[ Page 367 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Use of American lumber on Seven Mile Dam. Mr. D'Arcy –– 368

Secrecy oath for Crown corporation employees. Mr. Barber –– 368

IWA practices at Doman Industries Ltd. Mrs. Wallace –– 368

Possibility of new pulp mill. Mr. Lockstead –– 369

B.C. Ferries employees oath of secrecy. Mr. Barber –– 369

Government aircraft logs for 1977. Mrs. Dailly –– 369

Bawlf committee transcripts. Mr. Skelly –– 369

Definition of "questionable practices." Mr. Stephens –– 370

Consultation on open learning institute. Mr. Cocke –– 370

Presenting reports

Annual return for year 1977. Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 371

Motion to discuss a matter of urgent public importance.

Interim report on BCR Fort Nelson extension. Mr. Barrett –– 371

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 372

Mr. Cocke –– 372

Division on Mr. Speaker's ruling –– 373

Budget debate

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 374

Mr. Lauk –– 379

Mr. Smith –– 385

Mr. Haddad –– 390

Mr. Skelly –– 392

Mr. Shelford –– 399

Presenting petitions

Pacific Command, Royal Canadian Legion. Mr. Veitch –– 401

Presenting reports

Criminal Inquiries Compensation Act, 6th annual report. Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 401

Law Reform Commission of B.C. 1977 annual report. Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 401

B.C. Racing Commission, 1977. Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 401

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. FRASER: Somewhere in the public galleries today are friends of mine from my home town, Alderman John Kushniryk and the superintendent of works, Max Halzell. I'd like the House to welcome them.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, seated behind me on the floor we have Andrew Brewin, MP, from Toronto-Beaches. Of course, he's been a member of parliament for many years and he's the father of the chairman of the Rent Review Commission. Most of you know John Brewin too. This is Andrew Brewin. Stand up.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome Alderman Dalton Jones of Surrey and his wife Vi in the Speaker's gallery.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, seated in your gallery this afternoon is a very distinguished architect and good friend of mine from Burnaby, Mr. Bing Marr, and two of his associates from Campbell River, Mr. Don Jesse and Mr. Curt Snook. I'd like this House to bid them welcome.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today is Mrs. Violet Callendar, a native of Spences Bridge and presently making her home in Agassiz. Mrs. Callendar has spent her winter this year in Victoria. She's been a member of the Conservative Party of British Columbia since 1913, a very active one, and one of only six life members in the party. I'd ask the members here to give her a good welcome.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it's an honour today to introduce a number of individuals who are in the capital for a ministry seminar and briefing session, and we're delighted that they have taken a few minutes out from the activities to witness the opening of the sitting today. These are all members of the staff of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

From Prince George, Linda Bishop; Cranbrook, Eldene Hillier; Vancouver, Virginia Wild; Victoria, Sally Murphy; from the transit division in Vancouver, Rosemary Ringham. They are accompanied by Sybil Ainscough, administrative assistant to the Deputy Minister of Housing and Jean Taylor, secretary to the Deputy Minister.

In addition, Jacky Powell, Liz Fullerton and Brenda Bulmer from the minister's Victoria office are also here. They are residents of Victoria and are participating in the same briefing session. Would the House welcome them?

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery are a large number of students from North Vancouver. I'm sure the House will be on its best behaviour today.

MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, the former member for Vancouver South is in the Speaker's Gallery this afternoon; and I would ask all members of the House to welcome Mrs. Agnes Kripps, who is here with her husband.

MR. BARBER: A very close family friend of mine is in the gallery today to follow the continuing course of certain questions I've been asking in question period: my mother, Dorothy Barber.

MR. HADDAD: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are two very old friends of mine. I was surprised to see them here. They come from Fernie, in the southeast corner of this great province. They are Mr. and Mrs. Telfor Dicks. Would the House please make them welcome?

Also, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of housing (Ron. Mr. Curtis) announced that a Mrs. Eldene Hillier from Cranbrook was here. I would ask the House to make her welcome also.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I know that all of the hon. members will be sorry to hear of the death of Mr. Leon J. Ladner, Q. C. He was a member of a pioneering family in British Columbia. His father arrived via the Oregon Trail; he participated in the gold rush and established the first fish cannery in what is now known as Ladner, which was named after the family. Mr. Ladner was a member of parliament for British Columbia under the R.B. Bennett government. And he was a great benefactor to the University of British Columbia. I am sure all members will join in an expression of sympathy to his family.

MR. MACDONALD: It's the first I've heard of the death of somebody who was a very great British Columbian and had countless friends throughout the province. A really great British Columbian has been lost in this announcement.

Oral questions.

[ Page 368 ]

USE OF AMERICAN LUMBER

ON SEVEN MILE DAM

MR. D'ARCY: A question to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) in his capacity as minister responsible for British Columbia Hydro. In view of unemployment in British Columbia currently running in excess of 9 per cent, and the government's stated policy of encouraging business and industry in B.C. to buy B.C. products and from B.C. suppliers and B.C. manufacturers in order to encourage and stimulate the economy in British Columbia, can the minister tell us why an American firm, Atkinson Construction of California, under contract with B.C. Hydro on the Seven Mile Dam on the Pend-d'Oreille River, is importing common grades of Douglas fir lumber from sawmills in the states of Washington and Oregon?

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

SECRECY OATH FOR

CROWN CORPORATION EMPLOYEES

MR. BARBER: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) in her capacity as minister responsible for the British Columbia Steamship Company. Has any decision been made by the minister or by the board of directors of the corporation of the B.C. Steam hip Company to require the employees of that corporation to swear an oath of secrecy?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Not to my knowledge.

MR. BARBER: My second question is to the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) on the same topic. Again, it's to that minister regarding his responsibility for the administration of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation. Has any decision been made by the minister or by the board of directors of the B.C. Buildings Corporation to require of that corporation's employees that they swear an oath of secrecy?

HON. MR. FRASER: To the member for Victoria, I understand that they have taken that oath -most of the employees, if not all of them.

MR. BARBER: Could the minister inform the House upon whose instructions and approximately at what date those orders were given to require of the employees that they take an oath of secrecy? Who instructed and approximately when was that instruction given?

HON. MR. FRASER: It would be done by the management of BCBC and it would be done, as far as I know, when the employee was taken on the staff.

MR. BARBER: Was that instruction made by the board of the B.C. Buildings Corporation with your express knowledge and approval?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, no. As I said, management did that.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary?

MR. BARBER: Not quite final, Mr. Speaker, if you'll bear with me.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know how far we can go but we'll try to bear with you. Please proceed.

MR. BARBER: Am I then given to understand from the minister, who sits on the board of the B.C. Buildings Corporation and who is accountable for it to this Legislature, that he was not aware and the board was not aware of the instruction to require an oath of secrecy on the part of employees of the B.C. Buildings Corporation? Do we understand that correctly? You didn't know and the board didn't know that that oath was now required?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I was made aware of it but I just don't know how close to the time the management made the decision.

MR. BARBER: My final supplementary: would the minister be willing to table in the House a copy of that oath of secrecy?

MR. SPEAKER: Not in question period, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: I appreciate that, and I presume he doesn't have it with him either. But at some very near in the future occasion, would the minister be willing to table in this House a copy of that oath of secrecy required now of the members of the B.C. Buildings Corporation?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly consider that.

IWA PRACTICES AT

DOMAN INDUSTRIES LTD.

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development. I hope he is listening. The minister, during his throne speech, accused the IWA of "questionable"

[ Page 369 ]

tactics in dealing with two Vancouver Island sawmills. He refused to identify the mills in the House, but has been reported as saying outside the House that they were Doman Industries operations at Cowichan Bay and Ladysmith. Can the minister confirm that these are the two mills in question?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think the member is aware of the fact that we cannot ask in question period whether or not reported speeches are accurate or correct, or a question of that matter.

MRS. WALLACE: Very well. I'll rephrase my question. Did the minister refer to the Doman Industries at Ladysmith and Cowichan Bay when he referred to the questionable practices of the IWA in organizing these mills?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, yes, I referred specifically to the two sawmills she mentioned, but in general I referred to the lumber industry in British Columbia as a whole.

MRS. WALLACE: Is the minister aware that the employees in the Ladysmith sawmill are not represented by the IWA?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is yes.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister is aware. A further supplementary then.

In the case of Cowichan Bay, does the minister term questionable a collective agreement signed by both management - that is, Herb Doman - and labour?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What was the question again?

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the member would repeat the question.

MRS. WALLACE: What do you find questionable in the case of Cowichan Bay about a collective agreement signed by management - that is, Herb Doman - and the IWA?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is that I didn't say there was anything questionable about the contract.

POSSIBILITY OF NEW PULP MILL

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Does the Minister of Forests have any evidence that he can produce to the House to show that a Japanese company is contemplating a new pulp mill in British Columbia?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, no, I have nothing that I can present to the House at this time. Negotiations of this nature, of course, are extremely confidential to the corporations involved and I think it would be out of order for me to announce now who is involved in such studies.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: But the minister can then confirm that he is negotiating with a Japanese group regarding a new pulp mill for British Columbia.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member is somewhat confused. I have never said that I was negotiating with the Japanese company. I said Japanese companies are doing feasibility studies into the possibility of establishing pulp and paper facilities in this province.

B.C. FERRIES' EMPLOYEES

OATH OF SECRECY

MR. BARBER: My question is to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. In his capacity as minister responsible for the administration of the B.C. ferry system, has any decision been made by the minister or by the B.C. Ferries Corporation to require of its employees that they swear an oath of secrecy?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.

GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT LOGS FUR 1977

MRS. DAILLY: Would the Provincial Secretary table in the House the government aircraft logs for the year 1977?

MR. SPEAKER: Not in question period.

MRS. DAILLY: Not in question period, after question period.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, that question should be asked of the minister in charge.

BAWLF COMMITTEE TRANSCRIPTS

MR. SKELLY: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The minister advised me that he had the Bawlf committee transcripts which he promised a year ago today to table in the House. Is he planning to table

[ Page 370 ]

that document in the House today?

MR. SPEAKER: Not in question period, hon. member.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry. I did make that undertaking; I thank the member for reminding me the commitment remains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hah!

MR. SKELLY: There are many commitments remaining to be fulfilled by that party that that they made during the last election. I wonder if the minister would advise us when this commitment will be fulfilled.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it is correct. The member has asked a number of times in the session just past, and I thank him for the reminder. I would like to table the material just as soon as possible, and I shall do so as soon as possible.

MR. BARRETT: What's holding it up?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Nothing. Just busy, a lot of work to do.

DEFINITION OF

"QUESTIONABLE PRACTICES"

MR. STEPHENS: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development. Since you have stated that the questionable practices that you referred to were not the collective bargaining agreement, would you please tell us what you mean by "questionable practices"? Would you please define those words?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If you would read the Blues, you would see that prior to the signing of the contract, there were some questionable practices.

MRS. WALLACE: What were they?

MR. LAUK: Smear!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You should recognize it because you're an expert at it.

MR. STEPHENS: I would still very much appreciate the minister answering the question instead of referring me to the Blues. I have difficulty reading what he said.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

CONSULTATION ON

OPEN LEARNING INSTITUTE

MR. COCKE: If the minister would like to answer that question, Mr. Speaker, I'll certainly yield. Mind you, we're used to that kind of behaviour.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Education just how much consultation went on prior to his announcement of the open university with his university officials - as a matter of fact, I should say B.C.'s university officials - and/or the Universities Council and/or ... ?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General (Ron. Mr. Gardom) , the chief law officer of this province, can't even behave in the Legislature. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, also I'd like to know whether or not the minister consulted with the committee that had been set up to study the whole question of that type of education service with Pat Carney.

HON. MR. McGEER: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes.

While I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, may I answer the question taken as notice yesterday ... ?

MR. COCKE: Right in the middle of my question!

MR. SPEAKER: Order , hon. members, please. The practice in question period has been that, if a question previously asked in question period was taken as notice, a minister may choose to answer it during the question period. Is that no longer acceptable?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, it's quite acceptable, if a minister stands up and is recognized. The minister stood up to answer my question, said "yes" and then went on and tried to divert us from this particular issue. 1 have supplementaries that I wish to ask on this issue.

MR. SPEAKER: The decision on that would have to be that we should yield the floor to supplementary questions and then, perhaps, grant leave for a different question.

MR. COCKE: The answer "yes" was rather

[ Page 371 ]

insignificant, and certainly insufficient. I would ask the minister - and I'll go one by one if the minister would like: did the minister consult with the three presidents of the universities in British Columbia prior to making that announcement on this issue?

HON. MR. MCGEER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there was considerable contact between ministry officials and officials of the universities. Mr. Speaker, may I answer a question that I took as notice yesterday? I was asked whether or not there were any cars or other fringe benefits made available to the new president of ICBC. The answer is that there is a car-pool car available - not on an exclusive basis - to the president, that is, one of the pool of cars that ICBC has at its disposal. There was a car provided exclusively to the former general manager by the NDP; but that is not being repeated with the current president.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presents the annual return for the calendar year 1977, submitted in accordance with section 53 of the Administration Act, Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1960, and the statement of unclaimed money deposits under authority of the Unclaimed Money Deposits Act, Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1960, for the fiscal year ended March 31,1977.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm presents the fourth annual report of the Burns Lake project, Burns Lake Community Development Association.

MR. D'ARCY: I ask leave of the house to file documents pertaining to my question.

Leave granted.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 35, and in particular section 6 (b) , I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.

The matter is that the government appointed Mr. Justice Lloyd McKenzie and others to investigate all matters touching upon the British Columbia Railway and the future of that railway. The commission has recommended, by an interim report kept secret for 90 days by the government, that the Fort Nelson extension of the railway be permanently closed.

The government, by withholding this interim report, has clearly indicated its intention to politically interfere with this Grown corporation, with respect to said report.

Out of concern for the hundreds of jobs that are in jeopardy if this recommendation is followed by the railway, and on the request of many citizens of the entire Peace River region - particularly Fort Nelson - I submit that this devastating recommendation, affecting the well-being of every British Columbian, must be debated immediately to remove the uncertainty and fear now being expressed by the citizens of the Peace River, and ultimately, it is hoped, remove this dark cloud from the economic and social future of the region.

