[ Page 153 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Presenting reports

B.C. Medical Services Plan financial statements. Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 153

Oral questions

Nature of investigation. Mr. Macdonald –– 153

Existence of British Columbia immigration agreement. Mr. Gibson –– 154

Investigation of Ministry of Energy, Transport and Communications. Mr. Stephens –– 154

BCBC policy on contract tenders. Mr. Barrett –– 154

Confederation advisory group. Hon. Mr. Bennett replies –– 155

Succession Duties Act. Mr. Stupich I –– 155

Liquor Administration Branch general manager. Hon. Mr. Mair replies –– 155

Akamina-Kishinena Valley park proposal. Mr. Skelly –– 156

Minister of Recreation's administrative clerk. Mr. Nicolson –– 156

Throne speech debate

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 157

Mr. Cocke –– 162

Mr. Veitch –– 168

Mr. Haddad –– 173

Mr. Skelly –– 175

Mr. Kahl –– 180

Presenting reports

Ministry of Highways and Public Works, March, 1977. Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 182

Labour Relations Board, December 31,1977. Hon. Mr. Williams –– 182

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure today in presenting to the House Mr. and Mrs. Ken Davidson and Mr. and Mrs. Don McInnes, who are accompanied today to the floor of the House by the director of the emergency programme branch of my ministry, Mr. Neale. In order to introduce them, I'd like to take the House back to a very cold Sunday afternoon on December 19,1976, when a young man 18 years of age, Terry Jones, decided to climb a 400-foot cliff at Elk Falls Provincial Park. He reached a point about 200 feet up where he found he could not go any further and he couldn't go back down again. The call went out for help and Kenneth George Davidson and Donald James McInnes, who are here with us today, were rushed to the scene. At that time, Ken was the search master and Don a member of the emergency programme's search and rescue team. Both were also auxiliary policemen. They eventually located Terry, who could not be seen from the top of the cliff. He was about 165 feet down, clinging to the wet, slippery, mossy rocks.

Ken Davidson, who had been cited for bravery in another rescue at Gold River a month earlier, remained on top of the cliff organizing and controlling the operation while Don McInnes, putting the rescue ahead of his own personal safety, had himself lowered from the cliff face, to face Terry Jones. He helped the young climber move down the cliff in freezing temperatures and darkness to a safer spot, and there a proper harness was put on Terry Jones. Eventually the young man was pulled to the top of the cliff, followed by Don. The whole incident took several hours and Don spent about two hours on the cliff face with Terry Jones in extremely perilous conditions.

We are today expressing our admiration and thanks to both of these gentlemen. Today I was pleased to present to each of them a citation and bronze metal awarded by the Royal Canadian Humane Association. The citation reads in part, Mr. Speaker: "Awarded for bravery and recognition of heroism and presence of mind involving life-saving effort on December 19,1976. "

We are very proud of the great numbers of citizens in this province who, for absolutely no pay whatsoever and through their recognition and their humanity towards their fellow citizens, give of their time voluntarily. They take time away from their homes, they take time away f rom their families, and because of this I am particularly pleased that both Mrs. Davidson and Mrs. McInnes are here with us today as well. So I would like to ask the members of the House, in recognition of the remarkable job that is done by all of the people whom these two remarkable men represent, to welcome to the House, Kenneth Davidson and Donald McInnes, their wives, and Mr. Neale, the director of the branch.

MR. KAHL: My guest today is also one who believes that service to humanity is the best work of life. It is indeed a pleasure for me to introduce a constituent. Judy has spent the past 12 years in India working with Tibetan refugees, providing education and hospital services. For her dedicated work, she has been invested as a member of the Order of Canada. Also this year she received the Vanier award as one of Canada's five outstanding young Canadians. Mr. Speaker, may I present Miss Judy Tethong? Accompanying her is Miss Helen Hall. Would you please make them welcome?

HON. MR. CURTIS: In the galleries today is a rather large group of students from Parkland Senior Secondary School in the northern part of the Saanich Peninsula in the constituency of Saanich and the Islands. Would the House welcome them?

MR. LOEWEN: In the gallery today are a couple of very good friends and very good supporters of the Social Credit Party from that great city, the royal city of British Columbia, New Westminster: Skip and Marilyn Cassidy. I'd like to ask the members of this House to welcome them.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. McClelland presents the financial statements for the Medical Services Plan of British Columbia for the year ending March 31,1977.

Oral questions.

NATURE OF INVESTIGATION

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier of the province. After waiting 48 hours in the absence of a statement, I wish to ask him by what agency of government, police or otherwise the investigation the Premier referred to in the Legislature on April 3,1978, is proceeding.

[ Page 154 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I was only advised that an investigation was taking place. I must tell you it wasn't initiated by myself as Premier or by the government.

MR. MACDONALD: I would ask the Premier under what legislation, federal or provincial, the investigation he referred to is proceeding.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, because I don't have that information, I will take that question as notice for the Attorney-General.

MR. MACDONALD: I would like to ask the Premier, as he must know of the impropriety or worse that has been alleged against the hon. member, whether or not he considers that there has been due process of law and fairness to the person accused, whether guilty or not, in impugning the reputation of an hon. member without publicly stating the nature of the allegation and the form of the investigation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The last supplementary question is contingent upon the second question which was taken as notice, and therefore would not be a proper question.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe the Premier took the question as notice and undertook to bring it back into the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair understood the question to be taken as notice. Was I wrong?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I took it as notice for the Attorney-General.

MR. SPEAKER: Do you have a separate question? We cannot accept a supplementary on a question taken as notice.

MR. MACDONALD: My supplementary is this, Mr. Speaker: Is the Premier telling the House that he does not know now under what legislation the investigation is proceeding or what agency is conducting an investigation? Does he not know now, or does he know now?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I took it as notice.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's out of order.

MR. MACDONALD: It's perfectly in order.

MR. BARRETT., Who's doing the investigation?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

EXISTENCE OF BRITISH

COLUMBIA IMMIGRATION AGREEMENT

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier on another matter. During the storm over the employment of a non-Canadian as the president of ICBC, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) complained that Quebec has an immigration agreement with the federal authorities, by inference complaining that British Columbia does not. The federal minister was reported as saying that British Columbia was offered the same kind of agreement as Quebec. Could the Premier, in his capacity in charge of inter-governmental relations, advise this House whether or not British Columbia has been offered such an immigration agreement?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Member, I'll take the question as notice to find out if and when such an offer was made, and bring the answer back to the House.

INVESTIGATION OF MINISTRY OF

ENERGY, TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS

MR. STEPHENS: My question, Mr. Speaker, is also for the Premier. I would like to ask if the Premier can assure this House that in the investigation surrounding the Ministry of Energy, Transportation and Communications, no senior members in that department are under suspicion.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the investigation is not being carried out under my instructions, but 1 will take that question as notice as well on behalf of the Attorney-General, the chief law-enforcement officer of the province.

BCBC POLICY

ON CONTRACT TENDERS

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Highways and Public Works a question. Is any work asked for by the British Columbia Buildings Corporation put out without tender?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'll take that question as notice, look into it and bring an answer back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A supplementary question? I cannot accept a supplementary when it is taken as notice.

[ Page 155 ]

MR. BARRETT: No, 1 have another question to the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: I cannot accept a supplementary when his statement is...

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I wish to provide an answer to a question asked yesterday by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We are in a difficult position. I cannot accept a question on a question taken as notice. Perhaps, in view of the fact that we did accept the previous question, we could defer to the Premier, and then I will return.

MR. BARRETT: Very swift move. I appreciate the delicate position you are in, however 1 had the floor, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to continue.

My next question to the Minister of Highways and Public Works is: who in the B.C. Buildings Corporation would determine policy as to whether or not work would be sent out without tender?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'll take that and bring an answer back to you.

CONFEDERATION ADVISORY GROUP

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, once more I wish to respond to a question asked yesterday by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) . In response to the member's question concerning the advisory group to the government concerning the research being done on confederation, the question was: "Was there a remuneration for the members and was it paid.

The following members: Prof. Ron Burns, Prof. Ron Cheffins, Prof. Neil Swainson, Dean Kenneth Lysyk and Prof. Ron Shearer...This academic advisory group, which has undertaken research in providing advice on a range of long-term constitutional subjects, works under the general supervision of Mr. Mel Smith, deputy minister to the Premier's office. Each member of the advisory group is paid at the rate of $25 per working hour and, on average, each member of the group is engaged for about 20 hours per month. The retaining of the services of these members of the academic community has been done in accordance with government and university guidelines and with the approval of university authorities. The province, Mr. Speaker, is extremely fortunate in being able to attract gentlemen of this calibre from the academic community at this sensitive time in Canadian history. Later I will be asking for leave to table further documents relating to this question.

SUCCESSION DUTIES ACT

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Finance. During the debate on the abolition of succession duties last year the minister said that the basic intent of this "millionaires' relief Act" was to encourage investment in the province. He said also that he had studies confirming that such investment would not take place unless this legislation was proceeded with.

MR. SPEAKER: The question, please.

MR. STUPICH: The question, Mr. Speaker: can the minister tell this House the amount of investment that has been made as a direct result of the abolition of that particular legislation?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, that's a very interesting question, because I noticed that the NDP province of Saskatchewan has introduced similar legislation, obviously with the same type of intention. I think that the best way to answer that question is to listen for the budget speech. There will be considerable matters of interest in the budget speech.

MR. STUPICH: On a supplementary question, is the Minister of Finance prepared to table the studies that he said last year were made preparatory to bringing in that legislation?

LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION BRANCH

GENERAL MANAGER

HON. MR. MAIR: I would like to answer the question raised yesterday by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) concerning the general manager of the liquor distribution branch and what advertising we have done.

I'm instructed that an advertisement and with leave later I will table this was placed in the Pacific Press, and I assume that that is both the Vancouver Sun and the Province, Toronto Globe and Mail, Montreal Star and the Financial Post on Saturday, March 4. In addition, the position was posted with the Public Service Commission on February 21,1978. With leave of the House I would be delighted to table both of these documents.

[ Page 156 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps following question period, hon. member.

AKAMINA-KISHINENA VALLEY

PARK PROPOSAL

MR. SKELLY: To the Minister of Recreation and Conservation: has the ministry prepared a parks proposal for the Akamina-Kishinena Valley in southeastern British Columbia or is a proposal in the process of preparation?

HON. MR. BAWLF: In response to that question, the parks branch of my ministry has prepared a number of pieces of information for use of the Environment and Land Use Committee Secretariat and for deliberation by the Environment and Land Use Committee, that concern the recreational and wildlife values of the Akamina-Kishinena area.

MR. SKELLY: A supplementary question: have the proposals or the papers been presented to the Environment and Land Use Committee and, if so, at what date will the proposals be considered?

MR. SPEAKER: The first half of the question is in order.

HON. MR. BAWLF: In due course, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SKELLY: I have another supplementary question for the minister. Will public hearings be held prior to a decision being made on the future use of the Akamina-Kishinena Valley?

MR. SPEAKER: That question does injury to the rule on anticipation, which is listed for you in Beauchesne at section 171.

MR. SKELLY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a question regarding public hearings - not when public hearings will be held, but if public hearings be held.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry. I understood you said "when. "

MR. SKELLY: No, will public hearings be held prior to a decision being made on the future of the valleys?

MR. SPEAKER: It's a question of policy, but the minister may answer it if he wishes.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I was going to draw the same point of order.

MINISTER OF RECREATION'S

ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK

MR. NICOLSON: To the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. You recently created by order-in-council the position of administrative clerk in your office to provide employment for your former constituency secretary, Lucy Wyse. Was it necessary to create the position of administrative clerk, which I do not believe exists in any other ministry?

HON. HR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, that position was established not to provide employment for a particular individual but to provide a service which was needed, which was additional support in my office on a part-time basis, recognizing that I had been appointed minister responsible for the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

MR. NICOLSON: I would like to ask the minister if there was a proper public service position created, describing this position.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, the appointment was by order-in-council, as are a number of positions in ministers' offices by tradition.

MR. NICOLSON: If, as the minister intimates, the position was created for other than political purposes, then why was it not created through the Public Service Commission?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, the member will know that there are a number of positions which are established in minister's offices by order-in-council which are by no means political appointments. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that point that was made on a number of people who've given service to a succession of governments in this province - an impartial service but a very high quality of service in minister's offices. I'll just say that the position was established on the basis that it would not necessarily be ongoing. It was a case in the initial months of an additional workload in my office requiring a part-time position.

