[ Page 453 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

BCR Fort Nelson extension. Mr. Barrett –– 453

Heroin treatment programme. Mr. Gibson –– 454

BCBC policy on tenders. Mr. Barrett –– 454

Alleged "questionable methods" of IWA. Mr. Stephens –– 455

Number of social assistance recipients. Ms. Brown –– 455

Government 1977 aircraft logs. Mrs. Dailly –– 456

Discrimination against bearded workers. Ms. Sanford –– 456

Fees for Louis Lindholm. Mr. Macdonald –– 456

Sales tax on telephone bills. Mr. Gibson –– 456

Statement

First Ministers' Conference. Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 456

Mr. Barrett –– 457

Mr. Gibson –– 457

Routine proceedings

Budget debate

On the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 457

Mr. Cocke –– 465

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 470

Mr. Loewen –– 472

Mr. Barrett –– 473

On the subamendment.

Mr. Barrett –– 481

Mr. Levi –– 482

Presenting reports

Ministry of Education 106th annual report, 1976-77. Hon. Mr. McClelland on behalf of Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 491

Erratum –– 492

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. ROGERS: On behalf of Mr. Speaker I would like to introduce Mrs. Amerongen, who is the wife of the Speaker of the House in Alberta. She is here with her brother. Would the house please make them welcome?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We have in the gallery today 50 members of the British Columbia Social Credit Party provincial women's auxiliary, who are here in the capital city from all regions of our province to hold their deliberations at the Queen Victoria Inn where they are holding their annual spring conference. I know that all members of the House will want to welcome these members, and I ask them so to do.

MS. SANFORD: I would like to introduce to the House today a group of students from Campbell River who are enjoying a trip to Victoria, sponsored by Crown Zellerbach. Accompanying them are their teachers, Mr. Doug Cousins and Mr. Jim Roberts and Mr. Gary Laird, who is a representative from the Elk Falls mill in Campbell River.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, it's a rare pleasure for me to introduce to all members of the House a most highly dedicated member of the public service of this province, Mr. Alex Pearson, QC, the associate deputy attorney-general. Mr. Pearson started his career with the provincial government at the age of 13 or so as a page boy. Re served as an office clerk and articled under Colonel Peppier, the former deputy attorney-general. He was a bomber pilot in World War II, completed a tour of operational flight over Europe, was in the RCAF for about three years and returned to Canada in 1945 with a distinguished flying cross.

I have a note here that is of some interest, Mr. Speaker. He became engaged to his wife, Ruby, on April Fool's Day, 1945. He married her the day the war ended in, I gather, a sort of speedy marriage, with the bride borrowing tier gown from her sister and even a borrowed cake. The reason for the introduction is that this is the first day of Mr. Pearson's 51st year with the government, and I know that all members would like to commend him for his devotion and his service. I certainly hope they will join me with expressions of good will.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I join in the welcome to Alex Pearson, who has been a faithful public servant. I'm glad he's got the title now of deputy minister, never mind associate. He doesn't have to say he's the deputy minister of the attorney-general but he's deputy minister, and I'm glad that he has achieved that. Later on in not too many months, Alex Pearson will be retiring and he will be sorely missed by the public service of the province of British Columbia.

MR. GIBSON: I see in the gallery Mr. Bas Studer, who is the mayor of Houston and not only that, former Liberal candidate in the great constituency of Omineca. I ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. COCKE: The royal city is represented in the gallery today - Mrs. Thornhill and Mrs. Miller checking us out. Thank you very much for being here.

Oral questions.

BCR FORT NELSON EXTENSION

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) I wish to ask the minister: did you ever make any public commitment to keep the Fort Nelson extension of the British Columbia Railway open?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As you know, we've done great things with that great railroad in the last two years. Under the great new board of directors, the railway today is running better than it has ever run. I just want to say that I'm very proud of the work that the board has done. The matter of the extension is presently under review and being studied.

MR. BARRETT: On a supplementary question, I want to thank the minister for not answering my original question. I'll repeat it as a supplementary. Did you ever make any public commitment to keep the Fort Nelson extension of the British Columbia Railway open?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, MY commitment to that great railway is to see that it run well for the people of British Columbia, and in that regard I have kept that commitment.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, supplementary: did you ever make any public commitment to keep the Fort Nelson extension of the B.C. Railway open?

[ Page 454 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the member that in this government we work as a team, and decisions are made as a team.

MR. BARRETT: Another supplementary: did you ever make any public commitment to keep the Fort Nelson extension of the B.C. Railway open, Mr. Minister? You are the member of that board. We've enjoyed your -non-answers. A simple yes or no would suffice.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that for this third supplementary the member refer to my previous answers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, I do believe that the minister has the question. Perhaps a different question....

MR. BARRETT: A supplementary: would the minister agree with me that I should immediately tell the people in Fort Nelson what his answers were today to this question?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I think that the member opposite, who was leader of that group aver there when they were in government, and ran the British Columbia Railway into the ground.... I think that he should go up there and tell them how the British Columbia Railway today is running better than it has ever run. Morale is restored on that railway; morale is restored on the management of the railway. We cur down our losses last year from $21 million to $13 million.

I want to tell you, for the benefit of all British Columbians, that railway today.... The people who are working on it are proud once again to work for a great railway that is functioning and free from political hogwash like it was when they were in government.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I think that it is perhaps timely to remind not just questioners, but answerers of questions, that the material they present should not be argumentative, retaliatory or taxing, whatever that means. (Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the minister for his bombast, his evasiveness and his clear-cut avoidance of the question.

MR. SPEAKER: The question, sir?

MR. BARRETT: The question is this: did the minister ever make any public commitment to keep the Fort Nelson extension of the B.C. Railway open? Yes or no.

MR. SPEAKER: We have that question.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm used to personal attacks from that particular member, but I'll tell you the commitment that all of us on this side of the House made was to look after the interests of all British Columbians, to give good government, and in that we have carried through.

HEROIN TREATMENT PROGRAMME

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. I ask the minister if staff members of the Alcohol and Drug Commission have been asked or required to sign a statement saying that they agree with the minister's compulsory heroin treatment programme.

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

MR. GIBSON: I'd like to give him a supplementary notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There are no other members standing, so proceed with the next question.

MR. GIBSON: The next question, which he may also wish to take as notice, is if a rule has been put in place that no professional staff member is allowed to speak in public about the future of the programme, and if it is the case that certain staff members have received letters saying that if they do not agree with the programme, attempts will be made to find them other work.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I've taken that as notice.

MR. BARRETT: Did the minister wish to respond, Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. SPEAKER: I can only recognize members when they stand.

BCBC POLICY ON TENDERS

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this is a reminder to the Minister of Highways and Public Works that 12 days ago I asked the minister if any work was put out without tender by the B.C. Buildings Corporation. I'd like to ask him today what the dollar limit is for work which can be put out without tender. Who makes the decision to award non-tender work? How much

[ Page 455 ]

non-tender work goes out, and what is the estimated annual cost of non-tender work?

HON. MR. FRASER: To the Leader of the Opposition, those are roughly the same questions you asked before. The answers will be here tomorrow.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

SALARY OF B.C. CELLULOSE CHAIRMAN

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier. On April 4 1 asked the Premier for details of B.C. Cellulose chairman Ray Williston's salary. I'd like to jog the Premier's memory again. I'd like Mr. Williston's salary, fees, bonuses and shareholdings, as two weeks have passed since I put the question to the Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'll bring it to the Legislature, but I'll tell the member for Revelstoke that the salary and the fees and the schedules - anything he asked -is exactly the same as was paid to the former chairman that they appointed, Mr. Jones.

MR. KING: I wish to put a supplementary to the Premier. I'm just jogging the Premier's memory to get the information. I wanted that to include particular reference to any shareholdings, bonuses or other fees that Mr. Williston may receive.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, I'll bring it, but it's still exactly the same as the former chairman's.

ALLEGED "QUESTIONABLE

METHODS" OF IWA

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Economic Development. Last week I asked him to describe what he meant by "questionable methods" in relation to the IWA surrounding the mills in the Duncan area. The minister referred me to the Blues which I have now read and not found the answer, so I'll ask him again if he would please tell this chamber what he means by "questionable methods used by the IWA."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to remind the member for Oak Bay that I think he missed the entire point of the debate that I was bringing to the house, and that is that we need more flexibility in order to keep our sawmills working and allow that flexibility. I think he's missed the whole point.

MR. STEPHENS: On a supplementary question, I would like again to ask the minister: would you please tell the House... ? 1 would like to know what You mean by "questionable methods, " when you referred to the "questionable methods of the IWA."

MR. SPEAKER: I think the minister has that question.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, 1 think in time the member for Oak Bay will learn that the Minister of Economic Development never has answers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, it is not in order to utilize the floor in question period to make statements.

NUMBER OF SOCIAL

ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS

MS. BROWN: No. Of course, you are quite right, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to address my question to the Minister of Human Resources. Two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister if he would tell me the number of people in this province who are in receipt of social assistance, and he took that question as notice.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: That's not an out-of-paper question. He runs a ministry; he should know that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Please proceed with the question.

MS. BROWN: As his very excellent and well-run department has these figures on a monthly basis, 1 wonder whether they've told the minister and whether he is ready to share that information with the House.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, this information may be available now, but I don't have it for tabling. However, we do have a monthly accounting of the numbers and the benefits provided those who are in receipt of assistance in the various parts of the province. The information does take a while to come in from the various offices, but as soon as it's available I'll table it.

MS. BROWN: I just have a very short supplemental. I know that his department has

[ Page 456 ]

these monthly figures, and I wonder when the minister will be willing to stop hiding these figures and share them with the rest of us.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. - I think we have the commitment of an tion. member that the information will be coming.

GOVERNMENT 1977 AIRCRAFT: LOGS

MRS. DAILLY: To the Premier: will the Premier table in the House the government aircraft logs for 1977 - as your new duty, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll carry out the normal practice of the ministry.

DISCRIMINATION

AGAINST BEARDED WORKERS

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. When I made inquiries of the human rights branch on behalf of a constituent who felt that he was discriminated against in terms of employment because he wore a beard, I was informed that the branch has been instructed not to accept any more complaints about discrimination related to beards. Could the minister advise the -house why he has decided that those who wear beards are not entitled to protection under the Human Rights Code?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the premise upon which the question is based is inaccurate. No such decision has been made. No instruction has been given by me.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'm quite concerned about this because the human rights branch has flatly turned down any requests to deal with discrimination as it relates to beards. I'm wondering if the minister would immediately this afternoon ensure that the human rights branch does not discontinue handling those particular complaints. Could the minister assure us of that?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I will obtain a copy of the members' question from Hansard and transmit it forthwith to the ministry.

FEES FOR LOUIS LINDHOLM

MR. MACDONALD: To the Attorney-General. Last December the Attorney-General appointed one Louis Lindholm as special council to his ministry on a retainer basis. Would the Attorney-General let the House know what the terms of the retainer are and what the remuneration involved is?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, I'll get the information and deliver it to the House.

SALES TAX ON TELEPHONE BILLS

MR. GIBSON: My question is to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) . As the minister may be aware, telephone bills go out with sales tax billed in advance on the months's service charge which is being billed in advance. Accordingly, taxpayers who have telephones have received bills - this particular one is dated April 7 - where the sales tax has been billed in advance for one month at the 7 per cent rate rather than the 5 per cent rate which went into effect at the time of the minister's budget. Will the minister instruct his agents to ensure that these taxes not be collected by the government and that any extras will be rebated if in fact they were paid?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'll take that question as notice and report back. I think it should be pointed out, however, that there is no sales tax on long distance calls. You are probably only referring to basic monthly charge.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I ask leave to make a short statement, and at the same time to table some documents.

Leave granted.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday and Friday the four western premiers held their annual meeting at Yorkton, Saskatchewan, which was hosted by the Premier of Saskatchewan and the government of Saskatchewan. I'm proposing today to table the agenda, plus communiques, issued at the conference, and formal studies presented to the conference by the government of British Columbia.

I'm sure that the members of the Legislature will take pride in the fact that some aspects of the British Columbia presentation to the First Ministers' Conference in February that were not fully endorsed at that time received strong support from the western premiers, and that is the suggestion of a continuing mechanism to make sure that First Ministers' Conferences have a follow-up mechanism to not only carry out decisions made at those conferences but also to have a mechanism to help prepare agendas for such conferences, such agendas up to now being unilaterally set

[ Page 457 ]

up by the federal government, one party to the conferences.

The communiques to be laid before you state that it is the intention of the four western Premiers to encourage other Premiers and the government of Canada to endorse these follow-up mechanisms to ensure that decisions made are acted upon.

In order to illustrate how this new system of consultation and co-operation will work, the Premiers last week established task forces in five major areas. A task force on constitutional intrusions will continue to be chaired by British Columbia, as it has in the last two years. The new task force on the development of western economic strategy leading forward to the development to national economic strategy will also be chaired by British Columbia.

The province of Alberta will chair the task force on the constitution. The government of Saskatchewan will chair a task force on research and development. The government of Manitoba will chair a task force on western co-operation in the energy field. The Premiers agreed that each of these groups should provide each government with quarterly progress reports, with a final report in each case being assembled for presentation to the Premiers at the next annual meeting of western Premiers, which I am pleased to announce today will be held in 1979 in British Columbia.

Other provincial governments and the government of Canada are being made aware of the studies. I ask leave to table the report.

Leave granted.

MR. BARRETT: I want to welcome the Premier's statement and express to him our appreciation for tabling the documents.

I just wanted to say that in terms of the content, there was fairly good reporting. I was deeply concerned, however, at what appeared to be a breakdown of communication between the federal government and the provincial government, which led initially to some, I thought, unnecessary bickering between the two groups.

It would be a terrible mistake if, at this time in Canada's history, any misinterpretation of the four western provinces' positions could be used as a threat against national unity. I regret the exchange took place. I was pleased that the meeting ended in unanimity. I am hopeful that the Prime Minister will not view any moves made by the four western provinces as giving any support at all to the loss of Canada as a nation. However, we mu t maintain our own provincial identities.

I regret the exchange that took place. I am hopeful that that exchange will not appear in a forthcoming federal election.

MR. GIBSON: Briefly, I welcome the Premier's statement that follow-up mechanisms are being established and, particularly, that British Columbia is continuing to chair the constitutional intrusions task force, which is a very important one, and the new task force on western economic strategy.

I hope that the western Premiers and our government will take a very pure stand on the tariff issue, in the sense of not putting into the pot too many special required protections for British Columbia, or else that undermines our moral authority in bargaining with Ottawa.

I also hope that at future conferences the Premier might also raise some of the irritants that exist between western provinces themselves. I have in mind the long-standing case of economic piracy with respect to the movement of the head office of Pacific Western Airlines from this province, which I hope we will one day see back here.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We are continuing discussions.

HON. MR. MAIR: In question period, on April 7, last, I took on notice a question from the second member for Vancouver Burrard (Mr. Levi) . I provided him with an answer in writing. I ask leave now to table that reply.

Leave granted.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I must say at the outset that I'm disappointed that the ex-Minister of Economic Development is not in the Legislature today. However, he doesn't appear to be here too often lately. I guess he's out running his leadership campaign.

On Friday I outlined to the House the capital and repair expenditures in the province of British Columbia from the year 1974 to 1977 and was happy to note that there has been great growth over previous years in both 1976 and 1977. At that time I pointed out to the House that this is because of the policies of this government and a new attitude of confidence and faith in our policies. I

[ Page 458 ]

also reviewed the company registrations in British Columbia, which pointed out to a great deal of growth in that regard. Before I carry on, I want to say a few more words on that particular subject, because it is very important to think of it with regard to the amendment we have before us, which says we have done nothing toward a strategy of full employment. Certainly the more companies that come into British Columbia, the more employment we're going to have. So this certainly relates to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, yes, we have had some business failures in British Columbia, but I think it's interesting to note that we have also had a tremendous upsurge in the number of businesses which have been established. As a matter of fact, in 1976, as I said on Friday, there were 12,355 new companies established in British Columbia. That was a 20.3 per cent increase over 1975. And in the year 1977 there was another 6.9 per cent increase. This corresponds with a 3.7 per cent increase in 1973 over 1972, and a 5.1 per cent increase in 1974 over 1973, so that you can see, percentage-wise, as well as figures, that the number of companies moving into British , Columbia indeed has increased a substantial amount.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in all of Canada there is a ratio of about 38.8 per cent of the companies established which fail. It's also very interesting for me to note that while we have a higher percentage of' failures because of the tremendous increase in the numbers of companies - and, as I said on Friday, the tendency is to fail within the first 12 or 18 months - it is interesting to note that in the province of Manitoba, 60 per cent of the new companies formed there also have a failure rate. And I understand that in that great province of Manitoba they used to have a socialist government, so this is not necessarily peculiar to the province of British Columbia.