MR. SPEAKER: Ron. members, I have received the motion. In view of the fact that the Chair had no previous notice of the motion, would it be acceptable to the House to reserve decision on this motion, without prejudice to either the urgency or the member's right to delay?

MR. BARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I would prefer that it be done by adjournment for five, 10 or 15 minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, there are several things that must be determined. One that must be determined is the urgency; and, in adjourning, we would be assuming an urgency which may, or may not, exist. It would have to be determined.

I would ask that the house accept the reserved decision.

MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Speaker; in this instance we cannot accept the reserved decision. I am asking under standing order 35. The motion is in front of the House. I ask that it be considered. I suggest a five-minute recess - not an adjournment - to deal with it, as has been done in the past.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members - after a short period of consideration - it's a little unusual to demand an immediate debate on something like this. Usually the decision of the Chair to reserve decision has been accepted by the house. If there's to be a departure, perhaps we can have an appeal to the House.

MR. BARRETT: Hr. Speaker, in the past there has been, on occasion, the granted request by the Chair for time to consider the motion. That has been at the pleasure of the House, rather than under the authority of any existing standing order. I am suggesting, sir, that the decision in this instance must be called now, rather than delay.

[ Page 372 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Ron. member, before we accept any other statement on the matter, the Chair would like to take the position of asking for the agreement of the House on a reserve decision. However, it is the prerogative of the Chair to state that it will be a reserve decision. I hesitate to do that. I would sooner have the agreement.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your position on this matter. However, there is no standing order that protects any decision from being reserved or made immediately. The urgency of the matter compels me to ask you, sir, to consider this matter immediately. I would welcome a five-minute recess, or some time set aside for you to deal with the matter with the Clerks. We need an answer now.

MR. SPEAKER: In order to conclude the matter, perhaps....

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that a recess would accompany a sense of urgency; but may I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if there was a sense of urgency - and it is found to be so - then surely notice could have been given to the Chair so that the answer that Mr. Speaker gives to the House could have been given, and would have precluded any debate on whether or not there was a sense of urgency.

Mr. Speaker, may I say that, in adjourning the House, we would be prejudging; and we would feel, as the government, that the Speaker would be able to take it under advisement, and we will abide by the Speaker's wishes.

MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate your comments.

MR. BARRETT: It is not a point of order. The minister entered into debate. The motion has been submitted according to the exact rules of this House at the earliest possible opportunity. Every order has been followed according to our standing orders.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The Speaker is following the appropriate and customary course, and you know it.

MR. BARRETT: I'm following the rules.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Take a look at May and Beauchesne.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same point of order? We cannot introduce another point of order.

MR. COCKE: On the same point of order, what has occurred in the past year or two is that these kinds of situations are not resolved in the course of a sitting. Oftentimes, as a matter of fact, the Speaker has come back with a delayed decision a day or two later. The whole thing is in contravention of the intent. The intent here is that there is a matter of urgent public importance - and it's now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: In order to conclude the matter, it is a matter for the Chair to decide as to whether or not a matter of urgency exists. It may well be that a matter of urgency exists; however, it must be determined, and there will be some time required in order to determine this. Therefore the Chair will reserve decision, without prejudice to the hon. member who has asked for the urgency debate, to debate the matter at the earliest possible moment.

MR. BARRETT: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, there is no standing order that permits you to make such a decision. I refer you to standing order 35.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: You must cite to me references that allow you to transgress standing order 35, which clearly states the matter as I presented it, and there is no room. It is to be dealt with before Orders of the Day. In our standing orders, right there, it's clear, and in the English language.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the matter is not in dispute as to whether or not the hon. member has followed the proper procedure.

MR. BARRETT: I'm asking you to, sir.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair must determine whether or not we have a bona fide case of urgency. That will take a few moments. The Chair will reserve decision, and that will conclude the matter.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on what standing order are you concluding the matter? I'm asking for a ruling now.

[ Page 373 ]

MR. SPEAKER: order, please.

The procedures of this House are determined, first of all, by the standing orders which every member has in his possession. The procedures in this House are further directed by the authorities which have been recognized far and wide in the Commonwealth, namely May and Beauchesne. Further, the procedure of this House is determined by accepted and common practice in this House. Those are the three precedents, and the precedent which will determine the conclusion of this matter is the accepted practice of this House. There is a measure of appeal, and if the hon. member wishes to follow that measure, he is entitled to do so, and that concludes the matter.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, are you making a ruling?

MR. SPEAKER: It's a ruling.

MR. BARRETT: Now just let's slowly go over this so that we know exactly....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That concludes the matter.

MR. BARRETT: Are you making a ruling?

MR. SPEAKER: That's the ruling.

MR. BARRETT: What is your ruling, and what citations have you?

MR. SPEAKER: The ruling is that the question of urgency requires a decision, and that decision will be reserved.

MR. BARRETT: How can it be urgent, if the decision is reserved? I challenge your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: I challenge your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: The ruling is challenged.

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS - 28

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Can the Speaker advise us as to how much time is necessary and if the current debate would be interrupted when a decision is reached on this emergency motion?

MR. SPEAKER. Hon. member, the Chair will report at the earliest possible moment.

On a point of order, the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, it's really the same point of order of the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Then the matter is settled.

MR. LAUK: The point the Leader of the Opposition is trying to make and which I would....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, it is completely in order for the Chair to canvass other opinions on a point of order. Would the first member for Vancouver Centre please proceed?

MR. LAUK: I notice from today's list, which is unofficial, of course, that it is intended that the hon. Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) speak in the budget debate, that then myself would follow, and then the member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) . I for one expect to....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: I'm amazed at the collective IQ of the opposite side.

The reason I supported the motion for an emergency debate is to allow those people

[ Page 374 ]

already having taken their place in the budget speech debate an opportunity to express their views on behalf of their constituents with respect to the disastrous recommendation of Mr. Justice McKenzie and his commission. I further expect myself in the budget debate, if I'm precluded from participating in an emergency debate, to request the indulgence of the Chair in using that period of time to make a few remarks myself on the recommendation of the commission. I certainly expect that the hon. member for North Peace River would like to do the same.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is not a debate; this is a point of order.

MR. LAUK: As I say, with that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I request that you make a decision within a minute time frame that will permit that course of action to take place. If, for example, Mr. Speaker delivers a decision against the urgency of the debate, how many other speakers will lose the opportunity to discuss this important matter?

MR. SPEAKER: On that point of order, the standing orders' practices of this House will provide ample opportunity for debate on whatever question happens to be before the House. I think the Chair has made its commitment that there would be no prejudice to either the mover or any debater on the matter of urgency.

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, may I draw your attention to the Journals of Thursday, June 12,1975, where Mr. Bennett moved adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the circumstances surrounding a recent bond issue by the B.C. Hydro. Mr. Speaker Dowding reserved his decision on Thursday, June 12,1975. He delivered his ruling, Mr. Speaker, at the next sitting of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you for drawing that to our attention. That provides part of the precedent of our House.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. MR. WATERLAND: When I adjourned the debate on this budget yesterday, the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) was not in his seat. I would therefore like to congratulate him on his election to this Legislature and I wish him well, but not too well.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to support the budget which has been presented by our Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) . In opening my remarks, I would like to quote from that budget speech, and I quote as follows: "Mr. Speaker, there are not many provinces in Canada that can boast of the combination of balanced budgets and social programmes that British Columbia provides, along with encouragement to the private sector, particularly small business and individual entrepreneurs."

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this budget. In spite of what the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) says, I do wish that I had been the author of it. I am proud of this government which has provided the sound fiscal management which makes this type of job-creating budget possible this year. I am proud of the good social programmes which are provided by this government, Mr. Speaker, and I'm proud of the leadership which is provided to this government by our Premier. I'm also very proud of the leadership provided by our Premier at the First Ministers' Conference in the eastern part of Canada. I am proud of the economic plan for Canada which he presented at that conference and which was hailed and praised throughout this country.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this government and the leadership of this government and of this budget, compared to the embarrassment caused me personally and the citizens of British Columbia by the clowning and buffoonery presented by our former Premier when he visited Ottawa and other countries in the world.

Speaking of our former Premier, the present second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) , that member....

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. LAUK: I regret, on this point of order, to interrupt the hon. minister's speech. The words "clowning and buffoonery" may be the opinion of the hon. minister but they do not add to his remarks. I submit that they are unparliamentary. I would ask that either the minister withdraw those remarks or make an apology of some kind, as I feel that he would be better off contributing something to this debate instead of just name-calling across the floor.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if your point of order is to do specifically with parliamentary words, the word "buffoon" is on our list of language that is disallowed. The Hansard reference is page 4616 of the year 1974, and I would ask that the minister just

[ Page 375 ]

withdraw any improper words used in his speech, please.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it if the member is offended.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much; please continue.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I was caused considerable embarrassment by the antics of that former Premier (Mr. Barrett) when he represented this government in other parts of Canada and abroad. That member, the second member for Vancouver East I believe he is now, made remarks in the House to the effect that there is no investment in our forest industry in British Columbia. He made remarks to the effect that there is no confidence in our economy. Remarks like that, of course, will not make it easier to establish confidence in the economy of British Columbia, and we do need that confidence here now. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, that confidence is here, it is returning and there is a lot of investment committed to British Columbia, and there is a lot of investment coming.

He says there is no investment, Mr. Speaker. I have a very short list before [illegible] of currently committed investment in the forest industry in this province. As of the end of 1977, actual projects underway in this province totalled $300.6 million, of which $89 million were completed in that year, with $211 million still underway. That indeed shows a lack of investment confidence in this province. In addition to that, committed investments for the next few years total about $1 billion in our forest industry in British Columbia, and that, indeed, Mr. Speaker, shows a great lack of confidence in the future of British Columbia.

I'll read a few of the commitments which are underway now. They range from very small commitments for small privately owned companies of $25,000 or $30,000, up to many, many millions of dollars by major forest companies. Mr. Speaker, in the province of British Columbia, in our forest industry, we require both large and small companies to provide the diversity which that industry does need.

For example, Ardew Wood Products, in Merritt, in my constituency, last year spent $30,000 to upgrade and modernize their very small re-manufacturing plant. Aspen Lok-Tite Components of Farmington - $150,000 investment; Aspen Planers, again in my constituency, a modest but substantial investment of $35,000; Balco Industries at Hefly Creek - $1.1 million; Canadian Forest Products at Port Mellon - $885,000; Canyon Creek Forest Products at Valemont - $1.2 million; Grestbrook Forest Industries - $19.9 million; Crown Zellerbach in Campbell River -$13 million. The list goes on and and on, Mr. Speaker, totalling, at the present time, as I said, well over $1 billion of committed and actual investment underway in this province at this time. Yet that former Premier, the second member for Vancouver East, stands there and tells us that there is no investment taking place in British Columbia. Absolute nonsense!

Mr. Speaker, we have had a period of a few years when there wasn't the kind of investment taking place in our forest industry which should have been taking place, and I think the reason for that is obvious to all British Columbians. The confidence in investment in this province's forest industry and all of its industry was shattered in the years of 1972 to 1975. The forest industry was threatened with takeover, and I had many people in that industry come to me and say that when they visited the former Minister of Forests, he told them not to worry about their industry because they were going to become a utility very shortly anyway. And that's the type of thing that scared away investment in the province of British Columbia. Threatened government takeovers will do nothing to encourage the investment from all parts of this world in our very vital forest industry in this province. Investment that should have come here to create jobs and manufacturing plants and facilities in British Columbia to enhance our economy went to other countries in the world because the investing world was afraid to put their capital into a province where there were threats of nationalization and government takeover.

Mr. Speaker, on my recent trip to Japan, which I took last December with the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , several very prominent Japanese businessmen came to us and said how pleased they were that they could now talk to members of the government of British Columbia. One man in particular told us that he had wanted to invest in a new pulp mill facility in this province during that period of time, but he couldn't get an appointment to speak to the Minister of Forests at that time. That minister wouldn't give them the time of day, and they wanted to come to this province to invest in manufacturing facilities and to create jobs and opportunities for the people of British Columbia. Where did those jobs go, Mr. Speaker? They went to other countries in

[ Page 376 ]

the world and they could have come here. They could have come here to create jobs and opportunities for the people of this province, which would still exist today. No, Mr. Speaker, that government did not want the investment of anyone here; they wanted to nationalize the forest industry and have everybody working for the government. Is it any wonder, then, that we have suffered unemployment problems in this province?

As a direct result of our trip, this company I referred to a moment ago, the people who told us that they couldn't get an appointment with the Minister of Forests at the time, immediately after our return to British Columbia initiated a feasibility study, which is continuing today, into the establishment of new pulp and paper manufacturing facilities in this province which will create literally thousands of new jobs for British Columbians here in British Columbia.

The confidence is returning and it has returned. We will begin and are beginning to reap the benefits of that. The doom-and-gloom prophecies, the no-investment myth which that former Premier is spreading throughout the world is making it more difficult for people in British Columbia to have jobs. But we are overcoming that myth and we are telling the world the facts as they are.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) , during her contribution to this budget debate, was speaking of Doman Industries and their wish to build a lumber manufacturing plant on Cowichan Bay. She mentioned a pulp mill. Doman Industries is not yet looking for a site for their pulp mill. They perhaps have mentioned the fact that it's a possibility there, but what they're looking for right now is a site for a new sawmill. That member says that you cannot have a sawmill on Cowichan Bay, that it would ruin the environment. She doesn't want jobs and opportunities for the people in her constituency. That's strange indeed, Mr. Speaker. I think that she is taking a completely wrong attitude towards the opportunities that could be created in that area by a new and expanded sawmill.

This, of course, could only be done after he completion of the study which is taking place now. If it is environmentally acceptable, we should welcome it there. If it is not, it will have to go somewhere else. But that member and her colleagues in the area are using environmental concerns to discourage the construction of that sawmill there or anywhere else. They want to prove that this government cannot encourage jobs and have jobs created in the private sector. They're doing that at the expense of the people who could and will be working at this sawmill when it is created.

