[ Page 947 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply; Executive Council estimates.

On vote 5.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 947

Mr. Barrett –– 953

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 962

Mr. Barrett –– 964

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 965

Mr. Barrett –– 966

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 968

Mr. Barrett ... 968

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, before calling vote 5, 1 would just indicate to the House that as is the usual custom and practice we have two votes here: the executive council vote and the office of the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. I take it that it is the understanding and agreement of the House that we will deal with the two votes under this.

On vote 5: executive council, $753,760.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few opening remarks on my salary vote on both Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications and on the executive council. That would be to say that during these past two years Canada has faced'and faces now the most difficult economic time since World War II. On the political side Canada faces some of the most difficult times since its early formation. I am referring, of course, to the country's problem with the threat of separation by the government of Quebec, and the debate that surrounds their stated objective to take their part of the country into a separate political sphere. The country has seldom been buffeted - in my adult memory - by an economic situation that exists not only in Canada but in most of the western trading world, which is one of continuing inflation and continuing problems with their economies and the resulting unacceptable levels of unemployment.

In our part of this economic equation, British Columbia, while not living up to the ideals that we would have and the goals we would set, has performed in measure against our national economy and against other economies at a far more acceptable rate. That isn't to say, Mr. Chairman, that we are satisfied. We shouldn't be. But British Columbians can indeed have some pride that their province has - with the exception of Alberta - led the country percentage-wise in growth of employment, expanding economy, contributing to exports and contributing to the economic wellbeing of the country.

In fighting inflation in 1977, while the cost-price index is still too high, we have gone from the worst record in Canada to the best record in Canada in containing the level of cost-price index, using Vancouver among the major cities. Mr. Chairman, that fight is not yet won. That fight mat t be continued. We cannot sit back and say that we -1st leave inflation to deal with unemployment or, on the other side of the coin, leave unemployment to deal with inflation. The twin enemies still exist and still plague our country. As I say, while British Columbia last year had the best record in fighting inflation and the best results, it's still not good enough.

Inflation, as this House well knows, impacts most severely those on fixed incomes who have little opportunity to fight against the high price rises and they, of course, get left behind. The larger groups in our society big government, big labour, big business have their opportunity to protect themselves and band together to fight against inflation. It is the people of this province who don't belong to organized groups - many who are elderly or have no ability to bargain - who get left behind.

Inflation has been a healthy tool of governments. Governments aver the past number of years - both in Canada, the provinces and in other parts of the world - have had their job made easier because of the high levels of tax revenue that have flowed to them without having to impose new taxes. There are high levels of capital flowing to governments without them having to be accountable for it. Inflation then becomes a very cruel tax on those on fixed incomes and others, because government until now has not been accountable for it. Yet governments receive the benefits of it in increased dollars and so take increased measures of credit in public expenditure. These are the problems that face our country, Mr. Chairman, and our province.

Our government is now starting the third year of our five-year mandate, the third year in which we have an opportunity to move some other steps forward in our fight to build this province, to create greater opportunity for our people, to give the private sector a greater opportunity and to give individuals a greater opportunity to carry the opportunities that our system has allowed them. And one thing I found at the recent First Ministers' Conference, Mr. Chairman - I know you'll be interested - was that, while philosophically we may be separate from many of the other governments in Canada, the resolution British Columbia had in its economic strategy proposals that the strength for our country mu t be found in the private sector, that our economy must be built in the private sector, was

[ Page 948 ]

endorsed by all 11 governments in this country - all of those governments, covering a number of political parties. We now have, in fact, political parties which perhaps in the past have been associated with the growth of big government now paying at least some attention to the fact of this country and of this continent, and that is that the private sector is the only area in which you can build the economy successfully.

During these three years, Mr. Chairman, we have worked to, first of all, stabilize government finances - which we have. And I'm proud that our Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) was able to bring in his third consecutive balanced budget. The commitment to balancing public accounts isn't inflexible. We have said in our economic proposals to the country that all governments should attempt to balance budgets over a five-year period, and all of them should recognize that they have a responsibility not just to spend, but in better years of the economic cycle to build up surpluses to be used to supplement the budgets, to create employment, and guarantee continuity of services during the more difficult years. That's why I was pleased not only to see the third balanced budget in a raw by this Minister of Finance, but to see that he was able to bring forth $76 million of budgetary surplus in his first year, to add to the $4.28 billion of budget this year that's in balance, to help in a job creation programme and to make sure that the people receive a fair continuation of public services.

As I've gone around the province, I've found that the young people particularly have been concerned, and are very, very suspicious of politicians who promise more and more spending and yet intend to leave them, the young people of this province, with the bills to pay. They're very suspicious of politicians and political parties that promise them a mansion but with a mortgage to go with it. When they have their opportunity to be adults in this country the last thing they want when it's their turn is to be left with a drawer full of bills and very little else. We want to leave them a healthy economy, but we also want to leave them an economy in which they will not have to pay back the excesses of today. We want them to have an opportunity then to inherit a sound economy, without the burden of debt that can be left by wasteful governments, irresponsible politicians, those who would spend their time in office trying to buy votes for today and leaving the country seriously impaired in the future. So it's encouraging to see that the young people, who were perhaps never better educated than they are now, realize full well what will happen and what will be their lot should this country and this province end up with expensive deficits on which they'll not only have to repay the principal but carry the dead-weight interest.

We have only to look at the government of Canada, and the billions of dollars that go for interest....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) quite proudly thinks he's found something clever to save B.C. Hydro, and I'll deal with that in a moment. But I'm talking about government services - to that member, Mr. Chairman - that is, about expenditures that aren't going into capital improvements that can be amortized. I'm talking about expenditures that go into the very type of expenditures that the younger people are acquainted with: "Fly now and pay later." The vacation's gone, the benefit's gone, but you're carrying the bill.

But there are assets of a continuing nature that cannot be paid in a single term, but that can carry themselves through, providing a service. They are fixed assets, they must be built in advance, yet they can be amortized. And this will be like the house the young people buy in the future. To get a house, they mortgage it in advance to be able to get something that will be an asset of theirs. Something they will own, something that will pay itself off. But the one thing they know is that, if they finance the grocery bill and if they finance the clothing bill and if they finance the vacation and the car bill, all expenditures for today - and leave a debt for tomorrow, they'll never own their own house. And that, Mr. Chairman, is what we're talking about when we talk about being responsible to the young who will follow behind us.

I've found an increasing awareness, as I've had an opportunity to talk to some of the high schools, that they resent those who would mortgage their future and leave them with this burden of debt. So that is why I am especially proud of the responsible manner in which the Minister of Finance has dealt with revenue collections and expenditures in this province. He showed that by sound fiscal management he can harness the surpluses of two budgets ago for the benefit of the people today without plunging them into debt. That is good for the future generations of British Columbia. It allows us to do what perhaps no other government in Canada is doing right now, and that is to meet the responsibility of a current level of services and expand them, as many have been

[ Page 949 ]

unable to do. Let me say, when it comes to services, this province of British Columbia has been fortunate because we have a good level of service and have had an increased level of services through succeeding govern-ments.

But during the crunch of recent years, we've seen in some wealthy jurisdictions, such as Ontario and others, where they have had to cut back on some of their hospitals and actually close some hospitals as they have tried to cope with the burgeoning costs. Yet in British Columbia, not one hospital has closed, and in fact we've had expanded programmes such as the extended care programme. During these difficult two and a half years, no government in Canada has been able to even consider existing programmes, let alone the expansion that we've been able to achieve. At the same time, Ontario has had high deficits. So it should make us proud that our economy, our province and the Minister of Finance, with responsible management, is able to achieve this happy balance of services to people, expansion of services to those in need, cautious, responsible financing, and -the utilization of sound management of the finances of the province to provide the stimulus to the economy and the job opportunities in this year when they are having difficulties not only in the rest of Canada but in a large part of the western world.

Mr. Chairman, these and a number of other areas dealing with the causes of our economic problem were part of an economic strategy for Canada that we put forward at the First Ministers' Conference. In the background papers there are a number of suggestions that should not be taken in isolation, because the point we stressed was that we must have a comprehensive economic policy. Not all of the policies in isolation would work, but they would work if brought in in concert with each other. Each one, then, cannot be brought in as a single measure, for that would not resolve the major problem of a comprehensive economic policy.

Quite frankly, the difficulty we've had in this country has been a lack of consultation between the provincial and federal levels of government that have been given the responsibility for leading this country. We all recognize that the unique division of powers in our country gives opportunities and responsibilities to both levels. Both, then, have the powers and the opportunities to impact on one another. What we need in this country is not unilaterally imposed federal policy but mutually agreed national policy. That's what has been lacking in this country.

We introduced a number of areas to the First Minister's Conference. I must say with some regret that we didn't have the time nor did we achieve the results we had hoped for: a modern economic policy for Canada. But among the First Ministers we did achieve unanimity in a number of areas. As I said earlier, one was in the area of the emphasis being on the development of Canada being in the private sector. All 11 governments were unanimous in supporting that.

All of them supported the British Columbia proposal that in order to end the growing costs of government as part of the gross national product, they must have, in the short term, spending plans that were less than their gross provincial or gross national product. As such, all 11 First Ministers agreed to curtail the growth of government in this country, which at all levels has today reached 40.5 per cent - 40.5 per cent of the gross national product now goes for the cost of government. Just to halt that growth, British Columbia was able to show that all 11 governments would have to have spending plans that were I per cent less than their overall growth, taking into account inflation in their areas. That is just to curtail that increasing cost of government.

