the people of British Columbia got for nothing. All we

did was guarantee a loan that Can-Cel is making payments on and paying

interest on this operation. We paid not one cent for Can-Cel. When he

was asked what the value was of that operation that the people of B.C.

got for nothing, he said: "In today's market" — and today's market, Mr.

Speaker, is not very good for the lumber products — "approximately half

a billion dollars." That one item alone is enough to make up for the

politically inspired deficit that was arrived at, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it could have been more; it could have been much more.

The figure 541, by making certain political decisions...it could have

been a good deal more. For example, $200 million to provide for the

Dease Lake extension could have been added to this and just as

properly. More properly than giving $175 million to ICBC when the

Premier says they don't need it.

It would have been less. It could have been whatever figure the

government, the politicians, wanted to make it. Again, I'm not

criticizing that. I'm simply saying that it could be whatever figure

they wanted it to be. So when they say "therefore" the forecast deficit

is "therefore" 541, what they're really saying, Mr. Speaker, is that a

political decision was arrived at to calculate a deficit of $541

million.

Mr. Speaker, there are items of non-budgetary revenue, revenue that

is not normally included in revenue, that we could have included and

intended to include in revenue of this period, and the present

[ Page 284 ]

administration intends to include them in revenue of the next period, it would appear.

For example, Mr. Speaker, one of the bills that I won't talk about

today, but I will simply mention that the B.C. Harbour Board

legislation which does provide for authority to borrow...we are now

going to change that so that the government may guarantee that

borrowing — presumably so that the Harbours Board can borrow that money

and pay back to the government the money that it owes to the government

that we were going to get back in the previous period. It's a political

decision as to when you bring that money in. This government has made a

decision to bring it in in the following period. That's fair enough.

The B.C. Rail agreement that we were going to bring in $30 million

from...and the government made a political decision by saying that our

reports indicate that it's not a good agreement. Our reports

indicate....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'll come to that too, if you like.

The B.C. Rail agreement was going to bring in $30 million and they

said it was a bad agreement. To the best of our knowledge, Mr. Speaker,

there have been no new studies. They're simply waiting until March 31

is past, and then all of a sudden this agreement will be a good

agreement and we can bring the $30 million into revenue in a subsequent

period. Again, that's a political decision; that can be done. BCPC — it

was our decision, our policy to bring into revenue all of the cash that

BCPC had left over. Clarkson, Gordon indicated in their report that the

present administration has made a political decision to leave $26

million in that fund, and that they can do. That's a political

decision. If we had brought it in in the previous period, it would have

reduced that deficit. They're going to bring it in in a subsequent

period and reduce what might be their deficit or increase their

surplus. It's a political choice.

Special funds: again, this could have been done in the previous

period, or the next period, or sometime in the future, depending upon

the political decision of the government. I'll come to that. Yes, I

will — I've got it down as a note — if I don't forget that note. You

ask me before I finish.

The implication in the budget speech, Mr. Speaker, when it talks

about this deficit is that expenditures were being exceeded in spite of

the fact that it does note in another page in the budget that we did

bring our expenditures under control when we realized that revenues

were falling short.

The implication is that one of the problems is that expenditures

were being exceeded. Mr. Speaker, non-budgeted expenditures are thrown

in to build up this deficit. They know that and we know that; it's a

political decision. Neither right nor wrong, a political decision to

grant to ICBC from the general taxpayers of the province $175 million

that the Premier has said they don't need — a political decision.

The transit bureau grant of $26 million — a political decision to

grant that money at this time rather than some other time or rather

than do it some other way, a political decision to throw into that pot

$26 million to build up that deficit.

A Hydro grant — and again, the BCR grant of $20 million, a political

decision, Mr. Speaker. They may well want to grant a lot more to BCR.

As I said earlier, rather than $20 million it could be $200 million and

it would be more justified than granting money to ICBC, money that ICBC

does not need.

Apart from that, Mr. Speaker, there is a growing suspicion in the

minds of some of us that even the budgeted expenditures in the period

ending March 31,1976, are going to be inflated. One concrete example of

that — we have others that we'll bring in later — is a question that

was asked about a special warrant that the Minister of Education (Hon.

Mr. McGeer), who is also a member of Treasury Board, sought from the

Treasury Board and from cabinet and got approval for in the amount of

$7.5 million — an urgent expenditure for which there was not any other

provision in the budget, so urgent, Mr. Speaker, that he had to get

immediate approval from Treasury Board and from cabinet. Yet when he

was asked what the urgency was of this — "Why did you need this money?"

— he had to take it as notice.

MR. KING: He didn't even know what it was for.

MR. STUPICH: Then, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Wolfe) was asked; the Minister of Finance didn't know what it was

for. He's chairman of Treasury. I presume he was at the meeting — I

don't know. We didn't have opportunity to ask the third member of

Treasury, the Minister of Economic Development and Agriculture, or

Agriculture and Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), to see

whether he knew, although I doubt very much that if the other two

didn't that he would know anything about it.