Hon. Mr. Mair files documents. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mr. Bennett files documents. (See appendix.)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before we proceed and while we're in a relaxed atmosphere, perhaps the members have noticed that the sound system has assumed a quality which somewhat

[ Page 157 ]

resembles what we had before it broke down. Adjustments have been made. I think a vote of thanks should go to the gentleman who worked nearly all night to make it possible, and I trust that we'll have just a little further patience until the new adjustments find their proper levels.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you've had opportunity to review yesterday's transcript to determine whether or not the Minister of Economic Development should file certain papers.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I reviewed the Blues which arrived at my desk, and I have to report that the latest Blues which arrived in my office were the ones for yesterday afternoon. I have not, as yet, seen the evening issue. However, I will do that and report to the House at my earliest convenience.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly glad that you got the sound system fixed up. (Laughter.)

First of all, Mr..Speaker, I haven't availed myself of the opportunity to extend to you my sincere congratulations on ascending to this high office in serving this House. I'm sure that in the experience I've had in the last few days watching you in operation that you will serve it well and serve all of the members of this House. My sincere congratulations to you.

I would also like to take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to the new member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) and wish him well, although maybe not too well, in his role as a member of this Legislature.

I also, Mr. Speaker, want to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the throne speech. I listened with a great deal of interest to their remarks and certainly, so far as I'm concerned, they were right on. I want to tell them not to listen too much to what is emanating from the opposite bench.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to say that once again I'm proud to stand in this Legislature and represent that great constituency of South Peace River, which due to the great, dynamic policies of this government is once again being restored to its rightful role as one of the areas that is leading the economy of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I haven't had the opportunity to stand up and support the throne speech yet, although I did have the opportunity to say just a few words against some of the frivolous motions against this throne speech which have been tabled by the opposition - feeble attempts to ruin a great throne speech and to bring dishonour to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, who delivered it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that ....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, it is not....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I withdraw that.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I do want to say that certainly I do support today one of the best throne speeches that this Legislature has heard in a number of years. Mr. Speaker, it's the best throne speech because it identifies and confronts the two major problems that we have not only in British Columbia but indeed in Canada today. The two problems are unemployment and inflation, which are more recently being referred to as stagflation.

Mr. Speaker, those who are intelligent enough to look outside of our own province will recognize that these two problems are prevalent not only in the province of British Columbia but in other provinces of Canada, in the nation as a whole and, indeed, in many other countries in the world. One of the reasons I am proud to be a member of this government and one of the reasons that I am proud to serve under our great leader is because this province and this government have faced up to those problems and not turned a deaf ear or a blind eye.

Mr. Speaker, these problems have been with us in British Columbia for a number of years. I can remember a previous administration that had identified these problems and tried to come to grips with them. These problems were prevalent when the members opposite were in government but they did not face up to them, they did not come to grips with them. Instead, they went on a wild spending spree which did nothing but fuel the fires of inflation and leave us with some of the problems we had today. Had they lived up to their responsibilities while they were government, we would not be faced in British Columbia with the severity of the problems that we face today. I think that it is time that the people of this province really recognized that. Their high-handed, free-wheeling spending during their term of office merely enraged the

[ Page 158 ]

problems that we had and enlarged the problems that we have.

Mr. Speaker, their leader, who was the Premier of this province and now the Leader of the Opposition, identified this great throne speech as being one of the worst throne speeches he has heard in 18 years. Not only is he negative, but that is what he has said every year that I have had the opportunity to listen to him criticize a throne speech in this House. Mr. Speaker, I suppose that lie will be doing that for a number of years, maybe another 18 years - that is, if the voters of Vancouver East allow him to remain as Leader of the Opposition. But I have some great doubts because there are a number of his followers who wish to be leaders. I want to warn the present leader that he had better watch his back.

No, Mr. Speaker, this is not the worst throne speech but indeed it is one of the best. Our record of job creation in the province of British Columbia in the two years plus that we have been government is second to none in any province in Canada. I defy the opposition members to name one other jurisdiction in Canada that has done a better job under similar circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, we are undertaking more and better measures to create permanent jobs than any other province in Canada. I think that it is worth repeating once again in the record because the members opposite do not want to believe the figures which our Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) so ably laid out in this House yesterday, figures which are created by the same methods that were created when they were in power, some of them by even the same people. But yet they still wish to defy the facts and bring political rhetoric to this great debate.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour identified yesterday that when the NDP left office there were 108,000 people unemployed. The month they left office - 108,000 people unemployed. Today in British Columbia, we have 109,000 people unemployed, an increase in the number of unemployed by 1,000. But the increase in those in the labour force has increased by several tens of thousands. Mr. Speaker, the number of people employed when they left office stood at 973,000. Today the number of people gainfully employed in this province due to the great policies of this government stands at 1,062, 000, an increase of 89,000 workers. I want to reiterate again that those are the figures prepared by the same methods that were used when they were in office so I don't know how they can really dispute them.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the doom and gloom that has been painted by the opposition. The work force in this province has increased dramatically in the last two years. The number of people entering our labour force has increased even more. People have confidence in the province of British Columbia today and they are coming back. We can't stop them unless we put up a barrier outside our boundaries. We don't intend to do that because we want to offer the people from other provinces a haven and opportunities here in the great province of British Columbia.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, if things were so bad in this province, why would they be flocking back? The people of the rest of Canada have faith in this great province, in this government. Yet the opposition have none whatsoever. No matter what the gloom-and-doom boys say, no matter what the wreckers over there say, things are better. They are better today in B.C.

Mr. Speaker, they are bitter because they were thrown out of B.C., they were thrown out of Manitoba and they are hanging by their teeth in Saskatchewan. No matter what they say, jobs have increased in the last two years.

Mr. Speaker, the people have confidence in this government. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have been successful in creating a climate of confidence. You might say: "What is confidence?" Confidence is what attracts investment capital that we need to provide jobs; confidence is what creates stability in this province; confidence is what attracts money; confidence is what increases and establishes new businesses; and confidence is what allows those already established to enlarge - confidence which they are trying to destroy and which is so necessary in British Columbia today. Confidence is what is necessary to bring in the investment capital to create the new jobs for our young people in this province - young people, Mr. Speaker, that this government feels that we have an obligation to lead the same growing economy and the same opportunities that we had when we were growing up. Believe you me, Mr. Speaker, we will leave those opportunities for the young people of this province.

Confidence makes the difference, Mr. Speaker. The people of this province have confidence in our great fiscal policies; they have confidence in the policies of our Labour minister; they have confidence in the policies of our forestry minister; they have confidence in our resource policies; and they have confidence in our great leader, Premier Bennett.

[ Page 159 ]

The government has stated that with few exceptions it does not belong in the marketplace. The private sector should be the delivery agent for jobs, expansion, progress and growth. The throne speech put it this way, and it is worth repeating: "the government believes that the private sector should be the engine which drives our economy towards the goals of more permanent jobs and that government should not fall into the trap of becoming the provider of short-lived employment."

The opposition tries to turn this into a sort of shabby buck-passing operation where the government sort of shrugs its shoulders and turns its back on the economy. We have done anything but that, Mr. Speaker. The Premier of this government, this ministry, indeed - yes, this minister - have moved forward with confidence, taken the private sector, the Labour unions in the province and the government, working in co-operation to build up the economy. And we have been successful.

You say: "Pass the buck to the private sector." I want to tell you that if there was any buck-passing done, it was while that government was in power, particularly the member who held my portfolio. I want to tell you they will probably be termed, Mr. Speaker, the greatest living experts on buck-passing the world has ever known. The passed the buck, lots of bucks.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, $100 million. And today the people of British Columbia are unfortunately trying to dig themselves out from their buck-passing.

How much wore could you pass the buck, Mr. Speaker, than to indulge in a wild, unconcerned spending spree in a three-year period that left such a mass of debt for your successors that it would take another three years to dig out the province?

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry, I said three years; no, it wasn't three years. I remember very well when the leader of the opposition, then Premier, was Minister of Finance. When he saw that the financial ship was sinking, he deserted it, Mr. Speaker. And whom did he leave it to?

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: He left it to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) , too late to repair the patches - the ship was already sinking. Then lie called on the people of British Columbia for help, hid the patches, but they saw through the mirage and they threw him out.

The opposition today calls on the government to spend money: "Oh, spend money on programmes." What happened, Mr. Speaker? I want you to recall the last six months of their administration. Spending was frozen, programmes were cut back, services to people were cut back, the Highways ministry was almost frozen and the potholes grew larger and larger.

But there they are, Mr. Speaker, today. After our great Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has repaired the sinking ship - the financial ship - got it on a sound course again, on, they are great guys today. They are calling for great spending programmes, after we have put the ship back in order.

Let us never forget those last few sordid months of their administration when they stopped spending and cut back on services to people. That was a result of their free-wheeling spending; that was the result of their fiscal mismanagement. And now, today, when we've got the ship sailing and finances are in good order, they are telling us how to run the government.

Mr. Speaker, when I came to this portfolio we had three strikes against us: one for every year of the NDP rule.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Foul ball!

Mr. Speaker, it's taken us a little more than two years and a great deal of effort - a great deal more effort than we certainly saw from 1972 to 1975 - to erase the shameful legacy and put the finances of this province back on an even keel.

We rescued this province from a financial wasteland to be one of the shining examples in all of Canada. Mr. Speaker, we've identified that government spending should be at about 12 per cent of the gross provincial product. When they were in power, when they were government, they were using up 17 per cent of the gross provincial product in spending. Before we leave the subject of job creation, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I create our....

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS. Well, you didn't read the throne speech. As a matter of fact....

Interjections.

[ Page 160 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Shall I tell them how many jobs we've created? And they're just itching to find out what we're going to do in the budget speech.

I want to tell you, Mr. Minister - or Mr. ex-Minister - you'll find out in due course, but it won't make any difference; you'll still preach the doom and gloom.

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, said the throne speech was absent of any job-creating programmes, and he suggested a new programme. He said that we should build a merchant navy in the province of British Columbia. Now I'll tell you, if we were a state, or if we were a Prime Minister or a prince of some area, we might be able to build a merchant navy. But today, when the shipbuilders of the world are running far below capacity, our ex-Premier's going to build a merchant navy for the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He needed a navy to sail away Swan Valley.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, maybe he needs a merchant navy to carry away the remains of some of his broken plans.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

RON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, that is the man who is against every positive programme that we bring into British Columbia. That's the man who is against pipelines, who is against mining development, who is against the petroleum development, who is against every sane and sensible programme we've brought in. He's going to build a merchant navy for the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to one other item in the throne speech and say how proud I was to be a member of this government when we participated in that economic summit conference, the conference in Ottawa, in mid-February. Our participation in that conference was not just participation; the British Columbia presence at that conference was leadership. Mr. Speaker, the leadership that the British Columbia delegation headed by our Premier brought to that conference was the envy and admiration of every other jurisdiction in Canada. The British Columbia delegation gave the impetus for many of the consensuses of opinion which were obtained there.

Our document, which was tabled there, towards an economic strategy for Canada, was the most comprehensive, well-documented piece of literature tabled there, Mr. Speaker. And I want to say right now that I'm proud, very proud, of the people in my ministry who worked so many long hours to put this presentation together. It did give a great deal of credence to this province, and had it been adopted, it would have gone a long way to leading Canada out of its economic problems.

Mr. Speaker, there was an agreement, a consensus, at that conference by all of the first ministers attending there, and that consensus was that it's going to take the private sector to lead the economy of British Columbia back to the heights that it once knew.

Mr. Speaker, there is another side benefit of that conference, and that side benefit is that not only were the citizens of all of Canada watching that conference, but also those who would be investors in the province of British Columbia were watching that conference. Not only investors in Canada but, indeed, investors in all of North America. I have had feedback already, that certainly if there is investment in Canada because of the leadership, because of the policies that this government put forward at that conference, that this is the place that North America would invest in and that's a side benefit of this one.

Mr. Speaker, the eyes of the investment world were on that conference watching the leadership, the vision and the policies of the great province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, before I take my seat 1'd like to speak for just a moment on the subject of unemployment. Unemployment and how to cope with it is the subject, the really central theme of this throne speech. Never mind what the opposition says, that is what it's all about. We recognize it, and the speech offers a number of measures to deal with it. No matter what the B.C. Federation of Labour says after a nice dinner and French wine at Chez Pierre, this province is concerned about the unemployment situation and has offered solid policies to help cure it.