We pointed out that with a three-year commitment to a programme such as that, we would only reduce the cost of government as a total of the gross national product to something about 39.5 per cent. But if we didn't do anything, and continued on the present spending histories of the 11 governments in Canada, then by 1980 the cost of government wouldn't be 40 per cent; it would be 45 per cent of the total gross national product.

Those figures are alarming when you consider that the acceleration is hard to stop and needs a common commitment. That's why I was pleased in that area when all 11 governments, covering many different political parties, agreed unanimously that we must show this type of restraint and cut back the cost of government in that way, in helping to bring some rationale to the Canadian economy. A large part of the inflationary pressure has been governments moving in on more and more income of our citizens, leaving them with less discretionary income. It has made them, through profit or prices or wage demands or other, seek more and more from the only place they can get more money, and we've had that vicious inflationary cycle upward.

Mr. Chairman, the people of Canada would be willing, as I said at the First Ministers' Conference, given an economic plan, to support the governments, knowing full well that at least we had a plan, we had a goal, and we had

[ Page 950 ]

a chart by which to sail the ship of state towards out economic goal. But I must say, they haven't had that assurance in the last number of years. The people of Canada have not had any assurance or any confidence that governments have had a collective goal, nor have they had a chart with which they could achieve that goal. In fact that is why there has been a lack of confidence in the country, a lack of confidence that has resulted in flight of capital, lack of investment and, of course, all of the high unemployment, the high inflation, the poor domestic investment performance, declining competitiveness in international markets, and a number of other symptoms of the economy of the lack of an economic plan. We see, then, that all governments in Canada must unite together to develop and commit themselves to such a plan.

One of the other areas that we did advocate as part of our economic policy, Mr. Chairman, was to advocate free trade for our country. The policies of high protective tariffs were brought in by Sir John A. MacDonald 99 years ago. In fact the -100th anniversary of that policy for Canada will be ... well, I shouldn't say "celebrated" next year, because while it may have been wise to have put that curtain around the country and have that protected consumer market . for central Canada, the results of such a policy over such a period of time have failed to allow Canada to inject itself into the international economy. In protecting a market of 25 million, we've cut ourselves off not only from a market of 200 million to the south but from. hundreds of millions of potential consumers around the world.

Here is Canada after the Second World War, Mr. Chairman, poised perhaps better than any country in the world to have strong economic growth. We had the resources, we had the varied energy potential. Yet, Mr. Chairman, we had inward-looking, highly protective financial policies, designed primarily in the first instance to protect the manufacturing base of central Canada. Today countries that were ravaged at that time - Japan and Germany and others - are now the strong international traders, and Canada is in this difficult economic position we find ourselves in today.

We find the rest of the world having to tell us of our problem by devaluing our dollar, devaluing it in continuing devaluation, without any real sign of stability yet. Even the words of the former Prime Minister, John Diefenbaker, didn't give me much comfort when he said: "Well, look at it this way: they've still got 87 cents to work with." Mr. Chairman, while we may get some short-term export advantage from the devalued dollar, what we are really doing is masking our own lack of competitiveness, our own lack of productivity and our own inability to compete. That devalued dollar giving short-term benefits to our resource industry will come back, and is coming back now, to haunt us with higher and higher consumer prices that can be seen on the shelves. Of course, we have a major contribution to inflation, because while all of us can measure 13 per cent as compared to the products we buy from the United State, all of us know that the Canadian dollar has been devalued far more than that against the Japanese yen and the German Deutschmark and is such that products that are part of the selection for our consumers that come from those countries are escalating beyond the ability of their purchasing power, beyond their incomes to make them affordable.

We've created in the long run less purchasing power for our people and a sort of self-confidence or overconfidence or a sort of protected confidence we shouldn't have. This devalued dollar, while helping us in the short-term, really masks a deeper problem, and that is the problem that I've outlined and the problems we suggested we could work towards resolving in this country.

There is no short-term solution, and those who offer immediate solutions to the country's and the various provinces' problems must be seen for what they are: those who would search for gimmicks rather than the tough answers that are needed.

It's taken us a number of years to reach this economic position. It didn't happen overnight. It will take us a number of years to work our way out, but recognizing the problem and identifying the solution - the various parts of the solution - is the first step on our road back. British Columbia feels confident that with the resources we have to back us up, Canadians with a definite economic policy can make those choices and work their way back in the way they've met other challenges over the years.

But they can't do it unless governments will provide the collective leadership to allow them to follow. The Canadian people are still waiting for that leadership. As I said, while we made some significant steps forward at the First Ministers' Conference, they were not complete enough, nor definite nor broad enough to provide the type of economic action this country needs. Mr. Chairman, I'm hopeful that at the next economic conference in November, the governments will have the courage and the foresight to continue and complete the job of seizing upon the problem and seizing upon the opportunity to provide the answers and start

[ Page 951 ]

the implementation of this broad, comprehensive economic policy which will not only help Canada as a whole, but will for the first time provide those parts of Canada that have become dependent upon the economies of the rest of Canada with an economic policy that will give them a chance to develop an industry with a much larger consumer base. Our Atlantic provinces, robbed and bled of their industry, have become dependent on a number of equalization programmes, both regional economic development equalization and hidden equalization programmes. That these areas of the country with a small consuming base do not have the opportunity to develop industry of scale, to not only develop in their own provinces or regions, but to have a chance to step further into international competition. That's the difficulty with the Canadian economy - having tried to work under high protective tariffs, high protectionism, and inward-looking policies, we've been left behind. We must now give all parts of the country not equalization, but equal opportunity, because the Atlantic provinces have amongst then some of the most productive of our people. Given a policy that brings consumer markets closer, they can, and I'm sure will, compete, as will British Columbia - given a greater opportunity to compete and trade within the sphere open to British Columbia.

British Columbia now is one of the few areas of Canada that competes on the international market, but, Mr. Chairman, we're forced to do that with our resources in areas in which markets are not closed by tariffs. We have no opportunity to develop a manufacturing base to compete with those. countries, to trade with those countries. In fact, what the policy has meant to British Columbians; is high consumer prices for our people and an inability to develop industry and trade abroad. Canadians, particularly British Columbians, have paid a heavy price for being Canadian under these policies, policies which none of us should accept, none of us should allow to continue in the future. What we're looking for in 1978 is not more restriction, but given the problems of today - whether they're of national unity, or the national economy - the recognition that we can modernize government structure, modernize our economic policies and take the opportunity to build the type of country and the type of opportunity that should be available to us. Canada, with its population, could be among the wealthiest countries in the world -not single-resource, like oil with Kuwait or oil with Alberta, but as a multi-resource and multi-faceted economy that indeed could compete, and would not be subject to the peaks and valleys of the sing le-resource-dependent economy, and would have the security of a multi-faceted economy.

At the present time British Columbia, because of our heavy dependency on resources, is subject to the fluctuations in the world's markets for primary products. We have gone through such periods with mining, with some minerals at low value - and some of then mean a lot to the economic well-being of this province. We're fortunate at the present time to be going through a more prosperous cycle in our wood products, those related to home building - and that's particularly because of the construction activity in the United States -and in developing markets for British Columbia industry which, along with government, has been trying to open new markets for our products. At the same time newsprint has been coming back to better prices, However, our pulp industry and world prices on pulp impair some of our ability to get an economic return in this area.

Mr. Chairman, what we need is an opportunity to create a more sophisticated economy, one in which we can develop value-added and secondary manufacturing using the strength of our primary products. This can happen with a freetrade economy by allowing us to compete with the rest of the world. It will certainly mean lower prices to hard-pressed homemakers in British Columbia who face inflation and the high cost of goods every time they go to the store.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Premier, I'm afraid under our standing orders your time for speaking in this debate has elapsed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It goes so quickly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you wish to ask leave to continue? Perhaps you could arrange some intervening business, and then we can recognize you again.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I ask leave to continue for a few moments.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: So, Mr. Chairman, in painting the difficulties we face.... And as I say, we have some things to be optimistic about in British Columbia, for our gross provincial product has grown at approximately twice that of the national average. Our exports are up. We've got more people working at this time of the year than ever before, and this year will set records for levels of

[ Page 952 ]

employment in this province - records of permanent jobs for our people, Mr. Chairman. That's what we went in British Columbia, not short-term jobs where the government becomes the employer of last resort right in front of elections or for political reasons. Our people are looking for permanent jobs on which they can build a life, buy a home and have some security. They don't want short-term jobs just tied in with the public service. They know that their best opportunity for long-term work is in the private sector, and that's why this government, in its budget and through the throne speech, has talked about giving more opportunity to small business and to the individual in society. We've done it with a number of economic moves. One is raising the level of exemption from that one tax area I find difficulty in supporting at all, and that's the capital tax. I think it's one of the worst and most inhibiting taxes that we have. I look forward to the day when we can totally remove that tax from the books of this province. What we need is encouragement for business and for individuals, and particularly for small businesses who have felt threatened in North America, in Europe and in the general economy today when bigness, whether it's labour or government or business itself, has been able to fend for itself, but small business and the small business person have had difficulty in competing and staying alive during these difficult economic times. We want to give them some confidence and some opportunity.

We've done it in the budget in a number of economic ways, but, Mr. Chairman, I believe that one of the best things this government can do is remove the number of restrictions and regulations that inhibit small business and the individual in this province from showing any initiative at all. They have been penalized for their initiative or they have been discouraged because of government bureaucracy and red tape . and it is not something I believe any government would wish to impose upon our people. It has built up over a number of years and we now have to deal with it. It's not just a fact in our own jurisdiction, it is a general feeling throughout North America that small business has been inhibited, as I say, in its ability to get things done. Government, through ministry by ministry or department by department, has passed a series of regulations, often overlapping, that have made it difficult, if not impossible, for them to get anything going in the economy. And this is what is reflected in the lack of confidence and the buildup of savings in the hands of people. We know the money is there because there are record levels of savings in our chartered banks in the hands of British Columbians today. They're not investing it, they're not spending it, because they have no confidence. They haven't had the confidence in the economy and they haven't had the confidence to buy consumer goods.

