[ Page 1927 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Revenue Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 8) Second reading.

Mr. Skelly — 1927

Mr. Veitch — 1930

Mr. Levi — 1931

Mr. Chabot — 1932

Mr. Nicolson — 1934

Mr. Kempf — 1936

Mr. Kerster — 1937

Mr. Loewen — 1938

Mrs. Dailly — 1939

Ms. Brown — 1940

Mr. Lloyd — 1942

Mr. Calder — 1943

Mr. Lockstead — 1944

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1945

Division on second reading — 1946

Committee of Supply: Department of Health estimates.

On vote 86

Hon. Mr. McClelland — 1946

Mr. Cocke — 1947

Presenting reports

Report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Mr. Mussallem — 1949

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 1976

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 8.

REVENUE AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

(continued)

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Before I begin, I'd like to ask the House's indulgence in introducing two people, one from the Comox riding, my brother, Ray Skelly, and one from my own riding, Paul McEwan, who are in the gallery tonight. So I'd ask the House to welcome them.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: The Premier said it was a terrible thing to do to my brother, but I'm sure that under different circumstances and under a different government, he would appreciate it a lot more.

Mr. Speaker, I speak in opposition to the principle of this bill...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SKELLY: ...especially the principle expressed in section 9(d), a principle that denies the people of this province the right of equity ownership in the resources and in the industry of this province, the right of ownership that most people, because of their financial circumstances, because they are only ordinary working people, cannot exercise in any other way except through the government. When I look at taxation statistics for Canada and compare the income by the various income strata of groups throughout Canada and compare the type of income that they derive, there's a heavy emphasis, a heavy concentration in dividend income among people making over $25,000 a year. In fact, those people in Canada account for something like 3 per cent of the population of Canada who derive their income from dividends in equity stock in corporations.

The 1973 taxation statistics, which are the most recent ones we have available, show that for people earning $25,000 a year and better, there are only 178,000 of them in Canada out of a total of 8.5 million taxpayers filing returns. Of the taxpayers of Canada, 3 per cent declared over 50 per cent of dividend income; that is, they enjoyed the major part of the dividend income from equity stock in corporations.

In other words, share ownership and equity share ownership is dangerously concentrated in that upper-income group in Canada, and that group amounts to only 3 per cent of 8.5 million taxpayers in Canada. Of course, these figures don't take into account corporate shareholdings or shareholdings by financial institutions, pension plans and other things, but most of those institutions as well are administered by the same 3 per cent of taxpayers in Canada. Various studies have been done since John Porter wrote The Vertical Mosaic many years ago showing that the ownership of Canadian industry is dangerously concentrated in 3 per cent of the top income earners and the top families in Canada.

There's only one way to change the statistics, Mr. Speaker, only one way to give the people of this province the pride and the possibility of ownership and the right of ownership in their home province and that right and pride of ownership which can only be expressed through the government and through the ability of the government to invest in equity ownership on the part of those citizens. After all, the citizens elect governments on the basis of one person, one vote. They are democratic institutions, and I don't think it's a bad idea at all for the citizens of this country and of this province to own the resources and the industry of this province, or at least a part of the resources and industry of this province, through investments made on their behalf by the government.

I remember going down and visiting the Princess Marguerite when it was first opened to the public, when it was first acquired by the government, refitted and brought to Victoria. There were something like 5,000 people who came out for the opening ceremonies on the Marguerite. I don't know the exact numbers present. But 5,000 people came down, including some wearing sea-gull buttons — 5,000 people who came down to look at the Marguerite, who felt a sense of pride of ownership in that ship, not that it hadn't been plying the waters between Victoria and Seattle for years and years. But for the first time, they felt that pride and a right of ownership of that ship. There were 5,000 people present at the opening ceremonies of the Marguerite. This is the kind of thing that we attempted to encourage by passing section 9(d) of the Revenue Act, which allowed the Minister of Finance to invest in equity stock in corporations.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, repeal of section 9(d) not only deprives the people of the province of the right and the pride of ownership in the industry and resources of this province, it also deprives the province of a major form of leverage in dealing with the large corporations that operate here in British Columbia, a leverage that can be exercised either in attracting corporations to do business in the province, or in creating jobs in British Columbia. I quote just

[ Page 1928 ]

one example of the way in which governments.... Would you call the other side to order, please, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps, Hon. Member, just to assist you, I'd better call both sides to order, because you seem to have a lot of chatter coming from all around you.

MR. SKELLY: I appreciate your assistance, Mr. Speaker. It's been a long supper break — I can appreciate that....

Mr. Speaker, I was going to point out how equity ownership on the part of the government can assist in attracting industry and attracting jobs and corporations to do business in the province.

B.C. Forest Products, in their 1975 annual report, is a perfect example of this. They are going into business on a joint venture with the Province of Quebec which owns Donahue Corp. They are building a pulp mill in St. Felicien, Quebec, at the cost of $300 million. They are investing $300 million in Quebec, and 60 per cent of that is owned by the Province of Quebec through their ownership of the Donahue Corp.; 40 per cent by B.C. Forest Products.

So government equity ownership, as provided under section 9(d) of the Revenue Act, is a tool and a means of leverage in attracting corporations to do business with the province. It's unfortunate that the present government is attempting to do away with that effective form of leverage and that effective tool in attracting businesses to the province.

Another way that share ownership can be used to exert leverage on a corporation is to assist the government in making sure that those corporations that are operating in the province are acting as good corporate citizens. The threat or the promise of equity ownership in a company is one way that the government can enforce good corporate citizenship on a lot of the businesses that are operating in British Columbia.

Just to give you an example of a state that has legislation similar to the one provided under section 9(d), which we are about to repeal if this Act is passed — and I hope it isn't — is Singapore, a tiny country 14 miles wide, 25 miles long — a tiny country in South-East Asia. When it was granted independence, or self-government, from Britain in 1959 it was in very poor economic straits. It had a colonial economy based on the shipping and processing of copra and raw rubber from Malaysia, and the only real basis for the economy of Singapore was the British military establishment. When that establishment moved out in 1966 it left 72,000 citizens of that tiny state out of work, and Singapore at that time was in very tough economic straits.

But using legislation such as the legislation we had under section 9(d) of the Revenue Act, using the power of the government to acquire equity stock in corporations, to do joint business ventures with corporations, Singapore was able to change the whole nature of its economy within the space of about six or eight years.

Now it's the third-largest oil-refining area in the world. They import 100,000 workers annually from Malaysia. They have a labour shortage in Singapore. Within the space of six or eight years from 72,000 unemployed, eight years later they had to import 100,000 workers from Malaysia to fill jobs.

They are one of the chief banking centres in Asia now. They are now establishing steel and petrochemical industries in conjunction and as joint ventures with Japanese and other American corporations. As a result of the power that Singapore has under legislation similar to the legislation that we're doing away with here right now, they are putting over $1 billion worth of petrochemical and steel industries in place in Singapore over the next few years.

As a result of that type of economic power and that economic strategy, over half the population of Singapore lives in high-quality public housing. They have excellent schools. It's the education centre of Asia. They have the highest literacy rate in Asia. That's not to say that Singapore doesn't have problems. They've had to sacrifice a lot along the way. I think they've actually overemphasized participation in the economy in Singapore and, unfortunately, other things have suffered — cultural aspects — and the citizens are quite unhappy with the way things are going. But it was necessary, and legislation such as the legislation we are doing away with tonight was necessary in order to change Singapore from a colonial economy, where many people were unemployed, undernourished, undereducated, to one of the best economies in Asia.

So what I'm saying is that we should not deprive ourselves of the flexibility and the ability under section 9(d) of the Revenue Act in attracting industry and using leverage to attract industry to the province of British Columbia. I think it is an unfortunate move if we repeal section 9(d) as the minister intends to do tonight, especially in an era where other provinces in Canada have the same type of legislation and are facing the same problems of economic diversification. British Columbia has all its eggs in one basket, and that is the forest industry.

It's been necessary...and the previous Minister of Economic Development (Mr. Lauk) embarked on a procedure to diversify the economy of the province, and legislation like section 9(d) of the Revenue Act was a necessary tool in doing that. Other provinces that we are competing with in diversifying our economy — that is, Alberta and Saskatchewan — have similar legislation that they can use, and they have more advantages than us in the fact that they have

[ Page 1929 ]

two very important commodities — in fact, two of the most important commodities in the world — and that is oil and protein. So they have a significant advantage over us in attracting industry to their province, and we're doing away with one of the tools that is necessary: that is, acquisition of equity ownership in corporations.

I would hope that the government would reconsider its idea and withdraw this bill so that we don't eliminate that tool which we do require as part of our economic strategy to diversify this province.

One of the members speaking before indicated that it was hypocritical on the part of this government to do away with that type of legislation in view of the fact that they, in the 1960s, acquired B.C. Electric by stepping in and nationalizing that corporation. In fact, they had to nationalize it twice because they bungled the job the first time. But it is hypocritical that the government should be doing away with this section of the Revenue Act which permits the government to do precisely the same thing, openly and publicly, that they did secretly back in 1961.

So it's also hypocritical in another way, Mr. Speaker, in the fact that we're not repealing section 9(b) of the Revenue Act which really provides for precisely the same thing, except that it's a little more specific. It was originally passed in 1964 by the then Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, and that section of the Revenue Act permits the province to buy up to 10 per cent of the equity shares in any chartered bank in Canada. You'll all remember what the reason for the passage of that section of the Act was. The Premier of the time went around stumping the province, advising widows and orphans to invest in the Bank of British Columbia, saying he was going to invest the $250 million he had achieved out of the Columbia River treaty in stock in that bank. Unfortunately, none of these proposals materialized and he ended up calling up those people on the telephone like H.R. MacMillan, pressuring him to buy $1 million worth of shares in the bank; J.E. Richardson — he called him up on the phone and attempted to pressure him into buying $1 million worth of shares in the bank.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were still in a crib at the time.