Mr. Speaker, 1 want to give you a clear, concrete idea of what I'm talking about when 1 say that this government and this ministry are trying in a multitude of ways to create jobs, and will keep on trying. 1 would like to point out that some people, and in this case a specific labour union, are not trying at all. In fact, in this case they are trying exactly the opposite and blocking - yes, blocking -the creation of approximately 200 jobs in this province.

I have been made aware of a sawmill here on

[ Page 161 ]

Vancouver Island that is just a little over two years old. When that sawmill was built, Mr. Speaker, it opened on a continuous seven-days-a-week operation. Some 10 months later, due to union pressure, that sawmill had to withdraw to a five-days-a-week operation. They were forced to do this by some methods which might be termed questionable. The IWA forced a cutback of that mill's operation schedule to a five-day week and a consequent cutback of 60 to 70 employees. The owners of that mill are willing to return to a seven-day continuous operation today, if it were possible, with the resultant increase of 60 to 70 jobs - 40 in the plant, 10 or 12 in the transportation industry and 10 or 12 in the dock and booming, and many more in the logging.

What's holding all this back, Mr. Speaker? What's preventing the immediate creation of 60 new jobs in this province without one additional penny of investment? I'll tell you what's holding it up: those people over there on the opposite side of the Legislature and their friends in the labour movement who dine out in expensive French restaurants.

Mr. Speaker, it is a short-sighted, self-centered view of what's good for them, and the devil with everybody else that has created this problem. Let me tell you how how ridiculous it is. This mill and another one on the island, of equal size, are both on five-day weeks because of the ridiculous posture of this particular labour union. While having the capacity to run seven days a week. ..

MR. SKELLY: What mill is this, Don?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ... they are forced to cut the two mills back to five days a week with the resultant loss of approximately 60 employees.

MR. KING: One shift?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, this would be additional - if they were allowed an additional shift, approximately 120 employees in both mills.

MR. KING: How many shifts?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the ironic part of it is that sawmills attached to pulp mills operating in other parts of this province are running a full seven-day week and have full employment. You might say 60 jobs are hardly a drop, but with the second mill it would be 120 employees.

MR. SKELLY: What mills? Where?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Jobs here are ready and waiting for 120 people on the island. That's 120 jobs at $2,000 per month average, and $240,000 a month lost in wages. If you want to multiply that by 12 it comes out to approximately $2,880, 000 a year in lost wages due to this particular policy.

Mr. Speaker, I want to issue a challenge to my worthy opponents. 1 want to ask them to go out and have a heart-to-heart talk with some of their brothers in the labour movement, their friends in the B.C. Federation of Labour who stood out here on the lawn talking about the creation of new jobs at the opening of this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that maybe they start off by buying their friends a nice bottle of red wine to get things off on the right foot, and then that they sit down and have a heart to heart talk with them. If the B.C. Federation of Labour does not take some positive action in this particular case, where 120 new jobs could be created tomorrow without one additional cent of investment, I want to tell you I term their demonstration out here on the lawn at the opening of this Legislature a complete and total farce.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Are you saying that Len Guy is politically motivated?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that when they left office there were 108,000 people unemployed in this province. At any time they opened the Legislature, was there a demonstration out there on the lawn with 108,000 unemployed?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Why, now that you mention it, no.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in my mind maybe that demonstration was just a little bit political.

AN HON. MEMBER: Say it ain't so, Don!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the ironic part of tile situation is this. We are encouraging investment in new plant facilities in the province of British Columbia.

MR. LEA: You've failed.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, as a matter of fact

[ Page 162 ]

we haven't failed, because today there are 89,000 more people employed in the province of British Columbia than there were when you were government. No, we haven't failed because there was a 22 per cent increase in secondary manufacturing in the province of British Columbia last year. I want to tell you, no, we haven't failed. As a matter of fact, the opposition are just so bitter because we were able to take the economy of this province that was on a downhill slide when the rest of Canada was going up to great heights, and today British Columbia is the brightest spot on the horizon, the shining star on the economic horizon of Canada. While the gross national product is increasing at approximately 2.3 per cent, the great province of British Columbia is increasing at almost 5 per cent per annum.

We have, in almost every sector, increased our employment. We have, in almost every sector, increased investment. We have, in almost every sector, given new confidence.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, those people over there who would chastise our policies stood in this Legislature when we announced a programme to put people to work and to provide confidence and stability and a future supply of energy for this province, and said it was a hoax on the people of British Columbia. You know what I'm referring to, Mr. Speaker. And it's happening now. It's twice as large - the Grizzly Valley pipeline - almost twice as large. The reserves in that area have almost doubled, almost tripled, and are growing every day.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Who said they didn't have the reserves?

HON. MR PHILLIPS: Who said they didn't have the reserves? Why, the ex-Minister of Economic Development (Mr. Lauk) and the ex-Minister of Labour (Mr. King) said there were no reserves in the area and tile pipeline would never be built.

Mr. Speaker, I really feel sorry for the members opposite. They're finding it very difficult indeed to criticize the great and dynamic policies of this government because the record will show, and the record already shows, that indeed other jurisdictions in this great Canada of ours are looking to British Columbia for leadership. I want to tell you we will give them that leadership. We will set that example and hopefully some of the other provinces and jurisdictions will follow this great province and Canada will be a better place for it.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, first let me add my congratulations to those of my colleagues and those of all members of the House in your having attained this lofty position of Speaker of the House. I am sure that your sense of humour will assist this House in its deliberations and your sense of fair play will be obvious at all times.

I would also like to congratulate our new Chairman. I saw him ensconced in his office this morning reading May, of course, and Beauchesne and all the other parliamentary practice background authorities. Also let me add my congratulations to the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) for his fine job in that area and his election.

It is always a great privilege to follow the member for South Peace River, the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , who has such a tremendous reputation in our province for his ability to talk a lot and say very little. But I just would like to develop one thing that he was probably most preoccupied with, and that is that the whole point of his speech was three years old. All he could talk about is the opposition. That's fairly safe ground, he felt. He has done nothing and so therefore he decided to once again give that worn-out, mouldy speech that he gave right after the election in 1975.

However, I think that this is most unfortunate. Had it been any one of the other ministers, one might forgive. But this is the Minister of Economic Development, and these are the times when economic development is of utmost importance to our province. We all came in here expecting to hear some policy, expecting to hear some words of wisdom from that minister that would indicate to the province that there were some programmes in the offing. We know what has happened heretofore, but we heard nothing.

We heard him talk about high-handed free-wheeling spending. We heard him criticize the former Premier for criticizing the throne speech. That, incidentally happens to be the obligation of a parliamentary opposition, whether or not we like it.

He said lie defies the opposition to show one area where they are doing a better job. I can name many, but Saskatchewan stands probably highest in my mind as a area where things are really happening, and they don't have the kind of background resources that we have here.

He also discussed the number of people unemployed when we were government and compared that to today. His comparison is poor. Using the kind of figures that he was using, you would have to say that there are

[ Page 163 ]

170,000 people in this province unemployed when you consider those that are not registered. Anyway, I don't like to be dubbed "doom and gloom boys" for doing exactly what the parliamentary opposition is to do, and that is to criticize the government where it is found wanting. It is found wanting in many areas, particularly in the areas that we have been discussing in the last two or three days.

Mr. Speaker, we have in this province today 30 per cent of the bankruptcies in all of Canada. We're only 10 per cent of the people of Canada but we have 30 per cent of the bankruptcies in all of Canada. What are we talking about? That's not doom and gloom; those are facts, you see. It would strike me that the government would be able to carry that kind of burden and do something about it.

That Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is now doing his little chipping away. Oh, when we were government 1 remember how nice you were in terms of anything that might have been going on. I can't remember a more negative person in the opposition ever.

Mr. Speaker, the brightest spot - and the minister was talking about bright spots on the horizon - is the fact that an NDP government will likely be re-elected in this province. That's the only bright spot we can see.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to...

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. If any of the hon. members can show under what authority they can choose to interrupt the member who has the floor, I would be delighted to see it. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the standing orders strictly provide that a member who has the floor shall not be interrupted and if you would like a reference, it's 17 (2) .

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, 1 would also like to give a vote of thanks to His Honour, not for what was in the content of the throne speech but for his valiant effort to give that speech. Mr. Speaker, it would be very difficult for anyone to lend credibility to the Premier's words. I felt that when I was listening to it that there was one way to describe that speech, and that was "the Sominex speech". It tended to put one to sleep because of its lack of any kind of direction and the lack of interest that it created.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the unemployment problem and the problem with the economy is not understood by the Premier. I could be nasty and I could say that one of the reasons for that is the fact that all of his friends are working. But you know, all of the people in this province are not. Business is failing more often than in any other section of Canada. The economy seems not to be understood, so therefore I ask who is doing the advising. There are more friends advising. The propensity of this government to place friends in important service is unparalleled and I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the advice that they are providing obviously is not working.

I was saddened the other night when 1 watched Capital Comment and I saw the Premier indicate that the Socred campaign workers who got jobs on the Crown Corporation committee were the responsibility of the committee, and likened il to the situation of the agriculture committee where the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) was accused of having his daughter placed on that committee. That was not the case; it was a consulting firm who had that kind of latitude and, as a matter of fact, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is the only one that I have seen so far who shook his head at that, knowing everyone else on that committee knows full well what I am talking about. No parallel whatsoever, yet to use that to political advantage strikes me as totally irresponsible on the part of the Premier.

MR. LAUK: Lowest of the low.

MR. COCKE: It really is.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair]

Mr. Speaker, I say the lack of concern for the problems in B.C., while at the same time caring for our friends, has to stop. I'm going to make this charge at this government. This government has a propensity for accepting favours like no government we have seen. And, Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder how many friendships are created as a result of those favours and I wonder how many favours are returned as a result of those favours.

I can only deal with one today, Mr. Speaker, but 1 think it's very important that we deal with things of this nature. I can only ask: what is the purpose? Let's cast our minds back to November and December, 1975, to an election campaign that was rough and tough. During that election campaign it was rumoured that oil companies, mining companies and others were giving great assistance to this new coalition. Were those rumours true? We have seen some of

[ Page 164 ]

the rewards already granted to some of these corporations. We have certainly seen the oil companies placed in a much better position. They say now they will run out and explore. Why would they not explore before? They were doing very well, but they are doing so much better now. Once again, our profits are beginning to be siphoned over to the other side of the line as a result of this government's conscious policy. Were those rumours true?

Mr. Speaker, I would be shocked to hear of a corporation whose majority interest is held in the hands of the Alberta government getting into the act, wouldn't you? Wouldn't you be shocked, Mr. Speaker, if you found that a corporation held chiefly by the government of Alberta would be granting favours, would be interfering in an election in another province? Wouldn't that stun one? It would sure stun me. But it is possible; into it they moved. PWA moved into that election in 1975.

As a matter of fact, Grant Notly in the Alberta House asked some questions today and laid out certain information which I'm about to lay out in this House. PWA, that corporation of great virtue, now owned by Peter the Red - Peter Lougheed - on behalf of the people of Alberta.... Incidentally, they weren't consulted in this matter. They conducted business in an uneven-handed manner during that campaign.

I'd like to review for a moment or two what I mean by that. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) said that the questions I asked the other day were silly, were nonsense. I hope the Minister of Agriculture is as willing to eat those words as he's been to eat hay out in the boonies lately.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) said: "No. No favours from any of those corporations." We all heard him; it's in the press.

MR. BARRETT: Repeat the question.

MR. COCKE: The question was: "Did you receive any services from any of the following corporations?" And I went into Air Canada, PWA, CP Air and AirWest.

MR. BARRETT: What did he say?

MR. COCKE: "No, " he said. Mr. Speaker, would the minister like to stand up and change his answers?

MS. BROWN: Give him a chance.

MR. COCKE: Would he like to stand up and change that answer?

MR. LAUK: He's been reading that same page for 20 minutes! (Laughter.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please hon. members. It is your own bench that is causing the difficulties, so perhaps if you can rein them in we can continue.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, may I read to you first an invoice for freight delivered by Pacific Western Airlines from the Social Credit headquarters, or whatever it was - an office at 2345 Douglas Road, Burnaby.

SOME BON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: Are you prepared to table those documents?

MR. COCKE: I'm prepared. I'm just going to catch the Minister of Economic Development first. Delivered to Art Cameron at Dawson Creek, Mr. Speaker, 13 pieces of promotional material; 586 pounds shipped to Dawson Creek. Guess what it says where the money comes in?

AN HON. MEMBER: Free!

MR. COCKE: OCS - on company service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame! Shame!

