[ Page 225 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 225

Mr. Levi — 232

Mr. Davidson — 236

Mr. Macdonald — 238

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 245

Division on address of the Lieutenant-Governor — 249

FRIDAY, JANUARY 21, 1977

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): I'd like to take this opportunity to ask the House to join with me in welcoming today a group of students from D.W. Poppy Junior Secondary School in Langley. We'd like to bid them all welcome today.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): In the precinct later this morning will be students from Saturna Island Elementary School. Hopefully some of them will be in the gallery and will observe our proceedings today. I would like the House to be aware of their pending arrival.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this morning we have Mr. Gerald Scott, a student from the University of Victoria, formerly associated with the NDP caucus. I'm sure the government would want to extend a warm welcome.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
(continued debate)

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, it's an honour and privilege to take my place in this House once again in response to the Speech from the Throne by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor last week, even though some people who are members of this House do not take it as seriously as they should.

Mr. Speaker, the reaction to the throne speech has been one of support and enthusiasm across this province, and indeed from other areas other than within the province. Many have commented on the detail and expansiveness of the programmes outlined by the government for the coming year. Predictable as it was, the official opposition chose to pick holes in the speech, emphasize those points they consider to be negative, and ignore the facts of the matter, as is their role. It is most interesting that the amount of time taken by those across the floor to develop in a superficial manner and attempt to confuse the public with vague charges, hints of scandal and intrigue

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): On a point of order, it's my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that members are not allowed to read their speech with only their notes for reference.

MR. SPEAKER: Commenting on your point of order, hon. member, it's been a custom in this House to allow members to use notes, and when a set of notes becomes a text is, I suppose, a matter of interpretation by whoever wishes to make that interpretation. I feel, as Speaker of the House, that as long as the members in the House use notes for their speeches — and they can be copious notes — I will not interfere with the right of the member.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling, if you could just look up once in a while! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, it has been, as I was saying, most interesting to see the amount of time that members on the other side of the House have spent in a superficial manner to attempt to confuse the public of British Columbia with vague charges, with hints of scandal and their own brand of intrigue. I realize and, of course, the public realizes that this is part of the game; unfortunately the official opposition is quite inept at even playing games — particularly the Leader of the Opposition, whose speech in response to the Speech from the Throne was described, as we all know, by one newspaper as second-rate, sarcastic, largely a froth without content, his concept of fraud on the public.

Note that the leaders of the minority opposition parties, while maintaining a high level of criticism, were able to effectively make their points without hysteria, without feigned shock or muck-slinging and personal attacks.

Mr. Speaker, as the representative of the municipality of Richmond, it's been my pleasure to see the tremendous increase in the cooperation between the provincial government and local government, such as the municipality of Richmond, over the past year. During that period of time, the municipality of Richmond was able to conclude agreements with the province which have been sitting on the shelf for many, many years. They provided recreational facilities, tourist facilities, and much-needed other services from the provincial government which, apparently, for no other reason except lack of communication, simply hadn't been done.

In the municipality of Richmond, of major concern to the residents of Richmond is the inability of residents to make use of the Art Laing Bridge. Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House that it is the intent of this government to actively pursue the matter of access ramps to the Arthur Laing Bridge. The former government was unable or had no desire to do so, and I appreciate that there has been opposition from other levels of government in the greater Vancouver area. I was speaking with the mayor of Vancouver last evening; he advised me that his mind was not closed on the matter and there's a possibility that he may support us for our desires to have better access across the Fraser River by utilizing

[ Page 226 ]

what is, for most of the time, an unused bridge.

Mr. Speaker, as Minister of the Environment, it's been my pleasure to become involved in the many, many matters involving the land, water and air of this province, to investigate the possible solutions to accommodate the needs and desires of the people of British Columbia, along with that which must be done to protect our environment. The throne speech mentioned one project for my ministry this year with reference to a green belt Act, but of course there will be other matters brought to the attention of the Legislature for their consideration, involving many actions to protect the environment of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of the Environment has concluded its first year, and a review indicates a year of much action. One of the first hurdles to overcome in forming a new ministry was to bring communication to those many hundreds of men and women who worked within the ministry and the various departments comprising the lands, the water resources, the pollution control branches and others. I was told many, many times over the past year, by employees of that department, that they had never seen the former minister; and for this, as much as any other reason, morale was low and service to citizens was deteriorating.

MR. LEA: There wasn't one.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for Prince Rupert says there wasn't one. You may be more correct than you realize. The many people who work in the Lands department, the pollution control branch and the water resources branch didn't know they had a minister before, because that minister was not available; he was never seen.

The effect of that type of treatment on the many, many employees within those departments was showing in a very obvious way; their morale was low, the service to the citizens was deteriorating. That's important, Mr. Member. We've begun to turn it around by communicating with people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Great road builders.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It will continue to improve, Mr. Speaker, because it's obvious the citizens of the province have a right to service and the staff is most dedicated to provide that service to the people of B.C.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fortunately, I can't hear much of....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: During the past year, the Ministry of Environment approached many long-standing problems, problems and situations that had been left too long unattended. Among many of the projects undertaken by the Ministry of Environment last year, we could highlight some. We announced a project to alleviate the threat of mudslides at Port Alice, and that work is almost completed. We've been in communication with that municipality. We have approved a series of steps toward implementing secondary treatment for the new sewage treatment plant at Annacis Island. We established a task force to determine the best use of the University Endowment Lands, and that report is almost complete. There was a $100,000 grant to the faculty of engineering at UBC for research into water resource management and pollution control problems, which is ongoing. We've agreed to join with the Government of Canada to extend and expand the Fraser River flood-control programme.

The Ministry of Environment also announced further development proposals for ski-lift facilities in the municipality of Whistler. My ministry instituted integrated management units to accommodate the needs of all — not just a single use — for the multiple use of land in areas where there was conflict between wildlife and people activities. In addition, my ministry remains engaged in the fight to save the Okanagan lakes from the exotic weeds which are literally choking the life from those water bodies.

Mr. Speaker, members of this House, and the public at large, are well aware of the many actions taken by the Ministry of Environment over the past year, and I can assure you of the vigorous campaign to be continued this year. Members of the House will be asked to approve legislation this year to further aid the government in taking swift action and effective action to protect the environment of B.C.

Many opponents — for political reasons, perhaps — would rather have noise than action, but I'm afraid they will be disappointed if all they want is noise. Mr. Speaker, the government has outlined a programme of imagination and action to continue the long climb back from the darknesses of socialism imposed upon the people of B.C. not too long ago. The people of this province are aware how much time and effort is required to build and repair after the destruction which was brought on by a government with rather quaint ideas, programmes based on theories developed back in the mid-1800s, and followed today by those who no longer even refer to themselves as socialists. Now they're democratic socialists, so they tell us.

Mr. Speaker, this government is dedicated to return strength to this province and to its people. We are not interested in political experiments to satisfy some strange obligation to ego or ideology. The people of the province of British Columbia are proud of this government. They're proud of the accomplishments, and I can cite one reason — if we only needed one reason — and that is the government no longer embarrasses the people of British Columbia.

[ Page 227 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): The opposition does!

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The people of British Columbia are no longer embarrassed by their government and they are no longer embarrassed by their Premier, as they were in the previous administration.

My ministry is vitally concerned with the threats against our environment. We've communicated our concern to many other jurisdictions where they have control and responsibility, such as the federal government or the State of Washington, and other adjoining states in the United States.

MR. LEA: Name names.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We've dispatched ministerial officials to areas of oil tanker spills so they may learn first-hand what methods are being used and how effective they may be. Mr. Speaker, I would like to later on table documents which would supply information on these observations taken by our representatives of the pollution control branch. Departmental officials have compiled reports on a major spill in Spain and, most recently, in the Delaware River in the United States.

My ministry has established a network of information exchange and communication to share our information with other governments, as they will with their information on this contemporary environmental concern. We will be forwarding copies of our reports to the federal government of Canada at their request, the State of Washington at their request, and we will receive reports from U.S. government agencies, the State of California on the San Francisco oil spill, and other states within the United States.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Are you talking with Alaska?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We're speaking with Alaska as well, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, it's the obligation of my ministry to advise the public in areas of concern regarding the environment, and to this end I'll soon be announcing a new public information officer to provide factual information to the public. Citizens of this province have too many times been the victims of misinformation concerning environmental matters simply because statements based on poor research, or no research, have been made and repeated by some individuals or groups who are motivated by no one quite knows what — perhaps genuine concern or perhaps political expediency.

In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take time to provide an example to the House of how information can alarm the public when the information is inaccurate or is based on improper research, or perhaps no research at all. In the Okanagan we have a very serious problem concerning Eurasian milfoil in the lakes. The problem has been investigated — going on to its fifth year of investigation — and the water resources branch has been conducting experiments in concert with the federal Department of Environment and with other agencies who are concerned about the spread of this weed which is damaging the recreational, and perhaps the fishery, aspect of the Okanagan Lakes. It's certainly causing great concern and problems for the residents of the Okanagan.

Recently we dispatched a commission of three to tour the Okanagan and speak with concerned citizens, public officials, municipal councils, health boards and with anyone who may have been concerned about this problem, to assist them in understanding some of the highly technical information and scientific data which is available to those people in that field regarding 2-4-D and Eurasian milfoil and to try to settle down some of the concerns of the citizens which may be based on this information.

During this period of time, a member of an organization known as SPEC presented a brief on 2-4-D to one of the water boards in the Okanagan — not necessarily to that commission itself, but by way of a newspaper report. It was duly reported, I believe in the Vernon newspaper, in great front-page coverage and it contained a number of facts. We were able to obtain a copy of the brief presented by this organization. I responded to representatives of that organization advising them that we would research their comments, and we would like to reply.

I have had a couple of staff biologists do research on their brief. We are certainly interested and concerned. If organizations such as SPEC have information which would be vital and important to us, we'd like to have that information, we'd like to research that information and we'd like to respond to that information in the interests of knowing what it's all about.

I'd like to mention some points which were mentioned by the organization relative to the treatment of the Eurasian milfoil in the Okanagan lakes and the possible use of 2-4-D. The people in the Okanagan, those for and against all of the methods, generally agree that the mechanical harvesting process does not interfere greatly with the environment. Most people support the idea, when and if it is technically feasible and possible. There are others who support the use of herbicides such as 2-4-D, and others who are violently opposed to it. It is because of this very strong divergence of opinion that we have commissioned our three investigators.

[ Page 228 ]

The comments from the Kelowna SPEC included a point that 2-4-D will not eradicate the Eurasian milfoil weed, and this is probably quite right. It probably will not eradicate it; indeed, probably no one method will eradicate the weed. We know that, but we do believe very strongly that a combination of many methods, possibly using 2-4-D.... If we are to have any success at all in controlling this weed, 2-4-D may be required along with the many, many other tools available to us.

They made the point that the safety of 2-4-D to the health of the resident population has not been proven, and they're partly right. The raw drinking water standards adopted by the province, the United States and World Health Organization set a permissible limit. This limit is easily attainable at water intakes and provides for a generous safety margin. The advisory committee is currently investigating the health aspects of 2-4-D in its report.