Finally, the Premier was asked and the Premier had to refer it back

to the Minister of Education who by this time — that took him a week —

found out at least where the money was going but still apparently had

no idea as to why it was so important that this be done in such a hurry

other than the fact that the universities found a way to use $7.5

million.

Mr. Speaker, there is a suspicion in our minds that expenditures in

this '75-'76 period — even budgeted expenditures — are going to be

inflated in order to create the maximum possible deficit in that period

and make it as good as possible for the next fiscal period. There is

that suspicion, Mr. Speaker, and I

[ Page 285 ]

think we'll have further questions to ask about that at a later date.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Finance will

have an opportunity to tell us later on if he is able to come up with

some explanation as to why this money was needed.

Revenue-raising — I would like to make some comments about the

methods of raising additional revenue. Leave aside for the moment the

amount of extra revenue needed. Personal income tax.... Mr. Speaker, we

have always argued that the personal income tax is the fairest form of

raising government revenues. I can't help but feel that the method

adopted recently by the Province of Saskatchewan when they chose to

increase the personal income tax rate in that province but gave some

added protection to the low-income earner was a better one than the one

chosen by this government. Mr. Speaker, had they come in with even a

higher rate of personal income tax increase but given more protection

to the low-income earners, I would have been more in favour of it than

the present proposal before us.

Sales tax adjustments, Mr. Speaker. There can be no argument but

that the sales tax is one of the most regressive ways in which a

government can raise money.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, could I interrupt you for just one moment to suggest that there are bills before the House....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please — one moment please.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're kidding!

MR. SPEAKER: I....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, there are bills

before the House dealing with these matters. I don't think it's out of

order to deal with them in a general way as long as you don't refer to

the bills and the increases in a specific way.

MR. STUPICH: Shucks, Mr. Speaker, I had even forgotten there was a bill on that so I wasn't going to refer to the bill specifically.

I will say this: it is regressive. We have statistics to show how

regressive it is and we will introduce those statistics and we will

answer the questions of the...

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: ...Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) when the occasion arises because we....

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Why didn't you do it then?

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): You wanted to be there; now accept the responsibility.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The member for Nanaimo has the floor.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to get away from this

issue of sales tax in cooperation with you. I appreciate your advice; I

wish the members opposite would have listened to the advice as well.

I do want to make one more reference to it. I think, perhaps, this

would not really be used properly at the time of the debate on bills

that I will not mention, This is a reference in the Premier's address

dated February 20, 1976.

"The financial review discloses an alarming trend. More

and more government revenues are coming from taxes collected from people. Personal

income taxes return by far the largest cash contribution to government and are

the fastest-growing revenue source; the 5 per cent sales tax is next."

A truly alarming trend, Mr. Speaker — look what we're doing with it in this budget.

Sales, tax, Mr. Speaker, in this budget is projected to be increased

by 47 per cent over the revised figures for last year — a 47 per cent

increase in what the Premier has talked about as "an alarming

situation."

Personal income tax, Mr. Speaker, is projected to be increased by 24

per cent — again, one that the Premier is most concerned about. It's a

pity he couldn't be here to know just what's happening to make him more

concerned than ever with his remark in his own address.

These percentages are both substantially higher than the increase

for the budget as a whole. But perhaps most alarming of all is the

increase in B.C. Medical Plan fees where the increase is even higher

than it is for sales tax. It's a 50 per cent increase in what really is

a levy against individual people in spite of the Premier's concern

about the degree to which money is being raised from people.

I notice one calculation in The Province this morning, I believe,

showing that the average taxpayer in the province is going to be paying

$150 more a year. There is reference in this budget to cooperation

[ Page 286 ]

with Ottawa on the anti-inflationary fighting programme. At a time

when we are asking wage-earners to be moderate in their demands, to say

to them that they shall pay an extra $150 a year so that certain

government services may operate at a profit, I think is not even paying

lip service to the anti-inflationary fighting programme.

The reference to B.C. Ferry Authority — and I am sure, Mr. Speaker,

that there will be legislation here as well — I will simply say briefly

at the moment we are turning the clock back now, and I have no

objection to that. We have a situation that arose, I suppose, about

eight years ago when the B.C. Ferry Authority was got rid of, and the

B.C. Ferry accounts were brought into the Department of Highways'

accounts.

Presumably by setting up a new authority we are going to have more

borrowing authority — and I am not opposed to that — borrowing

authority to pay for the capital expenditures of the B.C. Ferry

Authority. That's fine. But I am hoping, Mr. Speaker, that there will

continue to be some charge against general revenue for the operations

of the ferry system — an extension of the highway system.