It is not surprising, Mr. Speaker, that B.C. experienced an increase in failures as B.C.'s economy increased in relation to Canada's. In addition, B.C.'s cyclical economy was hit harder in 1975 than was Canada's, with the effects not felt until 1976 and 1977. 1 think that when the opposition is giving us these figures about business failures, they should be intelligent enough to look at the entire package.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that I have explained to the House why this is taking place. Again, I say it is accepted that newly formed companies have a higher mortality rate than established companies. The more favourable business climate existing in B.C. in 1976 and 1977 resulted in a substantial increase in new company formations. This predictably translated into an increase in business failures in 1977. But it should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that business failures occur during periods of both strong and weak economies. Relative to Canada's, B.C.'s growth rate has exceeded Canada's. Therefore it is predictable, Mr. Speaker, that B.C.'s business failures would increase in relation to Canada's. I hope that the House will take note of that, and when they're talking about business failures they will look at the whole picture.

On Friday I also outlined to the House our projects for high-technology industries, and today I want to talk for just a few moments about our coal policies. It will be our coal policies and the development of our coal which will provide a great help toward Canada to balance her payments in the 80s and certainly will provide a measure of employment for the younger people who are joining our labour force on a daily basis.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting to note that in 1972 there was a coal project in the Peace River area that was set to go. Most of the work had been done, but with the change in government and a change in policies by the new government, the project of course fell by the wayside. I hate to say it, Mr. Speaker, but I don't think anybody would invest a plugged nickel in coal properties while they were government because their attitude was "leave it in the ground."

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll get to that in just a few moments.

Leave 'it in the ground. Your Minister of Economic Development (Mr. Lauk) said, "What's the hurry? Leave it in the ground."

MR. MACDONALD: Are you quoting him?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm quoting him, yes.

It's always interesting to me to note that when I start laying a few facts before the House, the ex-energy czar, the man who killed the Grizzly Valley pipeline and who was responsible for all of these non-energy policies gets a little excited. It's always interesting to me that he seems pre I tty jumpy when we start laying before the House a few facts about resource development.

Mr. Speaker, I said that we had lost some contracts to other countries during the period of years between 1973 and 1974. Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 459 ]

it is interesting to note that during that year when practically no new contracts were signed with the province of British Columbia, deals were made with the country Australia for 13.15 million tons. While those members opposite were traveling to Japan to play rugby and to China to plant trees and see the Great Wall, British Columbia, and indeed Canada, was being out-foxed, out-manoeuvred and out-sold by the Australians. That is why today we have to be more aggressive to recapture the time that we have lost in selling our metallurgical coal to the countries of the world that use it.

It is sad to say, Mr. Speaker, but that's why this motion here, this amendment, is so ironic, because they say we have no plan. I'll tell you, we have spent two years trying to dig ourselves out of a government with no plan for future generations or to provide full employment. That is why I think this amendment, this non-confidence motion which was tabled in the House on Friday is so ironic.

I wasn't in my office more than four months when I was visited by a delegation of Japanese who wanted to talk to me about two things: they wanted to talk to me about coking coal and they wanted to talk to me about the steel-mill study. I'd like to set the record straight today, Mr. Speaker, because I think it relates to this amendment.

They wanted to find out if the British Columbia government was interested in seeing that the northeast coal fields went ahead. After meetings with my colleagues, we answered them and said: "Yes. If you are interested in buying coal from that area, then we will put a package together and we will work with the federal government to do the necessary studies to find out what the costs will be to put that project together, in order to ensure that metallurgical coal from that area can indeed reach tidewater at world-competitive prices." So at that time there was a decision made and a cabinet committee on coal was set up to study the situation and to aggressively seek new markets in the world for British Columbia metallurgical coal. We also set about to deal with Ottawa, to take into consideration with them the benefits for all of Canada, how much they were prepared to share in the cost, how much infrastructure they would be prepared to go for, what they thought about coal ports, and so forth.

But, Mr. Speaker, this work should have been done in the previous three years while Japan was signing contracts with Australia. However, I want to point out that at that time the outlook for the steel industry in Japan was still strong. It had been very strong and growing between the years 1973 and 1975.

I'd like to point out to the house that in 1974 a projection was made on crude steel production forecast in Japan. In 1974 the market was still bullish, and the Japanese anticipated and forecasted steel production in 1980 of 162 million tons. So they were still bullish in 1975. In October, 1975, they did another study and another forecast. Their forecast again said that in 1980 they anticipated steel production in Japan of 140 million tons going to somewhere around 1999 -somewhere around there - to around the Same forecast to 172 million tons of production. Mr. Speaker, when we were putting this package together, when we were doing our studies, the market was still bullish.

In August, 1976, they did another forecast, and this time the forecast production was down from 140 million to 135 million tons. You'll note the trend that each time they did a forecast, their forecast of production is going down. In August, 1977 - that's last August - they did another forecast which stated that in 1980 they anticipated crude steel production of 127 million to 130 million tons.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, as you know, we're still going ahead with our studies. We're still going ahead and seeing if we can put this package together. The individual companies producing coal or anticipating to produce coal in B.C. are still bullish and still dealing aggressively with the Japanese.

Then in November of last year, when I was in Japan, they provided me with another forecast, but they also had their production figures for 1977 which were the lowest they had been.... Well, I'll go back to 1972, but certainly they were lower than they had been in 1972. The forecast at that time was that their 1977 production would be in the vicinity of 100 million tons with a projected forecast production in 1980 of 110 million tons.

So, Mr. Speaker, you can see what has happened in the past three years: the steel industry in Japan has suffered a recession, as witnessed by the figures, and they have continued to study the situation. However, I must say that today things have changed. As we look to the future today, we can look back and say that we have bottomed out so far as steel production in the world is concerned.

It was interesting for me to note a recent article in Barron's magazine - and I know that this magazine is not a particular favourite of my friends opposite - of March 20,1978. They're talking about the steel industry. The article is entitled: "Off the Scrap Heap." It

[ Page 460 ]

reads: "Prospects have brightened for the steel industry...." I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, as prospects brighten for the steel industry, indeed prospects brighten for British Columbia's metallurgical coal industry.

I just want to read a couple of sentences from this article, because I think it's very relevant: "In a surprise move" - and as I say, this article is dated March 20 - "U.S. Steel Corporation on March 1 withdrew its $1.2 billion anti-dumping complaint against six major Japanese steel-makers a fortnight or so before the Treasury Department was due to hand down a preliminary decision on the case." So in other words, the steel industry in the United States is also looking up. Another interesting article, noted in this particular article, says that: "in terms of consumption, 1977 proved the third-best year on record with the total reaching 108 million tons." This is talking about the steel industry in the United States, which six months ago was fighting with their government to keep any foreign steel out of the United States.

I'm trying to paint a pattern, Mr. Speaker, f or you, as to what is happening, because it relates to this amendment, indeed to f future jobs, and indeed to the labour force. Now I want to give the House some new figures. Before I do that, I want to say that we did do a lot of dealing with Ottawa on metallurgical coal, on doing the studies for the infrastructure and so forth, and I must say that I was very pleased that even though our opposition here in British Columbia do not recognize the future for the metallurgical coal industry, and they have a tendency to look in very narrow terms, and look at today only, that I'm glad at least that the federal government has looked at least five and 10 years down the road. When they made a recent announcement that indeed they would be building a $16 million causeway to Ridley Island and Prince George, and also making an area available there for a coal port, at least, thank heavens, somebody in this country has taken off their blinkers and is looking into the future, and I certainly want to say that I was very pleased with that decision.

The markets, as I say, I feel have declined. We've been told and a lot of our critics have said that oh, we're just dealing with the Japanese market. Mr. Speaker, that is not so, because last year we talked about coal in Great Britain; we talked about coal in Belgium; we talked about coal in France, and indeed we talked about coal in Germany. So anybody who says that we have just been dealing with the Japanese is not right.

They're not right at all; we've broadened our horizons. We should be talking to Spain, we should be talking to Brazil, we should be talking to Mexico, because we are going to be aggressive, and we're going to lead the way and we're going to provide those jobs for the future.

I'd like, just for the House, to lay on you a few more figures, and I'd like to talk about steel production in western Europe to give you an idea, and I'd like to point out to the House the production figures for 1974,1975,1976. I'd like to - in order so that all British Columbia can understand where we're going in this matter - give you the forecast figures for the years 1980,1985,1990 and the year 2000, as done by Stanford Research Institute, which have done a complete study on the worldwide consumption and production of steel. I think their figures - although they're forecast - are pretty close.

In western Europe in 1974 there were 186.3 million tons of steel produced. In 1975, the same pattern as we followed in Japan, it went down to 154.9. In 1976 it's up again - not to the 1974 level but indeed up to 163.5 million metric tons. The forecast for 1980,195.1 million tons; 1985,214.1 million metric tons; 1990,242.1 million metric tons, and the year 2000,309.8 million metric tons. If anybody tells me that with that kind of a forecast we should not be aggressively seeking new markets, that we shouldn't be doing any planning, I think they oust be looking out of the back of their heads.

In North America the picture is still as bright. In 1974 North America produced 145.6 million metric tons of coal; in 1975,118.8; in 1976, it's back up again to 129.2. The forecast for North American production in 1980 is 162 million metric tons; in 1985,178.9; in 1990,201.5 and in the year 2000,230.6 million metric tons.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let's look at the Japanese situation, as forecast by Stanford. In 1974 Japan produced 117.1 million tons; 1975, as I say, the trend was down to 102.3; 1976, it was up to 107.4 - but the forecast is what we're interested in. In Japan, the Stanford research people say that in 1980 Japan again will be producing 125.4 million tons; for 1985,133.7; 1990,136.6 and the year 2000,150 million metric tons.

They tell me, Mr. Speaker, that we should slack off; we shouldn't do any planning; there's never going to be any opportunity to sell our coal abroad.

A VOICE: Who told you that?

[ Page 461 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, the opposition is saying that every day. I want to tell you that this government doesn't just look ahead for six months or a year. Our plans and our policies call for long-range planning, something that those birds over there didn't know existed when they were government. That's why we are going to continue our policy and, indeed, be aggressive in trying to seek new markets for British Columbia coal. As I say, the situation is brighter in the United States, brighter in Europe today and, indeed, brighter in Japan. But, Mr. Speaker, we must be even more aggressive. As you know, last year some officials from my department and I went to Korea. There we identified a market that was there when they were government, but instead of seeking out new markets like Korea, they went to plant trees in China, they went to Sweden and Norway, and they went to play rugby in Japan. Yet they condemn us for not being aggressive and not coming home with the contracts. Well, Mr. Speaker, eventually we shall succeed.

Let's look at some other countries. As I say, it's not only Japan and Europe and the United States that have steel industries, but Spain, for instance, in 1974, produced 11.6 million tons of steel. The forecast of steel production in Spain by the year 2000 is up to 29.5 million tons, maybe not as great as the total European figures or Germany, or Japan, or North America.... France produced 27 million tons of steel in 1974 and their forecast is up nearly double, to 51.6 million tons by the year 2000. The United Kingdom produced 22.4 million tons in 1974, and their forecast is to produce 38.8 million tons in the year 2000. Brazil, which we sometimes seem to forget about- when we're talking about the production of steel, produced 7.6 million tons in 1974 and the forecast in Brazil - and I better check that figure out because it seems a little high - is 61.3 million tons. As I say, I better check that out. Yes, 61.3 million tons in Brazil alone by the year 2000, and that's several times their current production. That's why I say, Mr. Speaker, even we must be more aggressive and get out into these new countries that are bringing on steel-production facilities. Mexico is another example where in 1974 they produced 5.1 million tons of steel. The forecast by the year 2000 by the Stanford people is 33.7 million tons.

We talk about the use of metallurgical coal, and we talk about exporting our coal, but a lot of people in British Columbia don't realize that our own steel industry imports most of its coking coal for use in making Canadian steel from the United States of America, while we have to go out and seek markets elsewhere and ship ours abroad. In Canada, the production in 1974 was 13.6 million tons, Mr. Speaker, and we're looking at producing in Canada alone 32.1 million tons of steel by the year 2000. So we may have to think about selling our metallurgical coal, as well, to our own Canadian steel industry. Maybe the freight rates are going to be too high, maybe we can't compete, but I certainly think we're going to have to take a look at it because as our export sales of petroleum products decline, Canada has to have a commodity to balance her trade payments. Ottawa recognizes this and metallurgical coal is one commodity that can help to fill that gap and will help all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, in the total world.... I've talked about a lot of individual countries and I've talked about a lot of areas, but let's look at the total world steel consumption, which just six months ago had a very pessimistic outlook. In 1974, the total world production of steel was 705.3 million metric tons of steel. The forecast by the year 2000 in the total world is 1,625.4 million metric tons of steel consumption. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that if you look at those figures, you'll see that that is a 100 per cent increase. I realize that certainly in some areas of the world there indeed are new methods of making steel and it's not all going to be by the use of metallurgical coal, but certainly there is a good future. The average annual growth rate in steel production in the world from 1954 to 1974 was about 5.7 per cent. The predicted growth rate for the years 1980 to 2000 is about 3.5 per cent, not as great an increase per year, but when you take the percentage and add it on top of the larger production, certainly there is a wide market and a good market for British Columbia metallurgical coal.

It's also interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that the developed countries in the years 1954 to 1974 had a 5 per cent annual growth rate in steel production. In the years 1980 to 2000, their estimated production will be less, down to 2.4 per cent. But the developing countries in the years 1990 to 2000 will show an annual growth rate of about 6.4 per cent. So again, we must be more aggressive in trying to seek out new markets.

Mr. Speaker, as I say, I am certainly very pleased that Ottawa has recognized that there is a great future potential and, indeed, has recognized that we need some commodity to help balance our trade payments in the 1980s and the 1990s.

[ Page 462 ]

I want to say something about a steel mill for British Columbia, because the amendment says that we haven't made any plans and that there is nothing to alleviate the labour situation. They have alluded, on that side of the House, to the fact that we lost the steel mill for British Columbia. I would like to set the record straight because we didn't lose the steel mill for British Columbia.

When I had my f first meeting with the Japanese in my off ice in, I think, March, 1976, we discussed the steel mill studies. The Japanese at that time suggested that they wanted a steel mill in either Roberts Bank or on Vancouver Island around Nanaimo. They told me that they had made a deal with the NDP to do studies of putting a steel mill in Nanaimo. After the papers were signed, they were told no. The NDP said: "You can't build a steel mill on the island." So they asked me if our government would change its mind. I said, no, not at this time. We'll take a look. Everything is very environmentally sensitive.

But then the studies were completed. In essence, they said that it is not economically feasible to put a steel mill in the northern part of the province because of insufficient labour force and because of a number of economies. That is why the decision was made.

When I went to Japan in the fall of 1976 and looked at the Yogoshima Works, the new steel mill that was built in the Bay of Tokyo, I found out firsthand that it was a completely non-polluting steel mill. I said to the Japanese: "I see no reason why British Columbians, if they knew that a steel mill could be so non-polluting, would not allow a steel mill in the southern part of the province."

But this has to be related back to the decline in production and demand for Japanese steel during those years. I want the fact to be known that this government did not kill that steel mill. In fact, had that government at that time or that group over there when they were government taken the time to study and to look firsthand as to how non-polluting a steel mill could be, then there is a possibility that we might have had a steel mill or, at least, the start of a steel mill in British Columbia today.

I want to tell you that when they stand up over there and say that we went to Japan and lost the steel mill for British Columbia, that is utter, absolute hogwash. If they think they can go about the province uttering nonsense like that, and expect the people of British Columbia to believe it, I'll tell you, they've got another think coming. It just doesn't happen to be true. There's a member right over there who has to be very careful of what he says, because I'll talk to him a little later.

Now I'll tell you the stupidity of this amendment. Here we're saying that we've made no provision for employment. We witnessed in this Legislature the other day a member who comes from an area with a fairly high unemployment rate, the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) , who said: "You people are trying to build a pulp mill that isn't needed and is not wanted." I want to tell you, the pulp workers in this province should know about her attitude. You speak out of both sides of your mouth. You don't want development in one breath and then you come around and say that we're not doing anything when we make positive plans to bring it in in the other.

It's just like your ex-leader, going to Halifax and saying, "Things aren't too well in British Columbia. The economy isn't going too well." And he's enjoying every moment of it. That's what he said in Halifax. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that things are going well in British Columbia today and he's not enjoying it. No, he's not enjoying it.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to talk for a few moments about some of the other things that we have got going in British Columbia. Recently, there was a new chip facility announced which will export, at the present time, a waste from British Columbia and bring back capital, which will eventually be reverted and used by the people who are selling this waste product at the present time. That capital will come back and be the nucleus of a company or companies to see that new pulp mills are built in British Columbia.