MR. COCKE: Today when Grant Hbaxy asked that question, Mr. Speaker, the Minister Horner in Alberta said that it must have been another company, because that's not their policy.

SOME BON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE: But "on company service" means one thing in their manual. In PWA's manual it says that for on company service, they pick up the tab. PWA picked up the tab.

These are all around November 28,1975, all of them - November 23, 28 and so on. Mr. Speaker, that's 586 pounds.

Oh, dear! Here's , one to Doug Bishop from Social Credit Party at 2345 Douglas Road. Doug Bishop is in Kelowna - the Premier's man. The Premier in that shipment received 18 brown-paper rolls, packages and boxes - 820 pounds on company service.

MR. BARRETT: If it was in rolls it must have been Social Credit propaganda.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I want to contrast

[ Page 165 ]

that for a moment. In my left hand I have another invoice. My goodness! "IMP of B.C., 64-8th Street, New Westminster, to Kootenay IMP, 22A-9th Avenue, Cranbrook." One envelope, Mr. Speaker - minimum price, $10.

Mr. Speaker, do you see that? The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) agrees with this kind of uneven handed service, a disservice to the people of our province.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: They think it's funny, Mr. Speaker. They've been bought but those that are bought are sold as well.

Mr. Speaker, I don't like to pick on one person too of ten so let me go on to another one. This is from Social Credit again, to Brian Pascuzzo.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is lie?

MR. COCKE: tie is in Cranbrook. "Hold at the airport 26 brown paper packages and boxes, 1,220 pounds, on company service." - a freebie.

Hey, here's one, this is interesting: IMP of B.C., 64-8th Street, to Yale-Lillooet through Merritt, one envelope, $10. That was shipped to Yale-Lillooet IMP, Roth Street, Merritt, B.C. , $10. And all these will be tabled and you can all look at them; scrutinize them all you like.

MR. LOEWEN: There should have been more.

MR. COCKE: Yes, there are lots more. "There should have been more." Let the record show that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds says: "There should have been more." He is totally amoral, Mr. Speaker, in this situation.

Mr. Speaker, Social Credit Party, Douglas in Burnaby, Henry Litzenberger in Kamloops: "Hold at the airport 26 brown paper boxes, 1,450 pounds" - a freebie.

AN HON. MEMBER: They must have shipped the candidate. (Laughter.)

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forests is most generous. He went over to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and said: "Those were mine." You are most generous. They were his. He admits to them -1,450 pounds on company service, no charge.

Here is one to Columbia River.

SOME RON. MEMBERS: Fraud.

MR. BARRETT: Oh no, don't read that. He didn't have anything to do with that.

MR. COCKE: Okay, I won't read that.

MR. BARRETT: If you read that you're going to make him a liar.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're the liar.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, please, one member at a time ought to speak.

MR. BARRETT: Don't make him a liar.

MR. COCKE: Jeff Ketchum. Here is one from the Social Credit to Jeff Ketchum in Quesnel: "Hold at the airport, 410 pounds for the Minister of Highways."

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, here is one to Mr. Litzenberger again in Kamloops. This one was only a couple of pounds, on company service. Mr. Speaker, this one is for the IMP of B.C. in Shuswap - $10, one envelope.

MR. BARRETT: Do Chabot now!

MR. COCKE: No, Mr. Speaker, I can't do that. Here is one to Social Credit in Douglas to Charles Coe in Castlegar, 285 pounds on company service. Nelson-Creston IMP, $10.

Here is one, another 542 pounds. This is to Doug Bishop, Kelowna, from the Social Credit on Douglas Street in Burnaby: nine cartons, 542 pounds on company service, freebie. Another one to the Premier.

Here is one to the North Okanagan NDP: one envelope, $10. Here is one to Charlie Coe -they marked off Hank Coleman. This is from Social Credit; it's to 212 flume Hotel, Castlegar - one envelope, weight two pounds, on company service.

Here is another one just to contrast: the IMP in the Cariboo - $10, mini-mum price, one envelope.

Mr. Speaker, I can't hold this House in suspense any longer.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Thank you very much. Three tons -I'll just go into that in a second. I just want to get the Minister of Mines on the record as having said no dice, he received no favours. Listen to this, Mr. Speaker: Social Credit, 6964 Victoria Drive, Vancouver, one piece of promotional material to Brian Pascuzzo - James Chabot is marked off.

[ Page 166 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Brian who?

MR. COCKE: Brian Pascuzzo. It says "James Chabot" on it, then the "Chabot" is marked off and it's to be delivered to Brian Pascuzzo -one envelope, on company service.

Doug Bishop in Kelowna - the same thing. From 6964 Victoria Drive to Doug Bishop in Kelowna. Another envelope; this to Boundary-Similkameen NDP - $10.

Mr. Speaker, this one is to Jeff Ketchum in Quesnel. This is another piece of promotional material on company service. Here's another one to Jeff Ketchum - 400 pounds, eight pieces of promotional material on company service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Wow!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, they say "wow." They think it's funny. But you know, Mr. Speaker, I don't think it is funny.

Mr. Speaker, here's one for the Minister of Agriculture, who says that I'm sick. You know, Mr. Speaker, I think it is most unfortunate. Here's 510 pounds going to Ivan Messner at 996 Main Street, Penticton, B.C. This is 510 pounds - freebie.

Tons and tons of promotional material shipped all over this province by an airline that charged our party $10 for every envelope.

You know, Mr. Speaker, that shows total immorality and no sense of fair play. I can't believe what I'm hearing in this House. I thought, Mr. Speaker, they'd at least have the decency to feel ashamed. I just thought you would have the decency to be ashamed.

MR. LEA: If you aren't ashamed of it, why did you lie about getting the free service?

MR. BARRETT: Why did you lie if you weren't worried about it?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. COCKE: We got a note from CBC in Calgary. We just got a note....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, you see, that man doesn't even understand that there are groups of people.... They are not a Grown corporation in the first place, nor are they anything more than a collection of human beings, ordinary working people in a free society, trying to assist wherever they can. But certainly they haven't the resources like these large corporations. Oh, Mr. Speaker, and taxpayers' money too, at the same time. Three tons shipped: it's just been validated.

Mr. Speaker, ~ the story was broken in Calgary. Hugh Horner has admitted that three tons have been shipped by PWA for the B.C. Social Credit Party.

AN HON. MEMBER: The taxpayers of Alberta.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, they are proud of it.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, would you please restrain and let the member for New Westminster continue? He has the floor.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, until today these were secret gifts.

MR. BARRETT: One minister didn't tell the truth.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, would you have the second member for Vancouver East withdraw that insinuation he made towards me?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I said that one minister did not tell the truth about them. I did not identify the minister.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, he was accused of being a liar in this House many times before, and members had to withdraw that statement, Mr. Speaker, or be ejected.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. I must hear his point of order. Please take your seat.

Hon. members, I must, in order to conduct the business of the Chair, listen to one member at a time, and it is impossible for me when both sides of the House are shouting. Would you please allow me to continue?

HON. DIR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, what I am suggesting is that the Leader of the Opposition has accused a minister of the Crown of lying.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Does it matter, dumbbell?

Interjection.

[ Page 167 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Would you please have that member withdraw that?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, if you have accused a member of the government of lying, I would ask that you withdraw it.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, my remarks were that one minister has already lied in this matter. If that minister feels that he has been maligned by my statement, or if any other minister feels that he has been maligned by my statement, I withdraw my statement but let the documents stand as evidence.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, in light of what we've seen, in light of what I consider to be a very serious matter....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Many, many times you've been accused of being a liar.

AN HON MEMBER: Yes, but we proved you are.

MR. CHABOT: You're the liar.

SOME HON. MEMBERS. Oh, oh!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would refer you to Sir Erskine May, 16th edition, page 400: "Matters dealt with by substantive motion." I will read in part:

"No charge of a personal character can be raised upon a direct or substantive motion to the effect that no statement of that kind can therefore be embodied in a notice proposing to call the attention of the House to a stated matter."

I would ask the members to consider that.

I ask the member for New Westminster to please continue.

MR. COCKE: I think I've shown the contrast. I think I've shown a case of an uneven handed way of doing business with political parties from a Crown corporation. I think I've shown that the politicians in this province have taken advantage of those secret gifts. I think, Mr. Speaker, that I can do nothing less than demand that the Premier give a full explanation for the behaviour of his candidates, who are now his ministers of the Crown.

I'd also like to call on the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , who is in charge of elections and who is in charge of that aspect of leadership in this province, to also participate in this disclosure. Mr. Speaker, I feel that where favours are offered and not reported particularly, but favours in any event, bring favours back from where those favours were offered to begin with and where they were proferred.

I just can't tell you, Mr. Speaker, how sad I am to see the attitude, to see those members pounding their desks in light of this disclosure. I just can't believe that there is that kind of conscience over there, a conscience that absolutely is defiled by this evidence, and a conscience that will not wake up - do anything, say anything.

I'd like to take just a moment or two to go up to the Okanagan to the Premier's riding. There's a very disturbing situation up there. I'm particularly interested in this case because the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) a little while ago said that a union somewhere down here was putting 60 people out of work by virtue of some of its policies. Now he wouldn't tell us where; he wouldn't tell us how. All he did was raise that kind of innuendo that he's so good at.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Look who's talking! Muck, muck, muck!

MR. COCKE: Muck? These are facts. You'll have opportunities to look at these facts.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I must ask the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) to withdraw the unparliamentary words he used.

HON. MR. CHABOT: What were those?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The record will stand on them. I don't wish to defame the Chair by quoting the words, but the words you used were unparliamentary.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Is it the word "muck"?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is unparliamentary. Please withdraw it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, I didn't see it on the list. But if you object, Mr. Speaker, to my referring to the member by using "muck, muck, muck, " I'll withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Somebody said yesterday they'd used that phrase, Mr. Speaker. I certainly won't use it, but I said that if there is that material to be raked, I have an obligation to rake it.

The Minister from Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair)

[ Page 168 ]

is the one I'd like to talk about right now. Approximately 90,000 cases or nine to ten months' supply of liquor was shipped just prior to a strike at Hiram Walker's in the Okanagan Valley to MV Distributors, a warehouse never previously used. It's a warehouse located next to my riding, on Annacis Island. Also, the LAB received shipments equivalent to three or four months' inventory from Walker's, just before the breakdown and resultant strike action.

Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that the LAB, in this particular case, by going against their own policy.... Incidentally, the minister's stated policy recently was that he would only receive two to three weeks' supply to keep away from the problems he was having over the last number of years - they were losing some of their inventory. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that the LAB is co-operating with a major supplier to facilitate their desire to maximize their income during the strike period, and, in fact, to prolong that strike.

MR. LAUK: Shame!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that that's an area I would just like the minister to look at. I'm not suggesting that he's complicit in it, but I certainly want the minister to look at it.

This kind of talk is all over the Okanagan Valley now. I was up there recently and received this material. I just feel that it's something that we in this province, when we're listening to the Minister of Economic Development tell us how a union is stripping us of jobs.... I suggest to you that a government service might be complicit in another area that is very harmful to the whole process of protecting our economy. We have to be evenhanded in all things. I think after today, however, I wonder about that.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) talked the other day about a problem in Kamloops. He named one real estate firm in Kamloops which has listed 28 industrial businesses, eight franchise restaurants, 19 industrial leases, 21 motels and hotels, 14 office leases, three stores, 18 warehouses and so on. It was a huge list, and the Leader of the Opposition gave this out in this House.

Mr. Speaker, if we don't recognize that our economy is in trouble, and if we don't recognize that a great part of that responsibility is this government's whole economic development direction, a government that has no economic development direction and a government which has bled the economy dry in terms of purchasing power.... That's who's responsible, Mr. Speaker. That's who's responsible for the problems in Kelowna; that's who's responsible for the problems in Terrace, and New Westminster.

(Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. COCKE: Somebody was talking to me about the wonders of New Westminster in this House the other day. Take a walk down Columbia Street sometime. You couldn't rent a place down on Columbia Street a few years ago and now it's very easy because there are so many vacant buildings on Columbia Street, one has difficulty finding the ones that are full.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that we are in more serious trouble than we would appear to be if the government doesn't take their responsibility a great deal more seriously. You see, it even deepens the problem. It deepens the threat. But if they don't understand, if they don't have the ability to ferret out truth from fancy, we're in much deeper trouble than we would have appeared to be. All I can say is that this opposition cannot support the throne speech, which was empty, and we cannot support the resolution that's before us now. Having said that, I've said all I can say.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, it's....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order, the member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: With leave, Mr. Speaker, I'll table documents.

