[ Page 193 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Tripling of ambulance fees. Mr. Cocke — 193

Electoral reform commission. Mr. Gibson — 193

Federal subsidies to ferries. Mr. Wallace — 194

Participation in U.S. Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit. Mr. Levi — 194

Larsen-Bristowe intermediate-care report. Mr. Nicolson — 195

Wage-and-price controls. Mr. Wallace — 195

Loss of Prince Rupert tax revenues. Mr. Lea — 195

Statement

Telegram to Carter administration. Hon. Mr. Bennett — 196

Mr. Barrett — 196

Mr. Gibson — 196

Mr. Wallace — 196

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 196

Mr. Lauk — 201

Mr. Veitch — 207

Mrs. Wallace — 210

Mr.Loewen — 215

Mr. Barnes — 218

THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to this House and welcome here today Mr. Gibson and a large group from the Queen Elizabeth Senior Secondary School in Surrey.

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, in the House this afternoon is a long-time friend and neighbour, Mr. Joe Kerr from Sicamous, a very, very long-time resident of that area. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I in return would like to welcome Mr. Vander Zalm (laughter) and at the same time may I welcome a group of students from Carson Graham a Secondary School in North Vancouver, and ask the House to join me.

Oral Questions.

TRIPLING OF AMBULANCE FEES

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. I would ask the Minister of Health if he would outline to the House the kinds of abuses he feels warrant tripling the ambulance service fees. I would like him to explain, if he can, his punishment fee and the kinds of abuses that he referred to last night.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): I'll try to be very brief, Mr. Speaker. The reason for increasing that fee was not to cover abuses —
although abuses have happened. The former Minister of Health knows as well as I do that there have been cases, for instance, of social workers advising a client to take an ambulance instead of a taxi because the ambulance was cheaper. That's on file, and the former minister knows that, Mr. Speaker. But the reason for increasing the fees was a logical one, because an ambulance which costs, probably, at least $100 a trip was too cheap to offer for $5. We raised it to $15 in order to help raise some revenue to offset the terrible costs that were being faced by people outside the lower mainland and greater Victoria region.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that that fully justifies the action taken to correct the injustices that were being made in other parts of the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. Interestingly enough, hospitals on an average are 50 miles apart in the province; and that goes for your backbenchers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE: What is the amount presently collected from the $5 rate, and how much do you anticipate the increased rate will produce...? I would also add this as a sidelight — after what the minister said in the hall last night

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Speech!

AN HON. MEMBER: I wasn't even talking to you at all.

MR. COCKE: After listening to some of those answers, Mr. Speaker.... The minister said in the hall last night that if they can't afford it, they don't have to pay. Now I'd like to know, Mr. Speaker, how much that will reduce the amount that they expect to collect from the increased — the tripled — amount.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question from the member for New Westminster, I wasn't even talking to him in the hall last night — I don't recall anyway. I would suggest, first of all, that a trip to Vancouver from Prince Rupert is much more than 50 miles, Mr. Speaker, much more. The cost will be reduced for those people by anywhere in the neighbourhood of $400 to $500 each occasion, and again that's justification for an increase for the people who are being subsidized in the lower mainland by the rest of this province, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest that the member for New Westminster also knows that the proper procedure for those kinds of detailed questions is to put them on the order paper.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: If you do that, I'd be pleased to answer.

ELECTORAL REFORM COMMISSION

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. In last year's throne speech, the government promised this House that there would be appointed a commission on electoral reform in the province of British Columbia. Since we've now had almost a full year pass since then, could the Premier say when this commission will be appointed?

[ Page 194 ]

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the question from the member for North Vancouver–Capilano. The government will appoint a commission to deal with this very important subject in time to have it recommended to the Legislature in the way of legislation before we next go to the people in an election.

MR. GIBSON: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the complexity, both of the hearings required with this kind of commission and the legislation required to be drafted and enacted, will the Premier guarantee the appointment of such a commission before this House rises in this session?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I have given assurances that that commission will have a full opportunity to complete hearings and to make recommendations in time for this House to consider them before the next election. I can't possibly start dealing in areas of limited time frames, but I do make the guarantee that when we next all go to the people, the recommendations from this commission will have been discussed in this Legislature. Indeed, we will have many new changes made in the name of electoral reform in this province.

MR. GIBSON: As a final supplementary then, Mr. Speaker, will the Premier assure this House that if such reforms are not implemented by the time of the next election, he will not present himself as a candidate? (Laughter.)

FEDERAL SUBSIDIES TO FERRIES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Transportation about the ongoing negotiations with the federal government regarding coastal subsidies to the ferries. The Prime Minister of Canada, in answering a question in the House of Commons on December 22, stated quite clearly that in his view there are no inequities regarding the federal policy as applied between east- and west-coast ferry systems. If that is the official federal position, could I ask the minister on what grounds he believes the present negotiations are likely to lead to subsidies being granted to our ferry system on the west coast?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, on a number of grounds. I would like to say specifically, however, that officials of both the federal and provincial governments will be meeting this Friday in Victoria to pursue this matter.

MR. WALLACE: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I think that, if need be, I can table a copy of the Prime Minister's answer, which says there are no inequities. Regardless of that, since these negotiations are obviously protracted and since the winter months are the worst months for the residents of our northern coastal communities, will the minister reconsider his earlier decision to delay some provincial assistance on an interim basis to improve the services to the north coastal communities?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, we have made one arrangement that is continuing, namely ensuring that the Queen of Prince Rupert stops in the mid-coast areas to pick up passengers. We have, as I've reported to this House, already paid for launch operations on the middle and upper coast, and we are assuming that the federal government will continue to finance this operation over the next few weeks, pending a time when we reach a satisfactory conclusion to this problem.

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Since the minister has emphasized the importance of the ongoing negotiations between the federal and provincial officials, can I ask the minister if his instructions to those officials are such that signing of an agreement is conditional upon the federal government providing a subsidy to all the ferry routes in B.C., or would there be room for negotiation on subsidies only to those on which the federal government originally provided a subsidy?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, we're expecting that the federal government will make a substantial contribution to our ferry operations on the whole coast.

PARTICIPATION IN U.S.
LAW ENFORCEMENT INTELLIGENCE UNIT

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, the question is to the Attorney-General. There is in the United States an organization called Law Enforcement intelligence Unit. It's a private association whose purpose is to freely exchange information of a confidential nature between members, particularly in organized-crime activity. It lists among its members police forces not only in the United States but in Canada, particularly in Quebec and Ontario. Could the Attorney-General tell the House whether any B.C. police forces or CLEU have membership in this organization?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Hon. member, I'll have to take that question as notice.

MR. LEVI: Thank you.

[ Page 195 ]

LARSEN-BRISTOWE
INTERMEDIATE-CARE REPORT

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Question to the Minister of Human Resources: has the Larsen-Bristowe report on intermediate care been presented yet to the minister, and would the minister give an undertaking to table it in the House?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the report is still under review. It will be presented when the time arrives.

MR. NICOLSON: On a supplementary. As plans for intermediate care seem to be suspended in a holding pattern, would the minister give his undertaking to give this very top priority?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I can truthfully say that for the first time in many years, intermediate care is receiving real top priority.

WAGE-AND-PRICE CONTROLS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the throne speech emphasizes the government's policy of adhering to wage-and-price controls, and since the national Conservative leader has instructed members of his party to commence talks with provincial governments about alternatives to controls, can the Premier tell the House of any plans underway for himself or members of his cabinet to discuss this matter with the national Conservative representative?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, we'd respond to anyone, but I haven't received the offer from the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada to hold discussions with the government of British Columbia.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the obvious supplementary would be that....

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you extending the invitation? (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: No, I'm not extending the invitation.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The postal system isn't that bad.

MR. WALLACE: Recognizing the fact that opposition parties are talking about discontinuing controls, or pressing for discontinuance, when the Premier has made it plain that his government believes in continuing controls, will the Premier give us an assurance that he will take part in this kind of discussion, because of the long-term and serious ramifications of controls on our economy?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, upon application the government, the Premier and all cabinet ministers are prepared to listen to viewpoints put by the various national parties. Given the opportunity from the leader of the Conservative Party, which is the official opposition, certainly we'll listen to what he has to say, as the government of British Columbia.

MR. WALLACE: Could I just ask a quick final supplementary, Mr. Speaker? Since there is a tremendous amount of mention in the media that all parties, perhaps even including the federal government, are moving towards the concept of removal of controls, and since this is in conflict with this government's policy, has the Premier taken any initiatives to meet with the Prime Minister?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to clear up some misunderstanding the member for Oak Bay has, because it was at the First Ministers' Conference that was concluded just before Christmas in Ottawa.... The First Ministers' conference, including the Prime Minister, reaffirmed that the programme would stay in place until its conclusion. That is, the date....

MR. WALLACE: In March.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, in 1978, I believe it is. But discussions have been going on, both at a ministerial and a staff level, between the federal government and the government of British Columbia, and those discussions are how to make the programme work better, and discussions on post-controls are taking place. But at that time, with the exception of Quebec, which has opted out, even the Premiers who had previously expressed some concern about it all felt it was worthwhile to continue to try and fight inflation in this country. As such, I don't anticipate, and haven't heard, that any of them have changed their minds since that meeting, and that was held in December of 1976.

LOSS OF PRINCE
RUPERT TAX REVENUES

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): To the Minister of Finance: as the minister is aware, section 24 of the Assessment Act has resulted in an Assessment Appeal Board decision which, in effect, means that the ratepayers of Prince Rupert will lose $784,000 in tax revenues for last year from Canadian Cellulose because of a Pollution Control Board order that the mill clean up its operation. That retroactive loss comes on top of an approximately $750,000 loss in

[ Page 196 ]

city taxes during the mill's conversion shutdown. Will the minister undertake to introduce an amendment clarifying the Act so that homeowners and small businessmen are not victimized by this loophole found by Canadian Cellulose? I am sure the minister is aware of the section I am talking about, and the decision.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Yes, Mr. Speaker, through you to the member, certainly the government would not want to interfere with the decisions of the Assessment Appeal Board which made this decision. Now the question he asked is a matter of policy of the government and, naturally, would be under review, but it is not our intention to interfere with the procedures invoked or decisions made by the Assessment Appeal Board.

MR. LEA: A supplementary: does the Minister of Finance understand that at this point, with that decision of the appeal board, any order given by the Workers' Compensation Board, any order given by the Pollution Control Board, means that the company doesn't have to pick up the share for following that order to clean it up, but that now means that the citizens of any community will have to pick up the extra tax load to pick up what the company should be picking up? Is the minister aware of that?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the fact that the assessment for the company named has been reduced under the appeal decision.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

TELEGRAM TO CARTER ADMINISTRATION

HON. MR. BENNETT: Today, Mr. Speaker, I sent a wire on behalf of the government and the people of British Columbia to the new administration in Washington, D.C. The wire goes as follows:

ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA, I EXTEND MY WARMEST CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR BEING SWORN IN AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. WE WISH YOU EVERY SUCCESS IN THE IMPORTANT ROLE YOU HAVE UNDERTAKEN AND WE TRUST THAT WE MAY CONTINUE TO ENJOY THE CLIMATE OF CORDIALITY, CO-OPERATION AND UNDERSTANDING WHICH HAS MARKED OUR ASSOCIATION IN THE PAST.

This is to the new President of the United States, Mr. Jimmy Carter.

I would just add that those are the sentiments of this government, and I am sure all members of this House and the people of British Columbia, because so much depends on the good relations between our country and the United States — and particularly for British Columbia — that we do, indeed, wish this new administration and this new President well.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Premier for drafting and sending that telegram, and assure him that the official opposition has the same sentiments. Personally, I have enjoyed the six-plus years that I spent in the United States and the reciprocal friendship that they displayed to me in my own personal experience. I wish them well. We have many common interests, some differences of opinion, but in the long run we need each other.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I think the Premier sent a very warm and courteous telegram with which all members of this House would want to be associated. Certainly I wish to do so.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to add my appreciation of the initiative taken by the Premier and say that we must recognize our undefined border as being one of the examples of the kind of friendship that pertains between the two nations, and economically we are so closely bound to them that it only makes sound common sense to give them every opportunity to be good neighbours and friends.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Many members know that it wasn't my practice for years in this House to support the Speech from the Throne, but I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this is one speech that I wish I could have been here to listen to because when I read accounts in the eastern press that this was one of the most productive throne speeches ever to be presented in these chambers, I felt more than a little disappointed at being away.

I want to commend the Liberal leader for continuing in this House a fine tradition of presenting a Liberal throne speech. I suppose it will continue to remain a theoretical document (laughter) but I know that he is going to support this throne speech because, although there were many excellent points in his alternative, there is only so much that a government can do in a single year.

I know the hon. members of the House will understand the necessity of my being present at the Council of Ministers of Education in Quebec City on

[ Page 197 ]

the day our House opened. It was the first national conference to be held in that province since the election of the Parti Quebecois. As the Premier stated, British Columbia strongly believes in Canadian Confederation and the Canadian dream. That's why we in this province must play our full part in every single intergovernmental conference that will be held in this critical time in our history.

I want to read one paragraph from the official communique of that meeting because it was highly significant, and to my knowledge was not recorded by the national press. It quoted the hon. Jacques-Yvan Morin, the Deputy Premier of Quebec and Minister of Education, who for some years was the House leader of the Parti Quebecois:

"Monsieur Jacques-Yvan Morin praised the council's dynamism, determination and spirit of openness, and strongly affirmed Quebec's commitment to the council's goal of interprovincial cooperation in education matters." He was made vice-chairman of the council at that meeting.

"Mr. Morin also noted the determination with which council members have resisted every advance, sometimes amounting to pressure, that the federal government makes from time to time in order to invade provincial jurisdiction."

Mr. Speaker, these statements should be one important answer to many of the questions raised by the press regarding Quebec's place in Confederation.

The Premier has stated a position for British Columbia, and as far as I'm aware it's supported by almost everybody but the Leader of the Opposition. That position is that Confederation will be strengthened by making it more flexible and responsive to regional needs. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that this position is supported even by the NDP leader of the province of Ontario, Mr. Stephen Lewis, who had this to say about the PQ victory: "What we have now is a tremendous opportunity to refashion our confederation, to seek the common ground with other provinces and the Province of Quebec in restructuring our confederation." How much more sensible that kind of statement is than the inquisition proposed by our Leader of the Opposition.

Our country was created by provincial leaders who more than a century ago sought and found the common ground upon which our nation was built. If that common ground is disappearing today, then it's time for the nation to turn once more to its original source of strength, which was the provinces.

Mr. Speaker, if proper solutions could be found within federal proposals and within that giant federal bureaucracy which the member for Vancouver South referred to yesterday, then we wouldn't be having talk of separation in Canada today. The victory of theParti Quebecois signals that a new approach is necessary.

