[ Page 183 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Rent decontrol policy. Mr. Levi –– 183

Beer bottle returns. Mr. Gibson –– 184

Status of fisheries branch. Mr. Stephens –– 185

Free telephone to rentalsman for landlord and tenant. Mr. Levi –– 185

Funding of tenant advisory groups. Mr. Lauk –– 186

BCBC space rental cost. Mr. Barnes –– 186

Throne speech debate

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 187

Mr. Macdonald –– 192

Mr. Kempf –– 198

Mr. Rogers –– 201

Mr. King –– 205

Statement

Investigation into Mr. Davis' use of air tickets. Hon. Mr. Gardom–– 210

Mr. Davis –– 211

Mr. Macdonald –– 212

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 213

Mr. Barrett –– 214

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 214

Mr. Lloyd –– 216

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. VEITCH: Seated in the gallery this afternoon are 45 very important people from that great constituency which is known as Burnaby-Willingdon. It is represented by 36 members of the 5th Burnaby South Cub Pack, their Akala, Miss Joyce Hunter; their Akala assistants Miss Dorothy Foster, Mrs. Blanche Heit, Mrs. Helen Chappel and Dr. J.A.C. Grant. The mothers acting as chaperones are Mrs. Griffen, Mrs. Chaulk, Morris Chappel, Mrs. Veitch, and I forgot to add that my son, 8-year old Gregory Veitch, is also in attendance with this pack. I'd like this House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Seated in the Speaker's gallery today is a gentleman I have the pleasure of introducing on behalf of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) I ask the House to welcome Mr. Vic Tiffin who is the president of the Active Mobile Home Owners' Association.

This gentleman was of great assistance to that ministry in the preparation and implementation of the mobile home registry which was officially opened here in Victoria last Friday.

MR. COCKE: I see in the gallery Professor Ross Johnson of UBC and 15 students of political science, here to take note of what happens in this illustrious capital of B.C. Hopefully the members will take note of that themselves and welcome them as our guests this afternoon.

MR. STRONGMAN: Seated in the gallery today are my cousin and his wife, Paul and Charlotte Strongman of Toronto. Paul is a partner in my family business, a good friend, and I would ask the House to make them welcome today.

MR. BAWTREE: In the gallery this afternoon there is a delegation down from the municipality of Spallumcheen: Mayor Floyd Parkinson, Alderman Len Pepper and the municipal clerk, Mr. Bob Graham. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. D'ARCY: In the gallery today we have one of B.C.'s noted industrial leaders: group vice-president of Cominco Ltd. for western operations. I'd like the House to welcome Mr. A.V. Marcolin.

MR. CALDER: In the galleries this afternoon are officials of the United Native Nations: Messrs. Wilson, George, Lanigan and Warren, and Miss Percival.

And also in the galleries are good friends of mine, Mrs. Hartwig and Mrs. Hobson, who are here to listen to my speech this afternoon, but I don't see my name on the list. I would ask the hon. members to welcome the guests.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the gallery this afternoon are two constituents of mine from Penticton, Mr. and Mrs. Dick Knight. I would ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, from the great Pemberton Valley we have 19 students from the senior secondary school with their teachers. I would wish the House will bid them welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to make a statement that will take three seconds.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I indicated yesterday that I'd be making a statement to the House today concerning the hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis) I will be doing that this afternoon, conceivably after 3 P.M.

Oral questions.

RENT DECONTROL POLICY

MR. LEVI: A question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: Could the minister confirm that he is considering phasing out rent controls? If so, what schedule of decontrol will be used?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to provide to the member opposite a copy of a speech I gave last night to the Greater Vancouver Apartment Owners Association, which sets forth the policy of the government at this stage in some detail.

MR. LEVI: On a supplementary, since we have no knowledge of what the minister said last night, I wonder if he'd mind answering the question.

HON. MR. MAIR: Despite the rather rude words of the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) , with whom I'll be dealing in a moment, I felt that I was trying to be polite to the opposition by not taking up a great deal of

[ Page 184 ]

time by referring to a speech that took about three-quarters of an hour to give. I will, however, if you wish, Mr. Member, summarize by saying that the government announced last night as its policy a decontrol programme which in its first stage would decontrol rents over $400 commencing April 1. Now there were a number of injunctions or warnings attached to that to landlords, and, I suppose, indeed, to tenants as well - mostly to landlords. The conditions that we expect to see looked up to are many indeed. However, that was the pith and substance of the speech I gave last night, and that is the policy of the government as of this moment.

MR. LEVI: I have here a copy of an advertisement published in the last election. It says: "Social Credit will not... rent controls." Inside....

MR. SPEAKER: Move quickly to the question, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: What's another broken promise?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. We are in question period.

MR. LEVI: Is the minister prepared to tell us what course of action he's prepared to take in the light of this promise to the people of British Columbia? This is the promise that you you made. The Premier signed it. What are you going to do about this?

MR. SPEAKER: Your question is...?

HON. MR. MAIR: What's the question? I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I heard no question. I heard a statement; I heard no question.

The policy of getting out of rent controls, Mr. Speaker, was made plain in this chamber last summer and nothing has changed since then except that it is now being implemented.

BEER BOTTLE RETURNS

MR. GIBSON: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, as well. My question pertains to the minister's statement that liquor stores are planning to stop accepting the return of empty beer bottles. Does the minister not realize that the liquor stores are providing an important public service in this regard, and that the cancellation of this policy will increase the likelihood of litter?

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm delighted to have that question asked because there has obviously been a misunderstanding. What I did say to the press yesterday, and I say today, is that for some time now we have been looking for ways to convince the breweries that they ought to set up better depots for the receiving of returned beer bottles and cans, and that they ought to undertake that responsibility in due course. But I also said that until that happens we will continue to serve the public by taking two cases at a time as we now are.

We think that that is an unsatisfactory way of taking care of the provisions of the Litter Act. Consumers are not well served by only being able to bring back two cases, but we don't have the facilities. The taxpayers are the ultimate people paying for that service through the labour and the space involved. But we are looking for ways, Mr. Member, to improve that service. We will not discontinue the liquor store service until we have found a solution.

MR. GIBSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister has confirmed his intention of eventual phase-out of this liquor store service. Could the minister describe to us how his liquor store facilities differ from the requirement or the expectation that is placed on the vendors of soda pop and that kind of thing? The small stores that sell those have to take the bottles back. Why is his store different? It's the provision of the one-stop shopping service that is available: you put in the empties and you take out the full ones. Why should he get out of that?

HON. MR. MAIR: I find it difficult to get into a philosophical debate with the member about what stores ought to do, but I can only say this, Mr. Member, that we are, as a government and as a people, providing a service, and a very expensive one. Stores that have been in existence for many, many years are not equipped to take empty beer bottles. There are better ways of looking after the problem. We are looking for those better ways. If it does not accord with what you feel we ought to be doing in the liquor stores, I am sincerely sorry for that. However, the position of the government is this: as soon as we can we are going to phase out taking back beer bottles in liquor stores.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that liquor stores sell carbonated wine which, like beer bottles, is covered under section 3 of the Litter Act, and which requires that refund depots of some kind be set up, could the minister say if the liquor control and

[ Page 185 ]

licensing branch has made arrangements with an agent in the area of the liquor stores to accept returns of empty bottles in which carbonated wine is sold, as is required under section 3 of the Litter Act?

HON. W. MAIR: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, 1 didn't hear part of the question. Are you asking me if I will set up such procedures?

MR. GIBSON: I asked you if, in accordance with the requirements of the law, you have set up such procedures.

HON. MR. MAIR: No.

STATUS OF FISHERIES BRANCH

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) . In view of the well-known conflicts that exist between the sports fishery and the commercial fishery, can you assure us that the new fisheries branch will not be dominated by the commercial interest to the detriment of the sports fishery?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Yes.

MR. STEPHENS: Supplementary question: as the biologists of both the fish and wildlife branch have established a good rapport and, co-operation in environmental areas, what steps have been taken to assure that this communication and co-operation will not break down now that they have been divided into two separate departments?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, in fact they will represent two branches within a department, the conservation department. The same biologists who have been co-operating to date, I'm quite sure, will be able to co-operate in future.

MR. STEPHENS: Second supplementary: am I to take it then, Mr. Minister, that you will not find it necessary to hire any additional staff in either of these new departments that you have created?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Well, Mr. Speaker, that's not an undertaking I could give for all time.

MR. SPEAKER: In any event, it anticipates the future performance of a minister and is really an inadmissible question.

FREE TELEPHONE TO RENTALSMAN

FOR LANDLORD AND TENANT

MR. LEVI: To the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: can the minister confirm that free long-distance telephone service for landlord and tenant to the rentalsman's office is being terminated?

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes, I can, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEVI: Supplementary: he previously assured us that the economic situation in the province is in great shape; perhaps he could tell us why he is making this cutback.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, the member must have been away for a while or not reading his newspapers, because the matter has been canvassed and aired rather thoroughly; but I will tell the House why now. The amount of money spent on long-distance phone calls -well, we can't tell what this fiscal year will bring - is something in the area of $125,000. Of those phone calls - do you want to hear the answer or do you just want to yap?

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MR. MAIR: The amount of those phone calls which come in with actual concerns of either landlords or tenants about their relationships is approximately 20 per cent. The balance are requests for information, which we f eel we can provide in a better and cheaper way, and I'll have an announcement on that very shortly.

Now of the balance of 20 per cent, Mr. Member, there is a demonstrable number of those which, if they were not getting a free call, simply wouldn't make the call, because they're an harassment. I think we mil t all recognize that that comes from both sides of the relationship. It now remains to find out how many of the balance really are going to be disadvantaged, if any, by reason of the fact that they can't call long distance, collect.

If that becomes a problem - a problem that is demonstrable to us - then, as I said yesterday, we're going to have to take steps to make sure that that is taken care of. Whether that's putting somebody in an interior town from the rentalsman's office, whether it's reinstating a long-distance phone call service of some limited sort, I can't tell you now. However, we are not going to, I assure you, have people unable to obtain justice by reason of not being able to make long-distance phone calls. On the other hand, we are not

[ Page 186 ]

going to spend over $100,000 of the people's money for things that are not useful to people or the government.

MR. LEVI: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In terms of the economic saving.... I am informed by the rentalsman's office that last year 250,000 inquiries were made to the rentalsman's office. They opened 12,000 files. There were 3,000 calls on long-distance lines. If you are going to remove the long distance lines, surely what you are going to get, Mr. Minister....

MR. SPEAKER: Move to the question.

MR. LEVI: ... is increasing correspondence to the extent that you're probably going to have to spend the money you are saving to provide....

MR. SPEAKER: Let's move to the question, hon. member.

HON. MR. MAIR: Is that a statement or a question? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, yes, that may not be so, or, alternatively, no, it may be so.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, may I remind the members that it is not the purpose of question period to make statements, and therefore we must move to the questions more quickly.

MR. LEVI: A final supplementary. I'd like the minister to be more specific. I am informed that the telephone bill for the rentalsman's office last year was $90,000, and 25 per cent of that went on long-distance calls. Can you confirm that and bring the information back to the House, if necessary? It is not, in fact, the amount of money that he indicated.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'll take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

FUNDING OF

TENANT ADVISORY GROUPS

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, many tenants in my constituency of Vancouver Centre are worried about the information from your ministry and others that are concerned with tenant-landlord relationships. One such agency that existed in the West End of the city of Vancouver was called the Tenant Advisory....

MR. SPEAKER: To the question, please. Move to the question.

MR. LAUK: I am attempting to do so, Mr. Speaker. Interruptions, however, delay that process.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: ... the Tenant Advisory Counselling Service in the West End. I have sent letters of inquiry to the minister with respect to the continued funding of these counselling groups. I wonder if the minister could now indicate to the Legislature whether funding from his department will be forthcoming both for the Tenant Advisory Counselling Service, and the Grandview-Woodlands group.

HON. MR. MAIR: To the member, the first knowledge I had of the correspondence that you have had with my ministry was yesterday; but I can tell you that we are taking it under advisement and looking at it very seriously, and we're going to see what we can do. I share your concern.

BCBC SPACE RENTAL COST

MR. BARNES: A question to the Minister of Highways and Public Works. Would the minister table in the House a list of all space rented by the government and the B.C. Buildings Corporation and give us the names of the building owners and the annual amount of rental paid....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The information as to whether or not it can be placed on the order paper will be determined by the minister.

HON. MR. FRASER: Put that question on the order paper.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, I have answered all the questions on the order paper so far, to MY....

MR. SPEAKER: The bell terminates the question period.

[ Page 187 ]

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. MR. MAIR: I'd like to thank the members opposite for giving mea little warm-up, I feel ready to roll. But before doing so, Mr. Speaker, I would like to join other members of this House in extending to you my sincere congratulations on your elevation to your high office, and we all know on all sides of the House that you will do a great service.

I would like also to congratulate the Deputy Speaker, the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) . His patience and forbearance in the chair as Chairman last year has indicated a great future as Deputy Speaker.

I would also like at this time, if I may, Mr. Speaker, to extend a particularly warm welcome to the new member for Oak Bay. It is a great pleasure to me because we have known each other for at least 25 years, going back to the days at American Can, when we worked there during our university years.

MR. STEPHENS: You were a Liberal then, weren't you? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. MAIR: I was a baby once, too. (Laughter.)

I think I must say, Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness, that it's indeed a distinction that two habitues of the old Haddon beer parlour - now the Drake - should f find themselves in this House at this time. Welcome to the House, Mr. Member.

I would also like to, if I may, Mr. Speaker, extend my thanks to the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) - that happy-go-lucky, Cheerful Charlie of the Legislature, our good humour man - because he raised in his speech yesterday some issues which I think are very important and with which, with your indulgence, 1 would like to deal with at some length.

I gathered, Mr. Speaker, that the thrust of his argument yesterday was that it is improper, if not illegal, for a political party to accept any kind of remuneration or service from a large company. It seemed to be all right to accept it from a federation of labour or a union but somehow a large company is not supposed to give any services.

I was curious to hear that in light of a letter I have in my possession, Mr. Speaker, which I would like to refer to. Now let me see, the letterhead says, "New Democratic Party, British Columbia, 64 8th Street, New Westminster, B.C., June 20,1977." Now, the first two paragraphs are by way of introduction. Incidentally, it is addressed to Mrs. Marlene Williams, and it is signed by Clifford A. Scotton, provincial secretary. They have one too. It says:

"I was pleased to note that both the Surrey NDP and the Coquitlam NDP have both been patronizing William Office Equipment Ltd., which sells the office equipment of the Roneo Vickers corporation. As you point out, the provincial office also purchased from Williams a Scriptomatic addressing machine and, of course, all of the related supplies, and has recently purchased a records cabinet at a cost of $422 in addition to other office supplies. We patronized Williams Office Equipment, even though the majority of our office equipment is not necessarily compatible With that produced by Roneo Vickers of London, England, or that of Scriptomatic corporation of Philadelphia, USA.

"I am informed that prior to the 1976 B.C. NDP convention, you kindly loaned us a Roneo Vickers duplicator for nothing. Although we have no record of such a machine being loaned by you to the provincial NDP in connection with the election, we appreciated that sort of help, which I understand is part of the promotional activities of office equipment companies such as Gestetner, Xerox, et cetera, which also kindly loaned us machinery during the election and convention periods."

Xerox, Gestetner, PWA. My, my, my.

Gestetner, Xerox, PWA.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: Multinational - that's right, Mr. Member. Multinational, you are correct. The letter continues:

"You expressed surprise that Gestetner was approached to act in a resource capacity for a workshop on newsletters organized by the B.C. NDP. The reason was simply that all but two of the participating constituencies used and had done so for lengthy periods of time Gestetner duplicators, and the offer to assist, at no charge, was made by that company's B.C. representative. The participants in the workshop appreciated the assistance given by Gestetner."

