[ Page 41 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Delays in court proceedings. Mr. Macdonald — 41

B.C. Hydro rate increases. Mr. Gibson — 42

ICBC rates. Mr. Cocke — 43

BCR settlement with M.E.L. Paving. Mr. Lloyd — 43

Throne speech debate

Mr. Barrett — 44

Mr. Gibson — 70

MONDAY, JANUARY 17, 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Seated in the members' gallery this afternoon are Mr. David and Mrs. Frances Moncrieff of Anchorage, Alaska, and their three children, Shane, Katherine and Jason. I would like this House to bid them welcome.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome a visiting MLA today, Mr. Bev Dyck, the member for Saskatoon-Biggar, who is enjoying our winters compared to theirs.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): I would like the House to join me in welcoming a group of students from the senior secondary school in Courtenay, Georges P. Vanier School. They are accompanied by their teachers, Harry Dougan and Pete Sanford.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, just before introducing my guests I would ask the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) if that's the community that has the slogan: "New York is big but Biggar is bigger."

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: This is Biggar. It's a well-known little spot.

MR. BARRETT: This is bigger.

MRS. JORDAN: I am very pleased to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that in the gallery today we have 20 sea cadets from the Royal Canadian Sea Cadets, Kalamalka of Vernon, with Lieutenant David Young from Penticton who is standing in for their Commanding Officer, Captain Gary Smith from Vernon. This is the first time that I have had the privilege as MLA for this area in welcoming a young group of sea cadets, a group that we highly respect in our community. I would ask you to give them a warm welcome.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Visiting from Ladysmith today — the great metropolis of Ladysmith — are two couples, four people from Ladysmith, Mr. and Mrs. Madryga and Mr. and Mrs. Dyson. Also visiting me today in the gallery is a man who has spent a great deal of his life in devoting time and effort to the farm movement and to the cooperative movement in the sunny province of Alberta. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome into the gallery today my uncle, Mr. Lester Wages, and his wife, Myrtle. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce six guests today: Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence Dubnick from Hazelton; my cousin, Mary Sutton from England; also, her son, Dr. Roger Sutton, now from Vancouver. I would also like to introduce my uncle and aunt, Arthur Shelford. I would just like to point out to the members that my uncle recently wrote a book on pioneering in British Columbia in the early 1900s. Unfortunately, he stayed a little too close to the truth and it wasn't too attractive for the writers.

Oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. second member for Vancouver-Burrard. Pardon me, the first member for Vancouver East. (Laughter.)

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): That's where I live. I keep my clothes in Burrard.

MR. SPEAKER: I knew I had part of it right.

DELAYS IN COURT PROCEEDINGS

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General. In view of the fact that the Attorney-General has computerized review records of the provincial courts of the province of British Columbia, which will include things such as judges' time spent in court, the efficiency in delays caused in terms of either court stenographers, prosecutors, defence counsel, witness attendants, police attendants, will the Attorney-General undertake to table that information with this Legislature without delay before proceeding with a plan of unequal justice whereby some defendants do not come to trial?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): First of all, I would like to answer your question in the affirmative, Mr. Member, but I would like to give it a slightly more expanded answer than that. I would also, with leave of the House file a copy of the letter of December 6th, 1976, from Mr. D.H. Vickers, Deputy Attorney-General to Crown Counsel. You will see that it set forth the matter in specifics. The problem is far from a new phenomena; it is a carry over from 1975 and probably well behind that. Difficulties were experienced at all levels — increased caseloads, offence trends, some long overburdening hearings, the modus operandi of the courts, prosecutors, defence, Bar, Legal Aid, witness management and the police.

The cases were building up for a variety of reasons,

[ Page 42 ]

and we have been attempting to get to the source of those particular reasons and do something with it. There seem to have been rays of progress develop over the last few months because in December of last year, I believe, in the situation in Vancouver, if memory serves me, there was a backlog of around 5,000 cases, and that was reduced to about 3,200 six months later. But the department was still concerned, and the Associate Deputy Attorney-General, Mr. Dennis Sheppard, was put in charge of court administration some months back; senior prosecutor, Mr. Al Filmer, has been asked to consider the prosecutorial aspects; and then the department recommended this 180-day measure.

I must say it has had, indeed, some desired result because a great deal of concerns are being expressed and there is obviously now a greater opportunity, I think, for the matter to be dealt with. The time frame that was earlier suggested, as a matter of fact, was an earlier one than this, and I wish to inform the House that this date of March 1, at this time, is considered to be a firm date, but I also wish to inform all hon. members that we're continuing to review and, if necessary, to amend that directive. This morning I was in communication with the Deputy Attorney-General and I've asked him to....

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Beg your pardon?

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Maybe yes, maybe no.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, it's not maybe yes, maybe no; it's a question of obtaining the necessary material, Mr. Member. This morning I asked the Deputy Attorney-General if he would seek top level consultation with Chief Judge Brahan of the provincial court; with the chief prosecutor; with Chief Keary, who's head of the B.C. police chiefs; with Mr. Tony Pantages of the Canadian Bar Association, and representatives also from defence bar and from legal aid, and I indeed look forward to receiving their recommendations and I am indeed happy to share their recommendations with this assembly.

MR. MACDONALD: On a supplementary. Mr. Speaker, since this is the Attorney-General's responsibility and not those who are associated with the department, I'd like to ask him whether or not he can't make additional resources available to his department to clear up the delay so we're not in the situation of playing Russian roulette with people charged with offences coming before the provincial courts and thereby undermining the morale of people who work — including police officers — in the justice system. Now will the Attorney-General undertake himself to rescind that edict?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, I think I've just responded to your question, Mr. Member. You're asking me the same question a second time around. I've informed you that the edict as it now stands will stand but it's subject to review, and if there's necessity for it to stand, Mr. Member, it will stand. If the review shows that the matter can be otherwise attended to, and more appropriately attended to, it will be addressed in that manner. I don't think we can do more than that.

MR. MACDONALD: Just a final short supplementary: when will the computerized review information be tabled with the House?

HON. MR. GARDOM: When it's available to me.

MR. MACDONALD: Just a print-out.

HON. MR. GARDOM: When it's available to me.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, in light of the throne speech's stress on an aggressive attack on the impaired drivers of this province, could the Attorney-General tell the House of the number of cases that will be dropped, the charges that will be dropped? Does he know how many that are pending in that category will involve impaired charges?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I can't give you that specific at this point, Mr. Member, but I shall certainly seek that information and deliver it. But, you know, as the correspondence says, it does not include trials already commenced nor in any case where a guilty plea has been entered. What we are trying to do, Mr. Member, is bring some shock waves into the system and to get some solutions. What has been happening in the past has just not worked and we inherited a 5,000-case delay in one situation.

I want to make this point abundantly clear: I am not blaming the former Attorney-General for that fact; it's become a fact of life, and for a variety of reasons we have long trials. We have had situations of preliminary hearings taking close to a year.

B.C.HYDRO RATE INCREASES

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): A question to the Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker: in view of the Premier's well-founded pre-Christmas musings about the accountability of B.C. Hydro, which is a law unto itself in this province, will the minister ask Hydro to roll back its recent rate increases, pending a submission and justification of those increases to the Energy Commission?

[ Page 43 ]

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): There is no mechanism whereby that could readily be done. I do wish to point out, however, that all members will have an opportunity to question B.C. Hydro before the standing committee of public accounts, and we expect also that the B.C. Energy Commission will be joking into the plans of B.C. Hydro and the cost procedures of B.C. Hydro during the coming year.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. The minister being a director of B.C. Hydro, may I ask him squarely: does he support these increases?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the rate increases, the price increases of B.C. Hydro, were fully justified because of the mounting costs which they have faced. In the future, with better planning and more careful attention to cost increases, I hope the rate adjustments will be kept to a minimum.

MR. GIBSON: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I would hope and assume that this was done on the basis of detailed cost data. I wonder if I could ask the minister: would he file this detailed cost data with the House so that we might better judge the propriety of the increases?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The answer to the question — were the rate increases related to cost 'demonstrated in detail? — is yes. Certainly, considerable detail of the nature of justification will be available to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs.

MR. GIBSON: But will you file them with the House?

ICBC RATES

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Education in charge of ICBC. Mr. Speaker, can he tell the House the reason ICBC raised rates for the time payment plan — that's interest rates — to 15 per cent for ordinary policy holders, yet at the same time held the rates for fleet plans — held it to the original rate for fleet plans?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question, it was a decision of the board of directors designed to bring the interest rates more in line with the standard rates being charged people in British Columbia and elsewhere for retail purchases. The ordinary finance companies charge 24 per cent, most department stores charge between 20 and 21 per cent, the banks through Chargex and Mastercharge charge 18 per cent, and ICBC is still very highly competitive in this field.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the minister chose not to answer the question. The question was: why did he not do the same for fleet plans? But I'll ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is it not true, Mr. Minister, that the experience with fleet plans leaves something to be desired, and is probably somewhat less positive than the experience with the ordinary policy holder?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker, the estimate for bad debts on the ICBC finance plan is somewhere between $4 million and $5 million. We're hoping to do better than that, but at the present time the experience has not been terribly good.

MR. COCKE: Didn't answer the question, as usual.

BCR SETTLEMENT WITH M.E.L. PAVING

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): Hon. Premier, has the government received an explanation from the directors of the British Columbia Railway as to the reasons for the settlement between M.E.L. Paving and the British Columbia Railway?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, with all of the innuendo and screams in the newspapers and to the media by some of the opposition, I would have thought that in this responsible chamber they would have availed themselves of the opportunity to ask for information. However, I'm sure that in this session we've got to go through their usual period of muckraking and smear before we get down to business.

Now, Mr. Speaker, yes, today the Minister of Economic Development, the director of the British Columbia Railway, received from the chairman of the board, Mr. Jack Fraine, a letter outlining to the government (representing the shareholders) the reason for their settlement of the M.E.L. Paving case, and I will wish to table that with the House. I would point out that the board of directors of B.C. Rail has significantly changed this year. This would be the first time that the Premier is not the president of the railway. The Leader of the Opposition and former Premier was the president of the railway right through 1975 from 1972, when most of the action outlined in this letter took place.

The directors of the railway now are independent; they're able to make decisions on a sound business basis for the good of the railway and the province.

[ Page 44 ]

Those directors are: Mr. Robert Swanson, who was appointed by the previous administration; the Hon. Don Phillips, who reports to the government and to this Legislature; Mr. Jack Fraine, who is the chairman and was appointed April 6,1976; the vice-chairman is Mr. Glen McPherson, who was appointed September 30,1976; along with the other outstanding British Columbians, Stanley Horner, Norman Hyland, Edwin Cecil Hurd, Donald Watson and Kenneth Bruce Rome. I commend these directors for not only dealing with issues like this but in trying to make that railway run. As you know, for the first time in the last three years the railway is running continuously and efficiently and to the benefit of the people in those central and northern communities.

Mr. Speaker, I give these directors full credit and I want to advise this House they have the full confidence of the Premier and this government and I think all British Columbia should thank them for their efforts.

I ask leave to table the correspondence.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. BARRETT: Did the bell ring?

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're still punch-drunk from losing the last election.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I believe that the question was cut off by the bell, but I observe that you have the floor this afternoon.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, no matter what accusation the Premier makes about me in terms of the last election, whether it is anything in jest or seriously, if it ever comes to court I'm sure it can be settled out of court or will never be called. In terms of the BCR case that was discussed, or as the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) pointed out, if you wait six months everything will be forgotten anyway. Now I will be raising the BCR so there's not much point in going through the question period.

I appreciate the new interest of the backbenchers in the BCR, and I'm pleased that the backbenchers are operating independently, Mr. Speaker, and that the Premier had no knowledge of that question being asked whatsoever. Anyone in this House who thinks that that question was staged is just being political...(laughter)

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: ...because the idea that a backbencher would play politics in this chamber is going too far, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: A puppet.

MR. BARRETT: I'm sure that it was a spontaneous request for information.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): He's pinko.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to first of all thank you for the opportunity of allowing me to speak in my place. I was trying to estimate how many throne speeches I've participated in since I was too young to know any better and got involved in politics, and have been burdened with the pleasure of....

MR. WALLACE: A lot of us could say that. (Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: A lot of us could say that...being a member of this august body — not that we have to worry too much about this august chamber being responsible for anything any more, Mr. Speaker. The B.C. Rail settles fraud cases out of court and we wash our hands and say: "we're not responsible for that." Says the government: "We're not responsible for this board or that board, or Hydro, or anything else." They're all on their own, Mr. Speaker. The people in a democratic society don't have to worry about these things any more. This chamber needn't bother its head about those responsibilities. The Crown corporations don't belong to the people any more, don't have to report to this chamber any more, why, not at all. It's all done with a shake of the hat.

Who was that famous author in New York — was it Ring Lardner? — who described that dice game by putting the dice in a hat and having a 7-ft. man shake the dice up in the air while everybody was bent over waiting for the results? Then he'd look in the hat and say: "Seven. You lose." The game is fixed, and the attempt to move away from responsibility by the Crown corporations is nothing but a sham and a mockery and a dodge by a government, Mr. Speaker, which is admitting tacit guilt in fraud and conspiracy on that railroad.

That's a fact. "We needn't worry ourselves about that. What is a little bit of fraud? Ha, ha, ha, ha! Nothing like that to worry about, folks. It's got nothing to do with the politicians, just done on the side, behind the scenes, by this new board which is going to clean it up, "

Who caused the fraud? Was it the former Premier? Was it Mr. Broadbent? Who know? Who cares? It's only the taxpayers' money. "Don't discuss in this

[ Page 45 ]

chamber why we've got those citizens on the board taking care of those things."

In all my years in this House, Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I've ever seen a government run for cover on its basic responsibility by saying: "We're not responsible anymore." If you're not responsible, what did you run for office for? If you're not responsible, what are you making decisions in cabinet for? If you're not responsible, what are you preparing a budget for? Let the Crown agencies prepare their own budgets and don't give them a dime. But that's not the case, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, later on in my speech I'll prove to you that the government is directly responsible for those agencies.

I want to thank, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity for me to speak here today, a very good colleague of mine, Mr. Robert Williams. Mr. Williams was the one who made it possible for me to return to this Legislative Assembly by resigning his seat. I want to publicly acknowledge that fact.

I want to regret that Mrs. Johnson is not with us today. Mrs. Johnson is ill today. I want to extend to her our very best wishes for a speedy recovery. She has been an observer of this chamber for a large number of years and she will hopefully recover and be back in the gallery keeping her eye on all of us, as she has done for many years.

I want to thank the voters of Vancouver East, where you can't plan a super-highway, you can't have any huge, large government industrial development. I don't think there's too much any of the departments can look for in terms of favour from the government. I'm sure the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) will do everything he can to assist me in my job in that constituency. As I appeal to other ministers, they too will respond with their positive interest in that great constituency.

Mr. Speaker, it's made up of a number of very interesting ethnic groups who are really the backbone of this province in many, many ways: the Chinese community; the Italian community; the East Indian community; and actually a microcosm of the great ethnic, racial and religious mix that makes up this country.