Leave granted.

MR. VEITCH: It's a pleasure to take my turn and rise in debate. I want to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Speech from the Throne. They did an excellent job and they did very well at it.

I would also like to congratulate the member f or Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) . We welcome you here in this House, sir, and I'm sure you will be beneficial to all of the members and proceedings of this assembly.

I would like to also turn to my hon. friend, the member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) . This man perpetrated what I thought was one of the most courageous acts that has ever been done in this or any other Legislature when he put the function of this parliament far ahead of any personal gain that he may himself have derived.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you, and

[ Page 169 ]

of course your deputy, on your ascension to this high office. Mr. Speaker has a very wonderful wife. Her name is Little Red, and she was telling me that, 1 believe, 23 years ago, on September 6, she was married to the Speaker. She said at that time that she uttered a prayer. She said: "Lord, if you make him successful, I'll keep him humble." Now she says: "The Lord didn't come through with it." I'm not sure that's true. Mr. Speaker, I agree with his honour the Lieutenant-Governor that we are facing a crucial time, not only in this province but in this great nation that we call Canada. 1 love both of these very much. British Columbia is this adopted province; I came out west 20-some years ago. 1 love both Canada and British

Columbia. 1 don't believe, sir, this is a time to speak of those things in Canada which divide us but rather it is the time to accentuate draw British Columbians as Canadians together with the rest of the great people in this very wonderful country. It is a time to eliminate all negative thoughts and press on to positive things. I made my mind up two and a half years ago that the people of British Columbia did the most positive thing they could possibly do by throwing out the socialists. Sure, Mr. Speaker, we have problems in this country; we have problems in this province. 1 heard the member for New Westminster speak of fear. He said that he was fearful of the economic future of this province. But, Mr. Speaker,

British Columbians as Canadians have travailed and have overcome far greater obstacles in the past and have dealt with fear. We are supposed to be leaders in our country and in our province, and we should in fact lead in times of adversity, not follow. We shouldn't be swallowed up by some obscure crowd, whether it is elsewhere in the province or on the front lawns of the Legislature. Shortly after the holocaust that was the last world war, the British poet laureate John

Masefield penned these words of one who, in face of great odds, dealt with fear, overcame and led Britain out of that disaster. That man, of course, was the late Sir Winston Churchill. Masefield said:

The divine fortune watching life's affairs
justly endowed him with what fortune may,
With sense of storm and where the centre lay,
With sense of deed and some wise, witty way.
Fortune of parents came in equal shares
with England's wisest mingling with the west,
A starting newness making better best,
A newness putting old things to a test.
So when convulsion cane and direst need,
Within a mess of nations overthrown,
This England stood at bay and stood alone.
His figure then commanding stood as stone,
Or speaking uttered like the very breed of
Francis Drake, disaster being near
One solemn watchword: to have done with fear.
Thence without other drumbeat all took cheer,
Content with such a captain, such a leader, such a creed.

Then Masefield continued and added a codicil o this poem, and I think we would do well in British Columbia to remember this. fie said:

This man in doubting led, in darkness saw.
In uttermost despair, found light, that made the midnight fair.
The world he saved heaps blessings on his head.

The Premier delivering a speech recently stated that, as he traveled about the province, many people mentioned to him that the greatest enemies of freedom were the various "isms": socialism, separatism. And the Premier replied that, while these people may, indeed, be our adversaries, and may themselves consider us their enemies, they are not our real enemies. Our real enemies, Mr. Speaker, are poverty, unemployment, illness and poor health, ignorance. Our real enemy is lawlessness, sir. Our real enemy is lack of equality and opportunity for our people. Our real enemy in British Columbia is complacency, sir.

1 believe that we should not, as individuals, ever come together in this House just to discuss great party politics when British Columbia is in problems - and we do have problems - and the problems in our country as well. Our purpose as individuals, and certainly my commitment as a politician, is to defeat those enemies that the Premier referred to in his speech, defeat them so that we can collectively provide a better life and better opportunities for people in Canada, and in British Columbia. It's my hope, sir, that we can build a country and a province that would guarantee a future for our seniors, and those in the work force, and the young people in the future who will be called upon to carry on with the job. Confidence is vital in doing this, confidence so that we can defeat the enemies that I spoke of previously, and faith. Faith in the economic ability of the people of this province and of this country, and the will to make things happen.

But, Mr. Speaker, if we're to regain confidence, not only confidence in ourselves

[ Page 170 ]

which I guess is, above all, important, but the confidence of those people with whom we trade in the international marketplace, we must be cautious not to repeat the economic mistakes which were made in the past. Not only those mistakes that were perpetrated in this province and in this country, but in other great countries like Britain.

Back there, Mr. Speaker, a few years ago -I say around 1972 or '73 - a percentage of our population seemed to have the idea that we. didn't have to do anything to get results. All we had to do, Mr. Speaker, was to join something and vote for results. Somehow we got the idea back then that the potatoes were supposed to dig them elves. You and I know, as legislators and businessmen and women, the potatoes were never supposed to dig themselves. In a free-enterprise system, in a private-enterprise system that's always been the job of people - not the job of government, but the job of those persons largely working in the private sector. We had the idea back then that government could do it all, but, my friends, it's just now, through 1977 and early 1978, that we have finally swung around full circle to the wonderful realization that the grotesque idea of huge enterprises being effectively managed by government from London, from Washington, from Ottawa, from Victoria or any place else is simply untrue. It's a damning, economic untruth.

[Mr. Skelly in the chair.]

Public governmental sector involvement is necessary in today's complex economy, and I in no way castigate those people who work in the public service. A great many of them work very hard, and are most responsible. But, Mr. Speaker, in enterprise, how can we expect maximum results from a management which receives no accolades for being right and suffers no penalties for being wrong? It simply does not work.

Mr. Speaker, we are just now beginning to have the seeds which we have sown through false impression of government intervention in the past bear fruits, and they're having drastic economic, sour results indeed. We had a lot of talk in the last few years about government moving in and shoring up and taking over ailing industries. I'm not speaking of Grown corporations, but just any ailing industry. The catchword then was publicize, socialize, nationalize. I firmly believe, Mr. Speaker, that if we're going to succeed as an industrial nation, if we're going to be competitive not only at home but in the international marketplace, we have to re-privatize industry in this great country. I hasten to add that I'm not speaking in any official capacity, and I'm not referring to essential Crown corporations; when I say this I'm speaking as a member of the Legislative Assembly, a member that belongs to a political party which believes in private initiative, and I'm speaking as a free Canadian, and a free British Columbian.

Governmental control over the operation of the Canadian economy has increased dramatically, sir, over the last decade. Government has expanded its operations or control at a considerably faster rate than the economy has grown, by a long shot. From 1961 to 1976 total government spending increased over sixfold to $77 billion in the Canadian economy. It's increased to a point, my friends, where Crown corporations controlled by Ottawa and their subsidiaries equal by two and a half times the total asset value of General Motors worldwide, accountable to no one.

This represented a rate of growth in the government sector of 7.2 per cent a year after allowing for inflation. Subsidies for these industries grew at a rate of 10.8 per cent in real terms to a total of $3.3 billion that was taken from the Canadian economy. Borrowing by the public sector increased at a rate of 10 per cent in real terms, driving up our costs. Revenues of Crown corporations and marketing boards grew at a rate of 6.6 per cent and 13.3 per cent respectively. The measure of the total output of the economy, the gross national product, grew at a rate of only 5.3 per cent in real terms to $190 billion dollars over the same period.

Mr. Speaker, as I stated previously, public sector involvement is necessary. Where this involvement is evidenced - and it must be completely evidenced - those operations, whether Crown corporations or agencies, must be made fully accountable to the public, to whom they should be ultimately responsible. The government of British Columbia realizes this and has taken two corrective actions, the first thing being the appointment of an auditor-general. I was very happy to serve as secretary on that committee;the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) was of course the chairman. I believe we have an excellent auditor-general and I believe she is going to do a good job.

Secondly, to deal with the increasing influence of Crown corporations on our very lives, the Committee on Crown Corporations was established under Bill 52, the Crown Corporations Reporting Act. This is a totally non-political committee even though it is made

[ Page 171 ]

up of politicians, Mr. Speaker. 1 want to congratulate each and every member of this committee on the excellent way in which they have carried out their tasks thus far.

1 have the honour, sir, to be the first full-time chairman of this very important committee. The committee is the first of its kind in the British Commonwealth. Recently I had the Lambert commission on federal government accountability coming out to my office in Vancouver to talk about this committee. They said: "What is the most salient factor in making a committee of this type work?" Without hesitation, 1 said . "You must have a political will to make it work." They are going to take it back to Ottawa, and hopefully Ottawa will develop a political will to make this work.

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out, Crown corporations have fulfilled and will continue to f ill a very special role in our province and indeed in Canada. They administer and provide many essential services to the public. These corporations, however, have become extremely large aver the years and have never had a system designed to deal with them. The British parliamentary system was never designed to deal with a Crown corporation of any kind.

The management of these corporations have a special responsibility to the citizens, not only through providing a high degree of service, but also in the final analysis to be accountable to those who are their ultimate employers - the public - and who in most cases pay the final bills of $3.3 billion in Canada. These corporations run up deficits. It's been the very question of accountability, sir, with regard to Crown corporations and agencies that has come into focus over the last few years. It's my belief that the Crown Corporation committee, through its action, can help to shed some light into the operations and hopefully recommend corrective actions wherever necessary.

It's a well-accepted principle, sir, of economics that firms functioning in a free market must operate efficiently if they are to compete. In the absence of such competition it is the function of our committee to inquire into and monitor the performance of these organizations and require them to operate in a manner which is efficient and accountable to the public. It is my earnest desire that the operation of our committee will be beneficial to the corporation, to the Grown and above all to the hard-pressed citizens of British Columbia, the taxpayers.

This is one example of direction which our government is pressing. The example, Mr. Speaker, should help to correct the lack of accountability which has been evident in British Columbia and which certainly has been evident throughout this country. It might be noted at this point that the federal auditor-general's report of 1975 concludes: "The present state of financial management and control systems of departments and agencies in the government of Canada is significantly below the acceptable standards of quality and is ineffective." In his 1976 report the auditor-general concluded that: "Financial management controlled in the government of Canada is grossly inadequate. Furthermore, it is likely to remain so until the government takes strong, appropriate and effective measures to rectify this critically serious situation." All of this means, my friends, that governments have taken wide swings into areas which heretofore were the sole purview of private enterprise - wide swings in spending and expansion. Unfortunately, however, these organizations and agencies -over 300 of them coming under this federal sphere of influence - have virtually had to account to no one. The government of British Columbia is cognizant of this.

Mr. Speaker, where it is necessary to have Grown-controlled corporations or agencies, as I have stated before, they must be made fully accountable. Where involvement is unnecessary, it should be turned over to the private sector, for it is not the traditional or even practical role of government to be involved in enterprise.

The fact is that the role of government is to provide services for people, and the absolute truth is that in order to provide vital services from government the money must come from the private sector which pays taxes. It must come from people like you and I. We can't pay government if we're not operating in a competitive situation - unless we are being productive. We can't be apathetic and think that we can just turn on a government tap somewhere and deficit-spend ourselves into a position where we can have every little thing that our heart desires. That is simply not true.

Mr. Speaker, we must have economic freedom of enterprise. I don't believe that a great democracy like Canada and British Columbia is free because it is strong and prosperous. I believe it's strong and prosperous because we're free. The man I'd like to have make a contribution to this was mentioned before by the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) . Since he mentioned this and I have read more of his writings, it has almost

[ Page 172 ]

become a text with me. The man's name was Dr. Alexander Tyler. I think it bears repeating. One of the best-known quotations from Alexander Tyler in 1975 is this. Tyler said: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government; it can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising them the most benefits from the public trough, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy and is always followed by dictatorship."

And Tyler continued:

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back again to bondage."

Mr. Speaker, I leave to the conclusion of the members gathered here this afternoon as to just how far down that road we have been at some times in our history in this province and indeed in this great country.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians and British Columbians in particular are spoiled. We are so accustomed to growth and expansion that we think we can find a painless solution to every problem. We pay lip service to the economic rules by which we are bound. Down deep inside, many of us nurture a hope that we can obtain some sort of a personal waiver. We want the benefits of the life insurance policy but we don't want to pay the premium.