Here is the ironic part about this nonconfidence motion. I remember standing in the Legislature last year after we announced the construction of the Grizzly Valley pipeline. Oh, what a day! That's why this is such a farce. What did they say? "It would never, ever be built. It's a hoax. It's just a stock manipulation."

MR. MACDONALD: Quote the Blues.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you I'll quote the Blues.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the member gets a little excited when we tell the truth.

MR. MACDONALD: You're not telling the truth.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I wish you'd calm that

[ Page 463 ]

member down. As far as I'm concerned, I'd like to cram this right down his throat - the true facts of what he said last year, his short-sighted vision. No faith. At the time, he was the energy czar under the socialist government. What did he say? What's happening today?

Here's the stupidity of this amendment. We have brought in so many great policies. We've put 89,000 more people to work in British Columbia. And they say we haven't done any planning, that we've done nothing to provide for the future of British Columbians or to provide jobs. I want to tell you that if they were here with their policies there'd be no Grizzly Valley pipeline. There'd be nothing happening in British Columbia today.

Oh, yes, I remember them saying: "There's no reserves, no reserves there. The pipeline will never ever be built; there's not enough gas there."

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first member for Vancouver East on a point of'order.

MR. MACDONALD: When the hon. minister is looking at me and saying that I said that the pipeline would never be built, would he mind quoting Hansard to that effect? What he is saying is totally false. Quote Hansard; it's all there.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. Let me correct that statement.

MR. SPEAKER. Order, please. I'm not so sure that it is a point of order.

MR. MACDONALD: It's a point of correction.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, it's , interesting to watch the colour of that ex-energy czar: he goes from a bright red to pure white. I don't know why. I remember him and his colleague from Vancouver Centre making such stupid statements.

I want to tell you yes, the pipeline is being built. Yes, we've almost doubled the reserves in that area. So British Columbia can look forward today to a secure supply of energy for the future. That has a great deal of bearing on this very motion, because people in British Columbia today can look forward to the future.

I remember, Mr. Speaker, when those birds over there were in. By heavens, we had an energy shortage in British Columbia! "The sky is going to f all right in. There's no energy in British Columbia. The lights are going to go out.

MR. KING: Tell the truth and shame the Premier.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know why. Maybe it was the attitude of those people over there. I also remember when they were government, the world was going to starve to death as well. They never brought out the fact that food production in the world has outstripped population for the last 20 years.

MR. MACDONALD: Are you making up this speech?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm not making it up. I do my research. I think you should have done a little more. I'm glad I'm not relying on his research, or British Columbia would have come to a grinding halt and gone down the tube.

MR. BARRETT: You said you can't recall on every other question.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There's the man from Pinkerton. There's the guy who goes to Halifax and says: "Things aren't too well in British Columbia, and I'm enjoying it." There's the ex-leader of that group over there who, unfortunately, was Finance minister for a few months in British Columbia. When he was Finance minister, he shovelled 'er out and he shovelled 'er out and he shovelled 'er out -the taxpayers' dollars. Then when the kitty was empty, what did he do? He deserted the sinking ship and he gave it to the member f or Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) to try and patch it up, but it wasn't soon enough. Then before he bailed out, he called an election and he said: "I'm going to leave the sinking ship anyway." He bailed out before he wanted to tell the people of British Columbia the real facts about the finances in British Columbia. Then he said: "I can't recall." I'll tell you I can recall those days. Oh, those dark days! I can recall them very well. As a matter of fact, I think there were even some businesses in British Columbia that had certain departments of government on GOD during those times because you couldn't pay your bills. It ruined the credit of British Columbia.

Let's talk about the BCR for just a moment, that great railway that under a good board of directors, free from political influence, has been brought back to a business operation again.

They used to sit over here in Victoria, Mr. Speaker, and run that railroad from the back of their hand. They never bothered going over

[ Page 464 ]

and visiting it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I wonder if I could ask the government backbenchers to keep their private conversations down. It's even difficult for me to hear the minister.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I don't want to go on about the railway, but we're talking about the economy and we're talking about not doing anything for jobs. You know, last September the British Columbia Railway reached a point in history - the most number of carloadings in any one year. Last year, up over all previous years. Now if the economy of British Columbia was not up, I wonder what they were loading on that railway. You know, that to me is an indicator of economic activity, particularly for the communities along that line. I suppose that we'll get into a debate during my estimates on the great British Columbia Railway, but I just want to say that last year was a record-making year so far as carloadings for the British Columbia Railway are concerned. Mr. Speaker, when I recently tabled the financial statement for the great British Columbia Railway for the year 1977 and showed that we had reduced our operating losses by some $13 million, I didn't hear any credits from the official opposition, saying that we've done a great job.

But it is a success story; the railway is running better today than it has. run for a long number of years. Morale is up on the railway, worker morale and management morale. The management are now visiting the areas that the railway serves; they're talking to the shippers along the line. I'll tell you that today, again, I'm happy to say that most of the workers on that British Columbia Railway are proud to work for a railway which is running like a business, proud to be part of British Columbia and proud to work for a railway that's being run like a business and not dictated to by Victoria.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition have tried to attack our budget. They haven't done a very good job on it; they haven't had much to work on. But I wonder if people in British Columbia realize that taxes in British Columbia today are less than they were in 1975 when the socialists were government.

MR. LEVI: Tell us, tell us.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, we'll have to tell them. Taxes are less. Certainly, taxes are less. Well, let me outline a few of them for you. We talk about assistance to small businessmen. Who attacked the small businessman by bringing in capital tax employment when they were government and hitting every small businessman in this province? Who brought in that punitive taxation? It was the socialists. Those birds over there attacked the small businessman. Who was it that brought in an Act that said if you're going bid on any government job, you've got to be organized? They attacked all the small, independent businessmen and prevented them from doing any bidding on government jobs. Who was it? And they have the audacity...

MR. LEVI: Audacity.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oddacity, eyedacity - so what?

... to bring in this attack on this great budget which, indeed, is one of the greatest budgets over brought down in the province of British Columbia. Yes, I'm going to smile. I'm going to smile in every hamlet, in every corner of British Columbia. I'm going to smile. I'm going to smile because I'm part of a government that is the greatest government and the best fiscal managers of the taxpayers' money. Yes, I'm going to smile; you had better believe I'm going to smile.

And I'll tell you, I'm not going to be sitting ashen-faced like they were when this great budget was introduced. They knew it was the end of them, they new it was the end. They knew that the province was once again back under good management and that their chances of ever, ever, ever, ever coming back were diminishing with every sentence that our great Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) uttered that day.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about waste money and so forth. Do you remember Swan Valley, the $10 million fiasco? You know, I could have helped 200 small businesses in British Columbia with a $50,000 grant - 200 of them - in that one little deal where they threw $10 million out the window. Oh, I want to tell you, it really amazes me that they would have the gall to bring in an amendment and attack this budget and say that we haven't done anything. Yes, they're attacking us all.

But I want to tell you, things are getting better in British Columbia; people are happy as I travel through the province. As I travel throughout the province, yes, I find that things are very good indeed. People have a positive attitude, people are positive, people are confident in the future and investing in the future.

Interjection.

[ Page 465 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you should talk about confidence. You're the man who brought in this amendment, my friend, that isn't really up to much.

Mr. Speaker, in closing I just want to say that they want us to spend money. They want us to spend money on government programmes. Evidently they didn't read the budget speech. Because of good fiscal management, we were able to build up a surplus in our f first year in government. We have taken that surplus, not as overruns, of $76.1 million...

MR. MACDONALD: Built up by the NDP.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ... and we are able to spend that money on programmes in a time of need without borrowing away the future of the young people of this province. And I say, Mr. Speaker, that that's the way it has to be. If you're going to borrow away into the future.... But we are spending, we have got special programmes and it's out of cash surplus that....

MR. MACDONALD: Built up by the NDP.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you.... Must I remind the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) again? Must I remember? They talk about spending money. I want you to go back with me to those dark and dying days of 1975 - I hate to keep reminding them - when they were government. What did they do? They froze all spending. They were going broke, and they must realize that because of new, increased confidence in British Columbia, because of new investment by the private sector, jobs are being created.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against this amendment.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm not surprised that the minister is going to vote against the amendment. He's done nothing right in the last two and a half years, and certainly we don't expect him to do anything right in the future.

Mr. Speaker, first, before I deal with some of the other things he had to say, he closed by talking about this marvellous $79 million surplus.

MR. MACDONALD: It's $76 million.

MR. COCKE: It's $76 million. I beg your pardon. Let's overestimate; he does. His $76 million surplus.... Well, Mr. Speaker, when you take all of the public works responsibilities out of government and hand them over to the Building Corporation so that they can borrow, borrow, borrow.... This government's in such a deficit position right now, Mr. Speaker, that it has been unparalleled in our history. Mr. W.A.C. Bennett, who used to be at the helm, was a past-master at contingent liability, but they've even gone beyond what he could do.

BCBC is only one aspect. They had to sell off the ferries to get some ready cash.

AN HON. MEMBER: For $48 million.

MR. COCKE: Yes, $48 million to sell off our ferries - ferries that were bought and paid for. Now we've got to pay for them all over again, just to give them a little bit of face. Then, in order to get the rest of the cash, they had to take that out of our special funds that had been set up by the NDP.

Mr. Speaker, it's fraudulent to make the kinds of claims that they've been making. Mind you, as I say, one doesn't expect too much from this minister. Mr. Speaker, the one thing I noted.... Don't forget that he became the designated speaker at the dying hours of the sitting on Friday. Oh, there were messages coining from the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) back and forth, with just a little bit of fear in his heart that we'd be able to get up and answer some of those irresponsible charges that he was making that day. Oh, no, they carried him right to the end, right to the bitter end of that session. The Minister of Labour doesn't fool anybody. I saw the messages going back and forth, and I saw the minister wasn't particularly happy with having to carry on, but he can. Leatherlungs is good for 14 hours at any sitting.

Mr. Speaker, the one thing that he did all through his speech, both Friday and today, was indicate exactly where his head is. I can't tell you how many times he said "going to, " but that was the part of his speech. "We're going to do this, " "we're going to do that, " "we're going to do the other thing, " but, Mr. Speaker, that really admits that they've done nothing to date and that's why we're in the position we are in now. That's precisely, Mr. Speaker, why we have before us an amendment to the budget.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Read the budget!

MR. COCKE: Read the budget? I'm going to be reading a number of things to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) if he'd care to stick around.

Mr. Speaker, he was indicating also in his discussion the fact that we would rather leave

[ Page 466 ]

the coal in the ground. That's where he ended his statement. I remember in those days of our government where the first minister and other ministers who were involved in either mining or energy said: "Yes, we would rather see it left in the ground than give it away to a multinational at our expense." You see, he didn't bother to finish. Of course we would rather leave it in the ground than give it away. What's the purpose in giving it away?

MR. LOEWEN: You would.

MR. COCKE: Look, you put a lot of things in the ground. If you want to get up, get up and make your speech after I'm through.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your time will come!

MR. COCKE: Yes, my time will come, and the only thing that gives me heart is, so will yours.

Mr. Speaker, that minister also indicated that we were not given to long-range planning. I'll tell you, of all ministers to talk about long-range planning in this House.... Let's take a look at the record. That planning that's been going on over there has been phony bobbling, bumbling, hoping and praying that they can make it to the next election without getting found out for what they really are: unable to run this province - totally unable.

Let's look at some of the questions that we've been going over, Mr. Speaker. The minister was talking about the coal production of B.C. and trying to indicate that there's been an entire revolution since the change of government. Well, Mr. Speaker, let's review again. We've told it to you before, but let's review again.

In 1972, there were six million tons of coal shipped out of this province. In 1973, it rose, under the NDP, to 7.6 million tons. In 1974, it was 8,551, 000. In 1975 - which incidentally, was one of those bad years he was talking about for the steel industry - it continued to rise to 8,924, 000 tons. The first year of this marvellous coalition - this coalition of opportunists, the first year, the Socred year - 7,537, 000 tons, down roughly 1,400, 000 tons.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Tell the whole story.

MR. COCKE: That's the whole story. If you have anything to say, why don't you just get up and say it? Mr. Speaker, we always hear excuses from the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Ron. Mr. Chabot) , but nothing very much more.

1 suggest that we're not prepared to sacrifice basic resources in this province. We're not prepared to leave it in the ground, as is said, but we want, however, for the people of our province an opportunity to get back part of what is theirs - theirs by right. This government, on the other hand, owes a greater debt to some of these large multinationals.

Mr. Speaker, may I go on? The minister was indicating that he was worried that we've been far too vocal about his failure to bring in the steel industry that was coming here. He talked about what's going on in the rest of the world. He told us about Brazil. He told us, of course, about Japan, Europe, U.S. and so on. He also told us about little places like Spain, Brazil, Mexico, Korea and Third World countries' production of steel. Yet in British Columbia, there has been absolutely no impetus toward us getting into the steel business ourselves. Not a bit. The minister went to Japan and came back with an empty briefcase, having failed - total failure. Then he talks about a government that did move around, that did have access to a steel industry for our province, that did have access to an oil industry for this province where we would have participated with the British in the production of refined petroleum products.

No, Mr. Speaker, the minister is a failure. I suggest to you that he has the old Goebbels' direction in this. He thinks that if you say a thing often enough, it tends to be accepted as fact. If you say something often enough, then it develops in the community as something people believe in. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) strays from facts. He's probably one of the few Iove ever heard in my life call a fact a true fact. In other words, somehow or other he designates a fact as distinct from a true fact.

MR. LEVI: He deals with untrue facts.

MR. COCKE: That's right. So therefore, if there's a true fact, then there must be an untrue fact in his kind of thinking. But you know, it all comes out, really, if you listen carefully to what he says. It would seem that there are facts, true facts, et cetera.

MR. BARRETT: And fiction facts.

MR. COCKE: And fiction facts.

One of the things that he puffs about is the sound financial management of this government. He also talks of future development and

[ Page 467 ]

restoring confidence. Well, just to deal with the last one first, I suggest to you that every time that minister stands up, confidence wanes in this province. People listen to what he says and look at what lie says, and how could there be an increased confidence in our province, certainly in that particular portfolio which is so absolutely imperative right now? In good times, the Minister of Economic Development can relatively coast along. But in tough times like these, that is a most important portfolio. We've suggested before that the Premier should look for someone else, and nothing has changed. He should look for someone else to handle that portfolio.

He never indicates that the government is going to change its ways. He never talks about the restoring of the lost spending power of the people. That's what he should be talking about, Mr. Speaker, instead of babbling and using worn-out clichés and phrases which make as much sense as the famed words of Waldo Skillings, one of his predecessors. As a matter of fact, he reminds me very much of Waldo.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the motion, perhaps, even if stretched to its farthest....

MR. COCKE: Yes, I thought that, Mr. Speaker, when I listened to his speech, but go on.

MR. SPEAKER: The rules of the House provide that on an amendment we do not have as wide a scope in debate as we do on the main question, so I would suggest that perhaps some of the remarks might be curtailed and used during the main amendment.

MR. COCKE: Sure, Mr. Speaker. I must say that the rubber-duck minister was full of quack, and this rubber-duck minister is also full of quack - loud, but he just floats along.

MR. SPEAKER: And now to the amendment.

MR. BARRETT: Remember when he punched out Edith? Do you think he'd punch out Gracie?

MR. COCKE: I just want to review for a moment. The minister was talking in terms of this marvellous gift back to the people, giving them back 10 cents on the dollar in that taxation. Incidentally, I'm not going to give any great thanks to Jean Chretien for the gift, but after all, we should understand that's where it came from. But then he's trying to buy a few votes too.

What didn't he do, Mr. Speaker? Let's look at the increases that did occur during that infamous period: ICBC rates, between 100 per cent and 300 per cent; ferry rates, 80 per cent for vehicles, 50 per cent for passengers; hospital insurance, extended care, 650 per cent, intermediate care, 650 per cent, acute care, 400 per cent; medicare premiums, 50 per cent; bus fares, 40 per cent; electricity rates, 31 per cent; ambulance costs, 200 per cent; natural gas rates, 36 per cent; gasoline costs, 13.5 per cent; school taxes, 61 per cent; home-heating oil costs, 56 per cent; mortgage foreclosures, 230 per cent; bankruptcies, 78 per cent up; education tax, 61.5 per cent up; overruns, 59 per cent up. Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on.

HON. MR. WOLFE: New companies incorporating.

MR. COCKE: That minister is now talking about new companies incorporating, and he's trying to take the same tack that the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) took.

HON. MR. WOLFE; Facts, facts, facts.