They speak many languages, Mr. Speaker, and have no shame or embarrassment about speaking any one of those languages. As a matter of fact, they are proud of their individual heritage and culture that they bring with them to this country to enrich not only that particular area of Vancouver, but this whole province. Above all, Mr. Speaker, they are tremendous family people. They have a sense of family life and a sense of family participation that in most areas of this province could be well emulated.

I heard the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) speak the other day about the need of preserving family life. His request touches some of the hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, that this government has evidenced in the last 12 months. While speaking out of one side of its mouth, the other side acts to cut off what it is asking for.

There is the British Columbia Conference on the Family, initiated by the former administration to bring religious groups — religious communities — together in this province to deal with the problems of the family, Mr. Speaker. That work has been going on for some two years, with representatives from all religious bodies in this province on a non-sectarian basis brought together to discuss what its role can and should be in the area of preserving family life in this province.

It was an historic conference, brought together on a non-partisan basis, represented ably by the Social Credit Party with the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), by the Conservative Party by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), the member from the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) and also the member of the New Democratic Party, the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) — a serious attempt to bring church and state together to deal with family problems.

As a consequence of their activities they recommended after their second conference a number of specific proposals to be followed by the government. The reward for their efforts was an insult from the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who has cut off their funds and cut this project off at a time when it was just beginning to get off the ground and become of some merit to all the people of British Columbia.

It received recognition as an example of government-church cooperation, religious bodies' cooperation throughout the western world. There had been interest expressed in this project all over the British Commonwealth, and now the whole conference has been ruthlessly cut off by the Minister of Human Resources, who just frankly does not understand the need to do preventative work in family care. Divorce is one thing, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, but preventative work is far more important.

AN. HON MEMBER: Cheaper, too.

MR. BARRETT: A lot cheaper. Yes, it is. It's a lot cheaper, but the government has not seen fit to carry on funds to this project, and I think that's a serious mistake.

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make about the current political situation in Canada. I'd like to extend to all people in this country, who are working to keep this country together, the kind of support and hope that most Canadians have of keeping this diverse, complex, different-structured country together for a long time.

I find it regrettable that I was asked to comment

[ Page 46 ]

on an unfortunate statement by the Minister of Human Resources — something to do with cornflakes boxes, Mr. Speaker. There is a certain level of political activity that has always presented itself in North America, that has always focused on the lowest common denominator of bigotry — the lowest common denominator of saying the catchword or the catchphrase that is used glibly and quickly to appeal basically to ignorance or emotions around relationships between people. This country has not been spared of its bigotry and its prejudice over the years. When tempers are inflamed by politicians, and emotions are aroused, there has been a history in this country of government racial or religious prejudice, as official policy in our history.

One need not go too far in history to remember that at one time native Indian peoples and Oriental people were not allowed to vote in this country. As a matter of fact, a couple of generations ago there were actually politicians who took out ads in the newspaper saying: "Don't vote CCF. Stop the Yellow Peril. They're going to allow the Chinese and the Japanese to vote." That was the great Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia that actually took out ads in the newspaper endorsing that policy because it reflected the public mood at that time.

But there always have been politicians of every political party that have been above pandering to the current prejudice, pandering to the current bigotry, and have led in terms of being calm and responsible and standing on principle away from that kind of politics.

I regret that the Minister of Human Resources said what he said. But I regret even more that all the Premier could say about the minister was that he's a very colourful person.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking!

MR. BARRETT: There's a difference between colour, Mr. Speaker, and a stand on principle. I don't find it colourful for any politician to respond on a basis of common-denominator bigotry to a very serious problem in this country. I don't profess to know any of the answers related to keeping this country together, but I know some of the problems, and one of the problems is exemplified by that minister with a fast lip.

There are serious problems in this country today. Every citizen is concerned about its destiny and the ability of this country to stay together as a nation. Many people spend a great deal of time saying: "What is Canada?" A lot of people aren't able to give any definition, but most of us know what we don't want it to become, and the thing we don't want it to become is a balkanized, fractured series of independent countries with no hope of surviving on that basis.

Mr. Speaker, I urge that this government not fall into the political trap that I think the federal Prime Minister has waged in the past about putting pressure on to resolve the constitutional crisis. I believe the British North America Act has served the people of this country very well for 100 years. It's doing nothing in London other than getting mouldy on the edges, and quite frankly, I think another 100 years of mould wouldn't hurt it one bit. I think there is tremendous flexibility in the BNA Act now and I do not think there's any need for a crisis conference on the constitution.

I think there's a need for all politicians, oppositions, governments and independents, whatever party, to say nothing unless they have something positive to contribute. I think that the problems of Quebec and the problems of the rest of Canada are best served by a spirit of cooperation and understanding — standing firm on the principle that this is one nation, but on the basis of that principle understanding where provinces can cooperate and work together to keep this country together.

I oppose the Parti Quebecois' position on separation. That's a well-known fact. But that position is not helped by frankly lame-brained statements of ignorance from a cabinet minister from this province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few moments to just gently remind the government of some of its promises. I don't want to upset the cabinet benches too much, Mr. Speaker. I notice they're all diligently doing their work, getting together, answering their correspondence, signing all their letters and being nice little boys and girls. They hope that the memory of this last year under Social Credit will gently drift away and the opposition won't raise anything. Why, the Premier even says: "If they question anything it's muck! Why, it's muck or it's...." What was the other word he used?

AN HON. MEMBER: Smear.

MR. BARRETT: Smear! Before we even said a word, Mr. Speaker, he's talking about muck and smearing.

MR. KING: And innuendo.

MR. BARRETT: And innuendo. He had a little tough time pronouncing that word, but he got all three of them together, Mr. Speaker — put it together in a little package that said: "Muck, smearing and innuendo by the NDP!" We haven't even said anything yet! The poor Liberals down there trying to make love to you, and you cut them out before you even had a chance to talk. And the Tory, who was going to ask for nothing more than chronic-care services, hasn't even had a chance to get into that

[ Page 47 ]

muck and he's already been labelled. Anybody who criticizes this government, Mr. Speaker, is muck, smear and innuendo — MSI! (Laughter.) A new government policy: little bit of muck, a little bit of smear and a little bit of innuendo.

Mr. Speaker, I promise that I will not be involved in muck, smear and innuendo by reading one single charge that Social Credit made while they were in opposition not based on fact, based on fancy! Oh, the little cheque-writing on the back by what's-his-name. I forget his name now. Oh, that was weeks ago that happened. (Laughter.) The little bit of Can-Cel stocks — little bit of muck there, Mr. Attorney-General? The wild speeches by the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips)....

MR. COCKE: We were selling pulp on the black market.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, do you remember the story by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), who doesn't get to announce anything without checking with the ICBC director? Do you remember the story he told about welfare people staying at the Empress Hotel? What a little MSI that was, Mr. Speaker.

Why, Hansard is full of MSI from Social Credit — unproven, not based on fact — but just a little bit of smear, a little bit of innuendo, a little bit of muck to keep things alive because we were socialists! And you know very well that the colour of the suit of my friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) is really the colour of our underwear! (Laughter.)

So we have a dangerous menace and you can say anything, do anything, or accuse them of anything because they're socialists. Then, once having obtained power, Mr. Speaker, by saying anything, doing anything, promising anything, say you can't do it because it was the socialists' fault — 13 months of hand-wringing; weeping, blaming the former government for everything. Everything has been blamed on the NDP! Had a miscarriage? NDP's fault! Flat tire? NDP's fault! Double ferry rates? NDP's fault! No jobs? NDP's fault. I never knew, Mr. Speaker, that we had that much power! On the basis of that argument alone, the people of this province should put us back in to office. We cap run everything, according to them! It's been a great ploy for a year, but it's wearing kind of thin. That was the matrix, Mr. Speaker, that brought that group together. I remember the speeches of those former Liberals. Oh, how sweet they are — the speeches of the man, the head of ICBC, who said those terrible things about the B.C. Rail. Ooh, Mr. Speaker, what reading they make! I want someone to put in a sealed envelope, so the public will never find out, a copy of the speech made by the now Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) about B.C. Rail, about charging fraud and overruns and government responsibility. I'm sure the professor would love to read his old speeches, Mr. Speaker — little MSI there; a little MSI of his own making. Now he's part of a government that settled out of court. "Oh, well, that's all past history. Now I'm a Socred."

Then there's the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom). Oh, those senatorial speeches we used to get with the little affectation of a nice accent, a more cultured accent, a more educated accent, a little bit of a sort of a West End kind of accent that would say: "Of course, we would never do anything like that. Of course not."

MR. LEA: He belonged to a different party.

MR. BARRETT: A different party at that time. (Laughter.) That's right, yes — a little bit of MSI. "Certainly after we joined the new party we forgot all about what we used to say when we were in the old party. As a reward, we are now in the cabinet." What's that Gilbert and Sullivan song about the captain of the Queen's Navy?

I polish up the rail
And I polish up the brass,
And now they made me captain
Of the Queen's Navy.

There he is, the Attorney-General of this province, who polished up the shoes, and polished up the apple, and look where he's sitting now. (Laughter.)

Oh, those speeches he used to make about Social Credit! Oh, they were terrible, wrong, horrible! I remember some of those. He doesn't, and far be it from me to raise any guilt underneath that lovely veneer and remind him of those speeches, Mr. Speaker. I wouldn't do a thing like that. Neither will the newspapers or the editorial pages because, after all, he sold his soul to stop the scourge of socialism and anything is justified on that rationalization, Mr. Speaker — even denying your own beliefs, your own principles and anything else in your path.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes, what was said!

MR. KING: Remember the Mafia money.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, we'll get to the Mafia money. I'm sure he's investigated all of that. I don't want to remind him too much of those things. The Mafia men! Remember that one?

One of the promises by this group over here was: "End non-elected boards and commissions in government." Now does anybody in this chamber know any old Socred who has been put on any board or commission since the new government's been elected? If you do, do not raise your hand. Pass Go, collect $200, and keep on going because we don't

[ Page 48 ]

want to talk about it.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Why, somebody mentioned Bonner!

AN HON. MEMBER: Bonner, Williston....

MR. BARRETT: Now in Japan at a Trilateral Conference meeting. Is that right? Yes, that's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. BARRETT: Then Mr. Williston, whom Mr. Pearse was not kind about in his report. Tut, tut, Mr. Pearse, criticizing Mr. Williston. Why, we all know what a wonderful job he's done. They've even named an appropriate lake after him. Most appropriate — that is the filthiest lake in British Columbia. What a mess — polluted.

MR. KING: Full of deadheads!

MR. BARRETT: Full of deadheads! That's right. Appropriate name.

Social Credit said they'd end the non-elected boards and commissions in governments. There's the Workers' Compensation Board. Why, our other ex-Liberal who like to stay clean of politics, Mr. Speaker, now that he's elevated to such a high post as the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), would never indulge in politics. He just fired Mr. Ison and then says publicly: "Well, I'm having a little trouble getting someone to take over because it's become political."

AN HON. MEMBER: Prince Charlie.

MR. BARRETT: Who made it political, — Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker, for a lawyer, that is just like going out and murdering your mother and father and then when you appear in court pleading that you're an orphan and asking for mercy of the court! (Laughter.) And yet he's the one who caused the trouble in the Workers' Compensation Board and he's there quietly awaiting his chance to slip into the Premier's seat. Oh, yes. Yes, yes, there is a Cassius there, my friends. Yes, yes, we know who Cassius is; we're riot quite sure who will fill the role of Brutus, but I'm sure that one of those fellows will clutch the dagger to his breast and rush in and do the deed when it needs to be done. There's nothing like unbridled Liberal ambition to be the motivating factor.

What was that, Mr. Former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald), about ambition that Lady Macbeth said, 'round such a murder? "Glamis thou art, and Cawdor; and shalt be...."?

MR. MACDONALD: "Thou shalt be what thou art promised."

MR. BARRETT: "Thou shalt be what thou art promised." Is that the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams)? "What thou wouldst highly, that thou wouldst holily." Don't you remember that? "Art not without ambition but lack the...the means to catch the nearest way." "What thou wouldst highly, that thou wouldst holily." I remember that.

MR. LEA: What was the next line?

MR. BARRETT: And what was the line about "catching the nearest way...and the evilness to do it." It's all been written up before, both in Macbeth and in Julius Caesar.

AN HON. MEMBER: And Hamlet.

MR. BARRETT: Hamlet is different, my friend. That was that famous quote when Hamlet told Ophelia to beat it. Do you remember that? "Get thee to a nunnery." That's what happened to the former chairman of the caucus. (Laughter.)

Oh, yes, I'm glad I brought that up. I almost neglected to mention that. Yes, lovely Ophelia who did graciously govern the Socred back benches, who used to make expansive speeches about the dangers of socialism in all of her statements. Not saying a word today. Hasn't said a word at all. Didn't even make it to the cabinet for all her good work. Is that honourable to leave that lady member out of the cabinet while the lady member for Vancouver–Little Mountain made it good? One was working outside and one was working inside. There's a prejudice in favour of the outside workers. (Laughter.) I suggest you appeal to the Labour Relations Board, lady member; maybe they will help you.

Then there's the Land Commission. Do you remember that? Oh, horror of horrors! A government in British Columbia had the guts to say that we're not going to develop land any more. We're going to save agriculture land for agriculture purposes. Oh, that was a Moscow plot, Mr. Speaker, if there ever was one! That was when the government was accused of trying to pack up all the land in a box and send it to Moscow. SMI — smear, muckraking and innuendo I'll never forget, hour after hour after hour of screaming hysteria from Social Credit saying what a terrible thing the land bill was. Oh, oh! The pathetic performance of speaker after speaker.

"Why, " they said, "we're going to keep it non-political." That's what they said. I want to tell you that it hasn't been non-political since they've taken over. Why, they've named some people to the board. One of them is Mr. Singh, and he did exactly

[ Page 49 ]

that — he sung. This is what Mr. Singh sung. He said: "I am a Social Credit member. I am satisfied with the work of the commission members fired by the government." He was not the only one satisfied — the public was satisfied. But he went on the board and he said: "There's room for everything if we plan properly."

Then there were other changes on that board. Member after member were taken off. There's no need to go through the list of all of them. One of them was Allan Claridge. He made some fantastically terrible remarks about the Land Commission. Oh, what he had to say about the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stupich) would be enough to turn that suit blue!

But then let's listen to what the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) said before the changes. This was what he said. On January 8, 1976, our new Minister of the Environment said the following words: frankly, he has no idea why he's been chosen for the portfolio. Well, he's not alone. We had no idea either, because he has no background or any particular interest in the field.

MR. LEA: Leave Fonzie alone! (Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: He's gone to change his suit.

That's what he said, Mr. Speaker. His executive assistant.... Oh, Mr. Speaker, that is an executive assistant. Four years ago that was known as a political hack. Yes, SMI labelled all executive assistants "hacks," but now they're "executive assistants." So it's changed now, gang. Get it straight. He's not a political hack, he's an executive assistant.

He was asked what experience he has in the environmental matters. He said: "Nothing, but who has? It's quite new." Even Cyril Shelford has got more experience than that. He at least knows how to spread manure all over the place, not in just one locale. A wonderful team: no background, no interest, no knowledge. What a group!