MR. SKELLY: No, no, I was around at the time. I was campaigning for the NDP at the time.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): You haven't learned anything!

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): He learned to stay with his own party!

AN HON. MEMBER: A good point!

MR. SKELLY: And I can read your memos, Mr. Minister.

But in any case, the Premier was stumping the province attempting to get the people to buy shares in the Bank of British Columbia, and part of the carrot that he was using was that the province was going to invest its money in the Bank of British Columbia and make it the largest bank in Canada. That's what he was promising the people of British Columbia. In fact, section 9(b) does allow the government of B.C. to buy up to 10 per cent of the equity in a chartered bank in Canada.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Did the NDP support that?

MR. SKELLY: The NDP did support it, and they supported section 9(b), and the Social Credit supported section 9(b) as well back in 1964. What we are saying is that Social Credit is hypocritical now in repealing section 9(d) without repealing section 9(b) which has the same principle.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is coalition.

MR. SKELLY: We're asking why they're holding on to section 9(b). We're asking why they're holding on....

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Order! (Laughter.)

We're asking why the Social Credit government, the coalition government, is removing section 9(d) when section 9(b) has precisely the same principle. What it appears, Mr. Speaker, is that this government is holding on to section 9(b) of the Revenue Act because it allows them to exert some political influence over the Bank of British Columbia. After all, the board of directors of that bank reads like the Okanagan Connection. Some of the directors are Russell Bennett....

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, well!

MR. SKELLY: If we do away with section 9(b), with the shares that the province owns, does that mean that Russell might lose his job? Is that the reason why we're not doing away with section 9(b), which has precisely the same principle as section 9(d) — that Russell might lose his job that daddy gave him?

W.C. Mearns is another director. He used to be a director of B.C. Hydro, appointed by the former Social Credit government, and is now on the board of directors of the Bank of B.C. Does that mean old W.C. might lose his job if we repeal section 9(b) and lose our share ownership in

[ Page 1930 ]

the Bank of British Columbia and lose the right to exert political influence by the Social Credit government over that bank? Does it mean old W.C. will lose his job? Einar Gunderson used to be a director of that bank too. Of course, Einar has no connection with the Social Credit Party. How did Einar get a job on the Bank of British Columbia? Because the Social Credit government had the right because of their share ownership in the bank to exert political control over the bank.

I think it is hypocritical of this government to repeal section 9(d) of the Revenue Act which gives the people of the province the right to own and control the natural resources and the industry of this province through the acquisition of shares. Yet we are not following the same principle with section 9(b), which allows the people of the province to own equity shares in a chartered bank in Canada. I think that the only reason for that is that the Premier of the province, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and the Social Credit government want to ensure that Bill's brother keeps his job on the Bank of British Columbia. That's why I am in opposition to this bill.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, I hadn't intended to speak in this debate because from time to time I sit in the chair and I try to remain as impartial as possible. However, it ever continues to amaze me how these people could actually manage this government over three years and not have got it into a worse state than what it is at the present time. They seem to fail to realize that governments, as I said in the opening speech, have the right to look after people's money; they do not have the right to invest and gamble and go broke. That should be left up to the private entrepreneurs of this country.

MR. SKELLY: Even in chartered banks.

MR. VEITCH: The chartered bank you speak of, my friend, was passed in an Act of the Legislature. What we're talking about here is vesting power, Mr. Speaker, in one individual. As many of you have pointed out from time to time, all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely — that includes financial management.

I would really hate to see my own affairs and the affairs of my children and their children's children entrusted in one individual, certainly if he was the Minister of Finance who was a social worker and had no knowledge of financial affairs at all. If he were a chartered accountant or a consultant I still would say the same thing, because you must be accountable to the people of British Columbia. When you are able to spend huge sums of money, you have to appear before this bar right here in this parliament and account for yourself.

The opposition members seem to keep saying that somehow or other we gain something when we invest in these companies. I hate to regurgitate old speeches but I would like to look again to some of these beautiful companies in which the government invested and some of the beautiful equity positions.

The Insurance Corp. of British Columbia was $185 million in the glue. That's the sort of equity that I don't need.

Let's look down at some of the prize corporations — some of the wonderful corporations that they spout so loudly about. We talk about the British Columbia Cellulose Corp. — $1,600,000; beautiful, but they couldn't pay their interest. My friends, interest is cash flow that comes back into a province; when it comes back into a province it means that we can provide more schools and more hospitals and a better deal on property taxes. Maybe you don't understand that — that's the way it works.

We start to look at the interest factors that could have come back into the revenues of this province, money that could have been spent for other things. Let's look at B.C. Cellulose, that much-touted company. Last year, $1,400,000 in interest was not paid.

The British Columbia Harbours Board — $2,830,000 in interest was not paid.

Ocean Falls, that wonderful company that employs people — $500,000 in interest was not paid.

Pacific Northwestern Co-op Ltd. — $240,000 in interest did not come back into this province to pay for hospitals, for schools, for welfare.

Panco Poultry — $150,000 in interest did not come back into the coffers of this country.

TS Holdings Ltd. — $800,000 so we could be in the bus business on Vancouver Island. I'd love to own such a company as that.

Interjections.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, of other private corporations in which the government holds an interest — 48 of them — two of them made a profit; 46 of them lost money. Is that an equity position in this country? That kind of an equity I don't need, by any standards. I simply cannot understand this.

The NDP seems to think that you can join something and simply vote for results. My friend, when you're in business, you have to do something to get results. You just can't be.... Governments are here to guard the assets of people, to look after people, to collect taxes. How much money do you think B.C. Cellulose and some of these companies would have paid in taxes back to the people — taxes, money that would have come back in, that you could have spent on other things?

[ Page 1931 ]

Interjections.

MR. VEITCH: Oh, I'm sorry, my friends. It's awfully great to own things, and nothing comes back in by way of taxes. You have equity...and it's like the captain of the Titanic: "Really, folks, we're not sinking; we've just stopped to take on ice." I really don't understand your philosophy at all.

Interjections.

MR. VEITCH: Governments — again, my friends, please believe this — do not have the right to go broke; private enterprises do. I support this bill. I believe there are areas where the public sector must enter into enterprise. There are very few areas — B.C. Electric was probably an example of this so we could supply electric power for the future, so we could generate an impetus for industry to expand. But we have no right in the poultry business, the packing business, the fast-food business and Barrett's beaneries. These things are money losers, and before we enter into this sort of obligation, it should come before this bar and not be manifested in any one individual. I think this is the closest thing to a dictatorship; I oppose it and I support Bill 8.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Well, Mr. Speaker, it's really great to hear from one of the freedom-fighters. They're all sitting over there. Aren't you going to get... ? There he is — bon soir. Do you want to get up again?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I'll follow you.

MR. LEVI: You will? Okay. Great.

You know, the member down there talks about the only people who pay taxes in this province being companies.

MR. VEITCH: I didn't say that.

MR. LEVI: Oh, yes you did. You served notice on behalf of that government, and you've placed about 4,500 jobs in jeopardy tonight with what you said. You talked about Can-Cel, that you didn't like what it was doing. There happen to be 3,000 people working for Can-Cel, and they pay taxes.

You talk about the poultry business. Yes, if you'd have been the government you would have let it close down — over 400 jobs lost. No taxes to the province. Ocean Falls? Well, we know what you did with Ocean Falls, and we know what you'd have done with the Plateau Mills.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened to Ernie Hall?

MR. LEVI: What happened to Ernie Hall? We're talking about people's jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what he was talking about — and look where he is now.

MR. LEVI: And the jobs are still in place. When are you going to close them out? That's what this bill is all about. This bill puts 4,500 more jobs in jeopardy in this province. You've already served notice you're going to sell out Plateau Mills; you're going to sell out Can-Cel; you're going to dump out the people from Ocean Falls. Then what are you going to do? You're going to add to the 115,000 unemployed you've already got in this province.

You haven't come up with one plan to create any kind of employment. All you've done is to tear down. And this member over here, he's defending you. And how is he defending you? By threatening 4,500 jobs in this province!

The companies are the only people who pay taxes? This is ridiculous! Where are the great freedom-fighters? Where's the man from Skeena (Mr. Shelford)? Where's the man from Houston? You know, the great development under W.A.C. Bennett that went belly-up because big was beautiful — down the tube it went. No thought about people's jobs. No thought about anything but what will make big business pay.

Well, you locked into them and you're going to destroy 4,500 jobs, just like you've destroyed.... On the BCR you've laid off everybody but 300 people. Now who's going to look after those people? The unemployment insurance? The welfare department? When are you going to come up with something constructive instead of tearing things down?

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) hasn't got one realistic bone in his body. All he's done is to add taxes on top of people. We've got people like the freedom-fighter from Burnaby who doesn't know what he's talking about in terms of the Can-Cel thing. Absolutely no idea at all what he's talking about.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Burnaby-Willingdon, sorry. The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) is getting upset. I keep mentioning Burnaby.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): The $100 million man with a $10 bionic mouth.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: O-h-h, Le Francois. (Laughter.)

So why don't some of you freedom-fighters...? You know, the member for Hawaii should be up on his feet telling us what's going to go on in this

[ Page 1932 ]

province. He's up — see, there he is, the golden voice of Hawaii. I'll sit down in a minute, son; then you can get up.

When are you going to get up and tell us something constructive instead of tearing things down? Just once create one job, because you haven't created any jobs at all — except for your friends in government. But you've created no jobs for people out there at all. Absolutely none.