I think it's proper that there should be some contribution from

consolidated revenue for this very important link in our highway

system. So I hope by setting up a new authority we are not intending

that it will be an authority that will be entirely self-sustaining.

I see it's in this budget but I am not just sure what happens when

you set up the authority. I know it's in the budget. I saw that.

It does raise one interesting question and that is the future of the

hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) since we

are taking away from him what is certainly by far the largest part of

his work and his responsibilities. Perhaps another way of effecting a

government economy will be to remove that minister from his post and to

move him down to some of the back benches. It will be a very worthwhile

saving.

If we are going this route of setting up Crown corporations to take

care of capital expenditures — and, as I say, I am not opposed to this

in the slightest as I think it's a good idea — why would the government

not consider as we considered a housing corporation that would take out

of the budget the capital expenditures on housing programmes? Why not a

public works corporation that would take out of the budget the capital

expenditures for public buildings? This is one of the things we were

considering as well.

Mr. Speaker, apart from the revenue proposals in the budget, some

questions about what the government did, why they did it and why they

didn't do something else.

For example, gasoline tax. Included in the budget is an item of $40

million to pay interest on money that the government is borrowing —

money that it has admitted to a large extent is not needed but that for

political reasons it is going to borrow.

Almost half of that $40 million will be on account of the money that

is borrowed to give ICBC money that it doesn't need. I think it is not

fair that the people are being asked to pay 7 per cent sales tax in

this province and are being asked to increase other taxes so that

service will run at a profit.

I would suggest that if the government has considered — and they

might still consider — an increase in the gasoline tax by something

like 2 cents a gallon, it would provide more than enough to pay to

general revenue the interest charges on the money that is being

gratuitously transferred to ICBC.

Mr. Speaker, they might even consider a further increase in gasoline

tax to improve the transit system. They are concerned about the losses

in transit. Well, we, too, are concerned about the losses in transit.

But don't we want the transit system to be accepted? Don't we want it

to work?

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite, the Hon. Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Phillips), is asking what we were going to do. Mr. Speaker,

we were not charged with the responsibility of bringing in the budget.

We were considering all sorts of things and we did show an indication

of how we felt about transit by putting a 2 cent increase on last year

to support the transit system, and we certainly were married to the

prospect of continuing to encourage people to use public transit.

Mr. Speaker, there's another item I would like to comment on — an

item the government might have chosen to collect more revenue — and

that is with respect to coal production.

According to the government's own report, the coal production in

1975 was 10.3 million tons, and the government publication also tells

us that it was worth $348.5 million — an impressive sum, Mr. Speaker,

and an impressive production. We know that the average royalty on that

production was approximately $1.45 a ton, so the revenue from that will

be approximately $15 million, and $15 million out of $348.5 million is

a return to the people of this province of 4.3 per cent.

We are asking the poor people, the middle-income people and the

wealthy people, if you like — it won't hurt them much, but we are

asking them as well — to pay 7 per cent instead of 5 per cent on their

sales tax but we are saying to the people who are extracting a

depleting resource from our ground and shipping it out of our province

to create jobs in other communities, we are charging them only 4.3 per

cent royalty.

Mr. Speaker, had we charged 7 per cent it would have meant a $10

million increase in that revenue, and, certainly, if the minister were

now to ask me what we were going to do, it was our announced policy to

increase that coal royalty; and I would

[ Page 287 ]

recommend to the government that they increase it. Mr. Speaker, I am

concerned that the figures for natural gas do not really indicate to us

that this government is determined to get more money from another

wasting resource — a wasting resource that for too long was shipped out

of this province to create jobs, and to create comfort for people in

the United States, at a price that was lower than our own consumers

were paying for it here in Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker, it concerns me; it concerns me that they do not seem to

have any real determination to increase the revenue from that source.

Mr. Speaker, in general it is the pessimism of the budget that

concerns me, a pessimism that does not seem to take into account at all

a feeling abroad that things are improving in 1976, and will improve.

If I could just call on one reference, and that is one that is

extremely important to the economy of British Columbia, for all of our

resource industries in particular that really form the basis of

everything else we do, and that is the number of housing starts in the

United States.

We know that 1975 was a very bad year. We know the number of housing

starts, 1,171 million units in 1975. The figures from four different

sources, when you average them, show that it is expected there will be

a 60 per cent increase in the number of housing starts in 1976.

Now we know that it's election year down there, and we know that has

a bearing on it, but a 60 per cent increase in the number of housing

starts in the United States should be the cause for more optimism in

this budget than is reflected in the prose and in the figures of this

budget.

The effects of this attitude are the things that worry me, Mr.

Speaker. When they talk about how bad things are, it can't help but

have a depressing effect on our whole economy. It can't help but have a

depressing effect on people outside of our community who are reading

this. Unemployment, for example. I made some mention of unemployment

previously; I will again.