It closes, I might say, Mr. Speaker:

"I am sending Mr. Barrett a copy of this letter so he may be informed on all of the matters raised in your original letter."

It might not even be the same Mr. Barrett, Mr.

[ Page 188 ]

Speaker; we just have to guess.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: I would think they probably do, Mr. Premier, but that's not the real reason for offering my thanks to the happy-go-lucky member. I am very grateful that he brought to my attention something I didn't know. Like, I'm sure, all members of this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, I make it a particular point not only not to find to out who has contributed campaign funds to my campaign, but in what amount and in what way. I don't want to know; I have steadfastly refused to ask the question and have ignored people who have tried to tell me, although I must say that if all of the people who came up to me afterwards and told me they had contributed had in fact contributed, we could run three or four national campaigns.

However, I found out yesterday for the first time, Mr. Speaker, that Pacific Western Airlines had contributed to my campaign by delivering campaign materials, apparently to my off ice in Kamloops. I want to take this opportunity to publicly thank PWA, and thank them very, very much indeed.

I assume that they did so because their object was to have good government, and they've, got good government as a result. I want to, tell you, Mr. PWA - wherever you are -you've got what you bargained for - good government - and you're going to continue to get good government.

And I say one further thing to PWA: Please, for goodness' sake, don't forget me the next time! If they want to do it again, I'll be delighted. As a matter of fact, if Len Guy wants to send me money, I'll take it, because anybody whose only objective....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Draw the line!

HON. MR. MAIR: Right. I am sorry. I draw the line; I'm sorry.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Maybe he will just take you for dinner.

HON. MR. MAIR. That's right. I'll have dinner and expensive imported wine with Mr. Guy but I don't want his money. That's right; thank you.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What about B.C. wine?

HON. MR. MAIR: They don't drink B.C. wine. They wouldn't drink B.C. wine, Mr. Member -that would be supportive of British

Columbians, supportive of their own province. Don't be silly. They wouldn't do that.

AN RON. MEMBER: Supportive of jobs.

HON. MR. MAIR: Supportive of jobs in British Columbia - they wouldn't do that. But I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that anybody, either in this House or outside of this House, whose sole objective is good government and good representation for Kamloops, please feel free to help me any time in any way you can. I'd be delighted to receive it.

And now, Mr. Speaker, I'm prepared on the part of the government to make a deal. If you refuse over there on the other side of the House all assistance from the B.C. Fed, I'll see what we can do to pay our own air freight next time around. I think we can work out something like that.

But PWA, Mr. Speaker, is an airline, and it sort of brings to mind airplanes, and I thought that since Chuckles had brought up airplanes, perhaps we ought to, just for a moment, talk about airplanes today. It seems to me axiomatic that if it's wrong to send a parcel free to a political party by plane -that's a campaign gift when it's done during election - then surely a free plane ride must be the same, if not more so. Wouldn't that be a fair assumption?

AN HON. MEMBER: Unless you went in a box.

HON. MR. MAIR: Unless you went in a box -yes, that's true.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make clear, through you, to the House, the policy of the Social Credit Party, with respect to the use of government airlines during elections. I want you, if you would, Mr. Speaker, to note this carefully because this policy will be adhered to the moment an election writ is dropped. From the time the next election writ is dropped, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House, through you, that no cabinet minister, no former MLA - bearing in mind that they ceased to be so when the writ was dropped - no executive assistant, no Social Credit candidate and nobody connected with the campaign will fly anywhere on a government plane for any purpose.

Mr. Speaker, unlike the members opposite, we do not claim a monopoly on virtue. We recognize that when an election campaign is not on and when you're running the affairs of government, there may be some difficulty in drawing the distinction between government business and political business and we know that these sometimes are intermingled. This difficulty,

[ Page 189 ]

I'm sure, presented itself to the opposition when they were government. It presents itself to us and it will to succeeding governments.

But one thing is clear, Mr. Speaker: once that election writ is dropped, everything is political - everything. There is no government business on government aircraft - it's political business. From the time that writ is dropped, for 38 days every breath of every political candidate is used for political purposes. No one, Mr. Speaker, has the right, during a political campaign, to extract campaign funds from the taxpayer through the use of government aircraft - no one.

Now, Mr. Speaker, before I go on, I want you to note, please, that we didn't start this, but in a moment we're going to put an end to it, because, as that great governor of New York, Al Smith, of the Brown Derby once said: "Let's look at the record"; and that's what we're going to look at. I'm sure that the general public would be surprised to think that any member of that self-righteous group opposite would use public funds for private campaigning. After all, they've told us so often they have a monopoly on virtue - they're the only people who care; the only people who have any morality. You wouldn't do that, no. They wouldn't do that.

Well, let's take a look.

AN BON. MEMBER: When was the writ dropped?

HON. MR. MAIR: The writ was dropped November 3,1975, Mr. Speaker. I wouldn't make too much of this. Mr. Liden only went to his constituency and back once on a government plane on November 4.

AN HON. MEMBER: During the election?

HON. MR. MAIR: During the election. No big deal.

Now, Mr. Cocke, all he did, he just came over on November 3 from Vancouver to Victoria, that's all. No doubt he heard the Premier call the election, went into shock, and that's the reason he didn't do any more.

Mr. Lauk behaved himself pretty well - just four trips. But since he's never in Victoria anyway, I can understand why he wouldn't abuse the government aircraft.

Ms. Young - now, as I recall, my predecessor had as her constituency Vancouver-Little Mountain. One, two, three, four, five trips back and forth from Victoria to her constituency, all during the election campaign.

Mr. King - unfortunately, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan is not in his seat today. He must have had labour problem all over the province during this time, Mr. Speaker, because he 'traveled all over the province. Oh, now wait a minute. Wasn't there a back-to-work order then? There wasn't any labour strife.

MR. MACDONALD: Are you saying he wasn't on business or not?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's hear the speech, hon. members.

HON. MR. MAIR: It gets better, Mr. Speaker.

Let's see: Victoria-Kamloops, November 8; Kamloops-Victoria - this is the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) - Victoria~ Vancouver, Vancouver-Victoria, Castlegar-Victoria, Kamloops-Vancouver, Kamloops-Victoria, Kamloops-Revelstoke-Victoria - six hours.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: Oh, I'm sure he wouldn't have done that, would he, Mr. Member? He wouldn't have campaigned for Gerry Anderson. That would have been the kiss of death, wouldn't it? He wouldn't have done that. Now I'm sure he went to Castlegar to settle a labour dispute that wasn't allowed because there was an Act preventing labour disputes; maybe that's why he went to Castlegar. He certainly wouldn't have done any main-streeting or anything like that, would he, while he was there, or spoken to a luncheon, or done anything political? Revelstoke: he wouldn't have done any politicking in his home town, Mr. Member. You're from near there. You don't do politicking in your home town up there, do you?

AN HON. MEMBER: Never.

HON. MR. MAIR: Let me see: three, six, eight trips - six hours.

Mr. Nicolson was much better. He only took three trips: Victoria-Vancouver, Vancouver-Victoria, Victoria-Castlegar. Castlegar: is that anywhere near Nelson?

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-five miles from Nelson.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, on the government aircraft during the election, two hours of the people's time was spent transporting Mr. Nicolson.

Mr. Levi - now his constituency, as I recall, is Vancouver-Burrard. One, two, three,

[ Page 190 ]

four, five trips end up in Vancouver-Burrard on government aircraft. One trip he spent visiting the welfare people in Grand Forks. I'm sure he didn't do any campaigning.

Mr. Stupich - oh, Mr. Speaker, I see Mr. Stupich was in Kamloops after Mr. King, so it couldn't have been Mr. King's fault that Gerry

Anderson lost; it must have been Mr. Stupich's because he went Victoria-Vancouver, Vancouver-Victoria, Victoria-Kamloops, Victoria-Prince George for two hours and 15 minutes of government aircraft time during the election.

Mr. Radford only took two trips; he went to Prince Rupert and to Vancouver.

Now Mr. Hall took 10 trips to his constituency during the campaign, no doubt all on urgent government matters, with no politicking, main-streeting, talking or anything of that sort.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: Oh, pinko Panco.

Mr. Nunweiler just took one trip: oddly enough, to Prince George on November 7, after the writ had been dropped.

Mrs. Dailly just took one trip.

But now we come to a very interesting one. We come to Mr. Lorimer. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lorimer took a trip to Victoria-Vancouver, Victoria-Vancouver. But then we come to a very interesting trip. it goes this way: Victoria-Comox-Port Hardy-Victoria on November 18,1975. And who do you think was with him on that trip?

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: One Ms. Sanford. November 8: Comox-Port Hardy-Victoria.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: It occurs to me, Mr. Speaker - and I'm sure you will tell me I'm wrong if I am - but when the election writ is dropped, anyone who is sitting in the House at that time ceases to be a member until the election. It seems to me he would cease to be a member of the House.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Read your own law.

HON. MR. MAIR: Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems that 28 hours, or approximately $11,200 of the people's money, was spent transporting NDP candidates around the province during the last election campaign so that they could campaign politically.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, it seems clear that the then-Premier of the province (Mr. Barrett) put an end to this, because the last recorded trip was November 28. One must wonder why they all of a sudden ended.

AN HON. MEMBER: He changed the rules.

HON. MR. MAIR: He changed the rules. He saw the light. He suddenly saw the light.

Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that this information is obviously not new information; it's information we have had for a long time. It~'s information that we have not used until this time because we didn't feel that the level of debate would ever get to the point where we had to get into this sort of thing. We didn't think we were going to sit and listen to sanctimonious claptrap about airlines delivering political tracts to us.

We thought finally, Mr. Speaker, we were going to get down to the business of the House. We didn't know that we were going to sit and listen to all of this piety. Those who wish to be pious must prove their piety, and I am happy to be the instrument of disproving that piety.

Mr. Speaker, this whole matter ought now to be put to rest. It's about time that we lived up to the high hopes expressed at the time you were elevated to your position. It's about time that we stopped the petty little attacks, the attempts to emulate Ottawa, the dredging out of little bits of information and trying to make mountains out of them. It's about time we stopped all of the innuendos that go back and forth across the House about widows and this sort of thing. It's about time, Mr. Speaker, that we grew up, and it's about time we got back to the business of the people, the people who elected us.

Having said that, I only have one or two observations to make about the throne speech, and I'm sorry to have to return to the throne speech so soon. The throne speech contains in it, by inference, one word - and that's confidence. Without confidence we can accomplish nothing; without confidence in our province, its resources and our will to get ahead, it doesn't matter what policies this government brings in.

1 can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that as long as we continue to bring in good sound policies to encourage the economy and bring business back to British Columbia, and still hear the shrill

[ Page 191 ]

cries of the opposition saying, "When we get back into power, we're going to do it all again, " we're never going to have any confidence. It's about time, I say, to the members opposite, that they buried the political hatchet for a while. We'll fight the next election on a fair basis. We've got lots to talk about; we've got lots of philosophical differences. But surely to God we haven't got any differences as to where British Columbia ought to be going and when we should get prosperity.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is time for all British Columbians to recognize the difficulties that all Canadians, including ourselves, find ourselves in. Surely it's time that we got together - with opposition, to be sure; with criticism, to be sure - with one object in mind, and that's the building up of the economy, not the destruction of our province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. first ni, - her for Vancouver Centre on a question of privilege.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs left a clear innuendo - and I am speaking only for myself; I don't feel that 1 should speak for anyone else in this chamber - that at the time of the issuance of the election writ in late 1975, members of the executive council who were using government aircraft used them in an improper or illegal way. If that's a suggestion that the hon. minister is wishing to leave with this House and the public of British Columbia, I, as a member of this chamber today, as a member of the executive council then, wish to request that the minister withdraw any kind of imputation to that effect.

Further, I would like to caution both he and anyone else that if this suggestion is left with the public of British Columbia, I as a member will take other steps to protect my reputation.

MR. SPEAKER: That's a question of privilege. it's not debatable, hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, my name having also been raised, I would ask you to ascertain from the minister if he was imputing any wrongdoing on behalf of those persons named, and if he was, to withdraw such an inference.

MR. SPEAKER: When a person rises on a question of privilege, he clearly states his objection and if he wishes.... Order, please.

1 am clarifying the matter. When a member rises on a question of privilege, he states the matter of privilege and the future of the progressions of whatever actions he wishes to take or wishes the House to take. The normal procedure is to take the matter under advisement and to reserve decision on it. This is what will happen with the matter of privilege.

On the matter of the point of order, the person standing and complaining of a point of order did not have a real point of order, but again a matter of privilege, and should have said so.

Perhaps rather than to take the matter raised by the member for Nelson-Creston into advisement and to reflect upon it further, it could be resolved here and now by asking the minister whether or not he was imputing any improper motive to the member in question.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I stand by every word that I said. If any member feels that the cap fits, that's fine, let them wear it. But I do not impugn any improper motive to any member of this House. The evidence is there. Conclusions can be drawn at will.

MR. SPEAKER: Because personal attack by one member on another member in this House is not permissible, if there is a matter of privilege, if there is a matter of accusation, it must be done by substantive motion and the avenues are open to every member.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I wish to correct the statement made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He stated during his speech that I traveled on a government plane with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing when I was no longer an MLA. I would like to point out that the people at Port Alice, the municipal council and all those residents who had to be evacuated because of a major mud slide which threatened to wipe out the entire community, felt that I was an MLA and contacted me, and contacted the government to ask if they could please come in immediately to give them some assistance. I was pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the government had responded and that I was able to attend immediately to that particular problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. The matter stands corrected.

AN HON. MEMBER: She was an KA, too.

MR. MACDONALD: My friend has made a legal point, Mr. Speaker, that is perfectly valid.

[ Page 192 ]

I would like to congratulate you as I take my place in this debate, Mr. Speaker, and say a kind word about your predecessor if I may say that too, because I think he went through some very difficult months for a period of time.

Before the Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs leaves the chamber, let me say this though. He was engaged today in a typical criminal lawyer's trick. Oh, was he laying a charge or wasn't he? You never know.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, was it a charge? Come on! It was a smear. And you have the audacity to come in here.... I took down your words that we should stop innuendos in this House. Now if some of those trips on a government aircraft were wrong, have the courage to stand up and make your charge; otherwise, sit down. Smear!

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The hallmark of a good House is temperate language, and I would recommend the same to the House.

(Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

HON. MR. MAIR: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I clearly heard the word "smear, " and I suggest that it can only have one imputation and that is an imputation of improper conduct against me. I ask the member to withdraw.

AN HON. MEMBER: It the shoe fits, wear it.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the first member for Vancouver East to withdraw the word "smear. "

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'LL withdraw the word.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. MACDONALD: Let me say this, that the minister who just took his place by innuendo impugned the reputation of the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) .

HON. MR. MAIR: Do you remember the widow in the ranch case, Alex?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes.

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes - innuendo, implication.

MR. MACDONALD: That was different.

HON. MR. MAIR: That was different; that was you against me.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MACDONALD:, ...unfairly impugned the reputation of several hon. members here. Now, the government has at its disposal the opportunity to check those government flights and see whether or not government business was involved, or whether it was campaigning business, because ministers do have to carry on the business of the Crown, even during an election period.

Now, I suggest the minister come back and prove, if he's prepared to have the courage to do that, an improper trip. Otherwise, what he has introduced into a debate about a very serious matter brought up by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has been very unfair. The serious matter at which the hon. members opposite laugh, and have been laughing, is that a major airline carrier in this province made election gifts to a Social Credit party that became the government, and that airline company had immediate business of importance to all of the people of British Columbia with the provincial government in Victoria.