MR. KERSTER: On a point of order, I have to keep reminding these people that I'm not the member for Hawaii. I was duly elected by the honourable constituents in Coquitlam.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aloha!

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, it's fairly noisy. I have a soft voice. I was rather shocked and scandalized to hear the Leader of the Opposition bring up the question dating back some 20-some-odd years ago when responding to the Minister of Lands and Forests' speech in the House this afternoon regarding one Bob Somers. Well, if I was a socialist in British Columbia in politics, I wouldn't have the gall to bring that matter up, because it wasn't too many years ago in which a Supreme Court of British Columbia suggested that your former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources simply did not tell the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: In other words, Justice Anderson of the Supreme Court of British Columbia suggested that your former minister in your government was a liar. That's what he said. He said that he simply did not tell the truth.

MR. SKELLY: Did he send him to jail for five years?

MR. CHABOT: He said he was a liar. That's good enough. That's good enough. He said he was a liar. We've heard of some of his questionable practices as the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources in this province as well. We know he was a one-man dominant force in that government, that all the decisions were made by that little dictator buried down in his bottom office. We know that full well. And, Mr. Speaker, I get a little fed up at these pious people across the way getting up here suggesting, in many instances, the necessity for government takeover, the philosophical hangup which they have, that it was necessary for them to take absolute control over every resource industry in this province for the sake of saving jobs, which is not true — which is not the truth, Mr. Speaker. One only has to look at a couple of examples which they've quoted themselves; the jobs are about to disappear in British Columbia.

I'll state here the matter of Kootenay Forest Products in the community of Nelson. I've listened time and again to those people suggesting that unless the government came in to save Kootenay Forest Products we'd have lost 500 to 600 jobs in that community. That is not the truth, Mr. Speaker. Because Eddy Match had a reasonable offer for the purchase of their operation in the community of Nelson by...

MR. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Who? Who?

MR. CHABOT: ...a small operation in the East Kootenays called Crestbrook Forest Industries, a small, struggling, British Columbia East Kootenays corporation which wanted to buy him out. They made a realistic offer; an offer, Mr. Speaker, which was millions of dollars less than those so-called know-it-alls across the way who wasted millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars in the purchase of Kootenay Forest Products with the sham argument that they were going to save jobs.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Calm yourself.

MR. CHABOT: Those jobs would have been replaced had Crestbrook Forest Industry from the East Kootenays, a good corporate citizen which has been in place in the Kootenay region of British Columbia for some years....

MR. SKELLY: Who owns it?

MR. CHABOT: Who owns it? The majority of shareholders of Crestbrook Forest Industry are right in the East Kootenays. There are thousands of shareholders in the East Kootenays who own Crestbrook Forest Industry.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, but no, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, would you test your microphone. It sounds to me like.... Order, please. It sounds to me like your mike is off and not recording, Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Give us a rerun, Jim.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Once more with feeling.

Interjections.

[ Page 1933 ]

MR. CHABOT: No, Mr. Speaker, I get a little fed up when I listen to these sham arguments put forward by that sham opposition we have in this House.

Those jobs should have stayed in place had the government allowed the normal thing to take place. But, oh, no, it was that philosophical hangup which they had to control everything in this province. We saw the direction in which they were going. Oh, yes. And then they use the sham argument that it's necessary to save jobs. No, the jobs would have been in place.

Then I listen to the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, Mr. Speaker, in talking about the taking over of Kootenay Forest Products, how it restored to the Crown, 900,000 acres of land....

AN HON. MEMBER: Nine million.

MR. CHABOT: Nine million — oh, I'm sorry. I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that the utilization of that land has not changed since its takeover by the government at millions of dollars more than the true value of that operation.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's Canadian.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, Eddy Match is not Canadian. Eddy Match has not been in Canada very long.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: You want to attack the Commonwealth — go ahead. Go ahead. Attack the Commonwealth all you want. But Eddy Match is just as Canadian as many of the members are in this House, Mr. Speaker, and always has been. It's been in Canada for hundreds of years, and the jobs would have stayed in place.

MR. LEA: Gulf oil? He's a nice guy.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, one other example when we're talking about the Revenue Amendment Act — which, in case it hasn't been made clear, I support, which I opposed at its inception — is that they talk about the takeover of Plateau Mills. "Oh, it was necessary to save those jobs in Vanderhoof. Those jobs were on the verge of disappearing." Well, let me tell you what the owners of Plateau Mills had to say at the time the government was going to take over that operation to save the jobs that were going to disappear, as the opposition led us to believe on so many occasions. The owners of the operation had a gun to their heads, and that's a good Strachan statement. He had a gun to his head when he was negotiating, so he told us, with the ferry authority, or the ferry workers. Do you know what the owners of Plateau Mills said about the government's takeover?

There were terror tactics used by the government.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Can the opposition suggest for one moment that they took over Plateau Mills in Vanderhoof for the purpose of saving jobs? They know better than that after the kind of terror tactics they used against the takeover of Plateau Mills.

Now we've listened to the Minister of Lands and Forests tell us about the kind of secret arrangements which have taken place through correspondence directly from the minister to the principals in Plateau Mills, that there are going to be timber allocations. A special deal! A special deal because it's a Crown corporation, Plateau Mills; because it's a Crown corporation that's been taken over by terror tactics...that they wanted to make a success of, Mr. Speaker.

No, Mr. Speaker, the arguments that have been used this afternoon, the arguments being used tonight by that opposition, are shallow indeed. They have the gall to suggest for one moment that the former Bill 12, the amendment to the Revenue Act which they brought in, was responsible for the takeover of the Princess Marguerite. Well, the Princess Marguerite was bought with greenbelt funds. Greenbelt funds! Would you believe that in British Columbia we had a floating greenbelt? (Laughter.) A floating greenbelt! The Revenue Amendment Act had absolutely nothing to do with the takeover of the Princess Marguerite. That corporation....

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, that great corporation that was taken over by the NDP....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member for Columbia River has the floor.

MR. CHABOT: The greenbelt fund: special legislation was approved in the cabinet to give special powers of control to that dominant force in the socialist regime, one Bob Williams. I'm shocked that that cabinet allowed that one minister to have the kind of powers that he had within that cabinet, to have his finger and his voice and his wish superimposed upon every department of government. Be it yours, Mr. former Minister of Highways (Mr. Lea), or be it the wishy-washy former Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hartley), Bob Williams had absolute domination over that cabinet. I'll tell you that one Dave Barrett, was nothing but a messenger boy, as well as the other cabinet ministers, for one Bob Williams. Oh, yes, if Bob Williams wanted the

[ Page 1934 ]

power, he introduced legislation in the cabinet and into caucus. Everybody was frightened to death of Bob Williams.

MR. LEA: You were! (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: They said: "Aye, aye, let's go ahead. Let's go ahead." They were all scared of Bob Williams, the man of whom the supreme court judge said simply does not tell the truth.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: That's what a supreme court judge of this province had to say about that man who caused the members of the opposition to quake in their boots every time he opened his mouth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: They were absolutely frightened to death of that man who had such supreme control over the affairs of this province.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please relate his remarks to Bill 8?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'll relate my remarks to the takeover of Plateau Mills — the takeover of Plateau Mills, which had to do with the amendments they introduced, the Revenue Amendment Act. Would you believe that Plateau Mills was a very lucrative, viable economic operation prior to its takeover by the government? It made a reasonable profit. Would you believe that in the first year of operation by that group of incompetents over there, Mr. Speaker, they lost money? They lost money during the operation by that group of incompetents.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: They certainly did lose money. They lost $87,000 — an $87,000 loss. No wonder the people in British Columbia don't want their affairs managed by a socialist government that proved its incompetence, that left this province staggering with debt.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Columbia River has the floor.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): He's out of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CHABOT: No, Mr. Speaker, the Revenue Amendment Act, as introduced by the former government, was a strange concept to introduce into politics in this province. It was one which, it was quite obvious., would allow one minister to make a decision behind closed doors, to make solely a decision upon the expenditure of public funds, which I think is wrong. What is wrong and why is the opposition against the investment of taxpayers' dollars seeing the light of day? Why are they against the debate and everything being exposed in this Legislature before the representatives of the people? What's wrong with that? I think that's a good philosophy, and that's a basic tenet of democracy. But oh, no, they wanted to give supreme powers to one minister, one former incompetent Minister of Finance, who knew nothing about finance, behind closed doors.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: No, Mr. Speaker, it gave power to that former Minister of Finance to one night have a bad dream and to come the next morning and make serious commitments of taxpayers' dollars, possibly to the detriment of the taxpayers of this province. Who knows, the Premier or the Minister of Finance might have come to the conclusion, having had a vision, as Mackenzie King had in days gone by...

AN HON. MEMBER: Mackenzie who?

MR. CHABOT: ...might have had a vision that Hobo Mines would have been a good investment, and by the investment, of millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money, might have made hobos of British Columbians by his lack of investment capabilities.

No, Mr. Speaker, thank God that by the introduction of this amendment we'll see the end of one man having those awesome powers, those awesome powers to invest, possibly without any knowledge, the taxpayers' dollars. He had those powers, and the amendment was introduced in the House.

Mr. Speaker, we've seen enough questionable investments. We've seen enough questionable backing of loans by the B.C. Development Corp., and administered by that government, that I no longer have faith in their investment capabilities under the amendments to the Revenue Act. No, thank God those days are coming to an end. Thank God for the passage of this bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: You're No. 3 now, Jim.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, like most, I hadn't expected to join in this debate, but when I hear those apologists, those

[ Page 1935 ]

people who stand up so valiantly in defence of foreign corporations, those track men for Mitsubishi, Kootenay and Elk and other foreign, overseas corporations, it makes me rather ill to think that some of these people are entrusted at this time with the guidance of the affairs of the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, say what you might, but there has to be some sort of power at all times, and for many different reasons, given at least to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. But I can see some of the alarm. I can see the alarm when they look at the incompetence of the Minister of Finance and how he's going to divest himself of things. Because if he is as incompetent as the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) who says he's going to lease the Marguerite, then he's not going to lease the Marguerite; he's going to sell the George, then he's not going to sell the George.... If the Minister of Finance is as incompetent in purchasing shares in corporations as the Minister of Transport and Communications is in trying to divest himself of everything that the past government was able to acquire in terms of positive actions towards building up communities in this province, then I can see some cause for alarm.