In February of 1975 — that's the month we can compare it with —

unemployment in the province was 9.6 per cent. Very high. February,

1976, just after two months of this government in office. Not lower,

Mr. Speaker, but up to 9.9 per cent. What has happened since the

election, Mr. Speaker? In the last two months of our administration,

unemployment was going down. In November, 9.3 per cent; in December 7.5

per cent; in January, after the effects of the election of this

government started to be noticed in this community, instead of going

down, an alarming jump to the highest rate of 10.7 per cent. Still up

at 9.9 per cent in February, and these figures, Mr. Speaker, are from

the Department of Labour research department.

Mr. Speaker, if I could refer to a page in the budget — it's page 6,

Mr. Speaker, that I want to refer to now. Page 6 in the budget, Mr.

Speaker, has a very interesting comment: "Government, like people,

cannot go on spending more than it makes."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I hear "hear, hear," from across

the way. Mr. Speaker, there are two things wrong with that statement.

First: government is not "like people." Government has a responsibility

to the whole community. People have responsibilities to their own

families. People have to be concerned if their earning power may

disappear today, or tomorrow or next week or next month.

Governments know that they are going to go on living. Governments

have a responsibility to their own people, to the people that are

coming. People have a responsibility to the individuals with whom they

are in closest contact.

Governments are not "like people," Mr. Speaker. Governments have a

responsibility. I would like to quote — at the risk of boring some of

the members, Mr. Speaker, but I know you will give me your undivided

attention — from a noted, and I was going to be facetious and call him

a left-wing economist, but I think I'll simply say it's from a book

"Prosperity Without Inflation" by Arthur F. Burns, one of General

Eisenhower's advisers when he was in office as President of the United

States.

Certainly, from the point of view of the members opposite, he should

be someone that they would listen to with some interest, and with some

respect:

"Only a generation ago, men concerned with economic

affairs typically held the view that it was best to allow storms of

business depression to blow themselves out. They knew, of course, that

unemployment and business failures at times increased sharply. They

deplored such development and therefore persistently argued for

monetary stability and the prevention of booms.

"But once a business recession got underway they were

inclined to oppose any large government efforts to check the economic

decline. In response to such proposals they often took a position that

economic adversity stimulated people to practice thrift and

industry..."

The minister shuffles in his seat!

"... that it served to redirect or weed out inefficient

workmen and inefficient enterprises, and that economic progress was furthered

in the process."

Incredible as it may seem, these were the measures for curing a

business depression that were widely and effectively advanced a mere 20

or 30 years ago. And this book, Mr. Speaker, is 20 years old.

[ Page 288 ]

So he's suggesting the economy that is preached in this budget

speech went out of date 50 to 60 years ago. And there's something else

in here that brings it really up to date: "Anti-recession and

anti-inflation policies must best be seen as two sides of the same

coin. "

Mr. Speaker, you can't fight one without fighting the other, and we

have to fight both in this country. Mr. Speaker, those are much the

same words that the Minister of Finance for Canada (Hon. Mr. Macdonald)

used at the first Ministers of Finance meeting that I attended in

Ottawa. Two sides of the same coin; you have to be fighting both.

Mr. Speaker, government has a responsibility to set the tone for

development in the province, to set an optimistic tone for what is

happening in the province rather than to set a pessimistic one as this

government seems so determined to do.

Mr. Speaker, government is not "like people", but even people borrow

for capital investments. I would suggest that even.... I believe the

press has recorded to date eight millionaire MLAs on the government

side of the House. I would suggest that even those eight millionaire

MLAs borrow for long-term capital investment. That's good financing.

There's nothing wrong with that at all, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest

they do it regularly.

The norm is for government to borrow for capital investment. All

governments do it; even the Government of Alberta with all of the money

that it has at its disposal is borrowing for capital investments, Mr.

Speaker. Year after year they show a deficit in their current accounts.

I'm not recommending that's the way we should go; I'm just saying that

this kind of attitude really does not belong in this particular budget

speech.

It's not a question, Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not we should

borrow, because we are borrowing and we have been borrowing. Mr.

Speaker, if you'll look at the government's own budget speech, if I can

dignify it by calling it that, and looking on page 38, you'll see an

example of the extent to which government in the Province of British

Columbia has been borrowing for capital needs.

I say this is good; it's the way it has to go. Why should we not

borrow and get these capital projects constructed while we are here and

while we can use them, and then let the people who are making use of

those services pay for them as they use them? But in table D on page

38, British Columbia's Direct and Contingent Liability Debt, the

columns are there showing the extent to which direct debt, as it is

called, decreased over the years, and the gross contingent liability

debt increased.

Mr. Speaker, the gross contingent liability debt is the measure of

the extent to which expenditures which are indirectly controlled by

this government are carried on and are financed over a long-term period

to acquire capital assets. All the question is, Mr. Speaker, is to what

extent should long-term assets be financed by this method, and to what

extent should they be financed in the budget itself?