She says manufacturing plants, sawmills in Cowichan Bay are wrong and bad and would hurt the environment.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND : Well, I ask her, Mr. Speaker, then: where was she when the present Doman's sawmill was established at Cowichan Bay? That was established during the period of the former government. At that time, the former mill that had operated there - I believe it was Slegg Brothers - had gone into bankruptcy. It was a bankrupt company and there was a terrible physical mess left as a result of that. There were wages unpaid, bills unpaid in the community by that former company which had gone bankrupt.

Doman Industries at that time was looking for a site to build a new sawmill. Robert Strachan approached Doman Industries and asked them if they would build a sawmill on Cowichan Bay.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: A man by the name of Robert Strachan. I don't know the fellow myself, I'm sorry. He asked Doman Industries to come in there, clean up that mess in the bay and build a sawmill there. That gentleman approached the minister of the day, the Minister of Forests, and lobbied to him to get approval for the construction of a sawmill on Cowichan Bay. Doman Industries had told them: "We will build it there if you can get approval from the Minister of Forests of the day for that operation."

Now that site, Mr. Speaker, if they didn't want economic activity there, could have been cleaned up and left in its natural state without any industrial activity. But the former minister, after being lobbied by this Mr. Strachan, gave approval to build a sawmill there. Letters are on file over his signature approving the establishment of a sawmill by Doman Industries on Cowichan Bay. That member now, Mr. Speaker, in that party that was so excited to get new employment going when they were the government are doing everything they possibly can to discourage employment in this province today. They are trying to make this government look bad so we cannot create jobs at the expense of the people in this province who need jobs and want jobs. That is shameful, Mr. Speaker, absolutely shameful!

Interjection.

[ Page 377 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, they would make their constituents suffer today for their own cheap political ends.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, this government, through budgets like we have presented and which is under debate now, through sound fiscal management has restored the confidence and investment in this province. We are creating jobs and employment opportunities in this province.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) , when he was speaking in this debate was complaining about mines shutting down in British Columbia. Well, Mr. Speaker, mines will always shut down as long as mines are open in this province. Every mine has a finite life. I personally lived in four different communities in this province which are now ghost towns, which at one time were mining towns. That is the nature of the industry. More mines shut down during that government's era than have since we became the government, but there's no blame. Mines will shut down when ore bodies are depleted.

Our government has taken steps to make sure that the material which can be called ore -that which can be mined profitably - is of greater volume and there is less impost costwise on that mineralized rock so that it will be ore. Granduc Mines cut its production in half during the period of that government and it has announced that it will be completely closing sometime perhaps later this year.

Mr. Speaker, I watched a very curious item on the television news when that announcement was made. There was a film clip of a miner who was just returning from work out of the portal at the mine after his day's work. They asked him what he thought about the closure of the mine. fie said: "Well, I have worked at mines that have closed down before. You know, this mine started going downhill during the period of the NDP government when they creamed off all the profit that could perhaps have carried that company through this bad time. That is why the mine is closing down." he knew, and he was a hard-working, underground miner. Re knew the nature of the industry, that it is cyclical. It has to make profits during times of high metal prices to carry it over lower prices, and that is why, Mr. Speaker, this government has done the things it has to encourage the mining industry in this province, because many, many jobs are created by that industry.

Why aren't mines opening today, Mr. Speaker? Why don't we have new mines coming onstream today? Well, it's not because of today's metal prices, because the mining industry does not plan its mines on the basis of day-to-day prices. Mines are not opening today because the period of time when today's mines should have been' under exploration and development was a period of time when the mining industry was literally chased out of this province. No mines are coming on today because of the things done by that government during those very critical years, 1972 to 1975.

Mr. Speaker, I attended a meeting in Kamloops - I believe it was the summer of 1975 - a political gathering at which the Premier of the province was addressing the public. I attended the meeting with my wife, with many of my friends and colleagues who had made their living in the mining industry.

The people there asked this Premier: "What are you doing to our jobs? Why can't we find jobs in the industry where we have worked?"

And you know what he said? He said: "I can't be bothered with you and your little problems." They were people who wanted to work in this province. He said: "You can always come and work for the government."

Mr. Speaker, people in this province don't want to work for the government. They want to have jobs and opportunities to work in industry and to have the opportunities to perhaps do things for themselves. That type of thinking, I guess, is completely foreign to the philosophy of that former Premier. These people just wanted to be left alone to go out and create jobs and opportunities and wealth in this province, and they weren't even given that chance. Shameful, Mr. Speaker, that that government is so concerned today about jobs and did so much to destroy the job-creating confidence which is needed in this province.

Mr. Speaker, our present Minister of Mines is providing encouragement rather than discouragement to that industry. These matters are outlined in the budget and in the throne speech. He is providing additional incentive to prospectors and small mining companies to develop and explore for new mines so that jobs and wealth can be created in this province. He is providing incentive for copper smelting in this province. That day will come when we will need more copper-smelting capability in the world, and British Columbia will be an attractive place to have that copper smelting established.

This government, Mr. Speaker, is working with the industry and is not trying to drive

[ Page 378 ]

job opportunities away from this province.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) , in question period the other day, asked a question of the Minister of Mines. And he quoted from a column which I had written for one of my local constituency newspapers. The way he phrased that question, Mr. Speaker, is typical of the distortion of facts and misrepresentation of statements made by that member in order to discourage investment in this province. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the question which he asked and it's from Hansard: "Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Mines. On January 3, the Minister of Forests announced in Merritt that the new policy of the government is that there is no need for a copper smelter in British Columbia at the present time or in the foreseeable future." That's what he read, Mr. Speaker.

I will read you from the article which I wrote: "For instance, there are indications that copper smelters in Japan in the future are going to cost so much to build that copper from British Columbia will become much more competitive. There is no need for a copper smelter in B.C. now but there could be in the future." Quite a difference between the two statements, I would say. Again, he's attempting to spread around the world the fact that there is no need for investment in British Columbia.

The doom-and-gloom prophets, Mr. Speaker, are not helping to establish an investment climate in this province. Every government in Canada understands and recognizes that the best way of creating permanent, lasting jobs for the people of this country is through encouragement of the private sector. Government, through spending, can over a short term, through investment of public funds, create jobs, but only on a short-term basis. We are doing that in our policies this year because we do have a very serious situation. We are spending money which has been accumulated in surplus and we are spending this money not only to create jobs but to create assets for the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the total socialist myth, the myth that labour unions, people who are working people in this province, are socialists and are better off under socialists, has to be dispelled, for it is only a myth. It's a myth which is perpetuated by those members opposite and by certain people in the labour-union movement for their political ends. Socialism is not good for working people; socialism is not good for the province of British Columbia. This province, this country, was developed under the free enterprise system; personal initiative created the type of society which we have today. That former government wanted to break the private sector, to eliminate jobs. The working people of British Columbia realized very soon that that was not working, and could not work. That's why the voting people, the working people of this province, in 1975 re-elected a free enterprise government, so they could work towards having the private sector create jobs, and employment and wealth in this province.

Mr. Speaker, during the debate on the budget remarks have been made about reforestation. Reforestation is extremely important to the future of our forest industry in this province, and 1 must say that all three governments in recent history have paid close attention to reforestation. In 1965 reforestation - artificial reforestation -began in this province; and the objective at that time was that, by the end of the 1970s, we would be planting 80 million seedlings a year, in addition to the natural regeneration which takes place. A plan was then laid out by the government of the day - the former Social Credit government - which would progressively lead towards achieving this goal. You can't do it overnight; you have to have nursery facilities, you have to have the ability to create the seedlings.

So from 1965, when the programme got underway, until today, the budget for reforestation has grown from $1.1 million to over $20 million. This is a progression which each and every government has taken seriously. I have no arguments with any government for recognizing the necessity of doing that. But we have reached a plateau; we have reached the goal which was established in 1965. and now we must consider where we go from here.

New forestry legislation will be introduced in this House during this session, and that legislation will herald a new era in forest management in this province. It is legislation which I'm sure will be supported by each and every member in this House, because it recognizes the importance of the great forest land which we have in this province.

Mr. Speaker, in our budget today - the present budget before us - we have a programme of intensive forest management; and we must not confuse intensive forest management -intensive silviculture - with reforestation. Our reforestation programme will continue on into the future, and will grow in the future; but we will now begin to actually practice silviculture in British Columbia. Some of it should have been started a long time ago but, unfortunately, was not. There's $10 million allotted in this budget to kick off the future

[ Page 379 ]

of forest management in this province. It's long overdue, Mr. Speaker; but it's a start, and it will grow from here on into the future.

And not only is this an investment in our forest land base, but it's also an investment in the people of British Columbia. As mentioned by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) yesterday, not only will this investment create a better-managed forest, more raw material for our forest industry in the future, but it will also provide an investment in people in this province, to provide them with the opportunity of learning the skills needed to work in that forest industry. And my ministry will work very closely with his ministry, on the private sector, to assure that the people who do not have the skills, who need the training, will be able to work in our intensive-f ores try programmes. and learn those skills, and help us invest in this great province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, as 1 mentioned. the new era of forestry is coming to this province. I know every member in this House will support the legislation when it's introduced; and I know that it will lead to better and bigger things in the future, in this industry. There are jobs in British Columbia, even today if people are willing to take them and wish to work. I have a very good personal example: my second daughter, Patty, was goofing off at school this year - she was skipping classes, wasn't attending as regularly as she should be. She said she wanted to quit school and go to work. 1 said: "If that's your decision, Patty, I think you should think it over very seriously, because it's tough to get jobs out there in British Columbia - so love been told." But Patty said: "Yes, Dad, I want to take the rest of this term out. I will go back next year, but I really have to try it." I said: "Go to it." 1 thought the experience of her trying to find a job would be a good education for her. So she went to school that morning at 9 o'clock. She packed up her books and signed out. She went looking for a job and was working by 10 o'clock that same morning. There are jobs in British Columbia, if people are willing to take them. She's not doing the type of work that perhaps she would like to do; but she is working, she is earning a living - at relatively low wages; but that's according to the skills she possesses now. She, I hope, will return to school; and I'm sure she will.

But she proved to me, very personally, that there is work available if people want to take jobs. Of course, a lot more jobs are required, and no one will deny that, but many jobs are turned down because they may be too menial or they may not pay enough. But they are there in many places in the province.

Mr. Speaker, this budget, which I fully support, will create jobs in this province of British Columbia, it will create opportunities for the people of British Columbia, and it will help to ensure the future of this great province.

Mr. Speaker, I do fully support the budget of the Minister of Finance.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Chair has learned whether a decision is coming down shortly on the matter of the motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has no knowledge of such matters. Please continue.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I've listened with a moderate amount of interest to the remarks of the Minister of Forests. As a colleague pointed out during our careful listening, he had several opportune moments to close his remarks and he failed to take advantage of them.

There is one point that should not go unanswered, however, and that is with respect to his remarks.... Did the member for Kootenay (Mr. Haddad) make the minister disappear all of a sudden? Because he's gone. The minister suggests that because of the mineral royalties policy of the previous administration, the profits of mining corporations were creamed -I think that was the expression 'lie used - I presume to the benefit of consolidated revenue. Well, I'm sure if he had even the briefest chat with the Minister of Finance he would have been informed that the $39 million that came to consolidated revenue as a result of mineral royalties legislation was the subject of a legal case. The decision in that legal case may well have gone against the government, and this great protective government protecting private enterprise came in here with a piece of legislation that prohibited the return of any part of that portion of money.

The hon. minister's lack of research is amazing, but it's clear that he has no communication whatsoever with his fellow members of the cabinet, particularly the Minister of Finance. I'm not one of those who would suggest that such communication with that particular minister would be futile, but I think the very least the Minister of Finance could have done was pass him a note during the course of his remarks.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Would you draft it for him?

[ Page 380 ]

MR. LAUK: The hon. Minister of Finance asks whether I would draft it for him. As all other remarks he makes in this House are drafted for him, and in the interests of the minister's political maturity, I will decline on this occasion to do so, in the hope that he would take it upon himself to make some of his own remarks in this Legislature and not just repeat, like a puppet, the remarks drafted for him by the Minister of Forests , who is the well-known author of the budget.

Mr. Speaker, in 1976 in this chamber, and in 1977 in this chamber in the spring, I called for a public inquiry into the settlement of the contract between the British Columbia Railway and MEL Paving Ltd. At that time we suggested that such a settlement, made in secrecy on Christmas Eve of 1976, was a travesty and amounted to criminal negligence on the part of the government. Instead, the government appointed a royal commission, giving to it the broadest terms of reference in conducting an inquiry into all of the operations of the railway. I have a copy of the order-in-council which establishes the royal commission in question. Nowhere in the order-in-council is it stated that a report, interim or final, must be filed with the Legislature. Nowhere in this order-in-council is it stated that it must be filed in the Legislature before it is released to the public.

The government appointed the commission of inquiry; the government therefore was to receive the report. The chairman of the commission quite rightly transmitted its report to the government some 90 days ago. It is therefore a false statement made by a member of the government - the Provincial Secretary and Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) - to the press that the report is required to be filed with the Legislature, and therefore that is the reason that the government held the document secret for 90 days.

I am not suggesting that the Provincial Secretary deliberately made a false statement, but the statement, nevertheless, was false.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the government held this report secret because of their total and complete inability to make important decisions affecting the economic well-being of this province. Why on earth the Provincial Secretary would make that statement to the press is beyond me. Surely she would know that we would produce a copy of her own order-in-council signed by herself, wherein no comment is made that the report should be filed with the Legislature. In all such commission reports it's to be given directly to the government, and it is in their hands and it is their decision when the report should be released.

MR. BARRETT: Once the House sits they have 15 days, but up to that time they can do anything they want.

MR. LAUK: No, there's no such requirement to even do that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: The second point I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, is that we are finding in this province a First Minister who is incapable of decisions except when it comes to the wholesale slaughter of his colleagues in the cabinet. The Premier will not make decisions on a political basis that he may find embarrassing. It is an absolute abdication of responsibility to file this report in the absence of the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LAUK: It's a cowardly act, Mr. Speaker, for the spokesman for the government of this province to so design the release of this report that the Premier will be absent from the capital during our first opportunity to debate the disastrous recommendations of the commission. The report could have been released prior to the commencement of this session of the Legislature. It was deliberately designed to be placed on the table for public exposure while the Premier was in Saskatchewan.