MR. COCKE: Fact, fact! But, Mr. Speaker, they are not listening to what is being said. Canada has a population that would indicate....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, they are so afraid of the truth, they won't even let you speak. Canada has a population that would indicate 10 per cent of the bankruptcies in Canada should be ours. We're 10 per cent of the people of Canada - 11, okay? If we have a far higher incidence of going into business, then I would suggest to you that we could look even if the bankruptcy rate were double at an increase of 50 per cent. If it were double, we could look at an increase of 100 per cent, maybe. But instead of that, 30 per cent of all the bankruptcies in the whole of Canada are here in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you proud of that?

MR. COCKE: What are they talking about, Mr. Speaker? I think that the minister would have us believe that black is white, or the reverse. I suggest that we've got to keep our eyes on Manitoba, because in Manitoba you're going to see the same kind of thing happen. By

[ Page 468 ]

using that same brutality - of taking away from the people, and thinking that they are going to improve the economy by so doing -they are going to go down the tube there, too. It's conservative bungling; the millionaire's approach to ordinary people's budgeting certainly doesn't work out, particularly when you look at those two provinces.

Mr. Speaker, the minister also spoke on Friday about future development. Holy smokes! He talked about Nanaimo, about future development in Nanaimo producing 2,500 jobs. I'm sure that the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) will deal with this in detail; but I want to tell the minister nothing has happened there, except: we're going to; or maybe; or sometime; if, if, if.

He also talked about New Westminster. That government has wrecked New Westminster, Mr. Speaker. By now we would have an ICBC headquarters there if it hadn't been for that bungling fumbling bunch of incompetents who are aver there who made a political decision; and it was stupid. And what have they got? They've got a bunch of vacant property in there that is not being used.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: And you, the apologist for the government in New Westminster, should go hang your head over one of your graves.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that that is the kind of approach he takes. He stood in this House and indicated to us that something was happening down there. He's got BCDC in there, talking to people and suggesting: what would you like; and it's all very lovely. Every once in a while, I pick up the Columbian and it tells me they've got some more plans. But the plans do not mean anything. By now that headquarters would have been virtually built. We would have been moving in, virtually. Absolute nonsense. As a matter of fact, that was approved by the regional district. Everybody felt that it was a marvellous idea. It conformed with the livable-region plan, and that minister was part of the execution. He and the Minister of Education (Ron. Mr. McGeer) did it together. I can't imagine it.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that in Prince Rupert the harbour situation there is still very, very iffy, all in the talk stage. This great government of competence has turned into a fumbling, bumbling group of incompetents before our very eyes - not to suggest that they ever had the competency they said they had - but they have exhibited nothing of it to date. They have had two and a half years to show us that they have nothing to give.

Mr. Speaker, confidence - all you have to do is ask around about confidence. B.C. ducks for cover every time this government makes a move. We've been hit so many times - and hit in places where it hurts - no wonder we duck for cover every time that government makes a move.

MR. LOEWEN: You're finished in New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I challenge that guy to move to New Westminster and take me on. I challenge you to come to New Westminster and take me on. We'll see who's finished.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, let's not interrupt the member who has the floor. I would ask the hon. member not to be easily detracted.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I am never easily detracted.

Mr. Speaker, just to get back for a second to the sales tax, I just want us to be very clear on who put it there in the first place. I also want us never to be grateful under these circumstances for that restoration of where we were in 1975. It's like asking us to be grateful to somebody who stole your wallet and then was forced to give it back to you. Who's going to be grateful for that? No, Mr. Speaker. And then most of the money is gone by the time you get it back.

Mr. Speaker, I'm just trying to go over some of the things that the minister was talking about. He was all over the place. Oh, this was very interesting. He was talking out of both sides of his mouth on Friday. He was in opposition to make-work programmes, but then a few moments later he'd be talking about the great make-work programmes that were in the budget. In other words, he doesn't believe in make-work programmes, yet he was talking about them as being something very, very important.

Now let's get down to the real guts of his presentation, and that was in terms of investment in our province. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that the minister, claiming opposition figures were without foundation, last Friday said he would provide definitive f figures to this House on capital and repair investment in B.C. over the last several years. Let's just look at the figures he provided because they tell us a great deal about how that minister performs his task, and how reliable he and all his speeches are.

He said, for example, Mr. Speaker, that in 1977 the total capital and repair investment in B.C. reached $7.167 million. That figure is just an estimate. It's not even listed in the

[ Page 469 ]

preliminary actual yet. Now that's 1977, Mr. Speaker. However, the minister went on to say that in 1976 the total figure was $6.359 million, and therefore the 1977 increase over the previous year came to $802 million, or 12 per cent. Is that what the minister said? Is that what you said, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker?

MR. BARRETT: He can't recall.

MR. COCKE: lie can't recall. Where did the 1976 figure he gave come from? Let me tell you. It came from last year's economic review. You know what the footnote in that review said about that figure? It said it was preliminary. The Minister of Economic Development used a preliminary figure as a definitive figure in this House, and then wants to walk out of here with some credibility. Let's go on. It was preliminary. Now that's the final, definitive kind of information this minister gives to this House and the public of B.C. There's a great deal of difference between preliminary and final figures.

In this case, Mr. Speaker, the real final figure, which is tallied by Statistics Canada, is $6.806 million, and that's a difference of $446.9 million from the figure this minister tried to flim-flam on Friday. Now that means that the investment increase of 1977 over 1976 was 4.9 per cent instead of 12 per cent. Just a little clerical error, Mr. Speaker. Not the 12 per cent he claims. That's our Minister of Economic Development that everybody depends on for statistical figures. For one thing, that's his portfolio that's supposed to provide that. So in other words, Mr. Speaker, this minister's fantastic disregard of footnotes and final figures enables him to be wrong by almost half a billion dollars. It means that when our investment record is seriously falling behind inflation - it's actually going down in real dollars - this minister can shout that things are going better. No wonder the business leaders of this province are saying this minister is an unparalleled disaster. He cannot even pick up the phone and ask Statistics Canada for final figures on economic activity.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I would like to remind the member who now has the floor that perhaps temperate language would be more acceptable to the House. However, I would also remind the member that we cannot say through someone else's mouth what we cannot say ourselves in this House. Just as a reminder and a caution.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I find that very difficult. Probably one of the most inflammatory speakers was the one who preceded me and all of a sudden, gentle Dennis is becoming inflammatory. (Laughter.) Really, you know, I'm a bit frustrated. I have had to listen for about an hour and a half to the Minister of Economic Development giving us some....

AN HON. MEMBER: Dennis the Menace!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, 1 think it would be bad enough if this one example was the only mistake in the figures in investment to rise last Friday, but all of them were wrong. They were all preliminary computations, every one that he gave. And I am sure that the Minister of Finance is not very happy about having seen something like that occur in the House.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Sit down and I'll tell you about them.

MR. COCKE: I'll sit down when 1'm ready to sit down, and I want to hear you getting up and defending these figures.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, he told us on Friday that the 1975 investment total was only $5,806, 000,000. Wrong again. That too was a preliminary figure taken from his 1976 economic review. You'd think that he would use his head on matters as important as this, when making very important statements. Just let me give you the real figure; it was $5,823, 600,000. We got all these figures from Stats Canada, where he can get them, and where he has got them. I'm sure they appear in his office. They must be over their preliminary figures by now.

So, Mr. Speaker, he's got a lot of research, he's got a lot of staff, but he's not doing a job. That's the problem, and that's why this resolution is before us, a resolution saying that we have to get government direction that's going to provide for economic development of our province, that's going to provide jobs for our people in this province. We have seen no sign of it. We see a defence. A government that's defenceless is trying to defend a situation they've got us into by all these very disastrous economic moves that they've made.

I suppose this performance of the minister is the only thing we can expect from him. After all, do you remember when he was testifying before the royal commission? He

[ Page 470 ]

repeatedly kept claiming: "I can't recall, I can't recall." He couldn't recall. He's the minister of "I can't recall, " he can't even recall where to get his facts that he brings in, and that's why he has to distinguish between facts and true facts. The ordinary facts are the facts that he brought in here on Friday. I presume the true facts are available to the minister but he finds it very difficult to dig to get them.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the next time that minister stands in this House, he tell us something about where we're going economically. He'll tell us that he's going to advise the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education that all they've done in the last two years and four or five months since they've been government is vest back in the homeowner taxation of a level that is burdensome beyond belief in times like these. It's an increase for our public school system on the homeowners that if that government had any wit about them, they would hang their head in shame.

Mr. Speaker, they were the government that were going to come in and make some basic changes in that regard. Instead we are now in a situation in Vancouver and New Westminster where the local taxpayer is paying over 90 per cent of the cost of our public school system in New Westminster and Vancouver. That's an absolutely shocking display of arrogance and a total lack of concern for the taxpayer. Do you know why they're not concerned, Mr. Speaker? Let me tell you why they're not concerned: because they think that that's blamed back at the local level.

I listened to one of our fabulous hotliners today on my way in from the ferry, and the hotliner was talking along those very lines. He was saying: "Isn't it a shame the taxes are going up so high?" He didn't mention the provincial government that has forced that burden on the local taxpayers. He said it had something to do with the teachers and something to do with the local people and so on and so forth, never even indicating this tremendous change in policy that's occurred in the last couple of years. Since that government's been in power there have been either three or four mill-rate increases - 61 per cent. It's infamous. The public school bill that government picks up now.... They pick up 40 per cent only - probably marginally less than that.

Mr. Speaker, this is the government that's got us into all the economic difficulty that we're in. Then because of a Mickey Mouse move by a federal government restoring us to the position that we were in in 1975, to a sales tax of 5 per cent financed largely - certainly for the first year - by the federal government, suddenly we're asked to shine and smile. You know, I can understand the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) asking people to smile, because if they don't smile they're going to cry, I can tell you that, with the kind of treatment that we've had from this government.

I suggest to you that this amendment is in order. I suggest to you that any thinking member of this House will support this amendment. If they don't, they are really not thinking. They are only looking at one very narrow end of the spectrum. There's a lot more to it than just this question of the sales tax.

Another thing too: I just want to remind the people of B.C. that a government that could do it once, that could increase the sales tax by 40 per cent, could easily do it again.

MR. BARRETT: They will.

MR. COCKE: Give them one more mandate, and I guarantee it. It's the easy way out.

MR. BARRETT: Help the millionaires.

MR. COCKE: What you do not want to do is tax millionaire so large estates. No, no. It's much easier to tax the people across the board. It's worth $100 million itself, probably $125 million - up a tax point. It's kind of easy for the Minister of Finance to make the kind of decision that he made.

But they did it once; they can do it again. I suggest that particularly the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) , who's totally lost confidence in this government.... I would expect him and others over there to support this amendment, and to support it with a great deal of glee.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, I'll file a document. You won't like it, Mr. Member. You won't like it one bit.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps we should begin by addressing the Chair.

HON. MR. WOLFE: love read this amendment. I've reread the budget speech. I feel assured that they they've got hold of the wrong budget. Could it be, Mr. Speaker, that in distributing these last week, they got hold of the wrong document - one of their old ones or someone else's budget? This amendment

[ Page 471 ]

certainly doesn't relate to our budget, because it's concerned over job creation; it's concerned over the fact that taxes and user fees were too high; it's concerned with the fact that we've exercised too little cost control. That's not this budget, not this government. Surely they must have got hold of the New York city budget or Ottawa's budget. It isn't this one, as far as I'm concerned.

To deal with just two matters raised in this amendment and arguments presented by this group across the House, they are intimating that the tax measures and fee increases in the past two and a half years have cost the taxpayers of this province a great deal of money. I think they mentioned a figure of $1,300 over the period. Then they say we've only given back 10 cents on the dollar in terms of the tax reduction which we've just put in place as a result of good fiscal management.

What would any other government - or, namely, this government across the House when they were in power - have done when faced with the financial situation which we were presented with when taking office two years ago?

The only alternatives for any government faced with the chaotic financial losses were to leave the fees, taxes, the way they were and to go into a fantastic debt structure. As a matter of fact, I have computed today the ultimate cost of the debt this province would have faced had it not reacted and adopted the stiff measures that were necessary. When you add up all the measures that were taken by this government when it had no alternative, including sales tax, cigarette and tobacco tax, changes in personal income tax, changes in hospital co-insurance charge, medicare premiums, school taxes, car insurance, ambulance charges, electric and gas rates and ferry rates - when you put all that together -it amounts to $900 million of revenue that would have been lost had those measures not been adopted by this government, $900 million of increased debt facing the people of this province. Think of the interest charges on that debt. We already have a debt, having taken all these measures, of $260 million, and an annual interest charge these taxpayers have to pay of $22 million per year in next year's budget. Just add to that $900 million of increased debt that somebody would have had to face up to. Interest charges would have been $100 million to $110 million a year.

I'd like to move to the last point which is mentioned in the amendment. It relates to the lack of control over expenditures which this government is accused of. Nothing could be further from the facts. If there's one thing that this government, this ministry and this Treasury Board have done, it is to introduce cost-control measures with a whole new structure of Treasury Board to examine and scrutinize all expenditures that are going out on behalf of the taxpayers. There's no doubt about the fact that millions of dollars have been saved through our efforts at cost control.

Now a lot has been said, Mr. Speaker, about warrants and about overexpenditures. Coming from this group over here, who engineered the name of overexpenditures, who designed overexpenditures, that is really pretty ridiculous, because I would like to table with this house, as taken from public accounts of this province, the record on overexpenditures and underexpenditures in the last four years.

The year 1973-74.... Who was in power then, Mr. Speaker? The NDP. An overexpenditure in that year of 113.4 million. That's a 6.6 per cent overrun of the original budget. The next year, Mr. Speaker, 1974-75, would you believe an aggregate overrun of $358.2 million? That's 16.5 per cent overexpended on their original budget. And they talk about overexpenditure? As far as I'm concerned, we have a lot to learn about overexpenditure, based on that record.

Let's look at the year when the government changed, 1975-76. Mr. Speaker, there was an underexpenditure on the budget of $110.2 million. In the year following, 1976-77, we had an underexpenditure on the budget of $123.8 million. Mr. Speaker, we haven't got our public accounts for the year just concluded, 1977-78, but I can assure this House and the people of British Columbia that we will have a variance of less than 2 per cent of our original budget when we finally table the figures for public accounts for the year 1977-78.

So, Mr. Speaker, let's not talk about overexpenditure, because the record is there. It's in public accounts. I've prepared a table of that record and ask leave to table that document in the House today.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WOLFE: So, Mr. Speaker, 1 can only say that this amendment is simply ridiculous, when related to this budget. The budget, if anything, creates job employment to the maximum. It deals with people needs in this province. It deals with expense control, which we've set an example of in the past three years. 1 think there isn't any question about it, it's the best budget presented by any

[ Page 472 ]

government of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, may I interrupt the proceedings of the House to draw to the attention of all Hon. members the presence today of several students from the Chilliwack Junior Secondary School? They only visit occasionally and they are here between the hours of three and four. I wish the members would make them welcome.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, since you have set the precedent, sir, may I introduce a group of students who are accompanied by teachers? This is an exchange between the province of Newfoundland and the Saanich Indian band. There are some 30 students from Fortune Collegiate School visiting in the constituency of Saanich and the Islands. They are accompanied by Mr. Graham Wood and Miss Smita Acharya. Will the House welcome them?

MR. SPEAKER: Just a reminder, we are on the amendment.

MR. LOEWEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to speak against the amendment. I'm just sorry this afternoon that the sometimes member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) isn't in his chair. The people in New Westminster are talking. They've been talking a great deal of late. The adults are saying that the fizz has gone out of Cocke, and the children are talking about Dennis the Menace again.

MR. SPEAKER: Now to the amendment.

MR. LOEWEN: Mr. Speaker, I can't help but recall that speech the member for New Westminster gave last year. After very proudly saying that he had been three times elected in New Westminster he went on to talk about the city being in very dire straits and being, in fact, a dying city. It is true that that member has done very little for New Westminster, and after his attack on the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , I couldn't resist but get up on my feet and, for the record, correct some of the things that he said.

