[ Page 1077 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Joint Housing ministry-B.C. Hydro, committee. Mr. Levi –– 1077

Youth employment programme. Mr. Gibson –– 1078

Leaseback of ferries. Mr. Levi –– 1078

BCBC charges to ministries. Mr. Barrett –– 1080

Committee of Supply; Executive Council estimates.

On vote 5.

Mr. King –– 1080

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1083

Mr. Barrett –– 1086

Mr. Strongman –– 1089

Mr. Levi –– 1091

Mr. Lockstead –– 1095

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1098

Mr. Lockstead –– 1100

Mr. Mussallem –– 1101

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1103

Mrs. Wallace –– 1104

Mr. Cocke –– 1108

Mr. Nicolson –– 1110

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. BARBER: I had the pleasure this morning of speaking briefly with a fine group of students from one of the most respected independent schools in Victoria. I am referring to Norfolk House, and I should like to take this opportunity' to welcome here to the Legislature today its students, Mrs. Smith, their teacher, and Mrs. Gault, the teacher's moral support. They're all here today and I ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Another group of students in the gallery today and visiting the Legislative precincts through the course of the day are from Parkland Secondary in the constituency of Saanich and the Islands, accompanied by Mr. Woodley, the teacher, and most importantly, student visitors from Ottawa who are the guests of Parkland students through this period. Would the House welcome them?

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, seated in your gallery is a long-time friend, Mrs. Edith Edgar of Nelson, and her brother, Mr. George St. Denis of Roberts Creek in the Mackenzie riding, and I wish the House would bid them welcome.

MR. KERSTER: Presently touring the Legislative precincts is a group of students from Sir Frederick Banting Junior Secondary School in Coquitlam. They'll be in the gallery at 4 o'clock this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, with their teacher, Mr. Wickerson. I'd like the House to welcome them in advance.

MR. STRONGMAN: Today I have two guests visiting with us in the gallery. To begin with, there is my father, Del Strongman from Toronto, Ontario, and Mr. Peter Kains, a business associate of mine. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. BAWLF: I'd like to add to the welcome by the second member for Victoria to the Norfolk House School students and their teacher, Frances Smith.

MS BROWN: There is a group of students from Kitsilano Secondary School in the gallery, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Ippen. I would ask the House to join me in bidding them welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the gallery today we have Mayor Al Kenyon from the host city of the 1978 B.C. Summer Games, Penticton, and I ask the House to bid him welcome.

MR. ROGERS: All members of the House are aware of the legislative intern programme. I believe there's a legislative intern working in everyone's caucus offices. Today our legislative interns are them elves hosting about 16 legislative interns from Washington state. I guess they are Dixy Lee's people. I trust everyone will join me in welcoming them.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed to question period today, I trust I can have the indulgence of every member while I draw to your attention a matter of procedure.

Each afternoon when we come together at 2 o'clock the first order of business, if it can be termed business, is prayers. Some members choose to come to the chamber; other members choose not to come to the chamber. I think that should remain the wish of each individual member.

However, I would ask the courtesy of those who choose not to come to enjoy the offering of prayer but who assemble in the Speaker's corridor to the rear, if they would do the rest of us the courtesy of observing some measure of silence until prayers have been pronounced. I trust that all hon. members would be able to do this and I know that we would honour you for it.

Oral questions.

JOINT HOUSING-MINISTRY-B.C. HYDRO COMMITTEE

MR. LEVI: I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Yesterday, I started to ask the ' minister regarding the function of the joint ministry and B.C. Hydro committee in respect to Pacific Stage Lines and the Vancouver Island Coach Lines. His reply at that time was that there is a staff committee to examine possible duplication or opportunity for integration of services offered by both companies.

I would like to ask the minister: in view of the fact that B.C. Hydro has made a decision to dispose of Pacific Stage Lines by the end of the year, what possible purpose can this committee serve in respect to Pacific Stage Lines?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, we see that it will have great value.

MR. LEVI: Perhaps the minister will now

[ Page 1078 ]

enlighten us as to what value it can possibly have if one of the companies is not going to be there at the end of the year, in respect of the government.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is basing his statement on something of a false premise.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Energy, Transport and Communication in a letter to the Premier reported in that letter that the B.C. Hydro has decided to dispose of Pacific Stage Lines and charter operations by December 31,1978. Surely the minister can be clear in terms of what the intent of the committee is, and if that in fact is a policy of B.C. Hydro.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I look to you for direction again. I think that the member is not deliberately suggesting that something is so, but rather he has based his statement on a false premise. It also seeks out govern-ment policy, which I think is contrary to the rules with respect to oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you for assisting the Chair. The question is really not admissible.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMME

MR. GIBSON: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Several recent news reports have drawn attention to impediments to students' summer employment as a result of inability to reach accommodation between unions and management on the terms and conditions of such student employment. Examples have been described, for instance, by Doug Collins, involving BCIT students and the BCGEU, and by George Dobie with respect to the HLRA and the HEU. Mr. Dobie even suggests the minister should knock some heads together.

In his capacity both as Minister of Labour and minister responsible for the Youth Employment Programme, I would ask the minister if he would be prepared to make an early statement of government policy and expectations in this area, in order to render more effective the expenditure of government money for the Youth Employment Programme.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano for giving me advance notice of his question, which is a very serious one. In specific answer to his question, as I understand it, yes, I will be making an early statement with regard to this very important matter. However, I prefer and believe it more appropriate that any such statement be deferred until the matters which are at issue between the Health Labour Relations Association and the Hospital Employees Union be resolved before the Labour Relations Board, which is currently dealing with the matter.

The subject of the difficulties of BCIT and the BCGEU arises with respect to a federal programme. I'm not certain precisely what the regulations are associated with that programme. I have asked f or a report on that issue to determine whether or not the circumstances are similar to those which we have in British Columbia. As soon as the Labour Relations Board has dealt with this specific matter, however, I will be happy to respond further to the member's question.

LEASEBACK OF FERRIES

MR. LEVI: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister tell the house who are the present owners of the three ferries that are being leased by the government of British Columbia?

MR. SPEAKER: It seems to me the Chair recollects this question being asked yesterday.

MR. LEVI: There was no answer; it wasn't taken as notice. The question that was taken as notice yesterday was in relation to McLeod, Young and Weir.

MR. SPEAKER: The standing orders provide that questions previously asked are....

MR. LEVI: It was not previously asked, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister may wish to answer.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Actually, the question was, I believe, previously asked, but I have the answer to it here and would be quite prepared to give it.

With relation to the present ownership of the three ferries you were referring to yesterday, first of all, the Queen of Coquitlam, on July 6. 1976, was transferred from the province to McLeod, Young, Weir Leasing (No. 1) Ltd., and on July 7. 1976, from McLeod, Young, Weir Leasing (No. 1) Ltd. to Royal Trust Company.

In the second case, the Queen of Alberni, on July 27,1976, was transferred from the province of British Columbia to McLeod, Young,

[ Page 1079 ]

Weir Leasing (No. 2) Ltd., and on July 28,1976, from McLeod, Young, Weir Leasing (No. 2) Ltd. to Central and Eastern Trust Company.

In the last case, the Queen of. Cowichan, which transaction took place on November 22,1976, was transferred directly from the province of British Columbia to Canada Trustco Mortgage Company and Montreal Trust Company, co-owners.

So to the best of my knowledge, the present owners, in other words, are Royal Trust, Central and Eastern Trust, and Canada Trustco Mortgage Company and Montreal Trust Company, co-owners.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question and further elaborating on yesterday, with regard to this transaction, a further analysis of the benefits of it which I submitted yesterday really comes down on the fact that with an effective lease rate on the original transaction of some 7.71 per cent including the residual value of those vessels, assuming they were to be repurchased, there is a benefit to the province in terms of the Queen of Alberni of some $6,675, 120 over an 18-year period. In the case of the Queen of Coquitlam, there is a benefit by virtue of a comparison between a lease rate of 7.71 per cent and the effective market rate for 18-year funds of 10.25 per cent, a benefit towards the province in terms of this lease of some $7,772, 000. In the case of the last transaction, the Queen of Cowichan, which took place in November, 1976, the acquisition cost was $17 million. Relating again to the lease rate of 7.71 per cent, a benefit of some $6,395, 000 aver an 18-year period, Mr. Speaker.

Now totalling out the three ferries on a very rough basis, this equates to a benefit in favour of the transaction as compared to owning it, in which case there would have been an obligation on this government to borrow in addition to the borrowing which we were already faced with incurring, Mr. Speaker - a borrowing of $261 million. Add to that $48 million we've had to borrow at 10.7 per cent and so on, and you have a benefit in favour of this transaction on the three ferries of some $20.7 million.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, the minister has very elaborately laid out the gain to the taxpayer on this. Could he now tell us - can he calculate for us, because he is the Minister of Finance, and bring it back to the House - just exactly what was the gain tax wise in terms of the three companies, which represents a loss to the income tax of Canada? That was one of the original advantages to this particular deal. Not only did you go out to get this, but there was also a benefit accruing to the companies that picked up the ferries. So can the minister tell us, in his estimation, what the amount of money was that was saved by the three companies and not paid in income tax. That loophole, of course, has now been closed.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I think that question might be better directed to the federal government. In any event, I can say that the ultimate effect of any tax advantage to the owners of these assets, as it affected British Columbia, would not be really sizeable.

MR. MACDONALD: These three ferries were public assets. Did the minister advertise or call any form of tenders to get the best deal possible for the people of the province?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the member must have been absent yesterday, when I gave the complete detail on submissions which were received on the transaction.

MR. MACDONALD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I know that, but was there any advertising, for people to make an offer to buy some of the assets of the public of B.C.?

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the Blues.

MR. MACDONALD: Was there any advertising?

MR. BARRETT: No advertising.

PRINTING OF ICBC FORMS OUT OF PROVINCE

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I made inquiries, on behalf of the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) , with regard to certain printing that was done outside the province. Specifically, the member asked why, in view of the wide unemployment in the province, ICBC was having forms printed in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, two forms are currently being printed by R.L. Crane in Ontario: an interim licence and owner's certificate, and a temporary testing and demonstration permit - one of them shared by the motor-vehicle licensing section. These printings are done outside the province of British Columbia because they're specialty-printing jobs. It is my understanding that there is tendering in each case.

I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for not having this information at my fingertips. It had not come before the current board. The practice had commenced when Mr. Strachan was the presi

[ Page 1080 ]

dent of ICBC and the Minister of Transport, and at that time the member who asked the question was the vice-chairman of the board of ICBC.

BCBC CHARGES TO MINISTRIES

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Highways and Public Works.Can the minister inform the House what formula is used to arrive at the rental charges to ministries by the B.C. Buildings Corporation?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'll be glad to when my estimates come up shortly.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, I've asked you now. I asked the minister a question today and I'll ask him some during his estimates, to be fair. I asked you today: can the minister inform the House what formula is used to arrive at the rental charges to ministries by the B.C. Buildings Corporation? Do you know?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, I must reiterate again - to be redundant - that we can ask questions but we cannot press for answers.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, before you said anything the minister was going to get up. Do you know, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'll bring the answer to the House.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, you don't know what the formula is, do you?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, did he say he's taking it as notice, or what? He just said he might bring it to the House. I'd like to know what the minister is going to do with the question. Is he going to answer it or take it as notice?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, I think the minister has the question.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, he was just getting up. We proved that he's alive; now we'll see if he can talk.

Saved by the bell! I'll come over and give you mouth-to-mouth.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

(continued)

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

MR. KING: Yesterday, I enunciated for the House a list of companies that had gone out of business during the tenure of the present government, and a list of the lost jobs in that period. To bring that list up to date, as I shall be doing from time to time, I want to announce that H.J. Langdon, electric contractors of Victoria, is going out of business in the current month of May with a loss of an additional nine jobs. That brings to a total of 5,336 jobs that have been lost under the policies of the present government.

Mr. Chairman, at the same time I was providing the House with a list of jobs the government has created for their friends, and I had not completed that list yesterday so it's my pleasure.... It's not really pleasure; it's with some pain that I do this, but I do feel an obligation to complete that list today.

We had got down to the portfolio of the former Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications yesterday, and pointed out that he had hired Joan France as his executive assistant at $19,500 a year, and then he appointed his son-in-law, Michael McKelvey, at $19,500 per year. He was subsequently replaced and Peter Hopkins was hired for $19,500 per year. Then came Lewis Madley, long-time Social Credit Party worker from the W.A.C. Bennett days. He was rehired by the former Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications in 1976 as administrative officer grade 4, at a salary range of between $21,612 to $25,536 per year.

The Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) has as his executive assistant Keith Frew, an ex-radio technician, I believe. It was pointed out that he didn't know very much about the new job when he took it over. He said it was quite new, and actually he had no experience or knowledge, but the minister deemed him to be worth $19,500 a year in any event.

The Minister of Finance has a Vancouver South Social Credit worker, Richard Ewing, at $19,500 per year. And we move on to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) . He originally hired Bill Fothergill, and Bill Fothergill had a son, Ian, who did some work for the minister too, on a contract basis. I don't think there were any bids. Then he hired Landis Smith at $21,500 as executive assistant, and Joyce McLaren at $19,500 a year as

[ Page 1081 ]

executive assistant.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) brought on Caroline Gran, former Social Credit worker, $19,500 a year, and Patrick Rogers, former campaign manager for the Socred member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) , $19,500 per year.

The Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) hired Don Larsen, who had some kind of family tie with the minister, at $19,500 a year as executive assistant to begin with, and then there was a change in designation and Larsen was appointed liaison coordinator, and his salary was increased to $29,000 a year - a $10,000 increase in pay. There are those who hold that Mr. Larsen is effectively the Minister of Highways, and I suppose that's better than drifting along without any. The minister has F.H. Sproule, as executive assistant. He is paid $19,500 a year. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) I believe has an executive assistant now. He didn't have when this list was compiled, but I think he does now.

Interjection.

MR. KING: No, the minister still doesn't have one. Dianne Hartwick used to do some work for the minister, and report to the Premier.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) has Robert Exell, former public-relations man from Ontario - $19,500 a year. Mr. Exell has had a promotion. Re started out at $19,500, but now he's been designated co-ordinator and he receives $24,420 per year.

The Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) has an executive assistant who is the past president of the B.C. Young Socreds. His name is Henry Landry and he was hired originally at $19,500 per year, then had his appointment rescinded and was reappointed at an unspecified salary. I'm not sure what it is, but presumably it's an increase.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Reappointed to what?

MR. KING: I don't know what his title is at the moment, but I understand he's still with the minister's office.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Are you saying he's reappointed? Where?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not true.

MR. KING: Not true? Well, I'd be happy to have the minister clarify it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You made the statement. Where is he? It doesn't have to be true, he can just say anything. Is that it?

Interjections.

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

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Premier is awfully twitchy today. He doesn't like hearing about the Social Credit pork barrel. He be comes very nervous and exercised.

When I started out to read this list to the House, I invited any of the ministers who were offended or who found that there was error to get up and clarify it, and I look forward to that. This is the list I have, and I'd be happy to hear any clarification.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We'll tell you.

MR. KING: I have a lot more for the Premier to listen to yet, Mr. Chairman. He shouldn't get too exercised. He's very nervous.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has Wayne Steeds, former Socred constituency secretary - $19,500 a year.

MR. BARRETT: Who's that one?

MR. KING: His name is Wayne Steeds, former Socred constituency secretary. And there's Clarke Housley, a former radio reporter -$19,500 per year.

Do you remember how objectionable the Social Credit opposition used to find Peter McNelly's appointment?

MR. BARRETT: Oh, no, the Liberals were most self-righteous. Remember they used to be Liberals?

MR. KING: The Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) has Walter Donald, former public-relations man - $19,500 a year - and Lucy Wyse, formerly the minister's constituency secretary. She was fired last December so the post could be filled by Maury Gwynne, a long-time legislative reporter. Then, lo and behold, an order-in-council created a brand-new position of administrative clerk in the minister's legislative office -at $5.45 per hour. Guess who got that job? Lucy Wyse, who had been the previous executive assistant.

The former Speaker of the House (Mr. Smith) had an executive assistant, Mr. Brian Palmer, who worked out of Fort St. John - $19,500. 1 believe he also had an executive assistant in Victoria.

It's quite an interesting list, and I don't

[ Page 1082 ]

think it's complete, Mr. Chairman. I'll be updating it as we go along. They are the direct appointments, operating out of ministerial offices and under direct ministerial control.

There are some others that I should mention. In addition to the ministerial appointments of party supporters and hacks, we find an individual by the name of Robert Bonner as chairman of British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, at $48,000 a year. I imagine some people in the House have heard of Mr. Bonner. Re used to be a cabinet minister in the old Social Credit regime. B.C. Cellulose chairman Ray Williston is a former Socred Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. He receives.... I don't know. Everyone has refused so far to specify what his salary is. I think it's $40,000 a year.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It was answered in the House.

MR. KING: And then the B.C. Development Corporation, Mr. Chairman, has as its chairman Newell Morrison, former Social Credit MLA in the last Legislature.

Who else have we got? The Land Commission and its commissioners: Alan Claridge, Socred Party member; Raymond Kerr, Socred Party member; Harry Singh, Socred Party member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Harry Singh is dead, Bill.

MR. KING: The B.C. Ferry Corporation has director Graeme Roberts, defeated Social Credit candidate in Nanaimo. He happens to be a used-car dealer too, fits right into the mold.

Interjection.

MR. KING: All right, deceased.

The B.C. Housing Corporation chairman, Tom Toynbee, is also a well-known Socred.

The B.C. Railway royal commission. One member of that commission, Sydney Welsh, admits to being a card-carrying Social Credit member.

AN HON. MEMBER: He can rip up his card now.

MR. KING: The electoral reform commission, of course, had to be non-partisan, so we appointed a member of the judiciary - Judge Larry Eckhardt. It was just incidental that he happened to be a defeated Socred candidate also. Absolutely coincidental.

The B.C. Buildings Corporation director, Gordon Shrum, was a well-known associate of the Social Credit Party in the W.A.C. Bennett days.

Board of governors, University of British Columbia Jus Peterson, former Attorney-General in the previous Social Credit regime.

MR. BARRETT: Is there nothing Socred?

MR. KING: That's about it, Mr. Chairman. I shall be updating this list as we go along. I haven't listed them all.

It is interesting to note that while 109,000 British Columbia workers can find no gainful employment under this government, while literally hundreds of small businesses are going broke and bankrupt each day, with hundreds more workers thrown into unemployment, there seems to be all kinds of work for the friends of Socreds.

Let me leave you with this quote from the Premier. It was made at the Social Credit Party convention in November, 1975: "The first day in office we abolished the patronage system. This is not a spoil-system party; this is not a patronage party." My God, just think who they could have hired, had they been all of those things. They'd have had their mothers in here, for goodness' sake.

I tell you, the friends of the Social Credit Party are doing very, very well at the public trough.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't hire all of them.

MR. KING: The ordinary citizens of this province are suffering. The Premier has yet, in consideration of his estimates, to address himself to any meaningful direction or any policy direction that would revitalize the economy of this province, and get it moving and people working.

MR. LEA: Hear, hear! "Work with Bill."

MR. KING: He has given no commitment to clear up the pork-barrel patronage that is prevalent under this government. His commitment to stand away from pork-barrel politics was an empty promise, as proved by the fact that when confronted by election promises and, indeed, when confronted on any issue, the Premier runs away and hides. He runs away and hides.

MR. LEA: "Work with Bill."

MR. KING: The Premier is indecisive. Not only is this government drifting, the whole province is drifting. Until the Premier gets some starch in his back and starts to have the gall and nerve to stand up in this House and answer for his policies in a specific way, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we are going to

[ Page 1083 ]

see untold harm and damage in this province.

MR. LEA: "Work with Bill."

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: How come you never got a job?

MRS. JORDAN: I've got one.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He had to buy his way back in.

MR. KING: Your daddy paid your way, Bill.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, we won't pay much attention to the last member when he mentions people who are deceased on the list and people that he says are reappointed but he can't say where, because no such reappointment or appointments exist. It is typical of that member. He is not only wrong, he is totally incorrect.

Rather than deal with his statement, I'd like to get back to the estimates and deal with my initial statement in this House and statements I have made since about the policy directions this government is taking in leading the province towards what is one of the strongest recoveries and strongest economic performances in all of Canada.

Mr. Chairman, the budget put out by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) is a budget which was applauded around British Columbia. Even on the first blush it was applauded by the opposition, who called it an election budget. They then got back in their caucus room and Bob William said: "You can't say that. You've got to go in and attack it."

Do you remember how they had to leave the chamber one day to go and find out how to vote on the independent schools issue? They wouldn't stay in the House and vote or debate it on second reading. We know how they take their instruction. Bob Williams isn't going to let them say anything ever again until they go back and get their instructions.

This is a budget and programme, Mr. Chairman, that provides for job creation. Many members of this assembly have stood up and spoken glowingly in favour of the budget. Many of the people around the province - small businessmen and others - have written in and congratulated the government on this budget and programmes that will lead, and continue to lead, British Columbia on this path of economic recovery.

They know the difficult job that we have had for the last three years. They are also aware, despite rhetoric and rumours by the opposition, that Canada is in difficulty. They are not stupid. The public can see that Canada as a whole is having difficulties. They can see what has happened to the dollar. But they also know that the Conference Board and the Economic Council of Canada have been publishing figures showing that British Columbia is the bright spot in Canada for job creation, economic growth, gross provincial product, activity. Articles are being written saying that the economy and the people are looking westward to Alberta and to British Columbia because that is where things are happening in Canada.

That party over there has stretched their credibility beyond any imaginable concern ti, e public ever had for the validity of their statements with what they have been saying and what independent economic authorities are saying is happening in British Columbia. It's ludicrous.

The second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) is used to creating rumour and smokescreens. Do you know why? He supported a party and he didn't know really what they had done in government. I can remember his earlier speeches in here where he used to speak of things and then find out what his party had done as government. He used to blush a lot. The only thing that has happened to him - he's still wrong - is that he's lost the ability to blush or to be embarrassed. That's too bad because I really liked him and I still like him. But he was so refreshing when he had the ability to blush and hadn't become jaded and so political.

Here's a report by Canadian Press in the newspaper which says: "Alberta and British Columbia, with real growth rates of 5.5 and 4 per cent, respectively, will be the only provinces to exceed the Canadian average - the 3 per cent average level - according to the quarterly report of the Conference Board in Canada." Last year this province had a growth rate double that of the Canadian average. Mr. Chairman, we could go on and on. All of the economic reporting agencies in this country say that British Columbia not only has an outstanding record of growth rate for last year but this year is again projected to be part of the leadership of the economy. Our exports, our job creation.... We had 5,500 more people working in March of this year than were employed in March of last year.

MR. MACDONALD: You've got a long way to go to catch up with the NDP record.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The other day I compared the March figures and I got a very interesting figure. You know, our summer employment in July is always good. They tried to compare

[ Page 1084 ]

July of the best year of the best month they ever had with the recent March which is a period of increasing employment. I'm going to be interested in comparing July with July -the great growth rate of employment.

interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Now they are starting to chirp. Listen to them chirp over there.

Mr. Chairman, I have copies of many economic reports: Employers Council, Conference Board, Economic Council of Canada and others that have made glowing forecasts of British Columbia's position in a relatively weak Canadian economy. We are taking this province upward, while the rest of the country flounders. That's hard to do when the total Canadian economy is in some trouble. British Columbia is going against the grain. We are leading this province forward.

What I can't understand is how that group over there expects the public to give them any credibility at all when they keep saying how things are bad here and things are terrible. The public them elves can see the opportunities that are developing. They've all got reports of this budget with its job-creation programmes. Its balanced budgets are not going to leave a legacy of debt and a drawer full of bills for the young people of this province that that party advocates. They want to spend today the future wealth of the economy and leave the young people of this province with the bills. That's what they've advocated and that's what they believe in: spend today and leave a legacy of debt and a drawer full of bills for the young people of the province.

The young people know what you are saying. They can't believe it. They are better educated and they are smarter than you think. They are not going to follow that line of you leaving them with your debts. They'll never allow their parents to vote your party back in, because they don't want to be left with the costs. What they want is sound management and that's what they are getting. They are getting the third successive balanced budget.

I've gone through these programmes earlier in my estimates. The member for Revelstoke Slocan (Mr. King) apparently wasn't in the House when I talked about the assist to small business, the tax cuts, the job stimulation programme and others. He wasn't in the House when we provided the answers on the salary for Mr. Williston that he says was never provided. Quite often these members aren't in the House when information is given. Then they come in here and say that nobody will tell them anything, but they won't stay on the job long enough to find out. They ask a question and then they leave. You know, miss and run. They've been answered.

The Leader of the Opposition is making the same speech that I first heard him make in 1972; he's making the same speeches that he made in this House when I camp in in 1973. And you know what?...

AN HON. MEMBER: 1963.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, well, some of the members who remember back even farther say "1963." And you know what? He ran the government - and it didn't run well - of f those speeches. He ran an election on them and lost it on those speeches, and he hasn't learned. He's still making the same speech, with the same jokes. And I must admit that, with all the practice, no wonder he's such an accomplished performer. But rather than to have that speech continually on this same stage, I believe that he should put the show on the road and give us a rest in here, so we can get on with the people's business.

AN HON. MEMBER: In December, 1975, he put it on the road.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, what I've said and what the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has said and what has been spelled out in both the budget and the throne speech about the dynamic economic thrust this government is encouraging this year - the job creation programme, the tax cuts, the tax incentives, lowering the cost of government to our people - all of these things are well recorded and the public well understands them. It looks to be a year in which we continue the strong economic growth we experienced last year. And legislation on a number of new programmes -yet to be debated in this Legislature - will substantially supplement those it mentioned in the budget. We see things improving in British Columbia and we see a restoration of confidence and we see the public of British Columbia accepting the challenge to do things in the private sector. They said: "Give us the opportunity and we will do it."

Many people also have shown their appreciation by writing in for the economic proposals this government took to the First Ministers' conference in February - writing not only from British Columbia, but from across the country, While we are concerned as British Columbians and as the government of British Columbia responsible to British Columbia for our affairs, we're also Canadians and part of the Canadian economy. We intend to continue to

[ Page 1085 ]

pursue and advocate those policies which will restore and develop a stronger Canadian economy. Now those proposals are well known now and, I'm sure, have been studied by the opposition, as they have been studied by other governments. We continually have contact with other provincial governments on other aspects of those proposals which, although discussed favourably, were not adopted at the first conference. But we intend to support them at the next conference in November. The four western Premiers, at the recent conference in Yorkton, Saskatchewan, endorsed some more of the proposals. Also there are the regular conferences and the follow-up by officials to make sure that the governments carry out what they agreed to and provide the mechanism for action - not just words at a conference, a moment on the stage and then leave - and to provide an agenda for future conferences so that all governments have a chance to set the agenda and not just the federal government unilaterally. That's been endorsed now by my colleagues in this and other areas, and British Columbia will continue to play an important role - a leadership role - in dealing with the other governments of Canada in attempting to do something worthwhile for the Canadian economy and for the people of Canada. That's another role that our government must play at this very crucial time.

In concert with that are proposals on modernization of government structure - dealing with what has been termed the wide-ranging constitutional debate and the concerns that have been expressed. Again, British Columbia has been well quoted and many of our proposals and suggestions and research have been picked up not only by others in British Columbia, but by many other governments and leading spokesmen across this nation who are concerned for the survival of the country. But more than being concerned for its survival, Mr. Chairman, those people are looking for a more modern approach to governing the country; they're looking for new ways and structures. They want to end a lot of the overlapping of government that ends up in bickering and quarrelling. They want divisions of powers that relate to what Canada really is and the Canada that we have today, the growth patterns that are taking place in this country. Mr. Chairman, this government has played a positive role at First Ministers' conferences and Premiers' conferences in dealing with those delicate issues - delicate because we have one government, the social-democratic government of Quebec, which is about to take their province out of Confederation. I disagree with their goal. I would think that the citizens of Quebec, like the citizens of British Columbia, can find a more equitable and better future within the framework of Canada, our country. And our proposals have been not to give any area or any region of this country a special status, but to give greater opportunity for all parts of the country, and that's part and parcel with the governmental reform and economic reform which we have advocated.

As I have said, no province is an island. We can do all of the things that will make British Columbia grow, but we are still part of the Canadian scheme of things, which can affect even our best effort. Mr. Chairman, we do it for our good but we also do it for the good of the country. We believe we have something to say and we've said it. We believe we can do something for the country and we're prepared to work for it. There are areas that are well known in those documents, which have been tabled in the House.