You know, we've never had any promise of security, never in our lives. Do you remember the great Gettysburg Address of Abraham Lincoln? What did he say? "Every man in this great country should be entitled to three things: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." He didn't promise any happiness, only the unbridled pursuit of it.

Do you remember that old hymn, the words of which, I believe, go something like this?:

God hath not promised skies always blue,
Flower-strewn pathways all our life through.
God hath not promised sun without rain,
Joy without sorrow, peace without pain.
But God hath promised strength for the day,
Rest for the labour, light from the way,
Grace for the trials, help from above,
Unfailing sympathy, undying love.
That's our only promise.

As the late President of the United States, John Kennedy, put it: "Here on earth God's work must surely be our own."

You know, Mr. Speaker, the effect of the wrong attitude, when held by thousands of individuals, is to push us further and further away from the economic rules of the road. The attitude that one little exception won't hurt amounts to a belief in free solutions. But solutions are never free. But they are a whole lot cheaper than non-solutions.

The economic rule of the road, Mr. Speaker, hon. members - I am sure most of us realize this - is this: if we want prosperity in this province and in this country, if we want prosperity in the future, we've got to start building right now. We can't wait; we've got to have faith.

Someone once said: If you want to enjoy the fruits of an orchard now, you must have planted that orchard a long time ago. There never was a time, Mr. Speaker, when so much money was stored up in savings accounts throughout this country and throughout this province. That's not faith. We've got to have some faith in Canada. We have to have faith in British Columbia. We can't be negative as individuals or as politicians. We've got to start to build.

As an accountant, people come to me and say: "Well, I can't see as clearly as I would like to, and I don't have all of the answers, and I haven't got everything down in straight, black ink." Have some faith. Remember that poem I quoted? Remember that line from Masefield:

This man in doubting led, in darkness saw.
In uttermost despair, found light,
that made the midnight fair.

If Churchill could cope with those things at that point in time, surely we, as free men and women in Canada without a war and living in a time of peace with all of the great potential that we have in this province and in this country, have a legacy and vie have a duty to perform.

Have some courage. We don't buy when things are up, you buy when things are down. That's smart business. You get it going. If you're not satisfied with the way things are going, realize that you have a government that is not satisfied as well, and that is trying to do something about it.

(Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has done something about it to a

[ Page 173 ]

point where we're flooding British Columbia with tourists. I suppose we're going to criticize her for doing too much now. Nonsense; absolute nonsense. We have to have some courage. We're doing something about it.

Remember that line from Shakespeare, where he says:

"The fault, dear brothers, lies not with the stars but with yourselves."

That simply means, my friends, that if you're not satisfied with the way things are happening, the person you need to see is never very far away from you.

Did you ever see anybody, one of the opposition, stand up and pound himself on the chest and say: "I'm a self-made failure"? The chances are they are, you know. They are in the wrong party. They could change it by simply crossing the floor.

1 had a friend who was a foreman in a lead mine, and a little boy went up to him when he was working there and he said: "Mr. Foreman, how do you get ahead in this job?" And the answer was: "Get the lead out." That's all we have to do in British Columbia. We have to have some courage. One of the greatest faults as businessmen and women, and certainly as legislators, is that we don't tell our story very well.

In every speech I make throughout this province 1 am trying to correct that. We've got to have faith.

We've got to have faith so that we can attract investment, so that we can bring people in. We've got to have the faith that the Premier had when he went to Ottawa and issued the statement for an economic policy. He said: "We're ready to put it on the line. As government, we are willing to cut our costs; we are willing to do something about it." We have to have faith. Investment is the gas and oil that runs our country. It creates the economic development that provides jobs, it provides increasing revenue to fund worthwhile services for people. Restraint in government spending is necessary to help ensure a return of vigour to the private sector which provides the jobs.

Your government believes in accountability in all sectors of the community. I personally believe, Mr. Speaker, that the government and the private sector must both be accountable, one to the other. Given the right impetus, we British Columbians can enjoy a healthier climate than that which is being experienced elsewhere. We can be great in British Columbia, but to be great we have to have a policy that endures - a policy as government, a policy as business leaders, a policy of mutual trust, a policy that motivates people to succeed and endure.

You know, I applaud the Speech from the Throne. I think it is great. I've read the speeches from the throne back 20 years, I guess. I think this is the best one. Do you know why it is the best one? Because it has a government that has the will to do something about it. Not just lip service to the economic rules of the road by which we are bound. It's a government that is willing to take some heat, to do unpopular things in order that we can endure in the future, so that we can be motivated.

I say to the leaders of the opposition, to anyone who would be negative in this assembly: the people will not thank you for it; they will tell you about it at the polls. I have no time to be negative. You made promises. I made promises when I came into this Legislative Assembly. And I would like to close by quoting the last verse of a poem by Robert Frost. We have to stay out of these negative woods. He said:

The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep and miles to go before I sleep.

MR. HADDAD: Mr. Speaker, I was first to offer my congratulations to you on your appointment as Speaker of this House. I've always admired your capability as the Deputy Speaker. I am positive that all hon. members of this House will have the same confidence in you as Speaker as they had in you as Deputy Speaker. I feel sure that you will always be lenient with me whenever I am out of order.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my congratulations and best wishes to the hon. first member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) an his appointment as Deputy Speaker. I am sure that both of you will do your best to uphold the dignity of this House.

At this time I would also like to welcome the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) .

Mr. Speaker, I have in the past two sessions respected and admired the former Speaker, the hon. member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) , for his determination to uphold the dignity of this House and to make fair decisions to all hon. members in this Legislature. When I was elected to this Legislature on December 11,1975, 1 was a reasonably young man with dark, wavy hair. I was full of vigour and looking forward to becoming a great statesman. Look at what has happened to me. I have aged and my hair has turned grey and I believe I have lost some of my height. In 1977 there was a session not to be forgotten. We were here so long that I forgot what the outside world looked like. I hope that all of the hon. members will devote

[ Page 174 ]

their speaking time to the business of the people and help the Speaker to keep order and dignity in this House.

I am very proud to be in this House representing all of the people of the great constituency of Kootenay and I am honoured to be able to take my place in the debate on the throne speech. Mr. Speaker, contrary to remarks made by some other members, my opinion of the programme outlined by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is one of progress towards solving the problems of unemployment and inflation. The people of this great province of ours have enjoyed prosperity for the past several decades that was unequalled anywhere in the free world until the decline of our economy, through inflation, brought about our present-day problems, not only in British Columbia and throughout Canada, but all over the world.

Mr. Speaker, the programme outlined in the throne speech strikes directly at our problem and will provide a solid movement forward in producing long-term jobs and restoring the economy of British Columbia. I am sure that as our ministers present and explain their estimates and the priorities of their ministries during the budget debate, then the programme of his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor will be better understood by all.

Mr. Speaker, I made a prediction some two years ago that Premier Bennett would become one of the finest leaders in Canada. He has proven this prediction by his outstanding presentation at the First Ministers' conference in Ottawa. I am proud of our Premier. He is a hard-working man and has a very strong group of dedicated ministers who work together to serve the best interests of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents in Kootenay have asked me to extend my every effort on their behalf to strongly recommend to our government that the sales tax be reduced or eliminated altogether. We in the Kootenays and the constituency of Columbia River are adjacent to the province of Alberta where there is no sales tax and where very recently the 10-cents-per-gallon tax on gasoline has been removed.

Our merchants are hard-pressed to keep their customers buying their supplies in our part of British Columbia. Our coal development at Sparwood, British Columbia, is only 10 miles from the Alberta border. Many of the employees of Kaiser coal and Fording Coal in this area live in Alberta and work in British Columbia. These people do not pay any sales tax and buy their gasoline for 10 cents a gallon less. Our B.C. residents in Sparwood, Elkford, Fernie -and yes, Cranbrook and Kimberley - are traveling into Alberta, buying clothes, groceries, furniture and 101 other things that people buy. I am sure that the same thing is happening in the constituency of Columbia River.

Mr. Speaker, many of our small businesses have gone into bankruptcy or have just closed out. Unless they can become more competitive with Alberta merchants a few miles away, many more will close. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) and Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) to remove this tax burden from the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents in Kootenay urge that the Premier and the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) immediately remove the land freeze from non-agricultural land in the Kootenay, and all of British Columbia. We now find that the Land Commission will release non-agricultural land after consideration of the application for a year or more. But, Mr. Speaker, they also inform the landowner that his or tier property is still in the agricultural land reserve. This is absolutely unfair and is against free enterprise and democracy.

Another unfair and undemocratic request of the Land Commission is the deal they offer the landowner. In my experiences in trying to assist some of our people who are farmers or ranchers, when they have several parcels of land and wish to subdivide five or 10 or 20 acres of non-agricultural land to allow a son to build a home for his wife and family, they are informed by the Land Commission that they must amalgamate their land into one parcel and the request will be granted. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier and the Minister of the Environment to rectify this inequity to the free-enterprise system.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of the district of Sparwood, the coal capital of British Columbia, and their neighbours in the village of Elkford, I am requesting that this government seriously consider the needs of this thriving community. A government agency building is desperately needed in this area. For the main part, government business is being conducted at Fernie, which mans that people from Sparwood travel 20 miles, and the people from Elkford 42 miles to do business relating to government departments. Government personnel who do come from Fernie must do work from briefcases in a crowded facility, and it is impossible for them to provide the standard of service expected from them under these conditions.

Mr. Speaker, there is one other matter that

[ Page 175 ]

the people of my constituency are highly concerned about and that is the diversion of tile Kootenay River. I've been instructed to tell our government to have B.C. Hydro cease any further development. Further, Mr. Speaker, my people want B.C. Hydro to be accountable to the government and to the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I must at this time congratulate the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) on his very comprehensive reply to the throne speech, and for the excellent coverage he gave of our government's achievements during the past two years. I must also compliment the hon. member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) for his very able reply to the throne speech.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the achievements of our government over the past two years and I am confident that our progress will continue. The job-creation programme as outlined in the throne speech is positive for long-lasting development.

MR. SKELLY: It's a pleasure for me to take my place in this debate on the throne speech, although I don't have much pleasure in the throne speech. But I would like to congratulate the previous speaker, the hon. Kootenay (Mr. Haddad) and also the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) for the speeches they made during this throne speech debate. It was refreshing to hear government backbenchers and government members who weren't willing simply to take the party line and recycle the throne speech and the information that the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) has given to them, but to come up with some constructive proposals that haven't been dealt with in the throne speech.

Now, I don't always agree and don't agree with everything that the member for Kootenay says, or the member for Skeena says, but I do appreciate the way they spoke and the fact that they took an alternate tack and identified certain problems within their constituencies, certain problems within the economy. The member for Kootenay (Mr. Haddad) referred to one of the problems - the heavy burden of sales tax which was imposed by this present government and which is causing real problems in his area because of the fact that it is adjacent to Alberta where there is no sales tax. It could cause problem for business in that area.

Also, his sentiments on the Kootenay Diversion. Our side is 100 per cent behind that member for Kootenay. We don't want to see that Kootenay River diverted for power that will simply go to the United States at the expense of some social and environmental problems in British Columbia that we will never be able to repair and that there is no possible way of attaching a value to.

Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to congratulate you on your appointment to that honourable position. 1 know, Mr. Speaker, that we have had sow differences in the past. 1 have a note in front of me here that you wrote to m as Chairman of committee last year in which you say: "You don't really want order in this House, do you?"

MR. SPEAKER: Have you taken it to heart, hon. member?

MR. SKELLY: Well, it may have appeared true at the time. Just a few seconds ago I had an opportunity to look at this House from another point of view. The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) stepped up to the chair and she said: "You know, there's a reason they put you in that chair. Doesn't the House seem quiet for a change?" So I have learned something from that, Mr. Speaker, from taking another point of view.

But I would like to say that 1 do have confidence in your ability to run an orderly House and confidence in your respect for what I call the rule of law. I have had an opportunity to talk with you socially over the past few years, and I know and respect your respect for the rule of law. I think it's important that we have a Speaker, and 1 believe everyone in this House supports your appointment to that position for that reason.

It's particularly important for a minority party in the House to have a Speaker who respects what I call the rule of law. We have a body of tradition and precedent as well as rules in this House that haven't always been enforced and haven't always been enforced in the best way possible. For us as a minority party, it is important that that body of law and tradition and precedent be respected and be brought to our attention occasionally. As a minority party we represent at the last election at least something like 40 per cent of the people of this province and now probably much more than that. 1 think that we look to the Speaker as the bulwark against government authority, against the oppression of government. The Speaker is the person who is there to protect our rights as representatives of the people, and we look to you as that bulwark and that protection.