Firstly, he claimed that, as a result of his efforts - and the efforts of his government at that time - the ICBC building would have been built in New Westminster, and in fact the whole city rejuvenated. Most of the public know, most of the people in British Columbia know that this province was bankrupt; that that government had in fact given orders to stop all spending possible; that there was no money to build this supposed ICBC building in

New Westminster. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say - for the record - that all that he and his government did at that time was buy a very expensive piece of property in the heart of New Westminster, and we know today that that building would never have been built. In fact, all he did was create false hopes for that city. And as a result of the efforts of this minister, the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , there is, once again, hope in that city. There is hope; and that main street - that Columbia Street which once upon a time was known as the golden mile of British Columbia - again has hope, and has reason to believe that it will once again become the golden mile of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to inform the members of this House that the court house facility is on schedule and. it's going to go ahead this year. It is a beautiful facility and that as a result of the Minister of Economic Development taking hold of that property through the British Columbia Development Corporation, this property, that the former government had bought and then did not know what to do with, has been turned around. The court house will be built on that site. Not only will the court house be built on that site - and in fact, it is on schedule; the proposed date for the sod turning is in June of this year - but also the board of directors of Douglas College have agreed to build the permanent facilities of the New Westminster campus of Douglas College on that site as well.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, through the ingenuity of this minister and of the British Columbia Development Corporation, that which was a disaster created by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) , and that former government, has been turned around and has become a tremendous plus and it will have a tremendous positive impact on that very proud city, the royal city, the City of New Westminster.

The member for New Westminster also talked about keeping the resources of British Columbia in the ground. If the resources remain in the ground, they will not even be to the benefit of future generations. The resources of British Columbia can be a benefit to the future generations only if they are exploited and developed. Through proper management these resources can be exploited for this generation, and for the next generation, and the generation after that. If we follow the suggestion of the member for New Westminster, and keep the resources in the ground, or in the bush, they will not be of benefit to either us or future generations.

[ Page 473 ]

The member for New Westminster also doesn't understand the tax rules of this country. I suggest that possibly one of the reasons that some people do become supporters of the NDP -do become socialists - is that they really do not understand corporate tax rules; and somehow they don't realize that even multinational corporations pay 50 per cent tax directly to the public coffers, and that those funds are, in fact, used to advance social programmes and advance the welfare of the citizens of this country and of this province. They also don't realize - and I'm sure the member for New Westminster does not realize -that, in addition to the ordinary 50 per cent tax rules - the ordinary 50 per cent that they pay in taxes - if they were to take their earnings back to their parent company outside of Canada, they would have an additional tax levied upon them of approximately 15 per cent.

Now if the members in the opposition would realize some of these things maybe they would stop attacking the multinational corporations. They might stop talking about keeping the resources in the ground to the detriment of our economy and of our total society, And just maybe, if they would realize what, in fact, they did create in the city of New Westminster, and the false hopes they created, and some of the despair that they created for many of the business people in the city of New Westminster, they would take off their hats and they would appreciate what this Minister of Economic Development is doing. What this government is doing is taking some of the mismanagement of the opposition and turning it around through extreme determination and creativity, and turning it into a plus for the local community, and for all the people of British Columbia. It is creating jobs for all the people of British Columbia; expanding the tax base for all the people of British Columbia; increasing the betterment for this generation and for the next generation to come. Thank you, Mr. Speaker; and I will have to vote against this amendment.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I think I should inform you that not only do I intend to support this particular amendment but, because of developments over the last few days, I am also going to be forced to add an amendment, which I will come to in due course, as I wish to stay in order on the main amendment to the main motion at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refresh the House's memory of what we're dealing with here. We're dealing with what is traditionally a no-confidence motion in the government. So it should come as no surprise to anyone that the opposition is opposed to the government and that the government is in favour of the government.

I want to deal with a number of reasons why we're opposed to the government. I hope to respond to some of the reasons why that group over there supports itself.

I'm sorry, Mr. Minister, that the speaker who just spoke left so quickly. In his particular case, I always worry when he's not here.

The amendment before us is that this House regrets that in the opinion of this house the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has failed to adequately relieve our citizens of the onerous burden of government-imposed costs and taxes. That's true. You have really not made any significant moves to decrease the taxes that you increased.

Oh dear, my good friend, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) , yawns. I'll come to you in a few moments. I'm hopeful, too, that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. William ) ensures that there is no discrimination against people who grow beards. I was concerned about that. One of my colleagues said that if they can't do it on top, they do it on the chin. I don't know who he was referring to.

Mr. Speaker, the only significant tax reduction offered in this budget was the one that was announced by the Minister of Finance as if he had planned it, as if he had discovered it, as if he had no responsibility for creating the problem in the'first place. But on a cued, rehearsed lifting of the hand, that whole back bench broke into spontaneously rehearsed applause in favour of reducing the sales tax from seven points back down to five points.

Who put it up to seven points in the first place? It was that government over there who went out of their way to impose the burden on the taxpayers of this province, to make up for the fact that they had taken millions and millions of taxes off the backs of the millionaires of this province.

MR. KAHL: Tell us why it had to go up in the first place.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I hear a little noise from the back benches. And I know that I won't have to comment on that. You will keep that gang in order.

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting that while the spontaneously rehearsed applause was going on, the smug look on the government benches was saying: "We're going to do this, we're going to drop the sales tax by two

[ Page 474 ]

points, we're going to lead the way, this is our initiative."

And what did we find out just a few hours later? It was the federal government that made them an offer they couldn't afford to refuse. The federal government is going to give them money to reduce the sales tax. It wasn't their idea after all, but they thought they would cream it on the news headlines before Ottawa came on the scene.

Donot leave now, Mr. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) . Someone else will roll back the odometer. There's a lot more like you in that group over there. My dear friend, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is upset.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Donot call me your friend.

MR. BARRETT: I'm only trying to be as polite as I can to you, Mr. Minister. If you wish to take everything personally that happens in this House.... We remember exactly how you used to behave when you were in opposition. Remember the speeches and vilification and personal attack that used to come from that minister, who is an expert on juvenile delinquents?

Then after the government took the credit for dropping the sales tax by two points, the Premier went back to Saskatchewan and attacked the federal government for giving them the money. Now that's a paradox. They attacked the federal government for supplying the money, for not consulting, and when the Premier was asked exactly when the Minister of Finance was informed that this programme was in the works, he refused to say how much time the federal government had given the provinces to consider the measure. "That's between the finance ministers, " he said. Perhaps the newspaper is wrong. Is the Premier of this province trying to tell us that the Minister of Finance made up his own mind as to what the taxation policy of the present administration should be, that he did not consult with Treasury Board, that he did not inform the Treasury Board of what was going on, and that the budget speech was printed without the Premier knowing what was in it?

I can't believe that, Mr. Speaker. When the Premier was being confronted by the media as to the specifics of when the government knew about the federal proposal from Ottawa, the Premier's attacks faded. He did his famous disappearing act and said, "That's between the ministers of finance."

How many people in this province saw that series of television interviews from the Western Premiers' Conference? There was my unwaning interest in watching what was happening. Here was the Premier of Alberta being interviewed. He made an angry statement; he was clear-cut, forceful, looked the camera right in the eye, said what he had to say, didn't hesitate, was through. The new Premier of Manitoba - the same thing, right up front, in front of television. He said what he had to say. Then they turned to the Premier of British Columbia, "No comment, no comment, " and he slammed the door in the reporters' faces before they could even ask him a question. Mr. Speaker, it's a pattern we have become used to by a hit-and-run government that says one thing in the House when it presents its budget and says another thing in another province in another conference in attacking Ottawa. It's absolutely true, and there's no denying that the government wants it both ways.

Mr. Speaker, can you please inform me how it is that this government can attack Ottawa for running a deficit of some $11 billion while crowing about the fact that they will be receiving $800 million of that deficit to bolster their own budget? If they were really consistent, Mr. Speaker, they would say to Ottawa: "Please don't send us those deficit dollars. We don't want to be responsible for that federal deficit." But instead they take the federal money, tuck it away in their figures, and then attack Ottawa for having a deficit.

Mr. Speaker, we've heard absolutely nothing from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) in the budget speech or in this amendment about the Canadian dollar - not a single word about the Canadian dollar, the devastating effect that the drop in the value of the Canadian dollar has had to the cost of living to British Columbia citizens.

In terms of tax relief, the two cents on the sales tax is not going to be a major relief to the ordinary working people of this province who have been hit with massive tax increases that will begin to a pear this very month on p their income tax, 46 points on their income tax being taken by this provincial government. And while the Canadian dollar drops out of sight, it's only by a matter of luck that the Canadian dollar drop does in effect help British Columbia's primary industry, and that is the forest industry. But while it helps, the devastating long-term effect of that dollar dropping is the fantastically rapid increase in the cost of living in British Columbia.

Not a single word from a government member. Not a single word from the Premier about the

[ Page 475 ]

cost of living that is rapidly escalating in this province and the tremendous rise in the cost of consumer goods and food and services. Just in the month of March alone, 1. 1 per cent. Overall, Mr. Speaker, if that rate continues, we will have an inflation rate in terms of the cost of living for the ordinary people of this province of over 14 per cent this year, and there's not a bit of relief in this budget. That's why the amendment, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am amused by the constant reference by the government about "government shouldn't be running businesses." In a world that is rapidly moving on a competitive basis on the international marketplace of western democracy, in a world that is rapidly moving on a competitive basis for shrinking markets, we face the growth of not only the Japanese economy that has just announced a $13 billion trading surplus in one year, we face Hong Kong, we face Korea and we face the Malaysian states who are making massive penetrations into the consumer market for goods here in North America.

We have a federal government whose only answer is to keep antiquated tariffs without forcing profits from those industries that benefit from those tariffs back in to modernize the factories in this country. The other option is fantastic handouts to those same international corporations that this government bleeds for in terms of begging them to come to this province and invest.

Mr. Speaker, they are competitive, the international corporations. When things are rough at home, as they are in the United States, and there is external competition rapidly escalating against the American dollar, pulling our own Canadian dollar down, the only American response is to restore as much investment back into the United States that they can generate for themselves. What Social Credit claims as their answer to solving economic problems is - first of all, if it's wistful in terms of begging international finance help - it's entirely out of their hands. Mr. Speaker, the Financial Times of Canada, not exactly a socialist publication, in its April 3 edition has printed a dreadful tale of woe about the diminishing American investment in the province of British Columbia that does in fact cause our taxes to go up and caused this budget to give no relief from those taxes.

I've made it very clear, Mr. Speaker; that minister obviously doesn't read. I've said we'd welcome investment on our terms and on our basis, and that has always been our argument. That's why you have the Afton Mines developing outside of Kamloops, Mr. Minister. That was done before you were elected to office. It was done before you were elected to office.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Here is a chart printed by the Financial Post showing that Canada's options are cut as capital flows slowly. In the western democracies, Mr. Speaker, as the economy declines, every national jurisdiction insists that it must protect its own economy and its own employment. And as the United States faces the same pressures in the western world that Canada does from more competing markets, especially from the Far East, the problem of generating our own capital becomes paramount to all governments.

What does this government say? Oh, we won't do anything for ourselves! Oh, governments cannot lift a little pinky finger to do anything for themselves! But if we cut taxes on millionaires, if we increase the potential of prof its, we'll try to make love to the international corporations to come back. Even after two years of that bleating welfare appeal to international capitalism, Mr. Speaker, we find, in fact, that there is less and less interest in the province of British Columbia by outside investors.

Why can't governments do things for themselves? I constantly hear in this House about how Social Credit has increased the revenue from natural gas. What is the record? Fortunately for the member for Kamloops (Ron. Mr. Mair) , he wasn't here to witness the 14 hours of extravagant blow-hard debate from the now Minister of Economic Development (Ron. Mr. Phillips) , who was attacking the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation. It was interesting that that minister, in attacking the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation, called it "communist, " called it "socialist, " called it "state control, " and said that it should never go through this House, that it was a devastating, terrible thing to happen. He is on record as having voted against it, Mr. Speaker.

I would expect some level of consistency. The British Columbia Petroleum Corporation, which that opposition called "communist, socialist, terrible and horrible, " is being boasted about in the budget that you present to this House as having returned in its short life to the people of this province half a billion dollars in new revenue. If that had not been passed, the amendment to this

[ Page 476 ]

particular budget speech would have been ever more severe, because the taxation relief that was allowed because of the government-owned British Columbia Petroleum Corporation has saved the people of this province half a billion dollars.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Tax relief, Mr. Speaker, by providing more jobs.

My dear friend, the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stupich) , has taken nothing but abuse by the "swan" song of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) about Swan Valley, which was killed because this government left it under-capitalized.

Now let us deal with the government's involvement. The British Columbia Petroleum Corporation, where it allows us to relieve taxation, is socialist. Who boasts about it? Why, that government group boasts about their running our socialist idea. Thank you very much. It's like the Royal Hudson. I see Gracie blowing the whistle on the Royal Hudson, on that socialist train, taking credit for it all the time.

I point accusingly, but with gentleness, through you, Mr. Speaker, at the Minister of Agriculture. Tell us, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, how much did we pay for Panco Poultry?

MR. KING: Chicken feed.

MR. BARRETT: Why, he's stuck dumb. Well, let me answer for you. It was $4.8 million, that's right. How much did we guarantee?

Interjection.

MR. BARRE-IT: Oh, the minister, is getting quiet. Yes, we have left wings and you have the other part.

MR. SPEAKER: I hope the member will relate this to the amendment.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, certainly. I don't want to cast any aspersions on the author of the budget speech, Mr. Speaker, but I just want to go back for a moment to this particular thing. Panco Poultry, that chicken-plucking place in Surrey that this government decried as "socialism" , "terrible, " was bought for $4.8 million. Mr. Speaker, I want you to know this. I don't want the Minister of Agriculture to go around talking about it too much, but it would be nice if he'd mention it. It's now worth, after four years, $20 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: And that ain't chicken feed.

MR. BARRETT: And that ain't chicken feed, as my colleague says. Governments aren't supposed to be able to run things; governments aren't supposed to be capable.

There is $500 million in the Petroleum Corporation. Panco Poultry was bought for $4.8 million, guaranteeing at least 500 direct jobs that would have been lost to the United States if we had followed the stupid policies of that opposition when they were the opposition. They've got enough brains now to know that that plant has to continue to operate, and it's worth $20 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: After Ernie hall sent a letter.

MR. BARRETT: Certainly Mr. Hall sent a letter. I only wish I had sent a letter.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, certainly Mr. Hall sent a letter. I only wish I'd sent a letter to everybody at Railwest, if I'd known what you fellows were going to do with that outfit too. You're the close-down-lock-up-and-get-out government. Take a dollar and give a dime; and then you ask for us to be nice to you. I'm nice to you as human beings. I'd love to be your social worker. Although some of your problems really are beyond my professional scope, I'd still offer you help.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. To the amendment.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, to the amendment. I want to point out another reason why there's no tax relief; and it's caused the amendment to be written the way it is. 1y dear friend the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) took nothing but intense, personal vilification in this House over his purchase of the Dunhill Corporation. The innuendo, the attacks, and all the laughing and jeering by the then opposition, Mr. Speaker.... We bought that corporation, and he built the British Columbia Housing Corporation for $6 million.

HON. MR. CHABOT: A disaster!

MR. BARRETT: A disaster, says the member for Columbia River. That $6 million according to your own public accounts, after four years is now worth $13.5 million - a tremendous success! And you want to go around peddling our assets off - and I use that cute little phrase with a genuine purpose, because it is an appropriate analogy for the abuse and the

[ Page 477 ]

style that this government has shown with regard to those hard-won victories by the people of this province. The Petroleum Corporation is there. Every time I hear government spokespersons now talk about the Petroleum Corporation, they don't say: "Communism, socialism." They say: "Oh, it's a royalty scheme. It's a collection scheme."

Mr. Speaker, one of the statements is a falsehood. I leave for history to decide what position was correct; but I'll tell you this: neither this government nor any other government succeeding it would have the nerve, or the guts, or the lack of common sense to ever do away with the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation. You're saying that you're going to do away with it? Oh, Mr. Speaker, there it is.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's no great success story; you can do the same with royalties.

MR. BARRETT: You never did it as a government. You fought against it. Mr. Speaker, with all the charity I can muster, I challenge that minister to show me any other Crown corporation in any other jurisdiction in the British Commonwealth that has Produced -with just less than 30 people - in a four-and-a-half year history, $500 million back to the taxpayers out of the resources of this province.

Mr. Speaker, they gave the resources away; they are giving the resources away. And that's why this amendment is here: because there is no tax relief. My colleague, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) , got up and said: "We would rather leave it than give it away." And I agree with my fellow member. For some 98 years in this province, there has been nothing but one form of give-away government or another; and that's a brand new form of the same old thing, Mr. Speaker. The same old power establishment, power manipulators and money interests caused this subamendment today as they in 1936, in the 1920s, the 40s and the 50s; and I hope never again in the future.

The whole world is changing, and yet this government wants to go back to something that no longer exists. It announces it's going to give great relief, with a 2-point reduction, when there is no new capital investments, no new jobs, no new direction, no hope, no thrust and no policy other than to get up and vilify the opposition; and yet they reap the little bit of praise that they are reaping by continuing the programmes we started.