This is what that same minister said when he was a failure as a candidate for office. I hate to do this, to quote the former minister, but it's important to carry the thrust of this particular minister and a description of his duties. He said, in The Vancouver Sun, December 23, 1975: "Neilsen said" — and you have to lower your tones because after all, it is a radio hotline background that brings the expertise necessary — "he still believes that politicians should not always be honest and candid with the public. 'You can't afford to be completely honest with the people,' said Nielsen. 'There are a large number of people out there who want to be bribed and conned."' That's what a minister of the Crown said.

AN HON. MEMBER: And he still believes them.

MR. BARRETT: He has no qualifications on the environment, but we sure know his political qualifications. He knows how to be a cabinet minister: bribe and con the people, don't tell them the truth. Look who he's sitting next to: none other than that sanctimonious ex-Liberal who likes to keep everything clean and above board. There he is saying, "The public like to be bribed and conned." Here's an excerpt from the Prince George Citizen. I don't like to bring these things up, Mr. Speaker, because other newspapers might follow and copy some of these things, and the impression might get out that the minister is a little bit of a superficial character. Why, it says here in the Prince George Citizen:

"The following is a near-verbatim exchange between a reporter from The Citizen and Environment minister Jim Nielsen. This exchange took place in the lobby and the elevator of the Inn of the North. As an opener the reporter introduced himself.

'Mr. Nielsen, we have received word from Victoria that the Land Commission, all but the chairman, have been sacked.'

'Who wants to know?'

That's what he said: "Who wants to know?'

'The wire service.'

'The wire service can go to hell.'

'Did you sack the commission?'

'Who says I did?'

'Two members say they got letters and your man, press officer John Arnett, did not deny it.'

'That's perfectly correct. He doesn't have any right to comment on anything like that.'

'But you have. You are the minister involved. Is it a fact that you fired these men?'

'What men?'

'The Land Commission.'

'No comment.'

'Then it's true?'

'No comment.'

'Why did they get sacked?'

'The first answer answers that. Don't you know what "no comment" means?'

'Come on, Mr. Nielsen, you were a radio man. You know what "no comment" means. Did you fire those men?'

'No comment.'

'Thank you, sir, for nothing.'

''If you were smarter you would have gotten more.'"

End of dialogue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: Well, it's a now form of rating with the politicians and an interviewer. It's known as

[ Page 50 ]

the Nielsen rating: no comment, no comment, no comment.

MR. KING: Arrogance.

MR. BARRETT: No, no, no. It's not arrogance. You have to be intelligent to be arrogant. It's obvious the promised end to commissions and boards will never be fulfilled and end the political appointments.

What are some other promises? I'll go through some of them very quickly. There was a local taxpayers' property tax — an extra $68 million off in 1977. That's what they were promised.

Here's a page out the Vancouver Province. It says: "Taxpayers to Shell Out $68 Million More for Schools." Now I've learned something in observing Social Credit for a year: it is doublethink and doublespeak. If they say they are doing one thing, you can be sure they're doing the opposite. If they are planning to go in one direction, you know they are going in the other. Here's a picture here of a smiling candidate. "Bill Bennett's Way," it says. "No property taxes on homes of those 65 and over." You see this one?

I want to establish something here and now before I go any further: did the Premier authorize any single one of these newspaper ads? Just nod your head, Mr. Premier. It's not MSI, it's just a matter of responsibility — not muck, not smear, not innuendo.

MR. KING: "No comment," he says.

MR. BARRETT: Did you authorize any one of these ads, or were they all done by a public relations team so that you would never have to read them, never be responsible for them, or deny them if someone asked you a question about it? It's very important.

MR. KING: He'll give you Nielsen's answers.

MR. BARRETT: Well, if the Premier doesn't want to answer, later on I'm going to have to read some of his answers about some of his other political ads. There hasn't been any action on this: property taxes are going up and school taxes are going up.

Oh, yes, remember they had to do a full study on the B.C. Ferries? I remember that one. Why, they studied them right out of existence, practically — a deficit in the ferries this year and a reduction in the number of people travelling.

Oh! Remove the 5 per cent sales tax on building materials. That was a promise in the campaign, and while I was away this MSI group over here attempted to hold the Premier to his promise. They put an amendment to the budget, saying that they wanted to remove the sales tax, and Social Credit moved it up to 7 per cent. They increased everything for everybody, except for the mining companies.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a disastrous year in almost every field to which this government addressed itself in the election campaign. I'd like to quote what they say in the housing field about this government. Mr. Richards, the president of the Vancouver Real Estate Board, says in a real estate forecast of Western Living that the residential market is suffering a lack of affordable housing. One of the promises by Social Credit was a house that everyone could afford. Mr. Tom Boyle, the president of Macaulay, Nicolls, Maitland, said that the economic climate of British Columbia is poorer than in the other provinces.

Are these the doom-and-gloom boys who are SMI, Mr. Speaker? Why, they're businessmen who, in most instances, supported this government.

Mr. Spooner — Mr. Spooner, not Mr. Speaker — said that the housing crisis in our province, and on the lower mainland in particular, has alleviated very little, if at all, during the past 12 months. "A housing crisis may be considered to be at hand when a large segment of our population can afford to neither purchase or rent the accommodation that is available." On and on and on; comments about housing, comments about the economy.

Why, he even promised to renegotiate the Columbia River Treaty. They almost gave away the only leverage we have left, and that's bargaining on diversion. He wasn't even aware of that, Mr. Speaker, when he made that statement, but then he changed his mind two days later on the way back to Victoria.

He also said that he'd sell the shares of the B.C. Telephone Company now owned by the government, and use the proceeds for social services. That's what he said. Is that muck? Is that smear? Is that innuendo? Mr. Speaker, he didn't even know enough to know that they cannot turn those funds over to general revenue, that the shares belong to the public service superannuation fund. Are you saying that you intended to take those funds out of superannuation and put them in general revenue? Of course not.

These can go on and on and on. But I think it's important just to deal with one to give you one real example of how this government and its Premier deal on two sides of the street on one issue. In an election ad in the Prince Rupert Daily News the Premier had his name put onto the following promises: the British Columbia Social Credit Party policy statement on Canadian Cellulose — that's for the working people in Rupert. Oh, yes, you can laugh, Mr. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, the election's over. It doesn't really matter what you say in an election: say anything; promise anything.

MR. COCKE: Just give us their pay.

[ Page 51 ]

MR. BARRETT: Yes, just give us their pay. This is what the Premier put his name to — that's his name, Bill Bennett. "B.C. Social Credit Party makes the following commitments and guarantees: we commit ourselves to the continuing operation of the Watson Island pulp mill complex on the present scale and guarantee that the operations will not be curtailed." Do you remember reading that, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert?

MR. LEA: They're all out of work now.

MR. BARRETT: And all those people in Prince Rupert read this Social Credit ad and said that Bill Bennett will not close down the pulp mill.

"We guarantee that the proposed multi-million-dollar expansion and conversion to kraft will have our emphatic endorsation and active support." Yes, Mr. Speaker, we find that when the government decided to renege on this promise, the Premier's selective memory came into operation. Oh, yes, he has a selective memory. Selective memory — SM, not I.

First, he could not remember the ad — that's his first line. Remember? He remembered it but he could not recall whether or not he authorized it. "Oh, I don't remember that ad, uh-huh. Yes. Oh, yes, that's my name. Right. Oh, I recall it now but I don't think I authorized it." "Is anyone authorized to use your name?" "Oh, uh-huh. Yes, well, I'll look into that."

Next, he agreed he had sent telegrams to the Prince Rupert Socred candidate on the subject. Oh, selective memory! Drip, drip, drip — it comes out. Finally, he agreed that the wording of his telegrams could have resulted in the wording of the advertisements. An incredible performance for a man who had already made it as Premier!

"I don't remember the ad, but now that you recall it, I recall it. Oh, yes, it had my name on the bottom but I don't know if I authorized it."

"Oh, here are the telegrams you sent."

"Oh, yes, I remember those telegrams. Oh-huh, I guess you could connect the ad to me, but not directly. It is only my name and it is only a promise I made. I want everybody to understand, when I make a promise, it's not directly connected with me, it's directly connected with politics. What I say really does not make any difference because that's politics. What I really mean is what I have not said yet, but I have not said anything yet because that's politics and I've got to determine that after I checked with what I referred to on the first part after I have been there — the second part."

AN HON. MEMBER: Again.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I can say it again and it will be just as confusing. I don't know about this province gaining a Premier, but they sure lost a good lawyer. What a defence mechanism!

"I did not say that."

"Oh, yes, you did."

"Oh, well, I just sent a telegram."

"No, I didn't see that."

"Well...."

"Yes it was me after all. That's my name, Bill Bennett. I am sorry if there has been confusion."

AN HON. MEMBER: Say you're sorry.

MR. BARRETT: No, he didn't say.... There's been confusion. That's the ad, that's his picture, that's his name: "I pledge not to close the mill." Those hundreds of workers are now looking for jobs today all over this country. Mr. Premier, if you are going to make announcements like that, please do us a favour. Don't promise any more decisions like that — it has hurt too many people.

Oh, yes. There was a promise that was kept in full, and that was to reduce...to take away all the mineral royalties, change the Mineral Royalties Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: "Hear, hear!" says that would-be Socred who was stopped from jumping the fence by a whiff of scandal. He was almost there in the corral until a grizzly chased him away. (Laughter.) Yes, he was almost there.

He's been stumping the province, getting himself clothed in sheep's clothing like the other Liberals to join the wolves. Yes, he was attacking the NDP. Oh, bad, bad, bad! Oh, yes, he was badmouthing the NDP, ignoring what the auditor-general was saying in Ottawa about the Liberals. After all, what's a little piledriving?

Oh, yes, there was the Liberal all ready to jump in the corral. What happened? The bear bit him. (Laughter.) But he is still edging up. He is waiting for nightfall and sniffing around the corral for a chance to get in. The way he'll get in, Mr. Speaker, is by saying: "I'll be a good boy. I won't hurt the mining companies one little bit."

AN HON. MEMBER: He'll get in when the Wolfes leave. (Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: You know the first guy who will go if he gets over there? One of the last to make it in the cabinet by his fingernails. Clawing, scratching, he finally made it back as the reward for all his years work — none other than the hon. member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) who is the great fighter for jobs in B.C. — those great speeches he made in opposition, saying he was going to provide jobs and security.

[ Page 52 ]

For a whole year he was kept out while they waited for the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) to jump into the corral. He missed his timing, his foot slipped, the grizzly got him and Chabot is in the cabinet today. How fate works!

MR. GIBSON: You're okay, Jim. (Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: Okay for a couple of weeks. Poor, poor member for North Vancouver. Everything was going along great until a little bit of the smell wafted to his nostrils..

You would have joined that bunch. You would have joined that bunch while there are some of them over there who have been so right-wing they think that the Cincinnati Reds are a trouble-making group in that city. (Laughter.) It's unbelievable. But of course, one will do anything for one's advancement, I suppose.

Then it goes on and they relieve the mining industry. Oh, they left the mining industry alone. The mining industries are crying, except for Craigmont, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to remind you and the people of British Columbia just exactly what the royalty is worth. In the old days, under NDP, people paid a 5 per cent sales tax. Because we wanted to be fair, because we thought it was the right thing to do, we said: "If the ordinary citizens pay a 5 per cent sales tax, so should the mining companies." Don't you think that's fair, Mr. Speaker, if they are going to take the resources out of the ground — that they pay a 5 per cent royalty? Oh, terms, conditions — sputter, sputter, sputter.

MR. GIBSON: Birds and fish! Birds and fish!

MR. BARRETT: You know, Mr. Speaker, if the people pay 5 per cent, the mining companies should pay it too. So we passed a bill saying that the mining companies should pay 5 per cent — equivalent to the sales tax — as a royalty. Social Credit wiped it out when they burnped up the sales tax to 7 per cent. Those mining companies were crying, crying, crying, while Craigmont announced its profit had increased in 1976 by $314,000.. That poor little mining company!

I hope that the people of British Columbia will understand that they've got to pay extra taxes. The profits of Craigmont Mines — net profit, net profit.... From 1970 to 1976, the net profit from Craigmont Mines has been $35.5 million, and this poverty-stricken little company can't afford to pay its 5 per cent sales tax like the rest of you peons out there who don't understand that you say one thing in election and do another thing after you've been a government. Then if the opposition criticizes, just say, "MSI."

Moody's Industrials Manual and Financial Post show that Craigmont Mines made in 1970 $5.2 million profit; '71, $2.9 million; '72, $2.5 million; 1973, when the NDP was in office, the highest year of profit by Craigmont, $10 million. We asked them for 5 per cent — nasty, terrible, ruining the value of the ore right there in the accountant's book. Nineteen seventy-four, $7.4 million; 1975, $3.6 million; 1976, $3.9 million. No royalty, no royalty.

The giveaway gang got back and they gave it to the mining companies. Now we see those lovely commercials on television brought to you by the mining industry of British Columbia. You see them all: "Choo, choo, choo" go the trains, and the lovely houses, and people diving in pools and saying, "What a wonderful thing the mining industry's doing for you." While you pay, you pay, and you pay, the mining industry gets away without paying its share.

Right over there is the former Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland). There he is — nice fellow, nice fellow. I never knew he was a social worker, Mr. Speaker.

When we came to power, the royalty on coal was 10 to 25 cents a ton. We got it up to 50 cents, then to $1, then to $1.50. We ship out 11 million tons of coal every year from British Columbia. We are fantastic.

The royalty on coal was to go up to $2.50 in April of last year. It was announced in 1975 that it would go up. The mining companies knew it and they were prepared to pay it — $1 more a ton.

Last June I asked that minister over there. I said: "Mr. Minister, the companies say they can afford to pay it. The ferry rates have gone, income tax has gone up, sales tax has gone up..."

MR. KING: Hospitals.

MR. BARRETT: "...hospital premiums have gone up. All we've asked is that the coal companies pay the dollar that they've already agreed to pay. Can they afford to pay it?"

He sat over there and he said, "Oh, yes. They can afford to pay it."

"Well, are you going to collect it?"

He said: "Well, uh, it's under review."

MR. KING: Another Fagin.

MR. BARRETT: They never reviewed the ferry rates — bang, it was done; they never reviewed the income tax — bang, it was done; they never reviewed the sales tax — bang, it was done. But Cominco, Fording, and Kaiser, they get a review.

Now my friend talks about Fagin and reviewing the situation. I think you're wrong; you've got the wrong character. It's the Artful Dodger.

MR. KING: That's the mining companies.

[ Page 53 ]

MR. BARRETT: There they are, Mr. Speaker, protecting the mining industry of this province, which is willing, able and ready to pay another dollar a ton. They've said: "Okay, gang. Stash the $11 million. Forget it. You don't have to pay it; we'll sock it to the people. Then we'll go on television with our commercials and say the NDP hurt the mining industry."

Please, Mr. Speaker, hurt me that way. I'd like $11 million. I'd say I'd been hurt. What a joke they play on the people of this province by saying that the mining companies can afford to pay it, the coal can afford to pay it, but you pay it first and the mining companies don't have to pay at all. Eleven million bucks in the pockets of the coal mining companies — not a new royalty, not a new increase, one that was already agreed to and now forgiven by Social Credit as a reward for being nice during the election.