Why is it that the Premier of this province cannot face up to the realities of his position? Why is it that in the last four or five months, several weeks of that period of time during the most critical period in our economic history, the First Minister of this province has been found out of the country in Palm Springs? Why is it, when they tabled one of the most important documents to affect the British Columbia Railway in some years, the Premier skips town and fails to be present in this Legislature to face the music?

In 1977 members on this side of the House stated in this Legislature what had to be done with the British Columbia Railway. We wanted an inquiry into that scandalous settlement with MEL Paving, but to appoint a royal commission putting the very survival of that railway in doubt for a whole year or more was an abdication of responsibility and proof positive this government and the Premier of this government have no will to govern and no

[ Page 381 ]

will to fulfill their mandate from the people of British Columbia.

I'll tell you what the royal commission will say, two years after 1 said it in this Legislature as a member of the opposition, and more than three years after 1 said it in this Legislature as a member of the government: 1) the railway must be refinanced; 2) there must be a total revision of the management of the railway; 3) the development lines of Fort Nelson and Dease Lake must be accounted for separately from the operating lines of the railway. Those are the three. I ask all hon. members to look it up in Hansard; look it up in the spring of 1975, in the spring of 1976 and in the spring of 1977. That's what we said. We don't need a royal commission to tell us what to do with the railway, but cowards do - cowards who are inept and unable to govern this province in difficult matters.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, you are very well aware that the word "cowards" is unparliamentary. I must ask you to withdraw the word "cowards."

MR. LAUK: I withdraw the word "coward" in reference to any individual member of the. government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: 1 will refer to it as a cowardly act collectively on the part of the government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you also 'Know that we can't say something in one way that we would like to say in another, so please withdraw.

MR LAUK: It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the government has a tiger by the tail; it is clear that they did not want to make any decisions affecting that railway. On the one hand they would be accused of expending more funds to upgrade the Fort Nelson line, and they wanted to delay the decision because it's politically unpopular. They're a government of procrastinators.

And what has happened in the interim? lens of millions of dollars in debt service charges have mounted up; jobs are lost; material and equipment lie idle; the economic future of the communities along the British Columbia Railway is in doubt; the people fear for their job security, for their way of life in the north. They claimed that there will be no interference with the Grown corporation and used that as an excuse to make no further decisions with respect to the railway; they appointed a board and they claimed time and time again there would be no political interference; they appointed a commission; they said that that commissioner's recommendations would be submitted to the government and to the board and again reiterated their commitment to make no political interference with the Crown corporation. Yet they sat on a devastating report with a devastating recommendation for more than three months, and if that's not an act of political cowardice and unreasonable political interference with the board of the British Columbia Railway, which was entitled to receive their interim report immediately upon its submission.... I will read to the House the commission's letter to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. This is dated December 30,1977, a few days longer than a year from the t time of that scandalous settlement with MEL Paving.

"May it please Your Honour, we the undersigned commissioners appointed pursuant to the Public Inquiries Act, the 7th day of February, 1977, by order-in-council 454, to enquire into matters concerning the British Columbia Railway, beg to submit herewith an interim report on the future of the railway's Fort Nelson extension, a matter which appears to us of urgent importance."

Ninety days later, this government, which pledged not to interfere with due process and with boards of Crown corporations, sneak the report in late last night as the Premier boarded his plane for Saskatchewan. Mr. Speaker, I have received several communications early this afternoon that I wish to read into the record. The first is from Jack Munro, president of the regional council, No. 1, International Woodworkers of America, addressed to myself, Parliament Buildings, Victoria:

"Please raise in the Legislature the extremely serious situation that could develop if government were to implement the report tabled in the House concerning the permanent closure of the rail line between Fort St. John and Fort Nelson.

"The immediate effects would be disastrous with hundreds of jobs lost, and long-term effects would be ludicrous. If the British Columbia economy is going to expand, it must be in the north where the resources are, and without a rail line that is impossible. Twelve million dollars a year for five years is a paltry, unmeasurable amount compared to the wealth and people the north will provide and produce to the province with

[ Page 382 ]

a rail line." The second is from Mayor Andrew P. Schuck, Fort Nelson, B.C., addressed to myself:

The following is a copy of a telegram sent to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition:

"To abandon Fort Nelson extension is an act of economic and social genocide and this government is killing Fort Nelson by failing to announce a favourable decision immediately. Investment has ceased. Our workers are frightened, our citizens confused, and this waffling must Stop.

"To table the report and leave the province was a cowardly and dastardly act and the Premier must tell the people of B.C. that this government will not abandon the north; that it will not betray its people; that it will honour its commitments; and that it will allow Fort Nelson an economic future.

"Your assistance is requested.

"Respectfully, Mayor Andrew P. Schuck."

Addressed to me from Len Chmelyk, president of the Fort Nelson Chamber of Commerce is the following:

"The government's inability to make a decision on the commission's report is crippling Fort Nelson. It is imperative that the government announce a favourable decision immediately to end economic and social uncertainty. The Premier must announce that lie will not betray previous government commitments to the north and they will not destroy Fort Nelson by abandoning the line. Any further delay shows a complete lack of social conscience."

MR. BARRETT: The chamber of commerce isn't exactly your neighbourhood socialist organization.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from the remarks made by the hon. member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) . I don't often quote the remarks of the hon. member for North Peace River, so I'm sure that they will receive your greatest attention. I recall that that member had promised his constituents that the Social Credit government would not shut down the Fort Nelson line. He reassured them when the secret interim report was sent to Victoria by the royal commission: "The government is committed to retaining the Fort Nelson line."

MR. SMITH: What are you quoting from?

MR. BARRETT: Did you say it?

MR. LAUK: What causes us even more concern is that the former Minister of Transport - the most recent minister of Transport, last week's Minister of Transport - stated to a meeting a few weeks ago that there was no need for the northern extensions of the BCR. I suppose that lie wants those towboats on the coast to supply Fort Nelson. It's this kind of comment from a former minister - who may well be back in the cabinet, if we are to believe the Premier; and surely we all believe the Premier - which strike fear in the hearts of those brave citizens who live in Fort Nelson against impossible odds, fighting impossible odds to make a living out there.

MR. KEMPF: How would you know?

MR. KING: Next time you parachute into Scotland, we'll make sure they get you.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, there is a letter to the editor in the Province today; and for those hon. members who may have missed this letter, it's from Jim MacArthur of Vernon. He states:

"It is hoped that when the decision is made to either maintain or abandon the Pacific PGE Rail line to Fort Nelson, the contributions made to our provincial budget by the northeast corner of the province will be taken into account.

"The computers tell us it will cost $8.5 million per year for 10 years to keep the Fort Nelson line operating."

I will interpolate here to point out that the information from the experts and economists before the commission was contradictory; and I will deal with that in a moment.

"But $500 million was spent searching for new petroleum in 1977 directly and sales of leases and provincial royalties amounted to another $600 million.... Consider the provincial gas tax collected by the province along the B.C. section of the Alaska Highway, which is a federal highway maintained, for the most part, by federal funds, at roughly a $15 million yearly cost to Ottawa.

"I am reasonably sure that the Economic Development minister and Premier Bennett are acutely aware that closing the rail line would be a regressive step for the province as a whole, even though the former Transport minister did not appear to grasp the importance of the rail line's future presence."

I'm glad that my hon. colleague from Prince Rupert raised the question to W.A.C. Bennett. We, on this side of the House, had many

[ Page 383 ]

opportunities to criticize some of the mistakes made by that hon. gentleman when he was Premier of this province. I think we were correct in doing so; and it was our duty to do so. But one of the things he never shirked, one of the things that he was always keen to embrace, was his responsibility as the government of this province.

Mr. Speaker, where are the politicians, like the previous two Premiers of this province, who were totally capable of accepting their responsibility; and, let the chips fall where they may, they knew their responsibility. They didn't look around and count noses; they didn't care about the popularity of the day. They made decisions for the future of this province. They made decisions that would enable people in this province to have hope that we did have an economic future. They didn't delay them year after year, month after month, until there was such fear in the hearts of people in these northern communities that investment stopped altogether.

Mr. Speaker, lie did not shirk from his responsibility. He willingly made decisions to build the Fort Nelson line when all of the experts said he was crazy; all the experts said that the Dease Lake line - even building the line to Prince George - was a pipe dream. He built them; and we followed in the grand tradition of keeping the BCR going through to the north. You know, Ramsay Cook wrote an article last December in Saturday Night magazine. He said: "If we had listened to the experts, to the journalists and to the academics of this country ... "

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: And the lawyers.

MR. BARRETT: And the Liberal turncoats.

MR. LAUK: "...if we had listened to these people in this country, Confederation would not have survived 1871." You read your history, Mr. Speaker, I say to those on the other side who are skeptical about the future of this province. you read your history about the building of the transcontinental line, the CPR. The experts stood up and said: "Oh, it's a pipe dream. Oh, it's this, it's that. There's no economic development out there. There's only a few tents, and a few birds and a couple of bison."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, if the government of the day in 1867,1870 and 1875 listened to the experts, there would be no Canada today. There'd be no economic development. We would be part of the United States, if we would exist at all. This is the kind of shortsighted vision; this is the kind of disastrous group-think that disables politicians and governments from doing the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, I am shocked at the conduct of this government. I'm shocked at the reticence of so-called free enterprise politicians - the best politicians money can buy. Sitting on that side of the house, the millionaire government - the tulip bulb king and the car dealers.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I'm interested in the speech of the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You'll forgive me if 1 just comment that that was unapparent until just this moment.

Mr. Speaker, apart from the rude cross-comment from the tulip bulb king of Surrey, the millionaire, along with all of the rest of the car dealer millionaires, those people who promised this province a great economic future, two and a half years and the people of this province still do not know what their economic future is, particularly with respect to the British Columbia Railway. This kind of navel gazing that's been going on for two and a half years is costing not only the govern ment a fortune in debt-service charges for the railway, it is costing the government and the people of this province great wealth, great revenue to the coffers of British Columbia, because of increased jobs and wealth in the north, and taxes that they would pay. I find it a shameful act. I f find it a betrayal of their promises, and particularly the promise of hope for the future of this province. I think that this kind of act on the part of the government, this tremendous delay, is unforgivable.

They talk about economic development, Mr. Speaker, when they refer to the Fort Nelson line and the Dease Lake line. Where was the economic development before the CPR came through? It's inane, it defies reason, for anyone to suggest that you've got to build your towns, develop your mines and your pulp mills before you put a railway line through. That's Alice in Wonderland. It's nonsense -absolute nonsense.

I say to that government and to the absent seat of the Premier that they are without vision. Oh, they can raise taxes, they can fan the fires of inflation, they can cynically ignore the economic security of people in Fort

[ Page 384 ]

Nelson, but a decision to accept this narrow-minded disastrous recommendation signs the death warrant of the people of Fort Nelson. The government places impossible tasks on people who are already facing hardship. They face harsh winters and relative isolation, and yet the government imposes higher taxes, high unemployment, very few schools and hospitals, a high cost of living in the north, and a high cost of propane fuel. They are our frontier, Mr. Speaker, up there. They're carrying the flag for us in Fort Nelson. And they can withstand these hardships, Mr. Speaker, if they know the rest of British Columbia, particularly the government, will stand behind them.

To implement this short-sighted recommendation will take away the only thing these people have left: their hope. Superhuman they may be, but a community without hope, Mr. Speaker, is a community just waiting to die.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this f first opportunity, under a point of order, to respond to some erroneous statements made by the previous speaker, who has just taken his place.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order, and under the standing orders, we are allowed to make corrections of statements, made by the person seeking the floor, which have been misunderstood. We are not allowed to take a place, the second time in a debate, to correct statements made by other members. And I just give that to you for your guidance.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that the address that we have just heard from the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) , in his guttersnipe language which has become a hallmark of his addresses to this House, made inference.... Excuse me, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Let me just cite the standing order so that it can be clear in our minds.

"42 (l) No member may speak twice to a question except in explanation of a material part of his speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood, but then he is not to introduce any new matter, and no debate shall be allowed upon such explanation."

That's standing order 42. 1 know the members are aware of this. I just refreshed your memory.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) withdraw the remarks made in his statement. As I understood his remarks, there are two that should be withdrawn. One was that he accused the government of criminal negligence. That should be withdrawn, Mr. Speaker. It's a shameful statement in regard to the government and the government's actions.

In the second, he has accused the Premier of this province of cowardice. We all know, as does the first member for Vancouver Centre, that the First Minister of the province of British Columbia is with the Western Premiers' Conference in Yorkton, Saskatchewan, looking after the business of our province and of our citizens, where he should be.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, I wish the member to withdraw the inference that 1. as Provincial Secretary, have kept a report secret, as I followed all the rules of this honourable House in filing the report under section 9 (2) of the Public Inquiries Act. I will not accept the charge that he has made previously.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, perhaps I may dismiss the matter before we entertain another matter.

The standing orders provide that the Chair can require withdrawal of unparliamentary words or an imputation of wrongdoing against another member. However, with great respect, there is no way the Chair can ask for withdrawal against the imputation of wrongdoing against a government, and that is upheld by the authorities such as May If 1 had just a moment 1 could refer you to it.

Nonetheless, 1 must ask the first member for Vancouver Centre to withdraw the imputation of cowardice to an individual person, if he be the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's already been done.

MR. SPEAKER: Has that already been done? In my absence it was done. It was not?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's just clear the matter right now. Is the matter withdrawn?

MR. LAUK: The matter pertaining to any individual member of this House is withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER: Withdrawn. Thank you very much.

Interjection.

MR SPEAKER: Order, please. It is undoubt-

[ Page 385 ]

edly inflammatory language - can I use that phrase? - and undoubtedly, if it were attributed to an individual, must be withdrawn. However, I find myself powerless to ask members to withdraw it as it is referred to an administration. If other members can show me other citations, I would be happy to look at them.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would commend you to section 40 of our standing orders:

"No member shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty, nor of any members of the royal family, nor of the Governor-General or person administering the government of Canada, nor of the Lieutenant-Governor or person administrating the government of this province."

