[ Page 169 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate

Hon. Mr. McClelland — 169

Mr. Strongman — 174

Mr. Barber — 179

Mr. Bawtree — 188

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1977

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
(continued debate)

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I rise and am very pleased and proud to support the Speech from the Throne, probably the most progressive of its kind in this province's history.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): What kind is that?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I am especially happy and proud because of the speech's emphasis on programmes for people — social benefit programmes for all of the citizens of British Columbia.

I won't repeat all of the details of the advancement of health-care programmes particularly that appeared early in His Honour's address to this assembly, but some members in their reply to the Speech from the Throne have asked for more detail on the government's plan to expand the opportunities for British Columbians to share in the resources of this province in social services. Particularly, Mr. Speaker, there have been some comments from members of this assembly to expand on the details of the programme of opportunities for British Columbians to achieve medical training in their own province. I'd like to reflect for a moment on that part of the throne speech.

It's well known in this assembly that the so-called "town and gown" debate has been going on for years. It will serve no purpose in this province to continue that dispute. But I would like to say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the rest of the members, that in 1950 in this province we had one medical student place in British Columbia for 19,000 people, compared to a ratio of one medical student place for 13,000 people for the rest of Canada. At that time, our ratio was about the same as that for Alberta, a little higher than the Atlantic provinces and about half that of Quebec.

By 1970, Mr. Speaker, our ratio was up to one place for 35,000 British Columbians. The rest of Canada at that time was one in 14,000; Alberta was one in 11,000; for the Atlantic provinces, one to 16,000. British Columbia was the worst in Canada in terms of those kinds of ratios.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: In 1975 our ratio was one to 30,000; in Alberta, it was one to 9,000; for he whole of Canada, one to 12,000; for the Atlantic provinces, one to 14,000. It follows then, Mr. Speaker, that it was three times as difficult for a good student from British Columbia to get into medicine as it was for a student from Alberta, and more than twice as difficult as it was for a student in any other region of Canada.

The UBC campus hospital is not a new idea. A committee set up in the late 1940s, headed by Dr. Wilder Penfield, and whose recommendations led to the very establishment of the UBC medical school, Mr. Speaker, said that a campus hospital was essential if UBC was to deliver the kind of medical training that was befitting a province such as British Columbia.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Why?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The previous Social Credit government had approved construction of a campus hospital in the 1970s. It should be of note to all of us that a person of the eminence of Dr. Wilder Penfield, shortly before his death a few months ago, telegraphed his delight to the people of British Columbia at the plans that this government announced to fulfil his 30-year-old dream. A UBC campus hospital is no precedent either, Mr. Speaker.

Besides the older campus hospitals in other provinces, Alberta, our neighbour to the east, has just announced a $240 million programme to provide a programme for Edmonton's health sciences centre, which will probably make Alberta the leader in all of Canada, and perhaps in North America, in terms of medical research and medical training. The first part of that $240 million programme, announced as a part of the programme to expend Alberta's heritage funds, is an $86 million campus hospital at Edmonton.

MR. COCKE: Right downtown.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, not only are hundreds of British Columbia students denied access....

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'd like to comment for a moment, Mr. Speaker, about this business that the former Health minister (Mr. Cocke) interjects across the floor about hospitals being right downtown. Where do you think Point Grey is? Do you think it's out in the middle of the Peace River country or someplace? It's right downtown. What's the matter with you? It's downtown.

MR. COCKE: You're out of your mind. No, you were never in it.

[ Page 170 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You know, Mr. Speaker, not only are we denying hundreds of British Columbia students access to their own medical school, but other schools in this country are also tightening up their restrictions to make it even more difficult for our students to be accommodated, not only here but anywhere in Canada.

The campus hospital will not take funds away from other UBC academic programmes, Mr. Speaker. The campus hospital will not take funds away from other hospital construction either in the greater Vancouver regional hospital district.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the criteria developed for the project committee which is now planning this new hospital is that necessary improvements in the so-called downtown teaching hospitals, in order to accommodate the increased flow of students, are an integral part of the whole construction programme and will go on coincidental with the other programmes as well.

You know, another of the arguments, Mr. Speaker, has to do with the ratio of doctors to population. It's a real concern to all of us in government, and should be to everyone in this province, including those members on the opposite side of the House. It's a difficult manpower distribution problem that we have to deal with, Mr. Speaker, and we will deal with it, but not by closing the doors to educational opportunity to British Columbia citizens.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We have to also, Mr. Speaker, deal with the question of what seems to be — and what may be — a problem of maldistribution of acute-care beds in the community. And we are dealing with that question as well, Mr. Speaker, right now. But the UBC beds will be a part of that review, and they'll replace beds that are obsolete and, in the opinion of some people, even unsafe today.

No one in this room would dare disagree that some facilities in Vancouver must be replaced as soon as we possibly can. No one in this room could dare disagree with that. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the construction of the UBC hospital will allow me, or my successor, to drive the first wrecking ball to demolish a place like Vancouver General Hospital's Heather Pavilion. I hope that happens, and very soon. At any rate, Mr. Speaker, I hope that all those people who oppose the UBC hospital are prepared to defend their opposition to those young British Columbians who are locked out of medical educational opportunity. That'll be up to you. You make that choice.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The former Health minister (Mr. Cocke), Mr. Speaker, just issued the statement of the year in which he said that you don't need a hospital to train medical doctors.

MR. COCKE: I said train them downtown!

AN HON. MEMBER: Use a courthouse.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, yes, we'll use a courthouse to train the medical doctors, or perhaps we can take them down to a packing plant in East End Vancouver and train them there. You must have hospitals to train doctors!

MR. COCKE: You can train them downtown, Bob.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the throne speech referred to a restructured programme for delivery of emergency health services which will result in improvements in ambulance service, and we'll introduce a programme of air ambulance service throughout this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It will include, Mr. Speaker, the restoration of escort service for patients who need it and will extend training programmes for ambulance crews in this province.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): After you took it away.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I might take you back a bit, Mr. Speaker, to the former government. I don't intend to dwell on the past sins of an ineffectual government very much in this speech tonight, but I must tell you that this government's mismanagement of the economy and mismanagement of the treasury of this province forced it — the former government — to suspend many of the programmes which were involving the training of ambulance crews. In the summer of 1975, Mr. Speaker, because of a lack of funds because of mismanagement, the former government suspended that training. Because of my government's commitment to good health services that programme can now be restored, not only because of our commitment, but because of the management of our resources for the people of this province.

I want to outline a few of the details of this new programme tonight, Mr. Speaker, for the first time. One important effect of this programme will be to greatly reduce long-distance patient transfers by road and make air ambulance service available between medical institutions in more remote areas of the province and major treatment centres without heavy cost to the patient.

[ Page 171 ]

At the same time, the Emergency Health Services Commission will arrange for the provision of nursing, or other qualified escorts, to accompany patients where necessary. If the medical approval is given in advance, there will be no cost to the patient for the provision of these escorts.

There will be a revision of the fee schedules, and under that revised schedule the maximum that any British Columbian will pay for long-distance ambulance service, whether by road or by air, is $100. The basic charge for an ambulance call will be $15 for distances up to 40 kilometres, which is 25 miles. Over that distance there will be a charge of 13 cents per air kilometre, 20 cents per air mile, up to that maximum of $100. We have been charging people $5, Mr. Speaker, for an ambulance trip by road only, regardless of the distance, yet air ambulance flights in the past have been fully paid by patients regardless, again, of the distance. As a result, in some cases we have been using road transport in this province between hospitals when air transport would have been not only more economical, but much less tiring to the patient and perhaps involving much better health care.

An example of savings for some of the members in this House, especially those living in some of the remote areas of the province: a stretcher patient being flown from Fort St. John, Mr. Speaker, to Vancouver now has to pay $450 in air fare alone, based on the cost of four seats for the stretcher itself plus one seat for the escort and an additional seat for the escort to get back to Fort St. John. The fee for the person acting as an escort would be an extra $80 to $100, including overnight accommodation. This adds up, Mr. Speaker, to a total of about $500, which that patient has had to find. Under the new scale of charges it will be a maximum of $100 for the patient.

I can quickly give you two further examples of current air ambulance costs. For instance, from Prince George to Vancouver it is now $456; under the new fee schedule it is $80.55. Mr. Speaker, from Prince Rupert to Vancouver is presently $488, and it will be $100. Not bad.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Formerly $5!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, $5 if you wish to take a patient and drive him all the way from Prince Rupert to Vancouver. Is that what you want to continue? If that's what you want to continue, you are a disgrace to this House! Stand up and say that — $5!

AN HON. MEMBER: By car from Prince Rupert.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Five dollars by car from Prince Rupert with a person desperately in need of health care.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): That's the member who used to live in Nelson.

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you the one who used to be a bad teacher... ?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where do you live now anyway?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, just to make sure that that member understands, at present patients all over this province bear all the costs of air transport — all the costs.

MR. NICOLSON: You introduced that.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I introduced that? Where were you, the member who used to live in Nelson? Where were you then?

Mr. Speaker, the people around this province, outside of the lower mainland area and Vancouver Island, are rightly complaining of discrimination because of their geographical location but, on the other hand, we found that in the urban areas it was cheaper to call a $5 ambulance than to take a taxi, which often would be just as suitable to the patient, or more suitable. That's not fair. This government has moved to remedy that anomaly in our system, Mr. Speaker, and it will be more fair throughout this province.

MR. COCKE: Triple the rate.

AN HON. MEMBER: In 1975 it was $35.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You tell that to the people in Prince George, Mr. Member.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Tell that to the resource boards, Dennis.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, there's Chuckles.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to bring this up, but I can recall when this present ambulance service was first proposed by that member over there, and we asked him how much it was going to cost. He said: "I don't know; I don't know. We're just putting in an ambulance service." We said: "Well, you don't have enough in the budget." He said: "Oh, we've got lots of money in the budget. Don't worry about it."

MR. COCKE: Quote Hansard.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It went over budget,

[ Page 172 ]

over budget, over budget, over budget, and they made a shambles of a system that should have been a shining example to the rest of Canada. We're going to fix that, Mr. Speaker. They did exactly the same thing in insurance, and we've turned that around too, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to be calm and cool tonight, but those people won't let me. Those people over there won't let me.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about something else that was mentioned in the throne speech, and that's this government's move to attempt to bring some order and sense and better treatment to the major problem that Canada has of alcoholism — Canada's third most serious health problem today. It's been estimated, Mr. Speaker, that industrial alcoholism, with its absenteeism and accidents and production loss, costs British Columbians as much as $400 million a year. Business in the United States refers to alcoholism as their "billion-dollar problem." The costs of accidents due to alcohol abuse, if you include all the welfare costs and the police costs and medical costs and hospital care, could represent another $120 million to this province every year, Mr. Speaker.