They make a point again: the weed is a perennial which inhabits shallow waters where there is little current-flow or cleansing wave action. Of course it does — it inhabits virtually every type of water. But it's also growing in the Okanagan River channel, where there is a high current-flow. The weeds cause a breakwater effect, and greatly reduce the wave action. The currents and wave action create fragments which promote its spread. It could spread all over the province.

The point the SPEC people make is that increased growth of Eurasian milfoil has improved water transparencies in the lake because water nutrients which usually cloud the water are used up by the fast-growing weed. Well, they're wrong. My biologists tell me they're absolutely wrong. This is what was contained in the great stories in the Vernon newspaper, and this is why people are so concerned. It is not as they said. It is phytoplankton which utilizes the dissolved nutrients which actually cloud the water. Massive nutrients contained in the weeds in question are a very small fraction — less than 10 per cent of the amount available to algae in the illuminated water column. Besides, they can extract their nutrients from the sediments as well as from the water.

They make the point that the weed promotes feeding and an increase of fish and wildlife — this Eurasian milfoil, SPEC told us. My biologists say no. The water investigation branch has observed only coarse fish in the weedy areas. Coarse fish are detrimental to the sports fishery.

There is concern that the weeds are now encroaching on kokanee shore-spawning areas. According to the literature milfoil is a low-priority food for water fowl. They prefer native plant species. Generalities about the values of aquatic plants must be avoided. To extend the credit for beneficial effects of such plant species to Eurasian water milfoil is incorrect.

SPEC again makes a point that concern has also been raised that if the weed continues to spread, it might interfere with navigation and wildlife in the Fraser River system. That's wrong. Concern is that milfoil could invest the shallows of the lakes as well as drainage and irrigation canals in the Fraser River system and that estuaries could become infested by milfoil fragments from the Fraser system. As an example, in Chesapeake Bay on the east coast of the U.S., milfoil infested 200 acres in brackish water; in Currituck Sound, 80,000 acres are infested. It's a very serious problem. Any attempts to control milfoil in the Shuswap-Thompson-Fraser system, after it got widespread, would have more potential for harm by far than the massive control measures which would be confined to the Okanagan if they were taken.

A point was stressed by the newspaper, by the SPEC organization and by a television network. The hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), I believe, was employed by that organization at one time, but not the television side, and certainly not this programme of which I speak, our national network.

The point the SPEC organization made was that 2-4-D contains a production contaminant called diozane. You may have seen in the papers about this dangerous substance known as dioxane. According to SPEC, 2-4-D contains dioxane; according to biologists, dioxane is not present in 2-4-D. Agriculture Canada has been asked for definite information on whether dioxane is present in the granular 2-4-D proposed for use in the Okanagan. Dioxane can be found in the manufacture of 2-4-5-T, which was mixed with 2-4-D to produce a herbicide which was used in Vietnam.

The point the SPEC people again attempted to make is that the gravest concern is that there is little data on the effects of the herbicide 2-4-D when applied directly into a water reservoir. They say there's little data. It's unfortunate for them; they were wrong again. The Tennessee Valley Authority has been using 2-4-D for several years to control milfoil in their reservoir system, and they've reduced the extent of infestation greatly. It's also been used in Oklahoma and elsewhere. There is indeed a wealth of data on the use of 2-4-D.

SPEC made a point that the phenoxy-compound family also includes DDT. Grapes are known to be sensitive to 2-4-D and special care would be needed to protect them.

They made a point that concern must be raised about the risk of swimming or water-skiing in areas of heavy concentration. They're wrong. There will be no area of heavy concentration in the water because the plants very quickly take up the 2-4-D released from the granules. The dose used by the applicator would be regulated — his client would not want to waste herbicide in any case because it costs money.

[ Page 229 ]

According to the royal commission report on the use of pesticides and herbicides, there's no evidence of bio-magnification of 2-4-D. Subsequent studies in Oklahoma have borne this out. North Okanagan experiments show that 2-4-D disappeared rapidly from the water. I've made it public many, many times and I've commented that 2-4-D has been used in the Okanagan, under controlled conditions, in an experimental way and it's been very effective.

A point was made by the SPEC people that 2-4-D has already been proven not successful in the eradication of Eurasian milfoil weed in the Okanagan area. Tests conducted in the Kelowna Yacht Club basin in 1975 indicated that the weed was back and growing within a month of application. This is their point; it doesn't work. They tried it in the Kelowna Yacht Club basin, they say, in 1975 and the weeds were back. They're wrong again because they didn't use 2-4-D; they used herbicides known as Diquat and Paraquat, not 2-4-D.

But this is what they're feeding the people, and this is why the people in the Okanagan are so alarmed. The information is inaccurate. That's why I refer to my earlier point that we have an obligation in the Ministry of Environment to inform people with facts, not try to alarm them — not try to alarm them for whatever reason they may have to alarm people, some of these organizations. Whatever the reason is is not clear; we don't know why some people in some organizations choose to alarm people with misinformation.

MR. LEA: Which ones? Name names.

HON. MR. BENNETT: NDP.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: There's a good one — NDP's a good name.

MR. LEA: Name the groups.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Here's an indication of misinformation which was given out at a public meeting by an organization known as SPEC.

AN HON. MEMBER: You say they are bad, eh?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You have not been listening, Mr. Member. I know you can't understand, but at least you can listen.

Mr. Speaker, in the interest of those persons who have genuine concern about the problems of 2-4-D and Eurasian milfoil and the effect upon the Okanagan lakes, an organization such as SPEC, and many other organizations, have suggested there are other methods to control it — especially biological control by introducing exotic fish to the area, as an example. They speak of a certain species of carp which is known to have an appetite for this type of weed. Interestingly enough, the water investigations branch investigated this concept several years ago. There was strong opposition from fisheries people when they spoke of this. Biological control methods take many, many years to develop and work is being done on potential control agents in the U.S.A. But in the meantime other controls are essential to prevent all the lakes in the Okanagan system from becoming badly infested. It was the representatives of Fish and Wildlife, as much as anyone else, who opposed the idea of bringing in an exotic fish.

The major thrust, according to SPEC, in combatting Eurasian milfoil should be to create a lake habitat that is not conducive to its growth. According to SPEC again, that would involve curtailing sewage outfalls, clearcut logging, foreshore development and feedlots by streams, among other things — all of which contribute to pollution. According to the biologists, the desirability of control of nutrient and sediment loading is not disputed. However, the weed is thriving on the west side of the Okanagan Lake in pristine areas where no logging or human habitation is present. Weed has been observed to grow in distilled water for many, many months. It's not a problem of sewage that's causing this weed to take over the Okanagan Lake and choke it.

Mr. Speaker, I have many other points to combat the misinformation which, unfortunately, was dispersed by way of this brief. My biologists have gone over the brief, they've analysed the brief and they've conferred with others in Environment Canada and elsewhere to discuss the information. This information is very important to the citizens of the Okanagan and to the citizens of British Columbia.

The Ministry of Environment intends to be very, very active in producing information so that the citizens are aware of the facts of any given matter and are aware of the situation regarding environmental concerns involving health or the well-being of the citizens, the wildlife and the waters. We don't intend, as has been the habit of the past, to play funny little silly political games pretending that only one group of people are concerned about the environment, using it as a political platform.

MR. WALLACE: What's the answer to the weed at the moment?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We're awaiting the report from the three commissioners on the Okanagan board to bring us recommendations for it. There is no question from the scientific community that a great deal of support has been offered in using a herbicide such as 2-4-D. There's no question of that. If that appears to be the only method, then it probably could be a recommendation of the committee to use it. It may not be as palatable to some of the people

[ Page 230 ]

who are opposed to herbicides at any cost. It depends very, very much on the attitudes of those people who are representative of the Okanagan — the municipalities, the water boards, the health boards. We have asked all of them to advise us what they want to do. We have also asked them to what level of control they would like to see this weed problem developed, because it can be controlled at different levels with different methods. It can't be eradicated; the weed simply will not leave. No one even knows how it first got there, but it's a major threat.

MR. KING: SPEC.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Do you really believe that?

MR. LEA: A 40-minute attack on SPEC.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You don't have to spend 40 minutes to attack any organization, be it SPEC or any others. SPEC is a good organization. They have presented some very interesting information to my ministry. We've had meetings with representatives from SPEC.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): I heard about them.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, you didn't hear about them, Mr. Member.

MR. SKELLY: Are you going to assist them financially?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You wouldn't know about that.

MR. LEA: Are they secret meetings?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, they're not secret meetings, but you're not invited. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Unless your system has broken down, Mr. Member, I am sure you know about the meetings. (Laughter.)

MR. LEA: Rafe told me.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: If you have any original copies, I'd appreciate them back for my files. It's embarrassing to have a copy of a copy but, be that as it may, if you have any I would appreciate them.

MR. LEA: I'll get you some more before you're through.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I am sure you will.

Let there be no mistake that many environmental organizations, many of them involving volunteers, some organizations of professional people who have brought themselves together by way of committees or organizations, are considered a very valuable extension of the Ministry of Environment, and many of these organizations and committees have produced some excellent reports and excellent information.

MR. KING: Kamloops?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The SPEC organizations and the other environmental agencies many, many times are cooperative. What we are talking about is misinformation which is released in a hysterical way, and the response from the citizens, and the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment to provide accurate information and not expedient information.

MR. KING: You were better on the hotline.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Member, I understand, and I have no reason to suspect it true, that the train whistle damaged your thinking at some time in your life. (Laughter.)

During the past year, Mr. Speaker, it was the privilege of members of the cabinet to tour the province — it wasn't actually a tour — to travel the province and meet with representatives of committees and special-interest groups and citizens of the area. The response to their government was overwhelming and very, very positive. As a matter of fact, we received a very fine compliment from the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) when we were in Cranbrook. We thought he might be crossing the floor that day he was so complimentary. The people in British Columbia, by way of these regional meetings, know that their government is concerned with their problems. They have desires and they are working toward resolving them. For the information of the members across, the member for Rossland-Trail was a member of an official delegation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us who he is.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Who is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't know.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Is he still in his riding? Yes, I understand he is.

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition may rant and rave, but the people of the province will not be influenced by flim-flammery and hysteria that is being offered in debate as criticism.

[ Page 231 ]

MR. KING: How do you spell that?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'll let you work that out with Hansard.

Last evening, just before we adjourned, I tabled in the House the report of the B.C. Land Commission, and there was a silly remark came from somewhere — I am not quite sure where — about the Land Commission with reference to that being perhaps the last report it will ever do, and all this. It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, to look at some statistics. Now for the information of all members and others, when you are dealing with statistics, as you know, the famous idea is that statistics can tell you what you want them to tell you, and it has been used that way in the past. The Land Commission Act and the inclusion and the exclusion of land from agricultural land reserves has been talked about by many, many people and usually it gets down to acreage: how many acres are in? How many are taken out? Acreage is not the answer. The quality of the soil is more important than the size of the acreage.

There are many, many areas of land within the province of British Columbia in agricultural land reserves which are composed of relatively poor soils — 5, 6 and sometimes 7s. This is poor agricultural land but it's in an agricultural land reserve. So acreage is not the answer if you want to play the game of how many numbers and acres. But using that as a criterion, even though it is not the answer, it's interesting to note when you consider the attacks which have been made upon the Land Commission, and this government with reference to the Land Commission — silly attacks based on lack of information and no research at all. Never any research. Because it's not printed somewhere in a paper, they don't have the information — that's their research department.