What was that business that PWA had? Well, it was whether or not they had been purchased by the government of Alberta. The question before the government of British Columbia was whether they should move their head office back to Calgary. It was an important question in terms of employment in British Columbia. It was a question in which the government of British Columbia was requested by the opposition to take a stand, and a real stand.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is not that we know better than to believe that widespread political gifts can be given by a major public carrier such as PWA without the Social Credit party and the government officers concerned being aware of it. I just don't believe that is possible, I never have. I say that in this case these campaign contributions were directly related to PWA's attempt to move its office to the province of Alberta and to have a government that would not combat such a move in any serious way. And that's exactly what took place. What you were engaged in was shadow-boxing with a corporation that had helped to finance your campaign.

And the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) , has been saying that his reaction to

[ Page 193 ]

this at first was to say it was silly that we should bring up a big-business gift to the party that became the government - silly, it made no difference. The Minister of Agriculture used to be a Liberal.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's that got to do with it?

MR. MACDONALD: I'll tell you what it's got to do with it: once you check your political principles at the door there's nothing much left, that's what it's got to do with it. You go back to the people of Penticton and tell them that it doesn't matter whether a large corporation, which has business dealings of utmost importance to this province with the government, makes these large-scale campaign contributions.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Are you saying it's wrong to make it through a government party?

(Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we cannot proceed with debate until each of the members takes it within his will to control himself, and so I recommend that that take place. We have no basis in the standing orders by which any member seated in this chamber can interrupt the one who has the floor. Please assist me in these matters.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, it is a serious matter when campaign gifts are not disclosed, because they are known and everybody, I think, knows that who has been in politics for any length of time. And it is a serious matter when unlimited campaign gifts can be given to a party that may or may not become the government - to any political party. And if the hon. minister who's taken his seat is serious about what he is saying, he should not talk about a nonsense point as to whether the government aircraft should be used after the election writ is issued, because government business has to be carried on by ministers of the Crown after that period, as before, and that's a silly point to be making.

But the real point is - and the real point which he will refuse to meet - whether or not this province should have an election expenses Act so that contributions are controlled, and so that their source aver a certain amount -say $100 - is disclosed. I'm quite sure, although we left an election expenses Act in when we left our administration, and with our legislative programme we did not have time to pass that legislation - and I regret that, it was coming down the stream - I challenge that minister who took his place, and I'm quite sure what the answer's going to be: that he will not support and neither will the government support that kind of legislation which is now commonplace in many provinces of Canada, including the province of Quebec. They will not bite that bullet because they are a big-business financed party, Mr. Speaker, and they expect to do better with the money than any opposition can possibly do. They will not bite the bullet and pass the election laws which should prevail in the province of British Columbia.

MR. BARRETT: They fought disclosures.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, they even fought the public disclosure legislation. Mr. Speaker, I've got one major topic today and maybe one or two minor ones. I haven't made much in the way of notes; I'm to some extent thinking out loud.

Let me first say that I do regret that we're meeting at this time, at a period when the government can't spend any money, eh? We're meeting under these very strange circumstances where supply from the previous year has run out, and the Legislature has been called this late in the year. It's never happened before in the province of British Columbia.

We were told by the Premier that the session would not be called until the end of March, because of the Oak Bay by-election. He said they needed time to enumerate in Oak Bay, and they needed time to call that vote and fill the seat. Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to say that the Premier was fibbing, but I'm going to say that was a very specious answer to be given to the people of the province by the Premier, because clearly, enumeration can take place while a by-election is going on, for that matter. And the obvious reason why the Oak Bay by-election was put off was not for any electoral necessity, but in order to try and get the Premier's candidate chosen by the Social Credit convention. Now that's reasonably well-known, and I do regret that the Premier of the province should go around making specious statements of that kind.

And I regret that the province today is sort of at a standstill. We're having a throne speech debate. Before we can possibly have a

[ Page 194 ]

budget debate the business of the province will grind to a halt. You can not be spending money at the present time, and you know that's the kind of a situation in the economy of British Columbia as it stands which is a disregard of our parliamentary traditions.

There should be a full opportunity for a budget to be brought in, considered and debated before the necessity of voting money blindly simply to get the government out of a time impasse into which they got themselves purely for political purposes. This Legislature should have been meeting two months ago to debate these matters. For the first time we've had a very serious breach of parliamentary tradition in this province.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I've mentioned one or two small matters. One other thing I would like to mention to the House is this. We've had before the benchers of the Law Society of British Columbia two proceedings which are important to lawyers and important as well to the public. I refer to the proceedings against Don Jabour and Vic Stephens, although now I should call him by his proper name, the hon. member for Oak Bay.

In those proceedings, Mr. Speaker, very important questions to the public are involved. One of those questions is freedom of speech; the other is to what extent the profession may be able to set and maintain a fee structure for the services they render, because ail of that is involved in the question of whether you can advertise.

Now these are matters in which the benchers of the Law Society have themselves a stake. What I am saying is that they are the wrong body to be sitting upon these important matters. They are the lawyers themselves, and they are, especially the established lawyers -and generally speaking the benchers of the Law Society of B.C. are the established lawyers in that society - sitting in judgment. They do have an interest in forbidding advertising because their business is on an established basis. If a new person comes in and says: "Well, I can do conveyancing for so much less, " or, "I can do a divorce based upon mere separation for so much less, " and tells the public about that, then that is the civil right of the public.

I say that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) should be conducting an inquiry and adjudicating with public participation on that question because it involves public rights as well as the rights of the Law Society.

Now, Mr. Speaker, having said that - and I'm not sure how much of my time has gone by - I want to discuss in an interim way a matter which I think is of the greatest importance to the people of British Columbia. I may very well, in the course of what I am going to say here, bore people with figures because I do want to present them as faithfully as I can. The issue I am talking about, although the speech may be boring, is of tremendous importance. We're talking about the Canadian disease, as it applies to British Columbia at the present time in particular.

We're talking about B.C. being for sale, particularly in terms of its resource rights; B.C. being put in hock; our future as British Columbians and our future as Canadians mortgaged. Mr. Speaker, the Canadian disease is this: we have become the most foreign~dependent resource country in the western world. Almost all of our resources are being put on the block and sold off.

You do that at f first, and then the dividend outflow goes out from your country, and you have to sell off a little more of your country to pay the profits that are being made on what you've sold in the f first place. Then you have to sell more. It's a little bit like taking dope. At first it doesn't matter very much if resources begin to be exploited by an international company, but its cumulative, and it goes on.

Now we've seen that happening in the last two years in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, on a scale I would think unknown anywhere in the western world. That trend was arrested by the NDP in its years in office. We set up British Columbia Petroleum Corporation; we put a royalty on the production and export of coal. We began a little bit to make ourselves masters in our own house. Then we were defeated at the polls, and since that time the sale of our resource rights and the profit that has been put into the hands of international companies is absolutely unbelievable when you consider this has happened in a two-year period.

The result, just to finish what I was saying about the Canadian disease, is pretty apparent. As you have to pay out dividends and profits that are being made by the international companies to whom your resources have been sold and bartered away, then there's pressure on the Canadian dollar. You have to sell more to try and retrieve your position. There's greater pressure; interest rates go up. In Canada we have the situation where our interest rates are more than double our real growth in gross national product, which is around 4 per cent. Our interest rate is running at about 9 or 10 per cent.

[ Page 195 ]

That difference, when a country has interest rates - and Canada's are among the highest in the world because of the foreign dependency I'm speaking of - that are higher than your real growth.... Then you have inflation, then you have unemployment and you have stagflation, which is unemployment and inflation at the same time.

I want to tell some of the story of this Canadian disease in terms of three products: coal, natural gas and oil. 1 want to first, though, say that while I welcome on this subject a rational debate, I do not relish the kind of statements that are made by the Minister for Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . Now, for example, when he spoke last Monday in this debate, he made this statement in Hansard on the attitude of the NDP government: "Leave the coal in the ground. What's the hurry? They were in no hurry because everything was supposedly going well and now they chastise us for not being able to sell. When they lost contracts to practically every other country in the world... they lost the contract."

Now that's what a responsible minister of the Grown said in Hansard. The plain facts of the matter are that the production of coal and export of coal in this province was as follows - and I am going to give the f figures very quickly so I won't take too much time: 1972 -six million tons; 1973, it rose under the NDP - 7,600, 000 tons; 1974 - 8,551, 000 tons; 1975, a bad year, another increase - 8,924, 000 tons; 1976, the Socred year - 7,537, 000 tons.

Now 1 do resent the kind of statements that the Minister of Economic Development makes. Another one he made in here was that investment in gas exploration in 1975 was $18 million under the NDP. It was $180 million; he was just out in his decimal point. But 1 do resent the minister, who does not seem to be able to control his tongue, making statements of that kind, which are manifestly false, on an economic matter. 1 think it behooves us in the opposition to follow up on these statements because they flow out of that minister with regularity - and a lot of the other members, too. Where they are demonstrably false, I think we have to tell the people that this minister does not know what he is talking about. A minister of bombast we can live with. A minister of fabrication should be exposed. That's what we should do.

If, Mr. Speaker, that minister is willing to get up and tell us what contracts we lost - he said we lost contracts to practically every other country in the world - if he's willing to state one, I would be surprised, because the statement is wholly false. And it's a tragedy, you know, at a time like this when our economic conditions are not easy in the province of British Columbia or in Canada, to have that kind of a minister, who goes around making false statements, incorrect statements, in charge of economic development, because he loses his credibility and it hurts the whole of the province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, we'll hear; yes, we will. I gave you the facts, ton by ton.

This is what Mr. George Froelich, who is a respected business editor of the Vancouver Sun, says about the minister's trip to Japan, Mr. Speaker:

"To boot, Don Phillips made a number of mistakes in his negotiations with the Japanese. At one stage, he suggested to the Japanese that they commit themselves to purchasing 10 million metric tons of B.C. coal. If that commitment were made, Phillips said the provincial government would seriously consider developing the necessary economic infrastructure at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.

"The Japanese response was simple and to the point: they sent Phillips what is euphemistically referred to as a comfort letter or refusal. But he didn't take it at that. The net result of the minister's activities in Japan is that B.C. lost out while Australia made the gains."

That should be put down on record because with these cheap remarks, these cheap remarks about your trip to Japan....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: You put the figures down, and for once in your life get the facts and get the correct figures.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Take your seat. Hon. members, we were going along quite well until this last outburst. I am sure that if any member wishes to speak, or wishes to correct a statement, he can do so either on a point of order or immediately following a speech. I would ask that the members recognize the member who possesses the floor, and at this time it is the hon. first member for Vancouver East. Please continue.

MR. MACDONALD: Have you any idea when I started, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will try and find out for

[ Page 196 ]

you, hon. member.

MR. MACDONALD: I don't know whether I will be able to cover the material I've got here, but there are other opportunities in this House.

In the case of coal, though, I've given the projections and the improvements that we made. I think it's important that we consider the difficulties in the international situation as they now apply. When conditions are difficult, it makes it all the more important, in my submission, that we should have good husbandry of this resource.

What is happening in coal at the present time, Mr. Speaker, is simply this: the price of coal has gone up since 1972 f rom less that $20 a ton to about $56 and an asked-f or price of about $70 a ton. In that period of time the profits of Kaiser Resources.... Here again is a typical Canadian disease: Kaiser is a large American international company which we use to sell our coal to Japan. You know, that's par for the course for the Canadians in the most dependent economy in the whole world. While that price of coal was going up, the prof its in coal of Kaiser Resources - the other large one, of course, is Fording, but Kaiser is the biggest by quite a bit - went up as follows, and these are net-profit figures: 1973, $2 million net profit; 1974, $12 million net profit; 1975, $64 million net profit, at a time when the NDP decided to increase the coal royalty; 1976, $52 million; 1977, $57,282, 000. Huge profits have been made by the middleman company in terms of taking our coal out of British Columbia and selling it to Japan and Korea and to some other places in a small degree.

The price has been steadily rising; the profits have been rising. Yet, far from increasing the royalty and bringing public money into the treasury of British Columbia, the Social Credit government cancelled the increase of $1 in the royalty that the NDP had slated for early in 1976.

I want to refer briefly to the amount out of our resources that the insiders I'm not saying that in an unfair way the main directors and shareholders of Kaiser Resources make, because they gave themselves warrants, share rights, to be exercised by the end of 1976 at $2.85. The price of Kaiser shares today is about $14. So let's say they sold off at about a $10 profit. Based upon those figures that I have given, I would think that is minimum. So the principal shareholders of Kaiser Resources made, in addition to the profits of the company, $25 million by the exercise of share warrants - and this out of an industry which is in trouble because we face competition from Australia where the coal is at tidewater. We face the fact that the Japanese steel industry is having some competition from Taiwan and other places. We face the fact that for the first time now from mainland China samples of coal are being sent to Japan, and it could be in the f future that China will be selling to Japan as well.

In those difficult times, are we to do as we did with Inco: let all of the prof its go out to an international company over our borders, and then, when the rainy day comes, we have nothing left except unemployment in the province of British Columbia?

There should be, as there was in the case of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, a very simple expedient applied. You could have a B.C. coal port through which our export coal would pass and it would pay a fair price to those who produce the coal. It would achieve a fair price on the international market for the people of the province of British Columbia. It would have the expertise to look for new mining sites and development for employment. And it would begin to return something to the public treasury of this province instead of, as this government has been doing, Mr. Speaker, giving it away to the international companies and loading rates and levies and charges and taxes on the ordinary people of this province in a way that's been unprecedented in any country.

Natural gas. I'm going to come back and talk about Grizzly Valley at another time, but in view of my time limits I'm not going to say very much now except that if the speakers opposite who think they have such a triumph over Grizzly gas will look back at the record, they will see that the extension was first planned by the NDP. They will see that the point we made last year was entirely valid. When that minister made that announcement in advance in August, 1976, he thereupon reaped a profit for speculators in Quasar and Cheyenne - which, it's true, was not dealt with by the learned judge in his report, and I think he should have, to be quite frank - which was a ripoff in terms of the blundering of that minister.

It wasn't just the firing of Arthur Weeks and Mr. Cameron, as a result of and bungling in that development. When we said the reserves were not adequate, they were not adequate at the time the minister made that. But they were coming onstream and this was a development that we would have planned and handled in a businesslike manner just as the Helmet extension was handled under the NDP government without those speculative rip-offs being made,

[ Page 197 ]

and without anybody being fired. We have nothing to be ashamed of. It was a disaster the way it was mismanaged under the present Minister of Economic Development.

Let me quickly go over what is happening in natural gas. I'll document this a little more fully later, Mr. Speaker. I'm watching my time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have approximately four minutes left.

MR. MACDONALD: Is that all?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, time flies. I'm sorry, it's eight minutes.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, don't take this interruption out of my time, either.

Let me tell you bang-bang-bang what's been happening in natural gas, and I'll come back and document it more fully later. The Social Credit government boasts about the sale of natural gas rights and bringing into the treasury $195,888, 000 in the last fiscal year. That is selling off gas rights that may last for 30 years. The leases go 10 renewable, 20 renewable, and so forth; exploration or production leases. That is selling off a capital asset of this province that can never be sold again and putting it into the public revenue.

What's the other side of the picture? The other side of the picture is the price increases that have been passed on the recommendation of the Energy Commission. They have been as follows: November 1,1975, the NDP established a price to the producers, who are the branches of the international companies, of 35 cents f or old gas, of which 15 cents was the incentive bonus, and 55 cents for new. Those prices were adequate for good, sound development and husbandry of our resource, and were made after careful inquiry and with reasons given. Since that time, January 1,1977, under the Social Credit government, without any reasons being given, there was a price increase to 65 cents and 85 cents. As if that was not enough, every time -and this is bound to be what is happening -the international oil companies come and say "we want more, " it's being given to them. Three increases since that time - November 1,1975. The last one was up to 78 cents and $1.03.