I hope that you will maybe re-examine the position of Speaker. 1 know that over the years you have been studying, as Chairman of committee, the rules and the precedents of

[ Page 176 ]

this House. 1 hope that you will re-examine the traditional position of Speaker in his role as the protector of minority rights in this House. During the last few years, we have suffered as an opposition, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Permanent speaker.

MR. SKELLY: That's something that really should be dealt with. You have a Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act, I think it is called, whereby you can look into certain matters relating to the operation of the House. But we as an opposition, and in fact, all back-bench members of the House, require certain services in order to do out best for the people in our ridings who have elected us and called upon us to represent them to the best of our ability in this House.

There are certain things that we need as the representatives, and I am talking about minority party representatives as well as majority party representatives. We need adequate staff; we need adequate communication facilities; we need adequate research facilities. Those, Mr. Speaker, are traditionally your responsibilities. 1 know, as a backbencher from both sides of this House, with experience on both sides of this House, you understand the position that we as backbenchers are in. I look forward to you, and 1 believe all back-bench members of this House look forward to you, expand our ability to protect the citizens who have given us a mandate to preserve their freedoms in British Columbia.

I hope that you will re-activate the legislation and look into some of those problems that we experience on a day-to-day basis in order to protect our rights and privileges as a Legislative Assembly and thereby protect the freedoms and the rights of citizens in British Columbia.

I didn't want to simply congratulate you in passing, Mr. Speaker, without making references to those problems. But 1 do intend to be fairly brief. 1 have one thing I would like to bring before the House during this debate on the throne speech. The [illegible] for Kootenay again brought that up as well as it has been referred to by other members in the house. That is about the position of B.C. Hydro and the management of B.C. Hydro in the operation of the economy of British Columbia. The throne speech makes no mention of Hydro whatsoever and no mention of Hydro projects whatsoever, even though it is one of the major borrowers and spenders of money in this province. There is some feeling on the part of people throughout the province that Hydro is virtually out of control.

Mr. Speaker, Hydro is directly responsible to the cabinet of this province. When the cabinet says "Move, " Hydro must move. That's the legislation and that's exactly the relationship between Hydro and the government of this province. If there are many complaints about the Kootenay Diversion, the people responsible for proceeding with planning of the Kootenay Diversion are the people who have given Hydro that mandate and the people whom Hydro is responsible to - and that is the cabinet, the government of British Columbia.

If the Premier stood up in this House today and said, "the Kootenay diversion will not proceed, " Hydro will have been given its mandate to cancel planning on the Kootenay diversion. The man who is responsible for the Kootenay diversion - his chair is over there, but he is absent - is the Premier of this province; it is not Hydro.

I'd like to talk now, Mr. Speaker, about some of Hydro's plans for Vancouver Island and their proposal to integrate Vancouver Island with the mainland power grid of B.C. Hydro. There is concern in a number of the smaller communities on Vancouver Island, and particularly communities in my riding, in the riding of the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) , and in the riding of the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) , about Hydro's plans to build two 500-kilovolt power lines crossing the Strait of Georgia, crossing the Sechelt Peninsula, crossing Texada Island, Lasqueti Island, coming through the area of my riding near Qualicum Beach, and joining with another proposed 500-kilovolt system at the Hydro substation at Dunsmuir.

Aside from the growing body of evidence about the undesirable environmental, health and social impacts of this power line, what I am concerned about, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that although it is unstated by B.C. Hydro, that line is designed to connect Vancouver Island to the mainland power grid for the express purpose of setting up a nuclear generating plant on Vancouver Island, which will ultimately feed into the mainland power system. It has no other purpose whatsoever, as far as we can see. It is designed to serve three times the projected power requirements on Vancouver Island. And as far as we are concerned on Vancouver Island, we don't want nuclear power and we don't want that 500-kilovolt power line system crossing Georgia Strait.

I would like to refer to some of the statements made by the present energy czar of the province, Mr. Bonner, and his former legislative representative, the member for

[ Page 177 ]

North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis) , who has now been removed. Strangely enough, this comes from an article entitled: "N Power Not For Island." Yet I think we should look at some of the statements made by Mr. Bonner in this article, and also by the former Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. The article says, "N Power Not For Island, " and yet in the body of the article, it says: "Davis considers its use inevitable, however, and the Island is the first likely place to build a nuclear plant." Bonner says in the same article: "Nuclear power will not be used in the next 10 years." It's clear to me from this article and from previous contact with B.C. Hydro that this government plans to establish a nuclear power plant on Vancouver Island; it plans to build a generator sometime after 1990, and as a first step in those plans, Hydro is spending some half a billion dollars on transmission facilities to integrate Vancouver Island into the mainland power grid.

Although the Premier isn't here now, as First Minister and as present Minister of Energy, he has an obligation in this House to state unequivocally that Vancouver Islanders will not be used as guinea pigs for Hydro's nuclear experiments and that planning for nuclear-generating facilities on Vancouver island and planning for the Cheekye-Dunsmuir transmission line, which is being set up to service that nuclear plant, will be stopped for the next five years, and that Vancouver Island should be used as an area to study and to plan and to implement alternative energy projects.

Mr. Speaker, I urge, through you, that the Premier should have the B.C. Energy Commission take the responsibility for this project, because Hydro is totally committed to nuclear power and because Bonner himself appears totally committed to capital-intensive, centralized, high-cost power alternatives, which will turn this province into a subject debtor state, with Mr. Bonner's own associates in the Trilateral Commission as creditors.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, Hydro and its directors have sabotaged any alternative energy proposals, including - and this is the best example - wind power on the Queen Charlotte Islands, which was initiated under the NDP. I have no confidence in the willingness of Hydro's management nor in their ability to research and implement more decentralized, labour-intensive, and less environmentally sensitive alternatives to nuclear power.

I appreciate the comments of the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) when he was talking about the fact that environmentalists stop projects in British Columbia. I don't think the member for Skeena really understands what environmentalists are trying to do or what the ultimate goals of environmentalists are. It's been a tradition in that government and in that party to say: "Environmentalists want to halt all development. They are interested only in bird watching and wilderness recreation and this kind of thing."

Well, Mr. Speaker, that is a component of the environmental movement; it's a smaller and smaller component, but it is a worthwhile component. There are people who enjoy those things and there is a value to those things. But more and more environmentalists are becoming concerned with the long-range costs and benefits of some of the things that our society is becoming involved in right now, more and more concerned with the economic costs that we are passing on to our children, and which they will be unable to bear.

I recall the member for Vancouver South just a few days ago - or possibly it was yesterday; it's hard to remember these speeches because they all seem the same from the government side after a while - saying that he was concerned about the dead weight of debt that is being passed on by our excesses now to future generations. But the biggest excesses of debt are being passed on by the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority. Combining the Revelstoke Dam project and this Cheekye-Dunsmuir project we'll be passing on something like $1.5 billion in debt to our children for power projects that may not be necessary and in fact are not the best alternatives either for us or for our children.

Mr. Speaker, it's one thing to criticize the government, but I think there's an obligation on private members on both sides of the House to state constructive alternatives. I'd like to consider now some of the things that we could do as a government and as a body responsible for the governance of this province over the next few years on Vancouver Island to obviate the necessity for this 500-kilovolt line and for the nuclear power project which is the basis of that 500-kilovolt line.

I have here an article by Douglas LaFollette, who is the Secretary of State for Wisconsin. It's entitled: "The Economic Myth of Nuclear Power." In this article Mr. LaFollette states:

"In spite of all the risks and the health hazards of nuclear power, its proponents state that it is the only means we have available to meet our future energy needs.

They also emphasize the number of jobs

[ Page 178 ]

that building huge nuclear plants would provide. Unfortunately, nuclear power will not do what its advocates claim. Nuclear power is too expensive and too capital-intensive a form of energy to meet these goals. A cost-benefit analysis of nuclear power in comparison to other energy options that in fact do exist shows that it is the worst possible way to invest our scant energy-production dollars."

Mr. Speaker, this is a government that seem to be concerned about the bottom line. What I'm trying to draw their attention to now is that in the direction they're going with B.C. Hydro, in the direction they're going with nuclear thermal generation, they are making what is called "the worst possible investment of our scant energy-production dollars."

Mr. LaFollette goes on in his article to back up his statements. For example, in terms of job creation alone he states that in the utilities industry it takes over $100,000 in capital investment to create one job. The member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis) was talking yesterday about the number of jobs that fluidized-bed techniques at Hat Creek would create in the province of British Columbia. It's a known fact that in the utilities industry it takes over $100,000 in capital to create a single job, and that's United States figures.

There's a study that was done by the Economic Council of Canada called "Living Together - A Study Of Regional Disparities, " which points out that Canadian capital requirements are high. To produce one unit of output of capital in Canada requires roughly twice as much capital as in the United States. So if it costs $100,000 to produce one job in the utilities industry in the United States, we're looking at twice that investment in Canada. It was pointed out in the same study by the Economic Council of Canada that between 1970 and 1973, to create a job in the transport and utilities industry in the province of British Columbia required $123,000 per job. That is not a wise investment of our capital dollars, which are very scant in this province, as Mr. LaFollette pointed out.

Mr. LaFollette goes on to point out how much it costs to create solar energy components. Home insulation goods required for retrofitting of housing require an investment of only $19,500 per job, a tremendous decline in the amount of investment to produce a job that is energy-related.

Other related industries require even smaller capital investments per job. In fact, and this is what Mr. LaFollette points out, installation of solar water heaters creates one job for every $4,000 of capital investment.

So, Mr. Speaker, you yourself can determine from those statistics, which are produced by the Federal Energy Agency in the United States and apply even when in Canada, that the best investment of our energy dollars is in retrofitting housing and in taking the example of the energy that God gave us in the form of the sun.

But in this province there are no incentives whatsoever to take advantage of solar energy. 1 think we've all had a letter recently from a company called Solarcan Enterprises, in which he states that he has written to the Minister of Finance of the province of British Columbia (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , asking for a relief on sales tax on goods used to manufacture solar energy components. The response from that minister has been that there will be no relief.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, the General Accounting Office in the United States -which has as its mandate a broader mandate than our auditor-general: the investigation of the cost effectiveness of programmes that are being followed through by the United States government - says that solar energy is a feasible form of energy and a competitive form of energy, especially where it relates to solar water heating and space heating. It's a feasible alternative to other forms of generation in every single area of the United States, north and south combined.

Mr. LaFollette's article also cites a report to President Carter from the Senate commerce subcommittee which indicates that an investment of $1.65 billion - four times the cost of that 500-kilovolt line that is proposed to cross the Strait of Georgia -would produce 100,400 jobs in the United States. So taking a quarter of the cost of that line, and investing $400 million in energy alternatives - not in the Cheekye-Dunsmuir transmission project, but investing that money in alternative energy sources - we could create on Vancouver Island something like 25,000 jobs. That's with existing technology.

Studies have also been done, Mr. Speaker, on the cost of energy produced or saved by various methods, and let me go through those methods. It costs $800 to $1,000 per kilowatt to produce nuclear power. By insulating your home - that's providing ceiling insulation in your home - you can save a kilowatt, which is equal to a kilowatt produced, for only $450 -half the cost of a nuclear energy kilowatt. By recovering waste heat, the cost per kilowatt is $100 a kilowatt of energy saved at a cost

[ Page 179 ]

of $120 by converting to heat pumps for heating and air conditioning.

Every single one of these methods is cheaper by far than generating electricity through nuclear power. Every single one of these methods is now technologically feasible and being used now, Mr. Speaker, in various areas of Canada. In fact, one of the things that that letter from Solarcan Enterprises points out is that in every other province in Canada there are solar demonstration projects. In British Columbia we are the last; we're at the bottom of the list. We have no solar energy demonstration project sponsored by the government.

Another thing I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, is an article in the Victoria Times, pointing out another alternative that's possible on Vancouver Island, another alternative energy source, and again a God-given energy source that we have here on Vancouver Island in abundance. That is energy from waste wood.

A number of cursory studies have been done in British Columbia, and I think the Energy Commission in British Columbia should be congratulated for initiating these studies. A number of studies have been done in other parts of the country: the Hearst county study in Ontario; the regional district of Fraser-Fort George is also involved in a study of the use of waste wood in electrical generation and energy production.

But we really haven't scratched the surface here in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, because there is no government commitment. hydro doesn't have a mandate to do it and they don't want the mandate. They're totally committed to nuclear energy, they're totally committed to existing and old technologies and they're totally committed to the type of wasteful energy development that we've had in this province over the past 20 years.