The chief medical adviser to General Motors said not long ago that alcoholism causes 40 per cent of all hospital admissions, 31 per cent of all suicides, 60 per cent of all homicides, and 40 per cent of all family court problems. The problem isn't getting any better. In fact, year by year it gets worse and worse, and particularly so, unfortunately, in our province. But I am pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, that as part of our government's continuing and expanding programme to combat this problem, our ministry and our government gave approval in 1976 to the Alcohol and Drug Commission to provide its services on a regional basis throughout this province. At the year-end detailed planning is underway for a 36- to 40-bed detoxification unit in New Westminster, a 40-bed compulsory detox centre for skid row in Vancouver, a 40-bed residential treatment centre....

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Member. You'll remember that we doubled the number of beds available in Vancouver when we first came to office and provided a 40-bed residential treatment centre which will serve as a model for future development; and not only as a model for future development, but we hope that these regional centres, all over British Columbia, will also serve, Mr. Speaker, as models for training, and that we'll be able to train workers who are funded in the community, in these facilities, to go back into their community and provide service for this important problem in B.C.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Are they going to be staffed?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, you bet. They'll have full staff, as the other ones are now. We also, and I think you'll be interested in this, Mr. Member, hope to pioneer a concept in these new treatment facilities which will also allow full use of the family module within them, so that the person who is involved, whether male or female, regardless of age, will be allowed to have his family as part of the resource team which is helping to treat them. We hope that that will work as well, Mr. Speaker, and will help us to advance these problems as quickly as we can.

MR. COCKE: To advance the problem?

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, come on.

Mr. Speaker, a new concept in the control of excessive drinking is currently also being conducted by the Vancouver health department, in conjunction with the UBC, a programme based on a premise which will find some fault, I suppose, with some people; but it's an alternative, we hope. It's based on the premise that an individual, not a real problem drinker but someone who perhaps is worried about drinking, can be taught to keep his drinking below a self-established limit, based on a number of medical factors.

I'm sure that those people who say that abstinence is the only answer will find fault with that, but we think we do need some alternatives as well, and that's why that programme is being put forward at this time. I would also like to say that the occupational health programme, in terms of alcoholism, is showing us in government the best results of any so far. We're reaching — because, in the civil service particularly, and now increasingly more every day in private industry — more and more people and finding people before their problem becomes so bad that it'll never be helped, while they still have something to lose, while they still have a job or their self-respect, or perhaps a family to lose. If we can get them before that happens, Mr. Speaker, our success rate is fantastic.

I'd like to pay tribute to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) in this regard, for a moment, because the minister's department and my own, with the Alcohol and Drug Commission, not long ago held a seminar in Vancouver to which we invited representatives from both labour and management, at the top level, to come together and try and help us to sort out what had become a rather major problem.

First of all Labour was afraid of infringing on the rights of its members if it reached out and asked its

[ Page 173 ]

members to take advantage of alcohol treatment programmes. Management alternatively was afraid of drawing the ire of the union if it suggested that perhaps a worker should take advantage of an alcohol programme before that worker lost his or her job. So we brought those people together in a seminar at the Bayshore Inn in Vancouver — and the Labour minister will forgive me if I infringe slightly on his department — but it was a tremendous success, Mr. Speaker, and I think that those things will continue in the future. But I think we broke the ice. and we started a more sensible approach by both management and labour in treating this problem early.

In talking afterwards, the Labour minister informed me that he had spoken with one of the people who was at that seminar from the United States, I believe, who had told him that, first of all, he was very happy that we had invited him, and that he was thrilled with the results, and that as a result of the things we are doing now in British Columbia, we are five years ahead of anybody in North America in terms of this kind of treatment for alcoholism.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: We can't help that. That's what the man said, and that's the truth.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, you're a good trade unionist — you'd accept our approach in this area.

Mr. Speaker, I perhaps could take just one more moment to mention one other aspect of the health department. At the risk of being accused of going on a holiday at government expense, I want to say that in November I was privileged to go to Japan to take a first-hand look at the Japanese system of coping with heroin addiction.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, I went by air.

In all of the free world, Mr. Speaker, Japan is really the only country that has launched a truly effective programme in this area. That is, of course, the reason we went there.

MR. COCKE: How about China?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: For the record, Mr. Speaker, in the late '50s, Japan identified some 40,000 heroin addicts in that country. Today they don't have any — they never shot anybody — virtually none. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Just a few here and there.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I'd like to give you the statistics.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, I'll give you the exact guess. Last year in Japan — 1975, the last year for which there are figures — there were identified 34 heroin addicts in a country of 100-and-some-odd million people. Seventeen of those weren't Japanese nationals; they were American servicemen who were deported back to home. So there were 17 heroin addicts out of a population of 100-and-some-odd million. I'd say that's none.

The most heartening point of that visit, Mr. Speaker.... The reason I mention this is because I have been accused in this House of being a hard-liner in terms of heroin addiction. I have never apologized for that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I've never apologized for that.

The most heartening point of this visit was the people of Japan, who brought their government to the position of beginning this kind of a programme because they were so alarmed at what was happening in Japan that they set up citizens' groups and petitioned all the local levels of government, the provincial levels of government and the federal level of government to make sure that something was done to get this problem under control in Japan. And they did.

I don't know, Mr. Speaker, whether this kind of a programme can be used in this province or not, but it's certainly worth assessment. I'll be telling the House more about that later. I am running out of time tonight. I'm sorry. We can stop after, and I will tell you all about it.

Particularly noteworthy is the attitude of the public in Japan in opposition to any anti-social act. This is reflected not only with regard to the illegal use of drugs, but in almost everything. One of the things that caught my eye most of all was that all over the city of Tokyo, which was the only area I had the opportunity to visit, really, there was a total absence of vandalism of any kind. Vending machines, bicycles and pay telephones were left on the street all night long and all day long. They were never protected and they were never touched.

I would also like to say that the Japanese people didn't shoot anything in the street. The attitude of he Japanese people when they first demanded that heir government take some action was: first of all, you take some action to develop some legal recourse for the government to act; but secondly, you deal with the treatment of the individuals involved. That's

[ Page 174 ]

what the Japanese people have done. It's a very humane system that they have developed in that country.

While the attitude of the Japanese people, Mr. Speaker, against anti-social acts which affect their society is very strong and a major factor, there isn't any doubt that positive action on the part of the government and the remarkable cooperation of the various ministries in Japan really were required to halt and reverse the trend that was developing. We're going to study that system, and we're going to study every system that we can throughout the world, because I'm tired of hearing British Columbia referred to as "the drug capital of Canada." I believe that the people of B.C. are ready for some positive moves against heroin abuse in this province.

We haven't made up our minds about the way in which we wish to go but the Alcohol and Drug Commission in my ministry has a commitment — a mandate — to present something to government for their consideration. Whatever we do — it doesn't matter what we do — there will be opposition from those whose philosophy differs from us.

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'll tell you what the former government did, Mr. Speaker: nothing.

MR. COCKE: Let's see you do it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: They copped out; they passed the buck; they did nothing in all of the years that they were in office. Mr. Speaker, I don't care if the philosophy differs from ours or not, but I am not prepared, and this government is not prepared, to sit back and watch this situation deteriorate for another 50 years.

I am very proud of this government's moves in providing programmes for people of all ages. I am more than proud to wholeheartedly support the throne speech, which is a document of exceptional social impact for the people of British Columbia.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): I believe I'm the first, of the party that has spoken, to whom the opposition has actually given any recognition. I'm not sure if that's a compliment or not.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): It is. (Laughter.)

MR. STRONGMAN: As an aside, I feel like the ninth act in an eight-act vaudeville play. I've been waiting in my place to make remarks on the throne speech for some two days now. I hope I haven't forgotten the remarks that I had planned.

Before beginning, though, I think it's apropos for me as a backbencher to compliment the Premier, particularly on his selection of the new cabinet ministers who have been placed very recently into the cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: Better luck next time.

MR. STRONGMAN: Wait your turn. (Laughter.)

I had the honour of having the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) as my office-mate during the first session of the 31st parliament. I must say that I was pleased to see him enter the cabinet because I think that he'll add some maturity and direction to a ministry that had gone downhill and was in the depths of despair after the previous administration finally left power. I think now we're on the road to better things in the mining industry.

I'd also like to compliment the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt). He acquitted himself very well in the first session. I think that as one of the new, young members of the House, he's going to add a great deal to the cabinet. Also, the first member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Bawlf), as I think most of you know, has been a very experienced alderman and has given and dedicated a great deal of his time to the preservation of our heritage. His placement in the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation, I think, is most appropriate.

The three additions round out our cabinet and round out a government that I believe is one of the strongest in the provinces in this country. I think that all of the House will see a great deal from them.

I hope that I'll contribute a little more than some of the previous speakers. I couldn't help but notice one of the comments in the Sun — tonight describing one of the previous speakers — I think he'll go unnamed. It's datelined January 19. I'll just quote one or two brief sentences from it. It says: "It's Second Rate." I think that we'll just leave the name for now, but it did say:

"He did not serve the cause of good government; he did not serve his party; he did not serve British Columbians. Froth without content; a fraud on the public."

Interjection.

MR. STRONGMAN: Yes, fraud. I'm quoting, by the way, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he?

MR. STRONGMAN: I don't think he's in tonight. Is he not able to... ?

Interjections.

MR. STRONGMAN: He's trying to buy all the

[ Page 175 ]

copies of the Sun to keep them out of people's hands.

I spent some time reading and studying the Speech from the Throne. I think it's chock-full of exciting, progressive, innovative legislation. I find it difficult to comprehend comments in the press attributed to the opposition that say that it's "threadbare, hollow, without solid content." I feel that they must have been misquoted.

I think it's appropriate for someone like myself on the back bench to run over some of the obvious highlights and give my impressions as the second member for Vancouver South — by so doing, hopefully, giving the opposition some understanding of the proposals that our government is setting forth for this second session.

I noticed in the Province on January 14 a remark attributed to the Premier. It went something like this: "The length of the session will depend on the attitude of the opposition. If they don't understand the legislation, the session could go through the summer. But if they do, it can be over by Easter." I'm sure some of the opposition saw that particular comment. I hope that they'll be introspective, intelligent, realistic, responsible and pragmatic and try to comprehend some of the goals that we've set aside as prerequisites for success in British Columbia.

I thought that I'd go through the speech. I would like to draw your attention to page 3, towards the end of that page:

"It is now the intention to develop investment in the province by encouraging those who live here to keep their capital at work in British Columbia and by encouraging those who live outside our border to invest here. "

I think all businessmen and all responsible people are aware that money is leaving British Columbia. It's leaving Canada, going to investment climates that are more secure and more profitable.