MR. SPEAKER: Therefore we can clear this entire matter. Thank you for the citation, Mr. Attorney--General. I would ask the hon. member for Vancouver Centre to withdraw any imputation of wrongdoing against any individual, in or out of the government.

MR. LAUK: I withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. I appreciate the withdrawal.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it's been a long time since 1 had the privilege and opportunity of standing in my place on the floor of this House and speaking to a matter, including the budget. It seems that it's been many years, but only a little over two.

Before I begin my remarks on the budget debate I would like to offer MY congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, on your election to the post that you now occupy, and also to the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rogers) whom I am sure will carry out his duties in this Legislature as are expected of a Deputy Speaker of this House.

I want to extend my congratulations to the new member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) , and I hope that he enjoys his stay in this assembly and that some of the better attributes that we see displayed by certain members of the house at odd times - and for that matter quite frequently - will be his guide rather than some of those things that we would rather not see displayed on the floor of this assembly.

Just if I might remind you, Mr. Speaker, through you to all of the other members, I would like to remind the members that this is my maiden speech. At least it's the first speech that I've had an opportunity to deliver in this parliament, and I expect all of the common courtesies that are accorded to a member taking his place in debate for the first time.

It's a pleasure to speak on behalf of the thriving, industrious constituency of North Peace River which I have the pleasure to represent. I've had to forgo that privilege for the last two years-plus, and it's certainly nice to be able to stand in my place and report to the members of this assembly that, indeed, the North Peace River riding is very much alive; it's well, growing, expanding and creating numerous new job opportunities for those people who will accept the challenge. For many of them it means accepting the challenge of a new and different lifestyle, but the challenge and the opportunity is there.

True, there is a bit of a dark cloud on the horizon in one particular sector of the North Peace River riding, which I will refer to later on in my remarks, but for the most part the southern part of the North Peace River constituency is not only well and expanding but it's growing very, very quickly. It does offer a unique and different lifestyle for those who will accept the challenge. It's not the lifestyle of the Vancouver Centre lawyer; it's not the lifestyle of big-city Vancouver, as many people know it; it's not the lifestyle surrounded by hundreds of thousands of people; it's not a lifestyle in which a subsidized transit system runs a bus by your door every 20 minutes; it's not a lifestyle such as we experience here in Victoria, with its subsidized transit buses and good communications; and it's not a lifestyle with a subsidized ferry running from here to the mainland each and every hour on most days of the week. But it is a lifestyle that does provide and extend to those people who will accept the challenge a way of life. It's a do-it-yourself lifestyle to a great extent, but it offers unlimited opportunities. To those people who would accept that lifestyle-and to those people who would accept those opportunities, I say to them in all sincerity that there is a very large opportunity awaiting them in the north at this particular time.

The greatest problem we have at the moment is finding skilled people to perform services for the businesses that wish to expand. The greatest problem that we have is to find an electrician, a carpenter, a skilled plumber. There are lots of lawyers, Mr. Member - more than ample.

AN HON. MEMBER: Little ones like Gary?

MR. SMITH: So I'm afraid if the hon. member

[ Page 386 ]

for Vancouver Centre, who has become an instant expert on northern development, wishes to move his practice to the north of B.C. , he'd f find that he's not really needed in that particular element up there and in that particular area.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, no. The north doesn't deserve that.

MR. SMITH: I do want to spend just a few minutes speaking about some of the things that have contributed to the present buoyant economy of the North Peace River. The first and by far the most positive has been the great increase in oil and gas exploration that has taken place in the last two years. Particularly, this has resulted in rapid growth and development in the city of Fort St. John and in the surrounding area; that is not to discount all of the exploration that has taken place in the Fort Nelson area as well. But the most rapid development and the most rapid increase in business opportunity has been, to this date, in the immediate area of Fort St. John. There have been more new homes built and greater expansion has taken place in that community in the last year than in any previous year in the history of the first hamlet, village and now city of Fort St. John.

To give you an idea of what Las taken place just in the first three months of 1978, the city has issued 68 new business licences. Those are licences to businesses that were not in operation at January 1,1978. Sixty-eight new businesses have located in Fort St. John in the last three months. There is a new shopping centre proposed. As a matter of fact, it's more than proposed; it will become a reality within 12 months. It will enclose 180,000 square feet of commercial and industrial space in one unit. There is a proposal before the city council for a new 240-unit trailer court, and it's under review by the city council at the present time.

To give you another yardstick by -which to measure the growth that has taken place in just a very short two-year period, I'd like to refer to the financial statement of the North Peace Savings and Credit Union, a financial organization which has contributed a great deal to the average person working and living in the Fort St. John area over the 30-odd years that it has been in operation.

At the end of 1976, just a little aver one year ago, the assets of that particular institution were in the neighbourhood of $12,200, 000. In one short year, from 1976 to the end of 1977, the assets in the credit union increased from $12,200, 000 to $22,700, 000 - an increase of almost double in one year's time. The membership, which now stands at 7,300 in that particular organization, increased by 1,400 in just one year.

Everywhere you turn in that area, the same type of development, the sane type of record is being created by the existing and new businesses. There has been a number of new businesses start in the last few years: trucking businesses, businesses that cater to the oil and gas industry, businesses that create and provide services for people who live there. Oil and gas has had a great deal to do with it. Let me tell you this, Mr. Speaker: within 60 days after the 1975 election, the oil-and-gas exploration business was off and running again in full gear. Within 60 days they were in high gear and they've never looked back since. I think it's an indication, a very tangible indication of the faith that they have in the north under the existing administration in this province.

Agriculture is on the move. It's estimated to be worth about $27 million annually to the merchants of the city of Fort St. John in direct sales to the farmer-customers of that area. It's approximately one-third of the total gross revenue going through the retail outlets in Fort St. John in any given year. For the first time in many years, land clearing projects are on the increase. About 15,000 acres per year of new land are coming under cultivation, and it is increasing each and every year. As I said before, the catalyst that has made this rapid growth possible is not the expectations of the Alaska Highway pipeline, not the expectation that that particular project will create suddenly thousands of new jobs, but it has been the actual exploration that has taken place for gas and oil that, as I say, started within 60 days after the 1975 election.

While I'm speaking about gas and oil and the exploration for those products, I would like to correct a misconception held by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) . I'm sorry that he's not here this afternoon. But it is a myth, a myth that he tries to perpetuate every fine he takes his place in debate on the floor of this House and speaks about gas and oil and exploration. It's his suggestion, of course, that the government of the day is selling out the non-renewable resources, particularly in the gas and petroleum products area, to big business, to big multinational oil cartels. That type of claptrap is absolute nonsense. It is not in keeping with the facts as they are going to be presented.

[ Page 387 ]

I'm not going to take a great deal of time this afternoon to go over the sale of oil-and-gas exploration rights for the last year. Everyone knows that record and the amount of revenue that it generated for the coffers. But I do want to concentrate for just a moment on one particular sale, and that is the last one that took place in the province of British Columbia just a few days ago and returned to- the -coffers $21.5 -million. Now that's the first sale of - the 1978-79 fiscal year and it's interesting to relate that sale to what is taking place in British Columbia and how the government gets a return far, far greater than the people who have bid for the right to explore.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Let me inform the House of this, Mr. Speaker. We have, by far, one of the best systems of granting the right to explore for oil and gas of any province in Canada - as a matter of fact, of anywhere in North America. It was a system designed back in the first days of oil-and-gas exploration in British Columbia, and that dates back to the early 1950s. Let me tell you exactly what the petroleum industry gets and what they paid for. In this last sale, the province received $21.5 million.

How much of that money do you think they had to pay as a result of statutes in the province, of statutory fees and rentals: how much of that money do you think they really had to pay to the Crown for the right to, go out and drill, or to explore? $190,693.40 covered the statutory fees. But the bonus bids - where the real money comes in - amounted to $21,374. What that means is that the companies all know the statutory requirements; but they competitively bid for the right to go out and explore - that's all, the right to go out and explore. To do that, they paid this government and the people of this province almost $21.5 million on the last sale - just for the right to go out and look. It doesn't guarantee them that they're going to find anything.

Now suppose they're fortunate in their exploration, and they find some gas, and they find some oil. What happens then? The government steps in, as soon as the oil and the gas is produced, and takes a great chunk of the revenue that's available from the sale of the product that they've found. So we win as residents of the province both ways. And do you know how much money we invest as taxpayers, how much of our money we gamble to get that? Not one red cent, Mr. Speaker. They spend $1 billion on looking for the resource, and it doesn't cost us a nickel. If they're lucky and they find some gas and oil, we take a good share of the wellhead price in return, to the taxpayers in the province of British Columbia. What could be a better deal?

I don't know of any endeavour or any branch of government that repays in dollars, which can be used to finance programmes for people, the way gas and oil exploration pay into the coffers of this province. There's no other- --thing that can compare with it. True, forestry employs more people; but it also costs us a great portion of that revenue to get the revenue in the first place. As the minister well knows, out of every dollar that we receive in tax from forestry, a good percentage of that goes back into maintaining a very large workforce. In the petroleum and natural gas industry we employ, I would think, in the whole province of British Columbia, less than 100 people - actively on the payroll of the province - and yet, last year, what was the return? $188 million? Something in that range. I tell you, it's been good business for the province of British Columbia, and for the taxpayers who depend upon us to provide them with services.

I want to spend a few moments now in talking about that one dark cloud that's on the horizon in the north Peace River. That is the cloud that exists as a result of the report that was tabled last night in this House concerning the B.C. Railway and the extension from Fort St. John to Fort Nelson. The report tabled in this House last night, in my opinion, is written proof of the unrealistic, narrow and completely negative position that the commission and their learned senior counsel took with respect to the transportation system , and the railway which is an absolute necessity. If resource development is to continue and prosper in northeastern B.C., then we must have that line of communication maintained.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, it's the first report of its kind that I've ever read where the conclusion is stated on the third page of the report. Let me read it to you:

"It is the conclusion of the commission that the Fort Nelson extension is not a viable portion of the British Columbia Railway, and that it cannot be made viable in the foreseeable future. While abandonment of the line would obviously have significant social and economic consequences for the community of Fort Nelson, it is the commission's view that

[ Page 388 ]

these would be alleviated at substantially lower cost to the public than that of indefinitely supporting what has proved to be and must continue to be a fundamentally uneconomic and unjustifiable portion of the British Columbia Railway."

That poses a question in my mind, Mr. Speaker, and that is: if it was possible to reach that conclusion in the first three- pages of the report, why bother with the other 73 unless the conclusion was arrived at before the report was drafted? Then everything that went into that report, and was contained within the report, was rated in support of that conclusion.

There is no other opinion that I can take from having read this report. I think it's a sad commentary but it appears to be exactly what is taking place. In every instance and in most of the submissions and presentations before the commission that were given wide prominence by the commission itself and by their senior solicitor and by the news media, there was not one thing positive - published or said - that I've read about the continuation of the Fort Nelson extension, not one positive statement. It all was of the nature of the fact that because it was uneconomic at the moment, it should be abandoned and the line shut down.

Mr. Speaker, it's easy to reach the conclusion that is recorded in that report submitted and filed in this House last night if you've come to that decision long before the report is written. There were many presentations before that commission by the people who will be most affected, and they were given little notice at all - people like Fort Nelson Forest Industries, Tackema Lumber, those people who are presently responsible for employing more of a work force in Fort Nelson than any other single individual enterprise. Yet their submissions went almost unheeded.

Mr. Speaker, the contribution of the BCR should not be judged in narrow, commercial perspective. The economic returns attributable to the BCR far outweigh its reported operating deficits.

My goodness, if we'd waited for the members of the official opposition to do anything for the north, we'd still be sitting there in furs in log shacks.

MR. NICOLSON: Sock it to them, pussy-cat.

MR. SMITH: Well, well, well. The first contribution that this member has made in two and a half years, the first contribution, and then it was nothing - almost in the same vein as other speeches I've heard the hon. member for Nelson-Creston give on the floor of this House.

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

MR. SMITH: I was talking about the BCR and the fact that we cannot judge it in narrow, commercial perspectives. Sure, there is a deficit, - but -it's interesting to know that'-the deficit -is not nearly as large this year as was first calculated and that it is certainly much lower than last year.

The forest industry served by the railway generates more than $4 in government revenue for every $1 of operating deficit, and that's a fact. Now if you look at the railway in terms of the deficit generated and charge all of that deficit against the newly opened and operating lines, certainly they'll never make a profit; they'll never break even. But tell me, Mr. Speaker, does the operation of the ferry service to Vancouver Island break even? Does the operation of the transit system, which everybody takes for granted, break even? Isn't it about time that we gave the BCR the benefit of only covering operating expenses out of the actual revenue in any given year instead of suggesting to them that all of the costs of financing the new extensions have to also be taken into account so that that deficit is horrendous? Isn't it about time?

The B.C. Railway, particularly the northern extension, including the Fort Nelson line, is an instrument of development. The potential of the northeast of B.C. can only be realized if the railway is allowed to continue in operation. It's one of those types of industrial vehicles that we must preserve if the north is to grow and prosper.

Let me suggest this to you, Mr. Speaker -and I have lived in the North Peace long enough to have observed these things - the start of the growth of Fort St. John in real, tangible and positive terms started with the extension of the BCR, then called the Pacific Great Eastern, from Prince George to Fort St. John. That was the start of the type of development that we see taking place in and around the Fort St. John area today; and it's never stopped since. I suggest - through you, Mr. Speaker, to this House - that the people of Fort Nelson are entitled to the same consideration.

Mr. Speaker, the feelings and the frustration felt by the residents of my constituency - particularly those that are presently living in the Fort Nelson area - can best be summarized by quoting from a letter I received from a Mr. Bob Lunde. Mr. Lunde,

[ Page 389 ]

along with his associate, Mr. Curt Garland, own 75 per cent of Tackema Lumber in Fort Nelson - the firm that suffered a disastrous fire. Instead of sitting around and worrying and wondering what they were going to do, they immediately announced a re-building programme, went back into operation, and at this point in time are back operating in Fort Nelson, three months after the fire. It's interesting to note, as I said, that Mr. Lunde and Mr. Garland own 75 per cent of Tackema Lumber; and it's also interesting to note that the other 25 per cent of the company is owned by the native people of the Fort Nelson area.