I've been privileged, Mr. Speaker, to attend a number of federal-provincial conferences in recent years. The main theme, properly recorded by the national press, has been one of disunity among the participants. The federal position, Mr. Speaker, at many of these conferences has been one of having to take unilateral action because the provinces could not agree. But surely along the way it must have occurred to every Canadian that there is danger to pursuing, for any length of time, policies upon which there is strong disagreement among the provinces or regions of Canada, because such policies are not national policies at all. They only appear to be national because they're sponsored by a national government. If such policies are vigorously pursued, they tend to breed disunity, not unity, in our nation.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that is what has been happening for all these years since the Second World War and that the pigeons are now coming home to roost. The Council of Ministers of Education does not have this problem, as the statements of Mr. Morin so adequately point out. That's because the policies and programmes of that council are based not upon the wishes of the federal government, but upon the common consensus of the provinces.

Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't want you or anyone else to interpret these remarks as signifying that I think this should be a model upon which a future Canada should be built. It does illustrate, Mr. Speaker, how minimum national goals can be achieved with certainty. It says that this is how bedrock can be found, bedrock upon which a secure foundation may then be built. It was the method by which Canada, including Quebec, was created and it is the method through which the present strengths of Confederation can be identified.

Let the provinces, Mr. Speaker, agree in consultation with the federal government upon those powers and programmes upon which complete consensus can be found. These properly belong with the national government. Then let us discover those policies upon which consensus cannot be found, and place them securely in the hands of the provinces. Place those powers in the provinces, along with the fiscal powers that support them. Separation, Mr. Speaker, will then not be on the mind of any single province, including Quebec. It will not be on the mind — of the provinces, any more than it is on the mind of Quebec with respect to matters in education. Under these terms, Mr. Speaker, our nation will prosper in a way as never before, and the Canadian dream will attain a reality that now eludes us.

Mr. Speaker, it was only 10 months ago, in the throne speech of the previous session, that the government faced a non-confidence motion from the opposition which said: "That this House regrets that

[ Page 198 ]

the speech fails to relieve the motoring public from oppressive insurance rates, fails to offer fair treatment for northern and interior drivers and fails to end discrimination against drivers under 25." The government, only a few weeks in office, had announced a policy which was bitterly attacked. The components of the policy were these:

One: The motorists of British Columbia would be relieved of any debt incurred by the previous administration; $181.5 million of a debt, which ultimately turned out to be $187 million, was paid off.

Secondly, there would be no further subsidies of the automobile beyond that $181.5 million. Henceforth, ICBC would have to be an independent, self-supporting operation.

Three: No one group of automobile drivers would be required to subsidize another group. Insurance premiums would be based upon actuarially-sound policies based on the actual experience of the corporation.

Four: As an act of confidence, in single male drivers under the age of 25, the government would guarantee a special fund which would permit rebates of 25 per cent to all accident-free drivers in that single male group.

In retrospect, Mr. Speaker, I am sure these policies will seem fair and reasonable. But if any may forget the bitter reaction they provoked, it certainly won't be me. The national press predicted Social Credit would never be re-elected. The B.C. Federation of Labour organized some of the most successful demonstrations in its history. A certain character was repeatedly hung in effigy, ears and all. (Laughter.) The Vancouver Sun, Mr. Speaker, almost blew its mind. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), former director of ICBC, said in this House: "What a difference a day makes: one of the lowest rates in the country on December 11 — the difference the day made was that now we go from the lowest to the very highest in the country." I think many believed it, as page after page after page of newspaper accounts trumpeted the so-called massive increases, implying that the public was unfairly paying through the nose for its automobile insurance.

MR. COCKE: Getting robbed.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, almost a year has passed and it's now time to assess the effect of those policies in the dispassionate light of actual experience.

First of all, I want to say a word about the management of the corporation. The decision was made to remove ICBC from the realm of politics. The highly competent board of directors was recruited and decision-making in the management turned over to them. Government sets only the broad policy within which insurance should operate and the board of directors, despite the attacks made by that member for New Westminster, manages the operation, and I want to detail some of the progress they have made,

First of all, the financial situation: during the first six months the corporation recorded a net surplus of $25.8 million, the first in its history. The $7 million loss in general insurance was almost turned around — only $272,000 in losses. Perhaps I am overly optimistic, Mr. Speaker, but I think that may be turned into a profit before the year has ended.

The financial experience has continued to be good so the board of directors has judged that it would be responsible to commit approximately $53 million in the form of accident-free discounts on insurance premiums for the coming year. The corporation will also bear the full cost of the 25 per cent accident-free rebate to male-under-25 drivers that was initially sponsored by the government and which the opposition asked to be carried by the corporation. Perhaps I'm overly optimistic, but I am hopeful that even with these major commitments to rebates this year the corporation will still be able to show a surplus at the end of this year.

Now a word about the rates — rates which the member for New Westminster said were the highest in Canada, rates which were said to be so out of line by the media of this province. I am going to read some of these rates into the record because, as the press itself has so often said, the public has a right to know.

I want to say that the member for New Westminster and the Leader of the Opposition, when they had charge of ICBC, were responsible for policies that are causing a divisive split in the NDP of Ontario.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. McGEER: It was one of your NDP members for Ontario, Patrick Lawlor, who said that the NDP has learned a bitter lesson from the NDP experience in British Columbia. He called the experience "horrendous."

HON. MR. BENNETT: They're ashamed of you.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Lawlor traced the horrendous experience of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia in setting up its Autoplan programme to an incautious use of premium rates that were not actuarially sound.

Now the next day what happened was that the acting House Leader of the NDP in Ontario didn't challenge the accuracy of the account but said that the stories themselves were distorted because the member was just joking. He was just joking, and when remarks were made in jest it was wrong for the press

[ Page 199 ]

to take the point of view that he had made them as a serious criticism of the experience in British Columbia.

Well, the leader of the NDP, Mr. Lewis, was holidaying in Mexico; he came back and had some further things to say. He said that the NDP government would introduce provincially operated car insurance; he wanted to correct the record on that. But he said: "What we've learned from B.C. is that you have to set your premium rates realistically; you have to calculate carefully the likely inflationary cost and" — get this, Mr. Speaker — "you have to level with the public every step of the way."

HON. MR. BENNETT: You mean he's not going to bring Dennis Cocke as a consultant?

HON. MR. McGEER: He learned the lesson, Mr. Speaker, but I don't think the Leader of the Opposition has yet learned the lesson, because here he was in the throne speech the other day quoting about the drop in retail sales as a result of the insurance programme of the government — very careful not to quote his exact words, but to quote someone else to leave the false impression.

Quoting Mr. Segal of Fields Stores, he said: "Last year vehicle premiums were increased substantially, and this alone had the effect of eliminating a large amount of consumer spending in British Columbia in the first quarter of 1976." The Leader of the Opposition got that on the record in Hansard. He quoted Mr. C.N. Woodward, who said in June of last year: "Retail business is flat and the feeling is that we won't come out of the slump in 1976. The ICBC increase in auto insurance premiums and the recent increase in retail sales tax to 7 per cent took about $500 million out of the consumer income in this province."

Mr. Speaker, while all these stories were being written up in the press and while business leaders were making statements of this kind, later to be quoted by the socialist Leader of the Opposition, this is what was taking place. During February, the overall Canadian average growth in retail sales was 12.4 per cent; the province of Ontario had an overall growth of 11.2 per cent. But during February, 1976, the month when British Columbians were paying their insurance premiums, the growth of retail sales was 14.5 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. McGEER: In March, Mr. Speaker, the average growth in retail sales in Canada was 15.6 per cent. The province of Ontario — that's a province that doesn't have a Crown corporation operating an insurance monopoly — had a growth of 16 per cent. British Columbia, the province that had all this retail money taken out of the consumers' pockets by this wicked government, had a growth in retail sales of 18 per cent. Those figures don't come from McGeer computers. Those figures come from Statistics Canada — the revised and final figures of Statistics Canada.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You mean Dave was wrong again?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm just wanting to correct the record, because we've found time after time after time, Mr. Speaker, that the statements of the Leader of the Opposition are inaccurate and irresponsible. They are reported in the press; they leave false impressions with the public. These have to be corrected. It's best to correct them in the light of experience and not counter-claims.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, why has ICBC had such a good financial experience? It's mostly because of the reduction in claims. In 1974-75 there were 532,000 claims; in 1975-76 this had climbed to 622,000. It was the calculation of the actuaries of the corporation that with the revised insurance programme this would drop to about 490,000. That's not what has happened. Insurance claims are calculated now for the year to be only 372,000.

Autoplan is a trust fund, and as a consequence of this, there will be more money in the pockets of every motorist in British Columbia. Despite what the press said ICBC auto insurance rates in 1977-78 — this coming year — will be the lowest non-subsidized rates in Canada. Even for this year we're among the lowest in Canada.

We did rate comparisons — 750 of them — across Canada between the B.C. rate and that of other provinces which do not subsidize their automobile insurance — you must exclude Manitoba and Saskatchewan because they do. In 93 per cent of those cases the rates next year for ICBC are lower than the rates this year for those other provinces in Canada, and they have obtained permission from the national Anti-Inflation Board to increase the rates for this coming year. Because the public has a right to know, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to read a few of these comparisons into the record.

Here's one: Accident-free, over 30 years of age, driving a 1966 Chevrolet station-wagon: Vancouver, $226; Calgary, $280; Toronto, $294; Montreal, $388; Halifax, $301. Our next year's rates; their this year's rates.

A 1966 Chevrolet station-wagon in Mission, $173; Drumheller, $252, Barrie, Ont., $286; Dorval, Que., $388; Stellarton, N.S., $267.

Prince Rupert, B.C., $214; Drumheller, Alta.,

[ Page 200 ]

$252; London, Ont., $266; St. Hyacinthe, Que., $380; Fredericton, N.B., $314.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, and there are no hidden subsidies, either.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): No hidden subsidies.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Subsidized, yes.

Well, Mr. Speaker, how about the under-25 drivers. These are some accident-free rates. This is the group that we were supposed to have treated so unfairly. A 1970 Datsun station-wagon for a 20-year-old single male, accident-free for three years in these other provinces: Vancouver, $601 — yes, that's high; Calgary, $713; Toronto, $745; Montreal, $1,000; Halifax, $792. Same thing, Mr. Speaker, for Victoria, $381; Edmonton, $713; Ottawa, Ont., $674; Hull, P.Q., $862; Moncton, N.B., $735. In every case, it is less than half. Is that unfair? But I'll tell you this: it's non-subsidized, and the corporation will still have a surplus.

Well, how about the situation, Mr. Speaker, for people who have had accidents? This is somebody who doesn't qualify for the safe-driving discount and is having to pay the full penalty in British Columbia for indiscreet driving, having had a blameworthy accident; a 1974 Chevrolet Impala in Vancouver — the under-25 driver will pay $994; in Calgary, $1,446; in Toronto, $1,425; and in Montreal, $2,022.

If you are over 25 and have had an accident, and drive a 1975 Volkswagen Beetle for pleasure, and you've had an accident — Victoria, $166; Lethbridge, $S63; Ottawa, $475; Quebec, $682; $166 to $682.

Well, Mr. Speaker, these are the kinds of differences, and I could read several hundred of them into the record, but I don't intend to do that. I merely want to tell the public of British Columbia that they are being fairly treated; that there are no hidden springs, no subsidies. All the financial cards of the corporation are there on the table for everyone to see. It's a trust fund. Therefore, any surplus that accumulates will be returned to the people in the form of lower premiums.

MR. COCKE: You're admitting you're overcharging with those premiums.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Member, you tell me how many claims are going to be laid against the corporation next year and we can tell you what, precisely, the rates should be. But I think, Mr. Speaker, that the record speaks fairly well in the dropping claims from 622,000 to an estimated 374,000. That represents a real saving to the motoring public, whether they pay the cost in premiums or whether they pay the costs in general taxes. It represents a real saving to the motoring public.

In addition to these discounted rates of 17.5 per cent, plus 10 per cent for under-25 females, and plus 25 per cent for under-25 males who have been free of blameworthy accidents, in this coming year there will be an increase in coverage. The third-party limit of liability is raised from $50,000 to $75,000. The weekly indemnity accident benefits are increased by 50 per cent, from $50 a week to $75 a week. I regret to say this, but burial and funeral expense benefits are also increased by $250, to $750 from $500. I hope that's one that we would never have to use.

The board of directors, Mr. Speaker, has been tough in its contracts, but fair: the towers who do business with the corporation are effectively doing them at the same rates as last year; the body shops were given an increase, but only within the guidelines; and the agents are accepting reduced commissions.

At the same time, the corporation has been successful at giving better service. I made inquiries as to the number of complaints the corporation was receiving. These have gone down from 1,000 a month by telephone in April to 300 a month in November. Complex investigations went down from 550 a month in April, to 100 in November.

There was a question on the order paper, which I'll answer in detail, regarding investigations of fraud in the corporation. During the first eight months of 1976, there were 300 investigations, 73 criminal charges and 40 convictions. Mr. Speaker, the significant thing is that fire and theft claims dropped from 430 per month in March to 270 per month in November. I mention all of these factors because they are part of the stronger management of the corporation, which is giving better service at reduced costs. I think that we've only begun to derive the benefits that can come from this better service and better management.

I want to mention one or two programmes that will be coming forward next year which we think will bring ultimately substantial savings, and which should result in even greater benefits to the motoring public. This is the last year for which there will be a full-year's insurance premium paid by everybody at the same time. Next year, commencing on March 1, what's called the "cyclical renewal system" will begin, where people will eventually be transferred so that one-tenth of all drivers will renew each month. This will spread the work load around and result in a very major saving to the overhead of the corporation.

We are going to pay much more attention to safe driving, because ultimately the way to save on automobile insurance and the way to save on the

[ Page 201 ]

major cause of death — namely, severe automobile accidents — is by programmes for safer driving. I wish to commend, Mr. Speaker, the initiative of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) in his campaign against drinking driving. This will be intensified because....

MR. LEA: He lets them go.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, let there be no mistake about it: drinking drivers in British Columbia are not going to be let go.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

HON. MR. McGEER: They are going to be nailed, Mr. Speaker, because the major cause of death in this province on the highways is accidents associated with drinking-driving. The majority of all deaths on the road are caused by drivers who have alcohol that goes beyond the .08 per cent acceptable limit.

We hope, Mr. Speaker, that if these safety programmes are successful, if the motoring public of British Columbia continues to drive as carefully as they're driving now.... If the corporation is successful in its efforts to reduce cost, then, Mr. Speaker, it's possible that the board of directors of ICBC a year from now might be able to recommend that people who have a two-year accident-free driving record will have even lower rates than those who have a one-year free period. But that's in the future, and again it depends upon performance.

MR. SPEAKER: I must draw your attention, hon. minister, to the fact that you're on your final three minutes of time.

HON. MR. McGEER: All right, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say one word about the head office of ICBC, because that's a question repeatedly raised by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). At the present time we do not know what the ultimate size and role of ICBC will be in the province. The private insurers have been invited back to British Columbia to sell optional insurance if they wish. The member may say that this was an attempt by the Social Credit government to pay off the private insurers, but it's been a very small payoff, because none of them, so far, has come back. The invitation is there if they wish to compete with ICBC. We don't know the extent to which they will.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, because we don't know what the ultimate size of the corporation will be, it's going to be difficult for us for some time to predict what kind of a head office will be required. It's for that reason that ICBC has returned the land that it had reserved in New Westminster to the B.C. Development Corporation so that it can be put to better use in the time between the present and when ICBC might be able to make an ultimate decision that better use can be implemented.