In 1975, under section 9(2) of the Act, which is a section which permits the Land Commission to exclude land, the members of the commission allowed 2,941 acres from agricultural land reserves. That is the Land Commission. In 1976, 2,307 acres have been permitted by the Land Commission of today — the Land Commission of this year, 1976 — about 600 acres less than the previous year, Even though it may appear that during 1976 the Land Commission was holding on a little bit more than they were the previous year, that is not necessarily true because, again, acreage is not the answer; the quality of the land is much more important in conjunction with the acreage. The 9( 1) exclusions, as they're known, is when the government, the cabinet, permits exclusion under section 9(2) . In 1975 the cabinet allowed 4,392 acres to be taken out of agricultural land reserves.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The NDP cabinet.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That's who they were — 4,392 acres.

In 1976, again by way of section 9(1) in the Land Commission Act, the cabinet allowed 3,355 acres.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's much less.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That's 1,000 acres less, but not intentionally, because we don't keep a running score on acreage; acreage is not the answer.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Then why are you giving us the acreage?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Because this is your argument Mr. Member. This is because you people don't even understand the Act. This is why, Mr. Speaker, when people from the Fraser Valley approached a member of your caucus for advice on how to gain relief, they were given misinformation, they were given wrong information.

MR. SKELLY: You're making up facts.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Making up facts? (Laughter.) The member for Alberni accused me of making up facts. Mr. Speaker, through you to the member for Alberni: Mr. Member, when you are officially on your feet in this chamber in question period I would appreciate you to ask me who that member was, to whom he spoke, and what information he gave them. I would be pleased to provide you with the answers.

Finally, for your statistical information and so you'll have something to work on other than this superficial nonsense you've been engaged in this week, the 9(7) section of the Act, which is an appeal to the Environment and Land Use Committee, in 1975 — again during the days of the people's party of nonsense — 405 acres were allowed out by way of 9(7), the Environment and Land Use Committee. In 1976 it was 121 acres. So if you want to play statistical games, you're on the losing side again, which is consistent with your lifestyle, and that's all right with me.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I have copies for the press if they require it.

Mr. Speaker, the final comment on acreages, which are always uppermost in the minds of these people, involves the Land Commission and the Land Commission appeals. When the Land Commission was first brought in and the lines were drawn and the acres were added up, there were 11,661,600 acres — give or take a foot. That was the ALRs as drawn.

[ Page 232 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon, minister, I must draw your attention to the fact that you have three minutes.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Thank you. Since that time, Mr. Speaker, there have been inclusions, exclusions, modifications and drawing of new lines and boundaries, and what they call fine-tuning. Today, at this time, as of January 1, 1977, there were 11,661,874 acres more.

Again, the charge which is brought about by people who do not have information and do no research is that we are unfreezing all agricultural land. It's absolute nonsense.

MR. SKELLY: How many inclusions in 1975?

AN HON. MEMBER: They can't do the arithmetic, Bob. They can't argue.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, with just a few moments left, I would like to congratulate the Lieutenant-Governor for his throne speech — the Government of British Columbia. There is no question that the people of this province are pleased with what's happening over the past year. Not all people, but you can't please all the people all of the time, as all of us have found out at different moments in our lives. Most of the people in British Columbia are pleased. Most of the people in British Columbia are not interested in the philosophies of the free-lunch bunch. They know that that is not the way to live.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It should be "out-to-lunch bunch."

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Nobody gives anything away, nor does anyone get anything for nothing. It is the effort that you put into life that you reap as a reward, and everyone is aware of that. They can play all the funny games they want for as many years as they want, but the people of British Columbia are mature and the people of British Columbia have a sense of responsibility. Their one strongest feeling of responsibility is that they want to be able to have the destiny of their own lives under their control, not under the control of some here-today-gone-tomorrow politicians, of whatever political stripe they may be. Big government is the great danger facing the people of the world, of Canada and of British Columbia. I think it's an obligation that this government has to see that government is more efficient and not bigger, because you're playing a numbers game.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, that was really a performance. I think you would agree on that. I noticed how everybody was sitting there with rapt attention. I noticed that the members for the Okanagan area were sitting with their mouths slightly open, with that rather incredulous look on their faces, just wondering what it was he was talking about when he was up to his neck in the weeds in the Okanagan.

You know, it's really incredible for a man, Mr. Speaker, who, a year ago, in one of his first interviews, said: "I don't know why I was chosen for this job." He's now become an expert — an expert who can stand up in this House and talk for 35 minutes about weeds. And in the middle of that speech, to attack a citizen's group — a voluntary group, the SPEC — in that way, is incredible. What's the matter? Don't you want any opposition? You don't want any opposition. He's an expert now. He's going to tell us about everything; because he has been speaking to his biologists and that's the only opinion. It's etched in stone. He gave us some nonsensical figures before about the amount of land that came out of the land freeze in 1975. Well, Mr. Member, if you'd have done your research, you would have known that when the land freeze went on, we used as a guideline the Canadian Land Inventory. We said at that time that some land would be released, once we could find out what category it was in.

But let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the previous Social Credit government allowed 190,000 acres of farmland to go to the developers. You come here with your nonsensical figures about 2,000 and 3,000. What are you so touchy about? Is it the whole business of the Chilliwack land thing? Is that what you're touchy about?

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: You had your chance, boy, settle down. You had your chance.

He tells us about his riding and the Laing bridge. Yes, we're all very annoyed about the Laing bridge, very annoyed about it. But it was the Premier's father who was too chippy about money. He wouldn't even pay for the access ramps so that the citizens of the province could use it. That's why we're in the kind of bind with the Laing bridge that we are today, because of that stupid bottom-line financing that he did.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: What did you do about it?

MR. LEVI: You've go to do some research, my friend. You've got to do some research. Standing there with his extended notes.... He sounded like he was on an 8 o'clock show on a hotline. Expanded notes. He did look up. My colleague, the former broadcaster, did ask him to look up and he did. And he lost his place.

Interjection.

[ Page 233 ]

MR. LEVI: You know, we have a document that we're dealing with — the throne speech — that is supposed to lay out for the province the direction; and here is the minister who is responsible for the environment, and not one mention of a major concern for this province, regarding the oil tankers — not one mention. Just an off-the-cuff remark. That's an issue that's important today, but he has no opinions about it, no opinions whatsoever. I don't know who wrote his speech. But you better talk to him and see that he puts the right kinds of things in, to tell us about how expert he has become all of a sudden about this kind of thing. Incredible. In one year. And what have we had from him? There was enough citizen pressure brought in respect to the Chilliwack land freeze thing that eventually they backed off. That's the kind of citizen involvement we need, and that's the role that SPEC plays in this province. It's absolutely reprehensible that this Minister of Environment should attack such a group that's done so much service in this province over the last several years. A citizens' group. A voluntary group. They're great talkers about the voluntary sector, great believers in it. You know, we have to maintain the voluntary sector. So what do they do? They kick the living daylights out of one of the major environmental groups in this province. That's a responsible minister. But nobody wants to deal with the throne speech. They get up and they talk about everything, but nobody wants to deal with the throne speech. The reason is that last week for over an hour we had a fairy tale. That's what we had in the throne speech — a fairy tale. There was no attempt to tackle the real problem, no talk about what you are going to do — like the Pharmacare programme. Well, we'll see what happens to the Pharmacare programme. We will see if the senior citizens of the province will have to go back to paying money for their drugs. Because that's on the boards: senior citizens will have to go back to paying money for drugs in this province.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Because Kaiser can't pay their royalty!

MR. LEVI: Responsibility — the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) has mentioned it. No free rides in this province! Two million dollars to Quasar; the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is going to give money to the mining companies to encourage them. Well, what about Kaiser? What about their coal royalties? Nothing! That's $11 million down the drain. But the senior citizens will pay for their drugs; the handicapped will get no increase. But that wasn't in the throne speech.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Suggestions — that's the big mystery.

But that was not in the throne speech. So what we had to do was point out the kind of economic problems that exist in this province. Then we get into other kinds of problems.

In this House this week and last week it's been like a morality play. Things have been coming up about the behaviour of this government which are incredible, the kind of things that we were used to under the old W.A.C. Bennett government. Now we're getting it under this government. We have it aided and abetted by the newspapers, those two brilliant exponents of the truth, the Sun and the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Attacking the press!

MR. LEVI: Attacking the press — that's an old thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're attacking us! (Laughter.)

MR. LEVI: We get the Vancouver Sun, which is so upset because we wasted the time, they said, of this chamber to debate unemployment. They don't want us to debate anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: They never said that.

MR. LEVI: Oh, yes, they did. Yes, they said it was "second rate." We mustn't debate unemployment. The reason we debated....

MR. BARRETT: Froehlich's column in the same paper says to remove him. Their own feature writer on the business page says to remove him.

MR. LEVI: Hey, I'm on! (Laughter.)

But then we get something else. What do we get? We get the amendment of no confidence in the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . It's turned down for a number of reasons, possibly because it's sub judice, so we weren't able to discuss it.

Then we get into the M.E.L. Paving issue. We're told again by the press and by some of these people over here that well, the M.E.L. Paving issue could have been solved by the NDP. It's very easy: pay them off. If it's fraud, it doesn't matter: just pay them off, get them out of the way and get on with the business of the province.

MR. BARRETT: If anybody's got a contract, pay them off!

MR. LEVI: That's two things: we got the Grizzlygate affair; then we got the M.E.L. Paving affair. Last night, just in passing, like a throw-away

[ Page 234 ]

line, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) says: "Well, we're investigating it. We're looking at the possibility of fraud in M.E.L. Paving." That's after my colleague, the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) got up, laid it all out and kicked the slats out of the government. Then he goes out into the hall and says: "Well, we've been investigating it for a week." Well, isn't that nice! It's beginning to sound more like a Watergate business than anything. All of a sudden he has tremendous vitality: "We're investigating it." This is the kind of atmosphere that we're developing here.

A few months ago we had the former Premier of the province — 20 years the Premier of the province — who on his birthday was probably feeling very expansive. He made a comment about the Sommers case. He indicated that it wasn't really criminal, it was more stupid. You know, that was his view, his morality, of that kind of scandal that went on in this province 20 years ago. Well, he upset so many people by that statement that he actually flushed out.... It's very rare that you would get a former chief justice in this province to come out, to go into the press and make a statement. What he was making a statement on was the morality of that government. He said: "In your paper W.A.C. Bennett is reported to have made sundry comments regarding the Sommers case, tried before me by a jury in 1958. Nineteen fifty-eight is long past, and I would have preferred to leave the corpse of the Sommers case buried."

Yes, everybody would like to see it buried. After all, the man did his sentence, and he's back into society. But no, it was the Premier who brought it up. "Mr. Bennett has exhumed it. Some of his statements require comment, and I cite the gist of the statement." This is the former chief justice of the province talking, making comments about the standard of morality of the former Premier. "Mr. Bennett's party hired a private detective to investigate Mr. Sommers' conduct and Mr. Bennett was told by the detective that 'There was nothing to it, nothing but straight politics.'"