We're pleased to be part of the continuing talks. At present, with the uncertainty of a federal election, it's not sure whether the August or September constitutional meeting of First Ministers will take place, but I'm confident that the commitment to regular First Ministers' Conferences on the economy in November of every year will continue to be a commitment of succeeding governments. This way we can for the first time and have for the first time provided a mechanism by which governments can relate and consult and do something worthwhile for this country. Too often these conferences have not produced worthwhile after-results and that is the follow up and the action that have been required. We now have, that opportunity and many things are happening.

I'm also pleased to say, Mr. Chairman, that what this government has done is try to bring British Columbia into the Canadian mainstream. We've achieved many agreements with the government of Canada for the benefit of our citizens - DREE agreements, ARDA agreements -at levels never before reached in this province, when no agreements seemed to be made with the government of Canada. It then left dollars for available programmes on the table, and while our taxpayers pay a large part of the bill, our share of the dollars was not flowing back to British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, a large number of agreements have been agreed to. We are now engaged in a series of major negotiations that will be of importance to British Columbia and Canada. These are negotiations and discussions that take place between governments on a continuing basis. They succeed and they are succeeding where they didn't succeed before because we've

[ Page 1086 ]

set up the structures. We not only have the willingness to work for the country and within it, but we've set up the structures of intergovernmental relations that provide for the efficiency and flow of information and the consolidation of ministries within our own government that wasn't here before.

I don't have to remind you of Professor Tennant's paper about the administrative chaos and lack of leadership that surrounded this province in the preceding government. He said that in a technical and structural way they had no opportunity to succeed because they didn't provide the mechanism, the administration, or show the leadership to do things. That's been changed and it's working. We see the results of it in agreements and we see the results in newspaper articles and in statements from those in the east and in central and western Canada who find they now have an opportunity to talk with British Columbia for the betterment of both our areas and for our country as a whole.

These are the things that we've achieved that are continuing. It's part of the leadership this government is showing in not only meeting the needs of our people in a personal way in this province, but in a national way in trying to make our contribution to this country called Canada.

So, Mr. Chairman, when they talk about leadership and programmes and getting things done, I think anyone reading our throne speech and the budget and actually seeing what we're doing and seeing the results and the proof of the pudding, reading the reports from the Conference Board of Canada and other reputable economic institutions to see what they're saying about British Columbia and what we have achieved and what they see for us, makes a mockery of the highly rhetorical, highly suspect political statements of the opposition over there. Now I would hope that they would give us some concrete proposals. We're willing to listen to concrete proposals in order to do even more for this province. I'm sure that somewhere, sometime, instead of being negative and knocking and political, they can be positive. I hope so.

So, Mr. Chairman, I know that during this sitting of the Legislature we'll see and hear those positive programmes or those positive assists so that the people of British Columbia who support Cyril Shelford's aims will see the Legislature working together rather than divided, and hopefully there will be some positive thoughts come out of this Legislature.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, above all else, the Premier is becoming a bore. From the very beginning of his estimates, we've had the same shuffling of papers, touching of the microphone, flipping of the nose, and the same rhetoric coming out saying absolutely nothing. He talks about every meeting that he's gone to, and "I answered questions, " and let's get on with the legislative business. He talks about memories of what the former government was and how he's become so perfect. You know, it sounds like a senior clerk giving a catalogue of the number of books that are in a desk, or anything else.

There are 110,000 people unemployed out there. They asked the Premier of this province to come out and meet with them to talk to them, and he didn't even have the guts to go out on the lawn and meet with the unemployed of this province.

There are communities all over this province where small businessmen are going bankrupt and the Premier doesn't show up there and talk to those people, but comes in this House and gives us that boring rhetoric about how he's bookkeeped this province into the hole that it's in. The Premier of this province proudly proclaims that he's had one evening meeting where the public was invited and they could ask questions.

MR. LEA: He didn't mention the Union Club.

MR. BARRETT: No, we'll talk about the Union Club later.

Mr. Chairman, that Premier has been a monumental bore these last four days. He has not lived up to the role and promise that he made when he gave that famous slogan; "Work with Bill." It's been a disaster ever since, and you have not grown into the job in terms of giving leadership and decisions for the people of this province.

The Premier of this province comes into this House and tries to lecture the province of Quebec from this distance, by saying: "Those decisions to pull out of Canada, and those decisions to pull out of the union...." The Premier of this province won't face the fact that the border communities of British Columbia are in desperate shape, simply because of the effects of the Alberta budget on those border communities; there is a whole section of this province waiting for a decision by that Premier. He's talking about Quebec pulling out and the people in Fort Nelson don't even know if they're going to have their railroad.

The next speech we get f rom the Premier on this boring rhetoric will be his call to the United Nations to solve the world's problems,

[ Page 1087 ]

including the complex issues in Africa, the difficulties in Rhodesia, and every other place except dealing with his mandate here in British Columbia for the people of British Columbia. The Premier went to Great Britain and spent thousands and thousands of taxpayer dollars on hotel rooms. Lord knows how much they cost overnight. Three hotel room bills in one night would be enough to pay for well are for a family for a month in this province.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I tell you this, Mr. Member, the results of my visits overseas were an $80 million commitment for an oil refinery that has been put down the drain by this government, an $80 million oil refinery investment that was blown by this government.

Mr. Chairman, there it is. That minister went to Japan and lost the NKK deal with the Japanese. The minister behind him is trying to kill the farmers in this province, and we get that boring, runaway jazz about: "I went to this ... I did this ... and I gave all this stuff." Mr. Premier, when are you going to address yourself to the very real problems of the unemployed and the people who are going broke in this province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: We want Vander Zalm.

MR. BARRETT: At least with Vander Zalm we'd get a little bit of colour and style; at least it wouldn't be all boring. At least with Vander Zalm we'd get a little laugh at the cornpone. At least with Vander Zalm we know where we stand.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must remind you - and I'm sure you know - that we don't refer to members in this House by their names but by their....

MR. BARRETT: At least from the hon. Minister of Human Resources, the member for Surrey, who gets more of a welcome at the Socred convention than the Premier doe-, there's some.- response. At least he's got the guts to go to university audiences and face the students and answer questions; that's something that the Premier hasn't done in this province.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, please. We have recognized the Leader of the Opposition, the second member for Vancouver East. Perhaps the other members would allow him to continue.

MR. BARRETT: While the Premier goes through this repetition of shuffling the same old papers on his desk, the young people of this province who go to university, whose parents have invested what modest amounts of money they can collect to see that their children get a decent education.... What kind of jobs, what kind of future is available to them under the Social Credit administration?

Mr. Chairman I want to bring to your attention the release from the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada. The Premier's always referring to "this organization says we're good, that organization says we're good." He never gives the name; he never gives the date. He's the same man who came- in this House last Monday night and said: "I'll tell the Leader of the Opposition all about Mr. Martens and conflict of interest." He has yet to bring Martenso alleged statement into this House. He slithers around the truth, as my colleague from Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) said, and I agree with my colleague for Vancouver East. He tells us what the professional organizations are saying about this government, what the economic conferences are saying, but never brings in a quote, never shows a page, never files a document, just fumbles around with the same old empty words: "We're counting the pencils better than any government."

MR. KING: Empty rhetoric.

MR. BARRETT: "We put every telephone number in order better than any government." That's the kind of stuff that he thinks is inspiring to the people of this province. He's a bore. Mr. Premier, you should have the guts to go around this province and meet with people and talk to them about their problems, rather than hiding and running every time you get a chance.

Mr. Chairman, the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada has released the latest summary of the effects of lack of government action in all provinces in this country, including British Columbia, on their profession, and the impact it has had because of government decisions or lack of action. British Columbia has one of the worst records, according to the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada. This is what they have to say about our province: "A survey of architectural firms in this province done by the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada shows that in British Columbia last year there was a massive slump in construction of architect-designed buildings, largely due to government policies which have messed up the economy in British Columbia."

Mr. Chairman, the survey revealed that in

[ Page 1088 ]

1977 more than half a billion dollars' worth of planned building projects were halted, including $397 million postponed and another $159 million cancelled outright under a Social Credit administration in British Columbia in one year. The Royal Architectural Institute survey blames postponement and cancellations on: government decisions, $118 million lost; financing difficulty, $76 million lost; and poor economic climate in British Columbia, $246 million lost under your stewardship.

So while the Premier goes through that boring stuff about "the meeting I went to and the people I met, " this whole province has suffered one of the worst years it has ever had in the area of this kind of service and employment.

My colleague, the member for Revelstoke Slocan (Mr. King) , read a catalogue of closures, month by month by month, in the province of British Columbia: February, March, April, May, June - jobs lost all aver British Columbia. It's small comfort to those people who have had to move out of this province or leave their homes or lose their mortgages to have the Premier tell them he's very good at counting pencils.

The Premier slithers around. The Premier says, "I'm going to bring this in, " and "I quote that document." He never files any documents; he never quotes anything correctly. I have to remind him again that he made a whole speech attacking me based on a Hansard document, and the Hansard document was a speech made by my colleague for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) . You can't even read that much.

Mr. Chairman, what a pathetic, boring performance we've had at a time when this province needs dynamic leadership, dynamic decisions and dynamic commitments. I asked you to tell the people of Fort Nelson whether or not their railroad was going to be coming into town. There's still no answer to the people of Fort Nelson. Is that leadership? That's runaway, that's what that is.

You asked for positive alternatives. You referred to the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) , and now you praise him. It's always great to throw a lily on a politician whose career is dead. It's great to heap praise on it, just like when Scotty Wallace was going. He was the best guy, as long as we knew he was going. The same way with Cyril. Good-bye, Cyril, but you were wonderful.

The kind of stuff the Premier is talking about in terms getting work done in this House.... What about irresponsible, wild statements when it came to debates in the province of British Columbia, when he ran out of this House and said, "Not a dime without debate, " when they were wasting hour after hour in debate in this House?

Yes, the Premier loves to be selective about his memory. The Premier loves to appear to be the best clerical pencil counter in the history of British Columbia, but the Premier has not provided leadership, jobs, development or security for the citizens of this province.

My good friend, the member for Skeena, talked about the old Social Credit and the need to understand some competitive access to funds in the financial marketplace, and I agreed with him. But what was the first government who ever brought in a device to enable the collective power of the people through their government to have access to other than the private banking system?

You want to talk about constructive alternatives. You make a plea for the opposition to give some ideas. I happen to agree with the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) when he stands up in this House and says that the private banking system has been a hold-back factor in the development of British Columbia. I agree with him. But as that member knows, the only government that dealt with any competitive force with the private, corporate banking system in this country and with the Bank of British Columbia, which is another private bank.... We passed legislation in this province enabling us to have an alternative for funding known as the Financial Institutions Act of British Columbia.

But what my friend doesn't know was that after we lost the election in December, 1975, in February, 1976, placed on the Premier's desk was a report from the British Columbia credit unions who, in conjunction with the government of British Columbia, would have offered a new financial service to help the small businessmen, help industry, and help development in this province. That Premier has kept that report secret in his office since February, 1976.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier sits on that report. He keeps it secret. Then he has the nerve to offer gentle thanks to the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) for his suggestion of an alternative. The suggestion is there, in fact, in legislation passed in this House. The implementation policies have deliberately been kept secret since February, 1976, in that Premier's office.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: My dear friend, there is a fellow who knows from his own personal experience the necessity of having alternative financing other than the private banking

[ Page 1089 ]

field.

Mr. Chairman, do you think the Premier should keep that report secret? The Premier of this province tries to give the impression that everything is fair and above board, while he keeps secret reports, sells off assets, and then goes out and tells the young people of this province: "We'll give you the new kind of government. When you own a ship, instead of you owning it without any debt or any mortgage, Social Credit is now going to sell it off, and you are going to have the opportunity of paying twice to get your own boat back." What do those young people think of that kind of stupid financing?

The Premier has given us a new idea. His father had more vision in his little pinky than he has in his whole body when it came to vision in this province. When the father had problems dealing with the Ferry Corporation, he built ferries in British Columbia. We thank him for that. When the father had transportation problem with the major railways, he went ahead and built the BCR. We thank him f or that. If his father were running the show today, the last thing he would do is sell off the Crown corporation assets like Can-Cel and Plateau Mills. His father would use those instruments to build a pulpmill in northern B.C. right now.

You want positive suggestions. You blew a trip to Britain. We had an $80 million commitment for an oil refinery. That is down the tube. We should be building another pulpmill using the assets - already owned by the young people of British Columbia - that you are trying to sell off. If you had any guts and leadership, you would use the financial institutions and say to the private sector out there: "You've gone on strike with your private capital. Our people are not going to suffer through unemployment and welfare. We are going to go to work with our capital and our labour, and together all the forces in British Columbia will beat the problem of unemployment by ourselves rather than by outside interference."

I've specifically asked the Premier. of this province time and time again in this debate -and he has yet to answer it: "Do you think Westcoast Transmission has been a bad investment? Yes or no. Do you think our purchase of B.C. Telephone shares has been a bad investment? Yes or no. Do you think your father's purchase of the Bank of British Columbia shares - which started that pattern of good investment in British Columbia - was bad? Yes or no." Not at all. He won't answer those questions.

I want to tell you.this, Mr. Chairman: this Premier, who has run from every solid question by getting up and fumbling through papers, is becoming nothing more than the leading bore of British Columbia.

MR. STRONGMAN: Mr. Chairman, it's nice to be recognized, finally. I can't help but remark on the member for Revels toke-Slocan (Mr. King) , in his comments a few moments ago. How can that member stand in this chamber and insult the intelligence of all members by reading out the number of political appointments that this government has made when his party hit new dimensions in the appointment of political hacks and hangers-on from 1972 to 1975?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense!

MR. STRONGMAN: If you grouped their appointments together you'd find a study in incompetence that is unknown in this country - a new low.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. STRONGMAN: Mr. Chairman, would you bring that member to order? That member that soars like a bee and stings like a butterfly is at it again.

I said that the previous administration's appointments were a study in incompetence and a new low in Canadian political history. One of the benefits of their appointments, though, is that with every appointment that they made, unemployment in British Columbia dropped by one person. You have to think about that one.