Someone suggested to me that the mining companies had given Social Credit money for their campaigns. Who would think such a thing? Who would connect the benefit of the mining companies to the tune of $11 million with campaign funds? Not I. As a matter of fact, to dispel this vicious rumour, Mr. Speaker, that comes under the heading of SMI, I challenge Social Credit to open their campaign books, put them out publicly and show us where they got their money from. Was there any money from the coal companies? Was there? Let's find out! — $11 million.

Well, Mr. Speaker, enough of the promises. Why rake up those promises now, because this government has adopted an age-old philosophy that politicians understand better than anyone else: why ruin a good promise by doing something about it? All of these promises will be trotted out at the next election campaign and they will say: we will do this for you, we will do that for you. Vote for us. Vote for me. Stop socialism because it's hurting the mining companies. Well, well, well.

Then we go on to the economy, and we examine the statements made by the head of this government, the Premier of this province — some of the statements he's made over the last year after the Social Credit policies have devastated the economy of this province. In the Vancouver Province on November 26,1976, Premier Bill Bennett said: "B.C. Is moving well. We've got B.C. turned around and I'm more optimistic than I've ever been before." Premier Bill Bennett said that on November 26 in the Vancouver Province. Then he said in The Vancouver Sun.... Oh, here's another one from the Vancouver Province, when he was back in Ottawa. Listen to this.

Now for goodness' sake, if there's a reporter in here, I want him to put down his pen because I don't want this to get out to the citizens. Everybody take a coffee break because I don't want anyone to be embarrassed.

This is what the Premier said. He didn't have the nerve to say it in British Columbia; he said it in Toronto, hoping that no one would ever say anything. In Toronto he said that his government's policies have been for the people. He said he has tried throughout his year in office to provide new initiatives in B.C. to allow people to keep money in their own hands. That's what he said in Toronto!

Among these initiatives is the increase in sales tax by 40 per cent — does that help to keep money in your pocket? Increased personal income tax by 6 per cent — does that help you all? Increased taxes on the sick — medicare premiums up 50 per cent, hospital insurance up 300 per cent. Does that help you all? Increased ferry rates,100 per cent. How much money have you got left in your pocket? We're still working on it. Increased hydro rates, 11 per cent; increased natural gas rates, 9.5 per cent; increased campground fees,100 per cent — but now if you're over 65, you can sleep there.

MR. KING: ICBC.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, ICBC — 100 to 300 per cent. Allotment rents increased 100 per cent. Well over half a billion dollars out of the taxpayers' pockets in this province, and he says in Toronto that his policies are to keep money in people's pockets.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which people?

MR. LEA: Another bill to pay.

MR. BARRETT: Also at a federal-provincial conference he said the following words: "Some of the provinces came in on their knees, waiting for the scraps to fall off the table." Now, Mr. Speaker, imagine what would happen if a labour leader in this province said: "I am going into bargaining standing up on my two feet and I won't get down on my knees and wait for the scraps to fall off the table. None of that negotiating for me, no siree-Bob."

The Premier and this government would be the first to attack any labour leader who made such a statement. But he goes to a federal conference and he said that he's helped the people of this province, and he said: "Some of the provinces are going into this conference on their knees, waiting for the scraps off the table." What provinces? What provinces are you making that accusation against, Mr. Speaker? Who was the Premier talking about? What calumny is he broadcasting on what province for going in on its knees? Not he! Oh, no! Lord help us when labour or management take that position in this province, saying: "We're not going to negotiate on our knees. We're going to get everything we can." That's exactly what he's saying. He attacked the other provinces for that attitude and said that he went in there to get

[ Page 54 ]

everything he could, and not on his knees, no siree-Bob. And you wait till we have another labour crisis in this province. The first one to come winging in with words about not bargaining for so much, not demanding so much, will be the Premier of this province.

MR. KING: "Exercise restraint."

MR. BARRETT: Exercise restraint, caution. His own words don't mirror that, but he forgets that sometimes they report what you say back there, Mr. Premier. He said that....

Oh, yes, there is a bit of a sort of a doubletalk in what the Premier says. We've seen already that more initiatives are on the way. There's already been a new increase in Hydro rates and in natural gas rates. The Premier says that the Crown corporations make their own decisions; they don't stand for election.

What about the question of nuclear power, Mr. Speaker? We've had different and conflicting statements from the Premier on that. Mr. Bonner says that we are going to have nuclear power. The Premier denies that he ordered them to look into nuclear power. Which is it, Mr. Speaker? What is the truth? Is the Premier in favour of nuclear power, or isn't he? Has he authorized Hydro to investigate nuclear power, or hasn't he? Is Hydro committed in any way to going ahead with nuclear power, or aren't they? Does the Premier know? Does the Premier care? The Crown corporation makes its own decisions and goes in its own direction but, Mr. Speaker, when they announced the pipeline for a $100 million expansion in the north, that was different.

You see, Mr. Speaker, I'll let you in on a secret: when there's the good news the Premier decides that and announces it; when there's the bad news the Crown corporation's board of directors decides it and announces it. That's it for simple observers in the public on how the government determines its policy: good news is announced by the Premier; bad news is announced by the board of governors. Who announced the $100 million pipeline in the Grizzly Valley? Not the board of directors but the Premier!

MR. KING: He says it's good.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, and then on top of that, when he was questioned as to the delay in terms of share trading — which we will not discuss, Mr. Speaker — he said that the Petroleum Corporation had no authority to make that — announcement. Oh! The Crown corporation can settle out of court on the railroad; the Crown corporation can announce nuclear power. That's bad news. The Crown corporation can announce increases in power rates and gas rates. That's bad news. But when he wants to announce what he thinks is good news, he announces it, Mr. Speaker. He selects politically where his policy will be established. He is very, very political. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what he is supposed to be, only he's doing it selectively: bad news time, the other boys' turn; good news time, my turn, and if you get out of turn I'm going to stomp on my little feet!

The Premier said he's turned the economy around. He certainly has. He turned it from a not bad economy into a recession and a depression. Mr. Speaker, I want to quote to you from the economic review tabled and given to the public by the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the Social Credit Minister of Economic Development.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, I don't know. It isn't in handwriting on the back of a cheque so his assistant couldn't have written it, Mr. Member.

MR. KING: Did Ellis write it?

MR. BARRETT: No, he was only there two days.

MR. KING: Ohhh!

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Shorthand? (Laughter.)

MR. KING: Was Ellis fired?

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Speaker, how lightly they jest. Ohhh, and it's so serious that this government would never get caught playing games like that — not this clean little group of sweeties. No, no, you shouldn't make comments like that, Mr. Member, it's under SMI — Smear, Muck and Innuendo. You don't want to do that. That's only when Social Credit makes unfounded, unbased charges against the NDP.

This is what the Economic Development report said:

"The British Columbia economy withstood the shocks of world recession and major work stoppages in '75 surprisingly well. Personal income growth estimated at 6 per cent was the major factor contributing to an anticipated 10 per cent nominal growth in the provincial product. Attesting to the relative strength of the provincial economy is the fact that employment increased by approximately 3 per cent with the net addition of 29,000 jobs over the previous year."

That's 29,000 new jobs between '74 and '75 — a report filed by Social Credit quietly, signed by that Minister, saying that 1975 had a gain of 29,000 jobs under the NDP. "Average weekly industrial wages increased by 15 per cent. The level of capital and

[ Page 55 ]

repair spending in British Columbia was estimated at $5.7 billion under the NDP or 9 per cent over 1974," filed and signed and praised by the Minister of Economic Development about the NDP's last year in office. "The dollar value of shipments by manufacturing establishments rose to $7.13 billion under the NDP" — signed, tabled, by the Minister of Economic Development.

It goes on to say: "The value of mineral production in '75, estimated at $1.223 billion, was above the '74 level." On and on and on. "There was a balance in gained receipts from agricultural products of 2 per cent to $373 million from $366 million." That was the NDP's last year in office.

It's a document filed as an economic review by the minister sitting over there, Mr. Speaker, and I recall seeing it in headlines in all the major papers, and editorials in all the major papers, saying what a wonderful last year the NDP had. If you missed it, I'm sure it was in the Sun and The Province. If you missed it, I'm sure it was banner headlines on the financial pages saying: "Social Credit proves the NDP last year was great — they signed the report." If you missed it I'll give you a copy of the report, but I'm sure it will be the subject of a feature story on the editorial page of The Vancouver Sun or the Vancouver Province. Don't you think so, Mr. Speaker? Those great radical newspapers that support the NDP will have this report tabled by the minister.

Mr. Speaker, here's another ad in the paper. I don't know if he's responsible for this one or not. He didn't sign this one. He just put his picture on it. So it's different. If you just put your picture on it it ain't yours. But put your name on it and it ain't yours because you forgot whether you sent the wire to give them the message to put it in the telegram, to put it in the wording for the ad for the election, if you follow what I mean. But this one has his picture on it. Anyone could recognize that picture.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, no, no, Mr. Member. Anyone can recognize that picture. They have a hard time bringing up the light on the bottom part. It cost $1,000 to do him up right on television for that Thanksgiving turkey. Do you remember that? The people of this province spent $1,000 to bring up the light.

Here it is: "100,000 people out of work. Can we afford the Barrett way?" Thank you very much. Any advertising is good advertising. You had the decency to spell my name right.

Unemployment is the most serious issue of this election." Ha, ha, ha! It's all a joke now, isn't it, Mr. Minister of Labour? It's all a joke, the election's over.

"The Barrett government, in attacking and restricting the major industries of this province, has succeeded in destroying economic growth. On December 11 remember 100,000 men and women out of work. Vote Social Credit."

What was the truth, Mr. Speaker? By the government's own statistics in December of 1975 there were 82,000 people out of work, not 100,000. It is one year later. There are now 92,000 people out of work in British Columbia — 10,000 more.

MS. SANFORD: And more.

MR. BARRETT: More than 1,000 more a month.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Eighteen per cent in my riding.

MR. BARRETT: Eighteen per cent in your riding, Mr. Member. That's the pledge of Social Credit — 1,000 jobs a month down the tube under Social Credit and that's the record, and he said that it's the most important election issue of all. Unemployment went from 7.8 per cent in 1975 to 8.2 per cent in December, 1976, and every single policy under Social Credit has added to that unemployment figure. The seasonally adjusted rate went from 7.9 per cent in 1975 to 8.8 per cent in 1976, Mr. Speaker. All of these unemployed people read this ad, and there has been a huge increase in unemployment directly attributable to Social Credit policies.

"Can we afford the Barrett way?" I'll tell you it's a lot better than the Bennett way. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it's all in good fun because it's an election time. Yes, did you say those things? Throw them out, 'cause people won't remember. Social Credit has been a disaster for the working people of this province. I remember, Mr. Speaker, when the Premier was the Leader of the Opposition, how he used to rant, rave, wave his arms and talk about unemployment and jobs. He hasn't had much to say about it lately, Mr. Speaker.

And the tragedy is that unemployment will even continue to rise. There has not been one single, positive move by this government to stimulate the economy of this province. Even the 8,000 people laid off during December for the forest curtailment did not show up in those figures, and it is my prediction that unemployment will rise again next month — directly attributable to the fact that Social Credit has taken no initiatives in the economy. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you one of those most dangerous and provoking statistics within this unemployment figure. The unemployment rate between the age group of 19 and 24 is 19.6 per cent — almost 20 per cent of all people between the ages of 19 and 24, one out of five, are looking for jobs. Mr. Speaker, one out of five people between the ages of 19 and 24 looking for jobs — available for jobs — is a social calamity and social dynamite, Mr. Speaker. The expectations, the

[ Page 56 ]

desires, the legitimate goals of the young people of this province who want to participate, who want to work and have made themselves available to work, are being frustrated by a government that has not shown one single initiative at putting people to work. And it does not help psychologically to have a government in office that makes statements in cliche form about people getting a shovel.

We have an extremely serious situation in this province and we cannot go through these next few months without seeing some of the consequences of this high unemployment rate in a volatile group in our society. You cannot tell young people to go to school and finish school. You cannot tell them to work hard and seek jobs when one out of five can't find a job, Mr. Speaker. They are told by television, radio and politicians that they have expectations of cars, homes and clothes. When those expectations are not met, what other course will they follow to get those material goods?

Oh, yes, there is a difference between democratic socialism and capitalism, and no more is there a glaring example of the gap between your philosophy and ours in that you are laissez faire and you say the rich must be taken care of; let the poor scramble. Within a matter. of days the philosophy of your government was stated through the minister responsible for ICBC (Hon. Mr. McGeer) when, like Marie Antoinette, he said: "Let them sell their cars."

You don't care, Mr. Speaker, and you won't show an iota of concern until just a few months before the next election when cynicism will overcome you again and you will trot out these ads and mislead the people again in an attempt to hang onto power to protect the large corporate entities that are benefiting from your policies. The coal companies: $11 million of a downy cushion to protect their gentle heads while our people are out there at a level of unemployment in this age group that rivals the great Depression, while there is a deaf ear here in government under a coalition representing the self-same centralized interests that have dominated this province's history for 9 7 of its 100 years.

You don't give a fig about the people. You don't care about these unemployed. They are just a message I in an election ad, to be used or dismissed when you think it's necessary to benefit yourselves politically. c

What is the succour granted to the people, Mr. Speaker? Why, there is a line in the throne speech that gives a message to the hard-pressed wealthy in British Columbia not to fear, gang, when you go on t to the world of never-never land. Your estate is going to be saved; it won't be taxed anymore. I predict that one of the major pieces of legislation brought in during this session will be the removal of succession duty and gift tax. Yes, for all you people out there who've been worried about the gift tax, rest well tonight in British Columbia. We know that thousands — yea, tens of thousands — of you last year gave your wife or husband a gift of over $10,000. Yes, Mr. Speaker, that's the only gift that can be taxed. The oppressive laws under the social democrats said that any gift over $10,000 should be taxed. I know that this gallery is filled with people today who last year gave or received a gift of over $10,000 from their husband or wife, and never asked for a simple reason why they gave them that gift.

Yes, and the succession duty tax that exempts to almost $.25 million before it's taxed: that will be repealed. The wealthy will be taken care of, and the excuse will be that they're going to reinvest in British Columbia. I remember the word of W.A.C. Bennett, the former Premier of this province who brought in succession duties and said that the rich should pay their fair share.

MR. KING: Right. If they wouldn't stay in the province, let them go. They were not good enough citizens.

MR. BARRETT: That's right. The former Premier, my predecessor, said that if they didn't want to pay their fair share, let them leave British Columbia; they weren't being good citizens anyway.

MR. KING: He had a conscience.

MR. BARRETT: No, he lost his conscience at the Kelowna Charter, my friend. Just three months before the 1972 election, the former Premier announced that if he was elected he would do away with succession duties. He brought it in in May, and said he was going to take it away in June. Oh, the son has learned well, Mr. Speaker: whip them and then take away the whip.