I'm going to say this quickly. Who is paying for these increases? The company profits have gone soaring in the natural gas field. I realize that there is a tax adjustment figure in there because of a change in the tax method, but my estimate, Mr. Speaker, is that there is an additional $120 million a year in revenue flowing into the gas producing companies which are, for the most part, branches of international companies, as a result of these increases, and I'm not including the NDP increase of November, 1975. The additional amount that this government has given the companies is $120 million per year. And of course the result is that the BCPC which buys that gas has to pay out more for its supplies. The result of that is that they have been passing it on because BCPC sells to Hydro and has sold to Hydro in a way where Hydro has then passed on - and the same thing has happened with Inland Natural Gas - to the consumers of the province who are really paying for this giveaway.

Increases in their consumer residential bills for natural gas, as of March 1,1978, totalled 36 per cent compounded - well, call it 36 per cent. During a period when the people of this province were under AIB, we increased the revenue to the natural gas companies by $120 million a year. It's true we brought back into the treasury $195 million by the sale of rights which can only be sold once. You know, when you turn on the tap and increase the prices unreasonably and exorbitantly as this government has done, of course, you can get a big price for the sale of your thing. But the $120 million rolls on for years. Once you have sold a capital asset, it's gone forever. We have sold out in that way in the field of natural gas.

Company profits of the oil companies I will deal with in more detail, Mr. Speaker. I am coming to the end of my time. I'm going to sum up, though, by just saying that I am trying to begin to paint the picture of the kind of giveaway that has been happening in this province under this government. I've only been able to embark upon it.

I want to tell you about petroleum. I want to tell you what is going to happen as a result of the last recommendations of the B.C. Energy Commission, which were tabled in this House at the beginning of this session. Their report, it states, has been accepted by the cabinet.

I want to tell you about some of the profits that are being made by the international oil companies. Have we no pride in our country? Do we have to be dependent upon international oil companies? Do we have to sell all our rights? Can you imagine for one minute, say, the country of Japan, which we ought to respect, engaging a big international multi-company to come in there and be a middleman on its resources, and rake off as Kaiser Resources

[ Page 198 ]

has done in British Columbia $50 million net profit one year, $60 million another, $45 million another? Of course they wouldn't do so. Canadians, if they ever want to hold this country together, and if they ever want to cut back on the rate of inflation, have got to begin taking charge of their own economy.

The story of what we are paying for that government opposite is similar to what happened to the ferries, you know. Sell off a capital asset - three ferries - put $48 million into your treasury right away, make yourself look good. You're a bottom-line government. Oh, you're balancing the books, but you're looking down the road. You've hocked the future of the people of B.C. up to $97 million.

You're going to sell off now, through this investment corporation, Can-Cel and the others - these capital assets that British Columbians were beginning to take pride in under the NDP. I agree with Rene Levesque, that unless there's a measure of mattre chez nous -masters in our own house-this country of Canada isn't worth saving. Let it break up if we're going to be totally dominated by the international companies.

MR. KING: They give it away anyway.

MR. MACDONALD: The figures ought to be documented at this session. If there was ever a giveaway government that has given the international companies everything they've wanted in the last two years, Mr. Speaker, it is that Social Credit coalition sitting opposite.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, the hon. first member for Vancouver East, spoke at length about natural gas. I'm almost inclined to believe him, because he's an expert on natural gas. That's all that's been emanating from that member in the last two and a half years. Before starting I would just like to - and the member is no longer in his seat - talk about what the first member for Vancouver East said about coal and about coal production dropping off in this province in 1976.

Well, let me give you the facts, hon. members, through you, Mr. Speaker. We all know, or should know, in British Columbia that it takes two to three years to bring a mine into production in this or any other province. The real reason for the production of coal dropping off in the first years of this administration was due to the inactivity and the lack of foresight in economic development during the previous administration. Mr. Member, wherever you are - you're not in your seat you should know that. You should also know the hon. the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) has told you, and he'll tell you again in this House - that you lost our markets. Your administration in three and a half years lost our markets, so no wonder coal production would drop off. It's rising now, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, that's not what I was going to say. I'd like to begin by saying it's with the greatest of pleasure that I stand again in my place in this Legislature to speak on behalf of the electorate of my constituency of Omineca. In so doing I would once again express my pride and my overwhelming sense of gratitude to them for having given me that opportunity.

I would at this time like to extend my very warm congratulations to the member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) for his appointment to the position of Speaker in this House. I am sure that his dedication to and trust in democracy and the parliamentary system of which we should all be very justly proud, will surely be an asset, not only to the members of this assembly, but to all British Columbians.

I would also, Mr. Speaker, extend those same warm congratulations to the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) for his elevation to the position of Deputy Speaker. I wish them both the very best in their new positions.

Congratulations also, Mr. Speaker, are in order for our new member, the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) , and I would extend to him as well my hearty welcome.

To the former Speaker, the member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) , I express my very deep respect for the difficult decision which he has made and the sacrifice which he personally was required to face in order to preserve the honour in which the office of Speaker is held in this assembly. My sorrow is for those in this House and out who would knowingly attempt to tarnish that high office for selfish, short-term political gain.

Mr. Speaker, I wish now to relate my remarks to the throne speech and to express my feelings, feelings which I believe to be those of my constituents as they relate to the address given by His Honour in this chamber on Thursday last.

Firstly, I would say, Mr. Speaker, that it was a throne speech which we as northerners can relate to in many respects. We are in the north an industrious people, a people looking for progress and for development, wanting and willing to work, and needing only the assurance of government that we will be given

[ Page 199 ]

the opportunity to show our own initiative and to make f or ourselves a place in this province.

In my mind the largest hurdle placed in the path of the individual enterprises in this province is the multitude of bureaucratic government regulations. We have in this province and in this nation literally strangled out citizens, both in business and out, with regulation upon regulation upon regulation. This has not only taken from them the initiative and the will to succeed but has also cost the consumer many, many millions of dollars. The move to deregulate government is a good one and one which we must pursue with great haste.

The throne speech talks also of further aid to small business. I think this is good and, especially at this point in time, very necessary. But I must say again that the one most important move that government could make in order to assist our small business people is to cut ridiculous and repressive regulations. Give our small business people the room to breathe, leave a little of the fruits of their hard labour in their pockets and they will provide, without government intervention, the jobs so badly needed in our province.

Mr. Speaker, a very large percentage of all those now in the work force of British Columbia are employed by small business, by those employers in our province having less than 75 employees. I say again, give those small businesses the initiative to want to succeed, to want to expand and better themselves, and therein you have the key to our unemployment problem - if in fact unemployment is a real problem in this province. We have heard evidence in this chamber that makes me wonder what the real problem really is.

It has been said that we have approximately the same number of unemployed in British Columbia in 1978 as we had in 1975. And it is also being said, and statistics show, that there have been 89,000 new jobs created in British Columbia since 1975. It has been said in this House that we have a problem in this province with workers coming from other parts of Canada to take our new jobs, and I know that that is true because it is happening daily in my constituency. Incidentally, I say once more in this House, we do not in Omineca have an unemployment problem - in fact just the opposite, Mr. Speaker, just the opposite.

As I travel throughout my constituency, what I hear from those in business and in industry - and you've been there, Madam Member; you should know....

MRS. WALLACE: I know.

MR. KEMPF: What I hear from those in business and industry in my constituency is that they cannot find the people that they need to properly staff their operations. They cannot find the people, Madam Member, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Now let us put this all together: no change in the unemployment statistics in British Columbia since 1975; out-of-province people taking British Columbians' new jobs; jobs going begging right now in this province.

MRS. WALLACE: How come you have so many on welfare?

MR. KEMPF: I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker. I've said it before in this House and I'll probably say it again. There are 100,000 people on unemployment insurance in British Columbia, but there are not 100,000 people looking for jobs. If they are looking for work, if they really are looking f or work, I say: let them go to where the jobs are. Let them not sit down here on the lower mainland looking for handouts and continuing to be a burden to the taxpayers of this province, and to this country.

The throne speech, Mr. Speaker, talks about a major new construction programme for the provision of health units and court facilities throughout our province. Many of the communities in my constituency are growing very quickly with the result that there is a great need for either the provision of initial facilities - and in particular in these two very important areas - or the upgrading, or replacement, of existing unsuitable premises. The provision of adequate and proper health-care facilities is of prime importance to all of my people, mainly due to their location in relation to the large, well-equipped facilities in the lower mainland. I look forward to this programme providing better facilities in the north.

The provision of more adequate court facilities is an absolute necessity. Conditions presently being experienced in centres such as Vanderhoof or Houston are totally unacceptable. I commend my government for the initiative in that area.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, mine is a very heavily mineralized and a heavily mining-oriented constituency. A new programme which will assist in the exploration for, and development of, new mines is certainly good news. The development of new mines in British Columbia is an absolute must, and I have no doubt that Omineca can provide the lion's

[ Page 200 ]

share of the raw materials needed for such development.

In addition to this programme, Mr. Speaker, it is my profound hope that my government will continue its efforts in Ottawa in an attempt to lessen the burden now being experienced by the mining companies presently in operation in this province. The effect of excessive taxation and, again, ridiculous bureaucratic regulations, is trying even the best of operating companies.

The introduction of a new forest Act in British Columbia is welcome news indeed. As was pointed out in the throne speech, the present and future health of this important resource cannot be left to chance. Of great concern to those in my area, Mr. Speaker, is the perpetuation of this resource. We must not overcut our forest lands. It is imperative that the system of sustained yield be very closely monitored and very closely adhered to.

We must also, Mr. Speaker - and I agree with the chief provincial forester, Mr. Ted Young -we must be very careful not to alienate productive, job-creating forest land to other single usages. We must rather, Mr. Speaker, learn in this province the term "multiple use." There is no reason whatsoever - and I speak from experience as I have spent 15 years in the industry myself and I am an ardent outdoorsman - there is absolutely no reason why, through good management of our resource and co-operation between the different users of our productive forest land, that we cannot practise a very successful system of multiple use. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, with our growing population and the many extra demands placed on our environment, we are going to have to do just that.

There is also much concern, Mr. Speaker, for the plight of the small operator in the forest industry, especially in my constituency. The small entrepreneur makes his living or supplements a small income from agriculture by carrying on a small logging or sawmilling operation. They are the very smallest of the small business people of which we speak. I would pray that the changes in the new forest Act will address themselves to these individuals. Changes in the Forest Act, however, will not sufficiently assist these people. I call once more upon my government and, in particular, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , to make those changes which I feel necessary to the Logging Tax Act.

As well as being very reliant on the main industries of forestry and mining, many of the citizens of Omineca rely on agriculture for their livelihood. A great number are in beef production. I am happy to see in the throne speech that further emphasis will be placed by our government on this industry. I have said it before and I have said to my ranchers that I am not a proponent of the farm income stabilization programme, as I feel that it robs the farmer of his or her independence and makes them far too dependent on government. However, until such time as the consumer of this province and of Canada is willing to pay for his or her food - what it costs to produce it - plus pay the farmer a fair profit for his labour, we must either subsidize the industry with taxpayers' money or be content with not having the industry at all.

The ranchers of the north, Mr. Speaker, are the salt of the earth and dedicate themselves to their families and to the land which they work. When problems arise with government, they wish to solve those problems amiably, through co-operation, not confrontation. For this, I give them much credit and admiration.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that with such an attitude among agriculturalists and with the type of individual that we have as a Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) in this province, this government's goal to preserve the family farm and to protect our ability as a province to produce our own food will be attained.

Mr. Speaker, there is much more that could be said about the programmes outlined in the throne speech. Greater emphasis on an apprenticeship programme; further emphasis on tourism; a new programme to aid in upgrading airport facilities - and this is very important to the citizens of the north; increased assistance for first-time home buyers, of special significance to our young people; a continuing, vigorous highway maintenance and construction programme.... I could go on and on about the positive aspects of this throne speech, unlike the negative-thinking, doom-and-gloom attitude of members opposite.

I have great faith in and great admiration for the initiative and will to succeed of the people of British Columbia and will reserve further comment for the budget and debate on individual minister's estimates.

Mr. Speaker, before taking my place, I would just like to say that the recovery in British Columbia, even before the throne speech, had already begun. The people of this province are already rallying behind this administration and will continue to do so. They know, and we often, as politicians, tend to overlook their understanding and good sense. They know that the only road to economic recovery, to the building of an economy which is capable of working for all of our people, is the one on

[ Page 201 ]

which we are presently traveling. They know also that the responsibility is not only that of government, but is theirs, personally, as well. We are fortunate to have such people in this province. With the co-operation and feeling for our people that we see in this throne speech and in this administration, together we cannot help but succeed. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we are already succeeding.

I know that it has already been said in this debate by other members, but it must be said time and time and time again all over this province until all of our people see through the meaningless rhetoric of those in our province and in this House who would do or say anything, however detrimental to the overall good of British Columbia, in order to attain short-term political gain.

Let us look once again at our record: an increase of nearly 30,000 new jobs in British Columbia in 1977; over 15 per cent of all of the jobs created in Canada, when our province accounts for only 11 per cent of the total Canadian labour force; 89,000 new jobs since 1975; real gross provincial product up 4.3 per cent in 1977, compared to Canada of 2.5 to 3 per cent; total wages and salaries up 12 per cent in British Columbia, but only 10.4 per cent in all of Canada; product exports up 21 per cent over 1976; time lost due to work stoppages down dramatically from 1,445, 000 man-days in 1975 to 122,000 in 1976.

The member for New Westminster expressed fear for the economic situation in British Columbia. You bet he's afraid. He's afraid that it will become even better. Should this happen, never again will we see a socialist government in this province. Never again will those socialists over there have the opportunity to again create in this province the economic disaster such as we saw when taking office in 1975.

MR. MACDONALD: "Never again!" say the millionaires.

MR. KEMPF. You had your turn and all we heard was hot air, Mr. Member. The record of this government speaks for itself and nothing - absolutely nothing - that is said by those members opposite or by anyone, for that matter, will change that. I see the record very clearly; I agree with the direction in which we are progressing and so do my constituents. That is why I most emphatically support this government in their initiatives as seen in the throne speech.

MR. ROGERS: If I could paraphrase Monty Python: "And now for something completely different...."

First of all, I would like to join the chorus of people who have congratulated you, Mr. Speaker, although you are not the Mr. Speaker I was obviously congratulating. But nonetheless, to the elevation of the member for Chilliwack...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I accept your congratulation, hon. member.

MR. ROGERS: I would also like to congratulate the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) on his successful by-election and to thank all the me ers of this assembly who have given me a warm word of thanks and welcome to my new position.

My seatmate and good friend, the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman) , spoke at length on Tuesday about some of the concerns which affect our riding. I will touch on those later. But first I have a little bit of good news, I think, to share with the House. One of Vancouver's most famous citizens and a resident and supporter in Vancouver South was recently awarded the Order of Canada. He's an extremely popular philanthropic gentleman known as Mr. Ben; officially, he's known as Mr. Ben Wosk. I would like the House to join me in congratulating him on his very fine award.

Some months back, Mr. Speaker, we had a very difficult time in our constituency. One of our oldest and most respected industries and businesses, the Vancouver plywood division of MacMillan Bloedel, had announced that they were going to shut their plant. This would have resulted in the loss of several hundreds of jobs and a productive factory that had fallen into disrepair shut down for some time and maybe forever. I would like to thank the Premier, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) , the officials of the IWA and the officials of MacMillan Bloedel who got together and worked out a solution to the problem. I know the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) was also involved, and I would like to thank him as well, because today that plant is in operation.