"I don't think there was much to it. I think he was stupid." Those were the former Premier's comments about a scandal that led to the imprisonment of a cabinet minister for the first time in the British Commonwealth.

Mr. Justice Wilson goes on to say: "It seems to me odd that a Premier who had cause to investigate the conduct of one of his ministers would not call on the services of the police forces of the province, all of which were available to him." Why use a private detective?

Then Mr. Bennett said of Mr. Sommers: "His daughter was getting married and he needed some carpet or something, and some of his friends made some available to him. I think he intended to pay for them in the end, and I'm sure he did." That's the former Premier of the province talking. This is what he said in an interview.

MR. BARRETT: That's Bob Bonner just came in. Oh! Oh, no, it's not Bonner!

MR. LEVI: Mr. Justice Wilson goes on to say: "Mr. Sommers, defended by the ablest criminal counsel in British Columbia, was convicted by a jury on six charges." He lists off the charges. These verdicts were all sustained by the court of appeal and by the Supreme Court of Canada. Mr. Justice Wilson goes on to say:

"Would any fair-minded person say, as Mr. Bennet has said, that there was not much to it, and that Mr. Sommers was, at the time the crimes were committed, an honourable man? Can Mr. Bennett think in the face of these verdicts that the affair only involved the gifts, by friends, or carpets for Mr. Sommers daughter? If Mr. Sommers has repaid the bribes, I haven't heard about it."

Mr. Justice Wilson goes on:

"I agree that Sommers' conduct was stupid, but so is the conduct of most criminals, and it is major stupidity to think that stupidity excuses crime. Wherever Mr. Sommers is now, I wish him well."

That's what the judge says. We all wish him well.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's back.

MR. LEVI: He has paid his penalty. He paid his debt to society and I hope that he is now, as Mr. Bennett says, "an honourable man."

"I have written this letter not to injure Mr. Sommers, but to correct statements which appeared to me to be inaccurate and perhaps to reflect on the judgment of the jury which tried this memorable case."

Signed,
J.0. Wilson"

You know, we have a number of firsts in this province. It is rare, indeed, that you get a jurist of the stature of Mr. Justice Wilson go into the press and say something like this, but he did it as a service to the people. He did it in order that the people should know that this was a serious matter — an extremely serious matter. All matters dealing with suggestions and innuendo about government behaviour, or any kind of inside behaviour in relation to the government, have to be dealt with very quickly. It was not dealt with quickly. Every time something happens in this province in a similar way, there has to be extreme pressure put on the government before they'll even look at it, before they'll even have an inquiry. As I said, and the Attorney-General was out

[ Page 235 ]

of the House....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: He went into the hall after the first member for Vancouver Centre's (Mr. Lauk's) speech, and said: "We have been looking at it for a week."

AN HON. MEMBER: Hah!

MR. LEVI: Or two weeks — who knows? Three weeks, maybe.

AN HON. MEMBER: You haven't been in office for a year!

MR. LEVI: Well, that's not good enough, Mr. Attorney-General. That's not good enough. You have a history and a record in this House of being up-front and straightforward, and you should carry that over into your portfolio and tell us exactly what you're doing. But, you know, that is part of the atmosphere that exists in this province.

MR. LEA: You mean you pay off and then you start to investigate?

MR. LEVI: In the throne speech there is also a mention that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the Attorney-General are going to do something about the juvenile problem. Well, that's a separate problem. You know the juvenile problem is a separate problem. After all, when you deal with high crime in government, that's up there.

When you deal with the business of juvenile crime, that's out there. Who gets most of the attention? Who gets most of the focus? Some 14-year-old boy up in Nanaimo! They've been in government 14 months and they've still got problems.

So that's the process they're going to deal with. What — to react to a bunch of right-wing rednecks out there who have a feeling towards young people which is incredible?

SOME HON. MEMBER: You did nothing.

MR. LEVI: Did nothing? You know that we did something. The important thing is that that's the state of morality in this province: you're going to focus on what a 14-year-old boy does, and everything else that is done in high crime, we leave it alone. Well, somehow it all has to come home to roost. It all has to come home and it all has to be put out on the table, and we have to be able to understand just where this government is in respect to the way they're going to behave over the next two or three years. That's what's important about it.

The Attorney-General is the chief law enforcement officer. He's allowed himself, without consultation with the judiciary, to get trapped into the business of trying some shortcuts on how to make the courts more efficient. Well, I would suggest, Mr. Attorney-General, that you make available to this House the report that was done on the courts on how much time the judges spend in the courts. It's my understanding that the average time is less than two hours a day. Let's have the report. Let's see what the facts are. Let's put the report before the House committee and let's get this thing out, not make the kind of arrangements that have been suggested that somehow all cases that are over 180 days will be forgotten.

I attended the meeting in 1974 put on by the Justice Development Commission when they brought up those people from the United States, and they were going to tell us how we could really straighten out the courts. They came up, and they said: "This is the way we do it." They got into the business....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: What are you so touchy about? Let me finish speaking.

They want to be able to do some shortcuts. Now I'm suggesting to you that you start with the judges; you don't start with the business of trying to make deals. I spent all day at that conference listening to jurists from the United States tell us how it is that they do plea bargaining and how efficient their court system is, but it didn't seem to have a lot to do with justice, as far as I was concerned.

You have a report in your department. Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General has a report about the operation of the courts and how much time the judges spend. Let's have the report tabled in the House! We want to know what the facts are. It's my understanding that report cost $80,000! That's taxpayers' money. Let's see the report. Let this House, and the House committee, make some judgments on the procedures that exist, or that are lacking, in the court system, because for years in this province we've had the same kind of problem. The city of Vancouver tried to tackle it three or four years ago.

What is amazing to me is that we have more judges, we have more courtroom space, we have more lawyers and prosecutors, and we still have the same problem.

The Attorney-General shakes his head — no, no, we don't. What he is doing is shaking the sand out of his ears because we don't have a problem. We do have a problem.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): No we don't. Don't be foolish.

[ Page 236 ]

MR. LEVI: Yes we do! Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Speaker, table the report and let us see what the report said about how much time the judges spend in court. Let's see the report; let's have a look at it. Agree, Mr. Attorney-General, to table the report because then I think things would be very clear. After all, the report took some months — it went into some observation and it is a lot of analytical work. Let's see what the facts are.

Sooner or later, inevitably, as this problem continues to boil, the Attorney-General will have to come into the House and put it on the table anyway. But we have House committees; let's have a House committee to look at that problem because it is a serious problem.

We spend a great deal of money on the judicial system, yet we have all sorts of problems. We have a former judge, a former head of the court system in Vancouver, going on a hotline show and saying how terrible the system is. We have other judges going on TV and saying how bad the system is. Well, let's get it all out on the table.

I'm not blaming the Attorney-General — he inherited this problem, as the previous Attorney-General inherited it. But somehow we're going to have to confront the system. That's what we've got to do: confront the system. And if you need the help of this Legislature to do it, then you should do it, because that's all part of that problem out there — the whole part of the problem of the justice system, the whole question of the morality around the government. What is going to happen to the juveniles? It's all intermeshed, yet we don't have any straightforward remark from the government or from the Attorney-General on what's going to happen in the future.

Mr. Speaker, what we've had over the past week in relation to the throne speech is really no attention being paid to some of the issues in the throne speech, because we have learned, I think, over the years to understand that the throne speech is a guideline — what is suggested in there may not necessarily happen in this year or even next year.

But as I said at the beginning of my remarks, what was more important for us to discuss in this House was discussed only by one side of the House, and that was the whole question of unemployment and what was going to be done about it. We did not come to grips with that issue, except on this side. On that side they refused to address themselves to it, so what they've got instead was an exposure of their morality. I would hope that in the coming debate under the budget speech we will get more firm ideas from the government on what they are going to do about the unemployment problem.

I just want to make one closing reference to something that was raised on a number of occasions by the members. It had to do with the confidence of the business sector in respect to the province of British Columbia over the last few years. It seems to me that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) referred to this in his speech when he wound up for the government on the amendment.

If we go to the mid-year economic review and look at the facts for capital investment we find that in 1971 the capital investment in the province came to $3.9 billion; in 1974 it came to $5.2 billion; in 1975 it came to $5.7 billion; and in 1976 it came to $6.4 billion. What we have had over the past few years, despite what the members of the opposition say, is a continuing increase in capital expenditure investment in this province ever since 1965, and it has shown a particularly remarkable increase since 1970. So again we have to put to rest finally — and it's finally dying a wriggling death — the problems that they are not prepared to confront and the continual but slowing attack on the previous government.

Mr. Speaker, I particularly look forward to the debate of the budget speech because there we will have more specifics to deal with. But what we have had to deal with this week, and we have dealt with it in very specific terms, is basically the morality of this government, and no one is yet convinced that they have a high standard of morality — that we may in fact be going back to the days of the previous W.A.C. Bennett government, and that is to the detriment of the citizens of this province.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Mr. Speaker, first let me take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) on his re-election to the position of Deputy Speaker. Also may I offer my congratulations to the three new members of executive council, the member for Columbia River, the Hon. James Chabot, the member for Victoria, the Hon. Sam Bawlf and the member for Boundary-Similkameen, the Hon. James Hewitt. On behalf of the people of my riding, may I offer them every encouragement for a successful term in their respective offices.

I am pleased to stand here, Mr. Speaker, in support of the throne speech, particularly when one has the opportunity to review the past year's performance of this government and, through the throne speech, to observe the continuing positive direction of this government. In the first year of office, the task of coming to grips with the financial and administrative chaos facing this new government was not an easy one. The previous three and one-half years of unchecked government spending and total financial mismanagement left this province drained of surpluses, drained of investor confidence and drained of responsible fiscal planning. The people of British Columbia knew that restraint would have to be practised last year, as they know restraint will have to be practised this year. What is equally important, Mr.

[ Page 237 ]

Speaker, is that the people of this province know full well why the policies of fiscal restraint had to be enacted and still have to be enacted.

Interestingly enough, the opposition seems to have some difficulty understanding the meaning of the word "restraint." They did not know the meaning of restraint when they were in government, and they do not know it now that they are in opposition. In fact, Mr. Speaker, their 1975 budget reflected a 58 per cent increase in expenditures over the previous year, and their previous budget reflected a 42 per cent increase over the year before that. It took the NDP only two years to double a budget that had been growing since there even was a British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking!

MR. DAVIDSON: Their attempt to be effective in planning government revenues was only slightly in error. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the last budget they presented in this House had an error factor in revenues over expenditures of 1,080 per cent. Is it any wonder they do not understand the meaning of, or the necessity for, financial restraint? This government has been left with their bills and their deficits that their experiments inflicted upon the people of this province.

But now, Mr. Speaker, we can afford a note of cautious optimism. Recently announced major pipeline plans, major coal developments and major forestry expenditures are but a few of the signals to anticipate growth. Investor confidence is being restored in this province. But the damage of three and one-half years of socialist economic negligence cannot be wiped out in but one or two years.

Last year our resource industry witnessed a 28 per cent increase in shipment values. Our positive action on mining legislation gave rise to a tripling of mining claims and a 121 per cent increase in well-drilling exploration activity.