MR. KING: Sins of the father visited upon the son.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, while these people unemployed, while the wealthy will be taken care of, while the mining companies, which my Liberal friend from North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) loves and praises, don't pay their fair share, that money is not being invested. If you're not going to collect the $11 million, at least have the decency to order that that money be reinvested in British Columbia to provide jobs for British Columbians. What are businessmen saying about the fact that here's no employment, that the economy is crippled by Social Credit? What are businessmen in this province saying? Joseph Segal, president of Field's Stores, said in his report to shareholders, May 28, 1976:

"Consumer spending in British Columbia was affected by both economic conditions and government action. Motor vehicle premiums were increased substantially, and this alone had

[ Page 57 ]

the effect of eliminating a large amount of consumer spending in British Columbia in the first quarter of 1976. This had a major impact on our retail stores and resulted in a sales growth of only 5 per cent in our B.C. stores — this in sharp contrast to an increase of 21 per cent in Alberta."

Joseph Segal of Field's Stores.

C.N. Woodward of Woodward's Stores said on June 24:

"Retail business is flat and the feeling is that we won't come out of the slump in 1976. The ICBC increase in auto insurance premiums and the recent increase in retail sales tax to 7 per cent took about $500 million out of the consumers' income in this province."

B.C. Employers' Council — this is not a New Democratic Party group, Mr. Speaker. The B.C. Employers' Council is not a front group with the New Democratic Party; I want to dispel that rumour before it starts. On August 5 the council issued what the Victoria Colonist called a dismal economic forecast for Canada's third-largest province. Among other things, the council forecast capital expansion outlays to remain relatively unchanged over the next 12 months. Bill Hamilton, president of the council, says that the business community is pessimistic about the future — and well they should be. This government has taken not one single step to stimulate capital investment in this province, and has taken out hundreds of millions of dollars from consuming spending that would normally circulate in the community, providing employment and income for significant numbers of people.

Fred Moonen, well known to all the members of this House, vice-president of the Council of Forest Industries, said: "As far as our own outlook for the balance of the year is concerned, we're not terribly optimistic. Looking at our industry I would not expect to be looking at a spurt in the economy."

The B.C. Chamber of Commerce, another non-NDP group, said: "In some areas of the province it is virtually impossible to obtain general insurance, particularly for rental accommodation, mobile homes and new properties.

What about this, Mr. Speaker? No concern, no commitment! The B.C. Federation of Agriculture, not even mentioned in the throne speech, say that fruit and vegetable farming is in a disastrous state, and the Socreds' performance in agriculture is disappointing.

On and on and on it goes, Mr. Speaker. When they mention that the mining companies should be taken care of, they went out of their way to take them. And they attacked that former minister who is now sitting in the gallery, Mr. Leo Nimsick — the only mining minister who had the nerve to put a 5 per cent sales tax on the mining companies. They said, oh, he was terrible.

Look at the consequences of their particular policies. In November the economic disaster story started to speed up. On November 3, the headline in the Vancouver Province was: "Restaurants Going Broke Faster Than Ever: a 30 per cent drop in business in the summer." S. Medill of Nanaimo announced that they decided to build a new plant in Portland, Oregon, instead of Nanaimo. In The Vancouver Sun, November 27: foreclosures on mortgages have doubled in the last 12 months. Some help the people hang onto their homes, Mr. Speaker! Foreclosures on mortgages have doubled in 12 months in British Columbia under Social Credit. People are losing their homes every single day, where there's no assistance for them. "And it's likely to double again," says The Vancouver Sun.

MR. KING: They really turned the province around!

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Member, you're absolutely right. The relief for that is in the throne speech: if you're over 65, you get to sleep free in the parks. There is some relief. I want to thank you for reminding me of that great social step. All those 85-year-old friends of mine who go out camping were absolutely delighted with the announcement of that policy.

Then on December I came the first massive layoffs in the forest industry, after the Premier made the statement that the economy is all right, that everything is turned around. We've completed the janitorial job; Social Credit is the answer. Everything is dandy, okey-dokey, No. 1.

He even had the Liberal leader convinced, almost — as I related earlier. Not the Tory — he's been that route before. (Laughter.) Not the Tory boy. He's been inside Social Credit; he established what level of smell he could stand. He walked out. I don't blame you, Mr. Member. I don't blame you, Mr. Member. It isn't saying much for the Liberals sitting over there, that they're still there.

You know, sometimes I sit down over a cup of coffee, Mr. Speaker, and I get a little smile on my face, and I think about those vicious speeches made by the two members for Vancouver–Point Grey and the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound about Social Credit. Oh, the moving hand, having written, moves on.

And how the siren calls out for the other Liberal leader: "Come on over."

MR. GIBSON: No way. (Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: Come on over, blue rover. Ali, yes, yes, yes, we have our own little games in here.

People outside, who might be serious and who

[ Page 58 ]

take politics seriously, and who look upon politicians as cynical and not telling the truth, and making political promises, are being misled, Mr. Speaker. They should know that Social Credit believes in that as a humorous approach: don't tell the truth; make false promises; say anything that's necessary, and see who we can suck in. We got in three Liberals, and now we want one more — and he was almost there.

The Liberal ship is going down the tube in Ottawa. How does a ship go down the tube? (Laughter.) The Liberals are going down the tube. Yes, yes.

MR. KING: What do you think they caught him on? A worm or a...?

MR. BARRETT: I don't know. They caught him on a hook. The hook came from W.A.C. at the Union Club like that. He pulled him in over dinner. He said: "You guys don't like David Anderson, do you? We promise you we won't give the member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser) a senior post in cabinet." That was a commitment they kept. They shuffled poor old Alex to the side. I need those curtains, Alex. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Cyril?

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Cyril. He's back for Act II. (Laughter.) My dear, very good friend from Omineca is back for Act II. For years he got away with that act of saying: "I'm a maverick. I'm alone. I kick the slats out of the government." He's back doing the same song and dance again and we're happy to see you here. You are living proof of that old adage: "You can fool some of the people all of the time." You've been doing it long and long and long.

Why, he's even in there.... He's going to fight for equalized gasoline prices. When the freeze went off he never said a word. Gasoline is up over $1 a gallon in his constituency. He's down here in the warmth of Victoria while they're paying a buck for a gallon of gas. But they're all secure in their little cabs or their cars tonight because old Cyril is down here fighting for you again, gang. He ain't gonna get nothing except your vote, but he sure likes to fight anyway. Good to see you. (Laughter.) Good to see you. It renews my hope and faith in.... The con game will last forever. Good to see you.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Chabot? He made it. Whew!

MR. KING: It was close. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Of course, the Speaker got put where he was. He's a good Speaker too, on occasion, most of the time, almost all of the time. We need some staff, Mr. Speaker.

The first layoffs came in the forest industry. Eight thousand people were laid off. The Premier said: "I don't know anything about this." It came two days after he made his announcement that the economy was in good shape. He called in a Mr. Knudsen, an American brought up to run the great MacMillan Bloedel Corporation.

Mr. Knudsen pronounced his American solution for Canadian workers. Guess what it was, gang. "Freeze their wages next year, " he said. "Let the workers have a frozen wage. That will help the company because we have to pay Mr. Bonner $60,000 in a pension, Mr. Timmis $80,000 in his pension. To pay those pensions we've got to freeze the workers' salaries next year." I want to tell Mr. Knudsen that if that's an American message, take it home. Take it home. The workers of this province are not going to take messages on that basis.

But the Premier said the economy is turned around. I want to bring to the attention of the...just the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Speaker, what the Premier is saying in one mouth and out the side of the other mouth. Two mouths — it takes both to handle all of this.

MR. KING: He always was mouthy.

MR. BARRETT: Now Mr. Speaker, I want you to keep this to yourself again. I have in my hand here the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority prospectus. For $150 million in bonds on the New York market asked for by Social Credit.... This is what they have to do in the United States. They have to file with the Securities Exchange Commission and tell them what's going on.

"The economy has turned the corner," said the Premier — page 4 of the government's prospectus for B.C. Hydro. Page 4 says: "The Authority estimates that the transportation loss for B.C. Hydro could amount to $50 million exclusive of provincial grants and subsidies." Things are working well. Things are working well; they've turned the corner. Page 10: "The Authority has announced an increase in its basic transit fare from 25 cents to 35 cents. This will bring in $6 million." Things are going well. The ordinary people have to pay these.

Then we go on further in some more interesting information. It says here that there is a price increase that has already become effective January I to add $6.5 million to the Authority's operating costs for the fiscal year of 1977 of natural gas. But Mr. Speaker, tucked away in this little report is a nice little statement on which I want to spend some time — two things that are of particular interest to the taxpayer of this province.

[ Page 59 ]

Before the British Columbia Railway court case was settled, on page 41 of this prospectus submitted to the United States in November, 1976, it says: "The Railway has incurred a loss of $40 million unaudited in 1976 for the first nine months, and estimates for the loss of fiscal 1976 to be approximately $55 million." The first year of Social Credit administration of that railroad and they're going to lose $55 million. But there's not a word in here about the court case.

Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, when we were in government, how the former Premier assailed us and said, "Oh! Did you tell the Securities Exchange Commission about the court case?" Do you remember those speeches...?

Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, when we were in government, how the former Premier assailed us and said: "Oh, did you tell the Securities Exchange Commission about the court case." Oh, do you remember those speeches? Time and time again he went through it. He made the wild accusation; he said that there was patronage and family members hired on the B.C. Rail. And when I asked the Premier at that time, Mr. Speaker, the name, whose family and what jobs, under SMI he didn't say. He just sneered, he just muckraked and he just threw innuendo. All those words are in Hansard. Some of the most vicious diatribe against the railroad was made by that Premier, but not a substance, not a substance of proof — wild accusations. Now he piously stands up today and says that the railroad settled out of court on their own hook.

You know they can't do that, Mr. Speaker. You know they can't do that. They have no authority to spend public funds without coming back for authorization, and in last year's budget there was $12 million in the budget for extra railroad expenses. And when the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) was asked about that, he said: "I don't know what that's there for. The railroad asked for it." Are you trying to tell us, Mr. Speaker, that the railroad can do anything it wants with public money? Don't kid us! Treasury Board has the absolute responsibility for Crown corporations. Treasury Board must approve those decisions and Treasury Board allowed B.C. Rail to settle that fraud and conspiracy out of court, and that's all there is to it.

And, Mr. Speaker, I put this to you: even if we accept the Premier's argument that it was the railroad that made the decision to settle that fraud and conspiracy charge, I challenge him to name publicly who was responsible for the fraud. Who was responsible for the fraud? This is a very serious case. If the railroad has settled the case out of court and tacitly admitted that there is fraud, tacitly admitted there is conspiracy, then it is the responsibility of the Premier of this province to tell us who caused the fraud, who caused the conspiracy. Who was it that said to the railroad: "You can go ahead and build this line, but don't tell the public how much money it's really going to cost."? Who was it that authorized the helicopter to fly up north and look down through the Plexiglas and say: "Hmmm, this looks rough, that'll cost so much."? Who filed the report in this House of June, 1976, exposing decisions that were made on the railroad time and time again on a political basis with no engineering? It was Social Credit. And who embraced those decisions as soon as they got in office? The new Social Credit government.

Will the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) proceed to prosecute those persons who caused the fraud and conspiracy that cost the taxpayers over $2 million so far? Is fraud a serious crime? Is conspiracy a serious crime? If it is, Mr. Speaker, then name the people who are responsible and prosecute them for fraud against the people of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: No matter who it is, everybody stands before the bar of justice. And I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier of this province is hiding behind the board he appointed. He authorized that board to make the settlement. Treasury Board gave the okay to settle out of court and it was done cynically on Christmas Eve, and it stinks, Mr. Speaker. It is a scandal and this government stands condemned for that kind of payoff.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we'll get a nice reply on television. We'll have the $1,000 make-up job and it will be a sweet television broadcast saying: "I've taken all political influence out of the railroad. Why, those chaps made a decision to settle fraud and conspiracy on their own."

"Is fraud and conspiracy serious, Mr. Premier?"

"Oh, well, I guess it is. I haven't talked to the Attorney-General about that."

"Oh, if there's fraud and conspiracy in a Crown corporation, then the government of the day is responsible?"

"Oh no, not really — you see, fraud and conspiracy is at arm's length. I wish it would go away."

It's taxpayers' dollars. The taxpayers of this province are paying for that fraud and conspiracy, and to stand up in this House and say it was a board decision is nothing but a direct runaway from responsibility and one of the stupidest moves this government could have made. There was no need for them to embrace the fraud and conspiracy. It was the previous Social Credit government that made those decisions. It was not their fraud, it was not their conspiracy, but they clutched it to their breast and made excuses politically for a former Social Credit government, and now the three Liberals are right wrapped up in it too. Yes, the Minister of Education

[ Page 60 ]

(Hon. Mr. McGeer), the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams) have made statements — especially the Minister of Education, especially the present Attorney-General — in this House condemning the railroad for overruns, condemning the railroad for these practices, and now they sit on cabinet benches and they sit silent, inheriting a mess. They won't stand up and say: "The former government was wrong and they did this, and we're going to pay off." But instead of doing that they say: "The board did it." They've clutched the problem to their own bosom and said that it's okay for the board to settle.

Why? Why did you find it necessary to take this problem as your own, Mr. Speaker? Why did the Premier find it absolutely essential to wrap himself in the cloth of that British Columbia Railway mess? Name who's responsible for the fraud. Name who's responsible for the conspiracy. They are serious, serious charges.

Will the Attorney-General prosecute anyone on the basis of his former speeches as an MLA while he was a Liberal? I don't care to read those to him now, Mr. Speaker. I'll send them in the mail to him. But I'm sure he knows what his duty is.

Mr. Speaker, also in this prospectus is a very interesting statement that makes the government look bad again. They went on to say in the 1976 budget that $44 million was owing the federal government from unpaid taxation shares of natural gas. The Clarkson Gordon report and the Premier's first statement said that $75 million was owing under the NDP; then it was scaled down to $44 million. Mr. Speaker, there is a correction here in this prospectus to the New York market, but never a correction to the people of British Columbia. The figure was not $75 million owing to the federal government — no, not $44 million as was in the budget, but $29 million when they have to 'fess up with the actual accounting in New York.

Anything, any statement, any figure is okay in British Columbia, but you can't fib to the Securities Exchange Commission, Mr. Speaker. They can fib to the people of British Columbia, but to the Securities Exchange Commission they admit that it is not $44 million, it's $29 million — $15 million dumped on in the budget deliberately to mislead the people of this province by Social Credit; $15 million that was padded in the budget, that they knew was a wrong estimate. They scaled it down from the Clarkson Gordon estimate and they've admitted to the Securities Exchange Commission in New York that it was padded by $15 million and the figure is $29 million. They've been playing with $15 million to pad the budget to make it look bad on the NDP. They play politics anywhere, only they've been caught by the Securities Exchange requirement. Not very nice, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Prostituted the throne speech.

MR. BARRETT: Not very nice, telling the people of this province one figure and then going to New York and telling them another figure. Mr. Speaker, someone told a lie.

MR. KING: Is that open government?

MR. BARRETT: Someone told a lie, Mr. Speaker, and it was a $15 million lie to boot. Say anything, do anything, make any accusation you want; they're social democrats and we want power. That's the philosophy of this government: hide fraud and conspiracy; don't tell the truth about figures; get caught with the Securities Exchange. What's the explanation? Who made the $15 million mistake? It's no mistake. It's deliberate, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, a deliberate shuffling of figures, padding, to make the situation look worse than it is.