The Times article of March 15,1978, on page 30, quotes a Dr. Harry Szmant of the University of Detroit. Professor Szmant points out that by removing waste wood from the forests of the United States over a five-year period we could produce the energy equivalent of eight billion barrels of oil, more than the U.S. consumes each year. The annual oil consumption of the United States is about six billion barrels. I'm not talking about using commercially valuable trees; I'm talking about removing waste wood alone.

Since the present Minister of Forests (Ron. Mr. Waterland) has taken office, there is more waste wood, more valuable wood left in the forests of Vancouver Island now than before he took office because he's cut down utilization in the forests of Vancouver Island from close utilization to intermediate utilization. As a result, a tremendous amount of valuable timber is being left to waste in the woods of Vancouver Island.

Not only that, he talks in ForesTalk, his public relations magazine, about implementation of the coast logging guidelines. Those logging guidelines and the road-building guidelines have been relaxed so that something like 60 per cent of road crews on Vancouver Island, in fact 60 per cent of road crews in almost all logging operations on the coast, have been laid off. It's a job loss impact equal to the Vanply situation and that minister hasn't dealt with it because it hasn't come to the public's attention. It's a job loss impact that we could reverse, Mr. Speaker, if we went into alternate energy projects that took advantage of the tremendous amount. of wood waste available in this province and especially on Vancouver Island.

We're also going into second-growth management in many areas of Vancouver Island, Mr. Speaker. A lot of the old-growth wood is gone where reforestation has been taking place and our performance in that area has not been exemplary; but, where reforestation has been taking place and second-growth forests are coming back, we still have to do a lot of juvenile spacing, a lot of encouragement of forest growth. That minister is not getting involved in it as much as he should, although we should wait for the Forest Act to come down to see what he plans to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: It might be a long wait.

MR. SKELLY: It could be a long wait, certainly. But there is that opportunity to take advantage, in areas where second-growth management is going on, of juvenile spacing and waste wood, and to use that waste wood for the production of energy. Other states are doing this and other provinces are doing this. For example, the state of Michigan has now developed a demonstration power project, a wood-fire, thermal generation system which is going to satisfy the electrical demands of a community of 20,000 people, using 2,500 acres of waste wood per year - the waste wood taken from 2,500 acres to feed the electrical needs of a community of 20,000 people. In British Columbia we are doing nothing about looking into energy alternatives, Mr. Speaker.

So the only point I wanted to make is a constructive criticism of the throne speech and say something that is absent from the throne speech, that there are job-intensive alternatives available. We could get rid of

[ Page 180 ]

some problems of dead-weight debt if the government were willing to take that $400 million that they plan to borrow for the 500-kilovolt line from Cheekye to Dunsmuir and to invest it in study, in planning and in the implementation of already-existing alternate-energy technology on Vancouver Island. The sources of that energy, the raw materials are already available and we'll obviate the need for nuclear power and for that 500-kilovolt line.

I would like to see the Premier, who is now the Minister of Energy, but is absent from this House now, stand up and state to the people of Vancouver Island that the nuclear power plant is off, the 500-kilovolt line is off and that we are going to use Vancouver Island as an experimental area for the use of energy alternatives. I think there is nothing more constructive that Premier could do than make that announcement. It will create jobs on Vancouver Island that have been destroyed by raising ferry rates, by destroying the retail industry. It will encourage small business on Vancouver , Island because it is, not the centralized kind of electrical technology that Hydro goes along with. Alternate energy is small-business energy.

I would just like to quote an example from Denmark before I wind up, Mr. Speaker. Some people were dissatisfied with the direction in which the government of Denmark was going, the same kind of centralized, oil-thermal, nuclear-thermal energy process. They decided that a co-op would get together and build a wind-powered system on a voluntary basis. They spent between $750,000 and $800,000 and they produced a wind generation that would operate 300 days a year and produce an annual output of about four million kilowatt hours or the equivalent of about 450 tons or 3,050 barrels of oil used at a traditional power plant. Petersen said the schools expected - and it was done by four schools who were seeking power alternatives - to save $60,000-$70,000 annually on their electricity and heating bills at current prices.

Mr. Speaker, the job-creation potential of alternative energy is fantastic. We have only begun to touch on it. Hydro is impossible to deal with. They will not consider energy alternatives and we are calling on the government to create jobs and to stop destroying the environment, to eliminate those tremendous health and social impacts that are related to nuclear power and high voltage transmission, to get moving and set up an alternate-energy experiment area on Vancouver Island and obviate the need for those nuclear power plants and 500-kilovolt lines.

MR. KARL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to offer my congratulations to you on your election to your position.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank You.

MR. KAHL: My congratulations also to the Chairman, the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) , and also my congratulations to His Honour for a very fine speech that he read for us on March 30. 1 would like to go through the speech and take a brief look at some of the comments made by His Honour.

I was pleased to see the first section dealing with a commitment from all of us to meet the challenges that we face, not only in the province of British Columbia but as a province of Canada. It was, I thought, an opportunity for all of us to reflect, to take a closer look at why the province entered Confederation in 1871. It was, in fact, as His Honour said, to provide the opportunity for a link from sea to sea and for every Canadian to prosper from sea to sea. We are committed to that on this side of the House and the people in my constituency are committed to that. I think if we take the opportunity to look at the serious side of His Honour's speech rather than to nitpick and be the doom-and-gloom boys as we see from the opposite side of the House, probably something for all British Columbians can come out of this session.

In particular let's look briefly at some of the developments from 1977 that provided for the citizens of British Columbia - a sense of security for some of our older citizens, an opportunity for some of our younger citizens. The programme of SAFER, revenue-sharing, long-term health care, homemaker service and the impaired driving problem were looked at very seriously in 1977. All are very good programmes and ones that can assist all British Columbians in redefining their purpose in life and looking forward to the provision of security from a government that works with people.

His Honour mentioned. the Canadian economy and it is interesting to note the most successful submission made by our Premier on behalf of the citizens of this province. It is most interesting to note as well a lack of economic objectives in the Canadian economy, perpetrated of course by the federal government. Their short-term solutions just do not work.

I think it should be an opportunity for everyone in the province to take a close look at the submission that was made on behalf of the citizens, so we can take our place in redefining the economic objectives for British

[ Page 181 ]

Columbia and indeed for all of Canada.

One of the major solutions mentioned, of course, is the expanding of the private sector, which will provide more jobs. It will give us once again in this province some individual hope, it will provide sow individual initiative, and some individual ownership that we on this side of the House agree with. It will provide some individual pride in the province of British Columbia, and indeed we are a great province. If we work collectively, something can be done.

One of the major things we have to do, of course, is to curtail government expenditures, as was mentioned in the speech. We have to once again instill in the people's minds in the province of British Columbia that the government is not a give-away gang. It's there to assist; it's there to advise, it's there to lead. It's there to give us a sense of direction - not in terms of handouts every time you're in difficulty, but sow encouragement to make your own way.

The provincial economy, of course, has led the way in Canada. It has provided, as has been mentioned on numerous occasions, 15 per cent of the new jobs while we only have 11 per cent of the national work force. The man-days lost in 1977,138, 000 approximately, are perhaps the lowest the province of British Columbia has ever had. That provides for the working people a pride in the province. It provides an opportunity of pride and production in whatever job you might have, and it provides everyone an opportunity to again take a close look and reflect at those three years and some odd months of socialism we had where the philosophy was entirely different than that that most people in the province of British Columbia respect and enjoy.

The job creation programmes, again, will give confidence and hope to the people of the province. They will provide an opportunity for the young people. Hopefully, the youth employment programme will give the young people an opportunity to involve themselves in British Columbia, give them an opportunity to work in the environment, and give them a sense of knowing our province. Something that is disturbing to me, Mr. Speaker, in talking to young people, is their lack of knowledge of the province ~ indeed, their lack of knowledge of Canada, their sense of direction. I think the opportunity should be given for each of our young people to study the Speech from the Throne, to take a look at the sense of direction that is given there, for them to reflect - particularly the older ones who are close to voting age - and consider that in the next few years they will undoubtedly be the leaders of the province. It is they who must take a close look at where they're going and why.

The construction programme announced by the province will. of course, add much to job creation. The airport facilities announced, the education facilities and hospitals .... I do hope that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) takes a close look not only at the educational facilities and the building of them, but what's taught therein. It's time, I believe, that the Minister of Education and the government of this province took a very close look at the curriculum provided by the ministry to see that it does, indeed, provide the opportunities and the things that we want our children to learn in school, not the forms of socialism, not the forms of handout and big government that were espoused from the opposite side of the House when they were government; and that it indeed will offer a young person in the educational system and the educational programme the opportunity to explore himself and find his role and how he can become an individual in our society.

All the programmes provide work and build for a sensible future. It's important that the Minister of Education take a very close look at what the institutions offer our young people.

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to see that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) will be implementing new policies, new Acts. It's interesting to note that one of those will be an intensive reforestation management programme. Again I say that there's an excellent opportunity - and 1 believe the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) mentioned it in his speech - for the youth to become involved in a programme that will enhance the beauty of our province and provide jobs in the future. The forest industry is in the state it is in this province primarily because of the large monopolistic situation, a monopoly not only of corporations, but of unions and governments. I think it's time that those three sat down and looked at each other and discussed the future of this province and how they can work together and co-operate to give every individual who works in the forest industry that sense of direction that is required in our life.

It was interesting also to note that the Speech from the Throne talked about government deregulation. There's a constant complaint from constituents of mine as to the amount of bureaucracy, the proliferation of boards, agencies, commissions and department structures set up in the last 10 years in the province of British Columbia. On occasion, it

[ Page 182 ]

is very difficult for constituents to find their way around through the bureaucratic jungle: forms to fill out, things left out, returned, and so on it goes. It's extremely difficult to knock on the right door when dealing with government today. We must all make an individual effort to see that deregulation in all ministries will come about to make it much easier for the people in the province to deal with us.

The aid to small business programme is, I'm sure, looked at by many of the small business people in the province as one that will be of assistance to them. It will be interesting to see how the $20 million in low-interest loans will be spent throughout the province. If I could issue a sense of warning to the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , who will undoubtedly will be administering this, it is simply that to give money to small businessmen who do not know where they're going and to have no purpose or direction, is a waste. They must be given some form of counselling; they must ge given a critical look to see whether their business warrants a low-interest loan.

The giveaway boys from 1972-75 know full well what this means. They financed many operations in the province that were going broke and ones that have continued to be a drain on, the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. KAHL: That's right. The member for Columbia River says they tried to buy re-election, and they did.

If we can give the Minister of Economic Development any advice. it is to be sure the money is spent on firms and provided to firm that will provide employment and provide that sense of security for many of the individuals in this province.

The additions to the opening speech. Urban transit, of course. has been anxiously awaited by many of my constituents from the western community who commute daily into town. I do hope that there is an opportunity here provided for a better transit system.

The acquisition of parkland, particularly for shoreline recreation, I trust will be administered by the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) . I do hope that he will take a very close look at those proposals that I have made to him on behalf of the constituents for acquisition of shoreline in my constituency.

It's a time of redefinition, Mr. Speaker. It's a time in the last year for many people in the province of British Columbia to take a closer look at where they want the province to go and how they want it to get there. They must choose the socialist group on the other side who do not believe in individual initiative, who do not believe in private ownership of property, who believe in the giveaway, who believe in trying to buy their way into winning the next election. Or they must redefine their role in life and their goal in life, to individual enterprise, work and wages, not waste and welfare.

Mr. Speaker, the most interesting part of the speech was the social policy proposals on page 7. It talked about the family being the most important building block upon which our society rests. It was very interesting. I'm sure that most British Columbians note tile Family Relations Act, which will take a closer look at fairness and equality in the marriage system. We will deal with matters relating to custody, access and guardianship of children. If there's any complaint from my constituents that deserves mention and redefinition of Acts, it is certainly that, dealing with married women and families who have been deserted by their husbands and left. It is extremely difficult for them and, frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is one that is long, long overdue.

Our system is based on the traditional family; our system was built by the traditional family. Our system and the family give us security and direction. Mr. Speaker, all British Columbians, as a result of the speech by His Honour, can redefine their purpose in life to a new sense of direction, and we will all be the better for it.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Fraser presents the report of the Ministry of highways and Public Works for the year ending March, 1977.

Hon. Mr. Williams presents the annual report of the Labour Relations Board for the year ending December 31,1977.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The house adjourned at 5:30 p.m.