Regressive and restrictive policies of the socialist government, which reversed the growth of our mining and exploration sectors, have been done away with. Once again, British Columbia is beginning to offer employment and opportunity to its people in both these job-intensive areas. Housing starts were up 10 per cent and projected construction programmes look promising.

In keeping with this government's commitment on open government, the Auditor General Act was passed. A commitment was made to quarterly financial reports to the people of British Columbia.

Public service growth has not only been restrained, but has been reduced by over 5 per cent. This government's priority on social programmes remained paramount during the year, with education, health and human resources accounting for over two-thirds of the expenditure of our taxation revenue.

We witnessed the introduction of GAIN legislation, providing assistance to those 55 years of age and over, as well as providing additional assistance to single-parent families, the construction of a 200-bed children's hospital in Vancouver, and the raising to $380 the homeowner tax relief to persons over the age of 65.

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech of January 13 outlined further the kind of positive policies and programmes this government intends to introduce in this current session, programmes which will result in increased benefits to the citizens of our province, not only in terms of social legislation but in terms of increased economic stability, increased employment and added investor confidence in British Columbia.

The establishment of an ombudsman for the province and the introduction of conflict-of-interest statutes for public officials will be welcomed, not only by every person in this province but, I trust, by every member of this assembly.

Increased provincial sharing with local governments and the introduction of an Urban Transportation Authority Act will hopefully set the scene for dramatic improvements in these areas. Also most welcome, Mr. Speaker, will be much-needed legislation dealing with mobile homes.

The proposed shelter allowance for persons over the age of 65 will go a long way to solving problems in this area, and will assist in returning dignity to our senior citizens, those so responsible for the initial development and growth of this province.

The new thrust in the treatment of alcoholism represents a positive attempt to deal with this most serious situation. The alarming growth of alcohol-related problems in this province must be met head-on, and the establishment of regional centres is a major start in this area. Compliments are due to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and his commission in their approach to this most important problem area. In the field of primary and secondary education, the introduction of a core curriculum and a renewed emphasis on performance in education could well turn out to be the most significant educational development in British Columbia in a generation.

The commitment to provide financial support for separate schools is welcome news indeed, as yet another election commitment is made by this government to the people of British Columbia. The acknowledgement, too, Mr. Speaker, that there are certain young offenders under the age of 17 who do require secure environments, and that those environments will be provided, is yet another positive step in the Attorney-General's department, as is his commitment to remove the drinking driver from our highways and streets.

A continuing commitment for new and improved highway construction will not only add greatly to our

[ Page 238 ]

tourist industry, but will go a long way toward encouraging successful development of our natural resources and expansion of our provincial economy.

Amendments to the Consumer Protection Act will also be welcomed by the people of this province, as will the commitment that the small gasoline retailers will continue to play a significant role in the free-competition aspect of the marketing of gasoline.

And again, Mr. Speaker, as outlined, the overall emphasis by this government will continue to be placed on services to people, particularly in the areas of education, health and human resources.

Given this government's lead in the area of fiscal restraint, and given the cooperation of the people of this province in following that example in their labour negotiations and in their demand on government, we shall set the foundation upon which we may build the strongest possible economy. Patience and restraint this year, Mr. Speaker, will have a compound effect on the benefits accruing to all the citizens of this province in the years to come.

I was pleased also, Mr. Speaker, to hear the Premier commit this government to electoral reform before the next election. I trust that this will include redistribution. This is indeed a matter of grave concern, not only to myself but to all the people in my area. At present, Mr. Speaker, I have in excess of 70,000 registered voters, while Vancouver East, for example, with only 45,000 registered voters, has two members of the Legislature. It would not be unreasonable to expect that redistribution would give my area three members instead of one, and would allow for three times the contact within our municipalities.

Due to the tremendous growth rate in the Delta, White Rock and Surrey areas over the last few years, and with no redistribution in that period of time, it is fair to assess the acute need to increase my area's representation in this House. Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, a commission will soon be struck to deal with that problem of redistribution.

Of continuing concern also, Mr. Speaker, is the growing traffic problem in crossing the Fraser. Both the Massey Tunnel and the Pattullo Bridge are operating at peak capacity and long, intolerable tie-ups are all too common. The refusal by the Greater Vancouver Regional District to realistically assess this very real problem has been of great concern to myself and to the people of Delta, White Rock and Surrey. We find it intolerable, Mr. Speaker, that any regional consideration be given to a third crossing of the Second Narrows, while the clearly demonstrated needs of an additional crossing of the Fraser are totally ignored. Even starting on this project today, it would require a period of approximately four to five years to complete the crossing; and the growth rate south of the Fraser continues at an ever-increasing rate. I urge this government, notwithstanding its plans on rapid transit, to immediately conduct a review into this much needed crossing before we find the existing routes even more hopelessly clogged than at present.

The GVRD, Mr. Speaker, has, in the opinion of most of the people in my riding, outlived its usefulness, insofar as the municipalities of Delta and Surrey are concerned, and now, rather than in helping in our planning and in our services, they are becoming a detrimental influence. To put it mildly, we would welcome the opportunity to leave this bureaucratic monster, watching it choke itself to death in its own red tape. If this government is to be truly committed to a policy of decentralization, then the removal of the awesome and all-encompassing powers of regional districts must be a first step in this direction. The growth of the GVRD is staggering, with some salaries exceeding those paid to the Premier of this province and, in fact, to supreme court justices.

I would like to express my thanks to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) for the meetings he has held with Mayor Tom Goode of Delta and Mayor McKitka of Surrey to discuss this problem. While there appears no simple solution to the problem, the idea of a new regional district with much more identifiable common problems could prove to be a most workable and reasonable approach. Both the mayor of Surrey and the mayor of Delta would be more than willing to put any such decision to a vote by their electorate.

While this may or may not be the answer, Mr. Speaker, one thing is clearly obvious, and that is that both Surrey and Delta are not receiving fair treatment at the hands of a regional district which is simply not sympathetic to its needs nor understanding of its requirements. We warmly welcome any new directions in legislation or actions from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Mr. Speaker, I will deal more specifically with matters directly dealing with my own riding after the budget speech — matters affecting agriculture, fishing, hospital needs, recreational facilities and highway programmes. But at this time I am pleased to conclude my remarks with my very strong and positive support of a very strong and positive throne speech.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, before I begin my address, I have nothing to say, so that ends the first part of my notes. (Laughter.)

Now the second part is that I congratulate all hon. members on their speeches in the throne debate. All of them have improved upon silence. Mr. Speaker, you know, it's a kind of a tough choice when you get up in this House — whether to sit in your place and appear to be dumb and uninformed, or get up on your feet and remove all doubt. (Laughter.) So that's

[ Page 239 ]

the way I have put myself at risk this morning.

I should refer to some of the other speeches in this debate — some of them are very good, I wasn't too happy with the speech of the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch), which was an awful mix of personal attacks upon the former Premier (Mr. Barrett) and then sort of pietistical Christianity at the end of that speech. Yechh! (Laughter.)

I see the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is not in his place, so I am not going to say anything about that master obfuscator who takes ICBC and they make just an incompetent business judgment about the amount of premiums people should pay — a political decision based upon revenge — and charge the people too much. Then he says that there weren't so many claims. Well, of course not — you eliminated collision.

The accident rate was up, but people, thousands of them, are afraid to come to the corporation because they're afraid of being judged blameworthy under some rules that haven't even been promulgated.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Sure the accident rate is up! The people are suffering, and the corporation shows black. But don't kid yourself — that is not the kind of social programme on which it was embarked when it was introduced by the NDP.

We've had a lot of silence in the debate. We haven't heard as yet from the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) or from the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) .

MR. BARRETT: She's coming on after you, Alex.

MR. MACDONALD: The Lynx and the Larynx. (Laughter.) We're going to hear from the Lynx a little later.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member....

MR. MACDONALD: Is that unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: If you are referring to another hon. member of the Legislature, I think that you could find a less caustic term.

MR. BARRETT: What does larynx mean, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I am sure you are saying it in jest, and not as a personal attack.

MR. BARRETT: What, larynx? We're not saying lorgnettes — it's larynx.

MR. MACDONALD: Does this come out of my time? Look, I have several pages here. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that there has been a heck of a lot of nonsense written about M.E.L. Paving in the papers. Some of the editorials and some of the things that have been expressed have been simply ridiculous. They have blamed us for not settling the case. To begin with, I just make this point: you guys didn't settle it either, did you? You took it right through court. You could have settled it.

Anyway, you blame us for not settling the case that you pursued. Okay, leave that aside. You know, M.E.L. Paving came to us and they were on a unit-price basis. They said: "We'll drop the job or give us cost-plus." Do you know what that would have cost the taxpayer? Is that the way we should have railway construction in this province? Now you say it shouldn't go to court and you settled; and I say the people, the taxpayers, have got a right to their day in court too, and they should be protected. And there never was any liability.

I've got to say something about the present Attorney-General and the quick huddle he had on the floor of the House after the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) spoke yesterday and the announcement that the in-house investigation had been underway for a week. Miraculous conception after a huddle with the Premier on the floor of this House. (Laughter.) Why wasn't it announced a week ago?

MR. BARRETT: Miraculous conception!

MR. MACDONALD: You know, Mr. Speaker, the charge is fraud.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Are you calling him a liar?

MR. MACDONALD: The charge is fraud — not necessarily criminal fraud, but fraud.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Are you calling the Attorney-General a liar?

MR. BARRETT: Ohhh! Read your old speeches!

MR. MACDONALD: Why wasn't it announced? You saw the huddle. Come on, Where were you yesterday?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Where were you? The charge is fraud.

MR. BARRETT: The charge is fraud.

[ Page 240 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister of Labour on a point of order.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I ask the first member for Vancouver East whether he is saying that the Attorney-General was false in what he said yesterday to the press. Did he lie to the press?

MR. BARRETT: Ohhh! You answer it. You're the first one who raised it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! First of all, that is not a point of order and, secondly, the hon. first member for Vancouver East has the floor.

MR. MACDONALD: That's a good Speaker. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, the charge is fraud — criminal possibly, or civil. There's no way an in-house investigation can determine the matter, because people like Broadbent, and the directors of the railway, and Williston, have not given evidence or been subjected to cross-examination because of the settlement of the court case that the government made. Therefore an in-house inquiry is totally inadequate in these circumstances.

It is very strange that this procedure would be suggested by an Attorney-General who, a year and a half ago, was saying: "Nothing less than a full public inquiry!" You know, we're not only talking about fraud, civil or criminal; we're also talking about competence. I say this without any equivocation: at the very least this government is covering up gross incompetence on the part of their Social Credit predecessor. The public have a right to know what happens to their tax dollars, and only a full inquiry will bring those facts to light — whether millions were wasted by the kind of tampering with estimates which went on at that time. The Attorney-General says: "Oh, nothing less than a full inquiry!" Now he says "in-house," eh? "Oh, what a change is here, my countrymen! Then you and 1, and all of us, fell down...." Oh, it doesn't work.

I wish the Liberal leader was in the House because....

MR. BARRETT: He is! He's right over there. He's right there. There's the Liberal leader.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, there! I was going to say something about our friend, the leader of the Liberal Party, who was trying to move the party of Duff Patullo and Art Laing, and even Ray Perrault, which has always been a very progressive Liberal Party of B.C., somewhere to the right of the government forces opposite. You know, you'd need a shoehorn to get to the right of those people. (Laughter.) I think it's a tragedy, you know, that he should go around taking that kind of a lurch to the right. I'm not going to say any more about that now because the member isn't in his chair.