I would like to turn now to a man who has his future and the future of hundreds of employees at stake in this particular matter, and express, I think, through his words the feelings of some of the people in the Fort Nelson area. Mr. Lunde, in writing to me not too long ago, had this to say:

"Basically, if we as a province wish to continue earning our collective living -and recognizing that we have priced ourselves out of most export-related secondary manufacturing endeavours - it would seem that resource development is one of the only available economic activities left to British Columbians. Since new resource development will occur ever further northward, it would seem that rail is the key to northern industrial development, because it is the only bulk-shipping method that is remotely competitive with water-borne carriers. One would think it absolutely imperative that the B.C. Railway be given a prime industrial-development role over all other railways in B.C., to ensure that the province retains control over its own economic destiny, instead of forfeiting our industrial future to some corporate board room in the east - or even worse, to a politically directed bureaucrat in Ottawa.

"I would suggest, if grain can be shipped all the way from the Prairies to tidewater and then to international markets, surely we can organize our affairs so that forest products can be shipped from where the resource occurs in B.C. to our markets.

"To date, Tackema has survived the royal commission's year-long publicity campaign against the line to Fort Nelson. The stated desire of the BCR management to only operate currently profitable segments of the railway ... a very iniquitous domestic chip market, a reluctant labour force, ever-increasing freight and energy rates, and the highest wage and equipment costs in north America.'We cannot continue to operate in a northern-development policy vacuum, which has existed in B.C. since the fall of 1973. It is not reasonable or just to expect our investors and employees to question, on a day-to-day or year-to-year basis, whether they are going to lose their investments or jobs. We have done everything possible to build a modern and aggressive company, under very adverse conditions at Fort Nelson; and, quite frankly, I think we, and the community of Fort Nelson, deserve far better than we have received to date for our efforts.

"In conclusion, if you decide to impose an unreasonable freight rate structure or shut down the BCR to Fort Nelson - aside from immediately losing approximately 2,000 direct and indirect jobs and forfeiting an opportunity for future investment and growth - I think there will be a deep inclination in the northern areas of B.C. for people to begin wondering just where is the future in this province. If southern British Columbians do not want to divert some portion of their huge provincial budget toward long-term transportation and energy investments for industrial development in the north, then perhaps the people of this area should closely examine where the revenues from all of the non-renewable resources extracted here are going. No one in the south, politicians or voters, should feel the North Peace region is being subsidized, as there isn't any question that a balance-sheet approach to the total economic contribution this region makes to the province would indicate that the area, if anything, is subsidizing the south.

That, Mr. Speaker....

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: 1973.

I think that letter expresses better than anything I could say the feelings of the people in the Fort Nelson area. They're concerned at the present moment. They're concerned about their futures and their jobs, and I think that the time has come for the province of British Columbia, through the government, to indicate to these people exactly where their future lies. They're not afraid of work. They're not afraid to make their contribution. But if there's anything

[ Page 390 ]

that's frustrating it's the uncertainty that that report filed in this House last night has created in the minds of every person employed in the Fort Nelson area at the present time.

Yesterday I received a wire from Mr. Lundy, and I'd like to read it into the record. It reads as follows:

DUE IN PART TO SOME VERY POSITIVE ACTIONS
BY YOUR CABINET WE MAINTAINED OUR EMPLOYMENT LEVEL ENDURING THE WINTER AND HAVE BEEN ABLE TO INITIATE PARTIAL VENEER PRODUCTION DURING MID MARCH, THEREBY AVOIDING POTENTIAL HARDSHIP FOR OUR PEOPLE.

If I may interject at this particular moment, I would like to bring to the attention, Mr. Speaker, of the members of this House the fact that while Tackema is in the production of veneer, they don't make plywood. Much of their veneer comes to Vancouver, goes to mills who manufacture plywood, and it is made into plywood in Vancouver. I am told that for every job created in Fort Nelson manufacturing veneer, another job is created in Vancouver making the veneer into plywood. So never let us assume that the shutdown of an industry in Fort Nelson affects only those people who live in Fort Nelson. It affects all of the people who are involved in the forest industry.

TACKEMA IS NOW ATTEMPTING TO ATTRACT AN ADDITIONAL WORK FORCE FOR THE EXPANDED SAWMILL AND NEW PLANER MILL COMPLEX WHICH IS STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION. HOWEVER, POTENTIAL EMPLOYEES FROM THE SOUTH WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO MOVE To FORT NELSON ARE VERY RELUCTANT TO DO So DUE TO THE UNCERTAINTY CREATED BY THE ROYAL COMMISSION REGARDING THE BCR. A POSITIVE STATEMENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT ENDING ONCE AND FOR ALL THIS CLIMATE OF APPREHENSION WOULD IMMEDIATELY ACTIVATE INVESTMENT DECISIONS IN FORT NELSON THAT HAVE BEEN HELD IN ABEYANCE AND WILL ENABLE TACKEMA TO OFFER STABLE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES TO THOSE WHO ARE SEEKING WORK IN THE NORTH.

MR. SPEAKER: You have three minutes.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I've almost completed my remarks.

MR. LEA: For 90 days the report was held back.

MR. SMITH: The suggestion was thrown across the floor that the report was held back 90 days. The hon. member knows that the first requirement was to file the report with this

House when the House was in session, and it was done according to the rules - within 10 days, as the hon. members know.

MR. LAUK: Not true.

MR. SMITH: The main thing now, in my opinion, is not to concentrate and dwell on what has happened in the past, not to concentrate on the fact that that railway was a resource railway and was put through in a hurry. It needs upgrading and improving. We need a positive commitment now that that railway will continue in service to Fort Nelson and thereby assure the future not only of the people who are there today, but the hundreds who will go into that area - and the thousands in the next 10 years - to find gainful employment.

Mr. Speaker, all we need to do is rededicate ourselves to the vision of northern development that w- once had in this province, and we'll all be much better off.

MR. HADDAD: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you would assist us if you would use your microphone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Stand up!

MR. HADDAD: Well, you know, Mr. Speaker, where I come from they measure a man from the ground up.... (Laughter.) No, they don't measure a man from the ground up, they measure him from the shoulders up.

Interjections.

MR. HADDAD: Well, you know, Mr. Speaker, if I had a taller podium, it would make me feel smaller. By using a small one, it makes me feel taller.

I am proud to voice my opinion on the 1978-79 budget for the province of British Columbia. I congratulate the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and the government for a move in the direction of bringing sound fiscal policy to the people of British Columbia through the many programmes and benefits covering small business, big business, farmers, housewives, and people in all walks of life.

I'm also pleased with the action of the Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) and the Minister of Finance. On April 5, 1 made my reply to the throne speech. I asked that the sales tax be reduced or removed altogether, as it was a hardship to our merchants and small business throughout my constituency, due to MY

[ Page 391 ]

constituency being so close to the Alberta border.

Mr. Speaker, I must compliment the Premier and the Minister of Finance for such fast action in responding to my request on such short notice. All of my colleagues did not think it was possible, and none of them requested it. But the new leader, of the Conservative Party, the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) , in his reply to the throne speech, was the only other member to suggest such a move.

At this point in time, if I may, I would like to give some good news to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) . I was informed just a few moments ago that in my constituency in the past three months there have been no major alcohol-related accidents, due to the Attorney-General's counterattack on drinking drivers. My slogan is - and I pass this on to the Attorney-General - that if you drink, don't drive, and if you drive, don't drink. Did I get that right? The small-business people in my constituency will be delighted when this government reduces the

Reporting requirements by the various government departments, as many of the government forms were the cause of much expense to small business, because they required the services of experienced accountants and, in some instances, they required the services of lawyers. I am sure that a considerable amount of this reporting served no useful purpose to the government. I applaud the Premier and members of his cabinet for their decision in removing unnecessary reporting. With the high cost of overhead that small business must contend with, I am sure the removal of the Corporation Capital Tax Act will be gratefully received.

Another encouragement to small business is the complete removal of the sales tax for one year from new and repaired production machinery bought by small business throughout British Columbia. The farmers and ranchers will be pleased with the total removal of the sales tax from their purchases of equipment needed for their farms.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is a budget for the encouragement of small business and for the consumers to buy their requirements at home. I am sure that long-term employment will result from the support this government plans for small businesses, in encouraging expansion. This will create new jobs. This will encourage new people to develop new businesses, and therefore create more new jobs.

The end of small businesses maintaining government bookkeeping and reporting will help them to move ahead.

The Ministry of Economic Development is to be commended on its programme to train small businesses in the techniques of management, accounting and marketing skills, to show businessmen how to plan for economic uncertainty and to make their needs known to government.

The few highlights that I have used from this excellent budget will let all of the people in British Columbia know that this government is doing things for people in all walks of life.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note the 11 special programmes that will be funded with the excess revenue of $76,129, 730 from the fiscal 1976-77 budget.

1. "An accelerated industrial development programme will be undertaken with $10 million, which will buy shares in the British Columbia Development Corporation. The funds generated by this share purchase will be used to make loans to promote industrial development in this province.
2. "An accelerated reforestation programme will receive $10 million. This will provide for a new, intensive forestry genetics programme to produce trees of improved height, diameter and quality. In addition, increased funds will be spent tending young forests, including spacing and thinning. This programme particularly will lead to new permanent employment in our No. I industry.
3. "An accelerated summer works programme will be provided with $5 million to supplement the regular employment opportunity programme in the Ministry of Labour.
4. "An accelerated mining development programme will receive $5 million. Included in this will be a mineral exploration assistance programme to encourage the discovery and development of new mineral deposits to British Columbia.
5. "The provincial highways programme will receive $27,629, 730 to augment the already large programme of upgrading and extending the province's highway system.
6. "An accelerated recreational facilities programme will have $5.5 million to supplement the regular public recreation facilities programme in the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation.
7. "An accelerated elderly citizens housing construction programme will receive $2 million to augment the ongoing programme. These funds will be used to

   [ Page 392 ]

   improve housing facilities for the elderly in British Columbia's smaller communities.
8. "An accelerated agricultural programme will receive $2 million to provide further development of the province's necessary agricultural resources.
9. "An accelerated fisheries programme will receive $2 million to assist in the expansion of the shellfish industry. This industry has the potential to add a valuable new dimension to our important fishing sector.
10. "An accelerated rural water treatment programme will be provided with $2 million to improve water facilities in the non-municipal areas of the province.
11. "A local airport assistance programme will receive $5 million to aid smaller centres in the provision of airport facilities. This programme will help give British Columbians in remote areas access to air travel, which is presently limited to those in larger centres."

Mr. Speaker, in the constituency of Kootenay, from Elko to Sparwood and on up to the Elk Valley to Elkford, we have mountains of coal - black gold for British Columbians. Yes, we have more up to the Corbin area and more in the Fernie area. We have coal, coal, coal, Mr. Minister of Mines, isn't that right? Most of this coal is metallurgical coal, which I understand is used in the making of steel.

Mr. Speaker, I request our government to take immediate action in developing or encouraging development of thermal coal for electricity. I understand that thermal coal is the residue left from metallurgical coal and has no other demands for its use. I request the Minister of Energy to get B.C. Hydro investigating this possibility of developing a large electrical development plant in the Kootenay area.

Mr. Speaker, regarding educational facilities in the city of Cranbrook, I have been informed by the chairman of the school board that Cranbrook schools are badly overcrowded and in need of additional classrooms. I am given to understand that the teacher-student ratio is out of proportion for teachers to be able to teach our children.

Mr. Speaker, I've also been informed that crowded classrooms are jeopardizing the quality of instruction in the Cranbrook and district schools. As you are aware, the constituency of Kootenay is a rapid-growth area and I request the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) to make a survey of the school needs in Kootenay at the earliest possible time. I am gratified with the increase for education, so, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you spend all of your increase in the Kootenays.

Mr. Speaker, I fully support and acclaim this 1978-79 budget in its entirety.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be brief. But first of all, I'd like to make a few announcements. I received a note just before my turn to take my place in the budget debate and it said: "Skelly, are you going to put a concerted effort to stay within the rules today?" I'd like to assure the author of that note that I intend to.

Then I got another one saying: "According to the paper, you were only one year old when Bill Bennett was ll." 1, of course, was still wondering what it's like out there. So I'd like to congratulate the Clerk on his birthday, which I understand is on Saturday, April 15.

Mr. Speaker, April 14 was an auspicious day in history. It was, I believe, the day after the Titanic sank, the day after Lincoln was shot, the day after Thomas Jefferson's birthday. When I heard all that, I was going to go to vital statistics and have my birthdate changed, especially when I heard it was the Premier's birthday too. But they said it was okay to change your name and to change your spouse and a few other things, but you're stuck with the birthday you have.

It was interesting to hear, Mr. Speaker, some of the comments of other speakers in this budget debate today, and especially some of the speakers from northern ridings. The indication from these speakers is that members on this side of the House don't understand the north and haven't lived in the north. In order to understand the north, you have to have lived there. I'd like to point out that there are other rural areas of the province represented by members on all sides of the House that have the same type of experiences that northern communities have and feel just as deprived as northern communities of the largesse which is produced in this province. Some areas of my riding produce a tremendous amount of the finished forest products which are exported from this province and provide, as the minister continually points out, something like 50 per cent of our revenue dollars in this province. Some people in my riding, like people in the village of Ahousat on the far west coast of Vancouver Island, when the NDP first took of f ice had no electrical generation system. We corrected that. They had magneto telephones. Kyuquot and

[ Page 393 ]

Queen Cove still have no electrical generation system, no phones. Zeballos, when we took office, had one radiophone in the middle of town. If you wanted to make a phone call, you had to go down to the telephone booth in the centre of town and everybody else was listening on the radio. When the NDP came to office, we changed that.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I'm not sure. We keep checking for bugs.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I'm going to mention that in a minute. But people on the west coast of Vancouver Island and in coastal communities are carving out a living for themselves in very primitive conditions, the same as people in the northern part of the province. We share a lot of things in common and a lot of experiences in common with people living in the north.