Mr. Speaker, ICBC is but one facet of the government operation but it illustrates what can happen when you have fair policies that are pursued despite attacks from the opposition, and which give the opportunity for the public to benefit from them. The end result of those policies for ICBC are here to see now. But the same philosophy is being applied to the general economy of British Columbia. It's beginning to appear in the initiatives that were described in the throne speech. Before very long the damage that was incurred by that administration will be overcome, and British Columbia will soar to new heights of success and prosperity,

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): The hon. Minister of Education delivered a very interesting speech, Mr. Speaker. He suffers today, as he has always suffered, from a bad case of selective recall; to put it another way, selective research. He carefully selects his facts to support his arguments, and in that way, I am sure, inadvertently hopes that the public might not know the real situation.

He said that accidents were down. The RCMP say that accidents are up, but people are not taking in their automobile accidents in making claims to ICBC. They know that they'll be penalized by punitive rates for enforcing their contract of insurance whether or not, it seems, they are blameworthy in any of these accidents.

When he mentioned comparative rates across the country, Mr. Speaker, he talked about every jurisdiction that did not have government automobile insurance. There are no subsidies in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba where they do have government insurance. The rates in those provinces are, in some areas, 400, 500 and 600 per cent below the rates in this province. But he didn't mention that — that's selective use of the facts.

What really disturbed me about the hon. minister's speech, Mr. Speaker, was his comments with respect to Confederation. No one can say that I, as a minister of the Crown, was recalcitrant or shy in dealing with the federal government in getting a fair deal for the province of British Columbia. I'm delighted when I see, in some instances, Crown ministers do exactly that. The NDP administration fought long and hard....

The question for all of us in this province — not just the Minister of Education, but for all of us — is: which side are we on? It's not a question of whether we're on the side of Trudeau or the side of separatism; it's are we on the side of Canada or separatism?

If the government wishes to take a hard negotiating stand with the federal government, that is

[ Page 202 ]

one thing. But this glib soft-sell, I fear, will slide us into a disintegration of our beloved country. A wolf in wolf's clothing is what I fear the position being sculptured by the government will be.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You're a sheep in sheep's clothing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, that was a good one.

MR. LEA: Did you make that up, Bob?

MR. LAUK: Here is the Minister of Health yesterday who claimed that people are phoning up the ambulance service and asking for free rides to the Queen Elizabeth Theatre. Here is a man who says that people at an accident scene with two broken legs will say: "Gee, maybe I'll take a taxi if its $15." (Laughter.) Here's a man who's made outrageous charges of abuse in the ambulance service, and hasn't catalogued or documented those charges with one single case — not one. Why doesn't he talk to them, as we have? There is no abuse, Mr. Speaker. This is just a way to punish those who are old and sick.

MR. BARRETT: Empress Hotel welfare cases.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: When were you talking to them, Gary? Yesterday?

MR. LAUK: Recently. I'll look it up in my diary.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us who you talked to.

MR. LEA: Bob, I think you'd be a lot happier if you didn't find out. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: I want to deal with the M.E.L. Paving case. On Christmas Eve we had a further example of the likeness of the present administration to the Nixon administration that was discredited in the United States.

After approximately 42 days of court hearings, the government of this province ordered the B.C. Railway to finally admit that they were guilty of fraud involving the old Social Credit directors of the railway and settle out of court with M.E.L. Paving. This was carefully timed for December 24 in the hope that it would get very little news coverage. I want to take some time today to make sure that at least Hansard records the sordid history of this particular case.

On June 6,1975, the then Premier, Dave Barrett, told the Legislature — Hansard. June 6, 1975 at pages 3166 to 3175 — that M.E.L. was suing the railway and Joe Broadbent, former vice-president of the railway, for fraud and conspiracy relating to a construction contract on the Dease Lake extension.

M.E.L., it should be pointed out, subsequently dropped the charges against Mr. Broadbent.

On December 11, 1974, Premier Barrett met with Joe Broadbent after he requested financial assistance for legal costs. At that meeting, Mr. Broadbent told the Premier that all of the actions he took related to the Dease Lake extension were taken on the advice, consent, and with the instructions of the board of directors of the British Columbia Railway. That board was made up of W.A.C. Bennett, Ray Williston and Einar Gunderson.

On December 20, 1974, Mr. Broadbent's solicitors wrote to the Premier confirming, on behalf of Mr. Broadbent, that the statements he made to the Premier, in his office, were correct. On that basis, Premier Barrett gave authority for the Crown to indemnify Mr. Broadbent because he was acting on behalf of the Crown by virtue of the instructions he received from the board of directors.

Premier Barrett said in the House that the former Social Credit government had told the public in 1972, just prior to the 1972 general election, that the Dease Lake extension would cost only $69 million. Barrett filed details with the House on the various contracts that had been let by the Social Credit government, including a report showing that the Dease Lake extension would in fact cost at least $227 million — not $69 million. We now know that it is $279 million. He then tabled several financial and engineering reports relating to massive overruns on B.C. Rail contracts.

The comptroller-general's report said that as of April 1973 overruns of $17 million had occurred because proper pre-engineering had not been done by B.C. Rail. An independent engineering report by Swan-Wooster condemned the lack of proper engineering by B.C. Rail on the Dease Lake line. A report by the railway's chief engineer confirmed the lack of engineering:

"Throughout the entire route, only centre line and the limits of right of way were surveyed. Centre-line profile only was recorded throughout the route. This meagre information was used to estimate quantities for all contracts let. Since this information was insufficient to obtain reasonable estimates of quantities of earth to be moved in the construction of railway grade, there resulted excessive overrun of work actually performed over the quantity specified in the contract."

By the way, recently I have had information that part of the line was washed out because it was not properly pre-engineered in the first place.

The present government made a decision to continue with the trial involving M.E.L. Paving. On October 4, 1976, the trial started before Mr. Justice Hinkson of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and Mr. Allan McEachern was lawyer for M.E.L.

[ Page 203 ]

Paving. He opened his case. In his opening statement to the court he made the following points:

1) Prior to August, 1971, the railway chief engineer prepared the first estimate of $80 million on the Dease Lake line. This was the same engineer who, by the way, had given Premier Barrett the written report I have quoted from earlier, and stated that proper engineering had not been done before the estimates.

2) Mr. Broadbent, the railway's then vice-president, told the chief engineer that the $80 million estimate was too high because he had already promised Premier Bennett that the job could be done for $68 million.

3) The chief engineer then went away and altered his figures, on August 10, 1971, to $68 million — a triumph of the eraser over engineering.

4) Mr. McEachern said he would produce evidence a to confirm a long tale of incredible overruns on the Dease Lake line based on lack of elementary engineering by B.C. Rail, which resulted in preposterous errors in quantities, and conduct of B.C. Rail amounting to a conscious indifference to the real truth.

5) Massive overruns on the Fort Nelson line, based on the same B.C. Rail techniques, were already known to B.C. Rail before they let the M.E.L. contract.

6) Mr. McEachern then read the chief engineer's report which I quoted a few minutes ago.

7) Mr. McEachern then referred to an independent report by Swan-Wooster which said that the railway's a limited pre-construction engineering contributed to the low estimates which were used to forecast the cost of the line.

8) On August 31, 1974, M.E.L. had actually performed $11.3 million worth of work on the $5.4 a million contract, and the railway estimated it would take another $8.5 million to complete the M.E.L. contract. Further estimates added another $15.5 million to the contract.

9) The opening statement then lists all of the contracts let on the Dease Lake line to the various companies involved and gives details of the large overruns in each case. To give you some examples, there was $4.5 million overrun to Kotra in construction. Keane industries, two contracts: one had a $4 million overrun, the other a $15 million overrun. So on, and on it goes.

10) Mr. McEachern concluded his remarks by quoting from the Swan-Wooster report which said I that the overruns were not due to any poor construction practices by the construction companies which followed normal, well-proven and accepted procedures.

How would this court's statement, by the way, have been reported in the press of the day if the NDP government were involved? You could imagine the Vancouver Province and Sun front-page headlines: "NDP Railway Accused of Fraud. Engineer's Estimate Changed After Promise to Premier Barrett. NDP Accused of More Massive Overruns." Then would have followed a detailed story of McEachern's opening statements which would cover 44 pages and was, by the way, easily understandable to any reporter.

What actually happened? The Vancouver Province had no coverage at all. The Sun covered it in six inches of space on page 2. The Times and Colonist carried parts of the Sun story. No mention was made of the alleged promise to the directors to keep the estimate at $68 million. No quotes from the chief engineer's reports on the Swan-Wooster report. No mention of the millions involved in the whole line and, of course, no anti-government headlines — anti-Social Credit government headlines.

The case then continued on a daily basis with Mr. McEachern calling witnesses to spell out the details of his case, and no coverage at all in the press. A witness named D.V. Krefting, of Swan-Wooster and Company, an engineer, testified to a marked lack of pre-engineering by B.C. Rail, and overruns, the result of unrealistically low preliminary cost estimates.

Krefting then gave some startling testimony about his meeting with the railway's chief engineer, Mr. Wakely, in 1973, using notes that he took at the meeting. He testified that the chief engineer told him that the railway directors originally gave the go-ahead to build the Dease Lake line with no cost estimates and that he, the engineer, was informed that no financial appropriation of any kind had been made to pay for the line. He then prepared the $80 million estimate and presented it to Mr. Broadbent who told him it was too high because he, Broadbent, had made a commitment to Mr. Bennett for $68 million.

Krefting then went on to testify how he tried to find out where the original total estimate was, and out of that we found out there really wasn't one. He said he wasn't able to obtain any written material on the $80 million and $68 million estimates. The railway told him they were not available. On cross-examination, Krefting agreed with council for the railway that the $80 million estimate, if you can all it that, was pretty wild or seat-of-the-pants. Again you can imagine what the headline, if the NDP were he government, would be: "NDP Okays $250 Million Line With No Estimates." "Estimates altered between Barrett and Broadbent," and so on. In fact, not one line of that testimony was reported at the time it was given.

Another witness was Derril Warren, the former provincial Conservative Party leader. He had acted as legal adviser to M.E.L. at one time but gave his evidence as an expert on construction matters, which make up in excess of 60 per cent of his practice. He testified that in his extensive experience: "I have

[ Page 204 ]

never come across overruns of the magnitude involved in this case. I found them incredible." He referred to two specific quantity overruns to illustrate his point. So the case continued on a daily basis. Not one word appeared in the press until October 22, when the Nelson Daily News carried a front-page story.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's hear it for the Nelson paper.

MR. LAUK: The story quoted the various excuses given by the press for not covering the trial. The Sun, they said: "We watch it from time to time." The Victoria Times and The Columbian were surprised they had not seen wire stories from Canadian Press, which they normally pick up, and they pointed out that it was the responsibility of the Sun and The Province to cover the story.

The Nelson story also covered the testimony relating to W.A.C. Bennett and Broadbent and the altering of the original estimate figures.

MR. BARRETT: Pat, you brought this whole thing up in the House....

MR. LAUK: The Vancouver Province's excuse was the prizewinner, Mr. Speaker. At first they said that they didn't have enough staff, but later changed this to: "We are keeping a daily tab on the case." A daily tab, I thought, was a bill kept in a bar. "The story is of no interest to the average reader, " they said, "because of the technical nature of the case." Only one paper, the Victoria Times, covered the Nelson news story.

To illustrate the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the strange media silence on evidence involving W.A.C. Bennett and the old Socreds was not accidental, it is worth reading into the record what Mr. Storey said in an interview with Monday magazine here in the city of Victoria, January 17, 1977:

"Storey tells Monday further investigation by him into the charges " — about the press silence — " made by Barrett were blocked personally, on the orders of David Radler, one of the owners of the Sterling newspaper chain, which includes the Nelson Daily News. "

Mr. Radler is now sitting on the board of the British Columbia Development Corporation, appointed by the present Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). The story goes on to say:

"Storey says Radler contacted him and told him he had 'become an embarrassment to the chain' by being so persistent in seeking answers from the government to Barrett's charges."

Freedom of the press?

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): How about the Washington Post?

MR. LAUK: Both Mr. Storey and his publisher are to be congratulated on refusing to be threatened into silence.

Finally, on November 3, one month after the trial started, the Vancouver Sun carried a page 11 story summarizing the evidence. The final line of the Vancouver Sun story said: "The hearing continues today." On November 6, Allan Fotheringham, a columnist for the Sun, commenting on the M.E.L. case, conceded that press coverage was meagre, and said: "Although some evidence was complicated it is fascinating because it deals with the way our taxes are spent." He noted it was to be one of the most expensive trials ever for the poor taxpayer. Well, the case went on.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Vancouver Province in particular, with their publisher, Paddy Sherman — another Social Credit appointee to one of their boards — obviously made a political decision not to embarrass the Social Credit government and completely ignored the trial until the day the out-of-court settlement was announced.

MR. LEA: Christmas Eve.

MR. LAUK: This is a shameful decision and a shameful direction for a newspaper to take.

The annual auditor's report on the railway was tabled in this House on January 2, 1976, by the current Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). Page 5 of that auditor's report had this to say about the M.E.L. case:

"In the opinion of counsel, the railway should be successful in defending this action. No provision has been made in the accounts for any liability that may arise out of this action."

Was that a true statement? Was that a true statement by the auditors of the railway? If it wasn't a true statement, why did it take so long for this government to settle the case? If it was a true statement, Mr. Speaker, why did they settle the case at all?

It would be interesting to see who signed the auditor's statement, Mr. Speaker, for the board. So as of last January legal advice was to go ahead, and yet the Vancouver Province, who suppressed the trial evidence, has the gall to suggest that the NDP administration should have settled out of court, admitting that the former Social Credit board, which consisted of the former Premier of this province, Premier W.A.C. Bennett, committed fraud.

AN HON, MEMBER: You're part of the coverup.

MR. LAUK: Although Mr. Bennett, the former premier, was a political enemy, on a partisan basis, to this party, do you think it would have been ethical for us, flying in the face of legal counsel's advice, to

[ Page 205 ]

make a tacit admission of fraud on his part?

MR. BARRETT: Let the courts decide.

MR. LAUK: He had a right to defend himself in court.

MR. KING: The coverup gang.

MR. LAUK: In addition, the present chairman of the railway wrote to the minister on January 17 of this year and the Premier tabled a copy of that self-serving letter in the House this week. Page 5 reads as follows:

"The executive was kept informed by its legal counsel of the progress of the trial, but it was difficult to make a proper assessment of the railway's case until its evidence had been presented. At the conclusion of the evidence and before filing of written argument, the board requested counsel for the railway to review the case and to give his opinion as to the probable outcome, based on all of the evidence which was now available."

MR. BARRETT: Which counsel?

MR. LAUK: They never consulted the counsel in that respect; they consulted Mr. Gray. They never consulted the trial counsel.

MR. BARRETT: Not the trial counsel; the railway counsel.