The second member for Vancouver East on Monday of this week spoke at length attacking the policies of our government. Again, that member is a very disappointing speaker. He attacks, he talks about destroying and negativism, and it's in concert with all his previous remark made since he was parachuted into the House through a by-election in Vancouver East. One thing that member has done: he's been consistent in that he has very seldom, if ever, been positive; nor has he given us any support or any advice that he should be able to give, having been the Premier of this province for a very brief time. He demonstrates no concrete proposals, little thought, and entertaining comedy. It's a Chaplinesque attack and just about as effectual. It reminded me of Chaplin in the film '!Modern Times" - out of phase, ineffectual, repairing a pocket watch with a sledge hammer. He's comic, that member, because of the pathos that he creates on the

[ Page 1090 ]

remarks that he gives to this House.

One of the things he hasn't realized is that when the laughter goes through this House, which it does often when he speaks, people aren't laughing with him, they're laughing at him.

There's one basic difference, though, between the second member for Vancouver East and Chaplin. Chaplin was a brilliantly funny humourist, a satirist. The second member for Vancouver East is nothing but a Canadian joke. During his remarks last Monday, the second member for Vancouver East attacked free trade. He calls it a "magical solution." He claims the jobs will be lost, jobs will disappear, investment will dry up and industry will desert. I say that's utter rot. If we're to survive as an economic unit, we must move to a free trade society. Trade must go from north to south, south to north, especially in western Canada. Free trade will move us into the 20th century of the economic world, with energy costs, transportation costs.... I recently read and heard a speaker in Vancouver - a very well-renowned scientist from California - claim that energy costs will be in the order of five to seven times what we are experiencing right now by the year 2000. Putting that input into our economic house, if you will, by the year 2000, energy costs and transportation costs will make this area a very insular one. It will solve and make redundant any tariff policy any government will place on us. It's now up to us to make the move towards free trade and the one thing we can do is do it now rather than have it forced upon us at a later date. That member seem-, to have little confidence in the ability of our people to compete in the free economic world.

I happen to have confidence. I don't see that there's any difference between a border between Washington state and B.C. and the border between Alberta and British Columbia. We can compete and I would rather compete in a free market than one that is stacked against us, as it exists right now. I can give examples. One that comes to mind is where a similar product manufactured in the U.S. crosses the border with a 5 per cent duty applied to it. The very same product manufactured in this country, moving south across the border, has a 17 per cent duty on it. How can we compete when our federal government places tariff restrictions on our manufacturers to that order? That's one example. There are many more just like it.

Interjection.

MR. STRONGMAN: No, Mr. Member. That was arranged through the Liberal government in Ottawa in the Kennedy round tariff negotiations. That was the agreement made between the two countries and that is what your party placed on this country. The border between the U.S. and Canada is the longest, most formidable tariff fence in the world. Put economic reason on that fence and it will collapse.

During the remarks of the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) last Monday, he made a number of comments, but two that stood out in my mind were his referral to Lord Durham and his report that goes back to the late 1700s or early 1800s and Sir John A. Macdonald and his protective tariff. The socialist leader here in British Columbia believes in British colonialism and eastern Toryism -the strange bedfellows a drowning politician makes!

The second member for Vancouver East claimed that private industry was resting on its laurels, and I take issue with that statement. I think that's utter nonsense. Private industry and free enterprise built this country. Everything we have - our lifestyle, social benefits, freedom of movement, standard of living, education, freedom of choice, all of those things were generated through a free enterprise system, a capitalistic system, and one that I'm proud to be part of . Why is it the socialists attempt to tear it apart? I think that they wish to take over society at any cost. In my view, socialism, or to be polite, democratic socialism, as most of them wish to be called democratic socialists, feeds like leeches on the success of capitalism. Without a successful free enterprise system, socialism would not exist.

The Leader of the Opposition also claimed that our government is planning the destruction of the B.C. economy. Again, utter nonsense! Only a man such as that member would know a loser. He's a loser, so he recognizes -or thinks he recognizes - what might be a loser. Oh, I see he's back. He all but destroyed this province, destroyed the hopes of his supporters. He has a built-in self destruct button, and let's hope that he never again has a chance to push it as Premier of this province.

Now to move on to the Ministry of Energy, Transport and Communications, one of the items that I spoke on last year was our government commitment to....

MR. BARRETT: Are my estimates over?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[ Page 1091 ]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, would you ask him if he's through with my estimates?

AN HON. MEMBER: Push the button.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The second member for Vancouver South has the floor.

MR. STRONGMAN: I'd like to refer now to the Ministry of Energy, Transport and Communications. During my remarks last year on this ministry, I spoke at length on the possibility of a third-level carrier system in the province. It seems to me that we shouldn't be relying on outside carriers to do the third level carrying work within the province of British Columbia. PWA, Air Canada and Canadian Pacific do most of the carrying of people within the province of British Columbia. It's my contention that we should now be looking at third-level carriers that are controlled, owned and managed by British Columbians so that profits from this enterprise remain within the province.

MR. GIBSON: What about PWA's head office?

MR. STRONGMAN: I'll come to that, Mr. Member; thank you for reminding me. I've got it further down in my notes.

I'd like to refer to a letter from the former Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Mr. Davis) to the Hon. Otto Lang on February 8,1978. Being a very lengthy letter I'll not read it, but there are a number of points within the letter that I think outline the desires of our government. What I would like to ask the minister in this case is if we are going to continue to pursue support from the federal government on the following points. This letter is to Otto Lang on February 8, and is signed Jack Davis:

"A top priority project in British Columbia is the commencement of a genuine STOL wheelcraft operation between Vancouver and Victoria, with extending service to Nanaimo, Comox and Powell River. The key, however, is the Vancouver-Victoria run. In the Victoria area, a suitable STOL port is lacking. It is understood that we originally could use the Vancouver International Airport, but at this end to give good service it would require a STOL landing port in Victoria. The two most likely sites are Ogden Point, which adjoins the legislative buildings here, and Work Point, which is just across the Victoria harbour -which is federal property, by the way. The Ogden Point area is owned by the government of Canada and Work Point is owned by the Department of National Defence.

If STOL aircraft or third-level carriers could be put into operation in the province -and there will be numerous airstrips that would not have to be upgraded; the Dash-7 aircraft that is being presently built by De Havilland and is available as a 50-passenger STOL aircraft has a landing capacity on a strip under 2,500 feet - the saving in cost on upgrading airstrips throughout the province to accept jet aircraft would be considerable. The crux of the letter is summed. up in one brief sentence:

"I'm writing to you now asking that you confirm that we can immediately examine the possibilities of a STOL airstrip in Victoria. Its construction would be a catalyst we need."

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Minister, in this case I would ask that our government pursue that goal, that third level carriers certainly should come under the purview of the province. It would appear that the federal government should be lobbied, forced, asked - whatever means possible - to provide an airstrip in Victoria that would accept STOL aircraft. If that facility were to be available, I then think our government should look at the financing - either by lowcost loan, lease, or credit guarantees - for individual entrepreneurs, allowing them to buy aircraft of this type so that we can set up a third-level carrier system within this province. I think that it is a very desirable goal and one that I hope your ministry will continue to pursue. Thank you very much for your time.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we've had a repetition of the Premier's speech on free trade, and a touch of irony, as one looks over to where he's sitting ... oh, he's just got up.

The Minister of Human Resources (Mr. Vander Zalm) is going to introduce a new concept of free trade in the province of British Columbia. He's going to start charging for welfare services. Yes, that's a new form of free trade - you know, pay as you go. That's what we're going to have. Next thing is we're going to have the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) come in and start giving his ideas about free trade - you know, pay for the blood as you go.

MR. LOEWEN: How about the former welfare minister.

[ Page 1092 ]

MR. LEVI: Well, the former well are minister's doing very well, thank you, Digger. And it will be a long time before you get him -professionally, of course, that is.

You know we had a little discourse from the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman) - Where is he? He's under his desk there - talking about socialism. Then he told us about the private enterprise system, about all the wonderful things that it's done for the province, that it's done for the country. Well, I'm not aware that the private enterprise system ceased functioning five or ten years ago, or even last year. One of the - if you like - legacies of that system today is that in the whole of Canada we've got more than a million people unemployed, and that's with a private enterprise system. In this province over 140,000 people are looking for work, and that's with a private enterprise system. And the Premier wonders why it is that we are critical about the system. Never in the history of the NDP government did we have as many unemployed as you've got today. Never in the history of this province have we had more unemployed than we've got today under that free enterprise government - the free trade specialists.

Now let's talk about the Premier's own riding, because he wants to show leadership to the small business people. He wants to make sure that the small business people have an opportunity to operate. So what he does is give the task to the Minister of Economic Disaster, Mr. Chairman, and of course he's yet to produce a job. But let's talk about the Premier's riding. I mean, does he go there? Does he take a look at what's going an in the riding, or does he spend most of his time down here?

We've had suggestions from the Premier about what they're going to do. That's all we've had for the last three years - suggestions on creating employment. For instance, has the Premier taken the trouble to go around in his own riding and talk to small business people and find out why it is that so many of them want to get out of Kelowna, want to sell out and go?

The other night, my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) , made reference to some advertisements that were in the local press, and I want to go through this because I'd like the Premier to tell me if he thinks that there's anything factual about the kind of crisis that exists in his own town, Kelowna. I mean, after all, when you see an advertisement in February, in the Kelowna Capital News - a throw-away newspaper - through Associated Realty - I'm sure the Premier's familiar with it - and what are they doing?

What does the advertisement say?

MR. SKELLY: He's looking at the press gallery.

MR. LEVI: Well, he can look at the press gallery, that's okay.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I just looked up to see if they were writing. Nobody's writing.

MR. LEVI: What does the advertisement say? This is the Premier's dynamic province, and this is the Premier's dynamic town. The ad says: "Associated Realty. Trust the counsel of our specialists in the commercial department. We have listings available in the Kelowna area." That's where the Premier comes from. "We've got eight franchised restaurants." Now this is the tourist belt. In the middle of the tourist belt of British Columbia we've got the following happening right in the Premier's area: eight franchise restaurants that want to sell out; 19 industrial leases; 21 motels, hotels, lodges and pubs. What's happening to the tourist trade over there? Three stores, 18 warehouses, 30 commercial spaces, 26 small businesses, five beauty shops, six service stations, four flower and craft shops, all in the Premier's home town. Two tobacco shops and 28 industrial businesses are up for sale. Eleven grocery stores, two repair shops, four clothing stores, two drapery shops, 26 revenue buildings, 16 revenue lands, three bakeries, four mobile homes, 264 businesses.

Now let me see whether we can take a look at what the effect is going to be on the employment population in that area. Let's conservatively - because we are dealing here with motels, repair shops, small businesses - say that we apply a figure of three in terms of employment in all of those businesses. We're talking about nearly 900 jobs involved here.

The Premier knows as well as anybody in this province what the basic problem is in terms of small business. We have expected now for the past four days to have some basic fiery speech from this rather unfiery individual about what he is going to do specifically in one area. Quite frankly, Mr. Premier - through you, Mr. Chairman - we are not interested in your views on unity in Canada; that is not an issue in this province. We are not interested in your views on how you list telephones; that is not a major issue in this -province. What we are interested in is what you are going to do about unemployment. Don't tell us that we have to look in the budget and there we're going to find a million dollars for the small business

[ Page 1093 ]

people. It is ironic that shortly after it was announced an article in the Sun said: "My, not another million dollars for training businessmen! "

He knows as well as anybody else that one of the basic problems that small business people have in this province is access to funds, access to loans at reasonable rates so that they can operate. But he hasn't suggested any of that. He hasn't suggested any of that at all. He doesn't address himself to the problems of young people beyond summer employment. There are hundreds of thousands of young people in this province who need employment beyond summer employment. Nobody addresses them elves to that problem. If he's really that concerned about what's going to happen to young people....

He tells us in no way do we want to saddle our young people with debt in the future. Well, you know, Mr. Chairman, that's got to be the most idiotic statement that comes from anyone when you suggest that somehow we're going to pay as we go and we're never going to leave any debt in the future. We've already been saddled with the debt of B.C. Hydro, and we'll be saddled with it for another 50 or 60 years - possibly forever - if we go on with the kind of insane energy policies that we have.

That's what you have to talk about. All of a sudden he's making a virtue of the fact that somehow we mustn't saddle them with any future debt. Well, every generation in this province has picked up the debt of previous generations. If that wasn't possible, what kind of progress would we have in the province?

What we want to be able to look at, in terms of a government.... When you total up their first effort. at being the government, what have you done to the assets of the province? Can they match the record of the previous government and leave over a $1 billion of assets? No way. They've already started to sell them off.

So we think, Mr. Chairman, that we've got to do away with this nonsense that the Premier keeps talking about - that somehow we mustn't incur debts for our young people. The fact that he set up the B.C. Buildings Corporation - that's not going to be a debt for future generations? Somehow he's taken it out of government and put it into a Crown corporation. Is that not going to carry any debt? The B.C. System Corporation is not going-to carry any debt. What kind of nonsense is that?

You know, he's like an economic neanderthal, the way he thinks. He has no real basis to suggest to the province how we're going to get out of the problems. The basic suggestion that we can give to him when he stands up is to say whatever he's going to say with some degree of certitude, to instill some kind of feeling in this province that this man can lead - but he can't. He has not been able to demonstrate that at all, Mr. Chairman. He's incapable of absorbing information in order that he can answer questions in a reasonable way. All he says is that it's unfair of the opposition to do what they do. We've had suggestions from other ministers that somehow, because we level hard-nosed criticism of this government, we're being patriotic - that you mustn't criticize the poor Socreds. After all, they're trying their best. Well, in this province, Mr. Chairman, their best isn't good enough and there are a heck of a lot of people out in the province who are already saying that.

Any MLA who goes around this province is faced with the same questions from people whom you meet on the street. They only say one thing: when is the next election? And that is an indication of their measure of the confidence that they feel in this government. They have no confidence whatsoever.

We have to get from the Premier some kind of statement about how he feels he is going to lead the province. He makes a big thing about the fact that he went down to the First Ministers' Conference and dumped about 15 research papers on the table. Let's face it, not everybody shared the views that the Premier has of his own performance. Some of it was quite laughable. Those of us who have been down there into that rats' nest of federal-provincial relationships know what it's all about. We know it is a stacked deck from start to finish. We know who run the show. That's the way it is. That's the reality of it.