Not a word on the Canadian dollar from the government benches, not a word! Not a word on the cost of living from the government benches. Well, Mr. Speaker, you know what it's like. If you're a millionaire, what difference does it make if a steak costs you $5 or $10 -you've got to tighten your belt and show restraint. A millionaire can afford a $10 steak. A millionaire can afford the kind of luxuries that go up a little bit; but the ordinary people of this province, who have indeed built up the fortunes that these people in some cases have inherited, receive no comfort whatsoever in this budget. This is a rich man's government, staffed by rich men, paid for by rich men, serving rich men and looking to the future for the rich and the rich only - especially in this budget. Why didn't you bring back the taxation on the millionaires that you took off? Why didn't you bring back the estate taxes and say that, in this time of restraint, in this time of cutback, everybody's going to have to be in the front lines to fight this, including the millionaires. You took the millionaires out, set them up in posh headquarters away from the front lines, and said to the ordinary working people of this province: "You get out there, fight and die against inflation, while we millionaires drink cognac in our coffee and tell you how things used to be tough before we had welfare and unemployment insurance; and maybe we should cut that back." That's what they say.

Mr. Speaker, I want to quote to you what some other spokespersons had to say in this province.

HON. MR. MAIR: Spokesperson? What is that?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Minister, you wouldn't understand - you're an MCP, perhaps. No, I'm not going to make that judgment against the minister. He's not patronizing to women. That minister has a sense of equality.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, since you brought up the widow thing, man, it must be on your conscience. Mind you, if you have a mind and a conscience you're ahead of about 90 per cent of the folks over there, anyway.

MR. SPEAKER: Back to the amendment.

MR. BARRETT; Yes, Mr. Speaker. Frank Reder, president of the B.C. Construction Association, said about the budget: "It must be a negative Monday for me." That's what he said. "There's nothing that will render any aid or comfort to the construction industry of British Columbia." P.R. Matthew, managing

[ Page 478 ]

director of the Mining Association of B.C. -not exactly a socialist spokesperson - said: "This budget offers nothing to stimulate the sagging mining industry."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. BARRETT: Mines are closing down in this province. Jobs are being lost. If a mine was in trouble under the NDP they'd be up screaming:"It's the NDP that's scaring the ore in the ground." Now, when they're in trouble, they say it's "world conditions."

MR. COCKE: A vote for Chabot means the troubles they've got.

MR. BARRETT: A vote for Chabot means your troubles are in a pot!

MR. KING: Vote for Chabot and watch the Kootenays rot!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, 1 intended to quote from the business page of my favourite newspaper, the Vancouver Sun, to bolster some of my arguments. But it's a little bit embarrassing for me to find that on occasion that newspaper has some little touches of "something may be going wrong' in that establishment house over there. The Financial Times I've already quoted. But there's another article about the future of coal in British Columbia. I want to read what they say about ... not about the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) . The Minister of Mines, Mr. Speaker, has got enough brains to keep his mouth shut on occasion. I give him credit for that. He's been around long enough to know when to keep his mouth shut. But just in case there's a vacuum of hot air from the cabinet, guess who rushes to f ill it at his defence every time? The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . I'll bet you, Mr. Speaker, you have more trouble cleaning up his act than anything else you've got in your department. That guy gets you into more trouble, Mr. Speaker, than....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can you relate this to the amendment, please?

MR. BARRETT: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. Taxes have not been relieved because that guy gets him into more trouble than anyone else I know. This is what George Froehlich said about our friend I Can't Recall. It says here: "Don Phillips made a number of mistakes in his negotiations with the Japanese." Now I find that as some surprise, because I know that the minister is a highly cultured man, and is sensitive to the Japanese culture and history, and is aware of how to deal with the oriental mind.

HON. MR. MAIR: Did you play rugby there?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I certainly did. They're very fair rugby players - they allowed me to score a try and I thought that was very decent of the fellows.

"At one stage, he suggested to the Japanese that they should commit themselves to purchasing 10 million metric tons of British Columbia coal. If that commitment were made, Phillips said, the provincial government would seriously consider developing the necessary economic infrastructure at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. "Do you know how much that infrastructure would cost the taxpayer of this province? Five hundred million dollars. And that would come out of the taxpayers' pockets, which are getting no relief whatsoever, and it would be a gift to provide a guaranteed sales market to the Japanese, who, once having that infrastructure in place, would be able to whipsaw us any time they want to on that price of coal. After a five-year contract or after a seven-year contract and all that infrastructure is in place and they have no share of the capital responsibility, Mr. Speaker, they could turn around and say: "Well, I want to tell you, I don't think we can afford to pay as much f or the coal any more." Can you see a politician that would have a f it over that? The Minister of Mines would. But then, when the press came running to ask f or an answer on that question, and they go to the Minister of Economic Development, he'd say: "Oh, speak to my colleague." That's how he gets you in the glue, through you, Mr. Speaker. "Speak to my colleague." The Japanese response was simple and to the point. They sent Phillips what is euphemistically referred to as a comfort letter - a Japanese pacifier. Can't you see him on the way back, on the plane, with his pacifier, trying to figure out what happened to him? He came back with a steam bath and a pacifier! Mr. Speaker, suffice it to say that the Minister of Economic Development was not exactly a success in Japan.

But he does come into the House, and in front of the Social Credit ladies today we saw a masterful performance. Can't you see the Social Credit group going away inspired by the Minister of Economic Development, who when asked in question period today: "Did you ever

[ Page 479 ]

give a commitment on continuing the Fort Nelson extension... ?" He gave a 15-minute extemporaneous re-routing of the question and the railroad. He was so clever today. While 1,500 jobs are hanging in the balance in the Fort Nelson area that minister wouldn't even state in this House what his position was on the Fort Nelson extension.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to go through the Grizzly Valley testimony and the famous "I don't recall" comments by that minister, but they are legion. That minister has a selective memory that knows no normal filtering process. A normal filtering process for a selective memory at least demands some consistency. He has a selective memory that has no consistency and runs blank when he is faced with what he has done.

I refer you to the Fort Nelson News. There is a front page story about their MLA, which I won't refer to, and a picture of the minister. Lord bless him, he's beautiful when he can't talk. There's a picture of the minister: he's going to speak tonight and tell all to the chamber of commerce in Fort Nelson. These are people who supported Social Credit, Mr. Speaker. These are people who waited for some leadership in the throne speech and the budget speech. These are people who sweated it out on the doorsteps to get Social Credit elected all over this province, including Vancouver South. And having done all that good, hard work and getting the MLAs elected, they asked him a few questions. I quote from the paper here, my dear friends, and you too, Mr. Speaker. I know you are totally interested in this particular problem being a railroad man yourself.

The mayor asked if the minister, the Hon. Mr. Phillips, would give some statement on the....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: The mayor's name is Shuck. The mayor is an NDPer. Yes, he's a very successful businessman lawyer and an NDPer. What do you think of that? If Mayor Schuck keeps it up, he's going to be a millionaire. We've got one too: old Cadbury is an NDPer, isn't he? The chocolate king is an NDPer.

HON. MR. MAIR: How about Emery?

MR. BARRETT: Is Emery a millionaire now? No, he's never bumped into any widow; he couldn't be a millionaire.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps we could relate this to the amendment.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the member for Dewdney on a point of order?

MR. MUSSALLEM: I request your indulgence that you may tell me how this is on the amendment. For the last half hour I have been trying to follow it through. Mr. Speaker, I wish you'd draw him back a little bit because we have lots of time for the budget debate. We should finish the amendment first.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, in speaking to your point of order, it's well taken. However, I must point out that I've been having difficulties with both sides of the House in getting them to relate to the motion. I have asked members to relate to it.

MR. BARRETT: For the edification of the member for Dewdney, before he makes that point of order, I would ask him to read the amendment. What particular section of the amendment does this not relate to? You haven't even read the amendment.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I can't hear you. Say it again.

MR. BARRETT: You weren't listening. how can he get up on a point of order, Mr. Speaker? But I don't want to embarrass him any further.

Here in this paper is a whole interview with the minister. He was asked, in terms of the economy and taxation for the north, about the Fort Nelson extension. In that interview they got just as much bafflegab.... I think that is parliamentarily permissible - bafflegab. It does not refer to Beauchesne or May; it refers to the minister in terms of his not answering questions from his constituents.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Split infinitive? Oh, I thought you were talking about schizophrenia.

That minister has not shown one move at all in terms of understanding the problems of international capital. That minister talks in clichés, homilies and other assorted English jargon that cannot be defined in terms of anything known to mankind up to this point.

I notice the light is on. That is a warning signal. I want to thank the members for their indulgence, because they have accepted my remarks so well, Mr. Speaker. Under standing orders I move: "That Motion 6 be amended by

[ Page 480 ]

adding after the words '$215 million' the following: 'and that no clear-cut commitment has been made to continue the operation of the B.C. Railway's Fort Nelson extension."'

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the amendment would appear to be in order.

MR. BARRETT: That is correct. Under standing orders, I have another 60 minutes to go.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just allow me to check that with the Clerk. Hon. member, you are actually allowed 40 minutes on the first amendment and, as a mover of a subamendment, you would be allowed 60 minutes. So another 20 minutes would actually be in order.

MR. BARRETT: No, I just started my discussion on the amendment now, so that's 60 minutes. I've used my 40 on the main amendment. I made a motion; I've got 60 minutes on the motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, hon. member, you are making one speech in which you are moving a motion and so the total of that speech would be 60 minutes.

MR. BARRETT: No, no, I haven't said a single word about the motion until the end of my 40 minutes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, it's an amendment to the motion, though.

MR. BARRETT: That's right, but I did not move it until the end. I could not decide when to do it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would refer you to our standing orders, page 17; subsection (i) would indicate 60 minutes. You advised us that you would be....

MR. BARRETT: Yes, but I did not become the mover until the end of my 40 minutes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm afraid that's not acceptable and we have about 20 minutes.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it says here in standing orders: "All other proceedings in the House not otherwise specifically provided for. Mover (except as otherwise provided in (ii) ) , 60 minutes." The motion is now on the floor and I'm entitled to my 60 minutes. That's what it says.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, hon. members, the ruling is not actually open to discussion and if you wish to challenge the Speaker's ruling....

MR. BARRETT: No, no, no. I would ask you, sir, to take it under a little more advisement before we establish a precedent in this House. When does the time start on a motion?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, the precedent has been established some time ago and the precedent is for 60 minutes.

MR. BARRETT: No. I didn't make the motion until now, so I have 60 minutes from the time I made the motion. It could have started last week. I wouldn't be allowed to speak if that was the case. I want the rules.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is common for motions to be made either at the beginning or at the end of a speech. In this case, the motion is in the middle of your speech and therefore we are assuming that 60 minutes is the time.

MR. BARRETT: No, no, it was at the end. The light was on.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, the light is not yet red. I presume because we are in the middle of a discussion, this is not running against your time. However, 60 minutes is the time for the mover and so you have another 20 minutes, after having already spoken 40 minutes to the amendment.

MR. BARRETT: Did I move the motion 40 minutes ago? No.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You advised the Chair at the start of your speech that you would be moving the motion and therefore 60 minutes is the time that is in order.

MR. BARRETT: I don't want to challenge your ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Another 20 minutes, then, please.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, I will accept your advice. However, I do not want this as a precedent. I would ask if you would refer this to your assistant and ask your assistant if he would concur with that interpretation. However, I will obey.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will bring that subject up with the Speaker in private. In the meantime, it is my ruling that you have

[ Page 481 ]

another 20 minutes on the subject.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I will not designate myself as the designated speaker as well. Could you inform me exactly how much time I have?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have now 20 minutes to go. We have wasted ... no, we haven't wasted; we have spent considerable time on this already and you now have 20 minutes to go.

MR. BARRETT: Would the House Leader accept an adjournment? (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak specifically to my subamendment about the railway. I think that we must understand, within a short period of time, why it was necessary for this subamendment to take place. I don't want to go into a great deal of history within 20 minutes but I want to make a couple of points that I think are absolutely essential for the understanding of every British Columbian.

We are essentially a resource economy. The major philosophical dispute that has existed in this House since 1897 has divided two forces: those who want to cut and run and exploit and the future be damned, and those who have said over the history of this province that they want rational planning to those resources with some public responsibility for the development of those resources. Roughly, that is in a nutshell the basic philosophical dispute that has taken place in this very chamber since 1897. We have had Liberals, Conservatives, Social Crediters, independents, independent socialists, independent labour, the CCF, the NDP and assorted other representatives. But in the final analysis, Mr. Speaker, our population has been confronted with basic decisions made in this chamber about resources: who is to develop them? How are they to be developed? Who is to get the benefit from them?

In the 1930s, an extremely progressive Liberal administration was elected under Premier Duff Pattullo. In that cabinet were some outstanding public persons, Mr. Weir and Mr. Pearson, who laid the foundation for our education and health services that to this day are a model throughout North America. It's true, Mr. Speaker, that various governments have come and gone. It's true that there have been significant improvements and, perhaps, some cutbacks. But in actual fact, our health and our educational services were spearheaded by that Liberal administration in the 1930s.

During that period in the 1930s, there was the perennial question that has always been a source of debate in this House, as to who's going to pay for the services. We were in the midst of a depression and a brand new approach to economic development, spawned in action rather than theory, in this chamber. The government 'of the day made a move to open the north by doing some oil drilling and gas drilling of its own.

The first Premier of this province to take one of the resources under public control was Premier Robson, when he took all the lands of, British Columbia under public control and established public control of 97 per cent of the forest resources of this province. The Premier who moved into non-renewable resources was Pattullo. In both instances, Mr. Speaker, the vision for the development of those resources was cheap, efficient transportation routes into and out of the resources.

We have had a catalogue of history of development of highways, railroads and maritime services to develop and serve communities and the resources that those communities depended upon.

In the great period of the 1950s, the Premier of this province was W.A.C. Bennett. W.A.C. Bennett can probably be best described as the last of the great North American boomers. Everything was a vision for W.A.C. Even when he was awake he had visions. Mr. Speaker, the man dealt in grandiose visions. At one point he was going to have a monorail down the Rocky Mountain trench. My dear friend, the former member for Omineca (Mr. Shelford) , who is now retiring, will remember those Rocky Mountain trench debates and remember the statement made by Ran Harding that the only monorail Ran Harding ever saw in this province was the one coming out of the back of the barn. Nonetheless, in the same spirit, that debate went on.

But behind every one of these Premiers, and behind every one of these governments -outside of their style - was a driving impetus to have rational transportation services in this province to see that those resources were a source of income, security, employment and development for British Columbian citizens. Great debates raged over the method of financing those transportation routes. Great debates took place in this chamber right up to the defeat of the W.A.C. Bennett administration. At no time in the history of this province was any government ever willing not to commit itself to the rational transportation development of the north.

The debates that took place in this House between the CCF-NDP and W.A.C. Bennett were not over the objective of the railway, they were over the methods. That was the only dividing line that existed in this chamber

[ Page 482 ]

over the development of the British Columbia Railway. At no time would any single MIA in this House contemplate closing down any part of B.C. Rail, Mr. Speaker, and those decisions were all political. Politicians were made of the stuff, the guts, the desire and the ability to stand up and say they would be responsible to the electorate over the decisions they made when they had the mandate to make those decisions on behalf of the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker, what has motivated this amendment is that for the first time in the history of this province we are faced with a government that does not have the guts to continue transportation resource development in this province. We have a government, at a time when the economy is turned down, handed a royal commission report, which it kept hidden for 90 days, saying: "Close down the Fort Nelson extension." This government has left hundreds of people dangling, their security evaporating in the air, business investment falling off, no confidence, no hope, and that indecisive group of bureaucrats over there can't make up its mind.

The worst thing I can say about this government, Mr. Speaker, is that since its election it has become a bureaucrat's dream. They are committing themselves to death. They are commissioning themselves to death, and they have a stranglehold on the lifelines of the northern communities of this province. Those people have been waiting up there for three months for some answer from this government, and for the first time in the history of this province we have a gutless government that won't say: "Yes, we are committed to the north. Yes, we will keep those rail lines open. Yes, we will keep that investment going. Yes, we will have those jobs."

I demand, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of the northeastern section of this province whose very livelihood is at stake because of the timidity and the stupidity of this government, that an answer be given simply to the question: is this government committed to the continued development of the Fort Nelson and the Peace River areas, or is it not?

Where are the spokespersons in terms of democratically elected MLAs in this House standing up and fighting for those areas? The member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) stated his position. Good. Now he's got a chance to vote on that position. The member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) today refused to answer questions, Mr. Speaker, about the continuation of the railroad that in effect has a basic economic lifeblood thrust in his own community. They don't vote NDP up there; they're the last of the boomers - the booming philosophy that was espoused best by W.A.C. Bennett. Now those boomers are left by a bunch of bureaucratic bunglers over in the government benches to wonder from day to day where their future lies.