MR. LAUK: Again, further confirmation of the fact that no government should interfere politically with the normal course of justice before, as the chairman's letter says, all of the evidence is available. We refused to cover up the allegations of fraud.

MR. BARRETT: Two hundred million dollars.

MR. LAUK: But the present Premier, once all the trial evidence was in and he knew there was no escape from a judicial verdict of fraud involving the former board of directors of the railway, did not hesitate to make a political decision to bypass the judicial process and to try to save his political bedfellows. What he has actually done is to plead guilty on behalf of his political friends and plead guilty to fraud on their behalf. They have been cut off, Mr. Speaker, from a hearing. The charge of fraud is still there; it has never been dealt with and the former railway board, made up of the former Premier Bennett, Mr. Williston and Mr. Gunderson, are all tarred with the same brush arising from the charges of this civil fraud case and they've never had an opportunity to defend themselves, not once.

The sworn testimony given at the trial relating to the actions of the directors and the vice-president was not challenged. So the public is entitled to conclude — and even if they're not entitled, some will conclude — that the evidence must have been true. If it was not true, why was Mr. Broadbent not called as a witness? Why was Mr. W.A.C. Bennett not called to rebut the evidence? Why was Mr. Williston not called? Why was Mr. Gunderson not called? Maybe the Premier of the day knows why. He knew the railway board was guilty. He did nothing about it, and he did not want a judicial record of the fact. That is the inescapable conclusion.

There you have it: a major fraud case against a Crown corporation whose directors included a former Premier, a former cabinet minister who is now chairman of one of the most important Crown corporations of this province; startling, easily understandable evidence alleging a rail line being built with no estimates, no proper pre- engineering, ending up with incredible overruns in the area of $200 million of the taxpayers' money. All this with a virtual press blackout. We finish up with an admission of guilt, not by the accused parties, but by their successors. The chief architect of this has been given a patronage appointment in a Crown forest corporation. He was a member of the board; and, may I remind you, Mr. Speaker, he was a member of the board when we proved in this chamber two or three years ago that that board acquiesced and, indeed, directed the auditors of B.C. Rail to cook the books.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: That case was proven; this case is still to be proven or not proven. There is a concept in law that the hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) may understand; it's called "similar facts." The public forum is entitled to look at similar facts. If they acquiesced in the cooking of the books, hiding the real profit-and-loss situation of the BCR for so many years, is it not likely that they would be directly involved in deliberately deceiving the public as to the real cost of the Dease Lake extension, especially when it came just prior to a general election in this province? It is also noteworthy that we have the revelations of the Pearse report concerning Mr. Williston, indicating favourable but illegal treatment for MacMillan Bloedel — a man with that character heading one of the most important Crown corporations in this province.

On December 29, as if that wasn't enough, Mr. Speaker, an order-in-council was released. It had been passed on December 21, three days before the out-of-court settlement had been reached in the M.E.L. case. The order, No. 3729, dated December 21, 1976, signed by the presiding officer, the

[ Page 206 ]

presiding member of council, granted a retiring allowance — as it's euphemistically put — of $8,164.80 to none other than Joseph Broadbent, the man who should have been a key witness in the trial to either admit or deny the testimony that was given relating to his instructions to the chief engineer to alter the figures in the estimates. He never took the stand. Three days before the settlement this council order comes forward giving him over $8,000. Why was he not called to give evidence? He has already admitted acting on the instructions of the board. But even more, what would have come out during cross examination?

We telephoned the superannuation commissioner's office to see if he was given that allowance by virtue of any statute regulation. The answer was no. The superannuation commissioner's office informed us that section 49 of the Act only applies to public service appointees, and it provides for lump sum gratuities for them in addition to the superannuation, and it did not apply to Mr. Broadbent. Therefore the cabinet had to pass a special order-in-council on an ex gratia basis — that means gift — to give Mr. Broadbent this money to which he was not entitled by law. Again I ask why, and why 11 months after his retirement, and five days before the out-of-court settlement with the M.E.L. case?

On November 21, 1974, the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. Gardom), then a Liberal MLA and now the Social Credit Attorney-General, raised the M.E.L. case in the Legislature. He said that M.E.L. is suing for fraud and conspiracy, and that the original estimate for the M.E.L. section of the job was $5.2 million and that now it's $20 million. "In view of this, and the scathing remarks of the B.C. comptroller-general on B.C. Rail financial practices, the government should order a judicial inquiry into B.C. Railway affairs." That was a good speech, Mr. Attorney-General, and it was a very responsible speech on your part.

This is the second scandal under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . In one, the Grizzlygate, the Premier has stepped in and is boasting about the fact that he is making sure that a judicial inquiry will be the final outcome, with no political interference. In this case, the M.E.L. case, he has stepped in and done just the opposite: he has ordered a charge of fraud withdrawn from the courts to try and protect those involved.

MR. BARRETT: How do you feel, Mr. Attorney-General?

MR. LAUK: Why this double standard? Is it because of who was involved? Why should they be protected and those involved in the Grizzlygate scandal have to face due process of law? The Socred leopard has not changed its spots. It has not even changed families; the name is the same and the game is the same. The people of B.C. will no longer be passive or tolerant, as they are anywhere in North America, to dishonesty in government or on the part of any of its elected officials. It is no longer passive and tolerant of the flim-flam, wool-over-the-eyes technique.

Why was the former board not called to give evidence? Why was Broadbent given a gift once the court case was over? There is only one way to settle this sordid mess....

MR. BARRETT: Before the case was settled.

MR. LAUK: Yes, before the case was settled.

In the speech of the present Attorney-General, the one he made on November 21, 1974, he wanted a judicial inquiry. Nothing less will do!" Nothing less will do now, Mr. Attorney-General. Nothing less will do now. We must have a judicial inquiry. We must have a judicial inquiry, and Mr. Bennett — the former Premier — Williston, Gunderson and Broadbent must be given an opportunity to give evidence under oath and clear their names in this province. They must be given that opportunity! They are under a cloud of suspicion of fraud and conspiracy. It has never been settled in a Judicial tribunal; it has not been settled here. Where will it be settled? Are you going to allow these men to go into history with that cloud of suspicion upon them, that mark against their records, with not even an opportunity to answer for themselves in a proper forum?

MR. BARRETT: And remembering what you said in this House yourself.

MR. LAUK: If the government continues to hush this up, there is only one answer: they are admitting fraud on behalf of people for whom they have no right to admit fraud. They are pleading guilty on behalf of the former board of the British Columbia Railway.

I repeat the present Attorney-General's demand: I say that there must be a judicial inquiry to clear the names of those who have been charged with fraud and conspiracy because of silence and hushup and coverup that remain in this province, Mr. Speaker.

The people of the province can assume that silence means guilt. If we do not get that answer, if we are not cleared, those involved will be taken in history as being guilty of fraud and conspiracy, and will have had no opportunity in the proper forum to clear their names.

You expected us to settle this under the table in the back room?

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

[ Page 207 ]

MR. LAUK: You demanded that of us? You accuse us of upgrading the railway? We've been attacked for upgrading the railway.

MR. BARRETT: And protecting the environment.

MR. LAUK: If one life were lost, as several have been on other lines of the BCR because of poor construction, who's going to put a price tag on that? Who is going to put a price tag on that kind of deception, that kind of irresponsibility? The public has a right to know. Yes, indeed, Mr. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), they paid. They paid then; they're paying now for this case. Who has a right to know any better than the public, who have paid so much, Mr. Member, for this settlement? I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the only way to clear their names is to do the same thing that the present Premier did in the Grizzlygate affair: let the sun shine in.

One concluding word, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this case. All of the evidence was not presented in the trial before Mr. Justice Hinkson. I have stated that clearly, and I want to state it again. There is more; there must be more. We want to know what the real contract was between M.E.L. Paving and the British Columbia Railway. We want to know if there was an understanding. If there was, who gave reason for that understanding? Who put forward a position on the part of the B.C. Railway and the government? Or, we want those charges denied and the names cleared.

MR. SPEAKER: You're in your final three minutes, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of the opposition going on a witch-hunt in this case; it is not a question of digging up old skeletons; it is not a question of besmirching the names of people who have served this province, and who apparently have served it well. It is a question of political honesty in office.

What price do we pay for the present government in office? What price did the public pay? What is the standard of conduct? What are the ethics? How are we to be seen, not only to the people that we serve, but as a province to the rest of this country, and indeed to the rest of this world? When are we going to stop being constantly embarrassed by these coverups and acts of deception that bring ridicule and shame to the province as a whole?

The government of the day is elected by people. They do us no service; they bring shame upon us. Honesty in one case and not another is not honesty at all; being open in one case — picking and choosing your cases about what you're going to be honest about — is not honesty at all. That's hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker. The demands made by the official opposition are clear and precise.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): It's always with some trepidation that I follow the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre. I understand that he won a case in court recently. That has given him some courage; I congratulate him on that.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): He's going on TV now.

MR. VEITCH: I think, of course, that he probably did not present his case too well here this afternoon.

Yesterday afternoon, when I had the honour of taking your place in the chair, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) mentioned that I was a very easy-going chap. I hope that at the close of my address today, he still holds that opinion of me.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate Your Honour on your performance at this early stage in this present session. I know from my small experience that your job is not an easy one. It is hoped that all of the hon. members will aid and abet in the effective carrying-out of the business of this place.

It's also with great satisfaction that I commend the members of this House in their wisdom in re-electing the hon. member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) as Deputy Speaker of the Legislature for the ensuing session.

Mr. Speaker, allow me also to congratulate the mover (Mr. Kahl) and seconder (Mr. Lloyd) of the Speech from the Throne. There is a great deal of substance contained in both addresses, which can provide substantial food for thought and action by all hon. members.

To all hon. members, regardless of on which side of the House they may sit, let me say that it's great to be back with you again. Regardless of political philosophy, this place promotes a strange kind of kinship which is hard to attain in any other arena of life.

I commend the Lieutenant-Governor on the items contained in the Speech from the Throne. I hope sincerely that there are not too many members in the House who will attempt to discredit the government at any cost, while completely abrogating the reason for which they were elected — that of serving their constituencies, and hence all the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying philosophy of the government that was elected on December 11, 1975, is that British Columbia can only remain strong and competitive if it lives within its means. However, my present concern is that some members of this House do not share that concern, and indeed, they feel that by some magic wand they can extract more from the system than the citizens of British Columbia are able

[ Page 208 ]

or willing to put into it. If we, as legislators — and in fact, all British Columbians in all sectors of our economy — have failed to accept this responsibility to live within our means, our province could conceivably price itself out of the international marketplace and we could become a have-not province. The message that should go forth from this place — indeed, from all British Columbians — to the rest of the world is that we realize that British Columbia may have suffered a competitive disadvantage, and that the people are willing to lock arms and do something about it.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the challenge that the citizens of British Columbia are throwing out to government and to opposition alike in this parliament. They are looking for leadership, leadership which produces confidence, confidence not only between our people in this wonderful province and its government, but between people, governments and our trading partners wherever they may be dispersed over the globe. Your Honour, I commend the present government, for in just one short year they have brought the finances of this province back into line, and put us back on the road that will regain the confidence of those people, wherever they may be throughout this country and throughout this world, who will invest, provide jobs, pay taxes and eventually provide benefits for all of the citizens of British Columbia.

Conversely, I abhor the double-faced attitude possessed by some individuals who will say one thing in Halifax and another in Victoria. Your Honour, I quote from the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) in his reply to the Speech from the Throne a couple of days ago. The quotation is this: "Oh, laugh! Oh, laugh about it! Perhaps the memory will fade. Hypocrisy pays. A sense of responsibility? A sense of duty? A sense of commitment to the traditions of this House? Not on your life! Say anything, do anything, promise anything, promise anyone just to get a vote."

Your Honour, in an article entitled "Barrett's Political Primer" in the Vancouver Province, December 13, 1976, on page 7, the former Premier was quoted as saying to a group of social workers in Nova Scotia that the key to social change is "action, not dialectic — going for bloody power." If they get involved in politics, social workers would find that "like sex, if it's done right it's not dirty." He continued: "The system is wide open. You can do anything you want with it. It is there to use."

That former Premier of ours, that paragon of virtue, that advocate of building up the economic base of British Columbia, that former Premier, who, in righteous indignation, brought forth a phony amendment aimed at the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), further stated, in that same speech in Halifax, always attempting to spread the good news about British Columbia:

"The province has not received a cent of free enterprise investment, because 40 per cent of the electorate voted NDP and only a coalition of opposition parties brought down the government.

"Crown corporations based on natural resources are keeping the province going. The Social Credit government will not spend any money to develop resources, and things are getting worse in the province — and I'm loving every minute of it!"

That man who once was, and aspires to be once again, the Premier of this province, made that speech in Halifax, and yet he stands here on the floor of the Legislature in Victoria and waves his arms in righteous indignation demanding economic improvement.

Your Honour, it seems that the Leader of the Opposition is one who conveniently presents different faces at different places. Mr. Speaker, as evidenced by these two conflicting statements, it is clearly evident where the former Premier stands. It's obvious, to quote Diefenbaker, that the hon. member "has both feet firmly planted in the air." On January 18, 1977, he was described by Frances Russell, in her Vancouver Sun column, as one of over-ripe vintage. I would rather describe him as akin to the weather off the Bay of Fundy — all wind and no change.

The former Premier is very fond of quoting from the classics. I believe in his opening speech he has already quoted from Julius Caesar, Macbeth and Hamlet. Mr. Speaker, perhaps he remembers those lines from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet that go something like this:

"But, soft! what light through yonder window breaks? It speaks and yet says nothing."

The speech by the Leader of the Opposition proved one thing: vaudeville is not dead. It is alive and well in Vancouver East. The jokes are old and corny, and his second banana timing is slightly off, but who cares, Mr. Speaker? Get a laugh, make them plead for more — not to matter about British Columbia. Remember what he said in Halifax: "the system is here to use" — remember?

The extensive schooling of that member, the broad academic background, was evident in that speech. He has the advantage, of course, of an expensive education — a very expensive education. I stand to be corrected. I believe Seattle university, St. Louis university, Panco Poultry, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, over $100 million overrun in Human Resources, 48 companies failing in which the NDP had invested our province's resources...a very expensive education for the people of B.C. indeed.

The member for Vancouver East is also well versed in Shakespeare, and very well versed in Gilbert and

[ Page 209 ]

Sullivan. I can't possibly think of anyone who can misquote classics better than the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member states that Hamlet is different from himself. Is he? Is he really different? Hamlet goes around talking to himself. He wants to regain the throne from his uncle, an uncle who brought stability and security to a country that for a few years had been in a complete chaotic condition. Mr. Speaker, the parallel to the Leader of the Opposition is remarkable. No one would say that Hamlet was mad — he may have been feigning madness — but he was certainly power-hungry; power-hungry at any cost. Remember the speech? "The system is there to use. The system is wide open. You can do anything you want with it if you have the power." That appears to be the philosophy of the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

The second member for Vancouver East, in quoting Hamlet, Act III, where Hamlet was speaking to Ophelia, said: "Get thee to a nunnery." But he didn't continue. Hamlet continued:

"Why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners?
I am myself indifferent honest.
But yet I could accuse me of such things that were better my mother had not born me.
I am very proud, revengeful, ambitious,
With more offences at my beck than I have thoughts to put them in, imagination to give them shape, or time to act them in."