AN HON. MEMBER: All the left-wing money is leaving the province. (Laughter.)

MR. STRONGMAN: One of the goals of our government is to create a secure investor climate and to keep existing money here and to attract investment.

Confidence was, in my mind, destroyed by the last administration. I feel that it can be summed up by some of the remarks by the newest member of the Legislature, and I quote from Hansard. For those of you who haven't twigged to the fact that the newest member of the Legislature is on the opposition side, he spoke at length two days ago. The words that he said and the ones that I've selected tonight I quote now: "The message I sent to New York was that if the 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." That's talking about the Kitimat pipeline. If any one person wanted to discourage investment in this province, that man with that type of statement did it perfectly.

MR. LEA: Are you in favour of that pipeline?

MR. STRONGMAN: Any time that you threaten an investment company, or any other responsible company that wishes to invest in a province or an area, and you threaten them with expropriation of 15 per cent of their assets, 15 per cent of their product, they're going to go elsewhere. There are other places in the world that have much better climates than that. This government is not going to allow that type of takeover. The throne speech has made it very clear. Statements like that will keep our party in office forever; perhaps he'll continue to be quoted as he has been in the past.

I could not help but read in the Globe and Mail some weeks ago — I happened to be in eastern Canada....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's where your heart is.

MR. STRONGMAN: No, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, I happen to have lived in British Columbia for some 11 years now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Eleven years! Wow!

MR. STRONGMAN: My family have invested out here. We owe this particular province a great deal. We've been successful here, and we would like to continue being here and investing in the province, and we will under a Social Credit government.

One of the platforms of most socialist parties, especially the Canadian socialist parties, has been car insurance. They feel that they should be in the car insurance business. I couldn't help but notice an article in the Globe and Mail, December 30, on page 7. I'll just quote part of it: "The NDP is having second thoughts about the need for public automobile insurance in Ontario. Pat Lawlor, Lakeshore" — he is an NDP member of the Ontario House — "had learned a bitter lesson from British Columbia. The experience of the NDP government there with public auto insurance has been, in one word, horrendous. James Renwick of Riverdale has similar doubts."

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): What party does he come from?

MR. STRONGMAN: I think it's the NDP. I'm sure it is. It's the provincial NDP, but they seem to have a

[ Page 176 ]

lot in common with....

Interjections.

MR. STRONGMAN: And then just as recently as January 11, there is an article again in the Toronto Globe and Mail, and it's worth quoting because I believe that it sums up the disenchantment of not only people who are perhaps right of the socialist party, but also the people that are actually supporting the socialist party in other legislative jurisdictions:

"The New Democratic Party in Ontario, at least some of its chief spokesmen, are beginning to sound as if they have comprehended a basic principle of conservatism: don't jump into a programme until you know what its effects will be and that they will be beneficial. The Ontario NDP, like NDP elsewhere in Canada, has until recently favoured government-operated insurance, but the committee has been looking at how such a plan implemented by former NDP Premier David Barrett functioned in British Columbia. It lost $181 million in close to two years."

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): One hundred and eighty-seven million.

MR. STRONGMAN: "The plan should have been given much more careful study before being implemented, and it was an incautious use of premium rates that were not actuarially sound."

MR. LAUK: Who said that?

MR. STRONGMAN: The Toronto Globe and Mail. That was Patrick Lawlor — one of your associates, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does he have any relations in the Old Country?

AN HON. MEMBER: Has he got any relations in my riding?

MR. STRONGMAN: I believe that the government must introduce programmes to entice secondary industry into the province. I wrote the minister some months ago, outlining programmes in another jurisdiction, and this particular jurisdiction made it so attractive for industrialists to invest there that I thought it worthwhile for the minister to consider some of the proposals and some of the things that were available in another area. But for the benefit of the House, I thought that I'd just mention them briefly.

In a major metropolitan city in the northern United States, commercial land is available, financed by state and municipal governments at under $30,000 an acre serviced. Capital expenses can be financed up to 90 per cent at prime rates of interest. Municipal taxes are suspended for up to 20 years, as long as you provide jobs. I believe that our government should be looking at that type of policy, that type of programme; new industry, secondary industry coming into this province is going to mean jobs. I believe the minister is working on it now. I'm looking forward to proposals being presented in the next weeks.

Right now, B.C. has the highest wage rates in Canada. I don't think anyone in this House would ever want to roll them back. But we have to face the facts that high wage rates do cost more than just extra dollars to companies; they move the cost of products up.

We find that we are not becoming competitive. I think some of the interesting rates are that the average weekly earnings in B.C. are $252; in Ontario, it's $222 — hourly rates $7.22, against $5.50. If we're going to continue to pay these rates — I think we all would like to — then we're going to have to be more competitive. We have to subsidize or make it more attractive for industry to come into the province. They're not going to invest here because of the high rates of payment to employees, but will if we can give them other incentives to come into the marketplace. Another dicey problem, and one that I'm sure the opposition will start to comment on, is the problem of estate taxes and succession duties. I'm not necessarily speaking for the government, but it's my belief that the wrong people get taxed by estate taxes and succession duties. The little man doesn't really have the benefit of estate planning; he's usually unaware of the value of his estate and how it has escalated over the years. The wealthy, the people who have had time to plan, seldom get taxed at all. We are in the process in this province of collecting a little bit over $20 million, and it would be my considered opinion that it likely costs us just about $20 million to collect it.

MR. LAUK: Balderdash!

MR. STRONGMAN: If we were to repeal estate tax and make B.C. a tax shelter, I believe that people would come in here, would invest and leave their money here. This is the very thing that all of us want; we have to attract money into this province.

MR. LAUK: The evidence shows the opposite.

MR. STRONGMAN: I, as a backbencher, will be asking the minister if he will consider this type of legislation. I hope that our party can bring it forward.

MR. LAUK: I'll pay my estate taxes without objection — after I'm dead.

[ Page 177 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, a whole nickel!

MR. STRONGMAN: I was also pleased to see in the throne speech that one of the keynotes, on page 4, the first paragraph, is the need for restraint. I'll just pick a few words out of the text rather than reading the whole paragraph:

".... the need for restraint in the lowering of expectations in all sectors of the provincial economy must be continued. This province, along with all other provinces, joined the anti-inflation programme of the Government of Canada in 1976, but believes that British Columbia's restraint in this crucial year should extend beyond the guidelines." It goes on to say: "An exporting province such as British Columbia can't afford to price itself out of world markets."

I don't think there's a person in this House that doesn't concur with that.

"This province must pause and let the rest of the world catch up in terms of cost."

I think we have to be realistic: copper is copper whether it comes from British Columbia or Chile; coal is coal — it doesn't matter where it comes from. Lumber, whether it's produced in British Columbia, Oregon or Georgia — it all builds houses, and it has to be competitive. If we don't pause and let the rest of the world catch up, we're going to price ourselves out of the market, and we're going to find ourselves in an economic situation that we will have a great deal of difficulty getting out of.

The government can subsidize exports. I personally believe that this puts the province on a collision course with disaster. I think we have to be competitive and we have to be competitive in a real way. To make us falsely competitive will just cause inflation, and eventually it will have its own undoing. During the last 25 years many significant events have taken place in Canada, but none so significant as the recent election in Quebec. I think all Canadians will be affected by it. I happen to have been in Quebec lately and there certainly is a feeling of euphoria, not only for their own nationalistic feeling, but also a feeling of independence and also a feeling that they still want to belong to Canada. But there is this nationalistic euphoria that we all have to accept and do something with.

I note in the speech, on page 4, that the Lieutenant-Governor has spoken at length on it:

"Across the country today there are those who would seek a simple solution to some of Canada's problems by breaking up this great confederation. My government believes it can offer a better solution. My government has been arguing for a more flexible union between the regions and the national government to keep Canada strong — and together. My first minister believes that a country as large in area and as small in population as Canada cannot live and grow within a rigid federal system. It can be recognized that there are five different regions in Canada, that different solutions are required in those different regions, and if a working relationship can be developed between these regions, then my government believes Canada will be a stronger country, not a weaker one."

There will be more changes in Confederation, and B.C. should take advantage of them. Breaking up Confederation will not solve any area's economic ills, and I believe that people in Quebec realize that. Quebec has economic problems more severe than our own and right now is receiving, I believe, 50 per cent of all equalization payments paid to any of the provinces, which, I believe, amounts to over $1 billion. I don't think they're going to give up that type of financing for a national dream.

I believe we should accept the premise that Quebec is going to change Confederation, and we should support it in its struggle for more autonomy. Quebec can be the catalyst for change that we've been trying to achieve in this province, trying to achieve in other provinces, for years and years. They're not going to leave Confederation; we don't want them out of Confederation; but they are going to be the catalyst for change that all of us require, and we'll grow with it.

MR. LAUK: Is this your national bid?

MR. STRONGMAN: Most members of this House, I believe, are concerned with the way the federal government bureaucracy has grown. In fact, I've used the expression that it "grows like Topsy." I happened to be reading in a trade magazine some weeks ago a comparison on population to federal civil servants in this country over the last 50 years. I think it would be interesting for all of us to digest the meaning of the figures that I happened to find in a very obscure trade magazine having to do with paint and wallpaper.

The federal employee list in 1926 numbered 38,000 people, and we had nine million Canadians alive and well in Canada in 1926. In 1976, there are 450,000 federal civil servants, and we have 22 million. That's two-and-a-half times the population, but 12 times the number of employees in the federal government. One of the ways we can stop that growth is a move of power from the federal scene to the provincial scene.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. STRONGMAN: To illustrate this government's position, I would like to quote from a

[ Page 178 ]

speech made to the Canadian Club by our Premier on November 29 of last year. I think that he sums up the feelings of not only British Columbians, but most Canadians:

"I think we should recognize the fact that the realities of Canada today are going to demand a new type of federalism, a regional federalism that more properly will allow the provinces and the regions of this country to develop their own destinies — not separate from Canada, but in concert with each other — and thus build a stronger Canada. I strongly believe that at this time we have great opportunities in this country."

To enlarge on that, I think we have tremendous opportunities to get more autonomy for areas like British Columbia. Quebec is the catalyst; I think all of us — on both sides of this House — should support anything that is going to benefit us, short of revolution. Our position, I believe, is quite clear: a united, confederated Canada with a new set of ground rules.

One of the more interesting and, likely, controversial items in the throne speech was the topic of negative income tax. I'll quote from the speech:

"My First Minister has recommended that various income supplements and equalization payments may be rationalized into a single income programme to bring greater equity to all Canadians, rather than contribute to the cost of expensive government. The government believes a negative income tax would accomplish what existing programmes and equalization payments have failed to do: guarantee individuals whose incomes are below an established poverty line."