The company has announced extensive plans for revitalization. They will be modernizing some of the mill. By agreement with the workers they will be closing down the old A part of the mill. I look forward to the time when that plant will be as modern and as competitive as any of the new ones that come on stream.

I took the opportunity last August to escort the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland)

[ Page 202 ]

to Vancouver Plywood so that we had a first-hand knowledge of the situation. When the announcement came the minister was able to act swiftly, and I thank him again.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

But Vancouver Plywood is not the only forest products industry in our constituency. In fact from the Hunting and Merritt shingle mill at the foot of Granville Street all the way up to Vancouver Plywood, there are about 25 manufacturers. Some of them are the majors that we all know: Canadian Forest Products at Eburne, Weldwood, Rayonier. But there is also an enormous am un of small operators in there - not an enormous amount, but about 15 small operators, people who have carved out a niche in this very competitive industry. Our constituency is one of the places where they survive and survive very well.

Along with them there are all of the suppliers, the towboat companies, the firms involved in industrial supply, boom chains, manufacturing cables. The interrelated industry is all affected.

So you can see why I'm so very pleased that there was announced in the throne speech an intensive programme of forest management and replanting of areas that have been logged off. This area has been touched on and alluded to by so many other members. I know many of them think that those of us who represent urban ridings don't have anything to do with trees, but everybody in this province has quite a lot to do with trees.

Mr. Speaker, on the next part I think I could even do without notes but I'm glad that you're back in the chair because I'm going to talk about airports, and I'm going to talk about Chilliwack airport. I know you've been sitting beside me when we flew into Chilliwack airport. This is a personal interest - maybe it's a conflict of interest - but I'm just absolutely delighted that we're going to do something.

Now one of the best airports in this province is the one located in the municipality of Chilliwack. It's not owned by the Ministry of Transport, which in itself is a blessing. The airport, I believe, is owned by the municipality, although I could be corrected, I presume, by note.

That airport is plain and simple - what we need. It's not fancy by Ministry of Transport standards but it's what we need. It's got an illuminated runway; it's paved; its got illuminated wind-socks. You know, Mr. Speaker, one night after this House sat late, that you and I personally flew back there and used that illuminated wind-sock to determine which runway we were going to land on.

Now the tragedy of this whole thing is that in Nanaimo and in Campbell River, which are two major airports that we're all pretty familiar with, and two airports in this province which are served by airlines operating with turbine equipment and jet equipment, they don't have the capability of using those airports on a 24-hour basis. Nanaimo is even worse than the others because Nanaimo has a Ministry of Transport air radio station - all of the proper facilities - but if you want to use Nanaimo airport at night, the man has got to go along with the old highway flare-pots, light them and put them on the side of the runway. I'm not going to have another chance to really get up and talk about this, as you know, a little later on, so I thought I'd tell the people responsible how really happy I'm about this.

Now if we were to take the entire provincial budget - and I don't know what the provincial budget is but I can guess - and if we were to take the list of airports that are in this province, I can guarantee you that the federal Ministry of Transport would waste our entire provincial budget and still not bring the airports in this province up to their standards. Now you've got to understand it's Ottawa money and its Victoria money, so what I'm saying to this House and whoever is responsible, is: "Go to Chilliwack, see how its done properly and then go and do the same thing in Powell River, Texada Island and Nanaimo especially, because I often have to go to Nanaimo and it's very inconvenient. Otherwise I have to violate air regulations when I fly it at night. Don't worry about Pitt Meadows, the busiest airport in the country. The Whip is always bugging me about it.

I want to talk to you about lighting, and while the Whip is here I'll talk to you about it. The Ministry of Transport, in their infinite wisdom and we know they're infinitely wise have certain types of lighting for certain types of airports. Vancouver, of course, has the fanciest. One evening the Whip and I were f lying back to Vancouver. He had been brought up on a standard airport. We had them turn on all the lights in Vancouver. He refused to land on the runway. They have lights embedded in the runway and my good colleague said: "I'm not going to land on there. That glass is going to tear my tires to bits."

So the people are actually not expecting all the fancy stuff that the Ministry of Transport wants to be the minimum standards; what they want is just something plain and simple. I am

[ Page 203 ]

sure most of the members of the House and the members of the opposition who are familiar with aviation will probably join me in agreeing with me on this, although perhaps we could have an argument. But I don't think so.

MR. SKELLY: How much money is in the programme?

MR. ROGERS: I think you'll have to stay tuned for that because I believe the budget is on Monday. That's the federal budget on Monday, and I don't know how much money is in the programme .

But I know if it's done effectively and if it's done using voluntary labour.... Because in Powell River the members of the flying club buy a Texas micky and sell raffle tickets to buy runway lights for the airport. I mean, it's absolutely absurd, but if you let the Ministry of Transport go in there, forget it; we couldn't afford.

There is a group known as the British Columbia Aviation Council, which is a melding of all of the aviation groups: the charter groups, the flying clubs, the Experimental Aircraft Association, and all of the others. I know that they will be most helpful to government in helping them to implement this programme. And that's just talking about runway lights.

There's another problem, and that is that we are expecting a lot of tourists this summer. I hope some of them come; I really do. There's only one way to go through this province to Alaska, and that's up through Prince George, because, as you know, the hop between Port Hardy and Prince Rupert is just too long to make in a single-engine airplane with any feeling of confidence. And it's vitally important that we build a mid-coast airfield, somewhere in the Bella Bella region, where people can go in and refuel, and check the weather, which is not consistent on the coast. It would open up that whole area to those people who have aircraft that aren't unlimited. We had enough talk about aircraft earlier on.

MR. SKELLY: Not on the Island - it's now cheaper to fly than go on the ferries.

MR. ROGERS: I'll try not to enter into an argument about that. Last year I entered a private member's bill and I found that it's an almost futile way of getting someone's attention in this House - almost futile, but not quite. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is not here now, but I know he's sitting in his office on the edge of his chair with the speaker on, so if I go through this slowly I know he'll listen to me.

Technology has given us this very simple, plain device, which, if it's mounted on the ceiling of your house, will allow you to know if combustible materials have started to smoke. It's something that has come along in the last 15 years, like cablevision and coloured TV, but unlike cablevision and coloured TV it's not something we all really feel we want to spend the money for. However, 1 would urge - and I mean urge - the Attorney-General to amend the Fire Marshal Act, which he can do by regulation, to say that smoke alarms be made mandatory in all new residential construction - apartment buildings, hotels, mobile homes and floating homes. They cost $35, and if you put them in at the time that the contractor is wiring the house it's an even better deal.

It's mandatory in about 40 of the United States. It's merely a simple problem - at least I assume it's a simple problem. From last year's little bit of publicity on this bill, 1 have letters from fire chiefs throughout the province, and I've never had anyone complain about it. They all say it's a great deal. I personally recommend to everyone in this province who hasn't already installed one in their home to get one, because it's the smoke that will kill you; it's not the fire. The fire is just going to cook the body. You'll have already been dead for some time by the time the flames get to you. The f ire marshal put out a press release some time ago and that happens to be the truth.

While I'm discussing the Attorney-General, I'd like to say that hidden in the throne speech is mention of the Good Samaritan Act, and I think that's wonderful news. You know, we've become sort of California-paranoid about helping people in need, and if somehow the Act can be phrased in a certain way.... If you go out of your way to try and help somebody, your first consideration is to do whatever you're going to do, pulling someone out of a building or saving somebody else, not: is he going to sue? I think that's going to go a long way to give us a little bit of a distinction from California.

I'm very pleased to hear some results on urban transits. My cohort from Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman) said that we're just a little bit fed up with studies, and it's probably time we started doing something since the ground plan is already fairly obvious. But I would ask the minister - who unfortunately isn't here but I'm sure he's on the edge of his chair as well - to look at the Toronto system.

[ Page 204 ]

The Toronto Transit Commission is a clearly set up body, definite and separate from both the municipal government and the provincial government. It gets its capital funding from senior levels of government, but it has a specific formula for operations. It has its own board of directors and the formula for operations is quite simple: the senior levels of government will pay 30 per cent of the operating deficit of the transit commission, or whatever is negotiated, but the balance will be made up in the f are box. And that means that when the riders who are on the Toronto transit system subway or bus service are reading in the newspapers about the negotiations with their motormen and their carriers, they know what it's going to cost them, in the final analysis, on fares.

I think it would be the best thing we could do for the Greater Vancouver Regional District and for the Victoria district to let them know now the level that we are prepared, as the provincial government, to contribute to them. We recognize the fact that the transit system is a definite social necessity, and it also takes a lot of cars off the road and has real benefits. But its real benefits do not include free rides for everybody. At some point we have to come up with a formula that they can live with, so they don't constantly ask for expansion of routes, some of which are underutilized. It becomes a political decision every time you want to say: "Let's discontinue this route, or let's add a new route here, or put new equipment on this one." If you put the thing in a separate commission as they've done in Toronto, we don't have to study the programme. It's four and a half hours away on the silver bird, and you can go down to Toronto. I'm sure they'll give us some expert help.

Incidentally, with all the people who are running exotic rapid-transit system around the world, if you ask them which is the best one they'll tell you: "Well, I would suggest you go to Toronto, because not only does it work, it works extremely well and it's clean." Perhaps Hamburg also, but Toronto's cheaper. I don't want to see people taking their money out of the country during the time when the Canadian dollar is under such terrific pressure.

It's the bicentennial of Captain Cook, and in Captain Cook's log there is absolutely no record of his having come to Vancouver South. However, he has a carbon copy. We are pleased to announce that Marpole Gala Days is on August 12, and you are all invited. The MLAs will be there and we will have a good time.

The Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) is here. I know I haven't got his attention yet - there, I've got it now. I sent that minister a little blurb the other day, and I know he's had a chance to look at it. But I want to tell the House about it because I think it is a great deal.

The province of Alberta has an Act called the Foreign Land Sales Act. What the Foreign Land Sales Act says is that, if you want to sell property in Alberta, more than two lots, you have got to have that property appraised by an Alberta appraiser. So that those people who go down to Arizona and pick up 200 acres of sand.... I remember the one I talked about last year, "only 60 miles from Reno" - six miles from Reno is too far, six blocks from Reno and you're in the desert - those kinds of operations have gone on too long. The standard routine is they buy you the list of credit cards - you know, we all have an American Express: "Don't leave home without a card" -they'll sell that list to a developer. The developer will send you a nice glossy brochure saying: "Come down and see Miracle Valley, " or whatever they want to call it. People go out to a banquet. The high-pressure salesman gets up, the map is on the wall, and the people are bilked out of their money. Let's face it: people buy real estate out of this province, sight unseen. If we had a simple mechanism whereby the promoter had to go and say: "Listen, this is appraised at $7 an acre, why are you paying $15,000 for the lot?".... You know, never give a sucker an even break. Maybe the P.T. Barnum is still in everybody.

Mr. Speaker, there are two things in the throne speech which really affect my constituency. One is a very minor one and the other is a very major one. The little one is that homeowners who miss a deadline for applying for a grant is something that tragically happens about four times a year. It is very frustrating to have to go and tell the people that you have spoken to the departmental officials and there's nothing you can do about it. It's a small, personal tragedy. But something that I would personally like to be able to say when they phone is: "We've changed the Act; you've missed the deadline due to unforeseen circumstances -someone is in the hospital or wherever - we're now going to modify that." That's going to make a difference to a small number of people, but a significant difference.

The other thing that is really important for us is the changes to the family law. That's a major problem in our constituency, as it is in any major urban area. I suspect it's a problem in the rural areas as well. For those two

[ Page 205 ]

reasons alone, Mr. Speaker, I should tell you this: I'm glad to be back, and it will come as no surprise to you that I'm going to support the Speech from the Throne.

MR. KING: Since this is the first opportunity love had to participate in the regular proceedings of the House, Mr. Speaker, may I join with the other members in expressing my congratulations to you on assuming the Speaker's chair. I feel confident, Mr. Speaker, that you will continue your reputation as a fair-minded individual, one who will give fair treatment and representation to each and every member of the House. At the same time, I would like to extend my congratulations to the Deputy Speaker, who just took his seat. I think he also is a good choice as Deputy Speaker of the House.

While I'm in a magnanimous kind of mood, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to bless the Clerk. (Laughter.)

I'd like to extend my congratulations to the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) upon his smashing victory, and welcome him to the House. I just wish that the members on the government side could join in the enthusiasm that I share over that victory; but I do not hear any giggles over there, Mr. Speaker, at the moment. That's what you call "damned with faint praise, " my friend.

I was interested in listening to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) . I found some classic conflicts in the statements he made to the House this afternoon.

Early in his speech he commented on the number of unemployed in the province of British Columbia. Of course, we always get into the numbers gain terms of how many are unemployed now as compared with 1975. Well, the old adage is, you know, that "figures do not lie, but liars figure." And I know that no one in this House fits that characterization. But Statistics Canada, I think, has to be taken literally, and they are the figures that we should go by. Statistics Canada provides the information that right now there are 143,000 people looking for employment in the province of British Columbia; the real rate of unemployment, the seasonally adjusted figure, is 109,000. The seasonally adjusted figure at the end of 1975 was 88,000. So let the record be clear on that.

I got a kick out of the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) . He referred to 100,000 as being on unemployment insurance benefits. He said there are not 100,000 looking for work. The same member in concluding his speech went on to say that we have to have great faith and confidence in the people of British Columbia. On the one hand, he states that he has no confidence and no respect in the integrity of the unemployed in this province to actively and in good conscience seek employment. Then he asks us to have faith in the same people he has just repudiated and stated that he holds contempt for because he does not believe that they are genuinely unemployed. Now if that isn't a distortion and a conflict, I don't know what is. I suppose that's the reason he's on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker, and I am on this side.

I got a kick, also, out of his continual reference to "my government." At first I thought it was the Lieutenant-Governor speaking, Mr. Speaker. My government, my people. Let my people go.

AN HON. MEMBER: My goodness!

MR. KING: I like to think, Mr. Speaker, when we were in government that we were the people's government, not "my government" in some paternalistic way. But of course, that can hardly be said today.

Mr. Speaker, coming to the throne speech itself, I'm rather shocked by it. It is a pale, insipid statement of the government's policy. It lacks programmes, quite frankly. There's only one glimmer of hope in it that I do commend the government for, and that is their proposal with respect to the upgrading of airports, particularly in the interior and the northern part of the province of British Columbia. There's a great need here, and I congratulate the government for addressing themselves to that problem. I trust that their programmes will include some of the things that the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) spoke about: proper lighting facilities for night operation of the airports in the interior and certainly grading and maintenance of all-weather facilities.

I can tell the House, Mr. Speaker, that we had a number of very near catastrophes in the Revelstoke area because the airport there could not be operated year-round due to the heavy snow problem. We had two situations in the last year or so where aircraft had to land on the highways. They were enroute from either Calgary to Kamloops or some other main point. The Revelstoke airport is in a rather strategic location in terms of emergency facilities and I appreciate that that is one of the airports that is on the list and in fact has priority for upgrading. I commend the government for that.

But in terms of the general thrust of the

[ Page 206 ]

throne speech, it really does lack content and hope. There is little or nothing in the way of any new, significant programme to come to grips with the economic doldrums that the province is in or to provide any hope for the large numbers of people who are unemployed in the province at this particular time.

Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that my own riding is one of the more fortunate ones, I suspect, in the province in terms of employment. We have a major hydro-electric dam underway and there is an upsurge of jobs in that particular area as a result. But it's a slow process and it grows slowly. What is happening is that many, many people from around this province in anticipation of employment on that dam are moving into the area and creating extreme pressures on housing facilities, on recreational facilities and all of the attendant social facilities that must be provided to an increasing population.