It is evident that the Leader of the Opposition has not the vast wealth of academic experience he would have us believe; not the vast wealth, but certainly he has a half-vast wealth.

Well, enough of that, Mr. Speaker. On Tuesday evening, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) asked the question in this House: "What are you doing for Burnaby? What's happening in Burnaby?" Your Honour, I am extremely proud to represent the constituency of Burnaby-Willingdon and to inform that hon. member — and I wish he was in his seat — that for the first time in many years they have representatives who are looking after the needs of their constituents. As a long-time resident of that area I can assure Your Honour that it is something that was absent in the past.

I was very pleased in the Speech from the Throne that His Honour alluded to the fact that rapid transit would be given high priority. Burnaby certainly is in need of this sort of consideration. We also look forward, Mr. Minister of Highways, to an early start in construction of a Marine Way, which will alleviate the horrendous traffic problem which now exists on Marine Drive.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see the Lower Mainland Regional Correctional Institute, known as Oakalla, removed from my area. I realize that in all practicality this cannot be done at this particular time, but I would urge the government to give it top priority. It is indeed unfortunate that we have had so many breakouts from that institution in the past few weeks, and the Attorney-General has assured me that he has instructed the officials to take the necessary steps which will eliminate this problem.

The residents of Burnaby-Willingdon are not unlike those of the rest of this province. Their wants and desires, in the main, run parallel to mine: they want a right to the pursuit of happiness; they want the right to conduct their affairs in their own way as much as possible, without the heavy hand of big government; they want representation and action from their elected representatives. And, hon. member from New Westminster, they are receiving that action.

Yes, hon. members, I look forward to that day somewhere in the future when another election is called, when, hopefully, this individual will meet your candidate in the hustings. I'm sure that the confidence many of my constituents have expressed to me in private will be amplified at the polls.

Interjection.

MR. VEITCH: That's the Minister of Give-away down there who eats $ 10 worth of eggs on the ferries.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) in his speech the other day, I believe, expressed the concern of the writers of the Journal of Commerce.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't sell eggs on the ferries.

MR. VEITCH: He ate them all.

The concern cited was that restrictive legislation passed in 1974 and rescinded in 1976 could possible be re-imposed via the election once more of a New Democratic administration. The writer suggested that this is one reason why industry was not flocking back to British Columbia.

In his speech in Halifax the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) told the social workers that the easiest way to be angry is to become a Christian. He said that if you were a Christian, you get angry. Hon. members, Christianity is not anger. The founder of Christianity, while he was hanging on a cross said: "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." Hon. members of the opposition, hon. Leader of the Opposition, the people of British Columbia are, on the whole, Christians. In time they will probably forgive you, but they will never re-elect you.

Hon. Leader of the Conservative Party, hon. members of this House, tell your friends that British Columbia is a safe place in which to invest, to grow and to do business. The people of British Columbia are far too intelligent to repeat the mistake they made in 1972,

Yes, Mr. Speaker, there have been some strong but

[ Page 210 ]

necessary measures taken over the past year and I commend the government on the courage they had in making those decisions. It would have been much easier to run away and borrow ourselves into debt that would have hamstrung our children and our childrens' children for years to come. We have had to travel a very rocky road, but I believe the worst is behind us.

Now the government requires the confidence and support of all the citizens in order to create that confidence that will propel British Columbia into a state of optimism and growth. I realize, Your Honour, that this will not be an easy task, that great events do not emerge in a single moment. Only through concerted effort, coupled with faith, can one win. Who was it who said that the noblest heights that great men reached and kept were not attained by sudden flight, but while their comrades slept, they were toiling upwards through the night?

We tried the left side in British Columbia, Mr. Member, for three and one half years. Under your regime Lotus-land was turned into a give-away land and it was a dismal failure. Do you remember that man about 2,000 years ago, while he was gathering his followers together, happened to be on a fishing ship and the fishermen complained: "Master, we've been toiling all these days but barely a few fish do we catch." That great man said: "Cast your nets on the other side." They did, and they garnered so many fish that the weight almost broke the nets.

British Columbia has cast its nets on the other side, the right side. We've got to push the positive button in British Columbia, not run around saying that British Columbia is going down the tube and that we're loving every moment of it. Push the positive button and no one can prevent us marching British Columbia into a brilliant future. Let's forget what some cynics say; we can't afford the luxury of cynicism in these times.

I know that every once in a while, we must personally sit down and hold a fire sale on some of this negative garbage that clutters up our mental attics. Hon. members, all of us gathered here are very privileged, privileged in that we are here to provide leadership for the people of this great province. All right then, let's join in dropping every iota of negativity. We know where our province has been, we know where it stands, and we can build from hereon out. Let's not deride British Columbia; let's sell the virtues of British Columbia to each and every person we meet, wherever we go. British Columbia cannot afford divisiveness at this point in our history. The Speech from the Throne indicates, and I firmly believe, that our government is now ready to launch a programme with a positive time-table for getting things done, positive things which, with all of our help, confidence and support, will go a long way towards getting British Columbia moving again.

I firmly believe the government's job as that of an economic janitor is at an end. The Speech from the Throne clearly stated that our administration is moving in a positive direction to provide the impetus and basis for industrial expansion. Mr. Speaker, as I see it, the duty of each and every member of this Legislature, if we truly want to help British Columbia, is to engender confidence — confidence in the government, confidence in British Columbia, and thus sow the seeds whereby investors will have confidence in themselves. Governments cannot do the job alone. The throne speech clearly points out that the biggest job is still up to those individuals out there whom we so often call the "private sector." This government may call upon people, both without and within this building, to stand fast and come to aid in defence of tough decisions which will still have to be made with respect to many things. There may be many roadblocks which will confront the administration along the recovery route. But recover we must; and recover we will.

Hon. members and citizens of British Columbia, when the call is issued, let us not be found wanting, or fail to respond. British Columbia requires and demands the strength of your determination. We live in a wonderful province; let's do our best to make it economically stronger. We live in a wonderful country; let's by our prayers and actions ensure that it stays united.

A year ago last November, on nomination night, I promised the people of my constituency total commitment. I want to assure the government and the citizens of British Columbia that that promise, made approximately 13 months ago, still stands today. Thank you.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Well, we've had our English lesson and our sermon for the day, Mr. Speaker. Now I'm going to try and take you back to the throne speech. But before I do that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to extend to you my compliments for 1977 — somewhat belated compliments — and to thank you and other members of the cabinet, and even some members of the back bench who were kind enough to send me greetings of the holiday season recently passed.

As I take my place in this throne speech debate today, I must confess I'm just a little confused. The throne speech seems to be a strange mix. In some points it's very definite, very exact; it comes through very loud and clear. In other points, it's very vague; just a brief mention, a passing touch on something.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it again.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, I've read it. My friend over here says: "Read it again." I want to mention just a couple of things to make my point. There's more

[ Page 211 ]

than half a page devoted to a highway project: 70 miles of highway; location, Hope-Merritt; the cost; exact figures all the way down the line. And yet the day after the throne speech was delivered, Mr. Speaker, we had that Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser), in response to some comments from local residents, come out and say, well, he would do an environmental study before he embarked on the project. It seems very strange to me, Mr. Speaker, if he has studied the question sufficiently to provide all that detail in the throne speech, that he didn't take time to do the environmental study before he included that item in the throne speech.

Then we have something like Pharmacare. Just imagine, we're going to have universal Pharmacare; nothing more, nothing less. Is it going to be contributory, Mr. Minister? Is there going to be a means test? Is there going to be $25 deduction? Is it only going to pay 80 per cent? You're not telling us, Mr. Minister. It's a very vague commitment. We'll have to wait and see. Playing games again, Mr. Minister, playing games.

On page 2 of the throne speech, there are a couple of very interesting statements. It's those statements that I want to talk about today. It says about halfway down the page: "My government has done so-and-so and so-and-so, and those positive actions have provided our people with tangible benefits." I want to talk about those tangible benefits. Where are they — in the field of health care? Perhaps that's where they are — tangible benefits in the field of health. Cutbacks in hospital service; cutbacks in public health care; cutbacks in public nurses, therapists, child psychologists — you name it. Right down the line, it's pared to the bare bone. For the privilege of that kind of service, we're entitled to pay four times as much when we go into hospital. Is that a tangible benefit to the people of this province, Mr. Speaker?

How about ambulance service? Road ambulance fees are to triple and add mileage. I wish the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) were here because he has really come up with an innovative way to bring improved services to this province. Last year he cut back on ambulance service — he calls it a tangible benefit — and now he's going to improve the service by returning that ambulance service at three times the rate, plus mileage. That's a very innovative approach, Mr. Speaker.

Human Resources — more tangible benefits. I know the minister (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is very proud of his GAIN legislation, but that legislation is a disaster. There have been more cutbacks, more reductions, because of GAIN legislation than anyone has ever received in the way of benefits. It was a firm election promise that Mincome would not only be kept, but would be improved. It has been wiped right from the face of our legislation. It's gone; there is no Mincome.

No longer are senior citizens entitled by right to a fair and equitable kind of monthly allowance; instead, they're part of the whole welfare system. They have to apply for welfare, social assistance, the same as anyone who is in that category. No longer is it their right, Mr. Speaker. No longer are there any additions of cost-of-living allowance for those under 65. The amount received by the people under 65 on the senior citizens' allowance, the old Mincome programme here, has not increased one penny since this government took office — not one penny, in spite of the amazing and astounding cost-of-living increases that those old people have had to face.

The handicapped pension is the same: not a right anymore, just another welfare case. By definition, Mr. Minister, you have changed the handicapped pension to such a limited scope that a person has to be practically hospitalized in order to even qualify. Oh, you shake your head, but I have had case after case that's come to my attention where that has been the case, Mr. Minister. You can shake your head, but it doesn't change the fact.

What about education? The same thing: more tangible benefits; larger-sized classes; less alternative choice; more cost at the local level — lots of tangible benefits, Mr. Speaker. And so it goes on.

Crown corporations. That's another nice quote from this speech. I love this one: "To improve ferry service in the province, the ferry system became the responsibility of a Crown corporation." Beautiful, Mr. Speaker! I ride those ferries quite a lot, and if that's improved service, deliver me from any more! They're never on time; they're cancelled. The cancellations, in my opinion, are in inverse ratio to the size of the line-up. I've seen it happen time and again. If there's a small line-up, the ferry is cancelled. Now that may be good economics, but it certainly isn't good service. The food is utterly impossible, and that in the name of an improved service. Ridiculous, Mr. Speaker!

[ Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

Of course, don't forget the increase in fares with the ferries. Yes, let's talk about the increase in fares for that so-called improved service. It's even worse than we thought it was. "Ferry Traffic, Plunged 14.6 Per Cent" — that's the headline. That's 14.6 per cent, Mr. Minister, busy reading your mail over there. You say, "Well, it's the weather." As the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) said last night, you blame it on the weather, you blame it on the Olympics and you blame it on the Bicentennial. Well, maybe it was the weather that caused the drop of 33.8 per cent in June, 20.8 per cent in July and 17.7 per cent in August on the Swartz Bay-Tsawwassen run. It's a little worse on the Departure Bay–Horseshoe Bay run.

[ Page 212 ]

But remember September. Do you remember September, Mr. Minister? It was a beautiful month. There was no Bicentennial; there were no Olympics. What happened to the vehicle traffic on the ferry in September? It was down 23.5 per cent on the Swartz Bay-Tsawwassen and down 24 per cent on the Horseshoe Bay–Departure Bay run.

In October it was the same thing. In beautiful October — no centennial, no Olympics — it was 27.5 down, Mr. Minister, on the Tsawwassen-Swartz Bay run. In November — the most outstanding November we've had in the history of B.C. almost, as far as weather goes — what happens to the ferries? The vehicle traffic was down 28.2 per cent on the Tsawwassen run.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: That's right, and that's a point that should well be made, Mr. Minister. That 14.6 per cent includes the months in 1976 before you increased the fare and decreased the service. So there are a lot of good months in there where we had a normal growth rate that's bringing down the overall total to that 14.6 per cent. A very big tangible benefit to the people on Vancouver Island. Ask the motel owners, ask the tourist industry, ask the small businessman on Vancouver Island — great, tangible benefits; great improvement in service.

Hydro rates increased last year 12 per cent. Now they're going up again. I hate to think what they're going to be — I wonder if it's going to be 60 percent, like Mr. Bonner's talking about. It could well be. We talked about a loan last year; we gave permission to borrow $200 million and we had an increase of 12 per cent in rates. This year we're asking for $650 million, so maybe we're going to have an increase of 60 per cent in our hydro rates. Who knows?

I'd like to point something out to you, Mr. Minister. You're listening to me so attentively over there. Hydro, by its own advertisement, says that if a homeowner insulates his home he can save, in annual fuel costs, up to $400 a year. The estimate is that it costs about $880, at average cost, to insulate a home. Barbara Ward, when she was speaking at Habitat in Vancouver, indicated that, according to her information, we could save 30 per cent of our heating fuel across Canada by proper housing.

Instead of borrowing $200 million plus another $650 million to build more dams to cover up more of our little remaining flatland here in British Columbia, I would suggest, Mr. Minister, that we use that in a building programme to provide insulation in the homes here in B.C. — to provide proper, adequate housing for our citizens. We could cut down our power usage and save untold millions of BTUs. And we wouldn't need those dams, Mr. Minister.

We talked about the small businessman and what's happened to him here on the Island. We've talked about how the tangible benefits have affected the people here on Vancouver Island, but we haven't really talked about the economy generally. Ever since...well, not since the election; long before the election, Mr. Speaker....

Oh, welcome back. I didn't realize we'd changed speakers, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Long before the election we had untold promises about getting the economy going again. Elect us, we'll get the economy going. We've heard nothing since then except that we're getting the economy going. It's going to get going; it's almost going; it's just about to get going. It's the proverbial prosperity around the corner; it's always coming but it never gets here.

Last fall, the Premier went on TV and told us that we'd finally made it. The economy had turned the corner. And the day afterward MacMillan Bloedel gave us an announcement saying they had laid off thousands of their workmen because the economy was just not going. And so it goes. B.C. Tops Jobless — I have a headline here somewhere: "B.C. Tops Jobless Jump — 8.8 Per Cent." Mr. Speaker, that was the highest ratio increase in Canada last month. Why are we in B.C. facing this kind of a situation? I suggest to you that one of the major contributing factors to this desperate situation is the restrictive and restrained policies of this government. The layoffs; the withdrawal of funds; nurses unemployed; teachers unemployed; unemployed ferry workers — right down the line. Every one of those people contributes that much more to the general fall-off of the economy and to the job position.

Government should never get into industry, never get into providing jobs, you tell us. There's certainly nothing in the throne speech to indicate that you have any intention of doing such a thing. Leave it to private enterprise, to private industry. Well, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and members of this House, that that is not private industry's main concern. Private industry's main concern is getting a corner on the market; and they're having a problem doing that anywhere in the international marketplaces of the world today. We're in a general, internationally depressed economic state. They're having a problem, but that is their main concern, their main interest, and always will be their main interest — not job creation.