However, there are signs now that this is changing. We see not only new levels of investment spending by the major companies, we now see the small investor starting to make spending and investment plans. I know that the Ministry of Economic Development - I was talking to the minister the other day - has had a large number of requests and applications because of the new programme announced in the budget by the Minister of Finance to do with economic development. They're willing now to consider investing in their own country. They're no longer looking to the United States as some sort of haven for investment, but they're looking to invest in British Columbia.

It has not been easy to win that investment capital or that confidence back. It was shaken to a great degree. Many people felt, both politically and economically, that there wasn't a place for them in this province to show any initiative with their experience a few years ago.

Mr. Chairman, confidence is easy to lose but hard to gain, and it's been a struggle to get the confidence of the people back. But we believe that the people, given that opportunity will rebuild this economy. As that confidence grows, it has a mushrooming effect. We feel the growth level that British Columbia experienced, the high expectancy of our people, the optimism that they have always shown in their province, particularly in the late 1960s, will take place again. We see the signs in British Columbia. As I travel the province talking to the people, I see and feel that optimism returning.

We're looking for a pretty good year here in British Columbia. Last year, as I say, we reduced unemployment marginally on the year. We reduced inflation. I'm looking for a continuance that our sound management and our policies will continue to have British Columbia move against the grain of the Canadian economy, move upwards while the rest of the country is in economic limbo, if not decline. I, along with most British Columbians and Canadians, will be glad once the federal election is called and dealt with and that unnecessary uncertainty that seems, to be hanging over our country is disposed of, at least for the time being, because we need strong government in this country on all levels. ,

[ Page 953 ]

We need government that is willing to work together. Above all, we don't need that additional political uncertainty, added to the uncertainty created by Quebec, at a time when this country has an opportunity to get things going again.

We need governments with policies, willing to implement those policies and end the uncertainty.

Mr. Chairman, I feel then that in this third year of our five-year mandate, this government is moving ahead with policies that, when I go to First Ministers' conferences, are the envy of the rest of the country. I again exclude that wealthy sheikdom to the east, Alberta, with their oil. But in reality, even Alberta has looked to British Columbia for their economic planning and many of the programme we have introduced. They are looking to us to copy our SAFER programme on shelter aid for the elderly. They have looked to British Columbia for a number of expansions of programmes to people that we have been able to carry out during these difficult times.

Mr. Chairman, the last two years have not been easy, but there is a light that British Columbians can look forward to. These last years have not been easy for Canadians, but there is a great opportunity that they can look forward to as well. I'm hopeful that, as the government will have the opportunity working later this year in both a unity conference, suggested for September, and an economic First Ministers' Conference in November, we will be able to continue that activity.

Mr. Chairman, it's a time to be confident. It's a time for all legislators and all people to work together. While we may have some differences in how we wish to achieve it, I believe that none of us, through word or action, would do anything to destroy the optimism and the confidence that the people are developing.

I feel that while politically we carry various labels, our first commitment is to the people of British Columbia who elect all of us or throw some of us out. Our responsibility to them must be to work together and learn from each other, because all members of all parties may have something to offer in this chamber.

I believe that with that attitude and with those commitments, the optimism I feel and the confidence I see growing in this province certainly will continue. British Columbia will continue to lead the rest of Canada.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully through a very long statement by the Premier and I want to thank him for covering so many topics. But, in essence, I must say it was more a review of things already said by the Premier of the province rather than any new direction or any new philosophy.

The Premier finds the appeal of the federal government lacking in terms of leadership and also finds a difficulty in terms of the problems of the province of Quebec in whether or not it wishes to express itself in remaining with Canada.

On the federal scene, I think that the only thing that could possibly create a base for new moves or new direction would be for the Prime Minister of this country to call an election as soon as possible. I really believe that the Prime Minister has made a serious mistake in terms of testing the water on the basis of issues. He has shown a healthy respect for survival. However, I think that the Canadian people would be better served with an aggressive election campaign at this time, rather than this maintenance of suspended animation by a federal government that has not provided any new leadership over the last six months.

If ever a country was desperate for an expression from its citizens, regardless of the problems of Quebec, it's this country of Canada now. The Prime Minister, who has always given an image of being a forceful, deciding leader, has let the people of Canada down by, I think, playing around with an election and not really getting on with either governing or going to the people. So I think aside from the problems that the Parti Quebecois presents to the people of Canada, it would be most useful if the people of this country were allowed to go to the polls and express some comments on the performance of the present administration.

The Premier touched on subjects that are deal to his heart, and I want to deal first of all with the chronic schizophrenia that is of the political nature that the Premier seems to subscribe to. With the clichés, the homilies and the old stances - an almost traditional kind of Laurier stance - we almost have a Liberal Premier now in British Columbia after three years in office. It's a fact. I find the most negative influence in that direction of becoming that kind of Liberal-oriented Premier is none other than the former leader of the Liberal Party, the good member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) .

HON. MR. BENNETT: I want you to withdraw.

MR. BARRETT: No, I can't withdraw him, but you're working on the list. (Laughter.) Mr. Premier, you are more devastating to your members than we could ever be.

[ Page 954 ]

I want to say, Mr. Premier, that you've bought one of the homilies from that - no question - brilliant spokesperson from the academic welfare world, the Liberal leader who has never really worked for other than governments all his life, but is always espousing free enterprise. I want to deal with this nonsense.... Don't get upset, Mr. Chairman; I won't be too long. I want. to deal with this nonsense of free trade, and I want to deal with it on the basis of specific examples rather than the kind of clichés that the Premier seems to throw up, based on an undue influence by the first or second member for Point Grey, and his old speeches of free trade.

The Premier says that there's a shaken investor confidence. If you were thinking of investing a couple of million dollars in British Columbia in the area that we are most desperate for investment, and that is in new secondary manufacturing or auxiliary areas to resource development, the first thing you'd look for is the viability of the domestic market and the access on a competitive basis to the market. You might want to open a paint business or you might want to open, as exists in the Premier's riding, a recreational vehicle construction and manufacturing outlet. Let us not deal with the paint business, but let us deal with the recreational vehicle manufacturing that goes on, the largest employer in the Premier's own riding.

The largest single employer in the Premier's own riding is the manufacturer of recreational vehicles. The same owner of the recreational vehicle manufacturing in the Premier's riding also operates a plant in Portland, Oregon. There is Canadian ownership, Canadian production, geared to two markets: the Canadian side of the border for the Pacific Northwest and Alberta, and the American side of the border for Washington state, Idaho, Oregon and northern California.

That Canadian entrepreneur has been forced to make two investments to two markets. Making that commitment as a good Canadian, he decided that in terms of meeting the market possibilities of Canada, rather than adding another shift on to the plant that exists in Oregon, he established a plant in Kelowna and the environs of that riding. That man may be faced with assessing the expansion of the market in Canada; that man may be faced with looking at the reasonable political situation that exists, waiting for leadership from a government, and then assessing his awn financing structures and financing needs for expansion.

Then a statement comes for free trade. That man would be out of his mind to spend another nickel in capital in British Columbia as long as there's an expression in this province that it is the desire of the government of the day to move to free trade. He can find, because of the markets in the United States, his productivity capability, and the competitive access to raw materials in the United States, that he can build that same recreational vehicle at a substantially less cost in his Oregon plant than he can in his Kelowna plant. If we have free trade, the barriers are gone. The first thing he's going to do is close down his Canadian plant, put on another shift in the American plant, ship up the recreational vehicles to an unprotected market in Canada, and those jobs will go down the drain in Canada. So for the Premier of this province to say, "Turn back the clock on free trade, " is to admit that there is no base in the Canadian economy for anything more than the extraction of raw materials.

My friends who were in the automobile sales business and there are a number of them here tonight know very well that the profits they make in that particular industry are because of a protective market of tariffs in a reciprocal agreement that has only been broken by some adventurous moves by an earlier Liberal government in signing the auto pact. The Autopact trade was a government intervention -into the economy to guarantee a share of Canadian markets and American markets of a common production demand of automobiles, and it was only through government intervention and only through government planning that the Autopact came into existence.

While the Premier talks about free trade, what he's really saying, even to those automobile salespersons who may be present tonight, is that you will go down the tube as automobile salespersons; if free trade comes into existence, low-priced American automobiles are available at Blaine at a better financial deal. With no tariffs whatsoever, you guys go down the tube overnight. That's the only way you'll catch up with the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) . He's led the way in that regard already.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Which member for Coquitlam?

MR. BARRETT: The present member for Coquitlam. I have never been an automobile salesperson.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You kick a lot of tires, though.

MR. BARRETT: Mr.' Chairman, I say to the

[ Page 955 ]

Premier of this province that any time you want to fight an election on the issue of free trade with that simplistic kind of sloganeering and jingoism that somehow it would be a magical solution to our compounded problems of a complex economy that is competitive with a market of 200 million people south of the border, I'd be glad to join that battle against you, because it makes economic nonsense. Your own riding would suffer a dramatic loss of jobs almost overnight.