MR. SKELLY: They're giving him handouts to keep him alive.

MR. LEVI: He brags about the f act that he has been more successful in getting costsharing agreements. I read out the figures the other night; transfers from the federal government to the provincial government in this province have steadily increased since 1971. They've increased at dramatic levels. We don't know whether they are going to increase at the same level next year; we don't know that. He wants to go on his own and he wants to knock the federal government in terms of that kind of thing.

Mr. Chairman, I've asked the Premier a number of questions in respect to his attitude in the way he deals with the selling off of assets. He has not wanted to address himself to that at all. He hasn't really addressed

[ Page 1094 ]

himself to the unemployment problem. What he is simply hoping to do, I think, is that if he can get through his estimates, then he can run and get away. He can leave the rest to his other ministers. We're not that particularly interested in the other ministers. This is the man we are interested in, Mr. Chairman. This is the man who runs the government, who runs every department in government and who is supposed to make decisions. He is incapable of making decisions. That is what he has demonstrated. Time after time he has made no decisions which benefit the present or the future of this province.

MR. LEA: Or panic decisions.

MR. LEVI: We've seen some of those panic decisions. We've seen some destruction of personal reputations because of those decisions. But there's been nothing in relation to the kind of decisions that need to be made about the economy. None at all. He's completely ignored that and runs away from it.

We have never had in this province a Premier who prepares to duck, bob and weave away from the real issues. Never!

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: No, that's being too generous. You can't say that. That's really very unfair.

Mr. Chairman, let me ask the Premier a question which we hope he will be able to address himself to because he is also the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. Presumably, from the time of the firing of the former minister to the present time, he has been able to brief himself to some extent on the operations of that department.

We've heard a lot and we will be dealing quite a lot in this House with the whole issue of energy. I'd like to know from the Premier as Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, just what the government is doing in respect to an energy conservation programme. What exactly are they doing?

About a year ago, that department set aside $2.2 million as a three-year programme which was going to encourage groups in the community and research projects that were going to help look at the whole question of conservation. It's all very well for us to have to listen all the time to the ministers who come into this House. Every six months we have increases in energy costs in this province. We are part of that federal agreement. We have seen the incredible increases in the cost of natural gas and fuel oil. But we have to talk about the other side. We have to talk about what are some of the preventive measures we can take in order to look at the energy problem. What is happening in that department? What is happening to that programme?

In a statement the ministry released on the programme, they said: "If conservation can bend the demand curve down even slightly and postpone such projects by a year or more, the interest cost savings alone will be significant." What they are talking about there are these mammoth projects that we are continuing to get ourselves into in terms of the suggestions by B.C. Hydro that these are our energy needs. There has got to be a counterbalancing to this almost insatiable desire by Hydro to build and in turn, perhaps, the insatiable requirements by people in the community that somehow we can have all of the energy that we need.

We can't have all of the energy that we demand. It's not possible. What we have to start looking at is how we can get away with using less energy. So the ministry started a programme. There's $2.2 million in the budget this year. In the Premier's estimates we will be looking at some $759,000 of the programme. The indications that we have so far are that the programme at the moment is one where there is an awful lot of research going on. As I understand, they are paying a lot of this money in getting consultants. What I want to know from the Premier is: what impact does that ministry want to have on people's attitudes towards energy?

It's been suggested that the first impact that you want to have with people is to change their energy consumption patterns, and the second is to increase and induce efficiency of energy.

All right, that's what the department is talking about. The government has to address itself to the other side of the scale. Recently B.C. Hydro brought out some new rates and in those rates there is a distinct advantage which it says: "The more you use, the less you pay." Now there has been some severe criticism about that particular policy, and it flies directly in the face of the policy that the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications is endeavouring to put through in terms of this whole three-year programme. Now we don't have any information on this programme, so perhaps the Premier, as the minister of the department, can get up and tell us.... He's already had his repetitious harangue. Let's deal with some aspect of the department. Let's see if I can deal with the questions that I'd like him to address himself to.

What is the progress in relation to that programme? What is happening? As I understand

[ Page 1095 ]

it, it probably is now going into its second year. I also want to know if there is going to be some involvement by community groups in being able to get some of this money to embark on some of these programmes where we're attempting to change people's energy patterns. I'm not sure that we want to continue to go to the high-paid consultants and specialists in the field. We have endless amounts of research reports, so what we're looking at is what kind of community-based programmes are happening in the community, if any at all, and whether any are envisaged. Again that's part of the $2 million programme. After all, that's where we need to sell this kind of programme. That programme has to be sold in the community. It's not going to be sold by expensive research reports which, to a great extent, don't necessarily lead to specific programmes.

So it's 4 p.m. It's now quiet. We're dealing again with the $2.2 million budget and it's spread over three years. Now each year they've undertaken to examine very carefully what they've been doing, so perhaps the Premier, as the minister - I hope he's been briefed - can tell us about the efforts of the government in the area of energy conservation. I think that is a very important issue for us to deal with. We have to continue to address ourselves far more to this kind of issue, so I'd like to hear from the Premier on that.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I thought perhaps the Premier would care to get up and answer some of the questions that have just been posed by the member for Vancouver-Burrard, but I do have a number of points I would like to make in this debate on the Premier's capacity as Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. I think ' while I have a number of points, I'd like to start discussing first of all the area of transportation policies and particularly the policies of this government in regard to coastal transportation problem and matters relating to this government.

As one of my colleagues pointed out to me a short while ago, prior to 1972 there was no Transport minister - nobody in the government responsible for transportation policies. An NDP government did appoint a Minister of Transport, a minister who was responsible for the transportation needs of this province. That minister initiated the construction of vessels, initiated numerous studies and generally did a fairly good job, in my view. However, since that time, since the election of 1975, we had a minister as well as a Ministry of Transport and Communications, but the result has been absolute chaos, Mr. Chairman - an absolute disaster.

The policies of the government and that ministry are directly responsible for the disastrous effects on the economies of Vancouver Island, the Sunshine Coast, the mid coast and the north coast of this province, and have been well chronicled in this House over the last two years. But the fact is that the people living in these very, very numerous communities, over 100 communities in all, up and down the coast of British Columbia.... They are small communities with names that many people haven't heard of. I have no intention at this time of naming all of the communities affected, but the fact is that the whole economy of the coast of British Columbia, and Vancouver Island particularly, has been disastrously affected by the lack of policies of this government.

The ferry fare increases - I know that falls under another ministry, and I won't delve into that. There is no transportation at all now in many communities. The signing of an agreement with the federal government was, in my view, a disastrous agreement, an agreement that is not benefiting the people of the mid and central coast but which in effect transfers total responsibility for water transportation policies to the province of British Columbia from the federal government. In effect, you let the federal government off the political hook for a song and in the meantime you are not providing the transportation needs of the people living on the coast of this province.

This study is entitled "Transportation Needs and Availability in the Northern Coast Communities of British Columbia", but it is more commonly referred to as the Ruppenthal report, which was completed on November 1,1977. This study, in my view, was a vehicle for the minister of that day to attempt to get himself and the ministry out of a very bad political situation that they had created for themselves. So they were attempting to hide behind a smokescreen of a study that took many, many months to prepare and cost many thousands of dollars. I'll say this for the study. While it identifies many of the problems of the transportation needs of the communities of people living on this coast, it contains the most horrendous recommendations of any study I've ever seen. Some of those recommendations have in fact been implemented, to the dismay of people living up and down the coast of British Columbia.

I might point out at this time that while the transportation difficulties in terms of water transportation do not make the news these days - the 300-400 per cent increase in freight rates is old news - the fact is that

[ Page 1096 ]

the problem is still there, Mr. Chairman, and this government is not, in my view, making any serious effort to alleviate those problems.

I want to tell you right now that people up and down this coast.... I have had a great deal of correspondence from communities like Stewart, Bella Coola, Ocean Falls and Dawson Landing. People living all over the coast ask me in my capacity as an MLA for part of the area and/or transportation critic, to voice their views in this Legislature about the recommendations that are contained in this study. The fact is that many of these communities do not have any water transportation at all. We have some ministers telling us that residents prefer air service. Of course they do. I think the Premier is familiar with this problem, as we have discussed it, and I'm sure his deputy will assist him. I want it on record, and I want to express the feelings of the people I represent in these areas.

I've been through this before so I won't dwell on it, but I would suggest to the Premier that I think there are some 68 communities right now which are not receiving adequate water transportation services. I would suggest to the Premier and to the minister responsible for transportation services that the government get involved, through a Grown corporation or through B.C. Ferries, in the construction or purchase of a self-propelled type of vessel that would be capable of handling freight and passenger service on a weekly basis up and down the coast as we had, to some extent, with Northland before they were forced down the tube by the federal and provincial governments and their transactions.

Mr. Chairman, many of these small communities are too small to put in ferry slips. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to build a ferry slip, and in some cases millions. In fact, I understand you had a severe accident yesterday which is going to cost the province about $300,000 to repair over in Nanaimo.

But the fact is, if you are sincere when you tell us that you want to decentralize the population, that you want people to move into these remote areas and work and perhaps process the resources which are extracted in those areas, then you must provide adequate transportation services. In my view, you have no overall transportation policy. Are we ever going to have an overall transportation policy in this province and on this coast? I doubt it.

Your colleague, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) , responsible for B.C. Ferries has made a few small moves. This brings up another point, by the way.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to know from the Minister of Energy, Transportation and Communications when does the policy announced by the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, who is responsible for B.C. Ferries.... He says he's going to subsidize private carriers. Are these subsidies and proposals going to go out for tender, or are they going to be awarded arbitrarily? How much will these subsidies be? Do we know or do we have any idea? Does the minister know? I'm inclined to doubt that he knows.

In terms of transportation on the coast there is one other item, Mr. Chairman. I have said this before, but I want to repeat it because I think it is very important. We have a vessel, the Queen of Surrey, which is now sitting idle and rusting in port. She is a good vessel, which served the needs of the province at the time. When we took office in 1972 there were no plans to construct new vessels to meet either transportation needs and the coastal needs of British Columbia. We had to have a vessel soon, so the Queen of Surrey was purchased. She served well doing the job she was supposed to do. However, it was not the proper type of vessel for the job, and I agreed that when the new vessels came onstream that vessel was taken off. However, that is an extremely valuable vessel.

In my view, starting in 1979 the Queen of Surrey should be placed on a route f rom Port Hardy to Prince Rupert on a day service. The present Queen of Tsawwassen should be put on a twice-weekly route from Tsawwassen to Prince Rupert, thereby alleviating some of the transportation needs on the coast of British Columbia. I have literally hundreds of letters on this whole transportation problem from people up and down the coast. I won't read them into the record. I have sent copies to the ministers and ministries affected, so you are very well aware of these problems.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to change to another matter that is of concern to all of us. This is in terms of the government's energy policies in British Columbia. My colleague has posed some questions to the minister. I know that there will be, and has already been, a lot of discussion in this House on some of these matters. However, the Premier is responsible for energy matters in this province. He is the Premier, and has to be responsible for ads like this which appeared in The Financial Post, February 25,1978: "Energy from British Columbia could fuel your future. British Columbia is energy rich. Her mighty rivers are being harnessed to generate more hydroelectric power. Vast deposits of thermal coal will be developed for on-site electricity genera

[ Page 1097 ]

tion. Gas and oil reserves are being discovered and tapped...." It goes on and on and on. The fact is, you are advertising all over North America.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What ministry?

MR. SKELLY: Don't you know? Energy.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: This ad was placed by the government inviting people to come in....

HON. MR. BENNETT: What ministry? Can I see it?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The Premier asks me "what ministry?". This ad was placed by the Ministry of Economic Development.

MR. SKELLY: In that case, you can't believe it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications has to be responsible for this type of ad telling everybody that we've got unlimited energy in British Columbia. In the meantime, people are questioning the need for building dams - Site C, the Revelstoke Dam and many other projects that the government is presently considering.

Mr. Chairman, there is a project proposed in my riding that involves the construction of a 500 kilovolt transmission line. Many, many people are opposed to this. Iove discussed this before in the House, so I will be very brief. But I did promise my constituents that I would discuss this under 'the Premieres estimates.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We've got the minister for Hydro here.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The f act is, you are the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, Mr. Premier, so you must be responsible for the decision-making process. We were told by people in your own corporation that this will be a political decision, made by the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, not by a board of directors. I hope you do not try to evade your responsibility in this regard.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm asking you. I'm asking that the Premier, as Minister of Energy, make a decision in this regard. Our request is very simple. The request f rom various groups, the regional districts in my riding, the people on Lasqueti Island and Vancouver Island is very simple. Their request is simply this: that the construction of this proposed 500 kilovolt transmission line be postponed for a minimum of two Years - I would think three years would be better - to give the B.C.Energy Commission and B.C. Hydro the opportunity to look at alternate energy sources on Vancouver Island to supply energy to Vancouver Island.

I want to make it very clear at this point that we are not opposed to - and I am not personally opposed to - rational, economic growth on Vancouver Island or any other part of this coast or province. Not at all. We do represent the people, hopefully, in this Legislature, and the majority of people in my riding - the Sunshine Coast Regional District, Powell River Regional District, people on Lasqueti Island, Texada Island - agree with this proposed moratorium, Mr. Chairman. So I'm asking the Premier now if he will stand up in this House and give us his word that this project will not proceed until we've looked at all the energy alternatives available to people on Vancouver Island and until there have been public hearings held throughout the areas affected.

Mr. Chairman, it might interest you to know that particularly on the Sunshine Coast area, we have divisions between political parties, as we all know, that are very deep. However, on this particular issue, the Social Credit, Liberal, Conservative, New Democratic people as well as environmentalists and a whole lot of other groups all agree on this issue and agree with the proposal I have just put forward to the Premier.

I want to repeat this one point. The senior management people on the board of directors of B.C. Hydro -said the decision is not theirs, that it is a political decision that will be made in this Legislature - at least by the people sitting on treasury benches - the Minister of Energy and, I would suppose, now the representative for B.C. Hydro, the Minister of Finance. The decision will be made in this Legislature, at least by those people, and nowhere else. It is a political decision. The request is not asking too much. I think that if we truly represent the people of this province, the Premier will accede to our request.

Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of information here on energy alternatives, particularly the utilization of wood wastes for Vancouver Island and other parts of the province. But I don't think I'll delve into that at this particular point in time. It's very lengthy material, some of which I received from the Council of Forest Industries, from Dr. Helliwell at UBC. The point is that we could be

[ Page 1098 ]

utilizing these wood [illegible] that are now going up in smoke in beehive burners and in other processes that are being used.

While we're on the discussion of energy, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the Premier that the B.C. Energy Commission has developed an energy policy discussion paper. This discussion paper has been ready and completed, and it's unfortunate that that paper was not tabled in this Legislature and available to us for this debate under these estimates. I would suspect the energy paper is either still over at the B.C. Energy Commission office or in the Minister of Energy's office locked up, perhaps. I don't where it is, frankly. But the fact is this paper is available and it's unfortunate that we didn't have access to that discussion paper prior to these estimates. However, I hope we'll have access to that paper for next year's estimates, providing there isn't a provincial election and they're not in power any more.

I would like the minister, though, to give us his word now that he will make that paper available as soon as possible, hopefully before the end of this particular session of the Legislature.

I did mention the B.C. Energy Commission, Mr. Chairman. The B.C. Energy Commission, in my view, is doing some very good work in energy alternatives. The problem is that they don't have enough funding. I would hope that the minister would see that the funding of that commission is upgraded so they can do some real in-depth research on energy alternatives - the use of solar energy and that type of thing.

Mr. Chairman, I have another topic here in terms of transportation that I'd like to bring to the Premier's attention - two other items really. That minister is responsible for the expenditure of funds in terms of small airports in isolated areas and northern areas of British Columbia. I would like to ask the minister just very quickly, Mr. Chairman, when funds requested by the Powell River municipality for night lighting of that airport will be forthcoming. Your deputy might know the answer to that. The request has been in for some time and there's some concern that that funding will not be available for possibly a year or two. I hope that funding will be available soon.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, starting f rom the last question because I didn't write it down to remember, on the funding on the airport assistance, there's some in the vote, but the major funding will be contained in the bill of the Ministry of Finance. As such, although all the proposals are being studied on airport assistance that have come in from the various communities, what's happening is that nothing can be allocated until such a time as that bill passes this House. We can't presume on the will of the House. That awaits the bill, because that allocation of funds is part of a bill of the Minister of Finance. But in the meantime, all the proposals are being studied by staff set up in the ministry to study those proposals, and there are a number of them in from various communities.

Going back to the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman) , he was concerned about STOL aircraft and the opportunities for them in British Columbia. I'd say that the ministry, in co-operation with the federal government and MOT, has commenced a study examining all elements of the STOL aircraft. That study is to be completed by September, 1978. So hopefully that study will provide answers for this additional transportation opportunity in British Columbia.

The second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) made a speech saying that he was quite concerned about the economy of Kelowna, which is in my constituency. I just have a recent copy of The Daily Kelowna Courier from April in which it says in big headlines:

"Kelowna's unemployment rate dropped dramatically during March, says Ross Marshall, local Manpower office manager. He says the substantial drop is not a seasonal occurrence, as the unemployment rate tends to hold steady during that period. What is also unusual is the drop came despite a 6 per cent increase in the number of people that have been added to the labour force during that period."

That confirms the fact that people are moving back into British Columbia again and looking for work. He goes on to say:

"A healthy increase in the sale of building permits in the city, plus the good weather which allowed for an early start on construction projects, are also reasons for the drop in unemployment."

The Kelowna area has been subject to seasonal fluctuation for years, but has been one of the fastest growing and strongest economies in the province. It's pleasing to see that that area and that newspaper, used to buoyant growth, feels it important enough to make it a headline in the local paper. This is dramatic for an area that is used to dramatic growth.

So obviously the ads the member for Vancouver-Burrard reads about businesses for sale are the same thing. People come in and do

[ Page 1099 ]

well selling their business. They make a prof it because a lot of people want to come there. Turnover in business. There's no sense advertising a business if you're in an area where nobody wants to buy it. But a lot of people come in, people from other parts of British Columbia and other parts of Canada, seeking opportunity in British Columbia. In fact, one of the largest bases of our population in that area are people that have moved in from Saskatchewan over the years to find an opportunity here.

Now the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) asked a number of questions. Oh, the one question that the member for Vancouver-Burrard did ask at the end of his speech was to do with the $2.2 million programme that was allocated on a three-year basis - and it was followed up by the member for Mackenzie - for conservation and energy alternatives. A number of that member's questions can be answered in this answer, in that $2.2 million.

The mandate for spending that fund and doing the work was given to the Energy Commission. The Energy Commission is then carrying out the programme on wood waste utilization, particularly at Quesnel, and it is pursuing in cooperation the co-generation of electricity by using wood waste. They are conducting this study with industry. They are also developing a public information programme for energy conservation, which will include undertaking demonstration projects in solar energy, heat pumps, et cetera, very shortly.

Work on revised building codes is completed and should be ready for adoption.

The Energy Commission has also ordered an energy bus - a computer-equipped van - which will audit energy loss patterns in industrial, commercial and institutional buildings. The van is scheduled to be operational by the f all. These will all be aids to the public In making them aware of conservation measures in areas that need this aid.

The budget is, as you mentioned, $2.2 million f or a three-year programme- which is ancillary to federal measures that are being taken in this area.

The member mentioned the Ruppenthal report. It's just that; it's a report to government and has been made available for discussion. I was pleased to have the member's views. It has not been adopted by government. It's there just as the Foulkes report. I guess that member remembers the Foulkes report on health services in the province. It was a very expensive report and became a subject for debate in this Legislature, but it wasn't adopted by the former government - the same with the Ruppenthal report.

The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) has come in again. He isn't interested in the answers to the questions his colleagues have asked, so he might as well go back to the subsidized coffee shop which the taxpayers paid f or, where a lot of members spend their time.

MR. LAUK: Tell us about the shower in your office with the solid gold handles on it, marble walls and your mink showercap.

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Vancouver Centre is saying funny things, Mt. Chairman. I don't know what causes him to do that. He goes out of the House, and every so often he comes back as though he's drifting on some funny cloud. I don't know why he says these things. He's like a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. I don't know why he is so changeable every time he comes back in the House or why he goes out so often.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we could get back to the estimates.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member mentioned transportation on the coast. Transportation can be covered in a number of ways. One of them is, of course, the STOL study, which may have some effect because it could impact on all of the province. The other is the airport assistance, and I've already mentioned that we have to await the passage of the budget.

Concerning coastal transportation, a mandate has been given to the B.C. Ferry Corporation; the minister discussed that in the House when his estimates were up. They have added a number of routes which the member referred to.

There are some other areas such as logging camps and fishing camps, where the company itself has some obligation. The government certainly isn't going to give great subsidies to private corporations in those areas. They must face their responsibility as well.

The member mentioned alternative energy for Vancouver Island. That's right. Because of that, we have just authorized a $90,000 study to look at the prospects of piping natural gas across to Vancouver Island as an alternative. That's just been authorized as part of the solution, because of this controversy over Hydro's proposals. Hydro has a number of proposals, of course, that are always before the public. This will give us a study to provide an alternative which will meet Vancouver Island's energy needs.

In answer to the question concerning aid to

[ Page 1100 ]

third-level air carriers, we are already proceeding with help for third-level air carriers in this province. The ministry has regular meetings with the industry. We help with pilot training at the ministry simulator. We help with organizing improved reservations systems and improving management of these small emerging carriers. It's part of the history of British Columbia to have third-level air carriers start here that will emerge into major carriers such as Canadian Pacific Airlines and Pacific Western Airlines. With help from the government, we are now encouraging a number of third-level air carriers.

MR. SKELLY: Are you including PWA?

HON. MR. BENNETT: PWA is not a third-level air carrier - to the member for Alberni.

I believe that was the number of questions that were asked, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I haven't completed some of the questions and topics I wanted to refer to, but the Premier did seem anxious to answer some of these questions and I appreciate the Premier getting up. However, some of the answers to the questions asked were not too satisfactory, particularly in terms of upgrading and improving transportation to the small communities on the coast. I know the Premier referred to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) and some of the policy announcements that have been made are, in my view, too little too late - a small improvement over nothing and for a very limited area of the coast. But your government does not have, at this point in time, an overall coastal transportation policy. You may as well know, and you probably know already, that the people of this coast are very unhappy with your lack of policies. That's where you stand at the moment.

In terms of the airport improvement programme, which you discuss frequently, I did have another question. I wonder about the provincial government's involvement in the proposed construction of an airport in the Bella-Bella area. There were two locations under review in that area, one on Denny Island and one on Campbell Island. There is provincial government involvement in this, Mr. Chairman, because I have had discussions with people in the branch.

But I would like to know from the minister responsible: does he favour the site on Campbell Island, where the majority of the population live, or the site on Denny Island, where there is a very small population? I would like to know if the provincial government has become actively involved in the choice of location of the site of that airport, and what their position is. I'd be extremely interested, as would the majority of residents living in that area.

It was brought to my attention, Mr. Chairman - while we're still discussing transportation - that another 72 jobs will be lost this year by people working in the water navigation end of transportation, with the British Yukon Navigation Company Limited, which is a subsidiary of White Pass and Yukon Railway and which operates between Stewart and the lower mainland. That is, of course, the result of more mine closures in the province. But the fact is that that will be another 72 jobs down the tube. I wonder what's going to happen to these people. I understand from some people in the Canadian Merchant Service Guild that there are no prospects for employment in transportation for these people in this province. I'm extremely concerned about the closure of another transportation service and the effects that this will have on the community of Stewart, and about the people %to are losing their Jobs in that area as a result of more mine closures.

Mr. Chairman - just before I get off transportation - I know that the federal government passed a bill called C-61, more commonly referred to as the Maritime Code. But they struck from that bill, prior to its passing the federal House, sections %which would have made it mandatory for Canadian goods to be shipped on Canadian bottoms between Canadian ports. I was a bit concerned about the provincial government's involvement in these negotiations. The federal minister has promised a review of that particular situation, and said he would draw up a list of recommendations and listen to representations from the provinces affected, primarily British Columbia in the west, of course. So I was wondering if the Premier, the Minister of Transport - through you, Mr. Chairman - would be good enough to tell us if they are negotiating, what's happening in those negotiations, and what the province's position is in terms of these negotiations. Is there a long-term view on upgrading the shipping industry in British Columbia, the construction of merchant vessels in British Columbia which would employ many, many people in terms both of construction and working on these vessels? Perhaps the Premier would be good enough to answer those questions as well.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier has assumed another responsibility in terms of his new portfolio in Energy, Transport and Communications, and the third responsibility is commu

[ Page 1101 ]

nications. It bothers me a bit that British Columbia, in a very major conference which took place in Charlottetown on March 27 and 28 of this year, in terms of communications - and that is the jurisdiction of cable- television licensing and programming and pay television and all of the related factors which go into here - was the only province that did not send a minister.

Every other province in Canada sent a minister to this conference. I understand that British Columbia was represented by the deputy minister, and I'm sure that he did a good job on behalf of the people of the province, but the fact is that this government should take these conferences seriously enough, as did the other governments in Canada, to send a minister so that we could arrive at some reasonable and decent policy decisions. My personal view, by the way, is that much of the control f or this type of communication should be under provincial jurisdiction. I hope that that is the policy of British Columbia. Perhaps the minister would enlighten us on what the policy or lack thereof is at the moment.

One last item, Mr. Chairman, before I ask the minister to answer, if he will. That is that during the course of the last election campaign - which we seem to be fighting all over again in this Legislature in 1978 - the Social Credit Party and the Premier did make a considerable amount of political mileage in telling us that we would try to get control for ourselves in British Columbia the regulatory jurisdiction of the B.C. Telephone Company from the federal government. I wonder whether negotiations along this line have taken place.

1 was wondering, Mr. Chairman, if the Premier and the Social Credit Party are going to keep their promise to the people. Are they negotiating with the federal government to wrest regulatory control of the B.C. Telephone Company for British Columbia?

Last year the NDP presented a very lengthy, detailed and well-documented brief to the CRTC regarding rate increases that were eventually granted to the B.C. Telephone Company. I understand that they will be going after further rate increases again in the near future. I personally take the position that these increased costs are unjustified. In fact, it seems to me that since the B.C. Telephone Company received this last horrendous rate increase , the telephone service has been getting worse. It's certainly getting worse in this building. I can tell you that for sure. It is almost impossible to get a line out of this building. I wonder if the minister would be good enough to answer some of those questions.

Before I sit down, Mr. Chairman, the Premier is responsible for Crown corporations in this province. I have a number of concerns about one Crown corporation in particular, and that, of course, is Ocean Falls. The former government bought Ocean Falls and saved the jobs of some 423 people who are presently employed in that operation. The fact is that because of pulp prices and other factors, the operation has not been making a great deal of money. It has been, in fact, losing a bit of money. But the social rewards of that community remaining active cannot be measured in dollars and cents.

The concern of residents and workers living in Ocean Falls is that while some funds are being spent in small modernization and upgrading projects, the long-term life of that community seem-; to be in some doubt. I was wondering if the Premier would give this House and those residents living in Ocean Falls his assurance that that community will remain a viable community; that funds will be spent to modernize that community; and that the resources that will be extracted from the mid-coast area and possibly the Chilko Plateau area will be utilized in areas like Bella Coola, Ocean Falls and Bella Bella. I'm asking the Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, if he would care to comment on this. It is a question of extreme importance particularly to the people living there but as well to most people in British Columbia. I was wondering if the minister would care to comment.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I did not think three years ago I would be able to stand in this House in such joyous anticipation of a prosperous British Columbia. It is almost inconceivable that in the third year a budget such as we have would come down. My heart goes out to the opposition with the futility of their attempts to disprove the evident.

We did not bolster our position at all. I was amazed the other night when watching Channel 13 to hear Charles Lynch from eastern Canada. He was being interviewed and said that he found no great prosperity in the rest of Canada; in fact he found some gloom in parts of the country. But he said it was a joyous thing to come here and to see British Columbia in the midst of solid prosperity - not a boom, but solid prosperity. He said that everywhere he could see businesses making their way back to British Columbia - and we have evidence of that today - businesses of all sizes and kinds, and best of all, the small businessman, who represents over half the employment in our country.

[ Page 1102 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you smoking?

MR. MUSSALLEM: What am I smoking? I want to tell that honourable f friend who made such a fine quip that I don't smoke anything of any kind. It would be a great idea if he would follow suit.