MR. BARRETT: He's in Hawaii.

MR. MACDONALD: But he goes around the province saying: "The NDP killed the mining industry! The NDP killed the mining industry!" Finally, people believed him.

MR. DAVIDSON: You did!

MR. MACDONALD: I asked him about the 5 per cent sales tax we put on minerals, which is pretty standard right across the whole of Canada. I said: "What about the Turner budget proposals of May, 1974, which had a far greater financial effect on mining and resource industries in this province?" — you know, where royalties and provincial taxes are not deductible anymore, or the international prices. And he said: "They believe that you killed it."

You know, the scare-makers like that have done a great disservice to the financial credibility of the province of B.C. That kind of scare tactic has done more to undermine investment confidence in this province, and it is still continuing under the present government.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, yes, who killed Robin Redbreast? Who spoke for the mining interests and went around saying that we had destroyed the mining industry — with a little sales tax of 5 per cent on mineral exports — until the people believed them? You undermined investment confidence and then you had to squeeze yourself in to the right of the Social Credit Party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Straighten him out, Scotty.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is not in her chair, but I'm sure she's listening to my remarks with close attention, because I say that the government of B.C., through the Provincial Secretary, is engaged in breaking of contracts. I'm talking about the Pacific National Exhibition, which, of course, is in the city of Vancouver.

I just want to recite what happened, because there's no question that there was a commitment made in the following way for the government of British Columbia to pay $250,000 a year to the PNE, the PNE to add $250,000 a year to that and pay the city of Vancouver a proper rent for those premises. The $250,000 provincial portion would be spent on facilities including an ice arena, in the East End,

[ Page 241 ]

where they're badly needed.

That agreement was not spelled out in a formal contract but it was a recorded contractual commitment that was made in this way. The city, the province and the PNE directors met in the Hydro building and agreed upon the rent to the city of Vancouver. After long negotiations they finally settled upon $500,000 a year. That was an agreement then made. How was it then recorded and formalized? It was recorded by a formal resolution of the Vancouver city council; it was recorded and formalized at a meeting of the PNE directors; and it was formalized and approved by the provincial government by the provision of a cheque of about $178,000 to the PNE as their payment for that part of the year, as the first step in living up to what was a contractual commitment.

This government, aided and abetted by my old friend Swangard, who was really a Social Crediter of the darkest dye.... They put him on the board of the PNE, and between him and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), they break a contractual commitment among governments, the city of Vancouver and the PNE. That's contract-breaking any way you like.

You say you don't believe in the repudiation of contracts. If you don't like it, if you want political revenge, you repudiate them. But I say that it is morally and legally wrong to break contracts of that kind. I say the mayor of Vancouver, who says this ridiculous thing of the PNE paying $1 for rent, is right in saying that there is a contractual commitment by governments to fulfil that original arrangement for the benefit of the whole province, the PNE, the city of Vancouver and the East End of Vancouver. I object to the kind of contract-breaking, based upon political vengeance and vindictiveness, that we've seen in this case.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word or two about Oakalla, now that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is in his chair. I have to be fairly quick; I'm going to bring this up at a later time. But it's a mess, Mr. Attorney-General.

In terms of what we did about it, let me just say this. We began in the NDP administration a programme of penal reform. We began a five-year plan for the only possible solution to Oakalla and some of the other institutions, which was to raze them to the ground. That five-year plan was pretty well on schedule. We were held up a little bit by the remand facilities on Vancouver Island, but we phased out Haney Correctional, and now it's an outstanding educational institution. We reduced Wilkinson Road to remand status. Oakalla was slated to be razed to the ground, and we could have done it had we continued in office.

I want to talk just for a few minutes about the men's unit, and then something more serious in the women's unit. The situation in the men's unit is that the old Crowbar Hotel is simply falling apart. Twenty-one escapes is my count from last November; staff morale is in a very bad shape. The inmates can make two stainless-steel knives from the kitchens — with one, you make a sawtooth blade; with the other, a hacksaw — and they can cut through the old bars.

It happened, for example, on November 13. Four very dangerous people got out. They took the two officers on that shift in West Gate A, the segregation unit. They held a knife to the throat of one of them, and one of them was going to slit the throat of that guard. They got the keys and escaped, although they never found that the fourth one had gone until the morning. Because of the staff situation, the guards who had been in that kind of a threatened situation, a situation of assault and threat to life, had to continue the balance of their shift. It has happened regularly — sometimes jeweller's wire.

The old place is falling apart. Staff training through the police college has come to an end, practically, because of money and resources, because this government is not devoting to the whole justice field the kind of resources that are necessary to carry on the pace of reform that this province has the right to expect.

Now in the women's unit, as I said, it's more serious. There you've got about 80 to 85 inmates att he present time, and you have a staff of about 90, 21 of whom are men. Now I approve the idea that the regional director could well be a man, maybe the deputy director, but I do not approve the idea thatt he male staff should simply be doing the ordinary duties of the female staff in the women's unit. I think they have duties they can do on the outside, attached to the headquarters of that building.

We have in there...and I'd like to tell you of some of the people who are in there now: mostly drug, prostitution, and the related spinoff crimes running up to everything from bank robbery....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver East has the floor. There is an unusually loud roar going on in the background, and I think that's uncomplimentary to the member who has his place in this debate.

MR. MACDONALD: That's all right. I'm talking to the Attorney-General and I'm not being interrupted here. Well, the people that you've got in the women's unit are a very sorry lot, however you look at it. Heroin people.... I see the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) there. You know, you've got people up on welfare fraud who've been given jail sentences, and they are among the most pitiful cases, Mr. Minister. You ought to

[ Page 242 ]

prevent welfare fraud rather than this business of criminal punishment and law and order. That's not going to be the solution to the problem. You should go and visit some of the people who are in that women's unit, who have had sentences for welfare fraud, because they are the poorest, the lost, the most unfortunate people in our society.

You have murderers in there — women. One, not too long ago, finally killed her common-law husband because that husband had raped her eight-year-old daughter. Another Indian woman, covered with scars, had been beaten up all her life by her husband. She finally retaliated with a knife; she's a murderer. You know, these people deserve not only fair justice, but decent conditions. And I could mention some of the other people who are in there. You've got a girl there, a model, of 22 years of age; you'd think she was 45. She's been on drugs; she goes back from Riverview to the women's unit, back and forth because you can't be sure just what kind of case it is. She dances in a nightie throughout the women's unit there all day with a radio to her ear; and she's a wreck as a result of being caught up in the drug scene.

Now in that institution the rules are not being properly maintained. There has been an invasion of personal privacy. The rule that a male custodial officer should be accompanied by a female when you go into the room of an inmate has not been observed on all occasions, by any means. And there are lots of complaints by the inmates and even by the staff that personal privacy is not being protected and the rules are not being properly maintained in that institution.

You know I have specific things, Mr. Speaker, and I have no intention of giving names, but I do intend to ask the Attorney-General for an interview and turn over any information I have. But the point is, Mr. Speaker, that these institutions have got to be phased out. If you'd say a civilization is judged by the way in which it treats its least fortunate — the criminals, those in conflict with the law — we fail by a very wide margin. The Oakalla thing and the Wilkinson Road thing — which the Conservative leader knows about — are blots upon our record as a civilized society. What I'm asking for is that the labour and justice committee — the special standing committee of this Legislature — should be convened and authorized to look at these institutions; to attend to the immediate problems, which are a mess in terms of rules and morale; and to get on with the business of reform of the penal institutions of this province because if they look, if the MLAs look, they will see that the resources are made available to raze Oakalla, lock, stock and barrel, to the ground. That should happen, and justice should be given that kind of resource, to get rid of that institution.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say something about the road to Grizzly Valley, not the inquiry. You know, those people over there make the NDP record look good. Under good business judgment, under the NDP, we constructed pipelines. We had a Helmut pipeline. It's only 40 miles in the Helmut fields, which Mr. Speaker knows about very well. Nobody made a nickel on the stock market — I don't even think Adrian made a nickel on the stock market — and there was no fuss. It was done competently, based on the best engineering and economic management, without political interference such as we've had under the Social Credit government.

The Dease extension, the Wenner-Gren Railway — all of these have been political blundering by a Social Credit government. The New Democratic Party government rejected the Grizzly extension in 1975 because the gas reserves had not been proven. It was not a sound business proposition. If and when those reserves are proved, on the best public engineering and economic management, the line should be built. But to let fast-buck promoters hustle us into an uneconomic proposal means that everyone loses his shirt except those promoters. And here's the scenario on the road to Grizzly Valley.

First, you take the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, the Crown company of which we should be proud and which had always been operated upon sound business principles, and you put under your political fount. And how do you do that? When I was a director of BCPC, I was one, and there were three other directors. As soon as the Social Credit government came in, they fired one. They surrounded George Lechner with the Energy minister (Hon. Mr. Davis) and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), as he now is — two against one. The political move-in was on.

Let me say something about Mr. Lechner, a very able and conscientious public servant. You know, in all the years I knew him well — and I still know him — I never found out or asked what his politics were. He was doing a good job for a public corporation and serving the purposes of that corporation with competence and ability, and that was enough. I still don't know or care, but he's an able man. But you surrounded him!

Here's what he said at the B.C. Energy Commission hearings of this year — June 24, 1976, vol. 9, page 57 of the transcript. Mr. Lechner testified: "We at BCPC are an arm of the government; we do not express policy decisions; we implement them." There's the political gun at the head of the BCPC. Later in the transcript he repeats the same thing: "BCPC is an arm of the government," and "the B.C. Energy Commission decapitated for most of this year."

That's the first thing: politicize BCPC on the way to Grizzly.

Secondly, you raise the producer field prices high enough to please any promoter, and let the consumer pay. You raise these prices and do not return the

[ Page 243 ]

extra revenue to the public treasury where it might filter down to the people of the province of British Columbia, but you give it to the oil and gas companies. The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) says that this is funny. You know, you raise the price of old gas from 35 cents per 1,000 cubic feet to 65 cents — more than the Energy Commission, without its head, recommended.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was done before he was appointed.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, that was done...but that was done by the Social Credit government — almost a 90 per cent increase, and new gas up to 85 cents. The factor of tax indemnification is only about 15 cents in that kind of increase in a time of restraint. Restraint for whom? Restraint for the people of the province of B.C., yes! Restraint for the great international oil companies — the sky is the limit! Give them whatever they want. That's the way you look at the AIB.

MR. BARRETT: That's the way they operate.

MR. MACDONALD: I could talk about oil but I haven't got time at the present time, but I promise to return to what happened in the oil fields.

Now the third thing on the road to Grizzly Valley. As the government figures on reserves don't support the pipeline at this time, what do you do? You take the reserve figures of the promoters — they won't be too low. At page 84 of the 1976 B.C. Energy Commission report on field prices, Quasar Petroleum stated.... Here's Quasar coming in, 1976 — you know, that press release on the table here, 500 billion, which isn't enough anyway. Here's what they said:

"We have a responsibility to our shareholders to see that this gas gets to market, and we get a cash flow back from our investment as rapidly as we can. Certainly we would endeavour to pursue any effort that we could to try to see that this gas is moved."