Negative income tax: a very contentious issue, but perhaps a perfect vehicle to provide service, equalization grants; make Canada a unique entity in that we can move into a negative income tax position much easier than, say, a federal system similar to that in the United States. We could produce savings on providing service on old-age pensions, social assistance, family allowances, disability allowances, and so on. A myriad of services could be delivered under the umbrella of a negative income tax.

My point is: we should be studying this type of legislation; we should be studying the results of it. It certainly has a great deal of merit. I would hope that our government, and also the opposition, will soon establish strong positions on whether we should go that route or not, and whether we should push the federal government towards it.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): I'll buy that!

MR. LAUK: What do you think of this, Willie?

MR. STRONGMAN: The opposition are alluding to the fact that this speech is threadbare. I honestly can't believe how they can make comments like that when we can go through the proposed legislation, as I have done in a very humble way, and yet they can still make remarks like that. I just can't believe it.

We have legislation like an ombudsman — something that the previous administration promised but were never able to deliver; a new conflict-of-interest statute for public officials; more power and authority for the municipalities; urban transportation authority.

Any of the members on either side of the House who are representative of people living in Vancouver will realize the tremendous problem we have in urban transportation in that city. Vancouver is choking. If we don't do something about it soon, we're going to end up in complete chaos. The proposed urban transportation authority Act — I'm pleased to see the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) is agreeing with me — perhaps will solve that problem.

MR. LAUK: Good. I'm glad you said "perhaps," my friend.

MR. STRONGMAN: Senior citizens in the province are going to have a monthly shelter allowance, free use of provincial campsites, universal Pharmacare. Pharmacare, which was introduced as early as 1933 and has been upgraded by several administrations, is finally going to be universal so that every person in British Columbia will have an opportunity to get prescription drugs at a price he or she can afford.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Free of cost.

MR. STRONGMAN: Expand service for the treatment of alcoholism. You just heard our Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) speak at length on alcoholism; I won't enlarge on it. Obviously it's a priority of our government, and one that should be looked at by more legislatures across the country. The air ambulance, again, was spoken about at length by the minister.

One of the points I, as a father of three school-age children, was delighted to see, be part of and have some input in as a backbencher, was that for the first time in years we're not just going to talk about changing our educational system; we're going to do something about it.

No more studies; no more committees. A decision was made. Rightly or wrongly, we're going to do something about it to make beneficial changes. One of the unique parts of it is a threefold system that shows what the core programmes must be, what other items should be and what other things may be

[ Page 179 ]

learned. I believe that a book that is now available.... I haven't seen it as yet, but I understand that there is a booklet available describing the core programme. I commend the minister for making steps like this. It is the first time in my memory in British Columbia that we have actually taken some direct steps to improve our educational process.

As we promised in our election campaign, we are going to support non-public schools and propose new approaches to the care, treatment and training of children continually at odds with the law. The problem is there, and unlike the previous administration, this government is going to take steps to solve a problem and help these children become responsible adults.

The government is committed to preserving the family unit. I notice that on page 7 of the Speech from the Throne:

"My government will direct considerable attention to enhancing the strength and importance of the family unit in British Columbia. The family court will continue to provide support and counselling for, families experiencing a crisis. However, in those instances where all help has been exhausted and divorce is inevitable, my government has proposed to introduce legislation which will ensure property is shared justly between partners of a marriage."

Again, this is legislation that is going to benefit people.

A new attack on impaired drivers — I'm just going through highlights of the speech, this alleged threadbare speech — standardization of working conditions; job opportunities for young people, full-time and summer employment; a new highway from Merritt to Hope; programmes to improve tourism; Consumer Protection Act; Motor Dealers Licensing Act; Travel Industry Act; grants for museums; B.C. Heritage Trust.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the Speech from the Throne. I believe that the people who are criticizing our proposed legislation must have been leaning over the gluepot too long.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I would like, on behalf of the people of Victoria, to thank the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), and to tell him how especially welcome is his announcement that ambulance fees will now be going from $5 to $15. I would like to point out that especially the senior citizens of my riding will, I am sure, show their gratitude at the very next election by voting in overwhelmingly small numbers for the government party. To go from $5 to $15 in a riding like my own is no small matter for the senior citizens who, especially should they be chronically ill, find it necessary to take advantage of that service. A taxi service is a hopelessly dirty, slow, inefficient and impersonal means of providing the health care on the spot that they require. I know that they'll be delighted to receive the news that that cost has been increased from $5 to $15.

Somewhat more happily, I do welcome the recent conversion of the Minister of Health, walking presumably on the road to Damascus, to many of the principles outlined by the Alcohol and Drug Commission as it was originally constituted, and, as it happens, of which I happen to be a member. The Alcohol and Drug Commission is the one that pioneered regional health centre for alcohol and other drug dependants in this province of British Columbia, and not that minister, although he is happy to take the credit for it.

The Alcohol and Drug Commission opened the first detox centre sponsored by the provincial government in the province of British Columbia, although he's happy to take the credit for it. The Alcohol and Drug Commission in the city of Victoria opened the first detox centre down on McClure Street. It works extremely well, although he's happy to take the credit for it.

On the road to Damascus the minister seems to have been won over to a number of the principles which, when he was in opposition, he chose to attack as hysterically as he could on numerous occasions. He outlined one of them tonight.

The former Alcohol and Drug Commission, prior to its wholesale sacking by that minister, did propose on a number of occasions that it was worth taking a serious look at experiments in controlled drinking. These experiments themselves were pioneered at the University of Pennsylvania as early as 1964. Those experiments appear to offer some help for the borderline alcoholics who, through refusal to recognize a more fundamental problem in their own lives, and through an inability of the treatment resources of any jurisdiction to provide the specialized kind of concern and help that's required, may then find it possible to, if not overcome altogether, at least lean to control, within moderate limits, their own drinking.

When he was in opposition that minister again and again, hysterically and more hysterically, attacked those and other experimental propositions being put forward by our commission. Now that he is in power, now that he's in office, some of the facts and some of the truth of those cases have come to his attention, and I congratulate him for it. He may not admit that he was wrong before, but at least by tonight he has conceded it by the fact that he is now willing to consider some of the experiments that we pioneered — some of the experiments that we in the Alcohol and Drug Commission, in the field of detox and treatment and family involvement, in regional decision-making and community work, pioneered. He

[ Page 180 ]

is now, once in government, willing to admit that they are worth pursuing.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): How did you get the job?

MR. BARBER: How did I get the job? I was appointed. I was appointed as a result of five years of experience with an organization in Victoria called Cool-Aid, which last year won a telegram and an award from Queen Elizabeth herself, giving us the Commonwealth Youth Award as the most outstanding youth programme in the British Commonwealth. That's how I got appointed.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Any more questions, Jimmy?

MR. BARBER: I would like to speak very briefly about the experiments in Japan. These are very controversial experiments. Without doubt the government of Japan has managed, at least statistically more successfully than any jurisdiction in the western world, to reduce the incidence of heroin addiction. It's absolutely true. The claim that they have eliminated it altogether is not a claim that they themselves make — and I was surprised to hear the minister make it.

The Japanese treatment procedure is basically this: it is against the law to be addicted to heroin and other opiate products in Japan. Being against the law, it is possible for a policeman to pick you up, to be taken to a centre, and having determined that you in fact are addicted, to be kept in that centre for a period of 30 days and forcibly detoxified, and during that period of 30 days to be counselled and treated by the programmes and services offered therein, and at the end of the 30 days to be released. The government of Japan does not claim that they have cured the problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: They said they only have 17 heroin addicts.

MR. BARBER: Only 17 heroin addicts. I have never heard the government of Japan claim that. When I was with the Alcohol and Drug Commission for a period of 15 months I never read any report they made. However, it may be that it's their current claim.

The government of Japan also admits something that the minister left out. Two things have occurred in this Japanese experiment: first of all, they have indeed created a revolving-door syndrome, the like of which no administration here has seen. Indeed, they are able, forcibly, to detoxify heroin addicts. The problem is that in many cases, some 34, 35 or 36 per cent of the cases, they have to do so again, again and again for the rest of the lives, miserable and wretched, of those heroin addicts. There is no real cure; there is just constant detoxification. The minister certainly has not claimed that those detox centres have all closed down now that they have done their jobs because, indeed, they have to continue to treat those people. But let me say again that statistically their success rate is greater than our own.

Let me point out again, though, how that has been achieved, and there are two more reasons for that. One of them is omitted by the minister, but not omitted by the World Health Organization, which as recently as 18 months ago was studying the problem and issued a paper which I have read. It indicated that almost proportionate to the apparent decline in heroin addiction in Japan there is a corresponding increase in addiction to amphetamines, to the valium and librium and other classes of depressants, and to alcohol, that almost correspondingly, according to the World Health Organization material which I've read and which I would be glad to send to the minister, and which I received when I was at the Alcohol and Drug Commission, and which I expect you have received.... Indeed, the problem of alcoholism and addiction to some of the tranquillizers, some of the depressants, has increased, because one of the suggestions made by the government of Japan itself — and I am sure the minister learned that when he was there — is that for those people for whom the revolving-door detox provides no alternative at all, those other drugs — less illegal and not involving them in that revolving-door-30-day treatment, the back-again, back-again, back-again syndrome — provide another way of life, equally miserable and hopeless.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We've got that here, too.

MR. BARBER: Of course we've got that here. But to try and propose, I believe somewhat misleadingly, to the people of British Columbia that in Japan they have found a cure is, I think, unfair to the people in your own department and in that commission who are breaking their hearts trying to find a solution appropriate to British Columbia. It's just not fair to hold up some other model when it turns out that they've got some other problems created as the result of their cure.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Why don't you listen?

MR. BARBER: I listened very carefully, and when I was with the Alcohol and Drug Commission, I read very carefully every one of your speeches when you were in the opposition, and I think I've got a pretty good idea of your position. The final position, though, is the most obvious one, and that's taken....

[ Page 181 ]

Interjection.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Say that again!

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour to withdraw that statement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

AN HON. MEMBER: Boy, you can't control that vicious temper, can you?

MR. BARBER: What's going on there? My drug-cult friends, indeed!

Anyway, the second position expressed by the government of Japan, expressed in their own documents to the rest of the interested world that's examined statistically their greater success, is this: we see in Japan a markedly greater, profoundly greater, ability of that society to control its own members. The rules and the traditions, the sense of family, the ancestral roots, the social expectations are more profound, are more important and more authoritative than our own clearly are in the western world. The BCMA said that before the minister went on the trip to Japan; the BCMA has said that ever since, and our commission has said it as well.