I suggest that the Premier go and speak to the owner of the recreational-vehicle plant in his riding and ask him what he would do in terms of the basic survival of that plant. When it comes to patriotism, we are all patriotic, but when it comes to the bank account, sometimes that comes first. Responsible administrators of Large corporations, who are basing their capital investments in Canada on protected markets, will not spend a nickel as long as that silly nonsense is being peddled around by that former Liberal leader, leaning on the Premier and saying: "Let's go for free trade." There is no such thing in terms of North American economy. Free trade means the end of a basic Canadian identification.

AN HON. MEMBER: "Nothing is freer than free."

MR. BARRETT: "Nothing is freer than free." That's what we got on the Columbia River. The Premier neglected to mention, when he gave those homilies about young people buying their houses and "we don't want to burden then with debt, " that while it wasn't his fault, the biggest single debt in British Columbia is the billion dollars on the Columbia River Treaty. The Premier says that when they pull the drawer open they find all the bills. They don't have to pull the drawer open. If they'll just pay their Hydro bill every month they'll be reminded of it - 46 per cent, 46 cents of every dollar spent on Hydro is on the interest alone, caused by stupid political decisions in terms of resources.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Nonsense.

MR. BARRETT: Are you saying, Mr. Premier, that we don't owe a billion dollars?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Nonsense. Ed Schreyer would argue with you.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, my dear friend the Premier is such a good fellow. Nonsense? All right, if it's nonsense, let everybody who pays their Hydro bill withhold 46 cents on the dollar because the Premier says it is nonsense and it doesn't have to be paid. Don't pay it. It's nonsense, 'he says. Forty-six cents on every dollar, and those borrowings have to be made on foreign markets. Free trade? It's absolute folly, absolutely stupid to consider free trade. As for the idea of saying that British Columbians don't want a drawer full of debts, we've got the biggest debt in the Columbia River Treaty.

I have marveled at the change from the caterpillar in opposition to the butterfly in government. It is a fantastic change. It's a metamorphosis that almost becomes a psychosis. One listens to oneself saying things aver and over again, hoping that the problems will wash away. The Premier appeals to unity. "Let us all work together in harmony to build a better British Columbia." The most destructive group ever in opposition, ever in the history of this province, was that group when it was in opposition against us in government. To hear the butterfly now denounce the caterpillar is a little bit much. But then the butterfly went on to say that things are going to be better. But one of the reasons why we can make things better is because the young people understand us more. That's what he said. I've got a whole table full of unco-ordinated notes related to the unco-ordinated speech. He said the young people don't want bad promises any more. They went to be told the truth.

Is that what you meant, Mr. Premier, when you said that you would freeze taxes? That's what you said. You said during the election campaign you would freeze taxes. Today ICBC is revealed to be sitting on over $500 million that should be in the pockets of the consumers of this province, spending it at the small shopkeeper's door. It is held by that Minister of Education, the former Liberal leader (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , who, is bent on building massive bank accounts while more and more businesses go broke. And the Premier says to us in a butterfly fashion: "We shouldn't be taking money out of the hands of the consumers." Who took it out of their hands?

MS. BROWN: Right.

MR. BARRETT: Who destroyed more small businesses in a matter of months than any government setting out to do it could have done?

MR. KING: They did. They did it.

MR. BARRETT: They did. Exactly! No government is capable of planning the kind of destruction that happened by accident when

[ Page 956 ]

this government got into power.

In his heart of hearts, I know the Premier regrets two decisions. One was the doubling of the ferry rates - and somebody paid for that -and the other was the doubling and tripling of ICBC rates - and somebody paid for that. Do you know who paid for it? Those very people who went out campaigning and working for you, believing you when you said you were going to freeze taxes. It wasn't all wrong. It wasn't all incorrect.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was a quick freeze.

MR. BARRETT: It wasn't even a freeze. In some instances it was a rollback. The only rollback, again, was for the wealthy and secure.

After being in the Legislature last Friday I went home and sat down to an evening meal before leaving for my constituency in Vancouver East. My wife said: "Tonight we're going to have a North American .... "

MR. STRONGMAN: Don't you live there?

MR. BARRETT: No, I don't live there. I live in Esquimalt so my daughter can finish school. Is that fine? Are you happy with it? My mother lives in Vancouver East and represents me in the riding. My mother does a fantastic job. My MLA (Mr. Kahl) does a good job for me too.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's a good thing she doesn't live in Coquitlam. You might not be here, George.

MR. BARRETT: My wife said: "We're now going to have a North American delicacy."

I said: "What is that?"

She said: "We're having a salad."

I said: "A salad?"

She said: "Yes. And the major ingredient is going to be a lettuce."

I said: "Come on, Shirley. Don't play games with me. What are you talking about, a delicacy?11

She said: "You'd better eat this as a delicacy. It cost me $1.25 for a head of lettuce."

MS. BROWN: Shame!

MR. BARRETT: I want to tell you, I ate every darned piece of that lettuce. I said: "From now on, Shirley, you'd better go to shaving B.C. cabbage and B.C. carrots into a salad because I can't afford lettuce at $1.25 a crack. Millionaires can."

MR. BROWN: Shame!

MR. BARRETT: A dollar and a quarter to buy a head of lettuce in this province! And we get gobbledegoop from the Premier about free trade in British Columbia, which would lead to even more increased costs, less jobs, more welfare and more unemployment. The realities of everyday living escape people who are millionaires.

MR. KING: Let them eat lettuce.

MR. BARRETT: It is not the question of "let them eat lettuce!' any more. They can't afford it. There is no way it will be "let them eat it

cake.

MS. BROWN: Let them eat lettuce.

MR. KING: Let then eat lettuce. Look at the head on that!

MR. BARRETT: No. You can always shave a cabbage, folks, and hope for the best.

In the province of British Columbia the cost of living has gone up over 5 per cent in the last three months, and the Premier says he's got inflation under control. A 5 per cent increase in three months! At this rate the cost of living in terms of food will be over a 14 per cent increase in one year. There are a lot of people whose major part of their budget goes for the cost of food. If you average it out and say, "Well, 40 per cent of the people go for a vacation in Hawaii, " what about the other 60 per cent? If you say that 25 per cent of the average person's budget goes for food, what about the people who are below the average income? How much of their income goes for food and the cost of living?

There is small comfort from the millionaire's government tonight. Is it a question of shaken investors' confidence, Mr. Premier? I would say, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier had better tell every potential investor in this province exactly where he sits in terms of free trade. If he is working for free trade and advocating free trade, then if you are going to be an investor in British Columbia in any competitive area with the United States, which has a domestic market of 200 million consumers against our 20 million consumers, the last thing you'd do is spend $1 in British Columbia because you could do it cheaper and make more money in the United States.

As a matter of fact, the Premier went to Britain.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: What did he say?

[ Page 957 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Who said that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you run out of the House like you did this afternoon?

HON. MR. BENNETT: He doesn't want to leave like you do. They don't want to act like you guys there do.

MR. BARRETT: My colleague, my fellow member for Vancouver East, said we lost one of the car dealers. I said: "It's Just like Diefenbaker's statement; we've still got 87 to work with." (Laughter.)

Free trade is stupid. It will stop investment in British Columbia and I hope that's the last time I hear the Premier of this province talking that way. Whether someone is a socialist or a free enterpriser, if they are in a responsible position of making an investment, the last place they would make an investment is in British Columbia, if we're aiming to free trade, because the competitive edge would be totally lost. I humbly ask the Premier to discuss that with the largest employer in his own riding. Go and check with him, and see whether or not he would close down and put another shift on in Oregon.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'd wipe out B.C. agriculture, among other things.

MR. BARRETT: Now the Premier also talked about young people. Young people want something to believe in, the Premier says. And again the butterfly comes down with the ever-so-gentle wings of homily and cliché - homily on the right, cliché on the left - and the gentle kind of waving, saying that'from now on the young people will not be told political fibs.

Gee whiz, not only will you cramp the style of existing politicians, but you will limit the possibility of any extravagant debate in politics at all. If you do that, and if we reduce ourselves to logic and reason, the first thing that goes out the window - on the basis of reason - is the idea that private enterprise is working. Private enterprise doesn't work for anything. Private enterprise rests on its laurels and hopes to blazes everybody else will work for it. What are the clichés of private enterprise? We have to have more productivity. I certainly haven't seen any evidence of it from the government's side.

That minister who was a disastrous Liberal leader --who is now the right-hand adviser to the Premier of this province who admires his brains, his intelligence; but his lack of common sense overwhelms every other attribute - would like to see everybody in a saline solution. That's his simple solution. It's a solution anyway.

Mr. Chairman, it's an interesting catalogue that the Premier gives. First of all, he says that nobody wants to have their house with a mortgage on it. Now that is good, old, Saturday-night, Aberhart politics. I want to tell the young people of British Columbia, says the Premier, that nobody wants to go into the future with their house mortgaged. You want to be able to buy that home, buy little bits of furniture, build up that one single asset for most of the people in this pioneering country, and when you reach your retirement age, then you can sell off that little asset - go and peddle your assets, as my friend from Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) said - and go into the kind of comfortable retirement that you want.

"What is it going to be built on?" said the Premier. "Well, " he said, "we have to be in the resource-competitive field internationally." He's absolutely correct. The only area we can compete in as a nation of 20 million people, which is an illogical nation in terms of economic unit ... but we came together on an emotional and political belief, that Lord Durham established as a basis for us to survive as a nation, and I'm convinced that the alter natives to Durham's proposal are so devastating for me to contemplate that I accept the rationale of political, emotional reasons for this country coming together.

What is the one thing that we have in that world marketplace? The Premier discussed it tonight. It's resources. And what have we done? Government after government in this country, every time we're in trouble, has sold out the control of our resources and the ownership of our resources.