I've suggested, Mr. Speaker, several examples. The government is

already moving in one direction. I've suggested other examples where at

least long-term assets might be financed by long-term financing.

On page 6 of the budget there's a reference to the governor of the

Bank of Canada, and to Gerald Bouey as another authority on finance.

I'm going to take issue with this one, Mr. Speaker: "But Bank of Canada

Governor Gerald Bouey warned us only the other day that too much

borrowing by government will stifle growth of the economy."

Mr. Speaker, that's the same sort of attitude that the Minister of

Finance might have had in mind when he was writing this ... having read

'Lil Abner, remember: "What's good for General Bullmoose is good for

America." Now the suggestion here is that if private capital, private

industry is borrowing, that's good for the economy. If government is

borrowing, that's bad for the economy.

Mr. Speaker, there are proposals in my own constituency for building

one, two or even three shopping centres. The question is not whether we

really need all this additional shopping space. No doubt the people who

go ahead and construct those one, two or three shopping areas will make

a profit out of doing it. But, Mr. Speaker, I cannot be convinced — at

least I don't think I can; nobody's even tried.... I think not even the

Minister of Finance will not really try to convince me that money spent

on building those shopping centres by private capital will be good for

the economy, but that money spent by the government providing the

much-needed expansion to the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital will be

bad for the economy because it's the government that does it.

Mr. Speaker, I'd suggest that it's better for everyone concerned if

we provide social capital for projects like that that are needed by the

people of the province. It's not who's borrowing, Mr. Speaker; it is

what is being done with the money that counts. And if government is

going to do a better job of using those funds it has borrowed than is

private industry, then it is better for the community that the

government direct the investment of those funds.

Mr. Speaker, I think the attitude of this government can best be

summarized as was summarized by the authors of this document on the

frontispiece in the budget speech. This is the page that has the only

picture in the whole budget speech, but it's an unfortunate quotation

from the budget speech to use as the opening.

"This budget is a start on the road back — a 'recovery budget'

— moving us in a positive direction to restore confidence in British

[ Page 289 ]

Columbia as a good place to invest, to work, and to live."

Mr. Speaker, again I'm not surprised but I am disappointed at some of the members opposite applauding that order of priority.

Mr. Speaker, the invitation is there: come to B.C. and invest. Come to B.C.,

the Guatemala of the northern hemisphere.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. STUPICH: Argentina may not be safe, but come to B.C.

Remember the ads that appeared in the paper in 1972, Mr. Speaker, in

the American papers? "B.C. Town for Sale." Now the budget speech is

going out and its first priority: B.C. for sale! Here's a province for

sale. Come and invest; come and buy it. Not lend us your money so that

we can develop our province, but come and buy it. B.C. for sale! Come

to B.C. and make your profits and take them out of the province. Come

to B.C.; it's the second priority to work.

It's the priorities that disturb me, Mr. Speaker. It's the emphasis

on coming here to invest — come and buy our province; it's for sale.

Secondly, come here to work. Come here and make profits for the people

who come here to buy our province. Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, and the least

important of all apparently: come here to live. Come here and live, so

that you can pay ferry rates that will make this part of our highway

system service operate at a profit, now leaving open the possibility of

a subsidy that we don't know about yet, although there is a reference

in the budget. But come here and pay these ferry rates that will make

that service operate at a profit.

Come here to B.C. to live and pay auto insurance premiums that will

make that service operate at a profit, to attract investors to come

back in and invest in B.C. and make profits and take those profits out

of B.C.

Most heinous of all, Mr. Speaker, come here and pay medical

insurance rates.... The budget decries the fact that the medical

insurance programme has been operating at a loss. Come here to B.C. and

pay medical insurance rates at a level that will make that service run

at a profit — and the implication, Mr. Speaker, run at a profit or run

not at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the invitation is there. Come and

buy B.C.; come and work in B.C. and make profit for the people that buy

B.C.; come live in B.C. if, Mr. Speaker, you can stomach this budget

speech.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I may be somewhat

even-handed. Mr. Speaker, we have the somewhat interesting circumstance

here where the 1975 election was refought in the budget speech, and we

heard a little of the 1972 election in the last speech. I may have to

disagree slightly with both, but I want to start out by giving great

credit to the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) who is an

aggressive defender of the financial perspective of his party. I will

go further and perhaps say boldly that had he been Finance minister for

three years his party might still be in government.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Madam Member, I was making an observation.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Is this another kind of threat that we got through the election?

MR. GIBSON: Oh, no. I can't think the hon. member would make a threat.

MR. LAUK: Oh, I'm sorry.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, before I speak substantively about

the content of the budget, I would like to draw to the minister's

attention the fact that there was, in addition to the matter raised by

the official opposition on Friday, a possible leak in the manner in

which the budget was prepared and some of the documents emanating from

it were produced around the province.