Mr. Speaker, I have never agreed with the greed philosophy of private capitalist enterprise; I have never agreed with the greed philosophy of grab what you can, cut and run. I have never agreed that the resources were only defined for a special private few. But, Mr. Speaker, we have inherited a tradition of gradualism in developing those resources on a basis of fair shares, fair opportunity. But we have never ever been faced by a government that says there's no chance for anybody.

I have never felt more disappointed or upset or concerned about a gutless government than I do today. This government is gutless. It should support this motion or it should resign, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the word "gutless, " pursuant to the rules of the house.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I'm afraid I cannot ask him to withdraw that unless it's an attack on a person. He said "government, " which ref ers to a body of people. While the word may be unparliamentary, I cannot ask him to withdraw it.

MR. LEVI: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me echo my colleague's last statement that the government is, in fact, gutless. It is gutless and w're hoping that with this subamendment we'll be able to sort out those people who have some principle and those who don't in respect to what's going to happen in the development of this railroad. We would expect that every member of this House will take part in the vote because it doesn't just affect the people in the north. I represent a riding in an urban area and we are just as concerned about what is going to happen to the development of that railroad up there as anybody else up there. We don't have as much at stake, but in terms of being a province we obviously do have a lot at stake because the future economic development of this province is tied closely with the development of the northeast, and the northeast development is tied so closely to the continuing development of the railroad that we can't escape our duty today when it comes to a vote on this

[ Page 483 ]

amendment. Everybody stand up and be counted -the member for North Peace and the member for South Peace and the member for Atlin and all of those people who are concerned about the north and who live in the north and represent those people, and all of the other members in this House.

What is interesting is that when the commission went to work - and it was doing its work - we were faced with the situation where the Premier of this province was going around, talking in the north about what he thought about the railroad. And I would like to point out for your own benefit, Mr. Speaker, a newspaper, the Fort Nelson News. It's dated November 30,1977, and it's headlined: "Fort Nelson Line Will Stay. Feel Positive -Bennett." That's what he said November 30,1977: "Fort Nelson Line Will Stay. Feel Positive - Bennett."

I'm going to quote from this. That's okay when he's up there; it wasn't down here when the report was released. All we've heard are a few mumblings from him. But this is what he said when he was up north:

" 'I am committed to the people of the north of the province who depend on their transportation system to build their economy, and we will not abandon the very vehicle that built the prosperity of B.C. in the 1960s, ' Premier Bennett said, speaking at the Social Credit convention Friday. Later he assured John Piety, a delegate, that the government would not allow the Fort Nelson line to close." Now he was on the hook. He was in front of all of the sacred and the converted, that massive grouping that appears at the convention, and that's what he said. "I am committed to the people of the north of the province who depend on the transportation system to build their economy and we will not abandon the very vehicle...."

MR. BARRETT: Same as Railwest.

MR. LEVI: And here we are. So we have a report that's released and the recommendation, a firm recommendation, is that it has to go. It's too expensive - that's their decision.

It has nothing to do with the lives of people, has nothing to do with the individual. The mill owner, when it burnt down, went around and hustled some $15 million of capital investment to rebuild the mill. Where does he stand today? Where do the people who are employed in the mill stand today? What possible investment can take place in the north, with that kind of death knell hanging over its head? And yet we haven't heard from the government what it is going to do. It has not demonstrated any options whatsoever.

We heard this afternoon from the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) about how they're planning and planning and are going to create employment. The only employment he's created so far - even in respect to the northeast - is the employment of consultants who are doing reports and reports and reports. He had an opportunity, when he became the minister, to look at the report on the northeast of 1975, which was produced by the previous government under the DREE agreement. It was adequate; it was a non-partisan document; it was done by a bunch of professional people; but he chose to disregard that.

Now what are going to be the options for the people in the north if this railroad doesn't exist? We haven't heard from the former Premier of the province, W.A.C. Bennett, who has more vision in his little finger than that whole cabinet has; and he still has, in respect to the development of the north. The vision over there, in terms of the government, only went as far as their one big bundle -what we're going to do in terms of development of northeast coal - and when that didn't pay off, they abandoned it, wrapped it up. They said: "Let's forget about it; we'll go look somewhere else."

You know, it's the kind of psychology that we have even from the Minister of Forests (Ron. Mr. Waterland) , who goes over to Korea and suddenly becomes enamoured of their economy. They are prepared to discuss, and to criticize, and to make observations about every economy in the world, but not the one in British Columbia. They have no plans; they have no idea what they are doing. They are experts on every province except this one.

Up there, 2,800 jobs are going to go down the tube because this government is gutless and hasn't been able to come up with one option. They originally prided themselves that they understood the business community, that they understood the essence of confidence. Now they admit - f rom the kind of thing that went on last week in this province, when they have a commission that was given a great deal of kudos by the Premier himself - that they don't know what to do about the railroad, so they gave it to the commission. While the commission was working, he went up, at the end of November, 1977 - even before the commission had reported - and he said: "We are not going to abandon the railroad." They knew by January what the report was going to say. You would have thought, having known what the report was going to say in January, that over the past

[ Page 484 ]

three months they would have come up with some options.

Now we hear from the government that they are going to do some more studies. So the whole of the economy in the north has every chance of collapsing.

You know, we might get into this debate, Mr. Speaker, the member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) , because the other day he had something to say about the railroad. He was very serious and very upset. He went on the record, way back in 1975. When he was campaigning, he took out a very large advertisement - on December 10, the day before election day, 1975 - one of the things that he said was that he supports a high priority for the British Columbia Railway in regard to northern development. He campaigned with the Premier on that same issue. That was the basis on which he was to come down to this House, regardless of whether his party was going to be the government or whether it was going to go back into opposition. He was going to be down here, and he was going to be committed to the idea that there would be a high priority for the British Columbia Railway in regard to northern development.

He will have his opportunity to stand up in this debate and tell us exactly what it is he's going to recommend to the government. I can say this, Mr. Speaker, that when this vote is taken - when everybody stands in his place and it is eventually registered in the Journals - the members on this side of the House are going to go around to every town and village in this province, and particularly in the north, and read out the names of those people who voted for or against the amendment. We will say that we didn't hear very much from the government; we didn't hear very much from the ministers. All we have is a catalogue in respect to the budget. What we're more interested in is hearing exactly what is it they are going to do.

There is a plea coming from the north and it is: don't give up the north; don't abandon it. And who's listening? Is anybody in that government listening to what those people are saying up there? Because to the catalogue of closures, to the destruction of jobs that has taken place in the two and a half years they have been the government, they have now added the destruction of the north. They are going to destroy more jobs in one fell swoop in respect to the north than all of the jobs that they have caused to be lost in this province since they came in: well over 5 , 000 to 6,000 jobs. Up there, it's going to be endless, in terms of the kind of devastation that this policy is going to create.

(Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Now we have to ask this question: is the government going to listen to the commission? That's what it's all about now. We're not interested in the final report of the commission. In respect to the north there's got to be a commitment by the government now exactly where it stands. Sooner or later we're going to have to deal with the Dease Lake extension, but right now what we want from the government is what you are going to do about the north. That's what's got to take place in this debate, because sooner or later, if it's not in this debate, it's going to be in every ministers estimates in respect to what is going to happen to the future of the BCR in the north.

It's remarkable. We have a Premier who goes along with his various colleagues and he goes up to Alaska. He meets with the government there and they talk about - because they're part of the DREE - a northwest network of roads, of rail, of development in Alaska. A B.C.-Alaska rail study is revealed. This is in the Vancouver Sun, on January 24,1978, in an article by Moira Farrow: place - Whitehorse. What does it say? "A possible rail link between B.C., the Yukon and Alaska has been studied for more than a year by a joint committee of the three governments, Premier Bennett revealed on Monday." There's some more planning. But this doesn't just involve this province, this involves the Yukon and it involves Alaska. So what's going to happen to all this energy, all of this planning, all of the looking into the future about what it can be like in the north, if we now have the commission that the Premier was so dependent on saying we should shut it all down because it's too expensive?

Has he been in touch? Has the government been in touch with the governor of Alaska? Have they said to them: "Yes, we have a serious problem. The commission has recommended that it's got to be closed down."? Has he said to them: "We do not want to close it down. Let's keep on with the studies. We now have a better understanding of what the railroad is all about."? Has any of that taken place? Has he discussed with the commissioner in the Yukon exactly what's going on? Has he discussed it with the Minister of Transport in Ottawa in terms of the federal involvement in the development of the northwest transportation - not just the northwest, all across the north, across all of Canada? That's part of that whole network. Has that taken place? The kind of damage that's going to flow from the decision that came out of that

[ Page 485 ]

commission is not just going to touch the northeast, it's going to affect the Yukon, it's going to affect Alaska, it's going to affect Alberta. So what is the policy of the government?

The policy of the government started out as being: "It's too expensive." For all the years that the government existed, and that the BCR existed, and under the previous government when we were given reports about the cost of this railroad and how badly it was built.... Anybody could see that it was going to cost money to upgrade the track, to do some extension. Even Premier W.A.C. Bennett saw that. We saw that and we continued with it. It was under us as government that we revealed the terrible kinds of problem that existed because of the sloppy kind of engineering that had been permitted.

They talk about cost. Their answer to that kind of thing is: "Well, we can't upgrade it, so we'll close it down." Well, the decision is going to have to be made - and not just over the next one or two years - in terms of where you're going to stand. When the election comes, whether you've got a balanced budget or not, or whether you're going to bury this province in this philosophy that if the bottom-line doesn't work, nothing can move.... Because if that's what you're going to do, nothing will move in the northeast - nothing at all.

What was the reason for the commission? There were a number of reasons: partly MEL Paving, partly the problem of the operating costs, partly the problems of the management. But the commission's job also was to view the future, and they've come down loud and clear. I don't know whether that is a disappointment to the government, because given their bottom-line thinking, after all, they won't have to provide a $60 million subsidy. This is the government that's wedded to the idea that you've got to pay as you go. They don't want to supply a subsidy down on the coast here either for the B.C. Hydro transit service. All of a sudden they want to wiggle out of all of the obligations and say to the people: "Pay as you go."

Well, this is not just the simple problem of talking about buses in Vancouver. The continuation of the BCR in the north is intimately tied to the future of economic development in this province. It's going to cost money, and it's going to cost lots of money. I say this to you, Mr. Speaker. If they are prepared to develop organizations like the B.C. Buildings Corporation, which is going to float an incredible amount of debentures in order to operate - and that's fine because that's the way to go; you don't take it out of your operating money; that's a good way to go - you've got to do it with the BCR, because the BGR is part of the future. We are prepared to mortgage part of our future because that's how you create development. That's been the history of this province in terms of the development in the north. The people have been prepared to mortgage their future.

MR. LOEWEN: You gave it away.

MR. LEVI: I gave it away; I mortgaged the future. Mr. Member, you're going to have an opportunity to get up and tell us exactly where you stand on that report. Don't disappoint us.

You know, the interesting thing is, Mr. Speaker, that during the hearings in the commission in respect particularly to the Fort Nelson rail extension and there was a lot of discussion about that a lot of it revolved around the business of costs. Well, w- know it's costly to try and develop a railroad in the north. We know that. But it has to be part of a vision. What do you need the railroad for? What is it part of in terms of an economic structure?

But as I said before, all they wanted to do was to look at how they could balance the books. All right, they now have not an economic decision to make in the quietness of the cabinet; they now have a political decision to make. Whether they will include the member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) or the member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) or the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) , we don't know. But they're going to sit down. They're going to tote up all the number of seats they've got, and they're going to say: "Can we get away with it? Can we actually get away with the possibility of voting down the Fort Nelson extension and still retain seats in the north and continue as government?"

They have another option. They don't have to worry about three or four seats up north. They can get the man - what's his name, Eckardt -to redraw the boundaries and create one seat so if they get hammered they're going to lose just one seat and not four or five. So they've got another option. But that's a political option in terms of being opportunistic, in terms of wanting to get re-elected.

But then there's the other option: the principled option of what is going to happen to the economic future of this province. So the decision that they have to make has to be related to what is going to happen in terms of the continuation of the BCR.

You know, Mr. Speaker, what must it be like

[ Page 486 ]

right now in Fort St. John and Fort Nelson, for people who are going to work, for people who live the true pioneering life up there, with the tough weather and the high prices and the hard kind of work that they have to do? Nobody from the government has reassured them of anything. We haven't even had a statement from the government other than from the Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , who mumbled something in the hallway, and that's it. But that was presumably because the Premier wasn't here. He’s been back. He’s known about this since it happened, because I presume the government operates like all sensible governments and phones up and says to the Premier: "Are you there? Are you in Yorkton?" And he says: "Yes." He says: "Well, we've released the report. That was what you wanted, but you're going to be asked something." So they've had three or four days to think of an answer. But what we're probably going to get from that government is now three or four weeks, or perhaps three or four months, of dithering around about exactly what they are going to do.

In the meanwhile, development in the north is going to come to a halt, because what sane investor is going to put money in the north when there is every possibility, because of the way this government behaves, that the railroad is going to close down and the economy will collapse? There is an extreme degree of callousness with the way this whole thing was done, because if it’s a question that you have to wait until some propitious time when you want to release the report, at least when you release the report, if it's a problem for the people living in an area when the recommendation is that it close down, then what the government has to do is not say, We're going to study it now to see whether we are going to agree with the report, " but to be ready at the time the report is released to say: "We do, or we do not, agree with it. If we do not agree with it, these are the options; and if we do agree with it, this is the way we are going to rebuild the north."

Now we’ve had no commitment this afternoon. We heard a rambling discussion by the Minister of Economic Development (Minister of Economic Development) . He was asked this afternoon, on a number of occasions, what his commitment was in respect to the BCR. He wouldn't even answer the question a couple of weeks ago when he was up north about what's happening to the BCR. And he has not answered it today. If any minister is intimately concerned with the operations and future of that north, it's got to be that minister. He represents one of the seats up there. He's the minister who is responsible for economic development. He's the minister, as he's often said himself, who has to go out and sell British Columbia to the investors. Well, I don't know if he's planning to go away next week, say, to eastern Canada or to the United States, or to Spain or some other exotic place, to say to them: "We're very keen that you should come and invest in our province. We have excellent resources; we are looking for capital." And somebody will say to him: "What about the northeast?" And he'll probably say to them: "Well, what about the northeast?" And some economist is likely to say to him: "We've heard you're going to close down the railroad."

Now what kind of statement is he going to be able to make to them? Is he going to be able to say to them: "Continue to come; it's just the royal commission report; regardless of that, we're going to go ahead with it."? Is that what he's going to say? Is that what he's saying to people who phone him f rom all over North America? He came into the House a couple of weeks ago and told us that in terms of investment and business development he had 1,700 inquiries, and I'm sure that when people were making those inquiries, the department was talking about the north, because that's where there's a lot of future.

What was he doing? Was he kidding people when he was saying to them: "We have a north, we have coal, we have resources, we have a resource railroad called the BCR."? Was he telling all of these things to encourage them to invest?

What kind of phone calls is he getting now? What are they saying? So far we've had nothing from the government to offset what really must be, in terms of people who have made some commitments in terms of investment in the northeast, absolute panic about what is going to happen to their investment. With the indifference that they have shown, they should know how difficult it is and how long it takes to do the kind of planning to make the kind of investment that you need up north.

Overnight, all of that has been smashed. That's from the investment side. But what has been smashed on the other side, on the human side, the individual side - the people who live up there, the families, the schools? We heard last week about the rebuilding of a plant. We heard about the extension of schools. We've heard about housing projects. We heard about the hospital. What's going to happen? Is it going to wind up like Houston wound up seven years ago with a great plan that they had for the mill? The member from Houston shakes his head, Mr. Speaker, but I can tell you that that's what is going to

[ Page 487 ]

happen to the north. We're going to have a second Houston because they are incapable of coming to grips with what the problems are.

That member stood up in this House many times and told us about all of the facilities they have and that they don't have enough people. Well, that's going to be a repetition up in the north. We're going to have all sorts of schools and hospitals and facilities that are not going to be used because people are going to have to get out of the north. They're going to get out of the north as a result of the behaviour of this government in terms of its inability to do any kind of economic planning at all up there. They show absolutely no consideration about what happens to people's lives up there.

I wouldn't like to be the first cabinet minister - and I hope it's the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) - to go up there and to start answering some questions and start saying to people: "Yes, unfortunately we have to balance the books and we're going to close the railroad down. It's too bad that there's going to be 2,800 or 3,000 jobs lost, but what you should do is just go down south and join the unemployment line." That's what you should say.