The short-term solution that the Premier talks about has been the hallmark of Canadian negotiations from the start of this nation. Here we are, a nation that is self-sufficient in the most important commodity in the competitive world, the most important commodity for any industrialized nation: non-renewable energy resources. And while the Premier speaks in his butterfly homilies about the young people understanding that we have to build for the future, every federal government in this country has sold us out on non-renewable energy resources, except for the pitiful latter-day attempt through Petro-Canada to have a little say in the market - and Pan-Arctic. A little late but, nonetheless, better than never.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, if you have got any influence at all with the federal Liberal Party and you want an argument for

[ Page 958 ]

keeping this country together, then you appeal to the people of Quebec as you appeal to the people of the Maritimes and the people of British Columbia, say that your party will give maitre chez nous to all Canadians in terms of resources, and you'll have a heck of a lot better argument than the one on language.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, you never believed a party line in your life. Listen to that!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must ask the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) to move to his correct position so that we can accept these cross-courts. Three minutes and I'm sure we'll be able to ask leave.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, if he doesn't move back there, are you going to give him the strap? We need more discipline in this classroom, Mr. Chairman, the simple basics.

What are we dealing with? We're dealing with homilies and clichés. I'm going to ask for a little extended time, okay, just a little bit of time.

We're dealing with a situation where 98 per cent of all of our oil and all of our gas in this country is under foreign ownership and control. Now you and go and tell the young people of this country that they have a great future ahead of them because it's the resource base that brings us renewal and the security. You tell then that our future is bright, like Joe Greene going down to the States eight years ago saying that Canada has unlimited non-renewable energy supplies. Do you remember Joe Greene? He was one of the federal Liberal cabinet ministers. Haw in the world are you going to convince the young people of this country that their economic future is in their hands, that the bills aren't in the drawer to be paid, when they discover that 98 per cent of all oil and gas is under private ownership and controlled outside of Canada?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the biggest mortgage they could have.

MR. BARRETT: That's one mortgage they have. When the first attempt was made to repay part of that mortgage by having the customer of our non-renewable resources pay a fair international price for natural gas, who fought against it most but the Social Credit opposition? That's right. Now even today, the Petroleum Corporation that was the victim of vilification, homily and caterpillar attacks is now accepted as a butterfly, a good marketing device. What they once said was socialism in terms of selling our natural gas is now good tax-collecting revenue.

AN HON. MEMBER: It saved their bacon.

MR. BARRETT: It saved their bacon is correct.

And when it comes to the government saying that they balanced their books, I find it difficult to swallow all of the criticism on Ottawa by the Premier of this province when he says that the federal government hasn't balanced their books. Part of the reason the federal government hasn't balanced their books is that there's $800 million bucks coming back to that budget right over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is leave granted for the Leader of the Opposition to continue?

Leave granted.

HON. ML BENNETT: Where do you think they collect the taxes? B.C.

MR. BARRETT: Where do they collect the taxes? They collect the taxes in British Columbia and the Maritimes and everywhere else. But if you're so dedicated to avoiding the debt piled up by the federal government when they have borrowed that $11 billion and increased the grant to British Columbia in one year by $200 million, and then you slap their fingers for doing it, it's a little bit much for me to swallow. If you don't like the way the federal government handled the sales tax, then send them the cheque back for the money and tell them to mind their own business. But it's a little bit much for me to turn on the television after hearing this butterfly performance and remember what the Premier said about that nasty, dirty old Ottawa meddling in our affairs and forcing another $200 million down our throat.

MR. LAUK: Is that hypocrisy?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, that's not hypocrisy, my good friend - that $200 million payoff on the rebate on the sales tax. You went up in one year from $600 million from Ottawa last year to $800 million from Ottawa - $200 million that you give then heat for.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Tax transfer.

[ Page 959 ]

MR. BARRETT: Tax transfer? Oh well, oh, oh! I want to apologize, it's only a tax transfer. It's not Canadian dollars and nobody has to pay for it when Ottawa borrows the money and gives it to British Columbia. When the people who loaned the money want their money back, just say: "Oh, it was only a tax transfer, so we don't have to pay it."

You know, Mr. Premier, it was a great butterfly performance. Have you said a single new thing about jobs in British Columbia? Have you announced one single project? Have you announced one new approach in the economy? Have you said that you are going to create any new jobs? Not at all, except in the area of cynicism, which I'm sure some of my colleagues will pick up, and that's under the label of patronage.

The Premier of this province ran around when he was Leader of the Opposition saying: "We're not going to be a patronage government." There are more people on the political dole under Social Credit and that government than at any other time in the history of this province. It got so bad that the Premier announced an immediate policy: no relatives on the payroll. That gave more lawyers more work to figure out who was really a relative and who isn't a relative than anything else. The brother-in-law's brother is not a relative, but a cousin is a relative. It all depends on where you hired him.

The Premier of this province in his butterfly approach said that we need leadership. Under this Social Credit administration, capital investment in British Columbia has actually decreased.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: I wish you fellows would get along.

The capital investment in this province actually decreased under the Premier's leadership. Private investment in British Columbia in 1975 was $4.4 billion; public investment was $1.8 million, approximately. Taking in the inflation factor we are way behind where we were four years ago. Where is that magic revival of private investment in British Columbia under Social Credit? It's not there. There are no new jobs. As a matter of fact, Mr. Premier, there are 108,000 people, at last count, looking for a job in this province under your stewardship. And you haven't offered them one whit of comfort tonight.

Now, Mr. Premier, what about your comments on small business? What is the record of your administration? Everywhere I go in this province, every small community I go to, the .small businessmen who are left are trying to sell off what they've got left in assets. In your own constituency, Mr. Premier, just within the last six months, one edition of a local newspaper carried a listing of 126 businesses for sale in Kelowna and the environs - the highest number ever - and no buyers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's nonsense.

MR. BENNETT: Oh, that's not so again, says the Premier. I guess we have to bring the paper and show him the ads and the story.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You said: "No buyers." That's nonsense.

MR. BARRETT: No buyers in terms of the kind of traditional turnover, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Nonsense. Donot weasel around.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, don't get twitchy - we've got a long way to go in your estimates.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You've got a long way to 90 too.

MR. MACDONALD: Restoring confidence in Austin Taylor, Jr.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, don't bring up Austin Taylor, Jr.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, he's restoring confidence, eh?

MR. BARRETT: I realize that I've gone over my allotted time, so I'll try to keep it down to the same time the Premier has and raise just one more subject to deal with in terms of the Premier's comments, and I'll deal again specifically through the estimates.

The one demonstration above all of the inadequacy of the administration led by that Premier is its complete abandonment of its hallmark of operation when it said that it would make decisions based on hard logic and reason on the balance sheet. It was the "pay as you go" philosophy that justified the exorbitant increase in ICBC, now proven to be totally unnecessary. It was the "pay as you go" philosophy that led to the doubling of ferry rates, now proven to be devastating to Vancouver Island's economy. It was the "pay as you go" philosophy that led to the economic decisions. We remember all those statements by the Premier when he said it was tough, but we had to do it.

[ Page 960 ]

They set up a royal commission. They said they wanted to take the railroad out of politics, because it too would be based on the "pay as you go" theory. The royal commission was set up after the government drew some heat out of the out-of-court settlement of the MEL Paving case. Nonetheless, every citizen of this province was told that the same balance sheet phenomena would be brought to that railroad. The royal commission brought in a report under the guise of the rules laid out by this government that you must pay as you go. We disputed that policy; we have never viewed one segment of the economy as separate and distinct from other sectors. When the ferries were bringing in a lot of tourists and spending money, we collected taxes that way. If you decrease the ferry traffic, the small businesses go down the tube and they can't pay taxes. It's all integrated. We argued that, the Liberals argued that, the Conservatives argued that, but not this group of economic butterflies; it said "everything is going to have to pay for itself."

No politics. The first hard-nosed report comes in from the BCR and says to close down the Fort Nelson extension. The report was hidden from. the public for 90 days because a frightened government was faced with a political decision out of a Pandora's box that they opened themselves. They hid the report for 90 days, filed it in the House, ran away from the recommendation that the Fort Nelson extension be closed down, and they gasp for an outlet for a political decision that should and must be made as a pledge to those people and that is that that railroad must be kept open to Fort Nelson. They're faced with the dilemma of finding that the very hoax and butterfly line that they perpetrated politically on the people of this province, that politics was above this kind of decision-making, that from now on they're going to be hard-liners.... The royal commission said to close down the line, and they have had to back off politically. But do they do it with courage? Do they do it with commitment? No.

We see the sane old pattern the Premier has established by visiting towns. He visited Nelson, and after he left they closed down Notre Dame. He said he was going to visit Squamish. The threat of that visit closed down Railwest. He said in the election that he was going to keep the pulpmill open at Prince Rupert; the result of that was immediate closure after they were elected. He never went to Dease Lake, but that was shut down. Everything this government has touched has been shut down, cut back or closed. And they got away with it. It's the Premier's visiting kiss of death from a beautiful butterfly.

Mr. Premier, you are faced with a decision that you are not going to be able to get away with on the same basis. You are going to have to say that you are going to keep the Fort Nelson extension open. And what you are choking on, as butterflies do on occasion, is what to do with the royal commission now that it has to be repudiated.

I asked a question in the House today of the minister who is responsible. I said: "Do you have confidence in the royal commission and their recommendations?" That's a simple question. The royal commission was set up by this government and had the endorsement of this government. When the minister was asked, "Do you have confidence in that royal commission?", he was struck dumb again. At least this time we had the courtesy of his avoiding the answer with "I can't recall."