I cannot go into any great detail, and therefore I say only a

possible leak, but I have to tell him I received a telephone call very

shortly after noon last Friday advising me — as a matter of fact, not a

matter of conjecture — that, as a result of documentation that certain

persons had seen, that the sales tax was going to be 7 per cent. I

simply mention that to the minister in order that he may review the

procedures that his department followed in the dissemination of certain

of the consequential documentation surrounding the budget.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Well, it's a question perhaps the Premier might

want to examine, as I suggest, Mr. Member, because he did assure the

House on Friday afternoon "that none of the relevant figures contained

in this budget have been made available or placed in the position of

coming under the scrutiny of anyone but the Minister of Finance and his

department and, at times, the Premier working on the budget."

I have some reason to believe, and suggest to the hon. member, that the Premier may not have had full

[ Page 290 ]

information when he made that statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why did he have to phone you?

MR. GIBSON: Because he thought he'd get an intelligent response, Mr. Member.

Moving on now to the budget itself, I wish that the hon. first

member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) were here when we

need him. You know, year after year he has brought forward in his....

Here he is! He just walked in, Mr. Speaker. I hope he is here with the

alternate budget that the hon. member has presented year after year in

this House (laughter), a budget that....

HON. MR. BENNETT: But it's a job that had to be done.

MR. GIBSON: A job that has to be done...a budget that member presented, often uncannily accurate in its results at the end of the year.

MR. GIBSON: Well, last year it was curious circumstances, Mr. Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: An intelligent response.

MR. GIBSON: Last year his judgment was somewhat imperiled by the fact he joined your party, too.

But somebody has to give the real budget, Mr. Speaker. Now the hon.

minister was kind enough when he distributed the budget — and I want to

thank him very much indeed for his courtesy in giving a copy of the

budget to opposition leaders contemporaneous with his starting to speak

in the House — he was kind enough to include, for the edification of

everyone, budget highlights. I have produced some different budget

highlights, Mr. Speaker, which I would like to draw to the attention of

the House — what seem to me the real highlights of the budget.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

First of all, an increase in revenue to the Crown: an extraction

from the pocketbook of the private taxpayer of $300 per capita for

every man, woman and child in British Columbia. That's the first budget

highlight the taxpayer ought to look out for.

The second budget highlight: revenue underestimated.

The third budget highlight: government puts self in strait jacket on subject of deficit.

The next budget highlight: most revenue raised from most regressive tax.

Next budget highlight: inflationary.

Next budget highlight: 16 per cent increase in budgetary spending,

which is a figure contrary to what is said in black and white in the

budget, Mr. Speaker, and which I shall justify.

The next budget highlight: revenues when user charges are included up to 35 per cent.

The next budget highlight: ferry rates up over double.

The next budget highlight: school taxes at the local level up, over 25 per cent if services are to be retained.

Interjection

MR. GIBSON: I don't think so, Mr. Minister. I'll go through

the arithmetic for your benefit when I get to that stage of the speech.

Those are the real budget highlights, Mr. Speaker.

Now the budget contains some good things. Naturally, when you spend....

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Naturally, members, when you spend $3.615

billion, almost in spite of yourselves you have to do some good things.

I give full credit for that.

I want, first of all, to compliment the minister on getting more

money out of the federal government. This is a field that has to be

assiduously tilled. I am glad to see that the government is going after

that and are making it a particular point of their financial policy.

I would suggest to the government that it would be a wise thing to

do a study on British Columbia opting out of almost all shared-cost

programmes in response for tax points, as has been done by the Province

of Quebec.

I'll tell you why British Columbia should look at that: those

50-cent dollars distort our priorities — they distort them very badly.

Thus, in medicine, for example — as the hon. Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. McClelland) will know and the former minister knows — because you

get 50-cent dollars for acute-care beds, and not for intermediate-care

beds, there is a significant bias towards acute care in this province

when intermediate care, in many cases, would be much cheaper. Because

you get 50-cent dollars to look after certain day-care services, under

the Canadian Assistance plan, there is a built-in bias against

integrating the day-care centres with the public school system where

you would lose those 50-cent dollars — and that is the sensible place

for the day-care centres to end up.

Therefore, we would have a tremendous amount more fiscal freedom in

this province if we received those revenues as a matter of right to

deal with according to British Columbia spending priorities

[ Page 291 ]

rather than spending priorities set long ago in time and thousands

of miles away in space, and not necessarily related to our needs.

I commend the increase in expenditures in consumer services and

economic development, the one being for more stringent auditing of

price increases and the other being, hopefully, for a concentration on

the creation of jobs in this province.

I commend the government on the generally increased level in health

care and in human resources, two areas where there had been serious

concern on the part of many British Columbians as to whether existing

programmes would be maintained.