But, you know, over there there's so much suspicion of mixed ventures, of government and private industry cooperating. Just this evening on television they gave some tribute to the NDP for having the imagination to indulge in the Babine Forest Products enterprise up in Burns Lake. That's the type of thing we're talking about here, and if we pass this bill, we will not have the power to move imaginatively towards taking shares in projects such as that.

That man over there — the member who now represents Omineca (Mr. Kempf) — does he realize that welfare has been reduced in his town of Burns Lake by 30 per cent as a result of that venture? Reduced welfare, that's what we stand for. We stand for putting people to work, but you're putting everybody out of work. Under the old Social Credit there were 3.9 per cent of the people on welfare. Under the NDP we reduced that to 4.9 per cent. Now you're going to have everybody back on welfare.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: When I hear the Minister in charge of forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) refer to Kootenay Forest Products, and he says it's a good operation.... It was a pretty sick operation when it was taken over, Mr. Minister of Forests; it was a very sick operation. It had been neglected by the Eddy Match Co., absolutely ignored, run into the ground in preparation for unloading to Crestbrook.

Maintenance wasn't done, the morale was low, and there were wildcat strikes. They were known as the International Wildcatters of America up there because of the lack of management, the lack of interest and the lack of morale at every level — at the plant level, management level and everywhere else. But the workers petitioned the government to take over Kootenay Forest Products. It said in the Daily News of February 8, 1974: "KFP Takeover Approved by Mayor and IWA President." I'd like to point out to the minister that the mayor at that time was probably a little bit closer to him philosophically than he is to me. Tex Mowatt, the former mayor, was certainly broad-minded enough that he said that this was the right kind of a move.

"Mayor Tex Mowatt and a former Nelson resident, now regional president of the International Woodworkers of America, approved the provincial government purchase of Kootenay Forest Products Ltd. of Nelson. Mayor Mowatt said the purchase was a step in the right direction and there was fear in Nelson that it might be closed. 'Because it has been bought there will now be stability in the mill,' he said. 'If they increase capacity of the mill by even 20 or 30 per cent that means more jobs in the area, and we can certainly use that.'"

I think that the situation in Nelson is pretty well known. The town had a population back about 1910 of about 7,500; today it still hasn't reached the 10,000 mark, although the outlying regions are fairly heavily populated. It's an extremely slow-growth area. Many things have closed down, but because of that type of initiative we were able to bring stability there. We were able to turn things around in areas like Burns Lake.

I wonder about the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford). Isn't he alarmed about Terrace and the situation up there today as a result of the inaction of this government? It's a very serious situation; I realized it was somewhat serious when I visited with you up there, Mr. Member. Today it is much, much more serious, primarily as a result of the inaction of this government.

I would say that to take away the power to take things when they are available.... The NDP never expropriated Kootenay Forest Products, never expropriated any of these companies. We had the request of the employees; we were petitioned by the employees. We had the support of the mayor, the support of the people and the support of the merchants.

It is rather interesting that this little member was returned with about 66 per cent support in the city of Nelson, I think because of the efforts of the former government and because of the faith which we showed in Nelson, particularly in acquiring Kootenay Forest Products and then turning it around so that today the labour-management climate in that plant is,

[ Page 1936 ]

I think, at an all-time high. Improvements are being made, and necessary layoffs are taking place after consultation between management and the workers. With this type of consultation there is no alarm; there is none of the animosity that used to exist. Once again Nelson if forging ahead.

I can only say that some of you members in the back bench might think not so much about that climb into the cabinet benches but think that perhaps your community might be threatened at some time.

It's fine for city slickers like the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) to get up in this House with no concern about small towns that can be threatened, like Ocean Falls. It's fine for those suave, debonair types, those urbane members of this House who come in here and who swagger into this House and spiel off their sophisticated claptrap, Mr. Speaker, but any one of us rural members, Mr. Speaker, could someday see a major industry threatened in our community. I hope that some of you will have the foresight and the fortitude to get up and oppose this bill.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, it won't take me long this evening to tell you just exactly how wrong those people over on the other side of the House have been in what they have said in regard to small towns, in regard to Plateau Mills and in regard to the Houston situation which the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) expounded upon — something he doesn't know anything about.

I rise in my place, Mr. Speaker, to speak in support of Bill 8. I am happy to see the return of open and honest government to the province of British Columbia with this amendment. I am thankful, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, to see a bill such as this one, the Revenue Amendment Act, introduced in this House, a bill that will no longer allow, hon. members, spending of taxpayers' money at the discretion of a minister...

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. KEMPF: ...as was witnessed during the socialist era of the past three and a half years, witnessed, Mr. Speaker, practically every day and every month and every year that they were in power for three and a half years.

The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) talked of confiscation, confiscation of the B.C. Electric by the former Social Credit government. Confiscation, the member said. Well, at least, Hon. Member, there was no intimidation in that purchase of the B.C. Electric, no intimidation.

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: Several members spoke earlier of Plateau Mills. I'd like to tell you the story of Plateau Mills, hon. members of the opposition, through you, Mr. Speaker. The original owners of Plateau Mills were in the process of selling that operation to private interests, when along came the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Mr. R.A. Williams), that all encompassing, dictatorial minister of the former Barrett-Williams government. That minister stepped in and said: "No, no, you can't sell that to private interests. You must sell it to the government, and if you don't sell it to the government, we'll take your rights to the timber that you saw in that sawmill. We'll take that right away from you, if you don't sell it to the government at $3 million less than you've been offered." Three million dollars less than they were offered by private interests.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Nonsense! Absolute nonsense!

MR. KEMPF: The minister forced the sale at $3 million less than they were offered by private interests, and so they sold. What else could they do? And the minister formed a Crown corporation. Why? So the operation would not have to pay its taxes, Mr. Speaker, not have to live up to its commitments in that community, not have to pay its taxes to the regional district, not have to pay its taxes to the village of Vanderhoof; and to this day not a red cent has been paid in taxes by that operation to either the regional district or the village of Vanderhoof. Not one red cent, and they say they've made a profit — and they haven't made a profit. It's been proven. They lost $87,000 last year, even though they didn't have to pay any taxes.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, I'll tell you about Plateau Mills, hon. members of the opposition, through you, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

I'll tell you about Houston. That second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) over there mentioned Houston...

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): It's in Texas.

MR. KEMPF: ...a municipality very dear to my heart, a municipality that I'm still the mayor of. I'll tell you about Houston. I went through the Bulkley Valley era in Houston, and, yes, yes, the companies that invested in Houston lost $60 million, but none of the taxpayers' money, Mr. Speaker, none of the taxpayers' money. The money of those two

[ Page 1937 ]

corporations was lost in Houston. If you think it did Houston harm, well, I stand here tonight to tell you differently, hon. members of the opposition. It did Houston no harm. We got our schools. We got our arena. We got our sewer and water system. We got our paved streets. We got those amenities that if it wasn't for the Bulkley Valley era — if it wasn't for that company losing $60 million in that community — we still wouldn't have there. I reiterate, it was not the taxpayers' money.

MR. COCKE: They didn't even have medical care.

MR. KEMPF: That's what took place in Houston, hon. members, under the former Social Credit administration. But, Mr. Speaker, Bulkley Valley paid their taxes. You bet they did. Bulkley Valley paid their taxes and so does Northwood. The budget for the district municipality of Houston for last year was over $1 million, $500,000 of which was paid by Northwood, by that corporation in that municipality. They paid their taxes, not like Plateau Mills — not one red cent in taxes to the regional district nor to the village of Vanderhoof.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Not a red cent, and then they say they made a profit. They lost $87,000. They didn't pay any taxes. They had B.C. Forest Service build their roads.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KEMPF: Roads built by B.C. Forest Service at no cost to Plateau Mills — accountability of that former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

I heard a member over there mention arrogance. I'll tell you a little bit about arrogance. I also heard a member over there mention the two independent operators who came to Victoria. He said that they were crying their beer because they didn't have any timber to cut. I'll tell you why they didn't have any timber to cut. That timber was allocated to Plateau Mills illegally, hon. member, through you, Mr. Speaker. It was allocated to Plateau Mills by the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, knowing full well that if that timber was allocated to Plateau Mills, those two operators would be out of business. I heard them talking about the loss of jobs — that would lose 350 jobs in the village of Vanderhoof. That's what that former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources did.

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: We talk about arrogance. Arrogance in that form.... I want to tell you, hon. members through you, Mr. Speaker: where did they build that second sawmill? I'll tell you where they built it. They built it on land that was in the ALR; it was in the Agricultural Land Reserve.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KEMPF: They didn't bother to make application to take it out; they just went ahead and built that sawmill floor. Not only that, but they didn't even have the decency to apply to the regional district for a building permit. I guess that former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources felt that he was above the law and didn't have to do those things. Arrogance, arrogance, hon. member — arrogance: allocated the timber illegally; would have lost 350 jobs in the village, and then illegally built a mill on the ALR. Yes, hon. members, that is the former minister they talk about — wanted to deliberately put those operators out of business.