In my own constituency, in the little village of Lake Cowichan, just the other week there were 80 employees laid off. Now 80 doesn't sound very much, Mr. Minister. I can tell you that in the village of Lake Cowichan that represents a fair percentage of the work force. Why were they laid off? Because there was some kind of a hassle, between Rayonier and B.C. Forest Products, taking place over in Howe Sound — something to do with chips. Was Rayonier

[ Page 213 ]

or B.C. Forest Products interested in saving jobs in Lake Cowichan? Not a bit. Chop them off, lay them off, let them go; we're far more interested in our own power struggles between the two companies. That's the kind of treatment, that's the kind of result you got when you leave job-finding to private industry.

I read the throne speech through and through, and apart from the Highways department's proposed spending, there seems to be little or nothing as far as job programmes. There's some small mention of summer employment. You know, there's a familiar ring to the mention of the Labour minister coordinating the summer employment — that was a disaster last year. I would hope that by writing it into the throne speech this year perhaps the other ministers in cabinet can be encouraged to be a little more cooperative with the Minister of Labour, and that we can see some jobs made available for our young people this summer. But that's a mighty slim prospect to solve the 8.8 per cent unemployment. Apart from that, the throne speech is strangely silent on job creation.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I've dealt with a lot of varying things and perhaps those should be considered my opening remarks because now I want to, shall I say, get down to earth. I want to get into some comments about the area of main importance as far as I am concerned — my main area of interest. I'm glad to see that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is still here one of the few cabinet ministers remaining because I want to talk a little bit about agriculture and its position in today's economic situation here in B.C.

First of all, I'm very pleased to see that we do have a full-time Minister of Agriculture. I believe that the Premier made the best possible choice in choosing the present Minister of Agriculture. He's a very courteous gentleman — in fact he's so courteous he even introduces me to gatherings of farmers when we both happen to be there together.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): She's a nice gal.

MRS. WALLACE: He's very pleasant, very articulate, but I am afraid he doesn't know too much about agriculture.

Last November at the B.C. Federation of Agriculture he gave us a five-point programme:

(1) adequate protection against imports;

(2) improved marketing and advertising of products;

(3) acquisition of new markets;

(4) improved efficiency in farm operation;

(5) encouragement of young people to farm.

Well, I heard him speak just the other day in Vernon. He's learned a few things in the month: he's learned that import controls are really not very much to do with provincial governments. There's a lot more involved than just saying that you're going to put on import controls here in the province. It's a federal and international thing — seasonal tariffs, dumping tariffs, all kinds of problems. The province doesn't have much to say about those. They can go hat-in-hand and do a little pleading. But I suggest to you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that there are ways, but strangely silent is the throne speech on anything that you might be proposing to prevent those imports from coming into our province. Strangely silent is the throne speech.

You talk about productivity, about making the farm economically viable. When you talk about that to the apple growers, to the fruit growers of the Okanagan Valley, you're talking to one of the most sophisticated segments of agriculture in British Columbia. You are asking them to be more viable and more efficient. They're going to have to increase that efficiency a great deal, Mr. Minister, in order to offset things like a 52- to 78-cent-per-box differential in freight between shipping fruit from the Okanagan to eastern Canada and shipping it from Washington to eastern Canada. They're going to have to increase incredibly. It's impossible, Mr. Minister. Some things are impossible.

The farmers in this province must be protected. They're not asking for a handout, Mr. Minister, and I was rather shocked to hear your statements that you are proposing to discontinue farm income assurance, because that's what it amounted to. You can protest, Mr. Minister, but that's what it amounted to. In answer to a question from the floor of the House yesterday, you said: "I would like to make the comment that the contracts are five-year contracts and, as any good operation should be carried out by any business or any government, they will be reviewed, and at the time they come due we will have something to present to agriculture."

Mr. Speaker, the farmers came through loud and clear in Vernon. They don't want to have something presented to them; they want to be part of that negotiation. They don't want a gift, a handout; they want to know and have a part in negotiating the end result, not have something presented to them when their contract expires.

I think perhaps for the record we should just clarify what farm income assurance provides to the farmer. It's not a handout; it's nothing the farmer can milk or take advantage of. It provides him with not more than 75 per cent of the difference between his selling price — the price he receives — and the cost of the production of that product as calculated on a provincial average basis, something worked out jointly between the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture. He must sell that product through a recognized, organized sales agent —

[ Page 214 ]

he can't just give his own figures. The protection is there complete. There is no way that programme can be milked. I would wonder what other industry would continue to operate in British Columbia, or any other province, with not more than 75 per cent of the difference between the price he gets and the price that it costs him to produce that product — not very many, except the farmer, but he's prepared to do that. I would like to suggest to you that the importance of keeping our farm population intact is one of extreme urgency.

You know, California is probably 10 or 15 years ahead of us in this suburbia and growth. This month, I guess it was — quite recently anyway — I had occasion to travel around the area of the Imperial Valley. Palm trees that take 25 years to grow and bring into productivity are being rooted up because it's more lucrative to go into suburban development. Grapefruit orchards, orange trees, the same thing — suburbia moving in. Cotton fields? Yes, some cotton is still there, but as you drive through those cotton fields you find house after boarded-up house that had once housed a farm family that had once been part of a thriving community. Now those farms have fallen under a corporate agribusiness trend.

We went through the little town of Ripley and, believe it or not, Ripley was once a thriving community. The store now has the windows boarded up; nothing there. Two gas stations are simply derelicts — pumps gone, windows gone, everything gone — just a stark reminder of what had once been there. House after house is empty, vacant, windows gone, doors gone — a stark reminder of what had once been a thriving community, and now nothing. Where have those people gone? What had become of them? You can't pull up and down like window blinds, Mr. Speaker. You have to find alternatives for people.

Some time ago, Adlai Stevenson made quite an extensive study on two very similar farm communities in southern California. One was Arvin and one was Dinuba. One of these farm communities was made up primarily of the family farm or the private, small, individually operated farm. The other community was made up of large, corporate-farm-type agribusiness development. This study revealed some very interesting facts, and I would just like to review some of the facts that were found by this study made by Adlai Stevenson. It was made back in the early '70s, Mr. Speaker, and, as I indicated earlier, we in B.C. are perhaps 10 years behind the trends that are taking place in California.

This study found that the small-farm community supported 62 separate business establishments and the agribusiness community supported 35. That's almost two to one, Mr. Speaker. The volume of retail trade in the small-farm community during the 12-month period was 61 per cent greater than that in the other community; the expenditure for household supplies and building equipment was three times as great in the small-farm community.

What was found regarding the social development of those two communities was very significant, too. In a local community the small farm supports a larger number of people per dollar value of agriculture production than in the area devoted to the larger-scale enterprise. Notwithstanding the greater numbers of people in the small-farm community, there is a better average standard of living than in the community of the large-scale farm. Over one-half of the breadwinners in the small-farm community are independently employed businessmen; in the large-farm community the proportion of persons in white-collar employment or farmers is less than one-fifth.

This is a very revealing document, a revealing study as to what happens. What could happen in Chilliwack if this trend were to take place here in British Columbia? Less than one-third of the breadwinners in a small-farm community are agricultural wage labourers — that's characteristic: the landless, low-paid hourly worker — while the proportion of persons in this position is nearly two-thirds of all persons living in the agri-business type of community.

Paved streets, sidewalks, garbage disposal, sewage disposal and other public services: there are far less in the agribusiness type of community than in the other. Schools are more plentiful in one than in the other. Churches — two to one; newspapers, the same. And so it goes.

I would suggest that the people who are shaping the future of the agricultural community, the rural community here in British Columbia, would do well to study these facts, because that is the direction that we in B.C. are going if we don't take a good, hard, long look at making sure that the farm community is maintained in a state of viability.

Not only that, but if we don't maintain that community, two other things are going to happen. We are going to be subject to a monopolistic food industry here in B.C. If that happens, I suggest that if we think we are paying high costs for food right now, we don't even know what we are talking about. Because now we are in an area where there is competition — good, healthy competition — and this is to the benefit of the consumer. But if the control of our agricultural production falls completely into the hands of large, vertically integrated concerns, then we are going to be in trouble.

Just one more quote from this study, if you'll bear with me. I think it is rather critical. "Nearly half of the agricultural land in the State of California is owned by a tiny fraction of the population. In the State of Maine more than one-half the land is owned by 12 corporations." This may not be of concern to

[ Page 215 ]

members of the government bench, but it is of concern to a great many people in British Columbia and in Canada. "In Maine, 80 per cent of the land is held by absentee owners. In California, in 1969 40,000 farms" — that's less than 2 per cent of the total number of farms — "accounted for more than one-third of all farm production."

It goes on to say: "Farmer Jones and Farmer Smith, those durable figures in American folklore and American reality, are being displaced all over America by newcomers to the farm, newcomers with names like Tenneco, Gulf, Western Goodyear, Monsanto, Union Carbide, Kaiser, Boeing, Dow Chemical, to name a few." That's what has happened as long ago as 1969 and 1970 in the United States of America, and that's what will happen here if we let it happen, Mr. Speaker.

If we are to maintain our farm family unit and a viable farm industry here in British Columbia, then we are going to have to continue the two-pronged programme that was initiated by the former administration. In the two and one-half years that administration held sway there was more done for the farmers of this province than had been done in the last 22 1/2 years. Farming was becoming a viable entity. We were attracting young people to the land; we were making it possible for them to come. There was some incentive for them to come.

But now, Mr. Speaker, we are facing a situation where there is no further assurance that condition will persist, where there is no further assurance that the farm community will be maintained, will be continued. If that happens, and if we become subject to the whims of Monsanto and Dow Chemical, Weston and Safeway, then you and I, your children, my children and our grandchildren, are going to have to pay through the nose for food, if they can get it at all.

There is one more point on the agricultural scene that I would like to make, and that has to do with the purity of food. I don't know if any of the other members happened to catch the TV show the other night about the chemicals in cattle feed in the State of Michigan. It is a frightening thing, not only affecting the stock herds that had to be slaughtered, but also affecting the people who were eating the meat, and millions and millions of pounds of that meat have been imported into Canada. How much, if any, came into British Columbia? How much, if any, have we British Columbians eaten of that chemical?

Not long ago we had a problem with hormones in beef. We import fruits and vegetables from countries that use herbicides, pesticides and defoliants that are forbidden in Canada. Are we going to continue to let these, shall I say, polluted forms of food come into this province? Are we going to be faced with the situation that that's all that's available to us, that we don't even have a choice? Because that's where we'll go when we reach the point where we are no longer able to produce our own food here in British Columbia.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that cabinet over there is in a sort of a lock-step going backward and they are taking the farmers of this province, the workers of this province and the pensioners of this province backward with them. They are toying with the welfare of the people of this province, with the citizens who voted them into power. They are toying with their welfare. It's time they stopped being a kindergarten and started being a cabinet, started being a government. It's time they got on with it; either got on with it or got out.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased this afternoon to extend my greetings to the Deputy Speaker as well as to the members of both sides of the House. I'm also very proud to rise today as the legitimate, elected representative of Burnaby-Edmonds and, according to the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), the illegitimate member for New Westminster. Actually I don't think I adopted New Westminster, as this news article suggests in the Columbian, but actually I believe New Westminster adopted me.

Because of the importance of what I have to say in respect to Burnaby-Edmonds and New Westminster today I am going to reserve some of the things I would like to say, and which traditionally are said in the response to the throne speech, for my budget speech.

When I was first elected my overwhelming concern was that this Social Credit government would truly recognize the importance of the suburbs. After all, it is in the suburbs that most of the people of British Columbia live today. It is in the suburbs where they dream, where they play, where they struggle with their everyday problems and ultimately elect their government. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the people of British Columbia, of Burnaby-Edmonds and of New Westminster that their government does care. This government is not just a government of promises and partisanship.

My three key projects concerning Burnaby-Edmonds and British Columbia have been, first of all, to fight for support for the independent schools. It is an embarrassment to me that some mothers are working to pay the school taxes I am paying, but in addition are paying to keep their children in the school of their choice.

Secondly, I promised to work for the completion of the Stormont interchange which is way overdue and extremely needed for both Burnaby and New Westminster.

Thirdly, I promise to fight for the completion of Marine Way. And I am a little humoured that the former member for Burnaby-Edmonds suggested

[ Page 216 ]

during the election that the flags were already raised in respect to the markings for the construction of Marine Way.

I am extremely pleased that each of these projects is on course today, that already there has been a commitment to fulfil our election promise to support the independent schools. There has also been a commitment by the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) to call tenders on Stormont and Marine Way in '77. For an MLA who values his time and also likes to keep his commitments, this type of government support for the projects important to Burnaby-Edmonds is very rewarding to me, and I know will be tremendously appreciated by the people of Burnaby-Edmonds.

Now the item that has me most excited today is taking place in my adopted riding of New Westminster. I am just sorry that the member for New Westminster isn't here today so I could personally pass this on to him. New Westminster, which was the first capital of British Columbia, has had many promises in the past. It has had just as many broken promises, the most bitter of which has been the false hope and expectations that were created by the naive promise and commitment of the former administration to build the ICBC centre in New Westminster. It has become obvious to all that ICBC does not warrant a monument built to itself — a naive dream by a bungling administration.

Now, Mr. Speaker, allow me to take you and the other members through some of the history of the beautiful Royal City. Here I have minutes from the New Westminster Downtown Business and Property Owners' Association, dated November 1, 1965: "Mr. Bonner opened his remarks with a flat statement that when a new courthouse is built, it will not be built elsewhere than in New Westminster."

An article, the headlines of which read: "New Courthouse in New Westminster Two Years Away." This article is dated March 16, 1966, and about six New Westminster courthouse committees away: "Construction on New Westminster's new courthouse planning will begin in about two years' time, Attorney-General Bob Bonner says today."

Another article, dated January 20,1975: "Overcrowding Very Desperate in New Westminster Courthouse":

"The New Westminster courthouse is so cramped for space that office workers are virtually sitting in each other's laps. We are working at such close quarters the noise factor is appalling. We seem to be elbowing each other all the time. We have two new employees coming in soon, and we'll have to put their desks in the hallway."

Then I have a brief from Erickson, Husband & Chipperfield, dated January 16, 1976. I'll just read one paragraph:

"Mayor Muni Evers, who is chairman of the New Westminster courthouse committee, has requested that I forward to you, on behalf of the committee, a brief that has been prepared by the committee with respect to the courthouse, and I enclose a brief herein. Only members can truly understand the desperation in these pleas."

Then I have an article here dated January 30, headed: "New Westminster Courthouse a Slum, Nemetz Declares": "Chief Justice Nathan Menetz of the B.C. Supreme Court Thursday described the New Westminster courthouse as a slum of North America." I travelled through the New Westminster courthouse myself, and the only redeeming factor, frankly, was the sense of humour the staff had in that place. When it gets to the point where in wintertime the staff have to wrap hot-water bottles around their bodies to keep warm, things are getting just a little desperate.