I was hoping that that minister, just for his own benefit, would be able to stand up sometime during the course of this budget debate and tell us in respect to the northeast how many jobs he's created. And do you know what? He may have been going to do that today. He caught his second wind after Friday, came in on Monday and had his research people give him a pile of stuff. Actually, they didn't give him a pile of stuff; what they simply did was to reprint some of his old speeches. I mean, that's the way he does research. He came in here, and I thought: "My gosh! he's going to make a statement. He's going to tell us exactly how many jobs he's created in the north." But how could he, Mr. Speaker, come into the House and say to us "I created these jobs."? But he didn't. What he had to come in and say was to avoid the reality of what's going on up there, because he is the architect of the destruction of over 2,000 jobs in this province, plus all of the jobs that go to the support services up there. We will not know what kind of damage that government and that minister has done as a result of what they've done to the BCR.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Yes. And he hires consultants. He gave us a long diatribe on what he is doing. "We're studying." They must have the largest microscopes in north America, Mr. Speaker; they've been studying the economy for two and a half years. And while he's been bent aver the laboratory table looking through the microscope, the Premier has been cutting the ground from under him, because it was the Premier's idea. You know, we had all the problems in the House over a year ago about the BCR, about the MEL Paving, and what was going on at the Dease Lake, so they got the brilliant idea - it was the Premier's idea. We've got to stop the opposition from getting at us, so we'll call a royal commission. You know, part of the reason for the royal commission was to cut us off from bringing out the facts in this House.

Okay, so we agreed to sit back and we waited; we waited for the report. The commission worked hard, traveled all over the province wherever the line went, and spent some time in the north. They had people appearing before them who were saying that there is no way that this railroad can be discontinued, no way whatsoever, because it can be a great economic catastrophe for the province. There were people not only from the north but from the south who were talking about it. The people from the south were saying it's got to be continued because of the investment possibilities and also because of future development.

Now, we had for this afternoon from the minister an incredible discussion about steel which really had nothing to do.... All he did was to read from Maclean's magazine and a Stanford University report. He kept quoting large amounts of steel. First he talked about long tonne steel, then he talked about metric steel, and he talked about all the resources and the minerals that we have.

Well, there were people who went before the royal commission, Mr. Speaker, in May of 1977, and they talked about the gold and the minerals that were in the north. They said that there was possibly a $3 billion gross over 15 years for the possibility of mineral extraction which was tied distinctly to the continuing development of the railroad.

He was the one who talked about it, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon when he talked about our mineral industry. Yet he either didn't know - I think he did know - or he has forgotten, and I doubt that, although he has a memory that probably wouldn't remember what he's forgotten.

Here we had a group of people who went before the commission in May of last year and they talked about the future development of the railroad as being essential to the continued development of the mining industry

[ Page 488 ]

in this province. After all, in their brief they weren't talking about the future development of copper or molybdenum, they were talking about other kinds of mining, because with copper the market is depressed. They were talking about gold, they were talking about silver and they were talking about copper, but there was a mix. And they insisted that the rail link was absolutely essential to the tapping of these minerals, which estimated at a value of $3 billion. That $3 billion is almost three-quarters of this year's budget, and that kind of investment in the province, that generating of capital within the economy, will have gone because of the decision by the commissioners to recommend to the government that the railroad be stopped immediately.

Now what kind of assessment goes into such a decision? Surely when the commissioners sit down and they have before then all of the evidence.... Apparently the evidence interests the Premier. He's quoted as saying somewhere that he wants to now have an opportunity to go through all of the evidence that the ministers had available so he can look at it and see whether they made the right decision, presumably. So he's going to do, presumably, in less time than it's taken all of these three commissioners to do - and that commission has been going over a year now.... He's going to make some decision on the validity of their decision, based on going through all the evidence. Now that, Mr. Speaker, defies common sense, if I ever heard anything. He set up the commission; he asked them to look at it. Now he has to accept the decision or reject it, but what he said is, he's going to evaluate everything.

Now on the basis of the work that they did, unless he's a John Kennedy-type speed-reader, we're not likely to get a decision out of the Premier for the next two years. In fact, we might not get a decision out of him until after the next election. But he's not going to be able to sustain that kind of pressure, because the people in the north aren't going to be prepared to have the Premier sitting around, bending aver the books and the evidence and playing lawyer and judge and commissioner, on something which he has paid well over $1 million for already and then suddenly he comes to the decision that, no, they're wrong and we're not going to discontinue the Fort Nelson extension.

I've never heard anything like it in my life: he's going to evaluate all the information that was put before the commissioner. That's in contradistinction with what he said in November, 1977, when he when was talking to the Social Credit convention and he promised them that the government would not abandon the railroad in the north. He sounds like a man in a whirlpool and his head is under water. He doesn't know what to say.

What was he trying to do when he set up the commission? Put off a lot of pressure that he was getting from the opposition? Or didn't he want to face the reality? Was this all part of that real, hard, lean look that the government wants to give about how it manages things? If this is part of that hard, lean, hungry look about how you manage finances, then they've got themselves in one heck of a pickle. We're not just talking now about programmes in health or human resources, we're talking about a significant part of the economic structure of this province. So what he set out to do in order to gain time has not succeeded. Time has caught up with that government and with that Premier. He doesn't have time to sit around ruminating on the evidence. The only thing he's got to do is make a decision. If he thinks he can make a decision other than the obvious one that has to be made...

HON MR. MAIR: Haw do you ruminate?

MR. LEVI: You can ruminate and you can ruminate . It really depends whether you come from Vancouver-Burrard or whether you come from Kamloops. You ruminate. When you ruminate it becomes rumination. How's that for a bit of etymology?

Earlier I made reference to the BGR being part of that whole transportation network that has been envisioned for some years in the north. I made reference to the B.C.-Alaska rail study that's going on.

Now somewhere in the debate the Premier, as the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, is going to have to tell us exactly what is taking place now. What is the status of those kinds of agreements that have been made in terms of the study? If, in fact, no discussions have been had and no contact has been made with any of the governments of the people involved in the studies, then one has to also wonder what is going to be the effect on those economies outside of British Columbia. It may very well be that the Premier will take the position that he has no responsibilities for those economies. Well, up to now, he has been taking responsibilities and studying all economies except ours.

I would hope that we are going to hear from him, because he has taken on the dual portfolio. I'm amazed, actually, in view of the knowledge that he had about the tabling of the report, that when he fired the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications he would

[ Page 489 ]

be insane enough to take on the portfolio himself. One would have thought at least, true to the way he operates, he would have dumped it on somebody else and maybe given it to the people he likes most, like the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Human Resources. But why take it upon yourself? Why, actually, add insult to injury and carry the burden and become the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications? Why? Now that he's got it, he's going to have to speak out of both sides of his mouth. One day he's going to have to talk like the Premier and the next time he's going to have to talk like the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications if he believes, in terms of the policy of that department, which was enunciated by the former minister, we are really in trouble. Not only is he saddled with the commission report but he is also saddled with the report that the former minister kind of hid away and kept away from the commission and finally was ordered to produce for the commission on what was going on up there.

Who's got it? Now we have, Mr. Speaker, the two-headed minister: the First Minister and the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. The only advantage for the opposition in terms of this is that when we start levelling questions at the minister, he's going to not be able to separate the policy maker from the departmental administrator. It may very well be, Mr. Speaker, that when we ask him questions about the north, we can say: "Will the Premier tell us what the government's proposals are on the continuation of the BCR in the north?" he will probably turn around and say: "I'll discuss it with the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications and I'll come back to the House."

MR. COCKE: He's the designated speaker.

MR. LEVI: That means I will be here until Thursday morning.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does that mean you are anointed or appointed?

MR. LEVI: I'm anointed. Rosemary's going to give me a few pointers on how to stand up and filibuster and now you're going to have it. Now I'm going to whip my lungs just like old Leatherlungs over there.

MR. SPEAKER: As long as the debate is relevant, there will be no objection.

MR. LEVI: Just a request, Mr. Speaker, that you remind me to actually say it - well, I don't have to second the motion now. Thank you very much.

Going back now, Mr. Speaker, to the double load that the Premier is carrying, he's not only the Premier, the head of the government, the person who really has to make the final decisions because he invariably goes back to the Premier. 1 don't want anybody to get any ideas, Mr. Speaker, that because we have the coalition government over there, they have some special way of arriving at decisions. They don't. In the final analysis, the way things work over there is that the Premier makes all the decisions anyway.

When it comes to the issue of transport, the whole business of communications and the development in the north, the Premier's going to be in the position to talk to himself. But then he's going to have other people who will be talking to him. I would hope that those backbenchers over there who are going to be affected immediately by this decision - and their constituents are going to be immediately affected - have already spoken to him.

Now he's not the easiest guy to get to, 1 understand. You know, he's invariably traveling, and he doesn't see too many people. But those people have got to knock on his door and they've got to say: "What are going to be the decisions about the north? We don't want to hear any more about the bottom line, because we can't go up to the people in the north and say to them that the bottom line is where it's all at." And when people say to them, 'Well, what about our jobs?", the member for North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the member for South Peace River (Mr. Smith) are going to say in a very quiet voice: "Well, we've been told by the Premier to tell you that if we can't balance the books, you can't exist. You'll simply have to go out of existence." Mr. Speaker, if any of those members lay back on this issue, it's going to be a very serious problem for them politically.

Then there's the whole issue of principle, and there is an issue of principle here, because we've had members who've campaigned not only during the election, but after the election. Whenever they go up north they campaign about how they are going to see that the rights and the future of the north are attended to, because it's a commitment.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make reference to a statement that the member for North Peace River made. Now 1 know that we have to be very careful when we talk about this government, because one cannot be frivolous when you talk about money. We're not talking

[ Page 490 ]

now about the $60 million that the millionaires get away with, because that isn't frivolity. That was something entirely different.

The member for North Peace River in December was talking up north, and it says here in the Fort Nelson News: "Ed Smith, MIA, who has been behind the retention of the line from the beginning...." That's to his credit. He was doing an MLA's job; he was behind the line. "Ed Smith, MLA, who has been behind the retention of the line from the beginning and has called the commission negative in their questioning" - and this was before we got the report down - "said he was in favour of British Columbia Rail going right ahead, upgrading the line to bring the rail up to first-class branch line standard."

Then he is quoted as saying: "So what if it costs $35 million to relocate a section of the line that was obviously poorly located in the first place? It must be rebuilt." Ed Smith said in an interview: "We put millions of dollars into subsidies for other types of transportation and communication systems each year, and everyone accepts it as necessary. It's the price we must pay in order to have communications." My God, this guy talks like a socialist!

I'm going to read it again. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that some of those people back there who have wax in their ears weren't paying attention. I know the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) was paying attention because he's looking right at me, and his eyes are open, his ears are extended and he's in a receptive mood. So we're going to quote it again: "Ed Smith, MLA, has been behind the retention of the rail line from the beginning, and has called the commission negative in their questioning. He was in favour of the B.C. Rail going right ahead and upgrading the line to bring the rail up to first-class branch line standards."

And then he goes on to say: "Well, so what if it costs $35 million to relocate a section of the line that was obviously poorly located in the first place?" Thirty-five million, Mr. Speaker. Why, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) could have collected all of that and another $25 million more from the succession duties. So we can say this. If a part of the decision is to abandon that line, we could put some of the blame squarely on that government for letting the millionaires off $35 million. And the member for the north said: "So what if it costs $35 million to relocate a section of the line that was obviously poorly located in the first place?" And we had that kind of problem that we went through when we were government, with all of the engineering reports to see the way it was built.

Ed Smith said in an interview: "We put millions of dollars into subsidies in the other types of transportation and communications systems each year, and everyone accepts that it's necessary. It's part of the price we must pay in order to have communications." He goes on to say that the rail line from Fort Nelson to Fort St. John is part and parcel of that transportation system. It's an operating part, and it's certainly providing a service.

Speaking of revenues, he said: "Sulphur would itself provide between $1.5 and $2 million a year in revenue." The total figures estimated for the revenue by the B.C. Rail in their submission to the royal commission in Fort Nelson gave the facts of the loss of revenue that's going to take place. In addition, he said: "There is every reason to believe that there will be an increase in the freight from Tackama when it begins operation again in six months' time." He goes on further: "I would like to pursue a positive approach now, not concentrate on the negative aspects that have been publicized so widely." Smith said: "It was often forgotten that the Alaska highway was constantly being rebuilt. We seldom miss a year when some portion of it is not closed by washouts, and this is a fact of life that we live with as part of the province."

And that's what we have to understand about this, Mr. Speaker - that those of us who are down here, who are not from the north, who only occasionally go into it, have to try and develop the kind of understanding about the north on the basis of the people who live up there. That's got to be our frame of reference, not being down here, living what people up north characterize sometimes as the "soft life." We've got to see it through their eyes and their children's eyes and see the kind of plans that they have for the future. We must understand clearly what it is that these people are contributing to up there -not just the people who work but the people who do the investment; the people who have visions about the building.

Mr. Speaker, I can't miss the opportunity of just going back over something that I said earlier because I see that the two-headed minister is back in the chamber, the Premier and the Minister of Transport and Communications, all rolled in one. If he would just turn his eyes this way for one second, I will hold up the Fort Nelson News dated November 30. It says: "Fort Nelson Line Will

[ Page 491 ]

Stay. Feel Positive - Bennett." Lie goes on -it's somewhat repetitious, but we've got to reinforce it, Mr. Speaker - "I am committed to the people of the north of the province who depend on that transportation system to build their economy, and we will not abandon the very vehicle that built the prosperity of B.C. in the 1960s." That was Premier Bennett. But he was not speaking to the chamber of commerce up in Fort Nelson, he was speaking to the converted and whoever else goes to the Social Credit convention. He was saying that to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: To thousands.

MR. LEVI: To thousands, yes. Everybody will attest to what the Premier said: "We will not abandon it."

So he takes a trip to Yorkton, and he says to his Deputy Premier: "When I'm out of the province, drop it." He heard the clang all the way back to Yorkton, a clang that is really reverberating. You're going to have a chance to get into this debate because, Mr. Speaker, we want him on the record, in the Journals, so that we can go around and say: "This is where your Premier stands; this is where your Attorney-General stands, from that great constituency of Point Grey."

You know, it's difficult for me to admit it, but he's my MLA. He is actually my MIA; and when I get him outside, I'm going to punch him up.

Garde, would you accept an adjournment? I second the subamendment and I would like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. McClelland on behalf of Hon. Mr. McGeer files the 106th annual report of the Ministry of Education, 1976-77.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

[ Page 492 ]

ERRATUM

THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS WERE INADVERTENTLY OMITTED FROM THE HANSARD REPORT OF WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5,1978, AFTERNOON SITTING.

THE MISSING PORTION, PART OF THE SPEECH OF THE RON. MEMBER FOR BURNABY WILLINGDON, E.N. VEITCH, PROPERLY BELONGS AT PAGE 169, LEFT-HAND COLUMN, AFTER LINE 10 WHICH READS: "I'M NOT SURE THAT'S TRUE."

She's still working at tier job. The other night when Mr. Speaker was out to a function and they were driving home in the car, she said, "Darling, did 1 ever tell you that you are handsome and witty and vivacious and j us t a regular devil with the ladies?"

He said, "No, dear, you never did."

She said, "How in the devil did you get that idea at the party?" (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I also want to add my compliments to his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor for the wonderful speech that he gave from the throne. As I saw him there, my mind went back to last summer when I was with his boss, the Queen of Canada in Wembley Stadium. I sat with Her Majesty in the royal box. At that time Wembley Stadium was honouring her with a musical pageant. Wembley Stadium, as you know, sir, holds approximately 100,000 and at this time there were only 80,000 in the stadium due to the fact that they had a 2,000-piece band on the floor of the stadium.

They sang two songs at that particular meeting and one of them, of course, was "God Save the Queen" and the other was 'Sless This House." 1 looked over at Her Majesty and I saw the tears run down her face, and 1 saw the person, that human person who continually blesses this House and this Legislature and this country that we call Canada and this place that we call the Commonwealth of Nations.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the former speaker, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke, speak about all of the problems that we are having in British Columbia. I just got this clipping a few moments ago and it is from today's Victoria Times. The sub-headline is "Tourist Flood Begins Rolling Into City." If I may read it, Mr. Speaker, it is by Al Forrest, the Times staff reporter. It says:

"Tourists continue to pour into the city and local officials are beginning to wonder what they are going to do with them all.

"Hotels, restaurants and motels reported business up 25 per cent from the same time last year...."

If this is superimposed upon the rest of this province, Mr. Speaker, can you imagine what 25 per cent will do to a billion-dollar industry? Do you know what that means in terms of goods and services and jobs for people? The person we have to thank for this is right over there, the Minister of Travel Industry (Mrs. McCarthy) . British Columbia owes her a great deal.