In the housing area I commend two things very particularly: No. 1,

the growth grant, that extra $500 per new unit to each municipality,

which will, with the federal contribution of $1,000 for the same amount

total $1,500 for each new unit and, I would think, encourage

municipalities around the province to assume their share of the

province's growth.

Secondly, the contribution of $600 in respect of outright grant and

$1,200 in interest-free loan for new rental units — very badly needed

in this province, and the sine qua non of finally getting rid of rent

control in due course when the federal controls are taken off.

I commend the same minister, while wearing his municipal affairs

hat, for finding a little bit more money for the municipalities. I

grieve at the fact that he has not been able to convince the British

Columbia Railway to pay taxes to municipalities, and I'd been so

hopeful on that subject in the throne speech.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: It's never too early to correct a wrong, Mr. Minister. Perhaps if I bring in a special bill? I have a message....

Well, those are some of the good things, Mr. Speaker. Now I'd like

to look at last year in perhaps a slightly different perspective than

the previous speaker looked at it. The job security budget of a year

ago somehow didn't work out the way it should have.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: If you look at page 10 of last year's budget, you

find the following: "We expect to end this fiscal year in a surplus

budgetary position." It's almost incredible, Mr. Speaker, that a year

later we could be looking at a very different situation.

The gross national product, per capita, in British Columbia, was

marginally up — less than 1 per cent — but it is not correct to compare

that to the general Canadian experience and say we did better, because

when you adjust it on a per capita basis you find our gross national

product, per capita, in real terms, was down 2 per cent last year. Our

housing expenditures were down 5 per cent; tourism growth as much as

stopped; stagnation in forestry and mining; factory shipments seriously

down; retail sales down in volume.

Now why should this be? Some of it had to do with poor world

markets. Some of it had to do with serious labour-management

difficulties, particularly in the forest industry, and some of it, Mr.

Speaker, was unquestionably due to the previous government. But I'm

more concerned with the longer trend, and if you look over the last

decade in British Columbia the real gross provincial product, per

capita, has been growing in our province more slowly than anywhere else

in this country. Over the last 10 years our growth in that area has

ranked 10th out of 10. Somehow, somewhere, there must be something

wrong with the economic approach of successive governments, and I'm

afraid I do not find the solution in this budget to that underlying

problem

For the coming year, the prospects are not good in mining, except

for coal. The prospects are mediocre in forestry. I heard a submission

recently from the head of the Investment Dealers Association of British

Columbia in which he suggested — and this was a submission to the

Pearse commission — that there is essentially no more economic room for

growth in the forest industry of British Columbia. There is room for

about doubling in terms of raw, sustained yield, but in terms of

commercial yield he suggested there's no more room for growth. As we

have seen in the budget this year, very mediocre growth in tourism.

If those three major industries are all in the doldrums, where are

we going in this province? Where are the new directions that we should

be able to strike out in to look after the fact that our growth trend

line in this province is 3 per cent per year? That's an enormous

challenge to the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips),

who is sitting there looking challenged. (Laughter.) But the budget

itself gives us no clues in this area.

Now what happened to bring us to the current financial situation?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I will on your estimates, Mr. Minister — I'm still thinking. Well, that's time for another debate.

Looking at the differentials between the original budget last year

and the Clarkson, Gordon forecast, we see some very curious things, and

answers that I hope this House will receive. Mr. Speaker, the social

services tax was overestimated by over 10 per cent. That's incredible

in that tax. It's a relatively stable tax yield, the social services

tax. How could so much more revenue than materialized have been

estimated.

The corporation income tax. Well, that's a little

[ Page 292 ]

easier to go wrong on. But now let's look at motor fuel taxes. Motor

fuel taxes were more than 15 per cent overestimated. That's very bad,

Mr. Speaker.

Now let's look at timber sales, where the estimate was $135 million

instead of $35 million, and when speaker after speaker on this side of

the House stood up and told the then Minister of Finance (Mr. Barrett):

"There's no way you're going to get $135 million out of that." That's

a very serious overestimate, Mr. Speaker.

A further overestimate — and I would like to know the answer on how

this one happened — on federal recoveries of more than $80 million.

This, too, should be a very stable, predictable thing.

What I want to know, Mr. Speaker, is who is responsible for these

overestimates? If it was the government of the day, tell us. The people

have already dealt with them. But if it was the public service, those

people are still there and I'd like to know who it is, and I would like

to know how these estimates went wrong. I think this House deserves to

know those figures.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have to blame the government. You can't blame the workers.

MR. GIBSON: If indeed the advice of the professionals was disregarded, Mr. Premier, I think this House should have

chapter and verse.

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep speaking!

MR. GIBSON: The next question that confuses the public...

AN HON. MEMBER: Marc Eliesen can tell you.

MR. GIBSON: ...is whether, in fact, there is a deficit. Well, he's out describing that in other areas, Mr. Member.

The next question is the question: "What is the actual deficit?" The public is understandably confused about this.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us, tell us.