I think it's important to take a look at what they've done; I agree with that, and we said that when we were on the commission. But I think it's unfair to hold up to the profession....

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't you?

MR. BARBER: Why didn't we? Because in our view there were more urgent things to do — like set up the first detox centres in the province of British Columbia, like establish the regional treatment network, like establish the model treatment centres. They were all on the books when you came into office.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You spread heroin to every part of this province!

MS. SANFORD: Who did?

MR. BARBER: What? What?

MR. BARRETT: Withdraw!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: I have to ask for a second withdrawal, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Health followed the example of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams.)

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The interjections from the cabinet benches to the hon. member who presently has the floor are not the type of interjections we should allow in this House, and I'll ask the hon. Minister of Health to withdraw any imputation against the hon. member who presently has the floor.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I meant no imputation against the member, Mr. Speaker. I said, Mr. Speaker, that there was no heroin problem in many parts of the province before the drug commission, of which that member was a member, spread the situation all over British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the hon. minister please withdraw the suggestion that the hon. member who has the floor was responsible for the spread of heroin in the province. I think that is a completely improper suggestion.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I said the former Alcohol and Drug Commission was responsible, but if it was taken that way, I'll withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member withdraws. Proceed, hon. member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Full of hostility and fear, right below the surface.

MR. BARBER: The commission exists because our government recognized that the problem of alcohol and heroin addiction had reached epidemic proportions in the province; because we had, in Vancouver when we took office, second only to New York City, not per capita but in gross numbers, the largest population of heroin addicts in North America, and that's why the commission was formed. We took action then. You are following, I think, to your credit, many of the plans laid down during the term of our Alcohol and Drug Commission before its membership was sacked, and I congratulate you for that too.

To claim that that commission — to suggest that any member of it — was responsible for spreading heroin addiction in this province is absolutely grotesque.

However, I wanted to give a speech about the throne; I wanted to give a reply to the Speech from the Throne; I wanted to talk about some of the things that I like in the speech, some of the things that I find not so likeable in the speech, and to point out a few alternatives of my own. Specifically, I wish to propose tonight a greater Victoria economic development council, which is, I think, a legitimate

[ Page 182 ]

and serious response to a problem of unemployment, of industrial decay, of general despair in the greater Victoria area; a problem raised by people at municipal councils and regional district level in greater Victoria, a problem yet to be dealt with in a serious way by any of the government members from greater Victoria, and yet to be dealt with by the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips).

You know, one of the catchwords and one of the bywords of this government appears to be that the people of British Columbia should be willing to lower their expectations. And one of the ironies is that they are starting to do that, but you don't know why. They're lowering their expectations because they've come to learn what they can expect of you, most especially your own supporters. Those are the ones whose expectations are being lowered day by day, and I refer particularly to the small business community of British Columbia. Their expectations are dropping every time you continue to follow the economic policies that you've established. They're lowering their expectations and they're lowering them in a way more ironic and cruel than you ever suggested by a phrase like that.

I think this government has been guilty of a series of some of the most stupid and primitive economic decisions we've seen in this province for a long, long time. I know on Vancouver Island and, most especially, in the city of Victoria the cruel and miserable results of those stupid and primitive 19th-century economic policies. We see in Victoria tonight an unemployment rate of near 10 per cent. We see a tourist industry that hasn't had a year like this since 1934. We see a Chamber of Commerce, hardly a front for the New Democratic Party, telling the people of Victoria that the chief responsibility for the unemployment rate must be found in what happened to the tourism industry itself. The chief factor behind that is the stupid and primitive decision of that government to follow an economic policy which has been considered outdated by sensible and coherent economists for 80 and 90 and 100 years. This pretence of making things pay their way....

I'd like as well to reply to what I thought was an almost bizarre reply by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) when closing the previous debate — certainly an irrelevant reply. He was asked repeatedly throughout the debate — as we were asked during the throne speech to consider it — why the government has failed to exercise any wit, any imagination, any original thinking whatever, to deal with the economic problems of this province, and I am speaking most specifically for Victoria, the economic problems of the capital city.

The minister's irrelevant reply was, as usual, of course, to attack the NDP — we've come to expect that; to attack socialists everywhere — I suppose we can expect that too; even to attack the national government, which party he was once a member of; but generally to ignore, to shuffle aside, to pretend he didn't hear it. The charge is real, the charge is immediate, made by not just this opposition but by your own business supporters throughout the province of British Columbia.

The minister has talked about unemployment. The Vancouver Sun has talked about unemployment. The minister's speech about unemployment doesn't quite jibe with what the Vancouver Sun said about unemployment as recently as Wednesday, January 12, of this year. The Vancouver Sun — probably, by common agreement, not a propaganda arm of the New Democratic Party — reported in an article appearing on page 20: "B.C.'s Jobless Jump Highest in Country, Statistics Show":

"B.C. had the largest unemployment increase in the country during December, Statistics Canada reported Tuesday. The figures show that the seasonally adjusted jobless rate in the province rose 1.5 per cent to 8.8 per cent of the B.C. workforce. Nationally, the rate jumped 0.2 per cent to 7.5, with 736,000 persons out of work. The official of Statistics Canada said the number of jobless in B.C. rose officially from 88,000 in November to 92,000 in December: 'Some increase was forecast, but this rise is surprising in view of last year's statistics.' "

Between November and December of 1975, when we were in power, the number of unemployed in the province fell dramatically from 102,000 to 82,000. Indeed, the highest 1976 unemployment rate in British Columbia was recorded during April, when 9.9 per cent of the work force — 110,000 people — was idle. The minister's reply was utterly irrelevant to the charges made by his own business supporters that their taxation policies have diminished, and in some sectors — especially the tourist industry — crippled beyond immediate recovery significant economic sectors that contribute to the livelihood of the people of this province.

In Victoria tonight, near 10 per cent of our citizens are out of work; 9,800 human beings tonight are out of work. I'd like to invite the Minister of Labour, if he's interested in the problem, to join me sometime at 4 or 5 in the morning when, on Fort Street between Blanshard and Quadra, you can see people waiting for jobs — guys 20, 30, 40 years of age, waiting for jobs. I've been there, and I've talked to some of those guys at 4 and 5 in the morning. They're not interested in UIC and handouts; they want work. Some of them voted for you, Mr. Minister. Some of them believed the promises of your government, Mr. Minister. Some of them wonder how come you've delivered nothing except more unemployment, a crippled tourist industry, and absolutely irrelevant replies to serious motions to

[ Page 183 ]

examine the problem of unemployment.

I invite you to come with me at 4 and 5 in the morning and meet some of those guys. They'll talk to you. They'll tell you what they told me. They'll tell you how often they've been there and how long they've been looking for work. They'll tell you that here in the capital city, they and people they know, for months and months and months, have been taking you at your word and waiting for you to deliver the goods.

One of the principal causes of the unemployment situation we have in Victoria tonight — nearly 10 per cent; 9,800 human beings out of work — is the failure of the tourist business in Victoria and the repercussive effects that that's had on the whole economy. Let me tell you something about tourism very quickly. In greater Victoria in 1975 it was worth $135 million. On Vancouver Island it was worth $269 million. Of those millions, $6 million came from the Princess Marguerite, by the way — the ship that you wanted to return and abandon to private enterprise.

At the peak of the tourist industry there are some 4,000 people employed on Vancouver Island — or there were. There are, or were, some 2,500 people employed at the slump of the season in the winter. For your information — through you, Mr. Speaker, to the government — 8 per cent of all retail sales on Vancouver Island come from tourists. Of the $269 million earned on Vancouver Island through tourism, 85 per cent of that revenue originated with travellers who themselves used the B.C. ferry system. What do we see now? In 1976, including and prior to the decision taken by the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Davis) and that cabinet to double the ferry rates, we have seen a loss of 338,000 vehicles and a loss of 834,000 passengers. The common estimate produced by that government's own department of tourism is that each of those tourists spends on average 1.5 days on Vancouver Island, spends on average $40 each. That is an extraordinary loss, and there is no way we can afford it.

The problem with a partisan politician like myself saying those things is, of course, that the government finds it pretty easy to ignore it, as I suppose much of the public might as well. We have self-interest at stake, just like you do, and no one believes us. So let me, if I might quote a source that you might find somewhat more credible — again from that business community that is your own best support. Hardly a front for the NDP, is it? Hardly a front when on August 12, predicting the results, finding tonight that his predictions have come true, Mr. Al Frame, president of the greater Victoria visitors information centre, said:

"The provincial government is also losing out in revenues because of the tourist slump" — not just business, but the government itself. "As well as lost revenues on the ferries, the provincial government is losing $70,000 a day on room taxes because of the 20 per cent reduction in the number of visitors. Another $73,000 a day is being lost on sales tax revenues."

That wasn't one of our party hacks talking like that. There was a guy who, I would presume — I like him and respect him, and we get along very well — is probably one of your supporters and certainly not one of ours, and that's what he is telling you: you lose it in room sales, you lose it in sales tax. The industry of Victoria loses it too.

But let me continue. The president of the chamber of commerce — hardly an NDP front organization — had this to say on September 9, 1976. His name is Alan Emery, and he said:

"You can't provide good service to people if they don't come here. There is no question it was the ferry rates and other high costs which have kept the tourists away this year. Many of these costs are the result of provincial government actions: the ferry rates are up 100 per cent, the sales tax was increased by 40 per cent, the ICBC rates were doubled. It is the provincial government that keeps telling us how bad things are," Mr. Emergy said. "They are the ones who are thinking negatively and acting negatively."

Al Frame, to quote him again, president of the greater Victoria visitors information centre, said:

"Good service is not enough to overcome high ferry rates. She," — referring to the hon. Provincial Secretary, Mrs. McCarthy — "argues the tourists will come despite the costs. Of course she is wrong, and we can prove it. The tourists were coming until the government put the ferry rates up. It is the government who has hurt us, and it is the government who has to help us now. I don't like government involvement in the tourist industry, but they have to repair the damage that has been done."

Let me continue. Alderman Robert Wright, the president of Oak Bay Marina, an alderman in the city of Victoria, hardly an NDP supporter, had this to say. He warned that unless the government changes its mind on the revision of ferry rates:

" 'There is a strong possibility that next summer' — referring to the summer of '77 — 'is going to make this one look like an economic success.' Wright said he doesn't want to portray himself as a purveyor of gloom and despondency, but the situation facing Vancouver Island's tourist industry is so bad that pessimism is inevitable. 'If I had to draw a comparison, I'd say the Island's immediate tourist future is like the aftermath of the civil war in the United States of America — all that's left this winter is for the carpetbaggers to roll in and pick up the bones of those who can't survive.' "

[ Page 184 ]

That's what you have done to tourism, through you, Mr. Speaker. That's the result of the stupid, thoughtless, unresearched, utterly unimaginative and tragically predictable economic decisions of that coalition government — 338,000 vehicles lost this year; 834,000 passengers lost this year; an estimated loss of tourist revenue of between 25 and 35 per cent. On the basis of that $40 figure, the people of Vancouver Island have lost between $67 million and $90 million, thanks to you, and this is the kind of economic recovery you promised, was it?