But I would like to say at this time that I would like to join up with my friend from Vancouver South when he espouses the principle of free trade between ourselves and the great Commonwealth to the south. There is nothing that would improve the benefits of Canada more than that. I should mention here that historically in 1911 the Laurier government, a Liberal government, was defeated on just that very issue. It's regrettable because when you look back on the history you will see that had they been elected this Canada of ours would have been three times the nation it is today. We would have seen prosperity here and industry because we have a better workplace, we have a better area to work, and we have more willing people to work; we have harder workers than they have in the south.

But the tariff barrier that was established for our protection - for the so-called protection of Canada, but really for the protection of Ontario and Quebec - made us into a lazy nation. We had a tariff barrier that supported the lack of work. There was no need to work, and we're suffering from that today. And fifteen years ago, when I was president of the lower mainland chamber of commerce, I made such a speech and suggested at that time that tariffs should be removed by 10 per cent a year. Of course, I didn't expect anybody to heed, and no one did. Even at that time it would have been a great thing, but how much greater it would be today. It is necessary for us to get back into business. We are not in business today, we have no customers. To whom do we sell our products? Manufacturers in a province of two million people talk about a fanciful Pacific Rim. It's all right to talk about the Pacific Rim. They buy our wheat and they buy our raw products, but we have no customers to sell our finished products to. I would like to tell our honourable friends the importance of this facet.

We prove our ability to work by auto agreement. We are as good workers as the Americans, if not better, but - I want to say this - in the auto agreement there is no tariff between the two countries and manufacturers in Canada produced equally with manufacturers in the United States. They must and do with ease. We can do it in everything, but we still drag this red herring that we've got to have protection for our industry. Protection for whom?

Protection for Ontario, that's the problem. Ontario and Quebec have never paid their dues to Confederation to this day, and British Columbia is paying the price. We are a loyal and solid province of Canada. We never talk separation or have any part of it, but we feel that we're entitled to a fair break.

The second member for Burrard (Mr. Levi) says: "What are we doing about energy?" Well, I don't know really what we are doing here. I know B.C. Hydro is doing a great deal; I know that all our people are concerned. I'll tell you what the automobile industry is doing. They've doubled the mileage on gasoline and the consumption of gasoline in automobiles. They've doubled the mileage on all the cars, and in some cases tripled it. At the end of 1980 the 8-cylinder engine.... Only one member can stand at one time, Mr. Chairman. Let him go, we don't need him.

But w'hat is the automobile industry doing? May I say, this to you, Mr. Chairman, that the automobile industry is phasing out the 8-cylinder engine. That's the end of it forever, and the largest engine that will be manufactured will be 6-cylinder and 3-cylinder engines. Do you know - believe it or not -that right today on the drawing boards of the great automobile factories they're designing a 2-cylinder engine, supercharged, which will have the same power as our 3- and 6-cylinder engines are having at this day?

All these things are coming. The energy is not a serious problem. It is serious if we go on spending as we're doing, but we will meet the challenge as we have met every challenge before.

Now I did not rise in my place to make this speech; I had no intention of talking about this when I got up. I wanted to speak to the hon. Premier as regards his position of Minister of Energy and Transport at this time and tell him some needs for our area of Maple Ridge. We essentially require right now a testing station for that area. There are too many junk cars on the road - far too many junk cars being sold and licensed. We must stop that until we can test these vehicles, and these vehicles are not being tested by anyone. They have no headlights, no brakes, they are driven at high speeds and are the cause of much death and destruction. And I tell you, it could stop. I have requested it before from the Ministry of Transport. We have the area there - the two acres that were bought by the government for the purpose of installing a testing station - but it has not come yet. The former government decided, of course, it would come to a standstill, as nearly everything they did came to a standstill. But it's time

[ Page 1103 ]

that we revived the testing station.

I'll tell you why. It is no great favour to Maple Ridge. But Maple Ridge is the perimeter of the metropolitan area. If we secure these perimeters against the junk cars that are running everywhere ... because as these cars are excluded from the city, they go out into the country. They're sold and used there. So we need to secure the borders of the metropolitan area, and we need the testing station for this reason. I appeal to the Minister of Transport to see to it that this gets built without delay.

Now I'm saying it not as an automobile man but I'm saying it for the safety of the public, because these cars should not be sold. On the lots of every dealer today are automobiles that should be on the scrap heap but they're being sold because it's economically impossible f or them not to sell them. They must sell them, but they should not be on the highways. Until this testing station is built, this scourge on the highways will continue. It's a very dangerous situation, and shouldn't be overlooked.

I do not think that we could be universal all at one time, but certainly where the mass of cars and the heavy traffic and the high speed are, there should be no car on the road that cannot pass the testing station. At the present time, automobiles outside that are not registered in Vancouver or in Burnaby or New Westminster are free to travel without testing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Don't tell me not true, because it is true. I know what I'm talking about and you don't.

Victoria is a great place, but let's not forget Victoria is not the world.

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I would like to also bring to the attention of the hon. Minister of Transport that there's something happening in the ministry that should come to his immediate attention. I wrote a letter at length regarding the gross combined weights of vehicles. The proposed changes in the Act are impractical for British Columbia. The proposed changes in the Act as I laid out there are not suitable for our highways or our roads, or our loads. I think that it should be examined by the department with great care. This is a very vital area and I appeal to them not to let this opportunity slip. If it becomes the law it would be difficult in the future. I thank you for the time I have been allowed, and thank you for a prosperous British Columbia, all of you.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In response to the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) , first of all, concerning Ocean Falls, a number of repairs and maintenance to keep the plant going have been carried out. As he knows, two newsprint machines continue to operate, and this equipment dates back to 1917. Some major modernization is being undertaken to permit the operation to continue. There must also be increased production to balance increased unit costs and therefore speed-up is essential. The first steps have been taken to develop a three-stage interim programme of works which is being considered by the directors of the corporation -that is, B.C. Cellulose Corporation - to maintain production at 96,000 finished tons per year and to meet pollution control regulations.

Now a number of things were done, Mr. Member. A new headbox has been installed on No. I machine, and this has improved sheet quality besides enabling the machine to continue in operation. Groundwood rejects refining system: this will be completed in the late summer of 1978. Besides enabling the plant to meet pollution standards, 10 tons of usable fibre will be reclaimed daily rather than being flushed into the inlet as has been the case in the past. Machine bearing and roll maintenance: this work has been incorporated into the regular maintenance programmes and the costs are not capitalized.

We have a problem in Ocean Falls the member may be aware of , and that's the need to look to back up the fluctuating Hydro source which may be the major asset there of energy, because the present supply is dependent upon regular rainfall, and that means regular. In December, January and February a record low rainfall was experienced which lowered the reservoir and decreased the available electricity from Hydro sources, and that provides some problem with the facility.

New roll wrapping and handling facilities are being installed to reduce unit labour costs and improve quality controls, and modification to the power distribution system has been started. Changes in the drives of No. I and No. 2 paper machines are being installed. This will immediately increase production from 96,000 tons to 110,000 tons and, with further modification, could allow for 124,000 tons.

As you know, the corporation with the Ministry of Highways engineered and constructed the Ocean Falls ferry ramp.

[ Page 1104 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Four hundred thousand dollars.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The cost of installation was higher than that, Mr. Member. The cost was approximately $750,000 and the replacement of plank service roads associated with ferry berth installation cost another $250,000. These improvements are being carried out to keep up production and to see that the inherent problem of the old machinery is being looked after. As you know, the president of Ocean Falls is Edward Vesack and the board officials are Raymond Jones, Ellen Jakel, Claude Bergman and F.A. McDonald, and the chairman of the corporation is Ray Williston, in his capacity as chairman of B.C. Cellulose. I believe you have the financial statement that's been issued.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The question was, Mr. Premier, regarding the future - you're not going to shut it down?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, it's continuing to operate. A number of options on possible improvements to keep it operating are being studied. No consideration is being made to shut it down.

MR. LEA: You've given up the idea of a penal colony, have you?

HON. MR. BENNETT: We might have room for you.

The member asked about cable TV and the conference in Charlottetown, and I have some statistics which I'll give you later. I'll have to look them up in the other book. The number of meetings that ministers, deputies and officials go to in a year is staggering, and sometimes ministers aren't able to go to all conferences. We attend as many as we can, in fact most of them. It's very rare that British Columbia is not represented, but we have very skilled and competent deputies who are involved in policy and are able to take B.C.'s place as was the case at the Charlottetown conference.

For some years now, this government has held that the responsibility for cable distribution system rests with the provinces; that's been our position. Supreme court decisions have moderated that position only to the extent that the distribution of broadcast singles is within federal jurisdiction. We now have the federal government willing to negotiate bilaterally with the provinces on some areas of cable, and that's what we're doing to meet the stated intent of our policy, which I know the member already knew. They mentioned B.C. Tel rate increases - if they apply f or rate increases, appropriate interventions will be made as necessary, Mr. Chairman. I can't anticipate what they're going to do, but if they do, appropriate interventions will be made by the ministry and by the government of British Columbia.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The regulation under British Columbia control, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, we don't have that yet. and one of the things that f aces us and is of concern is that B.C. Tel has applied to incorporate Okanagan Telephone into their parent body, and that would lose us effective control over the only telephone system in the province. That's why the government continues to pursue that as a policy.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Are you negotiating with Ottawa now?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm not sure how far, but I know some discussion has taken place, and w do not have any concurrence from Ottawa at the moment on it.

The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) made his annual request, as I understand it, for a testing station, and testing station areas are, I understand, under study. The situation on testing stations is under review. It was taking place before I took aver responsibility for the portfolio and I understand something is being prepared to be discussed by cabinet, Mr. Member, to do with policy on testing stations.

Mr. Chairman, I'll respond to the other question later.

MRS. WALLACE: That shows that the back bench can occasionally get attention. I finally made it.

Well, Mr. Chairman, we've given the Premier a little respite in his role as Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, but he mustn't think he can run away and hide from his duties as Premier of this province. I want to take him back to those duties.

We have had two people over there f ram the back bench coming to his defence. I think they must have had a lottery in the Socred caucus, and I think they must have lost. They must have been chosen to come to the defence of this Premier, because they're putting their necks on the line. He may not be Premier very long and if they upset the back-bench Bill, they're in trouble.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, we see the

[ Page 1105 ]

Premier stand up and talk to us and toss books back and forth and tell us what a great budget speech this is, and that we have no debt. He tells us that we have no debt in this province, Mr. Chairman. The young people of this province, when they open the drawer to pay their bills, they won't have any debt.

I want him to look at page 49 of the budget: total contingent liability - in other words, debt - $6,199 million. That's what the debt is, Mr. Chairman, and that Premier would stand in this House and try to tell us that we have no debt.

We've heard him stand up and toss papers around and talk about all the wonderful things he's going to do, but he never quotes any information to back up what he says. Well, I have a couple of quotes here that I want to read into the record, Mr. Chairman. One of them is from the Colonist, and it talks about gas and oil. It's dated November 19,1976:

"Vastly improved royalty and taxation policies instituted by the B.C. New Democratic Party before it was voted out of of f ice last December had a dramatic effect on the sale of oil and gas rights in B.C. The Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources announced Thursday that a record total bonus bid amounting to $43,746, 421 has been rung up in the bidding competition in 1976."

That's what happened as a result of New Democratic Party policy. If it hadn't been for the New Democratic Party in office, we wouldn't have had that kind of an institution. It would never have come into being. It would have never seen the light of day. And they laugh.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's nervous laughter.

MRS. WALLACE: You know, the other day the member for Vancouver East stood in this House and read some figures from the Minister of Mines' (Hon. Mr. Chabot) report on the mining situation in British Columbia. And just in case the Premier doubted that minister's figures, because he's had a few problems with that minister lately - apparently he's been running around giving away our oil leases, and the Premier's going to have to see that he gets a little legislation in place to correct this - just in case he doubted those figures, I have another document here called "Mining in Canada." It's issued by the Mining Association of Canada and they deal with province by province. I want to read some figures from this document about British Columbia. It says: "Despite a 9.6 per cent increase in mineral production in value in British Columbia" - and this is 1977 - "British Columbia dropped to fourth place. The province reasserted its lead in copper production, accounting for 36.6 per cent of total production, a 5.8 per cent increase in output and a 13.5 per cent increase in value. This obviously means that when the product is worth a little more, people can afford to produce a little more. It's the value involved that caused that increase. The price went up, in other words, Mr. Chairman.

Coal was the second most valuable mineral, worth $306.5 million, a 10.4 per cent decline from the previous year. Then we go on to natural gas. It moved into third place, although output decreased by 6 per cent. Again, value rose. We go on to fossil fuels. The total value was 7 per cent, but the output actually decreased. B.C. fell into a lower position in output of minerals than it had held in the previous year.

Mr. Bill Stevenson, a geological engineer and the head of W.G. Stevenson and Associates of Vancouver, has been quoted as saying that he has noticed no change- in the mining activity in B.C. since the Social Credit government took office. This is from the Sun for March 9,1977.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: He said that although plenty of mining claims are being staked, little actual development is going on.

We've seen the Premier stand in his place and talk about the jobs this government is creating. Well, I have some figures on jobs that I would like to quote to him. The New Democratic Party took office in August, 1972, and for the first 12-month period - from August, 1972, to September, 1973 - they created 36,000 new jobs. This is from Statistics Canada. In the second 12-month period, 1973 to 1974, 65,000 new jobs were created in British Columbia. And the third 12-month period produced another 36,000 jobs.

Let's compare that to the record of this government and this Premier. In the first 12 months of the Social Credit administration, they created only 29,000 jobs; in the second 12 months, only 27,000 jobs - a miserable record by comparison to what was done by the New Democratic Party when it was in office. The Premier has talked about the in--flow of population. I don't see how he can stand in his place and say that people are coming into British Columbia. When the NDP was in office, we had an influx of people ranging from 11,831 to 30,496 per year coming into British Columbia. What happened in 1975-76? According to Stats Canada, for the first time since 1962,

[ Page 1106 ]

we had a minus quantity; we had a net export of people; 4,419 people. In 1976-77, again, there was a minus quantity, 1,466 people. He talks about people coming back into this province as a result of his government's policies. One thing the Premier hasn't said very much in the House about is agriculture, and what he is proposing to do about that. It is very interesting to note what the Premier is saying when he goes to Ottawa to the First Ministers' Conference. He is talking about his free trade policy, Mr. Chairman, and I quote from his own literature:

"Keep to an absolute minimum any exceptions to tariff cuts which may emerge from GATT negotiations.