MR. GIBSON: No, I don't agree with that figure, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you think it's 800?

MR. GIBSON: Well, I think it is probably more like 700 — that's my guess.

Interjection,

MR. GIBSON: Well, yes, but it's important to get right numbers. Now let's look at where that arose.

The revenue shortfall, of course, was $323 million, and I have just

discussed that. There was an attempt to cut budgetary expenditures, but

it was difficult to do. It always is in government. They held it back

1.5 per cent.

But the non-budgetary items, as listed in the Clarkson, Gordon

report of $259 million, I think are fair — the ICBC deficit. There is

no question that it belonged in the fiscal year just past because that

is when it was incurred. And I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this government

will not hesitate year by year to bring forward losses as they are

incurred in the Crown corporations. I think that is tremendously

important.

I hope, as the previous speaker mentioned, that this government will

not hesitate to reveal to this House the monthly figures — not just the

quarterly figures — that are available from the comptroller-general. We

have the word of the former Minister of Finance (Mr. Stupich) that

those figures are available on a monthly basis.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, it's not good enough to say what "they" did.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Quarterly!

MR. GIBSON: I hope that you can rise to a standard of excellence that will be remembered in this province for years to come.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Quarterly!

MR. GIBSON: Oh, no, monthly will do, Mr. Minister. Quarterly is a start, but you have the basis for monthly figures. You can do better.

Now when you come through that and you get to the end of the

Clarkson, Gordon study, then it seems to me that you have to count in

that gas tax that's owing — the natural gas producers tax for the year

owing to Ottawa, $52 million.

Reimbursement of the Medical Plan Reserve Fund ... and I think it is

proper to consolidate the losses of the other Crown corporations, just

as long as you do it on a equivalent basis year after year. I think

that's right. And that brings you to around $700 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh! Shame!

MR. GIBSON: Now I want to keep some kind of balance and

perspective in this because I'll concede to you that the current

government, Mr. Speaker, is better at keeping books than the previous

government.

[ Page 293 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: But I also suggest to you that the previous

government was better at looking after the assets of British Columbia

than Social Credit has been historically in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, you're losing.

MR. GIBSON: They get awful touchy, Mr. Speaker, when you try and take an even-handed approach.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a Liberal....

MR, GIBSON: And look at the hon. first Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) sitting there shaking his head.

How he used to tell this House, Mr. Speaker, about the Columbia River —

about the Columbia River and the former Social Credit government.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): And the Liberal government in Ottawa.

MR. GIBSON: The gentleman behind you, the hon. Minister of

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) — you should discuss with

him the subject of the Liberal government in Ottawa. I wonder what he

thinks of the debt policies of your government...when he came out from

Ottawa. I am amazed at that, Mr. Premier.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Don't let me be diverted from my essential point,

which is this: the Social Credit government has not been very good

about looking after the assets of British Columbia. The Social Credit

government has been in the giveaway game in terms of the land of

British Columbia and who owns it, foreign owners or Canadian owners...

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't say that when you worked for the prime minister.

MR. GIBSON: ...in terms of the Columbia River. I did, Mr. Member, and you know it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! The Member for North Vancouver-Capilano has the floor.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Columbia River,

Wenner Gren, giveaway of the Rocky Mountain Trench — remember that one?

That's a Social Credit legacy.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): That was before you were born.

MR. GIBSON: No, that wasn't before I was born. No, young

fellow, down, down! The foreign-owned tree farm licences, Mr. Speaker,

the foreign-owned tree farm licences — that sure came in during the

Social Credit government. Let's forget for a moment whether tree farm

licences, per se, are wrong.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, no, TFL No. 1 — who did that go to?

AN HON. MEMBER: It started in coalition.

MR. GIBSON: The first TFL was in coalition. That's right.

But its full blossoming — it reached its blossoming in terms of

foreign owners during the time of the Social Credit government. Mr.

Speaker, there's nobody in this House knows that better than that hon.

member who wrote a book on it.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I only made the mistake of buying a copy of that book, Mr. Speaker. Nicely autographed.

AN HON. MEMBER: A bargain at twice the price.

MR. GIBSON: I think you know, Mr. Speaker, we open this

Legislature with prayers. I think we should have a reading each day as

well, a reading from Politics in Paradise .

AN HON. MEMBER: Feel free.

MR. GIBSON: Here's the point, Mr. Speaker. Let that

government not be too smug about a bit of bookkeeping. Let them look

after the assets of British Columbia.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): We will.

MR. GIBSON: Remember, Mr. Member, when you say that so

confidently that the budget from which I read, that job-security

budget, is only one year old, and the budget we're looking at now may

look just as foolish a year from now. Never be too certain.

Now let's look at expenditure proposals. I'd like to take a quote

from page 15, Mr. Speaker. The minister says: "The inflationary problem

of the past three years was comp