Now there are some excuses offered by that equally lame administration. They blame three things. They blame the weather — and that's nice, and certainly no one can comment on that. They blame the Olympics, and they blame the American bicentennial. One would think — is it not reasonable to do so, Mr. Speaker? — that any government with any business sense whatever, any planning competence, any strategic analysis of market forces, before doubling the cost of anything would look at the other factors that might affect the basic economic sector they want to tamper with. How on earth could they pretend that they did not know the Olympics were coming up? The decision was made six years before they decided to double the ferry rates. How can they pretend they did not know six years before that it was coming along and six years later that it should have been taken into account? But maybe they overlooked it. Maybe, for some reason, they thought the Olympics were sprung on us overnight by the mayor of Montreal and none of us had any advance warning and the buildings popped up like mushrooms after a great rain and they had no warning and, therefore, it's not fair to take it into account and, sure enough, you can blame the Olympics for reducing tourist travel in British Columbia.

But, Mr. Speaker, we have known for 200 years that the American bicentennial was coming up. For 200 years we've known that one was coming along, but they tell us they did not know how to take that into account either; 200 years later they are still blaming it.

Mr. Speaker, this government is guilty of some of the most stupid, dough-headed and lame-brained economic decisions you've ever seen, and equally guilty of some of the most lame-brained excuses you have ever seen: the weather, the Olympics and, with 200 years' notice, they still missed the event — the American bicentennial. (Laughter.)

Business on Vancouver Island lost between $67 million and $90 million thanks to your bungling and stupidity.

MR. BARRETT: Warn them there's another one in 200 years.

MR. BARBER: How much did you gain in return? How much have the ferries won back? How much has been returned to the people of British Columbia through that doubling — $20 million, perhaps $25 million, Mr. Minister? Maybe even $30 million. That's $40 a day times the loss — $40 a day: a figure provided by your own department.

MR. BARRETT: His computer is working on the 200-year notice you've given it.

MR. BARBER: In 100 years. That's right, it's only fair. In 100 years they've got another centennial coming up. Watch this! Let's put a sign up here. It will still be here — this building will still be around.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: The year 2076. Beware, Mr. Speaker, beware! They're going to claim they didn't know about that one either.

Not only have we lost on Vancouver Island between $67 million and $90 million only to see you gain in the Ferries Service $20 million, but we've lost the ferries themselves. As the former Minister of Finance has pointed out, they've been sold. They've been given away. Let, me tell you some of the details. As the result of this remarkable sale, lease and repurchase scheme of the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Davis) and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), we have seen that the original $46.5 million capital cost of these ferries is going to be doubled to $95 million, that the provincial income tax revenues are going to be shortchanged by $4.6 million, that the rest of Canada's taxpayers are going to be shortchanged by $18.6 million, and that you have made a gift totalling $46.5 million at no risk to them and at considerable loss to us of those dollars — $46.5 million into the pockets of the eastern moneylenders for the privilege of letting us use our own ferries over the next 18 years.

I want to tell you about the story of one businessman in Victoria, one businessman among many who have suffered directly and personally as a result of these extraordinarily stupid and primitive economic policies of this government. He gave me his name and I'll give it to you.

I went to his place and he showed me through his books. It's a motel with which I happen to be familiar, because I was living on Balfour Avenue just up the street off the Gorge at the time it was built. It's a major enterprise; it's called the Royal Victorian Inn, on Gorge Road. It's owner is Matt Bitor.

Last June, Mr. Bitor took in $28,000 at the Royal Victorian Inn on Gorge Road in Victoria. This June, the month after that minister announced those

[ Page 185 ]

decisions, he took in $8,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: Way to go, Jack!

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame! Shame!

MR. BARBER: Last year, when we were responsible, he hired 20 people; 20 people worked at his business, the Royal Victorian Inn, on Gorge Road — Mr. Matt Bitor, owner, proprietor, This year, he had two people, plus his wife.

Let me tell you about Mr. Bitor. Mr. Bitor is not one of the landed gentry; he didn't inherit his wealth. I have no idea if he's a member of your party. He may well have supported it, like so many other people did. He worked, in fact, as a miner for 27 years. He worked as a miner in Europe; he worked as a miner in Canada, where he arrived 18 years ago.

As a result of his work in the mines, he contracted both asthma and silicosis. His doctor told him that he had to discontinue that work. He said: "Fine. What can I do?" His doctor said: "Something light that won't strain you too much. Go somewhere else, because where you're living now is too hard on you."

So Mr. Bitor, who worked as a miner for 27 years and got asthma and silicosis as a result, went, together with his wife, to Victoria. They took out a loan of $200,000 as a down payment on the Royal Victorian Inn, which had been profitable the year before, which, in the first year of their operation in June alone...

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: He made a down payment, having borrowed the money to do so.

...which in June alone took in $28,000, and which in June of this year took in $8,000.

He thanks you a lot, Mr. Minister; he thanks that government a very great deal. He's not alone in doing so. In the first nine months of your administration in this last calendar year, bankruptcies among small businesses in British Columbia increased in number by 13 per cent. They increased in Victoria by 18 per cent, I'm informed.

MR. BARRETT: That cleans out the competition.

MR. BARBER: It's a remarkable set of achievements. I don't know how you've done it.

The second major reason for the failure of your government to deliver on its promise to bring a booming economy to British Columbia is a lack of confidence in the administration, a lack of willingness to believe that you're going to get re-elected. It's a strange irony, isn't it? The fear of the socialists keeps them in such tremble that they won't invest in the Socreds either. You're stuck both ways, aren't you?

That must be a strange feeling.

A lack of confidence in the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is felt by businessmen throughout British Columbia; it's certainly felt by businessmen in greater Victoria with whom I've been talking and to whom I've been putting my proposal for a Greater Victoria Economic Council.

The opposition doesn't have a lot of confidence either. We've invited the minister on numerous occasions to simply step aside, take another portfolio. Highways might do. Alex, would you like to be Minister of Economic Development for a while?

AN HON. MEMBER: I bet you would!

MR. BARBER: Step aside. Trade jobs until you can come back cleaned, as we hope and trust you will be.

MR. BARRETT: Attaboy, Alex! You've got it straight. (Laughter.)

MR. BARBER: One of the reasons that business in this province, and certainly business in greater Victoria, is unwilling to invest in a serious way is because they know you've no mortgage on a second term — none at all. They know that particular minister at the moment can apparently not be trusted to keep confidences in his office. They know that; we know that, too.

I must admit, I had a hope, as a new member of this House, speaking, I guess, almost a year ago tonight that this coalition government could make it through a whole year without someone in that administration somewhere or other apparently getting their hands on the cookie jar. (Laughter.) I really hoped they could make it for a whole year. I mean that! Don't think I'm fooling! I hoped that for a whole year your whole administration could make it through without someone in it somewhere or other having his hands in the cookie jar.

You know, Mr. Speaker, they almost made it. The election was on December 11, 1975. December 10, 1976, a certain gentleman in a certain minister's office was dismissed, the first, but surely not the last, in a series.

AN HON. MEMBER: Almost made it!

MR. BARBER: They almost made it — one day short of a year; they almost made it — 364 days. I wonder if my colleagues would care to join me in congratulating them for almost making it.

AN HON. MEMBER: If only it had been a leap year! (Laughter.)

[ Page 186 ]

MR. BARBER: Well, they almost made it, and we regret the fact that they haven't, and we regret the fact that the minister has not allowed his own government to have confidence restored in his own administration by moving aside for the duration of the inquiry.

But believe us, for the duration of that inquiry, no serious businessman in this province is going to be talking to that administration about any major investment, because they don't know who else they're talking to.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Oh, we've a lot more to say about British Petroleum.

One of the reasons that business in this province doesn't have a heck of a lot of confidence in this administration is because they appear not to recognize, much less endorse and act upon, their own promises. I have a list of 64 campaign promises, and I thank the Vancouver Sun for the list, if you're up there. Some of them have been handled before, but I thought I might quickly, with tripping tongue, run through them and see what you think and whether or not you recognize any of them.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps you yourself made a few of these promises and you might recognize some of them, and I hope you've had more impact than the back bench has in getting the government treasury benches to keep its promises. They've done a few, and we give them credit for that. I want to say again that I congratulate you for bringing in quarterly reports; I congratulate you for introducing an auditor-general, and I hope to be able to congratulate you on the choice of an ombudsman. That's good stuff.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Arthur Weeks for auditor-general. (Laughter.) Gosh, if the Premier could pick him, surely we could pick him too. (Laughter.) At least I think he picked him. He did before, but he doesn't talk about that now.

They said they'd change the Mineral Royalties Act and they'd tax the profits of mining companies; sure enough, they reduced the taxes on mining companies.

Secondly, they said they would place an anti-inflation freeze on taxes. Let me say it again, if it sounds strange to you: place an anti-inflation freeze on taxes.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: That's right. I have a lot of people in my riding who would be delighted to be the recipients of an anti-inflation freeze on taxes. They'd shiver all year round if they could be the recipients of that freeze. They don't see much of a freeze.

The third promise was apparently to place an anti-inflation freeze on all government spending.

MR. BARRETT: Tell Gracie that one.

MR. BARBER: We'll tell her that. What was the dollar value of the warrants that were just passed a few days ago by the cabinet, just before the session?

MR. COCKE: It's $104 million.

MR. BARBER: It's 104 million extra dollars, unanticipated in their previous budget, passed by special warrant of that coalition government which promised to place an anti-inflation freeze on all government spending.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, no, no!

MR. BARBER: I understand they spent some money through special warrants.

MR. BARRETT: A hundred and four million dollars!

MR. BARBER: I can't believe it.

MR. BARRETT: Shocking!

MS. SANFORD: Was that done by the cabinet?

MR. BARRETT: Not by the Treasury Board!

MR. LEA: Severance pay for Ellis. (Laughter.)

MR. BARBER: And all the others.

They said they'd appoint an ombudsman, and they said they'd appoint an auditor-general. Let me repeat: I'm glad you introduced ombudsman legislation last year. It was, I hope you've realized, not entirely adequate. It should include authority to intervene at school boards, at municipal councils and at regional districts because those organizations touch more people more intimately than any other, and it's important that the ombudsman have that power. I hope, when the new legislation comes back, that you've given it to him. I'll congratulate you for doing that, too. It's really good that you might be prepared to give it a second look. An auditor-general — a member of our opposition is on the committee; I understand that there's progress, and I'm pleased for that.