Pursue any effort. What's that old song? "Two For the Money," by Quasar and Cheyenne. (Laughter.) They loved that tune.

So their shareholders are happy today. Their attitude was: Share your drink with me and I'll share your thirst with you. (Laughter.)

But, you know, the Quasar stock, it's $5 added in the last six or eight months — 4 million shares out; 3.2 million of them in the United States, mostly around the Los Angeles-Hollywood area. You know what that adds up to in added-share value to Quasar, as a result of these announcements? It's $20 million in a few months.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Rubbish!

MR. MACDONALD: That's not rubbish — just look at the figures. Now what do you do? This is restraint, this is more restraint by the Social Credit government: $20 million added to the share value of Quasar's outstanding shares in a period of six months. Nice, eh? They were right: any effort we can use to get that gas out of the ground, we'll use. Now what do you do? You then rely on the Quasar estimates of the gas reserves in Grizzly and Sukunka. You rely on their estimates. It's like asking Brezhnev to count the crowd that came to hear him speak in Red Square. (Laughter.) He won't be low!

The 1975 energy report on field prices went into the subject of Grizzly reserves, and Quasar at that time estimated the whole area at 400 billion cubic feet. That came out in October of 1975. But the B.C. Petroleum Corporation — and the Premier was saying the other day that I had to apologize to them — what was their estimate before they were politicized? It was 200 billion cubic feet — half of what Quasar brought in, and they added 200 billion cubic feet which would not justify a connection of an 80-mile transmission line. Quasar was weighing in at twice the estimate of the Crown corporation and the government.

BCPC continues in this report: "Quasar can build the line. If Westcoast is authorized by BCPC to build it, the cost is recovered by being added to its rate base, with 10.5 per cent to Westcoast."

That rate base to Westcoast is up, incidentally, by 1 per cent under the Social Credit government — more restraint, I presume that is.

In other words, when you build the line for Quasar and Cheyenne and BP, the people of the province, through the expanded rate base of Westcoast Transmission, foot the bill. That's what we had to guard against when we were in government.

The B.C. energy report hearings were in June, 1976, and they were released in October. They discuss reserves and additions but make no mention at all of additional reserves in the Grizzly Valley and area. In 1976, however, the transcript evidence presented to the Energy Commission.... In a written submission, Westcoast, which is more impartial than the others, although they get something by an expanded rate base and you can't take their figures, said that as of January 1, 1976, area reserves were: Grizzly Valley, 206.2 billion cubic feet; Sukunka, 87.9 billion cubic feet; total, 294.1 billion cubic feet.

Westcoast then forecast that it might be possible to tic in the Grizzly line in 1980, with good finds in the meantime, with a 16-in., 89-mi-long pipeline to Grizzly, and an 8.625-in. extension of five miles into the Sukunka area. Quasar wouldn't wait; this government wouldn't wait. Not sound business —

[ Page 244 ]

political interference and reward your friends were the order of the day.

MR. BARRETT: And then dump the load on Jimmy!

MR. MACDONALD: On page 85, Volume IV, Mr. Lechner testified that the Westcoast formula for extensions — and this is what they used when we were in office — was one mile of pipeline for every 10 billion cubic feel that were available. So for an 89-mi. pipeline into that area, this would require, on Westcoast's formula, proven gas reserves of 890 billion cubic feet, well over the Premier's 500 billion.

What did Quasar say on June 18, 1976, in the transcripts? It said: "Potential reserves" — you know, this is about as vague as you can get — "of proven possible and probable, was 1.2 trillion cubic feet."

British Petroleum submitted an exhibit but no reserve figures to the Energy Commission hearings. They were represented at those hearings in 1976. They had run into some dry wells. It's difficult country; it takes time to drill, prove and test. There was no way in June, 1976, that BP could bring in, test and prove significant figures before August 11 or December 10 of that year.

Now what was the reason for the $2 million advance to Quasar Petroleum in August, 1976, announced by the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips)? His press release says: "Testing and recompletion of wells." That sounds pretty good, but you can't spend $2 million on that. You know, you test a well, Mr. Speaker.... This is your country; you know what I'm talking about. You valve it, flare it a little bit, have it gauged, take the reading. But $2 million? Recompletion? What does that mean — that the government of B.C. was paying to take some of the sulphur corrosion out of the old wells of Quasar?

What I ask is: why spend $2 million, which is far over what's required for that purpose? Why shouldn't Quasar Petroleum, whose share capital has increased by $20 million in a short space of time, pay for its own test figures like any other company? What was the security for this advance of public money? We, as NDP, under the Petroleum Corporation advanced — and my friend will see the records of that — to Atkinson Petroleum, I think it was, out in the Helmut area east of Fort Nelson, I think, up to $2 million one time. But we took security for that production advance. We took security on existing flowing gas so that we did not jeopardize public money. We made a sound business decision. Yet this government is accepting the Quasar test figures when they were double those of the public Crown corporation in the year 1975. And that's the road to Grizzlygate.

MR. BARRETT: And then they dump it on Jimmy!

MR. MACDONALD: Politicize the BCPC! Up the producer field prices even by 90 per cent in the case of old gas! Take the promoter's figures for the reserves and put it on the road with a press release about 500 billion cubic feet...

MR. BARRETT: And then dump it on a new minister who is going to get blamed for the whole mess.

MR. MACDONALD: ...which by itself isn't enough to support that much in construction in any case.

Mr. Speaker, the issue before this Legislature and before the people of British Columbia is business competence as it was practised under the NDP government, or Social Credit politics, which put a price on everything and a value on nothing. The issue before us all is whether the public interest should prevail or private rewards and political interference. This government says they'd de-politicize the public companies. They moved in in the old Socred ways, notwithstanding the addition to their ranks of coalition Liberals. They moved in. They haven't changed a little bit from the Wenner-Gren days. They moved right in on the bonanza because it was good for the Quasar shareholders. But it would be a disaster if it proceeds in other than business ways under this government.

Mr. Speaker, every day that these people are in office they make the NDP record look better than it really is. You do! You know, you shouldn't do that; that's embarrassing to us. You make us look better than we really were, with your blundering.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: That's right. You talk about investor confidence being undermined in this province — and I've already made this point and I'll make it very shortly again — yet you go around and make speeches of hysteria, and you use scare tactics, because we brought into the province of British Columbia a little measure of social democracy for the people of this province.

If the public credit of the province of British Columbia has been undercut — and it has in some measure — it has been undercut by the scare tactics and the hysterical, revenge speeches which still go on in this House and throughout the province of British Columbia by that gang opposite. You should be ashamed of them and begin to debate issues on their merits and get rid of these ridiculous things like a 5 per cent royalty on mining and things of that kind. As you know, it's something that's in Ontario anyway, and they never talk about it. Kill the mining

[ Page 245 ]

industry, kill this, kill that. You are doing a disservice to the province of British Columbia and its public credit on the markets of the world.

If we're so bad what have you got to worry about? Why this massive attack against the NDP and the media by every speaker who stands up? You know, if we were so bad.... You're afraid of us because we weren't so bad!

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're incredible.

MR. MACDONALD: Our record in difficult times was one of increased capital investment year by year in the province of British Columbia. Look at the figures. It was a record of new industries — including mining, such as Afton — and it was a record of confidence.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: We're not a free-lunch party. You love to say that, too, don't you?

Just let me sit down by saying a little bit about who the social democrats of the world are, because some of us are proud of being part of that world movement. We're not a social welfare party.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Okay, you don't understand what social democracy is all about. Important as services to people are, social democracy stands for services by people. The people of social democracy are not for grasping self-interest or political spoils, because they want to make a contribution to their society, their province, their country and the world. These are the roll-up-your-sleeves people, What they want for themselves they want for all.

Mr. Speaker, I see the time is getting short.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, you're on your final three minutes.

MR. MACDONALD: Sure we believe in full employment in a planned economy of increasing abundance. Sure we want to enlarge public power, responsibility, and bring it into collision with the spoiled darlings of special privilege, and bring it into collision with private power or pelf, wherever it may be found.

Sure we want a measure of social equality and fair play in an expanding economy of increasing productivity and full employment. Sure we want a measure of true democracy at the work place, and participation by the people in economic decision-making. Our challenge is to the ethical sense and sense of social responsibility of ourselves and our neighbours.

All of this scares you and you go around making these hysterical speeches. Sure it scares big money. Sure it scares big privilege. Sure it scares big press. But I think it is time, Mr. Speaker, that the noisemakers and the fearmakers were dragged, kicking and screaming, however that may be, into the 20th century.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Provincial Secretary closes the debate.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, it's a great privilege and an honour to rise in my place this afternoon to address my remarks to the motion before the House, the address to the throne.

Before beginning my address I would like to just say to the member who has just taken his place that we have enjoyed his humorous address, particularly the part in which he delivered to this House this phrase, which I'm sure will not be forgotten by members of this House: "This government makes the NDP government look better than it really is."

MR. MACDONALD: You're blundering so badly that it is true.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, after three and a half years of socialism — called by any name that you wish to, Mr. Member, social democracy or whatever name you wish to give it — you need all the help you can get to make you look good.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: You need all the help you can get to make you look good.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: And we'll be charitable. We'll be charitable on this side of the House and give you that assistance. I know you feel very, very sad about the whole affair.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and proud to address my remarks to the greatest throne speech in Canada. Before pointing out those things that have been missed by the members of the opposition, Mr. Speaker, I would really like to give some tribute, particularly to two people who were mentioned in the beginning address of His Honour's opening speech. I would like to pay tribute to the memory of the two men mentioned, particularly because both of them were well known to me. The Hon. Bill Chant, who served in this House, as well as the Alberta House, for many years, will be remembered by the tremendous buildings and public works that we now enjoy today. Our children, and our children's

[ Page 246 ]

children, will enjoy them for many years to come.

I also want to associate myself with the remarks within the opening speech that paid tribute to a New Democratic member of this House, Roy Cummings, who served Vancouver–Little Mountain, as I do at this time. During the time that I had an association with that member, Mr. Speaker and members of the House, I found him to be very fair and a very good member. I count him as a friend of mine and I want to offer my sympathy, as well, to the members of the opposition who will feel that loss.

Mr. Speaker, a throne speech is usually vague. It has been traditional, it has been historic, that one cannot read within the lines of a throne speech the intent of the government. In past years in this House it has certainly been so, but one has to wait, really, until the budget speech to really know the direction in which the government plans to go. May I say that this throne speech lays out very clearly the direction of this government this year? In this very difficult year in Canada this throne speech stands out for its attention to the needs of people in the province of British Columbia.

I'd like to say this, Mr. Speaker, that any government can talk about loving people. They can talk about spending money — that's the easiest thing, particularly if you are left a cash box full of money and a buoyant economy. That's the easiest thing in the world to do. And that party that represents now the opposition in this House, the loyal opposition in this House, was the envy of all governments in Canada, Mr. Speaker, in 1972. It was easy: a large inheritance, a buoyant economy. But the real test, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you, has been the test of this administration: to arrive at this place of responsibility, to take over this place of responsibility, with the cupboard bare and with the world and national economies less than buoyant and still provide priorities and programmes for people. That's the challenge.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: To be able to provide for people in need, for people in stress, for people in trouble, in times like these. That's the challenge, Mr. Speaker. And this government, through its throne address, has made it very clear that they are up to that task and ready for that responsibility.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I have been surprised. I have been disappointed in the response from the opposition members in response to this tremendous address to the throne. It has been shallow, it has been weak, and it has been bereft of any substance in dealing with the matters at hand in the province of British Columbia today.