Mr. Speaker, one happy note in the Securities Exchange report is a very bragging statement. It says here that since the inception of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation to September 30, 1976, transfers to the provincial government's general revenue fund have totalled $302 million.

MR. KING: How did they vote on that?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, $302 million was given to the taxpayers of this province by the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation.

MR. KING: How did they vote on that bill?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, $302 million that would have gone into the hands of the international oil companies — $302 million that would have disappeared into Great Britain, the United States and into Holland — stayed here in British Columbia because of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation marketing all natural gas to the United States.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, when the former Attorney-General, my colleague, Alec Macdonald, took his place in this House and announced the Petroleum Corporation, the most vicious, calumnious and scandalous debate that ever took place in this House broke out. Next to the Premier, his first and eminent colleague, the Minister of Economic Development, spoke for 14 hours attacking the Petroleum Corporation saying it was

[ Page 61 ]

Moscow-inspired, it was communism, it was terrible, it was horrible — 14 hours, attacking it, attacking it, attacking it. Not one Social Credit member voted for the Petroleum Corporation — not one! The Petroleum Corporation is now here providing $300 million in three years of operation to the people of British Columbia, and the irony of it is Social Credit is bragging about it to the SEC.

Do you really believe anything you say, Mr. Speaker, over there? Do you really believe a single word of your debate? If you did, why didn't you get rid of the Petroleum Corporation? You knew you wouldn't because the idea was sound, but you would attack it simply because the NDP brought it in, Mr. Speaker. It's a fact. Read the record. Say anything, do anything for a vote — that's what you are over there. Ferry deficits...everything is outlined here in this report.

It's better than the budget; it's certainly more accurate than the budget. They'd better be accurate because if they weren't, the Securities Exchange Commission would ruin our borrowing credit in New York, and no one knows it better than Social Credit.

You can fool in the budget speech, you can fool the people in Clarkson Gordon's report, you can fool the people in all kinds of political statements, but you'd better not fiddle around with the SEC. And we get a more accurate report of what's going on in this province, Mr. Speaker, by reading this prospectus. This prospectus on B.C. Hydro borrowing is more honest than anything put forward by that government over there. If you're not responsible for the decisions of the Crown corporations, why do you put it in the SEC-required prospectus?

You guarantee every single penny of B.C. Hydro; you guarantee every single penny of B.C. Rail by legislation. You voted for that legislation, and then you say you're not responsible. Shame, tut-tut, and all the nasty things that I can think of to say, Mr. Speaker.

That railroad line that was to cost the people of this province $90 million, down to $68 million, has now cost the taxpayers of this province $279 million. It's $279 million that Social Credit has blown on that extension in a scandalous method of handling contracts, and the reports were filed in this House in June, 1975.

Well, Mr. Speaker, on and on it goes. Ferry traffic. Those people who supported the cabinet minister from Victoria were not so happy to hear that in the month of July there was a decrease of 31,000 vehicles and 117,000 passengers here in Victoria, to save money. The new Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Davis) has sold our ferries to a Toronto firm, only to buy them back at twice the price. Doesn't that make sense, friends?

MR. KING: That's the businessman.

MR. BARRETT: All the people of British Columbia should be aware of how this businesslike government operates: they created a ferry corporation, sold the ferries to a Toronto financial firm, and now are buying them back at twice the price. Wouldn't you like a little slice of that, folks out there in British Columbia? The businessman's government take your ferries, which you own, sell them to a Toronto financing firm, and then pay twice the money to buy your own ferries back while you're travelling on them. That takes brains. Is that Social Credit philosophy, or is that Liberal philosophy? Or did Cyril work it out for them? (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, if you take an average of $33 a day, given to us as a figure by the tourist bureau here in Victoria, as a daily expenditure of a tourist, and if you assume that only half of these passengers lost were tourists, there was a loss to the city of Victoria of $60,000 every day of consumer spending because those ferries weren't travelling. My friends, the new member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), the youngest member of this Legislature, has done more to bring these problems out in the open and try and solve them than the cabinet minister who represents Victoria.

You hurt the economy of this province, and you hurt the little people of this province, many of whom had huge signs out supporting Social Credit during the election. I saw many of them, even some on the highway — yes, some insulting signs about my colleagues? I never read the ones about me. Where are they now?

MR. KING: Out of business. Bankrupt.

MR. BARRETT: Those poor little businessmen who fought so hard to get Social Credit elected are the group that has been betrayed more by this government than any other single group. There are more bankruptcies, more mortgages being called, more loans being called than ever before.

But, Mr. Speaker, one last comment on the prospectus. In August of this year I asked the Hon. Evan Wolfe a very uncomplicated question, for him — for anyone?; for him too. "Dear Mr. Wolfe: With reference to the quarterly report and the sale of $500 million in Hydro bonds, could you please let me have the names of the investors in these bonds?" That's what I asked Mr. Wolfe: please let me have the names of who bought the bonds.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): You should have asked the Minister of Finance. (Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: I did. My colleague said that I should have asked the Minister of Finance. I thought I did, I'm sorry.

[ Page 62 ]

Let me know the names of who bought the bonds. Now for the uninitiated, before I go any further I have to tell you a little bit of history. Two years ago the New Democratic Party borrowed $200 million from an OPEC nation. All the details of the loan were available to this House, Mr. Speaker — everything about the loan except the name of the originating company.

Don't leave now. Where is the Attorney-General leaving.... I just want to read some of his statement. Don't leave!

Come back! I won't call you a Liberal anymore.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: An urgent call. It's not one of nature, Mr. Speaker; it's this part of the speech.

Oh, let him go. I'm sure someone else will remind him when he comes back.

Two years ago, Mr. Speaker, after Hydro had borrowed the money.... After all, it was a Crown corporation, but they asked the government to explain where the Crown corporation borrowed the money. Now they should know better than that, Mr. Speaker. They believe Crown corporations don't have to explain anything. How come it is that when we were the government they wanted an explanation from us, but when they're the government they don't want an explanation? Oh, oh, oh! What a difference the months can make!

This is what was said by Bill Bennett in Hansard page 670, in the spring session of 1975. Any resemblance to that Bill Bennett and the Premier is purely coincidental because the stories don't gibe. Bill Bennett 12 short months ago — no, 14 short months ago. Oh, how the time doth pass!

This is what he said, with a lovely smile: "Many of us believe that when you're dealing with the public money and borrowing on behalf of the people of the province, the lender should be identified." That's what he said.

He said: "I know that we've had an area outlined as being the lender of these loans, that they came from the Middle East, and it was petro-dollars. But I notice that Ontario has borrowed money and they have made available the name of the lender and the country who lent the money to Ontario. Yet in British Columbia the Premier and the Minister of Finance as fiscal agent hasn't shared with the people of this province who the lender is. It is unusual for any government body not to disclose the source of the lender and not to provide the information to this House." That's what Bill Bennett said, Mr. Speaker — and I quote from Hansard — now the Premier of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think you have been in the House long enough to know that when you are quoting from Hansard, you quote about the hon. member for South Okanagan.

MR. BARRETT: You are absolutely correct, Mr. Speaker. I was just trying to save the member the agony of being identified with his own words. But if you insist, I will go ahead and say: "Yes, indeed. It was the Premier, not Bill Bennett after all."

He said that they have to identify the lender. Then he asked these questions: "Will the Premier provide that information in this House? Will the Premier provide as Minister of Finance and fiscal agent the information that would normally be found if we were doing a normal public financing, a financing in which all the details are available to the people of the province?"

Do you believe that, Mr. Premier? Make it public. Through you, Mr. Speaker, stand up and tell us where you borrowed the money. We're the borrowers, not Mr. Premier. We're the borrowers. He's taking the attitude: "I know what's good for you. I'll tell you that it doesn't matter who we borrow from. Trust me." That attitude isn't good enough.

Mr. Speaker, I wrote Mr. Wolfe again in October because he forgot to answer my letter of August. A little oversight — just a matter of six or seven weeks. He wrote back to me. He said I wrote him on October 5. I said: "Hey, Hon. Mr. Wolfe, are you going to tell me where you borrowed that money from? Because the Premier, when he was Leader of the Opposition, would like to know." This is what I received back on October 29 from the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. "This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of October 5 regarding B.C. Hydro bonds. I regret to say I am not able to provide the information you have requested."

He was asked in the corridor, Mr. Speaker, by some enterprising reporters: "How come is it when you were in opposition you demanded that the former Premier reveal this information but you won't reveal it?" He said: "Oh, I wasn't here then." Some say he isn't here right now.

This is what the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) said. Oh, this is a lulu, this is a lulu. Talk about SMI! This one is loaded with smear, muck and innuendo. This is a classic in smear, muck and innuendo. It was by the former Liberal member, now the Socred member, now the Attorney-General. Listen to this one, gang. It will curl your hair.

MR. KING: What was he then — Liberal or Conservative?

MR. BARRETT: He was on his way dropping his principles along the trail. "You give me one good reason, Mr. Premier, why the public should not know who lent the money to B.C. Hydro, one single reason. The public of B.C. are committed to pay it back, not

[ Page 63 ]

you. By far the majority of B.C. citizens are law-abiding, conscientious, fair-minded people. We all agree with that. They want the fairness in dealing. I for one want to know if Mafia money came to this province." Mafia money! Smear, muck, innuendo, SMI par excellence. Smear, muck, innuendo, Social Credit style.

"Was it Mafia money? I for one would like to know if it was Mafia money coming to this province behind a Crown corporation on who borrowed it. I'm not suggesting it is. I just want to know if it is. I'm not suggesting it is," he says. Don't start to throw your arms and say: "Ah, he said Mafia money!" I know he's anticipating it. I'm just anticipating.

Then, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to SMI, the graduate of that school of politics, the post-graduate student, the doctor of letters of all sitting next to him, none other than the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips), entered with his comments, and I know he's repeated these comments to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) . I know he's going to step down from the cabinet because the public hasn't been told where the money came from because listen to what he said — SMI: "We have continually asked in this House where the Minister of Finance went in the OPEC countries to borrow money." Am I emulating his manner of speech well enough?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you're not.

MR. BARRETT: That calm, rational debating style:

"To this day we have not had the answer. The people of this province would like to know because they are the ones who are going to be responsible for it in the end — for paying the interest on that Mafia money. It is Mafia money, and I don't know whether it is Mafia money or not — I have no way of knowing."

"It is Mafia money. I know it's Mafia money, but I have no way of knowing it's Mafia money, but it's Mafia money anyway."

MR. KING: Good old rational Don.

MR. BARRETT: SMI at its best: smear, muck, innuendo and Mafia.

SMIM: smear, muck, innuendo in the name of Mafia.

MR. GIBSON: Sink or SMIM.

MR. BARRETT: Sink or SMIM.

Mr. Speaker, there is no logical reason for this information to be withheld from this Legislature and therefore from the taxpayers of this province who would like to know.

Mr. Alex Fraser — excuse me, the hon. Minister of Highways and Public Works — got infected by this, too. It must have been late at night. (Laughter.) He got infected with this, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that?

MR. BARRETT: The Minister of Public Works and Highways. He got caught up in the stirring debate given by none other than the dancing trio, the present Premier, the Attorney-General and, swinging on the end, the Minister of Economic Development screaming "Mafia money!" They drew in one of the quieter members. It must have been late at night.

"The other thing I would like to remark, Mr. Speaker, is regarding the Premier again saying that everything went on the table regarding the $200 million from the Arab country. Everything is on the table except the important thing: who are we mortgaged to? The people of British Columbia want to know. That's what we want to know. I would like to give the Premier some advice when he has to go out in the market again: you said in reply to the House before you had to do this as a condition of borrowing. Well, Mr. Speaker, say to the Minister of Finance the next people that want to lend you money like that tell them to keep their money."

He wouldn't be a part of any borrowings that were kept secret from the people of British Columbia. "Tell them to keep their money," he said, What hypocrisy! What hypocrisy! Is there any twinge of conscience left? The sheer catalogue of hypocritical statements, double talk and pettiness by Social Credit when they were in opposition, leading to this hypocrisy within a matter of months. What sheer, unadulterated cynicism and hypocrisy — and smiling about it, Mr. Speaker. It was all said in fun. When we become the government it doesn't matter; say anything, do anything, smear anyone, muck on anything, innuendo anywhere. For sheer, unadulterated hypocrisy it has never seen its duplicate in this House, and sitting smugly there saying that, "the Crown corporation made its own decision and we can't tell you where we borrowed the money, " after saying it was Mafia money that the government of the day had borrowed.

Oh, laugh about it! Perhaps the memory will fade it. Hypocrisy pays. A sense of responsibility; a sense of duty; a sense of any commitment to the traditions of this House? Not on your life. Say anything, do anything, promise anyone just to get a vote.

I'm not embarrassed for them, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I can take a more charitable attitude and say forgive them for they know not what they do. But I don't believe that: they knew exactly what they were doing. They were calling down the government of the

[ Page 64 ]

day any way, any how, any style, with any statement — never to think they would be caught within a matter of months with their own words flung back in their teeth. And they justify it by saying: "Well, after all, they're social democrats." You know, Mr. Speaker, let them live with that. Let them have politics Social Credit style. Let them have their hypocrisy.

Through all of that vicious, uncalled-for onslaught, and charges of Mafia money never apologized for, I remembered one thing: that we represented the people of this province, not any special interest, and there were limits to anything we'd do. Mr. Speaker, there is no limit to what this group will do or say. None whatsoever. We've seen so many acts of hypocrisy by this government in the 14 months: doublethink, doublespeak. It's the Orwellian group that excuses itself from any conscience by saying: "After all, we're fighting socialists."

On December 9 I wrote a letter to the Premier asking him for a copy of the Pemberton Securities report.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I wrote on December 3, Mr. Member. I said to the Premier: "I understand the government has received a report on the financial state of the forest industry in British Columbia from Pemberton Securities Limited. In view of the importance of this matter I would ask that you let me have a copy of this report by return mail."

I received a letter from Mr. Tozer, the executive assistant to the Premier. Is it a $36,000 job for a brother-in-law, Mr. Speaker? Why would the Leader of the Opposition raise such a thing as that? It's not polite to say that the Premier's brother-in-law has been given a job at $36,000 a year in the Premier's office. That smells like political nepotism. But I'll bet you this: if I had hired my brother-in-law, there would have been screaming headlines by that group over there every single day in the House: one standard for the socialists; another standard for them. Say anything, do anything: the SMI group.

Time and time again vicious statements were made against individual citizens of this province who chose to serve in government, and were dismissed by Social Credit only to have their own appointees hired. If we were to take the same tactics as Social Credit — never, never should we lower ourselves — we would have spent 14 hours debating the fact that you hired your brother-in-law. I don't give a fig if you hire your brother-in-law, but at least be honest about it. Don't stand around saying that the NDP hired political hacks, but that you're pure. Double standards.

The letter said: "This is to acknowledge and thank you for your letter of December 3 to the Premier. Yours sincerely...."