That's not all. As if that isn't bad enough, Mr. Speaker, that isn't all. When the mayor of Vanderhoof, Mr. Bill McLeod, a gentleman concerned with his community, asked if he could be informed of the minister's plans for Plateau Mills, he was told that it was none of his business. His community — the bedroom community for the people that would work in that mill — he was told it was none of his business by that arrogant and dictatorial former Minister of Lands and Forests. None of his business — at the discretion of that minister, Mr. Speaker. That is why I speak in favour of Bill 8.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, we have listened to more garbage tonight in the form of twisted and convoluted....

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down, or we won't answer it.

MR. KERSTER: I'm just going to tell you about your convoluting. You sit there quietly, chew your gum and blow us the odd bubble; exercise your jaws for your next opportunity at debate — especially you, Mr. Minister of waste and extravagance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please address the Chair, hon. member.

MR. KERSTER: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the former minister of waste and extravagance, we have listened to this innocuous and convoluted debate. It is sickening.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. KERSTER: They're trying to get a story

[ Page 1938 ]

across. Those people over there, the former government, are trying to get a story across to the people of this province that just is not true.

MR. NICOLSON: You think you are Groucho Marx.

MR. KEMPF: They can't stand the truth.

MR. KERSTER: I'll tell you what. You stick around, because in about 15 minutes, if you do stick around, you won't miss the funny-suit contest.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please address the Chair, hon. member.

MR. KERSTER: Referring to Bill 8, Mr. Speaker, they put super-power into the hands of a former so-called super-minister, Bob Williams, without the thought of the people of this province. For example, the Crown Development Corp.: the corporation was established under the aegis of Bill 127, introduced during the 1974 session to cover amendments to the Lands, Forests and Water Resources Act. This bill provided for the establishment of Crown corporations without legislative approval. Now that's iron-fisted, dictatorial government.

Share capital: authorized, uncertain — as most of their operations were. Issued: $1,000 worth of shares to B.C. government. The corporation apparently was extended a $2 million line of credit. For what? Just for what? It had the right to borrow a total of $10 million, with cabinet approval, and that super-minister controlled that cabinet. The government may acquire up to $4 million worth of shares issued by corporation. The corporation was designed to oversee the Whistler Resort area, the Victoria Inner Harbour, the Prince George and the Princess Marguerite. This corporation owns the Princess Marguerite which it charters to the B.C. Steamship Co., and it ran at a substantial profit — substantial in their minds.

With this bill, Mr. Speaker, we are putting those problems created by those power-mad bureaucrats — the former government of those people sitting over there convoluting, being negative, twisting, turning, doing everything they can to misrepresent — back in its proper priority, under sound and sensible control, the control of this Legislature, taking the control out of a single minister's hands, and that's sensible. We're putting it back into the power of this assembly, where it properly belongs, putting it back through this assembly to the people of the province, again where it properly belongs, under a fiscally responsible government.

Interjection.

MR. KERSTER: The king has spoken again and, as usual, nothing comes out. There will be no more $100 million dollar overruns, no more $100 million wastes, clerical errors, or whatever you want to call them, no more carte blanche irresponsibility.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): I'm amazed tonight at the naive arguments that we're hearing from the opposition. I hear arguments from the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) who talks about the reduction in the number of people on welfare from 3.9 per cent to 4.5 per cent — a great reduction by the former government.

I hear the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) talk about the control of the natural resources and industry. Now here is a member that I believe, through all the different things that we have heard during the discussion of this bill in the past several months, has come out with what he, and possibly his party, really stood for: the control of the natural resources and industry.

Then I hear the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) talk about attracting investment into this province of British Columbia, when this opposition that was in government in three years reversed the cash position in this province by $1 billion, which was the money of the people of British Columbia.

This opposition somehow doesn't realize that with no effort at all, if they keep their fingers or their hands out of the cookie jar, they could be 50 per cent no-risk partners of business in this province. How much of a better deal do you want for the people of British Columbia, pray tell? Little do you realize why you lost the election. Let me tell you in just a few words...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please address the chair.

MR. LOEWEN: ...through you, Mr. Speaker. How can you keep the confidence of the people of British Columbia when on one hand you talk about taking over the resources and industry of British Columbia and on the other hand talk about encouraging investment? The people of British Columbia didn't know where they were. Finally the truth is slowly coming out from you people in this debate. It's being pinpointed very clearly.

We had the double standard of the hon. first member for Vancouver Burrard (Ms. Brown)...

MS. BROWN: I haven't spoken. I haven't said anything.

MR. LOEWEN: ...when she talks about one standard for corporations and another standard for the corporations that are owned by the government. There is only one standard. If there is going to be

[ Page 1939 ]

confidence in the economy of this province, there's going to have to be an equal standard.

I think of the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who was a director in ICBC. This opposition party talks about monopolies. There is no monopoly like the corporation ICBC, and yet this opposition passed legislation whereby they refused to allow competition and they also passed legislation which put them in a position where they did not have to pay any taxes. I would like to find out just how much tax revenue the people of British Columbia lost as the result of taxes on earnings from the former insurance industry of this province.

Hon. Members, how can we expect a party that won't appreciate the value of a dollar to run the affairs of this province properly? Hon. Members, I must in all good conscience support this bill. I trust that the hon. members on the opposition, when they re-evaluate their position, will stand in strong support with us on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I can't let this debate go by without going on record as dissociating myself from the other two Burnaby city slickers. I'm afraid that the record may get confused. I happen to be a city slicker also, but I'm one who is concerned not only with my own riding but with the whole province. It's quite clear that this narrow thinking of these two Burnaby MLAs from the Social Credit Party shows no concern about the other parts of the province. We happen to be a party, through our past record, which believes in the development of our resources for the benefit of all the citizens of this province. This bill is going to prevent that. It is going to prevent it for the future.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, it is. And you haven't shown us any alternative. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who is sitting across there and being very quiet, has not given us any idea of what's going to replace the NDP policy for development and growth of this province. Nothing is forthcoming. The Premier hasn't told us. We haven't heard one word from you. You presented a bill to us that strips the province of the opportunity to continue to develop the resources of this province for the people. It is going to discourage employment at a time when we're waiting for some concrete, positive employment policies. We were giving them.

We hear the former mayor of Houston (Mr. Kempf) actually stand there and he cannot conceive that those policies brought in by our government actually improved the economy of the area — I find that absolutely incredible.

I also would hope that the two Burnaby Social Credit MLAs don't go to Prince Rupert and don't go to the Interior and don't go to the Queen Charlottes and make similar speeches which they made in this House, because I can assure you that I do not think you'll be received very well. It's upsetting to me, as a fellow Burnaby MLA, to find the other two Social Credit MLAs being so little concerned about what happens to the rest of the province.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, this has been a very noisy House tonight. We've heard a lot of shouting going on, and it always amazes me that the less that men have to say, the louder they have to say it. All this shouting and the high level of voices indicate that really they have had nothing to say. So what I am going to try to do is to bring some reason into the debate, and to try and put it in such a way that everyone, including the Premier, will understand.

I understand why this piece of legislation was introduced. It makes very good sense to me, Mr. Speaker, that one would want to take away from the Minister of Finance the right to go out and make business deals on behalf of the province.

With all the best interests in the world, I paid very close attention to the way he's been trying to run the books for five months or four months he's been in. In all honesty, I wouldn't give him the right to go out and make any business deals on my behalf — not if I were in my right senses. I wouldn't do it. When you have a Minister of Finance who will write cheques on money that doesn't exist and pay 10 per cent interest on money that doesn't exist, I can see why the government would want to protect itself against this Minister of Finance. And in that regard it's good legislation. It's one of the best pieces of legislation that the government has introduced.

The only problem is that the Premier made a promise when he set up his cabinet. He said he was going to rotate. What we have here is a piece of legislation which, if it's allowed to go through, would tie the hands of the next Minister of Finance who comes in who may very well be the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), for example, or the member from Hawaii, for example. You know, we could really have some top-notch ministers of finance in this province. We wouldn't want their hands to be tied by this piece of legislation because the Premier introduced it in order to protect himself against the present Minister of Finance or the chance that one of the two Burnaby MLAs might become the Minister of Finance.

So we are in a dilemma on this side of the House, quite frankly. Everyone, after some consultation, decided that they had to vote against this piece of legislation. But we really would like to support it, in view of the Minister of Finance that we're dealing with. We really would like to support this piece of legislation. As a matter of fact, we would even like to

[ Page 1940 ]

amend it, if that were possible, not just to wipe out section (d) of this legislation but section (b) and (c) as well.

Why didn't the Premier go the whole way? Why did the Premier allow this Minister of Finance to go and invest in bank stock, or purchase subscriptions in fixed deposit notes and certificates and short-term papers and chartered banks and this king of thing? He's placing the whole province in jeopardy, quite frankly, by allowing those other two sections to stand. If he had, in fact, wiped out all of section 9, which would have taken away from the Minister of Finance the discretionary powers to invest money at all out of consolidated revenue, then we would have been impressed that the Premier really was committed to the province and to its well-being because he would have recognized that we really did need to be protected against that inept, incompetent and irresponsible Minister of Finance. But by taking out just section (d) and leaving sections (b) and (c), it leaves us in a dilemma. We then have to question the motives of the Premier in doing things this way.

What is there about section (b) that it is so hallowed, that it has to be protected? I'm hoping that the Premier will enter this debate before the Minister of Finance closes the debate and tell us why he didn't wipe out section (b) too, and in particular section (c). Now I understand about section (a), because every province has that right and they wouldn't want the rest of the provinces of this great nation to realize the terrible shape that B.C. is in with a Minister of Finance who doesn't know how to add and has abridged budgets and revised budgets and all kinds of things issued under his name without his even being aware of it. But certainly I would have to question why section (b) and section (c) were not taken out at the same time as section (d).