Promise No. 6 — I don't think I'm going to get through all of these, Mr. Speaker, but maybe in another speech — they said that they would end non-elected boards and commissions in government.

[ Page 187 ]

This is a most extraordinary promise: they said they would end non-elected boards and commissions in government. What happened to that promise when they were talking about the British Columbia Buildings Corporation? That's a brand-new creation; you made it up. You didn't get it from us. You don't have to say that it'll take you a year or two to get rid of it. You made it up. The hon. Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is responsible. He made it up, and he promised he'd end non-elected boards and commissions in government.

What about the special corporation to build school buildings throughout the Province of British Columbia? What about the B.C. Ferries Corporation? Have you forgotten those? You made them up; you cooked them up. You ignored your own promise. You tricked the people; you deceived us. It's not fair. We're confused.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. Member. Are you suggesting that the government deceived and tricked the people?

MR. BARBER: Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that the party did it. The party has undergone a number of changes recently, and they're apparently not all reflected in the government.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you've borderlined on the unparliamentary a number of times this evening, so I'd caution you to temper your language somewhat in that it is very borderline to being unparliamentary.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will simply then repeat the promise that they said that they would end non-elected boards and commissions in government, and they've created four boards and commissions at least.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's unparliamentary.

MR. BARBER: There's more than a little contradiction here. Two of those promises, two of those principles contradict two other of the principles for which they allegedly stand, because this government has also pretended that they will not elect another....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. second member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BARBER: I see the green light on, Mr. Speaker. Does that mean five minutes?

MR. SPEAKER: You have three minutes, hon. Member.

MR. BARBER: They've also promised that they would end non-elected boards and commissions. They've set up an Urban Transportation Authority Act, a B.C. Ferries Act, a B.C. Buildings Corporation Act and a Schools Act, all of which have the result, twofold, of appointing non-elected commissions and boards to government and engaging in further deficit financing, because that was the whole point of it: you don't have the money to do it through general revenue; you have to do it through borrowing. That was the purpose, and we wish you'd just say so, because it's evident to everyone else except, apparently, yourselves.

Though I'll get back to those remarks during the budget speech, I want to conclude with a proposal for a Greater Victoria Economic Development Council, the purpose of which is threefold: first, to bring together agencies of government, of the University of Victoria, of business and labour in a regular panel and meeting, an organization to begin to develop, on the basis of the best information research available to us, a strategy for the economic recovery of greater Victoria; second, on the basis of that strategy, to put into action some of those proposals with direct assistance from the government of British Columbia and the Department of Economic Development.

Specifically, if I can go through a couple of those, involve the B.C. Development Corporation in the assembling of land. The B.C. Development Corporation has assembled land in Kamloops, Prince Rupert and a number of other jurisdictions in British Columbia; they've not done so in Victoria. We require, urgently, the leadership and participation of that corporation in order to bring together, especially in the industrial reserve area of the Inner Harbour of Victoria, sufficient lands with which we can bring back to the city clean secondary industry — industry to replace that lost because of the failure — of that government to do anything to save the tourist industry which lays well wrecked.

The B.C. Development Corporation presently has control of all Crown lands with development potential in this province. We urge that corporation to become involved in the capital city itself and in the assembly of those lands. There's no reason why they couldn't get involved at the Songhees site. They could lease land from the province, which would be available to private and public operations. They could relocate a sawmill; they could provide new jobs in the process. Having leased on that particular site, they would avoid downtown traffic congestion. They could, indeed, provide on the same site for a mixture of housing with the leadership of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis). That would result in the acceleration and transformation in Vic West of development towards

[ Page 188 ]

clean secondary industry consistent with the economic objects of the region.

There are departments of the federal government which could be involved in the same plan through the same agencies, through the same co-ordinated efforts of the Greater Victoria Economic Development Council. British Columbia Hydro itself should, indeed, conduct, through its own research establishment, a major new programme of initiative here.

I'll be very quick, Mr. Speaker, if you'll give me 60 seconds.

In the governments of Ontario and Quebec, Hydro authorities have substantial research facilities. Hydro authorities here require them; the capital city is an appropriate place for them; a Greater Victoria Economic Development Council could help produce them. We ask you to get involved with it.

There are a number of government bureaucracies which have developed over a period of years sufficient skills and resources they could market as consultants to other less-developed nations in the western and eastern worlds. They should be encouraged to do so. There would be revenues approved, brought back to the province of British Columbia. We would learn things; we would share what we've learned. It would be an opportunity to again substantiate the basis — or at least part of that basis — of the economy of greater Victoria which is, of course, the public service.

There's a larger range of opportunities in the capital city for such people than there is anywhere else. We invite you to take the leadership required through the local participation of the members of the Greater Victoria Economic Development Council in doing just that.

We should take advantage of the facilities we have at the University of Victoria for research. Those facilities have never properly been used by business or by labour; they've hardly ever been used by government. The Greater Victoria Economic Development Council could do so.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, in allowing you to go beyond the deadline, you've introduced three new subjects in rapid succession.

MR. BARBER: I'm pretty rapid.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you please complete your remarks?

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I will return to them. But the basic proposal is this, and I hope the minister, when he comes back — if he comes back — will give them serious consideration: collaboration among business, labour, the University of Victoria and government in the creation of a Greater Victoria Economic Development Council which could, by the virtue of its research, the merit of its argument, the strength and conviction of its presentations, and the involvement of the government, do something to recreate an economy here which, thanks to your intervention and destruction of the tourist industry, is going....

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): I'm very proud to have the opportunity this evening to stand in this House representing the constituency of Shuswap. I have enjoyed working for my constituents during the past year. It has been a very rewarding experience.

Before I get started on my speech, Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my congratulations also to the new members of the cabinet. The hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) has, of course, proven himself and his ability over many years in this House. The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who used to be down at this end of the assembly.... His shining countenance will be sorely missed. The hon. first member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) spent many hours as my seat-mate here. During the humid sessions last spring, we had ample opportunity to discuss all that was wrong in government. I'm sure he still remembers that.

I listened with interest to His Honour's opening speech. I noted in the proposed legislation that there will be a great many things that will have a direct and beneficial effect on the Shuswap constituency. There are, however, many areas of concern to my constituents, a few of which I would like to bring to the attention of the House. As I bring these concerns to the assembly I hope that my criticisms will be taken to be constructive criticisms.

The forest industry in the Shuswap area, as it is in all of the province, is the most important of all our resource-based industry, and there is a rather reserved acceptance and agreement with the findings as outlined in the royal commission report that was prepared by Dr. Peter Pearse. The commission's finding that the industry is suffering from high labour costs and capital costs is quite obvious; that the industry has experienced a rapid erosion of its competitive position in the world markets is also, obviously, only too true. The problems that are facing this major industry have been caused to a very great degree by the policies that were brought in by the previous government.

I was very happy to see in His Honour's speech, Mr. Speaker, that this government believes that this province must pause and let the rest of the world catch up in terms of costs. If our people can hold

[ Page 189 ]

down their demands this year and next, my government believes there will be more benefits for all in the years that follow. I'm quite sure that the resource-based industries realize this only too well. The problems that have been inflicted on our primary resources in the way of wage demands have largely come from the public sector — not only the public sector in this province, but right across Canada. I only I hope that the demands of this sector will be somewhat less than they have been in the past so that our primary industries can catch up once again. The forest industry understandably fears any proposed expanded bureaucracy, and the lack of secure source of raw material on which to base long-term investments and job opportunities. I

Under the previous government we saw many expansion plans cancelled as the policies of that day discouraged investment and destroyed all confidence that there was a reasonable future for the industry in this province. There will be need to be close cooperation and consultation as I'm sure there will be, between the industry and the special advisory committee recently appointed by the hon. Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), if the continuing confidence held by the industry is to continue. I was glad to hear in His Honour's opening speech that this confidence has been restored to the extent that major capital investments of $125 million have already been announced by one company.

The official opposition have, on many occasions in this House in the last day or two, indicated that this really doesn't mean very much. These plans were in existence for many years, and I don't doubt that they were. But the climate had to be right before they were prepared to implement those plans. There were many other businesses in this province that have plans for expansion or had plans for expansion, and they were all cancelled — waiting for a better climate. And it's very gratifying to know that some of the industries feel that that better climate has arrived.

I feel certain we will have many more such announcements as the industry gradually recovers from the disastrous policies of the past, and finds the funds to renovate and modernize their plants in order to improve their competitive position. The opposition has also indicated that there are not going to be any more jobs created by some of these expansions. In some cases this will probably be true, but many of our plants in this province are getting very old, and they need renovation. It costs a great deal of money, and it's not going to be easy to restore confidence in this province again, but it is starting.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the most significant change in recent months is not the improvement in prices for the various forest products, but that the many doubts and uncertainties have given way to optimism, that long-term planning is once again worthwhile in British Columbia. There is a common and recurring problem that is brought to me by nearly all my constituents who operate logging shows or sawmills or other industries in my area; this is the great distrust and consternation of the way the Workers' Compensation Board is presently operated.

My people claim they are having penalties imposed most unjustly. I know many of the requirements imposed by the board cost many millions of dollars and were, in some cases, ineffective. The WCB policy of paying pensions to those people with non-industry-related hearing loss is most unjust. The industry must reduce the noise levels in the working place to nine decibels at this time, and where this is not possible, ear-protective devices must be used. The industry is quite prepared to accept this responsibility. However, the noise levels are not uniformly reduced in our total environment, and the industry is being asked to pay for hearing-loss claims caused by conditions over which they have no control.

Mr. Speaker, I am told a person can have hearing deterioration by just going out and spending his weekends trap shooting. It can be impaired by operating snowmobiles with faulty mufflers, and there's always places in the interior, even on a year such as this, where you can find deep enough snow to operate snowmobiles with faulty mufflers. There are probably dozens of ways in which hearing can be impaired, all of which are beyond the ability of the industry to control.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the most common and devastating of all the ways to impose hearing loss is to get too close to some of these rock-and-roll bands we have around the province today. The decibel rating of these gets away over 100 decibels and far exceeds the level imposed on industry, and industry is understandably concerned when they are asked to pick up the costs.

The P.S. Ross report, I believe, is a good document and, when implemented, will bring about accountability and some degree of control over expenditures in the WCB. The proposed budgetary controls should help to curtail the horrendous escalation in costs, and just maybe the numerous small businesses in my area, who have told me they are not prepared to put up with this arbitrary and unfeeling bureaucracy any longer, will reconsider as they realize that changes are being made. I certainly hope so, as every job lost in my area is hard to replace at this time.