Another article dated September 20, '76: "New Westminster Courthouse Attacked as Deplorable": "New Westminster lawyer Kim J. Husband told the association's provincial council meeting in Vancouver that courtroom acoustics are so bad in the old courthouse that accused people cannot hear evidence given against them."

Now there is a reason for me, apart from the fact that courthouse is a story in itself, for reading excerpts from these articles, because we move on to the December 17, 1976, article which says: "Royal City Pleading For New Courthouse." The New Westminster situation was so desperate they were hanging all their hopes on simply getting a new courthouse because the financial and legal community was so important in New Westminster, in keeping New Westminster as a centre it used to be and that it should be today. I quote the first paragraph: "Downtown New Westminster is on its deathbed, and the only way to revive it is to build a new courthouse, according to a brief presented to the provincial cabinet by New Westminster Mayor Muni Evers, the chamber of commerce and bar association."

We go on to an article dated December 24. We see the headline: "ICBC Scraps Its Plans for Headquarters in New Westminster." Then we have an article in the Province which reads: "Everything Is Going Downhill in Downtown New Westminster." I find it rather interesting to quote the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) where he says:

"But former NDP Health minister, Dennis Cocke, alleges the decision not to go ahead in New Westminster has been made by the Social Credit government for purely political reasons. He suggests the plans were scrapped because New Westminster voters returned him to the Legislature as an NDP member."

[ Page 217 ]

I find that just a little interesting, because later on in the article he states: "ICBC's first choice was Burnaby and not New Westminster." I can't help but be humoured and wonder how come New Westminster was chosen by that former administration.

Then we move on to an article in the Sun, dated December 30, and in desperation we have several statements, one of which says: "New Westminster Showing Signs of Revival." And we see Mayor Evers says that, "Following the Second World War, Columbia Street was nicknamed 'Miracle Mile' because more money was spent there than in any other area in B.C." We also have another statement by store manager Bob Cronk, who says: "All we need is a spark to get the area going, something like the ICBC development, and then we'd find that business would pick up." The ICBC promise — a cruel dream in a cruel province.

Then we have one more article on January 5: "Mayor Warns Royal City Facing Crisis Period." "New Westminster is in a crisis period in its development, and the city must determine if it is to remain a viable community or become just another suburban area with no identity whatsoever."

The hon. member for Vancouver East stated just the other day that when there's good news it is announced by the Premier; and when there is bad news, it is announced by the directors of a Crown corporation. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that today I am authorized by the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who is the chairman of the board of the British Columbia Development Corporation, to announce one of the greatest things that could happen to my adopted riding of New Westminster. BCDC is spearheading one of the greatest urban renewal community commercial developments ever undertaken in Canada. The project could easily reach, I am told by Mr. Dogood, $40 million to $60 million dollars in its first stage. The development in a 10-year period, including offshoot development, could easily reach $300 million to $400 million dollars. The project, in fact, is planned to create as much additional development as possible. Mr. Dogood, president. and chief executive officer of BCDC states that they have come up with a slogan — "Come grow with us" — for the project. I am particularly pleased with that slogan, because some six years ago, Mr. Member from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), I came up with a slogan, "To grow or not to grow, " for a seminar held in New Westminster at that time. The interesting thing is that the conclusion of that seminar is exactly in keeping with the present proposed projects.

Now the important thing is, the critical path re the timing of this project requires that: (a) the initial architectural concept is to be together in six weeks; (b) in three months, the final plans, including exactly what will go into the total project, are to be completed; (c) the critical path suggests that six months are given to finalize the contracts, the leases, and the final engineering plans; and that BCDC suggests that they will be under construction in 9 to 12 months. The completion of the first stage of $40 to $60 million will be in two years of construction time, or three years from the present.

Mr. Bob MacIntyre, who has extensive experience in urban redevelopment in Philadelphia, has been named the project co-ordinator for BCDC. He envisions the total development to include: a major hotel; a major commercial centre likely a convention and cultural centre; major professional office buildings — here again, we expect, Mr. Speaker, the New Westminster courthouse; and we hope and expect a sports and trade centre. The whole purpose is to make the development both a night and day town centre which will draw people into the area throughout the total day and evening, drawing people into the area for entertainment, shopping and recreation. I would think, Mr. Member for New Westminster, you'd be ecstatic.

MR. COCKE: I know all about your speech.

MR. LOEWEN: BCDC sees their role as co-ordinating and providing a balance between public benefit and economic merit. They see themselves as co-ordinating what presently exists in downtown New Westminster with that which is being developed so that one will complement the other. BCDC sees their involvement as defining the total project. BCDC is really playing the role of a totally unselfish entrepreneur bringing the community, government and private enterprise together in the interest of all the people of the community — a truly unique attempt to co-ordinate all three.

Secondly, packaging the project. The project will involve about 12 acres. It has been expanded to 23 acres. I suppose there are private corporations that could fund the project, but none could afford to be as unselfish and community-oriented as BCDC. They will be marketing the project, bringing together the people, companies, funding, underwriting and other government involvement to make this project a reality. This approach is unique in that it: (a) saves many millions of dollars by cutting down construction time; (b) helps developers cut through the extremely expensive red tape on different government levels; (c) co-ordinates all the different projects into one beautiful, overall town-centre plan; (d) co-ordinates existing development with the new plan; and (e) best of all, there should be no cost to the taxpayer. Instead, it should generate many jobs and generate much tax revenue, both for the city of New Westminster and the province of British Columbia, and add substantially to the liveable-region

[ Page 218 ]

concept.

I appeal to the hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who is responsible for ICBC, to expedite matters quickly in transferring the major piece of property, owned by ICBC, to the BCDC. I also appeal to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) to quickly give the official go-ahead re the New Westminster courthouse being part of this overall great plan. The satellite courthouse system which was envisioned by the former administration was totally political from its inception and simply another naive, unworkable dream designed mostly to give Coquitlam — and guess who was its member — a courthouse at all costs.

I also appeal to the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) to become part of this overall plan by providing the necessary encouragement for a possible Queen Elizabeth-type cultural centre.

In conclusion, in a period of less than a week I have seen the community of New Westminster go from desperation to great expectation. Secondly, this project by this government is truly an example of turning a tragic mess, and a feeling of desperation, into something very beautiful and creative. Thirdly, this government has proven it is the government of all the people, even the people of New Westminster who have not had much to rejoice about for many, many years. Finally, the royal city will again be truly the royal city, which it so truly deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my personal congratulations and appreciation to the British Columbia Development Corporation, its directors, and to the cabinet members involved in this extremely creative, positive, entrepreneurial decision.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver Centre.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stand up, Emery! (Laughter.)

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): To the hon. members of this Legislative Assembly I congratulate those of you who have successfully survived the long break we had since the last session and are now back again to get your instructions as to how to play your role. I'm thinking specifically of those members on the government side. We in the opposition, of course, have been desperately waiting for an opportunity to return, and for that I'm grateful that the Premier has given us an opportunity at least before he brought down the next budget. I was worried, though, that you might try and operate under that new organization bill you brought in — Bill 59, I think it was — that permitted the cabinet to operate pretty much as an exclusive, elitist organization in running the people's business. But, as fate would have it, the pressure of the times had the final impact and here we are again, ready to carry out our responsibilities as elected members of this Legislative assembly.

I would like, Mr. Speaker, though, before I begin my few brief remarks, to congratulate those members who are now recently appointed to the cabinet, particularly the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who for many years toiled and sweated as the opposition Whip when we were government.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Yes, he was, and a very good one. I should know, Mr. Premier, because I was the government Whip at the time. I had an opportunity to learn a great deal about his insight.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Yes. Before the Speaker, it was the member for Columbia River. That's where I got my understanding of deception, manoeuvring and so forth. He gave me a very good education. I hope that in his new position he will be carrying on in the tradition to which he is accustomed.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: As the Minister of Mines.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the government for responding so hastily to my request. I must say, in all fairness, because I'm sure we'll be speaking candidly today.... I hope this will give you an example of my sincerity, my attempt to be fair and unbiased, because I'm going to give credit where credit is due. I suppose it was the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) who responded to this request, but I notice that in the opposition toilets there now exists a new installation, whereby members can refresh themselves.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Clean up their act! (Laughter.)

MR. BARNES: They have converted one of the cubicles to a shower room. The quarters are somewhat cramped, but nonetheless, it is an improvement. For many, many months I used to have to jog and come back and do a little dance to get myself dry. I must say, in that regard, you've got one up on the former government.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We expect you to work up a sweat in here.

[ Page 219 ]

MR. BARNES: Don't encourage me. (Laughter.) I just may do that.

Speaking of that shower, it's curious. I'm sure that the government hasn't had an occasion to visit that particular shower because it's on the other side of the buildings. But should you go over, you might find it curious that there is a lock on the door, a lock in the shower room, which is in the toilet. I don't know the purpose of it but I've used the shower so far two or three times.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: It may be — I don't know. I'm the only one who has used it, but I've used it with great enthusiasm between breaks. When we go out at 6 and come back at 8:30, I hustle out quick, have a good run, come back and have a shower. I was hoping to do that this evening.

I'm afraid that there's a conspiracy going on. They found out I was actually taking advantage of the shower. I know that with the restraint programme you don't want too much hot water used, but I promise to be brief.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: You never know what's going on. I'm a little concerned about that, Mr. Minister, and I hope that you will resolve that problem before....

I'll be going for a jog about 6; I should be back about 6:35? I hope you could have it unlocked around 7 or so. If anybody wants to use it, as it is, you know, extended from time to time as a toilet in addition to being a shower (laughter), I promise that I will construct a very quick sign that's just a few words, saying something like: "This toilet will be in use for the purpose of showers for the next half hour. Will you please come back sometime later when it will convert to its usual purpose." Anyway, congratulations.

The Speech from the Throne, my dear friends, is nothing more than a continuation of the Speech from the Throne last year, and you know what that was: "Work with Bill!" — work with the Premier, now. This is Act 11 of that throne speech of a year ago. It was: "Get B.C. back on its feet again. The economy will be rolling with this new Social Credit coalition government made up of Progressive Conservatives, Liberals, sometime-Socreds sometime-whatevers and maybe a few independents. In any event, if you can believe in a concoction like that becoming a team, then work with us, because we intend to move in one direction or the other, depending on how the wind is blowing." (Laughter.)

Here we have a speech presented very eloquently by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor on behalf of this government. By all of the flowery wording of that throne speech, one would get the impression that the government was sincerely attempting to become a people's government, that it was sincere. But, Mr. Speaker, when you take a look at the content of that throne speech, you see things like: "If only the people will hold down their demands this year and the year after, we may be able to get the economy rolling again, for after all, government cannot be expected to develop sound economic policies and carry out such programmes on its own."

I would agree with that. I think that's a reasonable appeal to a responsible electorate. But the problem is that during the campaign, as I recall, it had nothing to do with them sacrificing anything. You were going to do all of these things with your programmes — make-work programmes, get everybody going again, cut down on unemployment. You know — no increase in this, no increase in that; in other words, things are going to be rosy, things are going to be good. We've got all those free enterprisers out there who are clamouring at the door. All you've got to do is kick the socialists out, they'll come rushing back in and away we'll go with good times again under Bill Bennett. Good times again, indeed! Humph!

The government now states that it hopes to encourage the private sector to do the responsible thing by helping the government prove that it can get the people back on the road to an economic and prosperous society. Humph! Then he has the audacity to state that after all, B.C. Is only an exporting province, you know. Basically we are exporters.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You're an import.

MR. BARNES: Well, that's fine; that's not news. But why don't you get a fair price for the stuff you export, especially coal? Why don't you start doing something about your secondary industry and developing some of these resources that we have been exporting ourselves? Why don't you take the initiative and do some of these kind of grass-roots things that you were so concerned about before the election, instead of saying that we're only exporters; we've got to be good to those fellows with all that money because if we don't they'll get mad at us and they won't invest, they won't give us anything. We are helpless, that is what you're saying: we are only exporters, we are helpless without the assistance of those fellows out there — we're very vulnerable. That's a fine way to talk to a prosperous province like this. You've got both guns loaded and you're afraid to fire because you think that you might get fired back at.

We are the ones who should be responsible for our own destiny, and we're not doing it under this government because the government is really very shallow and looks for expedient means by which to resolve complicated and difficult problems. This is

[ Page 220 ]

being proven every day by the actions of ministers who attempt to solve problems before they do the exploratory work necessary and do the things that were supposed to have been done by an analysing agency dealing with economics, and which was dissolved by this government. The Act was repealed and we have not had any hope of getting any responsible, unbiased information input prior to a decision, such as the raising of ferry rates and so forth. For that matter, just as recently as the other day the Attorney-General attempted to cut down on problems and pressures on the courts with cases untried by making a decision before consulting the people he should have consulted. It is not an indication of a responsible government, nor of responsible ministers of the Crown.

As far as I'm concerned, the throne speech was nothing more than a smoke screen and a diversionary attempt to keep the people thinking that British Columbia was presently under the governorship of a responsible people's government, when in fact one of the greatest, most serious, callous, insensitive, irresponsible techniques is being perpetrated against the people of this province.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: No, no. I'm trying to figure out what you people are doing. But you know, I've had some clues. I've had some clues about what this government may be doing. For one, the government has done its best to create an atmosphere of confusion, an atmosphere of controversy and crisis. Perhaps their desire is to create an atmosphere that will precipitate the kinds of moves they hope to make in their attempts to deceive the public.

They have given the impression, so far, that they are capable of governing with authority, with power — really, to use one of the phrases by the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) when he was in the opposition, to demonstrate the capacity to have awesome power to have the kind of thrust and decisiveness that is needed so that the people will respect you for your capacity of leaders. But along with that comes a responsibility. You know, in the democratic system they say that by going through the due process sometimes it can even be cumbersome and awkward and very, very time consuming. Now, you know, expediency and democratic processes, they do not go hand-in-hand; they are somewhat diametrically opposed and I think that perhaps you have to learn that lesson. That's why the little tricks which you are hoping that people will forget. But they won't forget.

You are attempting to create an overall rubber-band kind of effect on the people of British Columbia. Do you know what rubber-band effect is, Mr. Premier? It's a plan whereby you tighten the rope around the necks of everyone, squeeze and tighten.

I could give you an idea of how you do that. You squeeze and tighten with projects and programmes such as these:

Increase auto insurance rates from 100 to 400 per cent; promise to let the United States insurance industry get back into the game.

Increase electricity rates 10.8 per cent; increase natural gas 9.5 per cent; promise a further 20 per cent increase in the following year, 1977.

Allow an increase in home heating oil of 12 cents per gallon; eliminate the price freeze on propane and gas so that it can go up another 8 cents per gallon. Cancel the plan to introduce rent controls on commercial property; allow the present rent freeze at 10.6 per cent to remain, which, as you know, in about seven years will double to 100 per cent.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You passed it.

MR. BARNES: No, no. Not to allow the commercial rent freezes to come in, but to allow the 10.6 to remain on residential....

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's your legislation. He passed it.