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker.... And I keep slipping and calling you Mr. Premier because you would be such a marvellous Premier. (Laughter.) Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that you can't....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: You accept, do you? Okay.

But we can't adopt legislation just on the basis of the one person who happens to be sitting in that particular place at the time. We have to look at the government in terms of no matter who is representing the province at any given time, and....

MR. NICOLSON: We have to raise our sights.

MS. BROWN: Yes, we have to raise our sights, quite right. The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) pointed out to me that we have to raise our sights; maybe now more than ever we have to raise our sights. We have to recognize that by wiping out section (d) we really are tying the hands of the province. There have been instances where opportunities were available to this province, and because we had the right under this section to move very quickly, very good deals were closed on behalf of the province. Other members have mentioned it, so I'm not going to be repetitive because I know you don't tolerate that kind of thing, Mr. Speaker.

I want to talk about two instances that came up during the interregnum — you know, the time when we were changing from one government to another. One of them has to do with a trucking firm which is in business, or was in business, in the constituency of Burrard. Hayes Trucks, which was in existence for a very long time and had supplied a tremendous number of jobs to British Columbians, was bought out by an American company which didn't want to use the company and simply closed it down, wiped all of those jobs out, and those people were retired. True, they had three months' notice and they got severance pay or whatever. But under section (d), if this government had been alert once it took over government and if it had been on the bit, and if it were as committed to the community as it likes to pretend it is, it would have moved in and bought out Hayes Truck, would have paid them a fair price for it, but it would have secured those jobs for the people of British Columbia.

We have another instance in the riding at this time where there is an individual dispute going on with Skyway Luggage. You know, the threat again is that unless things are settled, Skyway Luggage will just close its operation down and again people will be put out of work. Now if we really had a bright, alert, sharp and on-the-bit government that was concerned and committed to the people of the community, they would be willing, if section (d) were still here, to move in and purchase Skyway Luggage and protect those jobs for the people of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where would you get the money to do it?

MS. BROWN: You see, this is the problem, Mr. Speaker. You know, we've heard over there how great it was for Houston that two companies lost money and, because those two companies lost money, Houston got all its schools and hospitals and everything else. We have one of the members, one of the city-slicker members for Burnaby, concerned again in terms of where one gets the money from. Where did you find $181 million that didn't exist, to give it to a company that didn't need it, to borrow it back at 10 per cent? That's the kind of high-level financing that that minister is capable of. Well, I think it's good that he's not going to be able to make any kind of financial deals on my behalf, Mr.

[ Page 1941 ]

Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please address the Chair.

MS. BROWN: I'm glad he's not going to have the right to make any financial deals on my behalf, but I would have preferred if the Premier had kept at least one of his promises and rotated his cabinet. Rather than trying to wipe out good legislation in order to protect an inept minister, it would have been better to wipe out the minister, quite frankly, and hang on to the legislation.

You know, every couple of days the Premier comes in here and he makes a statement to the House that he's met with this one and he's met with that one and he's made trades; he's traded this off and he's traded that off. I can't sleep at nights worrying about what he's trading off. Quite frankly, I'm....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: He should trade off his ministers as the hon. Leader of the Opposition.... Everybody is so helpful, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KEMPF: Give us a proxy on your share.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! The first member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor. And would you return to the principle of the bill?

MS. BROWN; Oh, yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I said, it's been a very noisy House tonight, and I am trying to bring some reason to it. I really appreciate your insisting there be order so I can say what I have to say.

I agree with the hon. Leader of the Opposition that we would be much more comfortable, quite frankly, if the Premier would trade off some of his ministers and leave good legislation alone, or if he would, in fact rotate some of his ministers and leave good legislation alone, because you cannot play games with the legislation just on the basis of who happens to be the minister at any particular time. As a result of this piece of legislation, the province has benefited. There isn't any question about it. Even your own members haven't been able to argue with that little thing.

When they stand up and list all of the debts this province is in, they never mention the Columbia River Treaty. Far be it from me to mention the Columbia River Treaty to them. You know, I wouldn't bring up the Columbia River Treaty; I don't want to hurt your feelings. I wouldn't dare to mention the Columbia River Treaty.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: But the fact still remains that there they are talking about debts — and I'm speaking about the spirit and the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker. I am confining myself, in fact, to the spirit and the principle of the bill.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Withdraw!

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Okay. But you know, Mr. Speaker, it's really interesting to....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let's hear the lady.

MS. BROWN: Right! Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again I want to comment on the statements of the member who spoke of the city of Houston — which he referred to as a village, but I think Houston should be given city status — which is so close to his heart. I want to quote for him something said by one of the members of this House in referring to Bulkley Valley Forest Products. One of the members said: "The government's belief that business is best may lead to two more giant forest operation disasters in north-central B.C." He admitted that they were disasters, but, of course, he went on to tell us that as a direct result of these disasters Houston got its hospital and its roads. But in continuing to speak about this, that hon. member demanded to know why the provincial government had stood by without intervening when these decisions were being made and which resulted in this disaster. He said: "The experience at Houston...."

MR. KEMPF: What disaster?

MS. BROWN: Just a minute. Mr. ex-Mayor, may I be permitted....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: ...to complete my statement? You've had your opportunity to shout.

"The experience at Houston gives rise to serious doubt about this government's competence to fulfil its function as trustees of the public resource."

[ Page 1942 ]

This statement was made on February 9, 1972, and it ended up by saying that the person speaking was the hon. Allan Williams, the Liberal member on the legislative Select Standing Committee on forestry and fisheries.

Now I admit this was erroneous reporting because of course, the hon. Allan Williams is not a Liberal, but back in those days he used to be. Now he's a member of the coalition, and one never knows what he's going to be next time.

But it's interesting that that member had the nerve, quite frankly, to stand up in this House and tell us that as a result of the disaster of those two companies losing money, Houston, which is so dear to his heart — and he told us how dear it was to his heart — has got its roads and its schools and everything else.

So, as I said, Mr. Speaker, it makes sense to me why the Premier would introduce this kind of legislation. The only things that I question is that he's talking just of repealing section 9(d) instead of repealing sections (b) and (c) as well. Nonetheless, because one has to make decisions in this House, in terms of government rather than in terms of individuals, regardless of how I may feel or you may feel, or any of us may feel about the present Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) — who personally is a very nice person, I'm sure, and I wouldn't want him to take anything that I say personally....

I'm not reflecting on him as a human being, only on his abilities as a Minister of Finance.

Nonetheless, we have no option in the opposition except to vote against this piece of legislation, and we do this with great regret, quite frankly. It's good legislation, and we would have preferred that it had not been tampered with. Having tampered with it, we wish he had had gone whole hog, but since he chose not to do so, he's left us no alternative but to vote against this piece of legislation in the hope that the minister, when he gets up to wind up debate, may actually inform the House that he's decided to withdraw it.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): I'd just like to clarify a couple of small points. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) was talking about the concern the NDP has shown for the small loggers and the small, independent mill owners. I'd like to know where they showed their concern when they put that $6 million expansion on Plateau Mills and geared up the timber sale that was directed towards that mill, geared up in such a way that two of the existing smaller independent mills couldn't even bid on the timber sale. That was really a concern for the small mills and the small people, wasn't it? I'd like to know any information he has had from any small logging contractor or trucker who prefers working for a government monopoly mill compared to working for an independent mill. I haven't heard too many of them who are any happier or working any steadier. I am sure the loggers out in Terrace right now wish there were some small, independent mills in the area out there, and that they weren't trying to work for a government monopoly. I am sure the member for Terrace (Mr. Shelford) could probably elucidate quite a bit on that.

The Leader of the Opposition also mentioned a meeting in Victoria that they had with some small sawmill operators who were quite concerned for their future. Perhaps it was the forest giants who were concerned for the future. I thought, Mr. Speaker, perhaps he was talking about another meeting that was held in Victoria a year or so ago. This was another one that shows the great concern that the opposition has for the small businessman, the small contractors and loggers. This particular meeting was held in Bob Williams' office and was requested by the independent mills and their logging contractors. The reason they requested it was because they were trying, just by a stroke of the pen, to bring all these small independent Cat operators, Cat owners and equipment owners under the jurisdiction of the Labour Code as dependent contractors — trying to get them under the Public Works Fair Employment Act.

You can't work for the Crown unless you're unionized. This is really helping the small businessman, telling him he has to work union hours, telling him he has to have union people overhaul his equipment. This is a real assistance to a small businessman. For some reason it didn't seem to come off quite that way. Mr. Williams, the super-minister, told them to get back and take care of his Labour department. He didn't want to have a great big row with the forest companies and all the small operators at that stage of the game. Maybe farther down the road a little bit....

MR. KING: Why don't you try being honest?

MR. LLOYD: I'm being quite honest. Why don't you try it sometime, Mr. King?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LLOYD: The member for Revelstoke, rather. I'm sorry.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LLOYD: Why don't you try being honest?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please! Would the hon. member please address the Chair? Please remember that we do not address hon. members in this House by their proper names.

[ Page 1943 ]

MR. LLOYD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. LEA: You're talking like a communist.

MR. LLOYD: Maybe it's to a communist. That was your word, not mine.

The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) today mentioned the conflict of interest when the government gets involved in bidding against private mills. I certainly think there is a conflict of interest there. The mills supply the taxes that keep the government rolling, and then you are going to come along and compete against them with their own tax dollars. Nobody over in the opposition can see anything wrong with that.

Interjections.

MR. LLOYD: No, the government doesn't have any money of its own. It gets the money that is paid in taxes by the businesses in the province, but it is quite fair and square to deal against their own businesses.