Who set up the royal commission? Who gave them the terms of reference? If you don't agree with their decision, then for goodness' sake have the common decency to say so on behalf of those people in Fort Nelson. Have the common decency to do that. You are playing politics with the lives of the people of the Peace River country. You are trying to create a straw man as if it was the federal government's responsibility for the railroad - and, Lord knows, I hope they put some money into it. But they did not start that railroad. It was started by a person relatively close to the Premier.

What a hoax! What a farce! And what butterfly economics! The appeal to leadership when none is forthcoming. The appeal for decisions when none is forthcoming. The appeal to investment when none is forthcoming. The appeal to confidence when this government does not even display confidence in its own province.

I want to conclude by saying, in terms of the Premier's appeal for everybody to work together in harmony, that we are all together in this province, Mr. Premier. And when you make an appeal, through you, Mr. Chairman, for everybody to work together in harmony, that includes every single segment of this great province. It includes the Vancouver Island population that depends on those ferries. It includes the people on the mainland of the great city of Vancouver who depend on some hope of public transit. It includes the people who live on the coast who depend on a coastal transportation system that you, unfortunately, have taken the total responsibility for. But, above all, it is a test of confidence and a test of leadership and a test of whether or not you are really committed to every sector

[ Page 961 ]

of this province, the whole area of the Peace River Country. Mr. Chairman, the Premier has to make a political decision. It's long overdue. Giving a speech like that tonight without including a commitment to every sector of this province, including the Peace River, is a complete and utter disaster.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, after listening to that, now I know why the province was in such financial difficulties when we came to government. I had expected in the new image for the Leader of the Opposition that the comedy routine would be forgotten and the personal attacks put aside, but it's just too hard for him to come to fit the image they are trying to make for him. I feel sorry for him because it will cost him his seat again.

Let me just remind him of a few things such as the tax negotiations that took place between the provinces and the government of Canada a year and a half ago in which tax points were given back to the provinces and which more accurately allow us to meet the responsibilities under fixed cost programmes rather than wait to chase those mythical 50-cent dollars which led this country into some of the most foolish spending programme and which are part of the problem we faced.

Thank goodness even his colleagues - or perhaps ex-colleagues, now that they know what he really thinks, from this speech tonight -from Saskatchewan who supported that will think twice. It's embarrassing for your colleague from Saskatchewan particularly, who removed the succession taxes last year out of their late removal of succession taxes from tax reform in 1972 that brought in the capital gains tax, to hear you attacking him. I know that the Premier of Saskatchewan, with a good NDP government back there, is concerned that your statements here are not the statements he is making in Saskatchewan. Is that part of the party? I know that the ex-Premier of Manitoba has already felt the results of how your statements and actions out here have helped to cause him to lose his government in Manitoba. I just couldn't let it pass. The Leader of the Opposition and former Finance minister of the province is quoting $200 million extra for the government of Canada. This is on page H7 of the estimated review: total contributions from other governments. That total Section 1s on the fixed-share cost programme, which has been entered into for a number of years in this province, in which are the health-care agreements or the income supplement agreement, and as such those dollars are committed in programmes. It has nothing to do with sales tax programmes.

1t's nothing to do with the gimmicky short-term sales tax programme that some provinces went for, it only has to do with shared cost programmes. If he can't read the estimated revenues, having been the Finance minister of this province, no wonder there was a $400 million loss in that year that left the $261 million debt. The people of B.C. had been assured that the Insurance Corporation would not lose any money, or perhaps might make a small profit, by the former Premier and the former president, Bob Strachan, who went to London as his reward for messing up the ferries and messing up the Insurance Corporation, and what happened? There was a $181 million loss.

The people remember. Six months earlier, that member was saying that if there was a loss, it would not be any more than $17 million or $18 million. The president of the corporation, a cabinet minister in that former government, said there might even be a small profit. There was a $181 million loss exposed to the people of the province; it's there in black and white. What they're wondering is what sort of a government would go to an election in mid-winter, in a hurry, just to cover up the fear of being exposed and letting the people know.

Thank goodness this cannot happen any more, Mr. Chairman, because we brought in quarterly financial reports. I hope it never happens, but if that group ever came back, that type of surprise, that type of disclosure, would face them on the election of a new government. There were losses that had been covered up and hidden, and, Mr. Chairman, no matter what he says, no matter how much he plays his comedy routine to the members of this House, he can never ever cover up the fact that that coverup took place and was exposed to the people of the province. And ICBC was not the only thing.

They had runaway government expenditures. The people weren't levelled with. Now he tries to create uncertainty when there is an increase in employment. He says this government has done nothing to create employment. Let me tell you, there are more people working today. In fact, the statistics for March show 1,082, 000 working in British Columbia, 20,000 up from the month of February. Mr. Chairman, that's 55,000 more people working than in March a year previously, and that's a great increase in the working force of this province.

What he wants to tell the people is that he had a programme for solving not the employment statistics but the unemployment statistics. That was to drive the people out of British Columbia so you won't have them on the unem

[ Page 962 ]

ployment rolls. We say bring them back and create jobs. There are 55,000 more people working t ' than were working a year ago in March. The outmigration that hadn't happened in British Columbia all during our growth years under a number of governments continued into our government - people moving out of the province. That was your policy for unemployment figures: send the people elsewhere.

I remember full well a member of your government saying: "Tell them to look for work in Alberta, " when there was a problem in the mining industry. We remember that statement. I want to say that for British Columbians, we're going to try and create job opportunities here, and we have. And, yes, the word is out. They're coming back from Alberta, and they're coming from Ontario, and they're coming from Quebec. Those statistics cannot be hidden. That is a fact in British Columbia, because last month, when 20,000 more people were working than in February, we had 19,000 new people come into the labour force. And that's the difficulty we face in this province. The people coming into the labour force are almost as great, and sometimes greater, than the number of jobs that are created. What we're trying to do is keep up with our own growth, and, of course, try and handle the growth that is now coming back from the rest of Canada.

Something was mentioned about hurting tourism. Let me tell you, the tourist statistics last year were the most impressive in all of Canada. When they were government, the former Minister of Highways (Mr. Lea) said he didn't want tourists. He told them he didn't want the tourists in British Columbia. I wish the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) would remember that %ten he says one thing, and his colleagues, whom you support, have said another thing and are on record as saying they don't want tourists. Tell that to the people of B.C. when you next campaign. You may like tourists because you're in Victoria, but your colleagues, the ones who were in the cabinet and will probably be there again, don't want them. They've already announced it; they're on the record. They told them that, so the tourists stayed home.

Not only were the tourists up last year, but the statistics for March show the room tax is up 25 per cent in this province, a 25 per cent increase in March, 1978, and it is going on.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I wouldn't expect you to support that and be enthused by it. It may not mean a lot to you, Mr. Member, but it means a lot to the people of this province.

I want to say also that the increase in the labour force - those coming in and those getting permanent jobs - is happening in every sector of the economy. It's happening in agriculture, it's happening in the primary industries and secondary industries.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're right, there's only one place where there is no growth in the labour force, and that's in the public sector - not just the government of B.C., but also municipalities, because all governments, whether you like it or not, are starting to recognize they must contain their costs. To the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber): the government shall not be the employer of last resort. It will be there to try and encourage employment, because the very same people you employ are also the taxpayers %ho pay the bills. We want to justify every programme; we don't want to short-change people or the job they can do. But, above all, we are not going to deal with them as numbers, to say that that becomes a major industry in itself.

We want to genuinely lower the cost of government as it reflects the gross provincial economy, and I must say that we have done that. In two straight years the cost of government, because of a broadening economy, is less of the gross provincial product, and this year will take another significant drop. It reached its highest level in 1975, the highest level in the history of this province., when provincial government costs went out of sight - almost 35 per cent higher than when that party became- government, as a percentage of the gross provincial economy. We have reduced that, and, Mr. Chairman, we are committed to continue that reduction.

Those are accomplished facts, and those are all part of building the economic base that gives us cause for optimism now. I would like to say that the labour statistics are more encouraging in a positive way, because there are more people working. There is capital investment and capital returning in British Columbia. In our major forest industry there have been announcements of capital-spending plans that should have taken place years ago, to give them greater productivity and a better opportunity to compete. Those announcements have been made because the government isn't creating the jobs.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) stands and says: "You haven't created one job." No, we're creating the climate and the programmes so that the private sector can create the jobs. He's right, we don't want to

[ Page 963 ]

be the employer. We want to be there where government has to provide those services that cannot be provided by the private sector, and we do not want to take away the individual's right to have more discretionary income.

Mr. Chairman, that's why we say that when it comes to investment, the government doesn't know best. We've had a government which proved that. Given powers that no Finance minister had - and that is discretionary right to invest, without bringing it before this Legislature, involuntary investments in facilities and private sector operations that normally can be covered and dealt with in the private sector - without a referendum, without a debate in the Legislature, the people's -money was spent by the former Minister of Finance (Mr. Barrett) in acquiring those purchases. Those weren't voluntary investments of the people of British Columbia. It was saying: "I'm going to tax you more. We'll take more of your money. You're not smart enough to invest in stocks or in your own businesses. We're the government and we'll take more and more of a share of your income and we'll invest it for you."

I say that's wrong. That's where we disagree. I will say that the government will cost less; the government will take less of the gross provincial product and less of the people's income. We will allow the citizens of the province to voluntarily make their own investments. It's their income. They have the right to make good investments, they have the right to make poor investments. But above all, we believe that they should have that right, because the record of government making their investments for them has not only not been acceptable to me in a philosophical sense; it's been a disaster. Government, in the short-term, can always try and make its investments look good in those areas served by the private sector, and it also has the opportunity to set the levels of taxation, set the regulations, and perhaps favour its own.