Now B.C. Hydro has basically been charged with the responsibility of providing the funding or assistance with funding to meet these pressures on the local municipality. But I suggest that the government itself, through the various ministries - such as the Attorney-General's ministry for policing costs, such as the Minister of Housing's department directly for housing assistance -bear the prime responsibility.

Now some of the ministers, I believe, have accepted that responsibility well, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) being one of them. I'd have to throw a bit of a bouquet to the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) too, who has been helpful with respect to river erosion problem in the Revelstoke area. But I want to serve notice to the other ministers who are directly involved, particularly the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. William ) , that they themselves bear the primary responsibility for the impact, socially and economically, which has befallen the community of Revelstoke as a result of what is a political initiative by this government, a political decision to build a hydro-electric dam on the perimeter of that city.

So the responsibility cannot be shoved off to the Crown agency, British Columbia Hydro. The prime responsibility rests with these ministries, and I am going to be working vigorously over the next year or so to make sure that those ministers and those departments shoulder this responsibility fairly.

Some of the programme s I would like to have seen in the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, do not appear. I think that there is a whole variety of things that the government could do in the way of direct employment programmes to put people to work.

There is a major highway problem in the south end of my riding. In the south end of my riding the Cape Horn bluffs - the Slocan bluffs - have proved to be a major obstacle to completing Highway 23 South. Of course, it's a one-lane situation now, and it's been in the mill under study by various governments over the past 15 years that I'm aware of. I have met with the current Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and a number of options have been discussed in terms of remedying this one-lane access road to the important resort and tourist area of New Denver and Slocan Lake. So far nothing has happened and I see nothing in the throne speech which specifically deals with the upgrading of that particular route. I hope that when the budget comes in we will f find an allocation for that purpose because, Mr. Speaker, it's not only a matter of safety on the highway; it's a matter of complementing and attracting tourists and exploiting our full tourist potential in that particular area.

The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has been active in advocating increased tourist opportunity in the province, and we should not allow inadequate highways to impair and impede the tourist potential that we do have. The Slocan area is one of the last clean lakes, one of the last unpolluted lakes in the province of British Columbia. The area known as the Valhalla wilderness area is located on the perimeter of that lake and it is just a real paradise in terms of hiking trails, in terms of fishing and in terms of boating and recreation on the lake. But the big problem is that tourists who are pulling trailers and boats, after having made one trip over the Slocan bluffs, are too terrified to take their boat up that way, never mind come back again on a return voyage, because it's rather a spectacular drop-off at that point. It's about 2,000 feet down to the Slocan Lake. So I do hope that attention is paid to that. I point out to the government that this is one of the positive things that could have been done both in terms of improving our tourist potential and in terms of providing significant employment for people in the interior of the province.

There's another major highway link that is important in my particular area that again could have provided a good deal of economic activity, a good deal of industrial thrust and employment, and that is the completion of the

[ Page 207 ]

highway link between Trout Lake and Kaslo.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Winlaw.

MR. KING: No, Winlaw is in pretty good shape, my friend. We fixed that one up when we were in government.

The highway between Trout Lake and Kaslo does need to be upgraded. In fact, it needs to be replaced on the opposite side of the lake. I wish the minister would push his government to make that a high priority because this would create employment. It's an excellent tourist area also and it services one of the dams on the triangle that's located and connected to the Columbia River.

I regret that there has been such hesitance on the part of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) with respect to changing the Forest Act in the province of British Columbia. You know, the minister had a look at the Pearse royal commission report on the forest industry and then he appointed a committee to study the committee report. He's had that going internally now for over a year. We've been promised a new Forest Act, but I want to say to the minister and to the government that during the intervening months any activity and planning and development in the forest industry has ground to a halt, largely as a result of not knowing what the ground rules and the guidelines are going to be. If there is a need in the province at this time in terms of employment, Mr. Speaker, it is to provide access to the resource for small operators on a community level, and return some competition and free enterprise to this system that the government pays lip service to but does nothing about initiating.

Mr. Speaker, there are other programmes that could be undertaken, in my view, that would give an economic stimulus to the economy right now, which would provide gainful employment for many of the people who are on unemployment insurance, and in some cases, social assistance. There's a whole variety of streams and lakes that have been polluted and tangled by logging operations that should be cleaned up. It could be a manpower-intensive project. I see nothing definitive in the throne speech about initiating and mounting those kinds of programmes.

I can think of one particular lake in my area, Coursier Lake, that is an excellent fishing area high in the peaks - just spectacular scenery, excellent fly fishing -but the problem is you can't get a boat into it now, Mr. Speaker, because of the debris that is floating on it. Because of the insane forest policies pursued by the old Social

Credit government, wherein they failed to make provision for green spaces around the perimeters of stream and lakes to protect them against the debris being spilled into the lake from logging operations, we have an excellent facility there that cannot be utilized as a recreation outlet at the moment.

These are the kinds of things that could be undertaken to create employment, to provide a good union pay scale for the workers involved. It could be employment-intensive, and rather than paying out money to have people sit idle, why doesn't the government show some initiative and take on some of these positive programmes which complement tourism, which stimulate the economy and which come to grips with some of the enormous unemployment problems in this province?

The Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) has nothing positive to contribute, Mr. Speaker. He can't conceive of a positive programme; he can't conceive of anything that is positive.

Mr. Speaker, the government's performance has really been very weak. The throne speech, I guess, is a bit of an offshoot of the government's image and the government's performance itself. It's a rather ineffectual, incompetent and indecisive throne speech. Those are the strong points about it, Mr. Speaker. Like the government, it gets worse after reading behind the introduction to it. I find nothing in it, quite frankly, that would give any encouragement or any stimulus to the economy of the province of British Columbia. We've heard a lot about suggestions that the work force is increasing; we've heard of various indicators that the government members have held out as holding promise for economic recovery in this province.

Quite frankly, I don't see very much. I note that rental space in the city of Vancouver is at an all-time high. Office vacancy rates are at an all-time high. I have an article here from The Vancouver Sun dated Friday, August 19,1977. The headline is: "Office Vacancy Rate Highest in 25 Years." It goes on to outline the rather spectacular increase in vacancy rates since 1975.

Now that doesn't look to me like an indicator of a healthy economy. Obviously the same is true with respect to statistics on unemployment. The same is true with respect to statistics on capital investment, and just about every indicator we want to look at.

The kind of vital initiative that I would have expected this government to come forward with is completely lacking. I was perplexed to watch the Premier's performance on Capital Comment just a day or two before the Legislature convened. I was looking forward to

[ Page 208 ]

listening to the Premier in anticipation of some bold and imaginative statements about the government's intention to bring in new program to get the economy moving again. Lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, he did nothing more than dodge questions. He ran away from any question of substance, but his main contribution was to indulge in the resurrection of the rather unfortunate circumstances surrounding your predecessor's resignation.

Mr. Speaker, I was rather saddened by the Premier's pettiness in resurrecting that issue, which touched on a man's reputation and service to this House. I was particularly disappointed and perplexed by the Premier's.... I don't know what you would call it to describe it in a parliamentary way, Mr. Speaker, but I would suggest that he took liberties with the truth on that programme.

He suggested that the opposition had initially opposed the member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) as the Speaker because he would not give us enough staff. Mr. Speaker, that is completely and patently untrue, borne out by the records of debate in this Legislature. The issue hinged solely upon the fact that the former Speaker-elect, as he was at that time, took direction from the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and Danny Campbell, who is a bureaucrat in the Premier's office. Those memos giving direction to the Speaker-elect were filed in this House and the issue was that if the Speaker at that point in his young career would compromise his independence and impartiality by taking direction in subservient fashion from government members and bureaucrats, then he could not be a truly impartial and independent servant of this Legislature. The Premier was well aware of that; it's a matter of public record. To try to twist the proposition to the point where he suggested that the fight was over the amount of staff and facilities that the opposition would have is a disappointing performance coming from the First Minister of this province.

I'm sorry he resurrected that again. I'm sure that the member for North Peace River has suffered enough in terms of publicity and in terms of investigation of his tenure. He suffered enough, rather than having the Premier, of all people, resurrect the debate and resurrect the issue and take liberties with the truth as the sequence of events occurred in 1976.

A number of things have happened, Mr. Speaker, which disappoint me, quite frankly. I am sure that I speak for large numbers of British Columbians who are having a most difficult time in making ends meet because of unemployment, because of the shrinkage of patronage for their enterprise and so on. Yet we have heard government members in this debate attack the NDP for allegedly destroying the economy and the future of British Columbia in three years of office.

You know, that is the balance and the mentality of those people over there. They fail to recognize that the so-called free enterprisers have controlled the economy and the government of this province for 100 years. They have been in control on a national basis for well over 100 years. And yet they suggest that all of the ills that face this economy and the society we live in today are the fault of the NDP for having the temerity to form the government in British Columbia for three short years.

They further say: "Just have confidence in the free enterprise system. The private sector will restore the health to this province. Leave them alone. Less government intervention, less government regulation, no handouts except to big business. Don't help the people. That will destroy their initiative and their incentive."

I want to tell you something about the attitude of free enterprisers, Mr. Speaker. Up in my particular riding, I talked a bit earlier on about the influx of workers who were anticipating employment on the dam. Well, similarly, there has been a vast amount of new capital investment in Revelstoke over the past two years: new office buildings, new apartments, all kinds of things that small entrepreneurs thought would be filled up immediately with dam workers that they would make a handsome profit on.

Well, Mr. Speaker, many of these people invested a little bit too early. The boom has not come yet; it hasn't happened yet. Just a few hundred workers are on the dam. We are facing stores that are closed. We are facing bankruptcies against people who have invested in new apartment blocks and office buildings, because their space sits empty. The crunch is on many of these small free enterprisers. Even the restaurant people are concerned because the patronage in their restaurants is down.

I want to tell you how concerned they are, Mr. Speaker. A group of these restaurateurs got together and they petitioned city council in the city of Revelstoke. I want to read their petition to the Legislature to show how desperate . these free enterprisers that this government has total confidence in as the machine that will restore the health of our economy were. This petition is directed to the city of Revelstoke, city council, November 15,

[ Page 209 ]

" We, the undersigned restaurant owners, are concerned about the abnormal increase of new restaurants and consequently of liquor outlets in the city of Revelstoke. We believe that city council's opinion not to tamper with free enterprise deserves another good, hard look at the situation. We would like to point out that the tremendous economical growth and success of certain European countries was due to a planned free-enterprise system. If free enterprise is not controlled wisely, it will create economical chaos and will not contribute to the growth and orderly development of our city. We are willing and very happy to discuss the matter further with city council."

A whole variety of these hard-nosed free enterprisers signed this petition. There was the Schnitzel Inn, Roma Restaurant, Revelstoke Motor Inn, Smitty's Pancake House, Chalet Dining Room and, lo and behold, would you believe this signature that showed up on this petition, Mr. Speaker? The Sandman Inn - Phil Gaglardi. And the statement is if free enterprise is not controlled wisely, it will create economical chaos. It refers to some European countries as controlling free enterprise wisely.

I guess the moral of it is, Mr. Speaker, that all of these people who pay lip service to the free-enterprise principle really are not talking about free, competitive enterprise. They are talking about a monopoly market delivered unto them by their political friends in government, either at the municipal level or at the provincial level. That's the kind of free enterprisers I suspect that we have on some of the back benches of the government as well.

To hold out the hope that the economy of British Columbia is going to rebound without government intervention, without government initiative, without government direct employment programmes is to me an archaic point of view, and it's a bit of a dishonest one, too, because half of the free enterprises that they talk about are not free enterprises at all. They are people who are trying to get their own little monopoly hold over their corner of the market. They preach free enterprise for everybody else, but not me. That's the way it goes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I see the Attorney--General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) sitting there expectantly. I think he's itching to make a statement to the House and I'm not going to take up too much more time of the House's attention this afternoon. I expect to be commenting further when we gain more precise indication of what the government's programme is. I hope there are some government programmes contained in the budget because there is certainly nothing of substance in the throne speech.

I suppose in one sense one could say that we do that throne speech dignity by utilizing the full six days allocated to debate the document when it's so anemic in nature. I can't conclude, though, without making one observation about the performance of this government through its Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.' McGeer) with respect to the hiring of an American to head up the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia at a time when 109,000 British Columbians are unemployed. Now I'm not suggesting that there were a whole lot of people among that 109,000 who may have filled the bill as chairman of the insurance corporation board of British Columbia; but I am suggesting that there are the human resources in British Columbia - in plenty, in qualified fashion - that could fill the bill as chairman of the Insurance Corporation of B.C. board in the same fashion that we fill the benches of the cabinet by British Columbians.

Interjection.

MR. KING: No, we didn't dish out patronage to Mr. Bonner and Mr. Williston and Mr. Dan Campbell. We put people in charge of British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority who brought some humanity to that corporation for the first time...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: ... some humanity, some direction, some social conscience. They are alien terms to this gang, Mr. Speaker, alien terms.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.)

MR. SPEAKER: May we have order, please. Orderly debate is what we require in this House.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was giving a most orderly presentation, very mild. The Premier.... Well, we won't go into that.

The whole proposition is, though, that there is a form of symbolism involved in what this government did with respect to Robby Sherrell. It's not the f act that we wish to comment on

[ Page 210 ]

the expertise or lack of expertise that Mr. Sherrell may or may not have. It's the symbolism, the snobbery, the elitism and the arrogance in the gesture of appointing an American at a time when the working people of British Columbia are paying in a fashion that hasn't been seen since the Dirty Thirties. That, my friend, is arrogance, complete arrogance. I don't know what the price was of persuading the Minister of Immigration to change his mind and to allow this person to come into British Columbia to take a job, a high-paid $80,000 per year job that could well have been filled by many, many British Columbians, and certainly hundreds of Canadians. Or does the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) believe in and endorse the same sentiments as those echoed by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) in saying that there are a hundred thousand British Columbians unemployed but they don't want to work? Is that the kind of snobbery and contempt this government holds for the people who they have a mandate to represent.

MR. KEMPF: You'll find out.

MR. KING: We'll find out indeed, my friend. It's on your conscience and the people will give you a clear indication, I'm confident of that.

But, Mr. Speaker, that mentality can't be allowed to continue in British Columbia, the mentality that says if you can't afford insurance, sell your car; the mentality that says to heck with 115,000 unemployed people -bring in an American via Great Britain, then pay him $80,000 a year while the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) cuts welfare rates for widows and children.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Right on, and I've experienced it. I can vouch for this: I took the Ministry of Human Resources to an arbitration case because they cut off a pair of senior Russian citizens in the Slocan Valley from assistance in repairing a roof that was leaking. They refused them any help whatsoever because the children had loaned them the money - the children weren't living at home. I took that case to arbitration, Mr. Speaker. You know what was said to me in that arbitration by a representative of that man over there? "Well, these people are getting the maximum benefits under Human Resources rates, but they're Russian people and it doesn't cost them as much to live as the average person."

Interjection.

MR. KING: That's in evidence at an arbitration hearing, and I wonder where that mentality came from.

Interjection.

MR. KING: You're darned right. That's the mentality and that's the direction that's being given by that benevolent minister.