Mr. Speaker, another point that was made very clearly and very distinctly during the 1972 election was that the NDP was Mr. Clean. "Boy, we've got to clean up these rivers, we've got to clean up the air, we've got to clean up the act!" Mr. Clean! "The Social Credits, they've got those pulp mills up in the interior there — they're polluting the river, they're polluting the air. Look at those guys! Look at what those guys have been doing!" Well, right after the 1972 election, they showed the public what they thought of Mr. Clean policy. They bought the worst-polluting mill in the whole province. They figured that they'd got a big buy on it — Ocean Falls, the worst-polluting mill in the province.

The former Minister of Lands, Ray Williston, could have taken it over for $11. He wouldn't have. He wouldn't have left the timber either; he'd have taken it all away. But the big businessmen over here, they got a real buy on it. Private enterprise couldn't even afford to clean up that mill. But no, they were going to buy it. They continued on with this pollution — pollution from the Mr. Clean government.

So what's their next act? What's their second big act? They go buy Col-Cel, the next worst pulp mill in the province. What do they do about that one? They just keep pouring the pollution in there.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Can we drop the level of noise in the room? We can hardly hear the member for Fort George.

MR. LLOYD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it just shows the double-talk that they continually carry on and the great business sense they have. They put $152.5 million out in government pledges for Can-Cel, $152 million of taxpayers' money that hasn't earned interest, let alone earn any jobs for anybody — $150 million that they could have probably put into low-cost mortgages and got a lot of homes in the market. Even at 8 per cent they would have made $12 million a year on it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am very much in favour of this bill. I am in favour of open government and open dealings. If it's a good deal, it is worth talking about in front of everybody. You don't have to go under the table with it; you don't have to give any super-minister power to go buy every business on his own.

MR. LLOYD: I'm very much in favour of this bill because the government hasn't got any money of its own. We're using the taxpayers' money and we should be using it very carefully. When we start going in competition against the businesses that supply a good portion of those taxes, then we're certainly not doing them a service or the province a service. I'm very pleased to see this bill to help restore the responsibility to the Legislature and to the voters of the province.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of Bill 8. I suppose that during the course of this Legislature, every time there is a repeal of the former government's legislation, particularly the ones that are gems to socialism, they would scream blue murder.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CALDER: You know, they don't want it repealed. They screamed when the think-tank came in, which to me was nothing but a consultant firm of Bob Williams. They screamed over that, and there'll be many more. They're screaming at this one. I want to tell you, this is quite a gem, this one here. They can talk all they like but, you know, when something happens that they're going to save the economy, I imagine there will be a good percentage of argument in favour of that. Save employment — but let me tell you something....

MR. LEA: You voted for it. (Laughter.)

MR. CALDER: I can change my mind any time I want, baby! I look for an argument with you one day. I'm not afraid of you!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order, please.

MR. CALDER: Well, let me tell you

[ Page 1944 ]

something....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, please remember to address the Chair.

MR. CALDER: Right, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: When you come back over you can put it in here! (Laughter.)

MR. CALDER: In all these policies they're talking about when they were in power, I don't think they were that interested to create those developments they are talking about or to retain the employment which they are talking about.

This particular legislation which they introduced to allow the government to move in to buy stock, to become part of these companies, was one of the major grand plans of the NDP...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CALDER: ...first of all to spite free enterprise; a grand plan to discredit free enterprise and then to move in wherever there was an opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Right on!

MR. CALDER: They showed it during the course of events.

MR. WALLACE: Frank was the man who came in from the cold. (Laughter.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CALDER: This is the story. I should have got up on my feet and told you I was going to be brief, but you'd better believe this was part of a grand plan.

MR. KEMPF: Bob Williams incorporated.

MR. CALDER: Like I said, with this think-tank and everything else, it was really to provide these powers to one man, which of course is dangerous. Happily, he is not here. No doubt he's busy trying to spend a year or two in developing before he comes back. (Laughter.) This could be one of the main reasons why he stepped to one side. Besides, people over there are saying: "Stop Rosemary Brown!"

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CALDER: But I would say I can understand why there is such a real scream over this. They can talk all they like about this employment and development...

MR. LEA: How are you voting?

MR.CALDER: ...but right underneath that, and please believe me, was this dislike for free enterprise, almost in terms of hatred, and they made certain avenues by which they finally would take over. That's the name of the game.

MR. SKELLY: As you play it.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to go on record as not supporting this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You know, quite a lot has been said this evening in debate about Ocean Falls, but I would like to challenge the members across the floor to go into Ocean Falls and make the statements that they've made in this House this evening.

When this government purchased Ocean Falls, the opposition referred to it as a takeover. This NDP government purchased Ocean Falls after the previous government at that time was prepared to let that community die, close down, move the people out, and the resources of the area would be sold out to the big multinational corporations.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) knows very well, through you, Mr. Speaker, that that community was on the verge of shutting down completely and the resources of that area transferred out of this province.

MS. BROWN: Shame!

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask Isabel Dawson.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! The member for....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Over 500 jobs in that community were preserved by this government, Mr. Speaker, by the purchase of that one single enterprise by this government, jobs that would not have existed under the type of legislation that this government presently is attempting to introduce. But I'm sure it won't succeed, because I think some of the members across the floor have seen the light.

I would like to tell you as well, Mr. Speaker, that quite a bit has been said about this coalition government's concern about the small independent loggers, businessmen and sawmill operators. Well, you know that some 15 to 20 years ago in my riding alone there were approximately 700 independent logging

[ Page 1945 ]

operators and sawmill owners, 700 in that one riding. This government brought in TFLs, gave away huge areas of my riding to a few multinational corporations, and there are now less than 50 independents in my riding, less than 50. That's the type of government they run. That's the kind of government they will continue to operate. No way can we support legislation of this type.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): I hesitate to rise and close the debate and spoil what has been such an enervating discussion. Actually, at some periods I thought it was better than the Keystone cops, you know, considerably better. I'd like to congratulate the opposition for one of their better efforts at fogging up the issue.

Mr. Speaker, one hesitates to come back to the principle of the bill, really, because we haven't talked about it for some time. Because the principle of the bill is to allow the people of this province to have full scrutiny before the people of this province buy shares in a company. It's very simple, and therefore it no longer should be the privilege of some Minister of Finance to purchase shares in a corporation in British Columbia.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! The Minister of Finance has the floor.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, no one wants that power in this government. A very serious situation has come to my attention which I think really brings home the importance of this bill, because during the regime of the former Premier and Minister of Finance, this government under the Revenue Act purchased over one million shares in Westcoast Transmission.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. WOLFE: And, Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Finance purchased these shares, you might say, willy-nilly, from some obscure eastern securities firm — I believe the name is Wisener and Partners — for three times the normal commission, over $300,000 of commission at a time when the previous Minister of Finance, I'm informed, was in a position to purchase these shares direct from the El Paso Gas Co. at no commission. No commission!

Interjection.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I say this is a classic example of the power this bill represents, or did represent, in providing the former Minister of Finance with the facility to purchase shares in a corporation in British Columbia, and why we feel so strongly that this power should be changed back to the way it was before, so the full scrutiny of this Legislature should apply and a bill should be presented.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that it has come to my attention that such a major purchase of shares on behalf of the Province of British Columbia would have been made in this manner through some eastern brokerage firm for what appears to be an excessive commission is a matter that I have under investigation as Minister of Finance. I just feel that it's a very important reason that focuses in on the particular reason of why we want to have this power restored to the Legislature.

This government is not in the business of wheeling and dealing in shares, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. WOLFE: There's no reason why we.... We want to take full care and attention in presenting any bill before the Legislature. We aren't saying that we shouldn't buy shares in a company. We are merely saying that the Legislature should approve such purchases.

Mr. Speaker, we heard quite a lot earlier today about Can-Cel. They've been mentioned several times as a case of an excellent and opportune purchase by the former government. Nobody has stated that Can-Cel was purchased by a special Act of the Legislature — not through the Revenue Act, but by a special Act of the Legislature. This is exactly what we are recommending in this bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't be trying to make it easier to buy shares in companies, but we should be trying to make ourselves more careful and more subject to full inspection. In effect, why should we deny the Legislature and the people of this province full scrutiny of purchases of this kind?

What the opposition seems to be saying is: "Let's keep these transactions secret." As a matter of fact, the first member for Vancouver Centre said that this bill is an excuse not to act. I say that it's an excuse to not hide these transactions from the people. It's what we are trying to say in terms of providing open government, Mr. Speaker. I say that what they have been saying today is complete hypocrisy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. WOLFE: Absolutely hypocrisy, because in former years in this House, time and time again I've heard them in opposition say how much they wanted sunshine; they wanted the light to shine on the transactions of the government — always, always. And here they're going to stand up and vote against this bill which exactly says that story. So, Mr. Speaker, the important principle of this bill is to

[ Page 1946 ]

remove the present power of the Minister of Finance to purchase company shares. I move second reading.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 12

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 8, Revenue Amendment Act, 1976, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I believe leave is required to go into Committee of Supply on Thursday.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

On vote 86: minister's office, $101,052.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 86 pass?

MS. BROWN: Never!

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairman, I know we'll be through this vote by 11 o'clock. So I won't take too much time and I trust that no one else will either. But I do want to make a couple of comments and that's all I'll make, and then I will allow the other members to ask questions.

I do want to, first of all, pay a tribute and a thanks to the staff of the Department of Health and particularly the deputy ministers who have been simply marvellous in never saying no when I make requests of them. I want to thank them publicly at this time in the House.

I want to thank some other people, too, Mr. Chairman...

AN HON. MEMBER: Aw, Bob.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: ...and that's the people who....

MR. WALLACE: It must be Emmy night.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, I want to thank the member for Prince Rupert for leaving the House so gracefully the other night. I'm sorry I missed the performance.