The member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) was saying that 60 days after the Social Credit government took office.... I was going to say "Social Grab-It." After the Social Credit government took office, people began to return to his area and started drilling for oil and natural gas and this kind of thing. He attributed it by implication to Social Credit policies and a renewed confidence in the province. But that was phoney, and not true at all. It was based on tax concessions provided by the federal Liberal government to drillers in the province.

I suppose I should make passing reference, Mr. Speaker, to the budget, as this is the point of the whole debate. It's a pleasure for me to take part in the debate on behalf of Alberni constituency, but, Mr. Speaker, this budget appears on analysis to contain absolutely no promise for the people of my constituency in terms of creating needed jobs and revitalizing the economy that's been virtually destroyed by repressive government fiscal measures over the past two years.

Like everything else this government and this Premier have done, this budget was packaged and prepared by the professional flack people who surround the Premier and who insulate him from the public, from his own caucus members and from his own ministers. In fact, just to show how isolated members of that government and that back bench are from their own ministers, there is a story that's going around Prince George about their MLA when he took a group of doctors to Victoria to discuss with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) the deplorable conditions in Prince George hospital.

When they went into the minister's office he said: "Hello, Mr. Minister, my name is Howard Lloyd; I'm MLA for Fort George, " as if the minister didn't even know who he was. He had to introduce himself to a minister whom he has shared a caucus position with for two years. That's just an example of the isolation that backbenchers in this government experience with ministers in their own government.

But the Premier's office is even more insulated from the public, from his ministers and from his people, and the reason for this is twofold. Firstly, when the professional admen who got the Premier into office did a profile on him, they found that he had almost no empathy and no understanding for people. They did a profile on him which indicates that he just simply didn't have that kind of understanding, so he needed some insulation from the public in order to protect the public from that type of lack of understanding. So they insulated him and protected him from people. Inevitably people react to the Premier in the wrong way and the Premier reacts to the people in the wrong way, so that was one of the reasons why they decided to insulate him from the public.

But the second reason they did it is even more important, and this relates to the budget speech and its context over the past two years. What the Premier's flack people did was to create a kind of a fiscal fairytale of a financial world in which the Premier was expected to live and which was absolutely dissociated from the financial realities of the province.

Mr. Speaker, I feel this budget was written three or four years ago and it was written by the people's professional admen as part of this financial "Mein Kampf" that the Social Credit government is operating under. The "Mein Kampf" reads this way: chapter I - the message prior to the election was: "The NDP is creating financial chaos in the province." The information for this was provided by mining and energy corporations throughout the province, operating through the Premier's personal bagman, Robert Bonner, and his U.S. contacts. It was promoted by the present Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , by Dan Campbell and a few other front organizations which were established to put full-page ads in newspapers and this kind of thing, very much resembling the classic "big lie" technique - if you repeat something over and over again, Mr. Speaker, then people will believe it's true, whether it's true or not.

Chapter 2, when they finally got into

[ Page 394 ]

office, was officially entitled: "The Clarkson Gordon Report." It was drafted by an admitted Social Credit member, to give credibility to the big lie in chapter I and to attempt to unbalance the 1975-76 budget in order to prove that the campaign lies the Socreds previously spread about the government operations and about its financial performance were true. In actual fact the people who lost credibility over that report were the firm of Clarkson Gordon.

But what they tried to do was to create the impression that the previous government had bungled the economy in 1975-76 and didn't produce a balanced budget, although they tried to redeem themselves by saying - and this is a paraphrase from the report - that deficits can be created by government decisions for political reasons. And that's exactly what the Social Credit government did. They made unnecessary transfers from general revenues to Grown corporations in order to create a fictional deficit of something like $261 million. Most of the people bought this idea because, as the Premieres professional advisers stated: "They won't read the small print." The press bought the story as well, or the government bought the press, or whatever it was, so chapter 2 of this "Mein Kampf" went over fairly well.

Chapter 3 was the first Social Credit budget, the most vindictive fiscal document, Mr. Speaker, that's ever been presented at any time in this province and in any province in this country. It stole almost $1,300 from the pockets of every single breadwinner in the province of British Columbia; it crushed small business in this province by grossly inflating government charges and by destroying consumer confidence in the economy; and it plunged B.C. into an artificial depression that was the worst since the 1930s in terms of its effect on employment and local business. It was a calculated measure in that 1976 budget.

Chapter 4 of the Nein Kampf, " Mr. Speaker, was the 1977 budget, when the Socreds paid off their friends who helped them to get into office. The repeal of succession duties, giveaways to international corporations.... But they maintained the harsh taxes and user charges on the people of this province.

The Premier's flack people, unfortunately, at the time were getting a little concerned, because the three-year political scenario that they were following and that they had created in 1974 before the election, was creating opposition among the people who had supported them during that 1975 election. So they changed it to create a little subplot. But those small business people in the province were reflecting back on the good times under the New Democratic Party, a time when disposable incomes were higher, when consumer confidence was high, when bankruptcies in the province were not a national disgrace, and when the construction of recreation facilities throughout the province was proceeding at the rate of something like hundreds of millions of dollars, and when the tourist industry on Vancouver Island was booming.

In fact, many of these business people began to challenge the big lie, promoted by the Bennett government and the Social Credit Party, and began to move their support to the NDP- As a result of that, the Socred Party and their professional propaganda people introduced a side plot to their scenario and it read something like this: "With good financial management, we have begun to be able to loosen the purse strings." So we began to see a slight reduction in ICBC premiums, lessening of ferry rates, smile campaigns and a high-profile highway construction programme .

But now we're getting into the final chapters of this political scenario, which the Socreds bought as a package prior to the 1975 election and that's with this 1978 budget. This is the budget designed to create options for the Social Credit Party in the present government. On the strength of this budget, they hope to go to an election in 1978 or 1979, and the [illegible] was to be: now we've done it; now we've built the foundations for a better economy. We're the bright spot in Canada. We've created 15 per cent of the jobs in this country with only 11 per cent of the national work force.

But the thing is, every time a member on that side has made those statements, which were prepared for them by the government, the other back bench members dutifully thumped their benches, over and over, as those lines were repeated over and over. This government caucus resembles pretty much a Skinner box that you learn about in Psychology 100 at university.

MR. KAHL: You're the rat.

MR. SKELLY: Lyle's got it straight; he must have taken Psychology 100. 1 don't know if he passed the course. That's where you put a rat in the box and when you turn the right light on, the rat pushes the button and gets a cookie.

How it works with the government caucus is that they have all been conditioned to respond to one of those lines by thumping their desks, and when they do that - this is called operant conditioning - the Premier turns around and

[ Page 395 ]

smiles at them. That smile is supposed to indicate that you, too, can soon be in cabinet. So they thump all the harder and the Premier turns around and smiles again and appears to say: "You too can soon be in cabinet, " although the experience in the last few weeks with the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Mr. Davis) indicates that getting into cabinet is like buying a first-class ticket on a kamikaze.

Actually, he's saying: "It took two weeks to train my dogs." That's actually how the caucus has been handling it, and it's been done as a professional public relations job. But one of the problems of the big lie technique that the government's been using, and one of the problems of this long-term fiscal scenario that we're dealing with, is that the electors of this province are a lot more sophisticated in 1978 than they were in 1933 when this scenario was first developed.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we're dealing with a democratic political framework in which the opposition can inform people what the government's been up to, and we did. After the first budget was presented, we told the people that the government was intending to tighten down to create oppressive fiscal measures and then they would start loosening up prior to an election, three years down the line. One of the reasons that big lie technique worked back in 1933 under a different electorate is that government could send the opposition to camp for a few years, and you guys can't; you have to operate within a democratic framework. So the people have been informed, and they know this budget is simply a part of the big lie technique that has been developed by the Social Credit. The big lie technique is based on this scenario: you cook the books in '76, you throttle the economy in '77, and now, in 1978, the budget comes in advance of an election and you return a dime for every dollar you stole from the taxpayers.

To top it off, Mr. Speaker, this budget mis-states the position of the province over the past few years. As the NIP finance critic and member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) pointed out, it's not a balanced budget. The only way we've been able to achieve a balance of the books in this piece of fiction is to increase the handouts from the federal government. It is interesting that on the one hand the budget speech criticizes the federal government for going into an $11 billion deficit, talks about the dreadful effects of deadweight debt and how the federal deficits are destroying business confidence, and yet this government has to take a personal responsibility for that deadweight federal debt because they're sharing to the tune of $801 million in that deficit created by the federal government, under an agreement between your Minister of Finance and the federal Minister of Finance.

This year we are receiving a third of a billion dollars more in federal handouts in this province than we received in 1975. So, Mr. Speaker, this government is directly responsible, in part, for that federal deficit of $11 billion.

I'd just like to mention some of the comments that have been made today, especially by the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) , who was talking about investment going to other provinces when the NDP government was in office. He was talking about the confidence that has been restored to the economy, and to the forest sector in particular, after the NDP government was removed from office and the Socred government was elected. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to read from a few documents that indicate that the situation is exactly the reverse of what the Minister of Forests had to say.

From B.G. Business magazine - not an NDP document, not widely circulated among NDPers or by NDPers - I quote: "The former NDP government, which signed the Pearse commission into being, did appear to have the fortitude and foresight to make changes whose impact would extend into the next century. The present government, which cannot even come up with a count of how many civil servants it employs, has done little to inventory our forest resource properly. The lack of data was detailed in the Pearse report. Improved information is the prerequisite to any proper understanding of how our living assets can be safeguarded."

In Colin Beale's Newsletter - and talk about confidence in this government and restored confidence in the government of British Columbia - an international newsletter circulated to forest industry managers, March 31,1978, quoting people in the forest industry, in letters to Colin Beale: "For the first time in 24 years, I will vote against the Socreds at the next election and I will vote against Waterland. We are a small company and unimportant to the Forest Service. Anyway, I don't expect to be around. We'll be closed for lack of raw materials."

Another quote: "The Bennett government has shown itself to be anti-integrated company. They have perpetuated discriminatory minimum stumpage on the coast, shown little interest or support for the forest industry as a whole. Waterland very disappointing - lack of action on major issues."

[ Page 396 ]

Another quote: "Leadership weak."

Another quote: "Governments intend to correct, but drastic cuts in public spending are required. Waterland has no record of accomplishment."

Another quote: "I'm apprehensive about the Bennett administration after two years of inaction."

Another quote: "The Bennett administration is sincere but they don't understand the industry and its needs."

Another quote: "Waterland is also sincere, but indecisive and certainly not following through on exerting control over the Forest Service."

Another quote: "Bennett people have no feel for the forest industry. Waterland lacks stature and ability essential for a forest minister."

Talk about restored confidence by industry in this province. That is documented by industry leaders, Mr. Speaker, that they have no confidence in the government. As a result of the performance of this government in the forest industry, people who have supported the Social Credit Party for 24 years are going to vote against it in the next election.

He also talked about the Doman Industries site on the Cowichan estuary. He said that the NDP allowed construction of a sawmill in the Cowichan estuary, and that is quite true. There was an existing sawmill in the estuary. We allowed improvements to that mill and reconstruction of that mill under an agreement with Mr. Doman that there would be no expansion. Doman agreed that there would be no expansion in that estuary, after we had allowed reconstruction of that mill. Now with a government in power that sympathizes with Mr. Doman's political views, they have appointed a new task force to change the status quo in the Cowichan estuary, to change the situation down there. Every time they turn around and respond to the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) , who is doing her utmost to protect the integrity of that estuary, they blame her for being opposed to jobs.

The fish and wildlife Branch has identified 11 alternate sites in that area that would be equally suitable for a sawmill and for Doman's expansion purposes, and yet we have done nothing to examine those 11 sites; we haven't even published the 11 sites or got to work on them. What we need to do is take a look at the alternate sites that have less impact. We can create the jobs with less impact on the Cowichan estuary and preserve the integrity of that estuary and its salmon production for future generations.

That agreement to build that mill in the estuary was an agreement between a government and the developer of the mill to replace an existing mill. There was to be no further expansion, and, on that basis, the person who owned that mill agreed with the government. A new government now wants to change the agreement because there is a little political sympathy between the mill owner and the present government.

I'd like to mention a little bit about that minister's performance in the Stein River valley - a part of his riding - and a problem that people in his riding are fairly upset about. A number of alternatives were given in the Stein Valley report for development of the Stein Valley. There was the possibility of preserving it forever as a wilderness area. There was a possibility of partial development. A number of alternative scenarios were proposed for the Stein River valley. But almost everyone agreed that the timber in the Stein should be separated from the Botany PSYU and considered as a separate unit for calculating annual, allowable cut and commitment of allowable cut.

The minister refused to do that and, as a result, timber is now being committed in other parts of the Botany PSYU. That is going to force us to log the Stein somewhere 10 or 12 years down the line, even though this report indicates, Mr. Speaker, that at the present time it is uneconomic to log in the Stein Valley, and it may be uneconomic for another 10 years. It may be uneconomic forever to log in the Stein Valley; and yet the Minister of Forests has committed timber in other sections of the PSYU based on the mean annual increment in the Stein Valley. So we're overcutting other areas and we may never be able to economically log in the Stein; but because of the decision he has made, w may be forced to log uneconomic timber.

The member for Yale-Lillooet (Hon. Mr. Waterland) also mentioned Granduc closing down because NDP royalties creamed off the profits of Granduc - the profits they made during 1973 and 1974 under the NDP government. He says the NDP creamed off those profits with the Mineral Royalties Act and, as a result, Granduc isn't able to carry itself over the market problems it is experiencing right now. But in fact, Mr. Speaker, Granduc had an opportunity to get back those royalties which we supposedly creamed off; $36 million in royalties that the NDP collected were taken to court; they challenged that legislation in the courts, and they had a chance of winning and getting that money back. Granduc could have got that money back to tide them over these poor market

[ Page 397 ]

conditions; and that minister over there passed legislation retroactively changing the Mineral Royalties Act - which he had repealed - in order to take that money from Granduc and shut them down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: uh, oh!