There is the obvious conflict of interest surrounding the forest industry firms picked up by the former government and administered by the then Minister of Forests, the hon. Robert Williams, who is now a researcher for that caucus there, the NDP caucus. The obvious conflict of interest, which is well recorded in the dealings with Plateau Mills, would indicate to any fair-minded person, to anybody who has any understanding of the conflict that will arise, that the government cannot ride three horses at the same time. We have a big enough job creating the law, setting the laws and trying to administer them fairly for all parties. But when the government becomes a player in the game and is also the referee and also writes the rule book, then no wonder private enterprise lost confidence, no wonder investment didn't take place and no wonder this province had a three-and-a-half year hiatus of investment, of expansion, of optimism.

We had a three-and-a-half year period that drove people out of the province. We had a period which I say we have had to overcome and it's overcome because the in-migration has started again. There is nothing more telling than that. Those who have left have come back, and those who are leaving are coming back, and they're bringing with them others who see the record of success and the growing opportunity in British Columbia.

It's amazing because, when I go back, the Premiers of the other provinces are pretty proud of what British Columbia is doing. They know we're making a great contribution to the rest of Canada. We know that it means a lot to them. They're not afraid to tell the story of British Columbia, even though they may be governments that are from another political party.

You know what? I'm not embarrassed that the Premier of Saskatchewan, an NDPer, disagrees with the NDP here and took off succession duties. I'm not embarrassed for him. I'm embarrassed for his party here because, although I disagree with him philosophically, he is respected as an administrator in this country among some of the finest administrators. While we disagree philosophically, it's nice to see that he agrees with us there.

The second thing. I was at a First Ministers' conference in which the Premier of Saskatchewan came in with a plan to start more energy projects. His plan, his contribution to the First Ministers' Conference, while not in the detail of this, was one thing: accelerate and bring on line new, heavy capital expenditures in energy projects. At the same time, in Victoria, the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) , the energy critic for that party aver there, is announcing that that party wants a 10-year moratorium on all energy projects in this province. What complete inconsistency and what an embarrassment for the Premier of Saskatchewan who genuinely isn't playing politics but is concerned and, in his way, felt that was the answer. We had some concerns about that as an approach and we expressed it. But to see the inconsistencies where that party is government, the only surviving NDP government that differs so markedly from that group over there, both as opposition and as government, tells a story in itself. In that and in their success in their

[ Page 964 ]

survival has been the fact that they have a reputation in the country of being sound administrators and not changing their positions from day to day. They're concerned. That party aver there as government lasted three years - three and a half years too long. You'll never have the record of Saskatchewan because you're too busy playing politics and not concerned about the future of this province.

MR. BARRETT: Far be it for me, air, to deal with such humbleness. If the Premier of this province is disclaiming that he has ever played politics, then that's a brand new one.

Let's deal with some of the comments. A $181 million loss in ICBC. The government loaned ICBC $181 million one week and borrowed it back before the week was over. They gave it to them and borrowed it back before the week was over. A little bit of political bookkeeping.

Under the old Social Credit, at least they used to use three shells and one pea. Now they've changed it. They've got 10 shells and no peas, and they're still shifting them around. The Premier of this province then asks for an appeal on the basis of statistics. This is really a grabber. He asks for an appeal on the basis of statistics when....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Now, Mr. Premier, you say that the labour force went up when you were in office. I remember when the Minister of Labour revealed to the House that for the first time in the history of British Columbia jobs went over one million in British Columbia. And who was the first to denounce that use of statistics? The Premier, who is now using the very demographic statistics for his support tonight. Nonsense! Go back and read Hansard in your earlier statements. That's why you were a caterpillar then and a butterfly now.

What about jobs? What about the steel mill negotiations with NKK? Down the tube under Social Credit. What about the oil refinery negotiations with Great Britain? Down the tube under Social Credit. You went to Great Britain and you didn't bring one dollar of investment back from that trip, Mr. Premier, not one dollar.

The Premier says he's adding jobs, not on the public service. You've added more people in the Premier's office than ever before in the history of this province. You've got more people working in your office than ever before. You've got public relations men, PR hacks and everything else seconded to your office. You created those jobs and they're in the public sector. Who created the Systems Corporation - a boondoggle against private enterprise? You did it. Then you set up the B.C. Buildings Corporation and you hire more people there. You did that.

So when you talk about having clean hands and patronage and the labour force is up, it's all nonsense. Can't you get over the fact that you won an election? You want to keep on refighting, refighting and refighting. You haven't shown one iota - you know, Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting - not one bit of leadership, not one new decision, not one new job, not a bit of hope, just that negative old carping stuff you started in opposition and you've refined as Premier. Where is the image of the statesman who talks about the First Ministers' Conference? Where is the message of hope tonight?

As far as that back-bench group down there, they contribute absolutely nothing other than burping noises led by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) , whose name I forget almost immediately.

Mr. Premier, I find the Premier running for cover in his speeches. You won't face an evening public meeting anywhere in , this province and stick around for a question period. You will not ask for a question period.

Mr. Premier, when you went to Fort Nelson, you got off the platform and ran away from a question period. There is not one series of evening meetings you hold on a town meeting basis in this province where, after you're through speaking, you say to the audience: "Ask your Premier a question."

It's always run and hide after the meeting -run and hide. You deliver a message of hope, leave town and close things down. Why don't you get on the hustings and go out into the ridings and the areas of this province, stand up on a public platform and say: "Okay, folks, I'm your Premier. I'm giving you a stewardship report after three years. Ask me any question you want." You haven't got the guts to do it. You never do it.

You come in here and you've got the claque clapping for you. This province is used to a different kind of leadership from your father. It was a tradition that politicians had access. People can't get to see the Premier of this province. They cannot get to see cabinet ministers. Even industry-oriented newsletters complain.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bilge! That's garbage, and you know it!

MR. BARRETT: If the shoe fits, wear it, Mr.

[ Page 965 ]

Minister. You are the most arrogant, removed government, based on the idea that the argument you've got power on is that you've stopped socialism and provided nothing else as an alternative.

Mr. Chairman, would you keep that poor minister in order?

AN HON. MEMBER: You do not know what you're talking about.

MR. BARRETT: The Premier did not answer the question about the Fort Nelson extension. The Premier did not answer the question about new economic development. Yours is a catalogue of hiding from the people of this province. You've hid from them in almost every region of this province and it is a sorry record in terms of politicians being available.

I remember what the Premier of this province said when some kook threatened my life. I remember that. The Premier of this province said: "Oh, he's brought it on himself." Now the Premier admits that some kook has threatened his life. That's the danger of public life and I regret that those things happen. But if there has ever been a runaway, hide-out, scared-of-the-people Premier, there he sits over there.

Mr. Chairman, if the Premier was so convinced of his three years of stewardship, why is it that in every area that I go to in British Columbia the first question they ask me is: "When is the next provincial election?" You made your little threats. "Oh, I might call one here and I might call one there. " They have never been so disgusted by a government as reactionary as this one - a Premier who does not make himself available to the public, a cabinet that is inaccessible, an excuse ridden government that is ruling for the rich and the millionaires, won't have public meetings, won't answer questions of the public and hides out here in Victoria every single day.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, it's going to be an enjoyable week. I just want to recall for the Leader of the Opposition that this government has had more cabinet meetings in all parts of the province....

MR. BARRETT: Where are your public meetings in the evenings?

HON. MR. BENNETT: If he's not through shouting, I'm willing to let him shout for another 10 minutes. If not, I'll remind him of a statistic. This government has more cabinet meetings in which the cabinet has been available to the citizens of the province, and the Premier....

MR. BARRETT: Nonsense! Will you answer questions?

MR. KING: Runaway Bill'

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, would you control them?

MR. KING: If you could control your government like he controls this House, we'd be well off.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Anyhow, more cabinet meetings in all *parts of the province in two years.... Not more than just the last government in its three and a half years, but more than that government and the government before in its 20 years and the government before that. Of recorded cabinet meetings around this province, we have had more in two years than in the last 30 years.

Not only that, the accessibility of this government is well known. I want to cover that in what the Leader of the Opposition would consider his own backyard, and that is the series of meetings and accessibility, not only for management and industry, but for the labour leaders of this province, directly with the Premier. One of them said to me at one of the meetings: "You know, for all the talk of the NDP being our party, we've never had the accessibility and the type of frank talk that we have had today." That from a labour leader in this province.

That accessibility has been extended to al 1 levels in this province. I just want to say one thing: the statements by the Leader of the Opposition that we haven't had a public meeting in the evening with a question period in this province in two years is not only not true....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where was it?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell him that he made a statement which is totally untrue. It's totally untrue but that is characteristic of the statements that that Leader of the Opposition has made in the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Delta.

MR. BARRETT: That's the only one, Delta.

[ Page 966 ]

Very heroic. Name the next one.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, not only that, an advertised public meeting.

MR. BARRETT: Name the next one.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, because we have already proven what you are. By naming one we've already proven what your statements man.

MR. BARRETT: Name two. You've never had a meeting outside for questions, never had.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You see, it's like the old story. We've established what you are. It's just a matter of the price. We've established what you are. What you want to know is to What degree. The people don't need to know the degree; they just need to know the general characteristic of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I will be dealing with a number of the specific economic developments that have taken place because of government in this province aver the next few days. A lot of the initiatives were mentioned in the budget, a lot of then were mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. That opposition at first blush didn't know what to do. They called the budget an election budget. They got back to the caucus room. Bob Williams, who is collectively smarter than all of them, said: "You can't say it's that good; you've got to oppose it." So the next day they reversed field and they started to attack.