If I appear angry, I am angry any time we can fork out $80,000 for an American and suggest that two senior citizens - one 73 years of age, one 69 - because their ethnic origin suggests that perhaps they may be able to live like peasants, should have their rates and benefits cut. What kind of a government is this? It's inhumane, no feeling, no sensitivity, and all the Premier can do is run away from it, and bring in diversions or ruses. Mr. Speaker, I'm ashamed of them.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'd ask leave of the House to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yesterday the hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis) made a statement that the investigation concerning him dealt with his use of air tickets. Since the hon. member made reference to the substance of the investigation, yesterday 1 requested the Deputy Attorney-General to furnish me with an interim report as to the current status of the investigation. This I received by hand this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, this matter came to the attention of the RCMP as the result of information furnished from a private citizen. The investigation concerns itself with the use of airline tickets on a number of occasions during a period of about 23 months. The Deputy Attorney-General has informed me that the RWP investigation into the matter is not yet fully complete. The investigative material is being prepared for an opinion of counsel as to whether the facts will or will not support a charge. At my suggestion I've had the Deputy Attorney-General arrange with counsel for the hon. member that a copy of this statement would be delivered to the hon. member for his information in advance of it being presented to the House by myself.

Mr. Speaker, my foremost responsibility in matters such as this, as Attorney-General, is to ensure that a full and complete investigation is undertaken by the police; that the facts as presented are then assessed;

[ Page 211 ]

and that a determination is then made as to what course of action, including the possibility of the laying of charges, follows. That may require that a period of time ensues wherein it is not possible for me to make as full a statement as one would like. I assure the hon. member and this House that I've ordered my ministerial officials to act as expeditiously as possible so that in the interests of all concerned this matter can be promptly concluded. The effect this may have on individuals concerned weighs heavily on me, and I assure the hon. member and this House that I have expressly conveyed this concern to those investigating the matter.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, on a question of personal privilege, I hope you will bear with me, and the House will give me a few minutes.

Leave granted.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've broken no moral law, bent no rule of ethics, flouted no government regulations. I've done my job to the best of my ability, I've paid my bills, all of them - including moneys due as a result of air travel as a minister of the Crown. Legally, financially and administratively I've done no wrong. I was tardy in certain things, that's true; but as soon as the matter was raised I paid up. I'm overpaid as of this moment in time.

Lest anyone is harbouring any ideas about lack of financial responsibility on my part, about waste and extravagance in what was my ministry, let me say categorically that I have saved the government and the taxpayers of this province literally millions of dollars. I operated on and off for more than 12 months without an executive assistant; I operated for a year and a half without a deputy minister. I was on f five boards, chairman f or a time of three of them; we made a lot of decisions in 1976 and 1977, and most, if not all of them were the right ones - witness the development which is currently occurring in our provincial energy, transport and communication sectors. It took me time to recruit top people, that's true. It's hard to get the very best in Canada for the salaries we pay our public servants here in B.C., but we did it in my ministry, and I'm proud of the fine staff we have there.

I traveled backward and forward to Ottawa a lot. I negotiated settlements on northern B.C. Rail and B.C. Ferries which alone are worth more than $200 million to this province. That's new; it's the first time the federal government has made payments to B.C. of that kind.

Now on the question of tickets, I prefer to travel economy when I can. I made more than 600 trips across this country when I was a Member of Parliament in Ottawa. Of these, less than 50 were first class; the rest were economy - economy by choice. Less lobbying by the well-to-do, less food, more privacy, more time to work. I still wanted it that way.

Incidentally, I like the federal system much better: no busy ministers trying to figure out rebates, no compensation months after the trip was made. The accounting is done where it should be done: in the accounting offices of the airlines and the accounting offices of the departments themselves, not in the minister's office, not in a few fleeting minutes when the minister is back home for a change.

Here in British Columbia I have usually been given first-class tickets for air travel. This was sensible, because I didn't always know when the ticket was purchased, with whom I would be traveling or what otherwise the circumstances might be. The only government policy of which I am aware is that ministers may travel first class or economy as they wish; the minister makes his or her choice.

When I reduced my ticket to economy, as I sometimes did for reasons I have already mentioned, I later received a refund, often months after the trip was taken and at a time when it was impossible for me to know precisely what all my expenses were. For example, if I had a drink with my dinner in economy, as I sometimes did, I paid for it myself; if I took a taxi, I frequently paid for it myself; if I entertained other cabinet ministers or officials in Ottawa, Toronto or Edmonton, for example, as I sometimes did, my costs generally exceeded the single-person government tariff of the day. The result was that I was often out of pocket in my expenses, but I rarely bothered to claim such extras. I just didn't keep track of the details. I didn't keep track, either, of my exact expenses or the amounts of the refunds. The amounts we are talking about are of the order of 5 per cent of my total travel expenses.

I now acknowledge that it would have been better, certainly wiser, if I had not followed this course. I can say, however, that as soon as this question of air travel was mentioned to me, I immediately made a generous estimate of what the refund total might be and paid that amount to the comptroller-general, without at the same time making any deductions for unrecorded costs. I believe at this moment that the government owes me several hundred dollars on air travel account.

Naturally, I've sought legal advice - the best there is in matters of this kind. I

[ Page 212 ]

consulted Mr. Allan McEachern in Vancouver. Mr. McEachern tells me that I have done nothing illegal, offended no government regulation, ignored no government policy. That's a comfort to me and my family.

Mr. Speaker, I have tried to be a good minister; 1 was a good minister to the best of my ability. I've never knowingly done wrong.

All hon. members aspire, or should aspire, in my view, one day to be in the cabinet, to be in the cabinet doing the right thing, good things, the right things for the people of B.C. It's a great privilege, it's also a challenge. You, each and every one of you, are capable of meeting it. But I have some advice f or those of you who do get a cabinet appointment: don't get bogged down in finicky little details; leave the bookkeeping to others who specialize in such things, and go after the big issues as much as you can. Don't bureaucratize everything. Don't stifle our elected representatives with red tape; leave them free, relatively free, to exercise their best judgment in important matters.

Mr. Speaker, we're all honourable members here. We're human, but we're honourable in our intent.

Now that this investigation has been launched, Mr. Speaker, I hope, 1 trust, indeed I pray that you and all other hon. members will continue to judge me honourable too. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The first member for Vancouver East. Order, please. I hear some members calling for leave. It is traditional when a statement is made by leave that a single reply is allowed by a member of the opposition. But if leave be requested, shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, if there is any grave impropriety by a minister, he should resign. The standards should be high. But I find it incredible that the Attorney-General should say today that since the member finally made some reference to what he was supposed to be under investigation for, he felt obliged to make a statement.

Since last Monday, when the Premier rose in this House and publicly destroyed the reputation of an honourable colleague, whether that colleague was guilty or not, with a curtain of unnamed allegations and refusal to specify even what agency was investigating the matter, we have had a total want of due process of law and a total want of fairness in the handling of this matter.

It is clear that the Attorney-General was not consulted before the Premier made his statement on Monday last. I think it follows that it's clear that the Attorney-General has lost the confidence of the Premier. Such a statement should never be made without safeguards in terms of fair, judicial process.

I find it very difficult, now that the Premier had dumped the matter in the Ministry of the Attorney-General, with instructions to investigate, to see how the....

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's not true.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, your officers are proceeding as to whether or not a charge should be laid. I f find it very difficult to see how the Attorney-General's ministry has not been compromised, because the implied instructions in this kind of a situation also necessarily include: "Protect the political position of the Premier."

I say that on that political basis the impartiality of an investigation of the Attorney-General's ministry has been fatally compromised by this sequence of events. I think that the Attorney-General has a responsibility to see that what has happened to the hon. member should not be allowed to happen to the meanest criminal in this province. There are some dictatorial countries in the world where the usual procedure is to investigate, search papers, change locks, interrogate staff and associates, until finally the accused coughs up a statement charging himself, because it's too much for himself and his family to have nameless accusations hanging over his head, having been publicly stated by the First Minister of the Crown. Whether it was this terrible crime, or that terrible crime, or the RCMP fraud squad, or whatever it was, none of that was revealed until the member was finally forced to speak himself.

The political background to what was a cold and callous statement of the Premier in terms of the treatment of individuals on Monday last is very well known to everybody in this House. I hope that this kind of thing will never again happen in the province of British Columbia, and that if there are matters of a judicial character, it will be checked first with judicial officers. What has happened is worse than a blunder and it leaves the question in everybody's mind of whether the reputation that has been so cavalierly dealt with can ever be restored.

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

[ Page 213 ]

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I f find the comments of the first member for Vancouver East disgraceful in trying to attach some political blame to an incident that has been dealt with with propriety by this government, and in trying to turn an event which is not of the government's choosing into a political success.

There are times when politics and the rights of a member and the responsibilities of a government must all be served. The Attorney-General has told us today of a sequence of events not initiated by this government, but by a private individual, a citizen of this province, to law enforcement authorities. It is not the act of a government; it's the act of an individual making a specific complaint. That investigation had been underway for some time, and the Attorney-General of this province felt that I, as the Premier, should be advised of what they'd advised him, of the seriousness of an investigation they were undertaking.

At the earliest opportunity, I spoke with the member. As a result of the discussion with that member, in which the agreement was made that no minister could serve and no government could be allowed to be under an attack such as may have been mounted, that we were protecting a member of cabinet because of an investigation.... In the history of good parliamentary action, such as when D'Arcy McKeough in Ontario, when a charge was made, resigned from cabinet until such charges were disposed of.... I do not have the ability as Premier, and no Premier should have the ability, to interfere with an investigation, to stop it, or not to deal with the responsible action of a government, which is responsible to all the people to make sure that no cloud could hang over the government and its ability to operate while such an investigation was happening.

This course of action was agreed to after discussion between the member and myself. The member realized that this was in the parliamentary tradition and would indicate clearly to the public that there would be no special consideration and justice would be served.

It is unfortunate that the public quite often may speculate in these instances, and therein lies the tragedy. It is unfortunate that incidents not instigated by myself, such as locks being changed, were headlined in the papers and referred to by the first member for Vancouver East after those charges and those statements and those headlines had been refuted.

What has happened, Mr. Speaker, is that the government, and myself as leader, have taken upon ourselves the only course of action in dealing with a member of the executive council and my cabinet, in stating that the rules for membership in the cabinet follow the traditional parliamentary rules, and that is that any hon. member - and I believe the member to be an hon. member, as are all members of this House - must, at the first sight of charges, particularly where allegations have been made and an investigation is underway, remove themselves from the executive council until those charges are disposed of.

I was careful in my statement, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that no blame could be attached, and that I wouldn't impair the ability of that member to defend himself or the action that was being taken, an action not instigated or controlled by myself as Premier.

Justice must be independent of government. We have no will to politically control how justice must be handled, but justice must not only be done, it must appear to be done. In this instance the government must have made sure, as has been traditional in all other instances, that the member would be able to appear before any investigation without a hint that there has been a special privilege for him as a member of the cabinet and as a member of the government, in this instance.

I regret this unfortunate incident. I regret that there may be those who would try to turn it to political advantage. I regret the heartache and suffering that have fallen upon the member and his f family. Above all, now is the time not to try and inflame passions and stir the political pot, but to show the compassion we mentioned, to try and allow a fair and proper process of law to take its course without prejudgment and without editorial comment.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to remind all hon. members that the tradition on statements in the House is that if a statement is made, a reply is granted, and that usually concludes the matter. However, I am bound by the wishes of the House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: In order to absolve the House and not to establish precedent by which we will be bound, I think it would be wise for leave to be asked and for leave to be granted.

MR. BARRETT: I ask leave to respond.

[ Page 214 ]

Leave granted.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in a moment of tenseness that rarely comes to the House, there are matters that we deal with as a House that cannot be understood completely by anyone unless they have sat in this House. It goes without saying that passions are inflamed in this House by the very nature of the wonderful political system that we have inherited. We should never forget that. But there is a tradition and a practice around that system that says that all members are honourable. Because all members are honourable, there must always be an opportunity for their honour to be maintained.

My colleague, the member for Vancouver East pointed out clearly what our concern was. Our concern was that a minister had been told that he was no longer going to be in the executive council, and the only information we hon. members had to go on were his statements in the paper that he did not know why he was being dismissed. Now who am 1 to believe - the minister or the Premier? The Premier says he knew why. The minister says he didn't.

While this speculation was going on, I said clearly: the Premier of this province owes an explanation to this House and to the people of this province on what's going on. Seventy-two hours later an explanation has come forward, with additional information that contradicts the position taken by the minister and the Premier at the time.

The minister also said he had been maligned. Mr. Speaker, you know what that means. When one member of this House is maligned, we are all maligned.

1 am pleased that the Attorney-General has stood up today and made this statement. But I cannot forget the unforgivable passage of time in terms of the suffering by that hon. member and anyone else who would be placed in that position by a government leader.

Why wasn't he given a chance to stand up and say: "While this matter, which 1 have been informed of, is being dealt with, I will step down."? Why? That is the sequence of events that is understood in our parliamentary system. That is what we have to concern ourselves with in this chamber. Never mind the press reporting. It is the honour of every individual member that must be protected at all times. That member was not given the opportunity to stand up and say: "I have been charged with this. I have full knowledge of what I am being charged with and I am stepping down till the matter is clear."

Mr. Speaker, I want to go on further and say that as an honourable member and as a f former Premier, I know how difficult it is. I welcomed the full statement by the minister in defining how difficult that job is. Lord knows, no one else will really understand unless somebody has served in that capacity.

But I tell you this, Mr. Speaker: the events that have taken place in this House in the last 72 hours have done nothing to strengthen the honour around a member's word. It was callous. That member was maligned and I agree with his early opinion. I hope now that we never again see any member, regardless of where he sits in this House, put through that experience again.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I was sitting in my place wondering how it would be possible to get back to the normal routine of debate after the statesmanlike comments that were made by the member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis) . I had thoughts of just standing up and not entering the debate again. But I find it much more easy now to get back into the kind of political fray following the two members for Vancouver East who have taken this into the root of the lowest kind of politics.

As a matter of f act, Mr. Speaker, I had thought for a while of not entering this debate at all. But I was goaded again by the same kind of nonsense that emanated from the opposite side of this House, and the hypocrisy of debate from that opposition.

First of all, there were two frivolous non-confidence motions in this debate -neither one supported by fact and certainly neither supported by the weak and fatuous and aimless excuses for debate.

Mr. Speaker, who are they, that opposition over there? When in power they fed inflation in this province. They attempted to mortgage our future generations. They attempted to over expand the role of government in dreams of some socialist Utopia and they stood stunned and bewildered and shattered as, one by one, their dream were shattered. They were dazzled and misguided, Mr. Speaker, in their hell-bent rush to a socialized British Columbia. Blinded then to the economic realities, they gleefully counted the goslings before the eggs were even laid. They told everyone across Canada: "Oh, what good socialist boys we are." Alas, Mr. Speaker, there is no egg that hatches more slowly than the egg that never has been laid, and that's what happened to our socialist friends on the other side - these foolish people who thought. they had the economic dreams of British Columbia.

The former Premier of this province, who spoke in this debate a couple of times,

[ Page 215 ]

expressed his party's attitude toward British Columbia last December, and it comes, then, as no surprise that he would make the kinds of statements that he has made in the last few weeks and certainly in this House since the opening of the House. He told a meeting of the Maritime School of Social Work in Halifax on December 10,1976, that people who were against the system, the freely elected system by the majority of citizens, should learn such practical things as how to subvert existing political processes. As for British Columbia, that former Premier, on that day in December in Halifax, told the audience that things were getting worse in British Columbia and he was loving every minute of it. A sick, repulsive and deplorable attitude for anyone to have, and certainly narrow-minded and selfish. He said the economic things in British Columbia were getting worse and he loved every minute of it. That is shameful. What he was saying was dam the system, damn the economy and, certainly, damn the people of British Columbia.

There was an article in the Colonist shortly after that, and I won't read it, although I'd like to. I'd like to quote a couple of the things that the Colonist had to say about that speech in Halifax. It said: "Mr. Barrett rejoicing in British Columbia's problems, in the slowdown that started during his term of office, is repulsive and exaggerations are deplorable." I guess pretty well everybody in British Columbia would say amen to that; and shame on Mr. Barrett, Mr. Speaker.