I want to address my remarks to a columnist who was in this morning's paper, Erma Bombeck, who does not have to be explained to this House as a good columnist, one that seldom addresses her remarks to political activity. But in her remarks and in her statements, I think, she pinpoints the hallmark of what the opposition's address and remarks to the throne speech have been in these past few days, in relation to what she is saying about the American House and how they have acted and how she hopes they will act in the future. She writes in this morning's paper, Mr. Speaker, about the inauguration of the President and her hopes and, I think, her hopes are the expression of the American people. Surely I think that they can be transmitted to the hopes of the Canadian people and to our British Columbians, as they view their public servants.

Let me just quote. Here are a few lines from Erma Bombeck's statement. She says:

"Today the 39th president of the United States takes office. There are a lot of things I don't want to know about him, I don't want to know his golf scores, his tennis scores, his bowling scores or see his spills if he is a skier. I don't want to see him stumbling off Air Force One or falling asleep during a commencement exercise at which he is the featured speaker.

"I don't want to know what dress designer the First Lady uses, or particularly what size she is. I don't have to know what their living quarters in the White House look like, or what books they read, or where they go when they leave for a weekend. I don't want to intrude for a moment on their joy, their grief or the dignity of their private lives, which some feel they owe us.

"What I do want to know are the men and women he picks to surround him, his stand on major decisions, his feelings for people and their problems, and how he intends to carry them out."

I commend, Mr. Speaker, this article to all members of the House.

Miss Bombeck completes her column and refers to the oath of office which this very, very responsible president is going to have to take and has taken on behalf of all the people of the United States of America. I think we should give pause not only in this assembly, but as members of the press, who are an extension of this assembly, for the great responsibility that each of us shares. I hope that the tenor of the House in the future will reflect on that and will be reflected in action as well as words.

Mr. Speaker, in just the past 10 months since the last time we were addressed by His Honour in the throne speech, this government has undertaken a reorganization. It has addressed itself to the problems

[ Page 247 ]

in this province. There are many things that I would like to talk about from this past year, because we have done some very positive things. I am simply going to refer to the reorganization of the government, particularly in one aspect.

It has been a good reorganization; it is working. Particularly because it was not noticed by members of the opposition, I think it should be noted that recreation was brought under one umbrella in this province for the first time in the history of the province something that recreationalists, educators and people who work as volunteers in our society have wanted for years upon years. Now we see the full Department of Recreation and Conservation positively dealing in a unified way with those things which will address themselves to fitness, to health and to recreation in our province.

We have had in the throne speech an indication that a system of financial assistance to community museums will be announced shortly. As that is part of my responsibility, I want to say how important I feel it is that every community is given the opportunity to preserve their valuable collections.

I want to invite each member, if they have not already been, to see the outstanding Indian collection which we have in the museum on the third floor. It was opened by the Premier on Monday night. I can tell you that every person in British Columbia should go through that display, collection and presentation which has been so ably done by my staff in the museum. I tell you that everyone will say, "I am proud to be a British Columbian," after seeing that gallery.

I want to share with you another attention to our historic past this year, when a new gallery of the very famous Emily Carr paintings will be opened in a permanent display for the first time in this province. They are coming out of the vaults, and they are going to be placed in a beautiful display in a very historic building adjacent to one which Emily Carr's father owned on Wharf Street. It will be, I think, one of the outstanding displays of this country. I know that you will share in the delight in having that in this coming year. In a very few weeks that will be open.

I express my disappointment in the opposition in that they did not talk positively about some of the positive issues that were mentioned in the throne speech: Pharmacare, for assistance and help to families with chronically ill children. Mr. Speaker, parents who have chronically ill children, who are in their time of their lives when they are having to pay for mortgages, provide housing, reach for educational tax dollars — all of the present day burdens of society that they have — are the present-day builders of this country, this province. They are the present-day builders with a most tremendous burden of all to provide — yet they are financially crippled with an additional cost of trying to provide for chronically ill children. I commend the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and my colleagues in the government for that tremendous plan, and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) for all the association and all of the attention that will be given to those young people and to their families.

It was mentioned in the throne speech — the fair sharing of assets on the breakup of a marriage. Mr. Speaker, just 10 months after the first throne speech presented by this government we are addressing ourselves to the problems which the opposition side of the House talked about for years — talked about, Mr. Speaker, no action.

Women have been used as the whipping girl on that side of the House, by individuals on that side of the House, for years and years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Any time they needed a speech, or felt a speech coming on, they trotted out women's rights; they used women's groups to further their own partisan politics at every step of the way. You could always count on the emotional rhetoric of one of their members to parade out the ills. What did they do about it when the opportunity was theirs? Ten months after the first throne speech of this government, we have already dealt with the subject and it will be presented to this House.

Women have been unfairly dealt with — and they have — where husbands have gone scot-free — and they have — where they have left children with responsibilities only on the onus of the mother and the wife — they have — where the whole court system and the whole welfare system has grown in this country to try to provide care for those who will not provide care for the wives and the children they helped to bring into this world.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the Attorney-General's action and reaction on this very, very difficult situation in the province of British Columbia. In association with that I'd like to quote Ralph Waldo Emerson: "Give no bounties, make equal laws, secure life and property, and you will not have to give alms."

Mr. Speaker, this throne speech, for the first time, is guaranteeing fair treatment in legislation — equal law for the women of this province.

The throne speech addresses itself to, and many people have made comments on, the aggressive attack on alcoholism — another social ill which we must deal with, and we must as government take leadership in. I'm just so pleased to be able to stand beside my colleagues in the House and speak on behalf of an aggressive attack.

Special mention should be given to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who is back to the basics in education for the first time in this

[ Page 248 ]

province....

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Who started it all?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the people of the province are behind him in every way in that respect.

I am pleased to associate myself with the programmes for children in trouble, which is being brought about between the Department of Human Resources and the Attorney-General, to help children in trouble and to provide for them in this province.

Mr. Speaker, we've heard a lot of talk about unemployment, and a debate about the economy in this province in the past few days in this House. Because I wish to add, in my own department of tourism, to the uplifting of that economy, I want to share with you a few figures of research of my Ministry of Travel Industry, which provides the best research figures of any province in Canada.

Let me just share this with you. In our resident travel survey of this past year, the following has been noted: British Columbians took four million overnight trips in the province during 1976 — the equivalent of two trips for every man, woman and child. People travelled away from home in all seasons, with the summer quarter accounting for 35 per cent; the spring, 25 per cent; the fall, 22 per cent; and winter, 18 per cent. Expenditures totalled $400 million with a surprisingly even spread between the four calendar quarters, averaging $100 million per quarter. These latest figures — and I'm not going to quote them all — indicate that four out of 10 travellers in British Columbia are residents, our own people travelling to and fro. They also contribute 40 per cent of the revenue. Approximately 2.6 million Canadians contribute $300 million; 3.5 million United States residents spend $290 million; and 250,000 off-shore residents contribute $50 million to our economy. Considering the balance of payments, British Columbia received $390 million from residents, $640 million from external markets, and spent $1.018 billion travelling outside this province, leaving a net deficit of $50 million in the travel account.

Mr. Speaker, we can take, I think, some bit of solace from that. We don't want the balance of payments to be different; we want more visitors coming in than we're sending out. But it is a reflection on an affluent society because in poor nations they do not travel outside. It is my pledge to you, and it is my pledge to the people of British Columbia, that we will turn around those figures this year. One of the ways we have already started in so doing is to initiate a convention programme in this province for the first time — a convention co-ordinator. This is the quickest area, Mr. Speaker, in which we can initiate new dollars into this province, those golden dollars that have no call on them for hospitalization or education but are brought in by people outside of British Columbia and are left here for us to spend on our residents to provide social services — help to those in need.

Let me tell you that in this very short time since August of last year that we have had a convention co-ordinator on our staff, we already have tied down conventions which are going to provide and add to the economy. If I can quote the figures researched by the city of Vancouver's Convention and Visitors Bureau, Mr. Speaker, they indicate that in 1975 conventions held by American associations in the Vancouver area alone contributed $5.5 million to the B.C. economy. This figure would be magnified many times if that were taken on a national scale.

It is that to which I wish to address my remarks today, because today we live in Canada, and we live in British Columbia, with an Act of Washington, D.C. It is Bill HR-10612. I have had correspondence and deliberations with the federal minister, Mr. Chretien, where I have said to him:

"British Columbia wishes to make it clear that we wish and require our government of Canada to ask of the United States government an exemption from this legislation. Canadian exemption from such legislation which precludes American people coming into or inhibits in any way that free travel between these two great countries should never go on."

If I may quote my letter to the Hon. J.J. Chretien:

"Canadian exemption from legislation is historic. It is not surprising that we two countries, who share this North American continent, have in the past been able to conclude amiable trade agreements. British Columbia stands ready to give you every assistance in your approach to Washington, D.C."

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk in this province about the tourist industry of this past year. Many will say it is disastrous; many will say that it was the worst in its history. It is not true; it was not. It is true that bad weather contributed. It is true that we have had a bad experience in individual cases in this province in the tourism situation. But today, Mr. Speaker, the best skiing in the country is at Big White in the Okanagan, as we sit here in this House. It's never been better. Mr. Speaker, it is the best living conditions. We are enjoying spring. Spring comes earlier to British Columbia than anywhere else in the country. We live in a favoured land in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say this: it is time for positive thinking. It is a time to recognize the tremendous opportunities that are ahead of us in this travel industry. It is not a time to be negative; it is a

[ Page 249 ]

time to be positive. A lot of people want to travel and see this province of ours. Let's not discourage them. Let's not turn them away with negative thoughts. In this four-season wonderland that we have in this province there is no place for pessimism today.

Mr. Speaker, there is work to be done. All we have to do to get our share of that travel dollar is to provide a new era, a new era of confidence, a new era of positive, not negative, thinking, a new era of opportunity which is there for everyone, regardless of the negativism of opposition members or of the press.

Mr. Speaker, if ever there was a time to see the big picture in British Columbia, today is the day. It can start right in this House in this Legislature. This province and this country need the leadership and confidence that is being portrayed by the government of British Columbia today through this throne speech.

Mr. Speaker, I want to call on the opposition of this House, the loyal opposition, to rise above the fog of party, partisan politics. Support this throne speech. Tell the people of the province that this government and our people have taken responsibility, not handouts. Where inequities exist in this province, this government on behalf of the people of British Columbia will give leadership as a party and as a government committed to truly serving the people of British Columbia, all the people of our province.

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech indicates that we have risen above party politics to provide the best throne speech in the history of this province. I am proud to support the motion.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 16

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

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move that this House will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider the supply to be granted to Her Majesty, and that this order have precedence over all other business except introduction of bills until disposed of.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen tables two reports concerning observations on oil-tanker spills.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:48 p.m.