But let me say we had something in this Legislature that I don't think has ever happened before, and that is a party in the opposition supporting the budget of the government. I don't think that's happened anywhere, any time. We have not just one party in opposition but two of the three opposition parties say they are supporting the budget. Two out of three is not bad, particularly when you're going to set a precedent and a record that here %us a government that brought in a budget during the most difficult times in Canada that got the support of two out of three of the opposition parties. You'll never hear that again - never, never,

Mr. Chairman, I expect to go through a number of areas tomorrow, particularly transportation. Mr. Chairman, that will conclude my responses for the moment.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad that the Premier got up. Okay, now we've established that the Premier wants to indulge in insults as a response to the debate, that's fine.

The Premier announced that he has had one public meeting in Delta. Was there a question period?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, good. Hurray!

All right, I ask the Premier: where is the next public meeting where the Premier is going to be available to answer questions? Is it Fort Nelson? Why wouldn't you answer questions in Fort Nelson?

Mr. Chairman, I say the Premier of the province is a runaway Premier that will not make himself available to the people- of this province. Mr. Chairman, I challenge you to compare the Premier's record of availability to the public to this cabinet and to myself when we were in office. We had meetings and there was always a question period.

HON. MR. BENNETT: How many Douglas days did you have?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I have no difficulty recalling what I said, especially when it was on tape, Mr. Member. It borders a little bit on privilege when something is said on tape and it comes in "I can't recall, " as that minister says.

I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier of this province has been a run-away-and-hide Premier on almost every single major issue faced as a problem by this government. You were the one that raised the Speaker affair after he was on the canvas. You came to his defence after he was knocked out. You are the one that has hidden and run on almost every single issue. Friday afternoon you take plane to Kelowna. Then the announcement comes of what happened last Friday. The B.C. Rail report was hidden for 90 days. You've never released the report on the B.C. financial institutions corporation. You've never released that, never.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Mr. Premier, one thing I do have for you is some sympathy. I can understand some of the problem you have in terms of security of tenure when you have the Minister of Human Resources available to public meetings. He gets a bigger applause at the party convention than you do, and is willing to go anywhere in the province and answer any question.

The Minister of Human Resources goes to the university and stands up in front of a crowd

[ Page 967 ]

and answers their questions. The Minister of Human Resources makes himself available. And the Minister of Human Resources has his eye on your job. I find it interesting that the Minister of Human Resources gets thunderous applause at the convention because he's available to talk and listen to people - but not the Premier. I find it interesting that the Premier won't go to a university, face a university audience and answer questions of university students.

I find it very interesting that the Premier won't go out and meet delegations. He always says "Bring them up to my office. " I find it interesting that the Premier said he would go to Squamish and talk to the Railwest workers and never went. You never went to Squamish. You let those workers down. You are a run-and-hide Premier, hiding behind public relations and images.

HON. MR. MAIR: It's better to run and hide than to be a runner-up.

MR. BARRETT: Well, that's very interesting. That's a pretty good statement: it's better to be a run-and-hide Premier than second best. Is that what you said?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, you're not second best.

MR. BARRETT: It's better to run and hide than to be runner-up - is that right? Well, I'm prepared to face the people of this province any time, Mr. Chairman, at a public meeting. I've never run away from a question period in my life in politics. I have never refused an opportunity to be asked questions at any meeting I attend; that's a matter of record. I've never run away from an audience or hidden away from questions. Those people pay the taxes and they have a right to access to their politicians. You run from them. You hide from them. Even your own minister says so. Even your own minister says it's better to run and hide. Run and hide - that's the strategy.

The Premier talked about investment. Are you saying that those investments you are going to sell off in the investment corporation are not a good deal?

Mr. Chairman, the butterfly homilies come home. "Oh, government cannot run anything, but folks, we're going to sell you something that can make a buck, that's already made money -the government owns it."

MR. BARBER: How about the shares in the Bank of B.C.?

MR. BARRETT: You've talked about Can-Cel. Mr. Chairman, I ask the Premier of this province: are you saying that Mr. Ronald Gross was interfered with as chairman of the board of Can-Cel? Are you saying that Donald Watson who was also a member of that board was interfered with, when Donald Watson, who is now a prominent person in the corporation you set up, has said publicly that the NDP never interfered?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who interfered with Plateau Mills?

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Chairman, there is an interesting observation. The Premier is struck with silence. All right, you tell us that Ronald Gross said he was interfered with. Write the rest of the questions down; I want some answers. I'm not the public. Write them down. Are you saying Can-Cel with Ronald Gross was interfered with? Are you saying that those investments are a bad investment? Are you saying that Westcoast Transmission....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Sit down, my dear friend. You are very jumpy these days. You can have all my notes YOU want.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, that's good. I'll answer Charles from here.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the Premier's making note of the questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: He always reads other people's mail, anyway. I suppose you found it in the briefcase.

MR. BARRETT: No, not a briefcase. I don't know where they got that telegram from.

AN HON. MEMBER: We know what kind of a case he is.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I ask the Premier of this province to tell the people of this province if Can-Gel was interfered with, or Mr. Gross was interfered with by our government.

MR. LAUK: Back up your charges.

MR. BARRETT: I'd like the Premier of this

[ Page 968 ]

province to admit now that when he said that I'd hired my relatives for the B.C. Railroad, he was wrong.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I did not.

MR. BARRETT: You did so, in Hansard. I'll get the quote. You said a lot of other stupid things too, which you've never apologized for.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I will. I did last year, and you refused to answer.

Mr. Chairman, I ask the Premier of this province where the next meeting is scheduled to which the public will be invited and time will be set aside for question period. Will you tell us where the next public meeting in the evening will be held, by you and you alone, at which you will stand up and answer questions from the public? Will you tell us that?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Chairman, I would like the Premier of this province to say when the political decision is going to be made on the Fort Nelson extension, because it is a political decision that has to be made. When is the decision going to be made on the Fort Nelson extension, the political decision that has to be made?

I want the Premier to tell us if the Westcoast Transmission investment was a bad investment. I want the Premier to tell us if the purchase of the B.C. Telephone shares was a bad investment. Are you writing them down? And I want the Premier to tell us whether or not he's going to divest the Bank of B.C. shares held and bought by the Social Credit administration. Now, Mr. Premier, if you believe in that, the first pattern of buying shares was done by Social Credit, not by the NDP, and they bought shares in the Bank of B.C. Are you going to sell off the Bank of B.C. shares bought by the previous Social Credit administration? Have you got a note of that?

Would the Premier tell us how much was retired during our term of office on the parity bonds and how much is left on the parity bonds? Mr. Chairman, would the Premier inform the people of British Columbia how much was retired in parity bonds during our administration? - that instant debt left by the previous administration? Now there's a series of questions, and as the First Minister, I would appreciate some answers. Okay.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition asks about conflict of interest or difficulty in the forest industry. He didn't mention the company that's been well recorded, and that's the statement made by the president of Plateau Mills.

MR. BARRETT: The president of Plateau Mills? Tell us what he said.

HON. MR. BENNETT: And I will bring the exact quote into this Legislature because I used it last year without challenge, and the year before.

MR. BARRETT: What did he say?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I will bring it, because he mentions the timber sale, the controversial timber sale and the events surrounding it.

MR. BARRETT: What did he say?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I will bring that to this Legislature, yes, because it's well known in B.C. Perhaps you're the only one who doesn't want to know it.

MR. BARRETT: You tell us.

HON. MR. BENNETT: But that's been well recorded in this Legislature.

MR. BARRETT: What did he say?

HON. MR. BENNETT: If the Leader of the Opposition hasn't been doing his job and isn't aware of it, I'll bring it back, because everyone else has heard it.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, all right, you bring it in tomorrow.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Now, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of other questions but apparently the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) doesn't want to get on this late. So, Mr. Chairman, I will allow the second member for Victoria - he's been trying to get up all night - to get up and add his questions to those which have been posed, and we'll get along with the debate.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, . my good friend, the second member for Victoria, passed a note down to me. He said: disregard the first one." Thank you, Mr. Member.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I asked the Premier of this province to tell us if Westcoast Transmission was a bad investment. Mr. Chairman, I

[ Page 969 ]

asked the Premier of this province to tell us if the B.C. Telephone shares purchase was a bad investment. I ask the Premier to tell us whether or not he's going to divest the government of shares in the Bank of B.C.

Those are three questions. Have you got them down? Okay. I ask the Premier of this province: was there any interference by our government in the Can-Cel operation? I ask the Premier of this province to tell us what Mr. Martens said about our negotiations with Plateau. Five questions.

Now can you answer some of them without getting some research? Was Westcoast a good investment? Was B.C. Telephone a good investment? Are you going to divest of the Bank of B.C. shares that were bought by a previous Social Credit administration, setting the pattern of public entry into the field? Are you going to sell those shares off? Was there any recorded interference or otherwise?

Last but not least: what is the answer on the extension to Fort Nelson? There are questions; let's have some answers.

Mr. Chairman, I'll go it one at a time so it's easier for memory to recollect. Is Westcoast Transmission a good investment? The purchase of our shares of Westcoast Transmission - did that prove to be a good investment? Did the purchase of the B.C. Telephone shares prove to be a good investment? Will the Premier be selling off the Bank of B.C. shares bought by a previous administration?

Now, Mr. Premier, don't get into a pout and run and hide here in the House. That's your public stance. You've got to sit through your estimates and we'd like some answers. Okay. Was Westcoast a good purchase?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The rules of the House are quite well known by all members.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Premier has made note of these questions. I think we've had a very fruitful opening on his estimates.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:50 p.m.