But thank God that nobody paid very much attention to that speech, to those crybaby tactics, and we have won renewed confidence despite the disservice paid to the people of our province by its former Premier. The sad part is that he hasn't learned, and he's still doing it. He's done it in this House, and he's done it on the hustings.

Mr. Speaker, we promised in 1975 to end the excesses of the Barrett years, to end the budgeting by guess and by golly, to end the dreams that were turning into nightmares for our people and to restore confidence. We have.

The hon. member for Revels toke-Slocan (Mr. King) pointed to some indicators that he said were facts, and said that on just about every indicator we would want to look at - yes, every indicator that that member would want to look at, may paint the kind of picture he wishes.... But every real, major economic indicator in Canada, Mr. Speaker, points to British Columbia as the only other bright spot, outside of Alberta, in a lagging economy in Canada. Those are the facts.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , in his address the other day, gave you the figures about jobs in this province. I won't repeat them, except just one line of them which shows that the number of persons employed in this province in the first month that we became government was 973,000, but in the month of February, 1978, the number ~of persons employed in this province was over one million. In fact it was 1,062, 000 - an increase of 89,000 employed in this province.

Confidence returning? Mr. Speaker, you bet it is, and it's returning very rapidly. There have been several massive long-range capital programmes that have been announced in the private sector in this province recently: Crown Zellerbach, over $250 million; Cominco, over $425 million; MacMillan Bloedel, $450 million; and they go on.

In oil and gas exploration, last year alone, Mr. Speaker, we returned more revenues to British Columbia than in all three years of NDP government - in one year. The NDP killed the oil and gas industry in this province, but it's alive again, thanks to good sound government.

Grizzly Valley, Mr. Speaker, they called a hoax. We've made it a success - millions of dollars, hundreds of jobs. Why? Because of confidence by the people and the investors, and vision by the government.

The Alcan gas pipeline produced millions of dollars and thousands of jobs because of confidence and vision, and because B.C. has now achieved a rapport with Ottawa such has never been known before. There have been more federal grants than ever before, including $80 million for post-secondary education, thanks to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , which went unclaimed during the NDP reign. It sat on the desk in Ottawa and it took us to go and get it. And, of course, there was a first-ever grant to the British Columbia ferry system.

Mr. Speaker, we should ask ourselves what this return of confidence means to our province. Well, one thing it means is a stable economy that allows us to deliver our promised social programmes. What are some of those programmes?

Revenue sharing. We promised that and we've delivered.

Rental aid for seniors. We said we'd do it and we have.

Balanced budgets. We said we'd do it and we did, and we're about to do it again.

Crown corporation accountability. It's been talked about for many years in this province -we've done it.

Government spending accountability. I remember that side talking about an

[ Page 216 ]

auditor-general. It never happened, but we did it.

Highway improvement. This province was turning into a province of potholes up until 1975. We promised to bring our roads back to the kind of condition they should be in to bring tourists into British Columbia, and we have and we will.

Labour stability. Mr. Speaker, we promised to bring some labour stability to this province and we have.

Consumer protection. We promised the most modern consumer protection legislation in Canada and we have delivered, and that includes the oft-talked-about-but-never-done ombudsman. We did it.

Universal Pharmacare. We brought that to British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, you bet your life I'm boasting, because this is the best record of a government in Canada. You bet I'm boasting, you bet.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, what makes me most proud is the delivery of a programme that has been talked about by past administrations for years and years in this province - and never talked about so much as the NDP talked about it, as they talked about so many things. But now we have in British Columbia the final link in our health-care programme, our new long-term care programme for seniors, the best of its kind anywhere.

Mr. Speaker, that's what responsible government means and that's what those people never found out about.

I want to talk a little bit about hospital construction, because that's the area in which I am most interested, and jobs, because that is what the throne speech is all about: jobs for people in British Columbia. Do you know that we now have the most massive hospital construction programme underway in British Columbia in our province's history? I can tell you that in the five years prior to 1976 the average spending on hospital construction was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $40 million a year, which isn't bad. I will also tell you that in the next five years, we're going to be spending $100 million a year on hospital construction. Mr. Speaker, in the next two years alone, projects scheduled for completion within two years for hospitals total $288,300, 000 for a direct job opportunity of 6,000 jobs and an indirect job opportunity of another 6,000 jobs.

Mr. Speaker, for medical teaching facilities and community-care facilities and health centres which will be completed in the next two years, we have a total of some $91 million in construction, for a total of probably 2,200 direct jobs and 2,200 indirect jobs.

We have projects which are now under planning: community-care facilities worth $22 million, for another 1,000 jobs created.

We have a five-year programme of hospital and health-care facility construction, which now totals - outside of that which I have already mentioned - over $400 million, for a total of some 16,000 jobs.

We have on the drawing boards approximately 2,200 new long-term care beds to be built in the next two years, which will result in the creation of about 1,600 new jobs in non-profit and private facilities.

Our long-term care programme is going to result in a considerable expansion of employment opportunities with homemaker agencies, both non-profit and private. And during 1978, we anticipate that approximately 500 additional homemaker positions will be developed because of this programme. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we are advocating a much greater emphasis on the preventive aspect of long-term care. We anticipate the development of an additional 100 positions for handymen and senior citizen counsellors. These programme will be created this year.

If you haven't been keeping count, I'd just like to run over all that for you once again: $707,700, 000 worth of hospital construction, creating entirely in the private sector 14,590 direct jobs and another 14,000 indirect; community-care facilities worth $62 million, for another 3,000 jobs; health centres around this province, Mr. Speaker, worth $35 million, for another 1,600 jobs; staff for new long-term care facilities, some 1,600 jobs direct, another 1,500 indirect; expansion of our home-care programme, about another 1,200 jobs. In a five-year period alone, we are talking about 20,000 direct jobs and 20,000 indirect jobs because of the actions of this government, Mr. Speaker.

Sure, I'm boasting. Who wouldn't boast with that kind of planned economic management on the drawing boards for the people of this province? And there is more to come!

I know none of us can wait for the budget to f find out how much more is to come. But I'll tell you, that's why I'm so very proud to stand up and support with all of my heart this speech from the throne that continues the thrust of our Social Credit government for good, stable government and jobs for the people of British Columbia.

MR. LLOYD: Before beginning my remarks, I'd also like to join the others in congratulating the new Speaker. I'd also like to congratulate the Deputy Speaker, the first member for

[ Page 217 ]

Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) , on his appointment. I'm sure your capable assistance will be appreciated both as Speaker and Chairman of the committees.

Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to commend His Honour Walter Owen, the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia, for the spirit and determination that he displayed while delivering the opening speech. I feel that British Columbia's citizens owe a real debt of gratitude to this outstanding Canadian for his performance during his term as British Columbia's Lieutenant-Governor.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to join my fellow MLAs in welcoming the new member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) to the Legislature and in paying credit to his predecessor, Scotty Wallace.

Mr. Speaker, I take most seriously the responsibility of representing my constituents from the dynamic central riding of our province. I am sure the people of Fort George will appreciate the many positive programmes to alleviate unemployment and to stimulate British Columbia's economy that were outlined by His Honour in the throne speech.

The highlights of the throne speech that I believe my constituents will appreciate most are the government's firm commitment to a strong and unified Canada. I'm sure that all Canadians share this same wish. Also our Premier's leadership in working with the other Premiers in Canada to develop and co-ordinate an economic strategy for our country. I am sure that all the provinces are going to have to work together to get Canada back on its feet.

Our government's commitment to the individual, to the f family and to the small business endeavours is something that will also be appreciated. My riding has always presented opportunities and challenges to small businessmen, owner-operator contractors and family-farm operations. Our government's pledge to reduce the overlapping regulations in all levels of government, as well as boards, agencies and commissions, will be sincerely welcomed. I have shared my constituent's frustration at the many complicated, time-consuming procedures that are required to acquire Crown land for agricultural, residential or recreational use. I will work with my colleagues and with the Minister of the Environment to further streamline the Crown land acquisition policies.

Mr. Speaker, I've spoken before in this Legislature regarding my concern for over-planning and over-regulating our citizens' lives and livelihoods. No doubt the opposition will again misconstrue my remarks as an attack against my regional district. I greatly admire the Fraser-Fort George regional district, the chairman, Harold Mann, a very dedicated individual, the directors and their administration for their dedication in traveling the long distances they have to to attend their meetings and to deal with the heavy workloads that are thrust upon them.

However, Mr. Speaker, I feel the provincial government ministries over the years have abrogated their responsibility for decision-making to a tier of government that cannot service our citizens' requirements within the constraints under which regional districts operate. How a regional district as large as Fraser-Fort George can meet for four hours in full committee once a month and decide the destiny, the homestead applications, the agricultural potential, the feasibility or the viability of commercial and industrial applications in an area 350 miles long, with over 85,000 people dispersed throughout it, is beyond my understanding.

Mr. Speaker, compare this to the municipalities. The council meets in full committee once a week for up to seven hours in Prince George's case, and they hold further special meetings if it's necessary. The municipal councils are far quicker to respond and more readily available for the problem or decisions that are required by the public. I feel that in the unorganized areas between municipalities or villages, regional provincial authorities, such as the regional highway engineers, regional land managers, the district foresters, the regional agricultural supervisors and other regional provincial officers should play a larger role in the decision-making, as they are available to the public on a daily basis for timely decisions.

Mr. Speaker, a comparison of the size of my riding would be: going south from Prince George, we would extend down beyond Cache Creek. I think perhaps the House will understand by this why I f eel that there is too big a load for a regional district, and why I feel that potential settlement and industrial and commercial development is being stymied and has been stymied for the last several years by too many planning and approval agencies.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see the throne speech pledge of government deregulation so that the private sector will be encouraged to develop job-creating projects. No doubt the regional district

[ Page 218 ]

review commission that is underway at the present time will be reporting to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to re-define the role of the regional districts. I think the sooner we get on with that, the better it will be for all our development.

His Honour also outlined our government's policy to increase assistance to people purchasing their first homes. I'm sure that this is going to stimulate further jobs, both in the construction of housing, modular home building and trailer home construction, as well as assisting the many young people in owning their f first home, which is I think a very high priority with people in our province.

Mr. Speaker, Mackenzie and McBride, whose airports require upgrading and extension, will both appreciate the provincial government's assistance to airport construction and navigational equipment which is proposed in the throne speech. Mackenzie has been waiting for some years to have their airport upgraded, and while it has been recognized by the f federal department of transport and it has been approved, still it always seems like the funding never comes through. So I am very pleased to see our government getting into the funding for smaller airports.

Mr. Speaker, the increased emphasis and funding provided for reforestation, thinning and silviculture treatment, will provide an immediate increase in meaningful employment, as well as ensuring forests for the coming generations. Last year I had the occasion to visit New Zealand and tour their reforestation projects that they undertook in the late 1920s and early 1930s. They are into the harvesting cycle on these projects, and not only were the harvesting cycles maintaining steady employment for the forest industry, but also apparent was the beneficial effects on the environment and the amazing increase in wildlife due to proper forest management.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, as you know, we are having some difficulty with the sound system and, in the light of that, we wonder if private conversations could be kept to a minimum for the next seven minutes, please.

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, the reforestation programme in New Zealand has had the effect on wildlife of increasing all the animal life and the birds. It's just amazing with the proper thinning between the trees how the wildlife has come back. In fact, it's expanded to the extent that the deer population has grown so heavy that commercial hunting is allowed. It creates more employment and adds another export to New Zealand. So I think it can really show what a proper reforestation programme can do.

There are many areas of my riding where prime growing sites are either inadequately stocked or they are supporting over-matured, decadent stands of cedar, balsam and hemlock. I think these are prime applications for the reforestation programme. I have long maintained that the forest industry and the B.C. Forest Service should not rush to criticize the farmer for clearing marginal forest land until all the lands that are now utilized by the forest industry are properly restocked and maintained. I'm also confident that a policy to encourage private involvement in reforestation will be enthusiastically received across the province.

Many people have inquired about the thrust of this programme. Farmers are very interested in maintaining some of their land in forest cover under a woodlot context, and leasing adjacent Crown land to complement their woodlot holdings.

Mr. Speaker, a serious matter of concern in my riding is establishing priorities for timber direction to ensure a stable supply of timber for small communities dependent on the employment base of sawmills. In particular, McBride and Valemount are concerned that a fair allocation is provided to sustain their operations. Kamloops and Prince George would feel far less impact from a small reduction in the timber supply than the smaller one-industry communities. I would hope that the annual allowable-cut figures will be available to allow a firm decision to be reached on that this year.

Another matter of concern is the concern for secondary industry. There are a number of specialty mills which depend on a low-grade lumber supply that they purchase locally to remanufacture for a higher-cost export item, thereby providing more local employment. I think we're going to have to ensure that that supply is available to them. A log supply for log-home builders is also a concern. We have some very good log-home builders in our area, and in periods of high lumber markets they have difficulty getting an adequate supply of logs.

Mr. Speaker, Terrace's unemployment problems have progressively increased as more logs were shipped out for processing in other areas. The high grading of the best timber from the valley bottoms and the lowest-cost logging areas also compounded the present cost to industry in the Terrace area.

I'll be watching closely to ensure my riding avoids these problems by manufacturing the

[ Page 219 ]

logs in the local communities and having the quota-holders accept a mix of tough logging with the better territory. The forest industry has accepted the concept of sustained yield, so it is critical that all species be utilized and all areas be harvested in the proper rotation period.

Mr. Speaker, another emphasis in the throne speech indicated a continuing programme of highway rebuilding and upgrading. I wish to extend my constituents' appreciation to the Highways minister, the Hon. Alex Fraser, for a $28 million highway works programme committed in the Fort George riding in 1977.

MR. KING: You've seen the budget, eh?

MR. LLOYD: I'd also like to express my sincere appreciation for the finalizing of the Highways ministry's commitment to the city of Prince George under the amalgamation agreement when the city expanded its boundaries in 1975. I am sure the Prince George city administrator and engineer were relieved to see our government finalize these cost-sharing agreements and prepay in full the Highway ministry's obligations. The former NDP government refused to negotiate a firm commitment or to prepay any cost-sharing, stating vaguely that the regular maintenance of the province's roads would be undertaken until the city inherited all the roads in the amalgamated area in 1980.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that Prince George council and citizens realize the difference in negotiating with the present ministry compared with the take-it-or-leave-it attitude of the former minister of potholes.

Furthermore, now that the city council has established their priority f or a second Nechako River crossing, the planning and the construction scheduling can proceed to relieve the pressure on the existing bridges.

In addition to this, a programme is scheduled to upgrade the airport hill at BCR and CNR overpass at the east end of the CNR bridge and an overpass at 2nd Avenue. Assistance on completing Foothills Boulevard and the four-laning of the first seven miles of the Hart Highway - these programmes will proceed as the engineering, planning and funding permit.

Mr. Speaker, I see we're getting close to the hour of adjournment.

MR. Lloyd moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment please, hon. member.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. SPEAKER: Just before the motion to adjourn, hon. members, on April 4, during debate, the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) referred to a document apparently produced in his department. The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) rose on a point of order and stated that the minister was bound to table the document.

I have examined the Blues, as I committed myself to do, and the Blues indicate that the minister did not quote from the document but rather summarized it and is therefore not required, according to the authorities, to table the document.

The Blues also show, however, that the minister indicated that he would table the document, in which instance the entire question is solved.

For detailed explanation of the requirement that public documents cited in debate be tabled, I would refer members to the 18th edition of May at page 421, and Speaker's Decisions of February 1,1977, and June 27,1977, in the Journals of the House.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.