MR. BARNES: It was an interim rent freeze, Mr. Member; it was an interim rent freeze. During the last campaign we said we would bring it down to 8 per cent. I stood in this House and asked the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) in the last session: "Would you please lower it to 8 per cent from 10.6? That's only reasonable." He said: "No, we don't intend to do anything about it. It is going to stay until the market is such that we'll just lift the whole thing." Well, I think you are planning on doing that now and letting everyone run for cover the best way they can.

I suggested to him that we permit the people to have an opportunity to discuss the costs and factors around each facility that was going to raise the rent, which is the same thing as the CRTC would do with B.C. Tel. You just don't raise the rent carte blanche and say: "Oh, let's go ahead and raise it." You would require some kind of justification, Mr. Member. The Attorney-General says: "No, we are not going to do that. We are not going to do that. No way will we permit that. We don't want to interfere with the free enterprise system," as he calls it.

Allow price increases on bread and milk — they're out of sight.

Introduce a budget that increases the sales tax, the most regressive tax, then vote against the NDP amendment to remove the sales tax on building materials, home construction and mobile homes.

Increase personal income tax by 15 per cent; increase taxes on the sick by increasing hospital

[ Page 221 ]

co-insurance by 300 per cent; increase Medicare premiums by 50 per cent.

Increase cigarette and tobacco taxes; increase ferry rates by 100 per cent and cut back on service so you can pay your friends out.

Increase bus fares by 40 per cent; increase provincial campground fees by 100 per cent.

Cut back on grants to hospitals; cut back on grants to school districts, which will be reflected in higher local taxes.

Increase the deducibility on school insurance to $1 million, which will reflect on the local taxpayer.

Deliberately put the province in a deficit position for the last fiscal year by passing millions of dollars of special warrants which can't and won't be explained.

Plunge the province into debt unnecessarily by passing a bill to borrow $400 million; give $181 million, which you claim you don't have, to ICBC, which doesn't need it, so that it can be loaned back to the government at 10 per cent interest. The lucky taxpayer gets to pay the interest charges of $40 million.

Emasculate the Farm Income Assurance Programme; emasculate the community resource boards.

Discontinue the office of the Status of Women, withdraw funding from transition houses.

Disband the B.C. Economic Institute, which is the one that I was talking about earlier, so that we can be assured that we don't have to be bound by any irresponsible actuarial or otherwise accurate information in situations such as the one you now find yourselves faced with with the Grizzly Valley.

But as we are pointing out to the government through you, Mr. Speaker, there is every indication that a cruel and vicious game is being perpetrated upon the people of British Columbia — as I call it, the rubber band effect. The things that I have just elucidated are the kinds of decisions that the government has made in its attempt to create the first phase of the rubber band plan, a plan that makes people suffer and be under such great stress for so long that come the next election, the least move that this government makes to provide any relief whatsoever will make people begin to relax, and be relieved and rejoice. "Oh, what a nice government! They are going to give us something that we have worked so hard for." That's what happens when you keep the pressure on.

Unfortunately, it is very analogous to the poor old fellow on the corner who was pounding his head up against the wall. Someone came by and said: "Why are you doing that? It's going to hurt you."

"I know. It's killing me."

"Well, why are you doing it?"

"But you don't. Man, when I quit it feels so good." That's the kind of effect you are attempting to perpetrate upon the people of British Columbia. So far you've been getting away with it, except you didn't expect to have the difficulties you are now having with the M.E.L. versus BCR and the Grizzly Valley situation which, I think, has caused you to stop and think that indeed, Mr. Minister of Education, not the pigeons, as you call them, but the chickens do come home to roost. Sooner or later they certainly do come home to roost.

MR. BARBER: He thinks the voters are the pigeons.

MR. BARNES: Oh, maybe he thought the voters were the pigeons. Well, I can understand that because I call suckers turkeys, myself. I suppose that if you want to call them pigeons.... But, you see, the thing is that people are not really suckers. I think you are going to find this out very, very soon in the game. In fact, I think you probably already know that's a pretty serious business — making promises and not being in a position to carry them out.

The case that I'm really concerned about more than anything else, because we are all human beings, we all are Canadian.... I think that throughout the debate this becomes fairly evident from time to time, when we get serious about things that count. We are all in the boat together on this very small planet Earth and, you know, really, the politician is only as good as the skin that encloses him and the head that sits upon that little hunk of skin. The soul and the sense of integrity, whatever that person is made of, that's really what we're talking about. And this is the thing I hope the people of British Columbia will be looking at, because there is no way for them to be privy to most of the things that go on in this province because they can only rely on the press or the various media in its reporting and good intentions. But all of us being as we are, our biases do come out and it's very difficult to decipher the facts from the less factual, and therefore voters have to rely on their instincts; they have to rely on their capacity to determine sincerity from insincerity, gamesmanship versus commitment, duty and sacrifice and all of those things that make it complicated to try and find out what a politician stands for.

But I'm not that unfortunate because I'm around and I can spend a lot of time reading up on little tidbits here and there. I can put it together pretty well and get an idea whether a person has the fortunate combination of being both competent in his job and also having the integrity as a human being to go with it, which is a pretty rare commodity these days in political circles.

I would ask the members of this Legislature to take a good look at themselves, as well as taking a look at those people opposite them and beside them, and start to ask themselves some questions: just what is the price a person will pay for the right to represent

[ Page 222 ]

the electors, the right to influence those forces and factors that concern their lives in our highest and most supreme institution within the province, the Legislative Assembly where those laws that govern those lives are designed and carried out? I would say that no one should escape that scrutiny.

But there is cause for concern and I would like to say, first of all, that that particular group representing the government at the present time has a very great challenge, one which I question its success to resolve, because sitting among them they have fellows who just a few months ago were firing all kinds of poisonous darts at them for their inability.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), for instance, not too long ago was firing at the Social Credit; the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) not too long ago was commenting about the doom and gloom that British Columbia was going to be faced with now that Bill Bennett was elected the Leader of the Opposition. It wasn't too long ago — he was sitting as a Liberal at the time. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), of course, always had scathing speeches about old W.A.C. and the insensitive, autocratic control the Socreds had held over the people of British Columbia for so many years. Of course, you've got other members who experienced liberalism with the federal Liberals. You've got a Conservative — you've got all kinds, independents, a conglomeration of individuals who now say that they're prepared to govern and work in harmony on behalf of the people of British Columbia. But I wonder what kind of motives they have. Let them stand up, Mr. Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and caucus of one — let them stand up and say that they're committed as a unified group.

Let the Premier stand up and say he knows he has 100 per cent support from his Liberal Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), who sits behind him, and who he knows for a fact has attacked him from the opposite side of the floor. Let him say that he knows he's got love and good will and cooperation from among those members and those backbenchers, that they are all one happy family. I wonder about that.

I wonder also about the behaviour of those members when you think about how they behave with their constituents and with their friends. You know, it wasn't too long ago, — in fact, it was during the last session of the Legislature — that a very good Socred member came to the Legislative Assembly by invitation. In fact, he was invited by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), he was encouraged by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), and by the Premier to come and enjoy the session. He was going to be introduced, in fact, Mr. Attorney-General....

HON. MR. GARDOM: What are you talking about, Em?

MR. BARNES: What am I talking about? You know that I'm telling the truth.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Oh, I'll try and get around to it. (Laughter.) I'll tell you, you know....

Oh, I forgot. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) also was in support of this man. But the thing about it....

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that man?

MR. BARNES: Look, believe me, I'm no bleeding heart for this man, because he is a known enemy of mine. He has tried to cut my throat, stab me in the back, and do everything because he was a good Socred.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: He fought hard. I first ran into him before he became a Socred and before I became an NDPer, and in those days we got along just fine, but once I told him I was out for people, I was with the NDP, and in 1969 I was going to run, he said: "Capozzi and Wolfe — they're my men." (Laughter.) Capozzi and Wolfe! "Capozzi and Wolfe — they're my men. And so, my dear friend, Mr. Barnes, we'll be seeing you."

Well, you know, I can understand that because we all have to do the things we believe in. But, you know, the thing about it, he wasn't expecting anything from me because we've cleared the board. We know where we stand. But he certainly expected a fair reception from those members over there.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce as exhibit A, if you will, in my case, and ask if you will validate the authenticity of the invitation that was issued to Mr. Bill Bond and Mr. Alex Di Cimbriani last May 13, 1976 — a true Socred, one who would give his blood for the party. Well, I hear no dissenting comments so I suppose that it is authentic and, therefore, I could put it to rest and proceed.

Now, you know, I was surprised because at that time, around May 13, this particular individual was suffering from a fair amount of public exposure by virtue of an enthusiastic reporter who was trying to validate certain suggestions that this particular individual was or wasn't what he was, you know — whatever that means. (Laughter.) Well, I don't know.

However, he being a constituent of mine, I naturally took an interest in the case. He does live in the West End, as you know.

[ Page 223 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: He owns the West End!

MR. BARNES: It is only because of that that I found it my duty to pay attention to what the reporters were reporting and to recognize also that he is a member of the human race — first and foremost a member of the human race — deserving of equal treatment. Regardless of political party affiliation or whatever, he is a human being. That is something I recognize, and I guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, when you hear the evidence I am about to present to this Legislature, you will wonder if those people over there have the same interpretation about this man. In fact, I doubt if they think that he even deserves to exist, because they regarded him as a criminal. That was his only plea: "Why should I be treated as a criminal? What have I done? All I did was support you fellows. You may be criminals, but I like you." You know, maybe that's what he thought. Maybe it was just turned around. Maybe that was a projection of one's own personality, because really the man is doing what a lot of people are doing — surviving in that jungle.

When you have a government that uses the tactics of this government, deliberately twisting and turning people to the point where their emotions are going in different directions, making promises and not delivering them, and trying to disguise the throne speech and so forth, what do you expect? What can you expect from the voters when they find out that this group of government people are so callous and heartless as to treat their own friends the way this man claims he's been treated? How can they expect any justice? How can they expect the Attorney-General to see that justice will be done when he is trying to lop off, for expediency's sake, court cases that haven't had an opportunity go go before the courts? It's a sham, and I hope that you will stand up and refute my remarks, members of the government side, because I would hate to see you condemned unfairly.

I am just going to read, briefly, some letters for the record. This first letter, dated April 30, from Mr. R.W. Tozer. Mr. Tozer was the executive director to the Premier at that time. He wrote to Mr. Alex Di Cimbriani:

"Mr. Di Cimbriani:

The Premier has asked me to thank you for your letter of April 26 and your kind invitation. Unfortunately the Premier has a commitment for the evening of May 13...."

Obviously, I guess, that means he will not be able to attend.

Mr. Wolfe also wrote that fine Social Credit member. "Dear Alex: I guess he's known him before, obviously.

"This will acknowledge your letter of April 26 concerning your visit to Victoria. Two tickets for the Legislature have been set aside for you for May 13. These tickets will be available at the golden gate on the second floor of the building prior to 2 o'clock of this date.

"I will be pleased to have dinner with you on Thursday evening, May 13, and look forward to seeing you here in Victoria."

AN HON. MEMBER: Signed?

MR. BARNES: Signed: "Mr. Evan M. Wolfe, Minister of Finance."

Well, Mr. Bill Vander Zalm also wrote to Mr. Di Cimbriani:

"Dear Alex:

Thank you very much for your very kind invitation to join you and Hon. Evan Wolfe for dinner at the Empress on the evening of May 13.

"I accept with pleasure, provided that nothing intervenes, which is so often the case in this very unpredictable business."

It is definitely unpredictable, isn't it? Certainly old Alex would agree to that.

"Thank you for the invitation, and I look forward to seeing you.

(signed)

"William N. Vander Zalm, Minister."

This is the Hon. Provincial Secretary, Grace McCarthy, now:

"Dear Alex:

Thank you for your letter of April 26 inviting me to join you for dinner. I am so sorry, I have another engagement for dinner, but would be pleased to join you for cocktails between 6 and 7 p.m., and must leave before 7.

"Looking forward to seeing you.

Sincerely,

Grace McCarthy,

Minister."

Well, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland):

"Dear Alex:

Many thanks for your kind invitation to dinner on May 13, which, as I would like to be able to accept, it is with regret that I advise that I have a prior commitment and so am unable to do so.

Yours sincerely,

R.H. McClelland,

Minister of Health."

Well, isn't that something! Now I know we are going to get a good speech about how I was all wrong in going around — what do they call it? — MSI? Mud, smear and innuendo. Mud, smear and innuendo that's what I'm doing.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, hon. member. I just would draw to your attention you're on your

[ Page 224 ]

final three minutes.

MR. BARNES: Oh, thank you very much. That's unfortunate, but I'm sure that I can beg leave of the House to continue this most important subject. (Laughter.) They will be pleased to let me continue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARNES: But now here is a letter from Mr. Di Cimbriani to the Premier. This is May 19.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARNES: It says:

"Dear Bill:

I am extremely disappointed and deeply hurt by your decision to advise my dear and true friend not to announce me in the House on Thursday, May 13.

"Also I am mystified as to why you denied your awareness of my presence. I have on file letters from yourself, Grace, Evan and Bill in reply to my dinner invitation on Thursday evening in the Empress Hotel. I can appreciate your concern, but a friend is a friend, especially in view of my efforts on behalf of the Social Credit Party.

"I spent many hours, and many dollars on the gathering that I hosted at the Hyatt" — that's the Hyatt Regency — "to introduce you and your members of the party. I don't think I should be treated in this manner.

"The only way I can forgive and forget is to be invited back in this Legislature to be introduced in the House. I am not ashamed of my political affiliations, and no shame should be felt on your part in association with me.

"This type of character assassination should be nothing new to anyone connected with politics. We have all been attacked by the media, including you and your family. Too bad it was a member of the opposition, Emery Barnes, who made the wonderful speech supporting me, and my work, and not yourself and some other members of the Social Credit Party.

"I have always been a staunch Social Credit member and proud of it. This sort of treatment made me stop and take a second look at just what political party to associate myself with.

"I am sorry you have taken this attitude. It is very hard for me to understand the whole incident since I don't feel I have done anything wrong.

"Hoping to hear from you soon, I remain,

Respectfully yours,

Alex Di Cimbriani."

Mr. Speaker, I also got a letter from him, but then I don't want to bore you with his sentiments any further. I think you get the message. I only point that out to say: why is it that this government is telling everybody it's a people's government when it treats its own friends like that? I think that this is a question of lack of confidence in the character and the integrity of individuals, let alone their political ability. This is why I wonder how those people out there who have to vote can make up their minds and have some sense of confidence when these kinds of games are going on among your own benches.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Time, time!

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I hope to see you in the next budget, which I hope will be next week.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that all of the hon. members would like to join with me in wishing a very, very happy birthday to young George Cessford, one of our Pages — it's his 15th birthday today.

HON. MR. McGEER: Which corner is he in?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I gather young George has gone home to get started on his birthday cake.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tables the annual report of the Assessment Appeal Board for the year ending December 31,1976.

Hon. Mr. McClelland tables the annual report of the Emergency Health Services Commission for the fiscal year 1975-76.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen tables the annual report of the B.C. Land Commission for the year 1975-76.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.