Another great concern in the Shuswap, Mr. Speaker, is the agricultural land reserve. My constituents wholeheartedly support the preservation of agricultural land but feel that non-arable land should not remain in the freeze. I'm sure that my area is no different than many in the interior of the province where there are thousands of acres of non-arable land that have been caught in the freeze.

[ Page 190 ]

There are thousands of acres of land which have no agricultural potential and could be better used to provide building sites for our people. If this non-arable land is removed from the agricultural land reserve, and as this government expands its policy to provide Crown land for housing in the Shuswap constituency, then we can expect to get some affordable building sites for our young people.

When we are talking about agricultural land reserves, I must point out another problem. A number of my constituents have been frozen on land in these reserves, and therefore are prevented from using their property for other uses. Yet their property, if not farmed, is assessed for taxation purposes as improved land. This, I believe, is an untenable position for many of my people, particularly when you consider that much of the land in the agricultural land reserve is not suitable for farming. I suggest that all land in the agricultural land reserve be assessed as agricultural land for taxation purposes, regardless of its present use.

My constituency has never been known as a great mining area, but under the previous administration it became even less than that after several years of systematic destruction, destruction brought about by the policies of the previous government.

You remember, Mr. Speaker, how the previous government imposed unbearable taxes in this province on the mining industry, and the Premier of that day (Mr. Barrett) stated that he was almost embarrassed to admit he was only asking for a 5 per cent royalty. Too modest, he said of this royalty, even though it put many mines in a loss position and eventually shut down most of the industry. I am happy to say that this systematic destruction of the mining industry has now been replaced with a policy which encourages investment and hard work, and is providing jobs for people in my area.

At this time there is a new confidence in the area. There is considerable exploratory work being undertaken all over the riding, and the distinct possibility that at least one operating mine will come into existence during this year.

It is hard to comprehend the great change that has taken place in the mining industry by removing the heavy hand of confiscatory government and replacing it with the policy of offering encouragement by reducing bureaucracy and taxation. The recent announcements by the hon. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) offer further stimulants and are most welcome and, hopefully, will allow some of the more marginal operations to come on stream.

The industry with the greatest potential for expansion in my constituency is the tourist industry. I was happy to hear His Honour say that new incentives are being undertaken to improve tourism in this province. I particularly welcome the programme to create a greater awareness of the benefits tourism brings to the people of this province.

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is continuing to do an excellent job of improving the roads in my constituency. This, of course, is going to have a great deal of beneficial effect on the tourist industry.

There has been a great deal of criticism here this evening, and in previous days, regarding the lack of tourists in this province over the last summer months. It is my opinion that a great deal of the criticism has to go to the previous government, which did not look after our highway system so our tourists could come and enjoy our countryside. I expect that as the word gets back to the rest of Canada and across the States that we have a new government in here and we have a new minister who is prepared to fix the roads rather than just reduce the speed limit as the roads deteriorate then we will get more tourists back into B.C. By the end of this year most of the three and a half years of neglect of our roads will be counteracted, and our tourists will once again be provided for and welcomed in this area. If you remember, the previous Minister of Highways said that we didn't want tourists in B.C. because they cluttered up our roads. Is it any wonder they didn't come this summer?

I am very happy to see that the new route to the coast is going to be opened up. It will be of great benefit not only to the tourist industry in the Shuswap but to all our primary industries as this road becomes operational. It will not only cut off a considerable distance but it will also alleviate the necessity of travelling over the Fraser Canyon, and it will be a very easy proposition to extend that road from Merritt and bypass Kamloops on the east and join in with No. 1.

I look forward to working with the hon. Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and the hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) in order to assist in reviving the tourist industry in my constituency, a constituency which, you are no doubt aware, covers part of the Okanagan as well as the Shuswap areas, and is the heart of the tourist industry in B.C.

I have had an opportunity lately to attend several meetings with the hon. minister and the people in the travel industry, the people from the Motel and Hotel Association, with the guides who are looking after our visitors in our forests and the campsite operators. Everywhere you go there is a new feeling in this industry today. There is a feeling of optimism; there is a feeling that things are going to be done for a change and the industry is going to be recognized as one of the better industries in B.C., one of the industries that can bring some wealth to this province.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we can find a way for private enterprise to take over some of the costly

[ Page 191 ]

tourist-oriented services presently paid for by the taxpayers of this province. It would seem to me that there is room for great improvement in this area, and I am a firm believer that private industry can best provide most of the services for our tourist industry.

In too many of our campsites, in too many of our parks, we have people on full-time staff doing jobs that could be done much better and much cheaper by private industry. I will give you just one brief example. In some spots on the Shuswap we have a garbage collector truck going around for the Department of Highways. We have a garbage collector truck going around for the forestry. We have a garbage truck going around for the parks branch and, behind it all, we have a private industry truck going along and servicing all the people that those few trucks have missed. It's a horrendous cost, and could be eliminated by turning over all of it to private industry.

There is considerable potential for greater production of agriculture products in the Shuswap, Mr. Speaker, but unfortunately, of the major branches of agriculture, only tree fruits and beef production are completely free; completely free so that anyone can start up without buying into the industry. Unfortunately, in the Shuswap, there's little room for expansion in tree fruits. So this leaves beef production, really, as the only major agricultural enterprise open to most of my constituents who wish to start farming.

This same situation is found in nearly all of the interior of the province. I would urge the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) to provide encouragement for the feeding of cattle in this province, rather than have most of the beef cattle exported for finishing and then turn around and bring the finished product back. It would seem to make sense to try and encourage this industry in this province.

A healthy feedlot industry would do much to encourage the ranching industry and bring considerable economic benefits to this province. We are spending a great deal of money through the B.C. Development Corporation and other government agencies to encourage industry to locate and build in B.C. Yet, at the same time, we are exporting many of our cattle to provide jobs and income for other parts of Canada and the U.S.

This province exports more than 100,000 animals every year, mostly to other parts of Canada. I believe we should work more diligently with the cattlemen to retain these cattle by giving greater encouragement to a multi-million-dollar feedlot industry in this province.

When I mention the role that the B.C. Development Corporation is taking in trying to encourage industry to come to this province.... Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of criticism about the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and his effectiveness so far in this province. I can assure you that in the city of Enderby, his department and the BCDC have been most effective in providing land for industrial development, land for buildings and small plants to be erected so that there will be some jobs in that city. Some of the industries, one in particular, have come in from across the line. This has been most gratifying because in recent years the movement has nearly always been the other way.

The population growth in my area, Mr. Speaker, has been far greater in the last few years than in most other areas of the province. This is resulting in an insufficient number of both acute- and extended-care hospital beds. I'm glad that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is in the House at this time. The occupancy rate in the acute-care adult beds last year was 86 per cent in Armstrong, 90 per cent in Enderby and over 90 per cent in Vernon.

MR. COCKE: How about Salmon Arm?

MR. BAWTREE: Salmon Arm is in a different regional hospital district. In the North Okanagan Regional Hospital District as a whole, we find all three hospitals operating at or near maximum capacity. Yes, we have an excellent hospital in Salmon Arm. We are still working on a psychiatric ward for that hospital.

Our last building programme was supposed to be adequate to 1980, but because the population growth was far in excess of the original projection, we will be short of hospital beds before new ones can be constructed, even if we started tomorrow. Using the provincial goal figures, the North Okanagan Regional Hospital District additional bed requirements are 67 acute-care and 73 extended-care beds in five years. It's quite obvious that we'll have great difficulty in providing them. We will need 141 acute-care and 113 extended-care beds by 1986. My people are very concerned, Mr. Speaker, that the hospital bed requirements will far exceed the number on hand before new ones can be built. I would urge the hon. Minister of Health to allow the region to start planning immediately to meet these very necessary demands.

Interjection.

MR. BAWTREE: I have been working very closely with the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) on this.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious to everybody that we must use our natural resources in this province if we are to pay for all our worthwhile programmes for people. But in order to sell our product at a profit, we must produce it economically. In this regard, the

[ Page 192 ]

recent Hydro rate increases are of great concern to the people of this province. These increases will make it even more difficult for my sawmills, small factories and farms to operate, not to mention the increases imposed on our municipalities and homeowners.

I'm not going to argue that the recent increases announced by Hydro were not required; I'm sure that they were. They were needed because of the lack of control over costs in years past. Waste in the corporation has been horrendous. Workers have been allowed to work on Saturdays and Sundays and holidays at double or triple wages, only to take off regular working days, when they were only going to be paid at the regular rate. We do not need additional power, Mr. Speaker, if it cannot be supplied at a price we can afford.

I am sure changes are being made, but I see great waste still going on. Our goal must always be to supply sufficient power at an affordable cost if our businesses are to be competitive in today's world.

Mr. Speaker, diseases travel very rapidly around the world these days, and this province contracted some of the symptoms of the New York disease in the last three or four years. You probably know what this disease is: it's the one where the patient spends more than his operating income over a period of years, and then goes bankrupt. This province suffered seriously from this disease for a few years under the NDP, but it appears that the medicine now being taken has arrested this particular disease.

There is another disease, however, which is still spreading in this province. This is the British disease: the disease that has established an elite ruling class in the labour organizations in that country, a ruling class that has more power than the elected representatives and holds the economic well-being of most of the citizens of that once great country in its power. The British disease has reduced that poor country to the same state that was reserved for lepers in ancient days: living off handouts from the neighbours. We all know that in Britain today they are only surviving because they are borrowing money from every country that they can possibly find.

I was glad to see some reference to education in the Speech from the Throne, where they say that they will introduce legislation for financial support for non-public schools for the first time since the introduction of the Public Schools Act in 1872. This has been a great concern in my constituency, and I know that my people will welcome it.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would agree with His Honour's statement that only with willing and imaginative assistance from thousands of participants in the individual-enterprise system can we expect our province to prosper. Many of our citizens, however, have secured for themselves the exclusive right to certain jobs. Some of our businesses and contractors are denied the goods and materials they require to obtain certain contracts, and therefore are excluded from many opportunities that are open to others just because they are not organized in what some people consider to be an appropriate manner.

I believe we have a responsibility to make sure all our people participate in developing a sound economy and a place where all our citizens have equal opportunities. If we can find a way to allow all our citizens equal opportunity to participate, if we can instil a sense of pride and achievement, and offer financial rewards according to productivity, then there is no limit to the standard of living our people can obtain in this province.

I have every confidence that the measures being taken by this government, as outlined in the Speech from the Throne, will bring these things about. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I support the speech of His Honour.

Hon. Mr. McGeer moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:57 p.m.