MR. LEA: I'm sorry I had to leave early.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I was told it was an award-winning performance — and I had to be away that night. I'm really sorry about that.

Mr. Chairman, the people I wish to thank are those people who were involved in the strike at various hospitals in this province: the medical staff, the union members who were on the job because the Labour Relations Board designated them as essential, the administration, the boards of directors of the hospitals, as well as the administrative staff of the hospitals, all of whom kept the essential services going. I made sure that there was at all times a very high level of patient care in those hospitals which were struck and under the most difficult of circumstances. I think that every person in British Columbia owes those people as well a vote of thanks.

We have taken some initiatives since this government was elected in various areas of hospital care. I have mentioned it before in the House our initiatives in ensuring that there will be in this province, as quickly as possible, a new children's hospital to serve all of British Columbia. We were faced with some problems in making sure that the staffing restraints, which were not initiated by this government but which were initiated by the previous government, Mr. Chairman, didn't threaten the continuance of the home-care programme which had proved to be an excellent alternative to expensive acute care and other levels of hospital care. Again, I'm happy to say that, with the help of the other members of the government and of the staff who

[ Page 1947 ]

worked to develop alternatives, we have been able to restore the level of staffing for the home-care programme to its previous level. That programme is continuing around the province.

I think the final comment I'd like to make tonight before we open it up for questions, the opposition members, is that we've taken a second look at one of the announcements that was made in the budget with regard to co-insurance charges.

I think some of us, including myself, miscalculated, Mr. Chairman, in the number of people who would be adversely affected because of an increase in extended-care charges to $7 a day. I think it's fair to say that as a pure room-and-board charge on a person who was receiving full Mincome benefits from the province, there was some argument for developing that charge. But there are an awful lot of people who would have been affected as well, and that includes young people who are in extended-care units for one reason or another, or a married couple with one member in the extended-care unit and the other member out in the community having to maintain a home as well as maintaining that other partner in the extended-care unit. And there were a number of other examples which were shown to us, and I must thank some of the members of the opposition who sent us examples, as well as the many people who wrote to me and the investigations by the department itself.

So with the concurrence of the government, Mr. Chairman, through the member for Oak Bay, the co-insurance charges for both extended care and acute care will be $4 a day.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does it include Riverview?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That will include everybody — extended care and acute care.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, if it's under CAP it will be the same as it was before.

But we are taking one additional step, and that is that we do recognize again that there's a special hardship on a parent who has a young person in an extended-care unit. That parent may not yet be at the peak of their earning powers, but certainly may be at the peak of some of their spending powers because of having that young person. So again, it's with the concurrence of this government, Mr. Chairman, that I can announce tonight that children under 19 years of age in extended-care units will continue to pay $1 a day.

I would like to say further, and this is as a matter of technical detail, that successive governments — the past government, the government before that and this government — will continue the practice that if a person is destitute and has no money, they will not have to pay. That's not a new proposal made by this government, but I think it should be made, again, public out here in the community so that people know. Even in the case before, where a person couldn't afford the $1 a day, the hospital was charged and the government picked up the tab, but the person who was completely destitute never had to pay that $1 a day. The same will be true for the $4 a day.

With those few comments, Mr. Chairman, I will take my place so we can get this vote finished in the next 12 minutes.

MR. D.G. COCKE: (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the minister has the chance of a snowball in Hades of getting his vote through by 11 o'clock.

AN HON. MEMBER: Threats — just threats!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, it is rather late at night to discuss Health seriously, but one thing I do find that I think we should be discussing in the House now is the great concern I have for the health of the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem). (Laughter.) Earlier today he was drinking the bathwater of everybody in New Westminster....

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he did it at the other end.

MR. COCKE: Now wait a minute. He was down drinking that water at the mouth of the river, Mr. Minister — at the mouth, right down in the estuary.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: It used to be okay, Mr. Member, but things happen. Mr. Chairman, that member is getting disorderly again — that member for Burnaby, the one with the Texas gladhand....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Burnaby North?

MR. COCKE: Yes, the member for Burnaby-somewhere. He is not quite sure himself; he keeps talking about "New Westminster." But in any event, Mr. Chairman, I have great concern about that poor member for Dewdney. I suspect that if the Minister of Health is doing his job, he will ask his Deputy Minister of Health to have him immunized against everything tomorrow, if tomorrow isn't too late.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): They may have to do an autopsy.

MR. COCKE: It is just a possibility that he is in

[ Page 1948 ]

really deep trouble.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Let's hear the member for New Westminster. This is interesting.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, what's breathing, as long as you have your health?

I have a few questions that I want to ask the minister. I must say that on being selected as Health critic for our opposition, — our little opposition — over here, I felt the first session would be more or less a love-in because nobody, given such a short period of time, could make a lot of mistakes. Most ministers, with responsible government backing, really could anticipate just that — a love-in.

He has a very large responsibility, Mr. Chairman, an extremely large responsibility, and I'm sympathetic. I really am. I have every sympathy for the Minister of Health. I think setting the priorities in that department with such diverse services as public health, hospitals, emergency health care, medicare, takes a lot of doing. Try as I would, it was hard for me to believe that a minister could wave a magic wand, as he did, and as he waved that magic wand it became a club. Now, you know, at that point my sympathy began to disappear, and it certainly disappeared very, very quickly over one particular issue. I won't deal with this issue in any depth tonight, but I want to just mention — so the minister can go home tonight and think of some of the things that he's done and some of the things that he might have done differently...but I'd like him to go home and just before he closes his eyes I'd like him to think about the medical centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE: I'd like him to think about the medical centre. Now I know that he didn't have very much to do with it, Mr. Chairman. I know that the real Minister of Health made that decision — the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) — but still, I think, if he'd fought a little harder....

AN HON. MEMBER: The whale doctor.

MR. COCKE: He's a whale of a doctor.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's out putting needles in monkeys' heads.

MR. COCKE: I suspect if you don't want orderly development of the delivery of health care, of health training.... I'm talking about health training right across the spectrum; I'm not talking about medical training. Every time the Minister of Education gets up in this House and starts talking about medical training he drives me right through the wall, because that's exactly what he thinks. He thinks that health training is medical training, and that's why the mistake. If you want to throw sand in the gears of progress, Mr. Chairman, you do it the way they have done what they've done to the B.C. Medical Centre. All you have to do to turn society on itself is to pit one group against the other....

MR. LOEWEN: You do that very well.

MR. COCKE: How're you getting along in Texas?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You and the member for Hawaii are a good pair.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You pit one group against the other, and what occurs? The death of progress.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: There was an election — a stroke of the pen — and a guy by the name of Kelly and three years were wiped out, and I'm here to tell you that chaos will ensue. An election, a stroke of a pen, and Kelly...and we're in for the same old stuff that we used to have when the whole Vancouver medical scene were at one another's throats.

Now the B.C. medical centre had only one thing to fight and that was the present Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) who at that time was president of the Socreds, who was out there organizing in Little Mountain — and I felt her hot breath on my neck many, many times.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE: But you know what the Minister of Health has?

On the back of my neck, Mr. Chairman, Just one of the....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: She told us she was working all the time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Instead she was necking.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a coalition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, order, please.

Interjections.

[ Page 1949 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: That's Amazing Grace.

MR. COCKE: The problem that we're going to have there is exactly the same problem we had before, and that is the problem that everybody is out looking for their own benefit — I'm talking about each group — and Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, you will learn this very, very quickly. Each group is going to put forward their priorities in such a way as to make sure that nothing happens.

You haven't the money, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. There is no way that you can do it the hard way, the way you've embarked upon, without really getting yourself into a lot of trouble.

Mr. Chairman, what was wiped out? Very interesting. Just like very quickly before we have to go home to put our head on the pillow — what was wiped out? A board whose sole responsibility it was to get in, to group in, to co-ordinate the activities of all of those major medical facilities and teaching facilities in Vancouver. And who did we ask to do the job voluntarily? Who did we ask to spend thousands of hours?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, that member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who is in the pocket of...

AN HON. MEMBER: Zimmerman!

MR.COCKE: ...Zimmerman. He'll be interested. He won't be too impressed with the chairman of the board, who is Jack Christensen, who is president of Tahsis Co. and past chairman of the Vancouver General Hospital, who spent more volunteer hours than all of those backbenchers who keep talking about volunteerism have in their lifetime, Mr. Chairman.

Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, we have such other people as David Bates....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for New Westminster has the floor.

MR. COCKE: Put your head down and rest for a bit. (Laughter.)

David Bates, Mr. Chairman, is the dean of medicine at UBC. Bruce Buchanan, Joe Korsby — now there's one they could find fault with. Joe Korsby has a bit of a history.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not now.

MR. COCKE: He may or may not be now, but he certainly has been a card-carrying member of the CCF and the NDP. He was also, however, general manager of CU&C, which is probably one of the best-run health co-ops in this province.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, also George Donaldson, C.A. — George, I think, is remaining around. Gordon Draeseke — we all remember him. I think most of the members...well, not the new members, but most of the members of the House who have been around for a while have had lunch or dinner with Gordon Draeseke. He was the....

AN HON. MEMBER: A card-carrying NDPer.

AN HON. MEMBER: Gordon's a Pinko!

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Presenting reports.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): I ask leave to present a report.

Leave granted.

Mr. Mussallem from the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills presented the committee's first report, which was read and received.

MADAM CLERK: Legislative Committee Room, May 20, 1976.

Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

That the standing orders have been complied with relating to the respective petitions for leave to introduce the following private bills: Ukrainian Catholic Epochy of New Westminster Incorporation Act; British Columbia Association of Colleges Incorporation Act; Vancouver Stock Exchange Act.

Your committee recommends that the respective petitioners be allowed to proceed with the said bills.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

George Mussallem, chairman.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:02 p.m.