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. SKELLY: If anyone should accept the responsibility for shutting down Granduc mine, it's that minister over there and that government over there. he passed legislation retroactively to take money back from the mining companies. He creamed off the profits of those mining companies so chat they're shutting down now. Western Mines is going to shut down in two years, they say. They can't afford to mine. You creamed off their profits.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, please address the Chair.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: On, let's talk about all the mines in my riding: the Kennedy Lake iron mines shut down in 1969 under a Social Credit government; Zeballos shut down in 1969 under a Social Credit government. I used to live in the Queen Charlottes, Mr. Speaker - up there in the north - and I worked for a mining company called Zedway Iron Ore Ltd. They shut down under a Social Credit government. They couldn't afford to keep operating under Social Credit.

This is from Hansard of 1971 - talking about the mining situation in British Columbia prior to the NDP taking over - and it says: "Claims staked in 1969 totalled 84,665. By 1971, under Social Credit, this had dropped to 64,500. Under Social Credit, claim-staking was going right down the hill and almost bottomed out in 1971."

Look at the headlines from the 1971 papers: "Exploration Cut Seen for B.C. Mines, " Province, July 22,1971. "Mining Activity Off", 1971. "Mining Future Seen as Cloudy, " August, 1971. "Mine Output in B.C. Goes Up But Exploration Levels Falling Off, " June, 1972.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, order please. The member for Alberni has the floor. Please continue.

MR. SKELLY: Also, Mr. Speaker - going back to the Minister of Forests and the increases in revenue we've had in this province over the last year - I'd like to point out that this increase in revenue is derived from a change in logging practices on the coast, in part, and from a change to a lower level of utilization in coastal forests.

(Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

What the minister has done is to suspend the operation of the logging guidelines and road construction guidelines in the coastal forest in order for the companies to collect more money, and the government to collect more stumpage, in order to improve their revenue picture. We set up coastal logging guidelines in this province on September 29,1972, just a few weeks after taking office, and it resulted in an increase in road construction in the forest industry. As the minister said, it is going to cost the taxpayers money to make that transition to second growth. If we want to maintain a forest industry in this province for our children and their grandchildren, then we have to spend money as taxpayers in order to make that transition to second-growth management. Part of that transition involves construction of roads, access to timber, and managing the forests on a more intensive basis than we've managed them in the past.

Here's an example from one logging operation in my riding - the Franklin River Division of MacMillan Bloedel. Last year, they planned to build 36 miles of logging road, but because the guidelines were relaxed, actually built 27 miles of logging road. They laid off the grade crew; 40 to 60 per cent of the people working on road construction and maintenance were laid off, and they were told that they were being laid off for a one- to two-year period. The impact on the whole island, in every logging operation - Franklin River is only one in my riding - could be in the neighbourhood of 300 to 400 people losing their jobs as a result of the relaxation of those guidelines.

M & B, when we were in off ice, were told they could cut only 50 per cent of the watershed, and that they had to expand their operations in order to minimize the impact on individual watersheds. Now they've been allowed to go back and cut, and leave strips and blocks that we ordered them to leave uncut. As a result, road crews have been laid off to the tune of 40 to 60 per cent - 300 to 400 people on the whole of Vancouver Island, almost the same impact as the Vancouver Island plywood division of MacMillan Bloedel. And that can be repeated throughout the Vancouver forest district and Prince Rupert forest district.

The thing is that after 18 months off the job, Mr. Speaker, these people lose their

[ Page 398 ]

call-back privileges and their seniority with MacMillan Bloedel, and they're out of those jobs permanently. So just by changing the logging guidelines, by sacrificing environmental considerations and by switching back from close utilization to intermediate utilization, he's lost jobs in the forest industry on Vancouver Island, and he's continued and perpetuated the wasteful logging practices that we had there for years and years.

And these people talk about job creation. One of the lines they used in the throne speech and in the budget speech, and one of the lines fed to the backbenchers by the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , was that: "This province had only 11 per cent of the national labour force, but we created 15 per cent of the jobs." Last year they boasted that they had created 27,000 new jobs in 1977. Well, that was compared to 29,000 new jobs in 1976, and an average under the NDP for each 12-month period that we were in office of 46,000 new jobs in this province. They boast about creating 27,000 jobs, just about half the average yearly job creation achieved under the New Democratic Party. That's the minister's job-creation programme.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Oh, now he's going to blame the federal government.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Forty-six thousand.

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

MR. SKELLY: I'm sticking to the rules.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let's not interrupt the member who has the floor.

MR. SKELLY: As a matter of fact, in one year under the NDP, the job creation was 73,000 jobs. You have not even achieved that in all the time you've been in office.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I dealt with that when you were out having a coffee.

Let's talk about travel industry on Vancouver Island, Mr. Speaker. I'm quoting from an article that appeared in a north Island newspaper.

"The latest press release from Mrs. McCarthy loudly trumpets the increases recorded in the tourist industry in 1977. With an adroit bit of selected statistics, Mrs. McCarthy heralds the return of the tourists by pointing out a 2.6 per cent rise in the number of U.S. residents entering into B.C. in the first months of 1977.

"She seems to have conveniently ignored 1975. If one compares the 1975 figures to 1977 figures, the number of Americans visiting B.C. has yet to return to the pre-McCarthy days. The 1976 figures were 6.6 per cent below the 1975 figures. Even taking into account that Mrs. McCarthy's totals are only on a nine-month basis, there were 100,000 fewer Americans who visited B.C. in 1977 as compared to 1975."

MR. SPEAKER: Three minutes.

MR. SKELLY: Okay, to close, Mr. Speaker, on the tourist industry, I'd just like to read a letter that I've got from one of my constituents who runs a motel at Qualicum Beach. She quotes occupancy days.

"In 1972, the total was 1,802 occupancy nights rented; 1973, 1,862; 1974, under the NDP, 2,087; 1975 under the NDP, 2,179, a continuous increase; 1976, under Social Credit, down to 1,982, pre-1974 levels; 1977, the year we're supposed to have a fantastic increase, occupancy nights, January through May, down to 362, lower than prior to 1972."

And this is from a successful operator in the motel industry.

Interjections.

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

MR. SKELLY: Let me read what this lady says about the minister.

"I f eel that a minister in such an important position as tourism should resign when it's obvious she either does not know a thing about tourism, or is giving us a lot of political garbage. Vulgar buttons and a silly grin will not salvage Vancouver Island's sick tourist industry."

The only thing that's going to salvage the tourist industry on Vancouver Island is a change in the government at the ballot box at the next election and get those people out who have caused nothing but problem , bankruptcy and the loss of jobs in this province over the last three years.

[ Page 399 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I want to correct a statement made by the previous speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is not possible to correct a statement unless, of course, it's your own statement.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I would like to point out an inaccuracy in what he said, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If there is an inaccuracy, please remember, hon. members, in this House every hon. member must accept the responsibility for statements made in this House, both for their accuracy and for their repercussions. Therefore we cannot fall into a practice of one member giving his opinion of the facts as opposed to another member's giving of the facts. If, indeed, remarks that a member has made have been misconstrued, then corrections can be made. But it is not a general practice for us to be able to stand up and correct remarks made by another member.

MR. SHELFORD: I hope that when you make a decision on your ruling on the debate earlier this afternoon you will take into account that it didn't appear that it was such an emergency when the member who just sat down didn't even mention the railway at all.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let's proceed to orderly debate.

MR. SHELFORD: Instead, I might point out that the hon. member spent a great deal of his time talking about a government in Germany in the 1930s, which hardly seems to be an emergency at this time. To refer to any government in Canada, I don't care what government in Canada, I think is hardly worthy of any further comment.

I must say I enjoyed the hon. member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) in his talk this afternoon about the abandonment of the railway to Fort Nelson, and I thought he gave one of the most constructive speeches I have heard in this House this session. I think all of us - I hope most of us, anyway - will have faith in the development of the north, and I would urge the members to get on and develop the north country for the betterment of all people in British Columbia.

The directors of the railway simply can't afford to leave this decision in limbo any longer and must make a very clear decision quickly. I would point out that if we cut off everything that didn't pay for itself in this province or in Canada, there certainly would be quite a number of changes. It might be a good idea at that, but f first would cow the CBC; second, I suppose, would be the ferry system; and third, and most expensive of all, would be the transit systems in Vancouver and Victoria. So I would hope that in reaching a decision on this rail extension and the line to the north, many of these things will be taken into consideration.

I was also interested in what the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) had to say yesterday when he went on to say that the budget wouldn't do anything for the north country. I think it will do an awful lot for the north country.

MR. LEA: Name one thing.

MR. SHELFORD: I think all of us buy goods where we won't be paying sales tax. I would point out that we pay more sales tax per capita than anyone else because of the prices b being higher. I would say again, per-capita wise, we'll be getting over 10 times as much out of this budget up north on the highway .programme as anyone else.

MR. LEA: The budget's been cut.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SHELFORD: I can't see a tree-planting programme going on in the city of Vancouver or Victoria, so I would expect on reforestation, we'll get an awful lot more out of the budget per-capita-wise than anyone else. This $10 million extra for reforestation is an excellent step, but I would say we should be doing even more.

I would say, generally speaking, that it's an excellent budget - and I certainly intend to support it - and will do a great deal to stimulate the economy. As I mentioned earlier, especially the sales tax cut of 2 cents will put at least $200 million into the economy for the people to buy things they require.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SHELFORD: I wish you guys would quit arguing.

I would only say that it was interesting to hear the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) say how little it was; when it was put on, he said how much it was.

The highways program was good last year in

[ Page 400 ]

the north country, and no doubt it will be even better this year, with an increase of $21 million. I still want to see the main emphasis go to Highway 37, which is the road link to northern development throughout that northwest corner of the province. This could change the major supply centre for the northern pipeline and other development from Alberta to Vancouver, providing - and this is a big if -that a ferry service comes into Kitimat, as I've mentioned on quite a number of occasions, where supplies can be brought halfway up the province without drivers or fuel. It's a tremendous saving for the people moving supplies into the north country.

If the ferry system doesn't come into Kitimat, there's no question that the northwest will have to rely on service from Alberta. Already people in that area are looking for a direct air service, because they do quite a lot of their dealings now with the province of Alberta, mainly Edmonton. If this happens, B.C. will lose millions of dollars in revenue, and thousands of jobs. I get the feeling sometimes that the ferry corporation and the government still haven't grasped the importance of this proposal.

There are many other good things in this budget that I'll be dealing with during the estimates, for instance, the $50 increase in the homeowners grant for those over 65. 1 think it is an excellent move and I hope all members will support it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: And the handicapped.

MR. SHELFORD: Yes, and the handicapped. I say we can't do enough for these people who built the country and made it what it is today. Sometimes various pressure groups want to tear down the work they did.

MR. LAUK: Phone call, Cyril: line two.

MR. SHELFORD: That line two over there goes all the time.

Even with indexed pension to the older people, I would say they are worse off every year due to inflation which, in my opinion, is only a form of legalized robbery of the aged, the crippled and those on fixed incomes.

And I would like to point out that if I went out and stole half a person's pay cheques over a five-year period, I would be in jail, and, of course, should be. Yet by inflation we do just that, and it's not only legal but condoned by many economists as the only solution possible. This problem has to be resolved if the western world or our way of life and democracy are to remain. As I said before, it's a good budget which I'm very glad to support.

Mr. Shelford moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, perhaps I could take this moment, which is perhaps the first possible moment, as I had committed myself, to give you the conclusion to the matter raised earlier. I now have had an opportunity to consider the matter raised earlier today pursuant to standing order 35 by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) . Before proceeding, I would like to remind all hon. members that other Speakers of this House have stated: "It is desirable and according to accepted practice that the member ask the opinion of the Speaker before raising the matter in the House, as the Speaker should be apprised of the proposed proceedings." As the merit of this practice is so evident, I would hope that all hon. members will conform.

A review of the statement of the matter offered by the hon. member discloses both the import of argument as well as an assumption of intent.

In May, 16th edition, pages 369 to 371, a number of special restrictions are set forth on adjournment motions. These restrictions include the following: (1) the matter must not import an argument; (2) the matter must not involve hypothetical circumstances; (3) the motion has been refused when an ordinary parliamentary opportunity will occur shortly or in time; and (4) the matter could be raised on the estimates.

Other Speakers of this House have ruled that the motion also fails because the House is currently engaged in either the throne debate or the budget debate. The Chair appreciates that some members have already spoken in the budget debate but, nevertheless, those members will have a further opportunity, either shortly or in time, to debate the matter during consideration of the estimates. Accordingly, the matter raised does not comply with the prerequisites to which I have referred, as set forth in the 16th edition of Sir Erskine May.

It is my opinion that the matter is not in order.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, while I sympathize with two of the arguments, the third argument, in terms of hypotheses, is one that I cannot accept. I'm explaining why I cannot accept your ruling.

[ Page 401 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A decision of the Chair is not debatable.

MR. BARRETT: I'm not debating; I'm coming to a conclusion. I was almost through. I was just stating, Mr. Speaker, that the argument of "hypothetical" is not appropriate in this case, and I must challenge your ruling on that basis.

MR. SPEAKER: The decision of a Speaker is not only not debatable, but it is also not subject to appeal.

MR. BARRETT: I'm not appealing; I'm giving reasons why I am challenging your ruling, sir.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered, but it cannot be a formal challenge to the House.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, in your ruling there's one thing that you said that I would like clarified - the meaning of "in time." Does that mean that it can be debated some time in the future? In other words, in time? Or does it mean that it should be debated in time to meet the emergency that is being put forward?

MR. SPEAKER: I think the explanation of that is inherent in the ruling itself.

Hon. members, may I refer to the Journals of November 4,1974, where a former Speaker stated that his opinion was not debatable or subject to appeal under standing order 35.

MR. BARRETT: I challenge your ruling on that move.

MR. SPEAKER: That's challengeable, all right. Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

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

Presenting petitions.

MR. VEITCH: I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, the petition is that of the Pacific Command of the Royal Canadian Legion, praying for the passing of an Act intituled An Act to Amend the Royal Canadian Legion Act. I move that the rules be suspended and the petition of the Pacific Command of the Royal Canadian Legion be received.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Gardom presented the sixth annual report of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act of British Columbia, the 1977 annual report of the Law Reform Commission of B.C., and the annual report of the B.C. Racing Commission for 1977.

Ron. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.