On December 12 my executive assistant, Mr. John Wood, who, by the way, is still receiving mail from Ottawa as the executive assistant to the Premier.... We wrote Ottawa and told them there has been an election here — I don't blame you for their being out of touch.

MR. KING: Did you get the communication back?

MR. BARRETT: No, we didn't get railway communications. That wasn't sent by Ottawa; that was purloined. That was the case of the purloined telegram. Do you remember that? Oh, let's not raise that; that was before there was dignity of office: do anything, say anything to get into power.

Mr. Tozer said that he'll check whether we're going to get the report or not, and phone back. Then he phoned back and said that he raised the subject but never got any answer.

I'm asking the Premier here today if he will table the Pemberton report on the forest industry in the House. Would you be prepared to table that report, Mr. Premier? As an open government, a government that doesn't keep any secrets, like the McMath report or the report on the financial institutions, I ask the Premier of this province at this very moment to give the people of this province a copy of the Pemberton report on the forest industry. Will he give that report and table it in the House, or are you going to keep it secret? Will you stand up at the Social Credit convention and announce that you found my budget for 1977, instead of giving them the Pemberton report? Naughty, naughty, naughty. You are saying anything, doing anything to stay in power. Principle, commitment, promise. It doesn't mean a thing, Mr. Speaker — not a thing.

While we don't know what's in the Pemberton report on the forest industry, we notice a sweet little line in the throne speech about Crown Zellerbach's $125 million investment in the province. Yes, it was hailed in the papers as a great step forward. The Premier was huffing and puffing and saying what a wonderful thing it was. I want to quote what a non-socialist said about that: Mr. Bill Hamilton of the Employers Council. Now isn't this funny? Why do I keep quoting my good friend Bill Hamilton? He's not an NDPer. He used to attack us when we were in government. He represents the Employers Council; this is what he said about the Crown Zellerbach announcement. Mr. Hamilton said: "The move's not a major expansion programme." Yeah, I guess he didn't know we were going to put it in the throne speech. Hamilton said: "It's not a major programme, and should be considered in context." He noted that Crown Zellerbach calls for $50 million in upkeep and maintenance and only $75 million in expansion. "Considering Crown Zellerbach has been planning this for three years," Hamilton said, "the expansion plans really cover a five-year period." Hamilton said

[ Page 65 ]

that. But they put it in the throne speech and embarrassed the Lieutenant-Governor, without adding the rider that $50 million of it was for upkeep, and Hamilton said it's a five-year programme.

Oh, there's so much more. One thing I will bless this government for, Mr. Speaker: it's made my job in opposition very easy. Some people have said to me in this province: "Where have you been in the NDP? Why aren't you criticizing?" And I point out that I've been travelling and speaking. And then I end by saying, Mr. Speaker, to those people who ask that question: "My dear friends, there isn't a single thing that I could do or I could say that does as much damage to this government as it does to itself. Not a single thing." Give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves. They're doing a wonderful job of it — the discredited Social Credit, in 14 months.

Just a few comments, Mr. Speaker, on the other proposal that was announced by the Premier — the Kitimat pipeline. It's not economically viable, not environmentally viable, of no economic benefit to the province. I met an environmentalist in the airport, and he said to me: "But, Mr. Barrett, you've got to fight against the Kitimat pipeline. You've got to understand all the environmental reasons why that pipeline should not go ahead. The tankers would have a terrible time navigating in that channel. Oil spills will be a calamitous effect on the basis of statistics. You've got to fight this on the basis of the environment."

I said: "My dear environmental friend, I have a better way of fighting the pipeline." Environmental issues or principle issues on economics mean nothing to this government. The one thing the investors will understand is that they will not have free use of our soil to transport their oil across Canadian and British Columbia grounds without any payment to the Canadian people. And the message I sent to New York was that, if that pipeline is built, and we are returned to office, 15 per cent of the put-through of that pipeline will come to the people of this province as payment for rental use of our space and risk of any environmental damage. They got the message in New York. They know that this government would give them anything free with the ability to announce a project, but there is that lurking concern that a government that cares may be back in British Columbia and the rip-off on that pipeline will not go through — will not go through.

I explained to my friend that the logic of environmental arguments doesn't work. Economic arguments are the only things that this government understands. Mr. Speaker, there has been no leadership from this government. It has been smug; it has been hypocritical; and it has mastered MSI. There is more unemployment in a year under Social Credit than we've had since the Depression. They say there's no free lunch for the mining companies, the forest companies, and the oil companies and the Kitimat pipeline. Nonsense. The companies get what they want in British Columbia: gasoline prices — no freeze on those; home fuel oil — no freeze on those; mining companies, the coal companies, not paying their fair share of agreed-to taxes; and the people get no jobs, no investment, no money in their pockets, no growth and no development. I am told reliably, Mr. Speaker, that on the drawing boards of the major engineering firms in British Columbia there is not one single major project for British Columbians. Not one single engineering or drafting firm has been given a single project of massive investment in British Columbia — and you must remember that it is 18 months from the day that they start drafting to the final production of a job. None of it, Mr. Speaker. All promises, all rhetoric, misleading statements in the throne speech.

Mr. Speaker, then they attack the working people of this province. They've got to have a freeze on wages, some spokesman of industry says. Then they go on to say, "restraint — pull back," while they announce in the throne speech that the wealthy will be forgiven their succession duty and gift taxes. Restraint, and pull-back, while the coal companies get away without paying their fair share. Restraint and pull-back, while 92,000 people look for jobs in this province. And not one single, positive proposal by the government.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of interlocking forces at work in the economy of this province. Some obvious moves can be taken now and today by this government to alleviate the economic condition that has been caused by Social Credit. For one, you can announce an immediate reduction in ferry rates.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. BARRETT: You could do that today. An immediate reduction in ferry rates would stimulate the tourist industry back to the level of consumer spending that was brought on that provided jobs and growth in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, you could take the $15 million that you had in the budget to pay Ottawa, which you admit in the Securities Exchange that you do not have to pay Ottawa, and take the $11 million that you should be collecting from coal companies, and spend $26 million with winter works jobs right now through the municipalities. That money is in the budget. The municipalities are best able to initiate those projects immediately for those jobs and that money should be directed in that way.

Mr. Speaker, this government could go on with the refinery project that was initiated under the wise leadership of the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) . It was not a definite proposal, but we had a commitment from the Prime Minister of Britain

[ Page 66 ]

to finance the project and to assist in the project if we were to complete the studies and it was feasible. I call on that project to go ahead and the studies to be completed. If it is feasible, go ahead with it. The British government was prepared to back us after our visit to Great Britain.

There are two areas with the federal government, Mr. Speaker, that I call upon the government to immediately negotiate on. One is to encourage the federal government to establish a guaranteed income early in this country, and a retirement programme that calls for even higher contributions by both management and labour into a pool of capital that would be used for investment in this country, provide earlier retirement and absorb more young people into jobs here and now, Mr. Speaker. Relieve the elderly in this country of a continuous burden of providing an income by lowering the retirement age with a good income. Absorb younger people into the work force while they still desire jobs, while they still wish to work and while they want a job experience. Don't let those young people stagnate — one in five.

Also, in terms of that, Mr. Speaker, remind your Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) that the coal project in the north should stand on its own feet. The request of $300 million in welfare funds from Ottawa to subsidize the infrastructure of that coal development is scandalous, Mr. Speaker. The coal companies don't need $300 million of taxpayers' moneys to subsidize them. Either they're going to do the project or they're not, but we will fight any capital money being spent to give private coal companies an assist in their development. If the coal companies won't do it, Mr. Speaker, the feasibility should be considered by the government, with the government and with any buyer, including the Japanese....

Further, Mr. Speaker, one of the conditions of long-term sales of coal should be a commitment asked for by this government that we have secondary industry in this province as a direct result of selling those resources. That minister bargained away our steel mill in his one trip to Japan. One trip to Japan and he lost months and months of work. Now he's asking for federal government handouts to develop that mining project.

Mr. Speaker, there is a need for confidence by public and private investment in this province. That confidence is not there. There is a need for openness and some sense of cooperation and confidentiality being maintained by the government in negotiations for these developments.

Mr. Speaker, an unfortunate series of incidents has happened in the last few weeks that has caused a lack of confidence in the ability of the Minister of Economic Development to guarantee security of conversation in his office. It is a fact unfortunate enough that it has led to a judicial inquiry. It is unfortunate that because that judicial inquiry has been called for, the question of who and what is being leaked from the minister's office has not yet been answered. We all earnestly hope that that judicial inquiry will find the answers to those questions so that there should never be a repeat again of confidential information leaving the minister's office.

However, by the very fact, Mr. Speaker, that the judicial inquiry does not have the answer to those questions, by the very fact that there is no guarantee of confidentiality without the minister being involved, we don't know. It is obvious that that minister has impaired the ability of the government to talk in confidence about possible investments. After all, it was staff close to the minister about whom these questions are being asked. After all, it is the minister himself who has welcomed the inquiry. After all, there are precedents for these unfortunate incidents throughout the Commonwealth's history. It is not the first time.

But the normal course of action, Mr. Speaker, is to maintain confidence until the minister has either been proven to be not involved or involved. The minister's office is operating under a cloud. That's why the inquiry was called.

To get on with the business of the day, to get on with the business at hand, to ensure that anyone and everyone who comes into that minister's office is being treated with absolute confidentiality, then there must be a temporary change in terms of the minister and his staff until the judicial inquiry is completed. That is the normal course, Mr. Speaker. That is the just course.

Goodness knows we all hope that that minister, if he were to step down, would be returned shortly. But because of that, and while this inquiry is going on and there is no guarantee of confidence or confidentiality by the government, I am moving, Mr. Speaker, that the motion in reply to the opening speech of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor be amended by adding the following words: but this House regrets that the government's actions in regard to conflict of interest are incomplete and ineffectual in that it has failed to appoint a new Minister of Economic Development to carry on the many confidential duties of the said ministry, pending the outcome of the work of the commission of public inquiry. Seconded by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea).

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member for Prince Rupert just take his seat for a moment until we have determined whether the amendment is in order or not?

Interjections.

[ Page 67 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I said order, please. Hon. members, in order to determine whether the amendment to the motion is in order or not, I would like to consult a few of the authorities, including May and Beauchesne. It is a matter that will take a little time for consideration, and for that reason I'm going to recess the House for 10 minutes. I would ask you to be ready to return to the chamber at the ring of the division bell.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, may I give Your Honour some citations from May to assist, which I have in front of me?

MR. SPEAKER: That would be in order, hon. member.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the question of subjudice, which I think may be in your mind, is dealt with by May in the 19th edition, at page 333, paragraph 11 at the top, which makes it very clear that a judicial proceeding is one involving criminal or civil courts, or a court martial.

The next reference is to be found in the same edition, at page 368, where it says that a matter awaiting adjudication by a court of law should not be brought before the House by a motion or otherwise — court of law, again. But nevertheless, certain ministerial decisions, which was what this motion deals with — the responsibility of the minister, which will not be dealt with by the tribunal — can come up even if it was something which was before a court of law. But that's that reference.

Finally, the same edition, at page 427, talks about those judicial tribunals to which the sub judice rule applies.

But in any case, as I say, Mr. Speaker, this is the responsibility of the Minister of Economic Development, and that is not something that will be dealt with in terms of his office, and that will not be dealt with by the inquiry, in any case. It is not a judicial proceeding. You know, just as these other proceedings are entitled to their rights, so parliament has a right of free speech and the right to assist these inquiries, which can be done in this House — not to hinder them, but to assist them.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. member for his observations. There are other matters, hon. member, besides the sub judice problem, that I have to be concerned with at the moment. If I can have a few moments I'll take these into consideration.

The House took recess at 5 p.m.

The House resumed at 5:18 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, just prior to the recess, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, in concluding his remarks, moved an amendment to the address in reply to His Honour. That is the particular matter I intend to deal with at the moment.

I'd like to draw to the attention of all of the members of this House a long-standing rule of parliamentary law, and that is that nothing may be done indirectly which is not permitted to be done directly. And following on that, the 18th edition of May, at page 361, indicates those matters which must be dealt with by substantive motion. Among those matters to be dealt with by substantive motion are the conduct of members of either House. May further says on page 362: "Such a matter cannot be questioned by way of an amendment."

Dealing with the amendment proposed, it reads as follows:

"But this House regrets that government actions in regard to conflict of interest are incomplete and ineffectual, in that it has failed to appoint a new Minister of Economic Development to carry on the many confidential duties of the said ministry, pending the outcome of the work of the commission of public inquiry."

Actually, this calls into question, indirectly, the conduct of the minister, which cannot be done by other than a substantive motion; it is, therefore, clearly a matter that this particular amendment, which calls into question the conduct of a minister when it asks for him to be relieved of his duties, is trying indirectly to do something that cannot be done directly, and I therefore must rule that the amendment is out of order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, your reading of the motion is attributing an interpretation that is not there. It is not the question of the conduct of the minister — I made that very clear; it is the question of the inquiry going on while the minister is there. Your interpretation of the motion is incorrect and you are reading something into the motion that is not there. Your ruling is based on something that is not in the motion. If there was a call for a substantive motion, I would have taken that course, but I am not accusing the minister of one single thing of wrongdoing. There is no accusation in that motion of accusing him of wrongdoing, and I make that very clear.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: I make it very clear, Mr. Speaker. You are interpreting the motion on an incorrect basis.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: You show me where I say in that

[ Page 68 ]

motion that the minister has done anything wrong. You show me!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Hon. members, I have given you the basis and the source of the decision that I have made. It is correct in keeping with the latest edition that we have of Sir Erskine May; it is correct within the principles of parliamentary procedure. I therefore rule that the amendment is out of order.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There is no debate, hon. member, as you know.

MR. BARRETT: Traditionally the opposition has been allowed to....

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Will the hon. member please take his seat.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Will the hon. member please take his seat?

Will the hon. member please be seated?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. member please be seated?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. member please be seated? I have ruled....

Hon. Member, will you please be seated?

Will the Leader of the Opposition please take his seat?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: You have not a right, Hon. member, to present an out-of-order amendment. I have ruled.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member wishes to challenge the ruling, he can.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: It is not a question of challenging. The ruling has not given any substantive argument. You cannot interpret to us what you have done....

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is no debate.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: You have not a right, other than to challenge the Speaker's ruling.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order!

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Take your seat!

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Leader of the Opposition please be seated?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. member please take his seat?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER: The next order of business, please.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. member please be seated?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. member please be seated? I have ruled....

Hon. Member, will you please be seated?

Will the Leader of the Opposition please take his seat?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: You have not a right, hon. member, to present an out-of-order amendment. I have ruled.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member wishes to challenge the ruling, he can.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: It is not a question of challenging. The ruling has not given any substantive argument. You cannot interpret to us what you have done....

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is no debate.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: You have not a right, other than to challenge the Speaker's ruling.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order!

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Take your seat!

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Leader of the Opposition please be seated?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. member please take his seat?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER: The next order of business, please.

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

[ Page 69 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Are you on a point of order?

MR. KING: Yes, this is a point of order. I would ask your opinion, if I may, for further clarification regarding your ruling as to whether or not any type of motion pertaining to this minister's responsibility would be in order as a non-confidence motion. I want some clarification. Are you ruling that any question of this minister's political responsibilities, the propriety of this minister remaining in office, is out of order, or are you simply ruling the amendment out of order on the basis of its substance?

I am prepared, the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to submit an alternative, if it is just a matter of substance, which has been allowed traditionally in this House, and which is customarily allowed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to your attention that not one member of this House rose and took exception to or challenged the substance of the motion — not one member, Mr. Speaker. The only question as to the motion's substance came from the Chair, and I think this House is entitled to further clarification, and I seek that if we are to have any spirit of cooperation in this chamber.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the only thing I can deal with is the amendment that was before the House. I have ruled upon the amendment and the validity of it, and told you that the amendment is out of order.

MR. BARRETT: Who challenged the motion? You challenged it before there was any ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: I have to rule on whether the amendment is in order or out of order, hon. members. It is the Speaker's duty, and that is the duty I have just performed.

MR. KING: You never answered my question.

MR. BARRETT: That's the end of democracy in this House. What a pile of nonsense!

MR. SPEAKER: I can only rule on what is before the House at the moment, hon. member.

MR. KING: I am seeking information, Mr. Speaker, and I trust that you, as a servant of this House, are interested in the members understanding your ruling. I put to you a specific question to which I would like an answer: are you suggesting that there can be no motion of confidence related to that minister's responsibilities, or are you saying that simply the substance of the motion was out of order? Now I wish to understand that.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I can only deal with the matter which is before the House, not hypothetical questions on other matters that may be raised at some other time.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I was asked to look at the amendment before the House; this was to see if it was in order or not.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, under standing orders I am bound to take a look at all amendments to see if they are in order or not.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. No one asked me.

MR. LEA: Well, you said somebody did.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, then I correct myself and say that it is my position and job to take a look at amendments or proposed amendments to see if they are in order or not. That is what is done. I looked at this amendment, gave you the rules and the background behind my decision, and I have ruled, hon. members, that the amendment is not in order.

Interjection.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member.... Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, now you are trying to debate the matter. I have ruled that the amendment proposed was out of order.

I must now call upon the....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must now call upon the next speaker, the hon. member for North

[ Page 70 ]

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson).

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano has the floor.

MR. BARRETT: Hypocrisy rules again.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, there may be some consolation to members of the opposition in recalling that irrespective of the wording of the particular motion we are now debating, which is namely the main motion, we have an opportunity to speak of all of these issues. I intend to somewhat on this matter of the Grizzlygate, to which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) referred, and certain other matters such as M.E.L. Paving and other items which I had not intended to deal with in my remarks. But they having been raised in such passionate and vocal fashion in the last three hours, I think it's only proper that perhaps before the hour of adjournment at 6 o'clock I talk about them a little bit.

I was much taken by the argument of the Leader of the Opposition that it's important that ministers should come to their work every day with clean hands and not under any shadow of suspicion. But I could not help recalling, Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the argument, the famous dictum of Sam Rayburn when he was Speaker of the Congress of the United States. Mr. Rayburn used to say that where you stand depends on where you sit. It occurred to me that where the Leader of the Opposition stood on temporary resignations and judicial inquiries has changed somewhat in the interval of a couple of years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: I will do no more, Mr. Speaker, than to recall to the attention of the House an occasion when the Premier of our province was directly accused by affidavit of two citizens of having deliberately misled, which is to say lied to, this chamber.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The former Premier.

MR. GIBSON: The former Premier — I'm sorry.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Where did he go?

MR. GIBSON: On that occasion, Mr. Speaker, there was a determined stonewalling of the most determined attempts by the opposition to obtain some kind of a judicial inquiry, which was refused day after day in this House in the face of the most sincere entreaties. There was never any thought of a temporary resignation, which is what we are being asked to support today. Even the suggestion of a judicial inquiry was systematically turned down.

Therefore I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that while it is important that a minister comes today....

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, do I take it that this hon. leader of the Liberal party can impugn the last government and declare want of confidence in that on the same kind of grounds, while we cannot do the same for this government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: We're muzzled...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MACDONALD: ...and this man goes on like that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano has the floor. If he's saying something that impugns people....

MR. MACDONALD: Is there kind of a one-sided street, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I am listening very closely, hon. member.

MR. MACDONALD: One-sided street. I would have thought he would think better of that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano has the floor. Continue, hon. member.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, my point is this. While it is important that every minister of the Crown come to work every day with clean hands, it is equally important, in my opinion, that any members of this House show some reasonable consistency over the years in the standards that they expect of themselves and others.

I do not, for one moment, excuse the guilt or culpability, such as it may be and may be proven from time to time during the currency of this inquiry, of any member of the administration opposite or any of their assistants or staff. But I say at the same time that it is important that we not get into that kind of double standard which the Leader of the Opposition

[ Page 71 ]

just finished castigating the government about for some length of time.

The Leader of the Opposition also raised the question of M.E.L. Paving. The Premier today in the House tabled a letter from the chairman of the board of the British Columbia Railway. I want to make reference to some of the content of that letter. It was essentially a justification, Mr. Speaker — an attempted justification by the railway for an out-of-court settlement, which had the effect, as the Leader of the Opposition properly pointed out, of tacitly admitting fraud and misleading, which was one of the points of charge in the case.

The claim of the railway, through its chairman, was essentially that the railway was getting off as cheaply as possible by making this out-of-court settlement. Yet, Mr. Speaker, there are a few things that the public ought to know about that. If I may direct your attention and that of the House to page 6, he states here: "Counsel for the railway was of the opinion that the contractor would make a substantial recovery under its operational claims."

How can it be then, Mr. Speaker, that the court counsel for the railway, upon being phoned by a reporter for the Vancouver Province, said in effect this: that the decision to settle was a surprise to him — to Charles MacLean — and that he was not consulted as to the propriety of the settlement? How can that be squared, Mr. Speaker, with the language of this letter which attempts to get the government off the hook for this particular settlement? It may be that the government will return and argue: "Oh, the counsel for the case that we are concerned with was Mr. Gray" — Mr. Gray who was brought in as counsel for the British Columbia Railway.

Mr. Speaker, it might be of interest to you to know that there are 5,000 pages of testimony in that case. Mr. Gray appears in some small capacity on something like 200 pages. His participation in that trial was not considerable in any degree. I would very much question how it is that the railroad could reach a proper decision to settle without the active advice of the trial lawyer...

MR. MACDONALD: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: ...the man who was detailed in every aspect of the case; the man who could say, on the basis of his day after day in court, whether all of these claims were likely of some kind of a settlement or not.

In the opinion of many observers of the trial, Mr. Speaker, the BCR had a pretty good case; had a pretty good chance of settling for something a good deal less than they did in fact settle for. It may well be that the court, in its wisdom, might have given additional payments to M.E.L. Paving, but whether they could have approached the amount that the government...or the railway — but in fact it's the government and the people that will be paying the bill — did ultimately settle for....

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Economic Development and the railway, through you, this question: We have here a settlement of $2.5 million on a portion of line some 49 miles in length, and these same circumstances, Mr. Speaker, applied to the construction of the balance of that line. In making this settlement, has the board of directors reckoned up the probable cost of the contractors that will be camped on their doorstep, I have no doubt today, saying: "We built some of that railroad too, and some of the exigencies and difficulties which M.E.L. Paving had were equally applicable to us and we want some kind of settlement too, and make it out of court right now before we even bother taking you there because we are sure going to use this precedent."?

There are a number of very strange aspects about this case. Not one senior officer of the British Columbia Railway appeared in this case. I don't know, Mr. Speaker, why counsel for M.E.L. Paving declined to call any of the senior officers, but I have to raise the question, as to why counsel for the BCR did not. Was there some kind of a policy by the BCR that they would not allow their senior officers to appear? Common sense says that there was but, if so, why?

The core of the M.E.L. Paving case was that the BCR had already decided to build a larger roadbed before the M.E.L. contract was let, and that therefore M.E.L. Paving was fraudulently and deliberately misled and therefore entitled to damages. Why was this not denied by any senior officer of the company? Why did not a member of the board of directors appear? Mr. Speaker, I can't answer that question, but I'll just tell you it's a very strange circumstance and one that requires one to say there still lingers some kind of odour around this case. There still lingers the question as to why $2.5 million of public money was expended when a trial costing around $1 million had almost concluded; when the time was at hand — or within a few weeks — for the judge to deliver his judgment; when there were only the summary arguments from counsel left to be heard. Why should it have been?

The whole history of the case is not a very pleasant one when we go back to the board of directors in the day of the Social Credit government of 1971 and 1972, contemplating how the costing for this railway should be done; when we look at the way the figures were being knowingly jiggered by senior officials of the railway to suit their political masters. It's a very seamy time in British Columbia history.

Then when we learn that under the former government that contract could have been finished, could have been renegotiated without this kind of out-of-court settlement and at a lower cost than the

[ Page 72 ]

subsequent award of the unfinished portion to other contractors, you have to say to yourself; why was that done? Was it being used as a political football again, this time by the former government? I suggest to you, once again, the answer is yes. The normal business consideration would have been to sit down with M.E.L. Paving and say: "This is an agreement which was entered into when the conditions have changed to such a very considerable extent that, as Mr. Justice Hinkson said during the trial, speaking of the owner: He can keep increasing the quantities to the point where he really converts it into an entirely different proposition to that which it started out." And that is what happened here, as I understand the evidence.

M.E.L. Paving and the BCR, in 1974, were faced with, in the hon. Judge's words, "an entirely different proposition." The proper business thing to have done a t that point was to have sat down and negotiated it in the public interest and in fairness to the contractor. That would have been cheaper by a number of millions of dollars, not counting the trial, than the circus that we have ultimately gone through.

I suggest that this incident of this segment of the BCR does not reflect well on either administration this province has had for the past few years.

Well, Mr. Speaker, as I say, those were subjects that I really hadn't intended to cover in my remarks at all. I had hoped to start out with some pleasantries which I shall get into now.

I would express regards to you, sir, to the House staff, to the new law clerk, the Sergeant-at-Arms and his people, and the Hansard people. I miss them now that they're up in the heavens there, Mr. Speaker. It was nice when we could talk to them down on the floor. We're glad to see them back, and all the people downstairs — the pages, the cleaning staff, all the people who make this building work. I want to express my regards to the new ministers — the hon. member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) and the others — and wish them well in their work as they undertake it.

I wonder who will be next, Mr. Speaker, as I look around the benches. You know, I was wandering through the halls of this building the other day and I found a piece of lost property which I can only assume must belong to the next member of the cabinet.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: There? We will see in a moment if he will accept it. Mr. Speaker, as the custodian of lost property in this House, I would ask you to ask who is the owner of this T-shirt. (Laughter.)

MRS. JORDAN: It says the name, Gibson.

MR. GIBSON: Murmurs of appreciation, Mr. Speaker, but no takers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Modesty prevails.

MR. GIBSON: I shall keep it in my office when the oversight is redressed.

I want to express my regards to the mover and seconder of the reply to the Speech from the Throne. I'm glad to see that the Freudian slips in our province and in our House have not become a lost art. The hon. member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl), I noticed, mentioned that some problems were announced in 1976. I think perhaps he meant "programmes" but in that slip of the tongue he had good company with His Honour on the opening day. Both of them, happily, remedied their remarks.

He had something else to say and I wrote that down: "We are all familiar with the delinquent behaviour of individuals with time on their hands." I could not help at that moment thinking of the Social Credit backbench, and a little article I saw in the Sun of September 8, noting: "Caucus Closeted." Fellows, where were you? It was a brainstorming session, though, Mr. Speaker — that's how it was advertised in the Sun.

I want to thank those members who were kind enough to send holiday greetings, and I would make particular mention of the Provincial Secretary's (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy's) card. She generously sent me a card, and I don't know if these only went to members of the opposition, with this particular wording, because it says: "Please give us a happy season and a year of peace and reason." Madam Minister, those are very kind thoughts.

MR. WALLACE: You can always ask.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like, in concluding these opening remarks, to express appreciation to the Premier for his appointment of a new House Leader, my appreciation to the former House Leader, and good wishes to the new one in his difficult task of keeping this often vexatious place moving forward in progress, allowing the opposition to get their job done — which is the primary job of the Legislature, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, as I see it — but at the same time, in due course and eventually, to take a word from the throne speech, to get the government's business done. But first of all the opposition must have their say, and I hope that the government House Leader in the months to come — and no doubt, they will be months — will give recollection to that.

Mr. Speaker, the government's opening speech, as a recitation, I thought, was a bit long and biased about the wonderful achievements of the government during the past year. The Leader of the Opposition

[ Page 73 ]

(Mr. Barrett) cited many of the difficulties that have come up during 1976, and those cannot be denied. It was a year of gross economic mismanagement in the Province of British Columbia. It was a year that saw hundreds of millions of dollars taken out of the income stream of this province, sapping economic growth in a deliberate act of political vengeance by the government — not against the former administration, because they were gone, but against the people of the province who had dared to have that particular government around. It's something from which we are only now beginning to recover. It's very misleading to try and paint a picture of prosperity in this province right now when there's almost 9 per cent unemployment, when the new capital investment that the government brags about is not capital investment that's designed for purposes of producing new jobs..

Crown Zellerbach, cornerstone of the opening speech.... Of that $125 million that the government brags about, here's the facts on it. "The re-tooled operations, however, will likely add only about 85 jobs to the company payroll." The government didn't mention that in the throne speech, Mr. Speaker. They said it like it was something pretty big. But the fact of the matter was that that investment was just made for the purpose of keeping one part of British Columbia's lumber industry running in the same place, because of the pressures of international competition.

Here's another smaller investment, noted in the papers of January 13 of this year. West Fraser Mills of Richmond is planning to replace two lumber mills in the Smithers area, with one mill costing $6.5 million. It sounds good, but let's read the fine print at the end. "The replacement will result in 25 per cent more capacity with no change in the work force."

Those are the unfortunate facts of life in our forest industry, Mr. Speaker. No change in the work force, except maybe down. We have become very close to being uncompetitive in today's market. That's why the government, in trying to have the best of both worlds in the opening speech, was misleading the people of this province by saying on the one hand, "You have to have hard work and restraint, " yet saying on the other hand: "Things are really fine. We can afford a bit more." There's a note of cautious optimism: "We're moving ahead in British Columbia." That's too optimistic, and it misleads people.

There has been, as I say, this continuing streak of what I would call political vengefulness. I still remember the scene on television of our Premier at the Social Credit convention waving in the air a sheaf of documents which he said were the final budget of the NDP, totalling $4.8 billion, the implication being that here was an administration that intended to be absolutely incredibly spendthrift in their final year, when, of course, as he well knew, these were nothing but budgetary requests from departments. They were not designed to be acted on.

AN HON. MEMBER: He knew.

MR. GIBSON: He knew, Mr. Member, because that's the way they come forward every year. These were requests before they had been cut by the Treasury Board.

To me it's sad to see this kind of motivation in the government. They should be forgetting the past. They should be saying: "We want to do positive things for this province. We're not going to spend our time reminding people about the mistakes of the past, whatever they may be."

The specifics in the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, were not as important as the generalities.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I'm going to go through the specifics briefly, Garde, and then on to other items. I'll adjourn any time you like.

Mr. Gibson moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.