"Negotiate forcefully for maximum removal of tariff and nontariff barriers."

He goes on in item 3 and he says:

"Undertake bilateral discussions with various countries to augment the modest moves toward trade liberalization expected from the GATT discussions. In agriculture and other resource-linked sectors it should be possible to move further and more quickly to reduce trade barriers by negotiating on a bilateral basis."

That's very interesting, Mr. Chairman, particularly when we have the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) running around this province telling the farmers that their only hope is the marketplace, and that he, and this government, are working towards the installation of import tariffs to protect the agricultural producers of this province. It's a very interesting situation. That Premier cannot be going in two directions at the same time. He must be going in two directions at the same time, because he has even written into the throne speech the very things that I have said.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: No. He is a bi-directional person, I think. He is bi-directional. He's not the bionic man, he's the bi-directional man.

But this is exactly what is in the throne speech - that he is going to increase the imports on agricultural products. That is what he saying. But, on the other hand, he is going to Ottawa and saying that agriculture is the prime place to take those tariffs off. It doesn't make sense, Mr. Chairman, and it certainly doesn't make for good leadership.

He said some other interesting things in Ottawa in some of the papers he took with him. He has talked about marketing boards. Mr. Chairman, we have a committee in this House which has been working for a year to review marketing boards. One of the things that they were asked to do was to make recommendations about marketing boards. I would expect that a committee that has spent nearly $1.5 million of the taxpayers' money to go around and gather information and produce reports to present to this Legislature would at least have some consideration from that minister. Instead, what does he do? He goes to Ottawa, and he takes with him a document that says:

"There are a large number of marketing boards possessing different powers and having different functions. Those marketing boards which practise supply management through quotas on production and restrictions on extra-provincial and foreign imports increase food prices and reduce the efficiency of the agricultural sector. The capability of marketing boards to practise supply-management should be reduced, to be replaced with more visible support in the form of subsidies.

"Marketing boards and other regulations which impede the development of the most efficient pattern of production and the free flow of trade within Canada should be a priority for reform."

His mind is made up. He's not prepared to wait to see what the committee recommends and yet he's prepared to have his Minister of Agriculture spending $1.5 million to conduct a survey of marketing boards.

This is a ridiculous waste of taxpayers' money. It makes a mockery out of this Legislature and its legislative committees when we have a Premier who's running off in one direction and a Minister of Agriculture who's running off in the other direction.

Let me suggest, Mr. Chairman, that I think this is the time this has to be discussed because that Minister of Agriculture has been overruled by that Premier and that cabinet before this on a couple of occasions. If we leave this kind of discussion until the Minister of Agriculture's estimates come along, we're never going to get the real answers. I want the Premier of this province to stand up and tell us just what his idea is for the future of agriculture in British Columbia and how he proposes to get there.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: I wouldn't expect him to give me the courtesy of listening to me. That would be too much to expect, Mr. Member.

He went to Ottawa and he talked about restraint. He said:

"The growth of government has occurred

[ Page 1107 ]

too quickly and without adequate application of its implications."

Great rhetoric, eh?

"Neither Canadian taxpayers nor the economy itself can continue to support the rapid growth of the public sector or the continuation of unnecessary or inefficient programmes." He goes on:

"During the three years of restraint, government should adopt a number of procedures to increase expenditure, efficiency and improve the lines of accountability they face when seeking to increase or maintain spending levels."

It's fine sounding rhetoric, Mr. Chairman, but actions speak louder than words. It would be far more credible if he was practising restraint in his own backyard.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) has raised some of the extravagances that have been perpetrated on the people of this province in the way of political appointments to that minister's office. It's a $1 million porkbarrel of political appointments and nearly a quarter of them are centered right in the Premier's office. That's a quarter of a million dollars of taxpayers' money for his particular political appointments, and then he has the nerve to tell the taxpayers of this province, and the Canadian government and the other provincial governments of this country, that we should practise restraint. He's not practising restraint himself, and he's not credible when he doesn't take the kind of actions that he should be taking to reduce those costs within his own office.

What do those people do? Of those political appointees, four are specifically for public relations - nearly $100,000 a year just for public relations. Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't know what they're doing but I see something coming out called British Columbia News. I suppose that came out of the Premier's office. It's a very interesting document. The most interesting thing about it is how much it's like this document. I wonder where that document came from - Unity News? Did it come from the same place? They certainly look a lot a like.

MR. KEMPF: How do you figure that? They're both newspapers, I guess.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm going to read f rom a couple of them and I want you to tell me which one I'm reading from, Mr. Member for Omineca. Which one am I reading from, Mr. Chairman? Let's look at this one. It says: "The government is proud of its record in consumer protection." And over here in the other one, it says: "The government's mining tax reforms have played a strong role here." The verbiage, everything, is exactly the same, yet this one is produced at the cost of the taxpayers and this one is the voice of the Social Credit Party. It's a ridiculous piece of patronage, Mr. Chairman. It's another form of patronage to use government money to produce that kind of a document when you can't tell one from the other. You can't tell one from the other.

There are other kinds of ways where restraint could well be applied by this Premier, Mr. Chairman. I want to talk about something that has happened recently just north of me in the Nanaimo area.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. We seem to have a private conversation across the floor. The member for Cowichan-Malahat has the floor. I would ask that the other members restrain themselves until such time as they gain the floor.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm sure that you have all heard something about the Duke Point development that is going on in Nanaimo. I want to talk about this, Mr. Premier, because I think that if you are going to give any leadership at all to this province, you should have a look at some of the very questionable things that have been happening in the Duke Point area.

This piece of property is 67 acres. It was bought by three holding companies, some of which had interlocking directorates - but that's beside the point - for $100,000 in 1971. In 1977 it was assessed at $282,000. That's a fair gain in six years, but I'm not going to quarrel with that. That's something that's been happening with land values. We know that it had some applications for rezoning, but the bylaw that was tentatively initiated to provide for that rezoning was done in June, and the assessment was not completed until September or October. So we can't say it was because of a reclassification of industrial land that increased the value; it hasn't even yet been finalized. Negotiations are still going on. It was assessed at $282,000 in the fall of 1977.

Your Crown corporation, the B.C. Development Corporation, went out in the beginning of 1978 and bought that piece of property which had been assessed in the fall of 1977 at $282,000. Mr. Chairman, would you believe that in the early months of 1978 the B.C. Development Corporation paid $560,000 for that piece of property?

[ Page 1108 ]

MR. LEA: Who owns it?

MRS. WALLACE: It was owned by a very interesting company: three companies with some interlocking directorates and some very interesting connections. I'm not going to go into that. But I think the fact that that piece of property doubled in two months, that the B.C. Development Corporation paid twice the market value for that piece of property, is something that the Premier should be having a good look at. That's good business management and good caretaking of the taxpayers money, isn't it, Mr. Chairman? I'm surprised that a government that prides itself on being such good business administrators could find itself in that position.

On top of that, the city of Nanaimo is going to be faced with extensive costs in providing services. These aren't finalized yet. Nobody knows for sure that they are going through. There are negotiations going on. The city is being asked to participate in providing millions of dollars to assist in water supply. The cost of water supply for that area alone has been estimated at nearly $16 million. Sewer supply is $10.6 million. There's fire control, which is apparently going to be a straight tax levy. Policing has to be provided by the city of Nanaimo. The province has to build a highway out there. These are the kinds of services that have to be provided for that industrial site at the expense of the taxpayers. I think we should really be having a look at these things. That is not using the taxpayers dollars with discretion. That would be a sharp practice if that were done in the business world. To have a Crown corporation in that kind of manoeuvring is just a bit much.

We've heard a lot about surpluses and debts and debits. We've been told that we have a $76 million surplus because of good management this year. When it comes to capital expenditures and revenue from capital this government seems to have two different philosophies. Once again it's going in two different directions. When it's capital expenditures, that's charged to the Crown corporations or to the municipalities or some other place so it doesn't show in the operating budget. But when it's revenue from capital, as that $76 million represents, because that's what you got from selling the ferries, and that's what you got from recouping capital funds, then that's put into the budget. As if that were not bad enough, the returns from the BCPC, a capital corporation where we've got $6.1 billion of debt, most of which is towards Crown corporations.... We have $153,900, 000 pumped into our operating budget from that Crown corporation.

It's all right to put the revenue from capital into an operating budget, but if it's expenditure we hide it somewhere else. Those are strange bookkeeping practices, Mr. Chairman. They don't represent leadership. We have a Premier who is going in two directions at once. He hits and runs and he hides and he doesn't know which way he's going. He goes jogging off into the sunset and the sunrise, all at the sank- time way out in the wilds of yonder, and he leaves the British Columbia province here to sink slowly under the quagmire that he has created.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say a few words about the B.C. Government News that the member for Cowichan-Malahat spoke on. The B.C. Government News has now been sent out on total public distribution on a number of occasions. When it was first introduced, it was introduced on the basis that they would send it out once or twice and then after that people could get on a subscription list -free, but only if they wanted to subscribe and took the time to send in for it. Mr. Chairman, again, this month, this B.C. Government News has been folded and sent out to everybody in the province. It's a bit much. Well over $100,000 the taxpayer paid, and the taxpayer is paying for the Social Credit coalition to propagandize everyone in this province.

Just to give you an idea about the lies that it does tell, yesterday everybody in here heard the Premier say that he was going to introduce a new coal policy. Do you know what this B.C. Government News says? Is says: "Coal policy has been enunciated to provide the basis for future development of our vast coal reserves." This, Mr. Chairman, is the kind....

AN HON. MEMBER: Is it true?

MR. COCKE: Of course it's not true.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a lie.

MR. COCKE: Exactly. It's a lie, because yesterday he equivocated a great deal and then finally, under a good deal of duress, he said that they would look into the whole question.

MR. LAUK: The Premier has no respect for the truth.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, he's now living under a promise that he's going to put it out to bid. We'll see whether or not that occurs. But the whole thing, this whole issue, is like Unity News, as the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) says. It's just part of the

[ Page 1109 ]

pork barrel, using the public's own money to try to put the government in better light.

One of the parts of this Unity News, or B.C. Government News, or whatever you want to call it, that really burns me, Mr. Chairman, is this picture taken in the House with the Premier sitting looking solemnly at the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) . That picture was taken over my shoulder. I saw the photographer taking that picture. I inquired of the Speaker at the time just what would be the purpose of having a photographer on the floor of the House, and then we find out: to further propagandize the people of this province at our expense. It was one of their own photographers working for Beautiful British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, these people have no concern whatsoever, no shame. They have no real feeling of any kind of honesty or integrity of government, and their backbenchers support them in that particular situation.

MR. KAHL: Sit down while you're behind.

MR. COCKE: I know, teacher, that you haven't got very much and I'm sure glad we've got you out of the school system. The greatest blessing to the school children in the area was the day that you were elected.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the First Minister to get up during these estimates and indicate and acknowledge that he hasn't done the right thing with this particular instrument, get up and say that it's not going to be done any longer on this basis. As far as we're concerned, if people want to apply for the government's own propaganda, if they want to subscribe to the government's own propaganda, let them go ahead and subscribe. But why force it down the throats of the people of our province at our expense?

I'm looking at the smiling member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) . Do you know why he is smiling, Mr. Chairman? He just read Fotheringham tonight. He read Fotheringham, who says he's out to take that Premier. That's the most interesting article I've seen for a long, long time.

MR. LEA: Why don't you read it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Read it out.

MR. COCKE: I don't think I should.

MR. LEA: Come on. Read it.

MR. COCKE: Do you think I should, really?

MR. LEA: Sure, sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill wants to know.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'd like to hear it.

MR. LEA: He'd like to hear it.

MR. COCKE: I'm quoting.

"In the background, smiling to himself" - as he just did then - "is the most ambitious cabinet minister, Bill Vander Zalm, who is purposely keeping a low profile these days while the problems swirl around the Premier's office. Vander Zalm makes no secret of the fact that he considers himself prime material to lead this province. He has never really been the same, - since the Socred annual convention last fall when the approving party faithful gave him greater applause than any other minister - including his boss."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: He even admits it.

MR. COCKE: "With Vander Zalm...."

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got his vote, Bill.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Now wait a minute. Don't everybody get excited over there. He hasn't won at the convention yet. But listen to this. This is very interesting. There are some in brackets here:

"With Vander Zalm (who feels he has the human touch the Premier lacks) watching Bennett's back, there is the further problem of likely defections among some of the born-again Liberals..."

Like the one just smiling at him now.

MR. LEA: Almost born over again in this House.

MR. COCKE: Oh, yes.

"...who bear the brunt of the puritanical work habits of the loner who is Premier.

"It's open speculation that Education minister Dr. Pat McGeer is probably headed back to the less-controversial life of the academic researcher. His Point Grey mate, Attorney-General Garde Gardom, displays less and less enthusiasm - as witness his obvious discomfort at having to lay charges against Davis - for the nasty side of politics."

[ Page 1110 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't worry, Bill, don't worry.

MR. COCKE: "In addition" - and this is really great - "in addition the determined Dianne Hartwick!' - who was introduced by the member from Burnaby - "a former protege of Grace McCarthy who resigned her executive assistant post in some dispute with McCarthy, has vowed to challenge McGeer and Gardom for the Socred nomination .... 11

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's got the brown paper envelope?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Ron. members, the Chair has allowed a little laxity in this, but perhaps the member for New Westminster can relate this to vote 5.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll relate it to vote 5. The province right now is confused. Who is the real leader in British Columbia? I would suggest that the First Minister should reinforce his position; he should get up and say that he's going to be Premier for a while. However, Mr. Chairman, I just want to get back to the reason that I stood in the first place, and that is the insult to the press of our province. This is an insult to the press of B.C., if the press cannot handle news accounts. And, for heaven's sake, if a govern-ment can I t get on the front page - or certainly the second front page - of a paper, and if they can't get on radio and television, there is something awfully wrong with that government. If they have to print their own newspaper and circulate it to every person in this province, it's a downright insult to the press, and it's an insult to the taxpayers of B.C.

Mr. Chairman, we're sick of it, we're sick of paying f or the PR of this government. And the press, poor press, we feel so sorry for r them - they've gone in competition with you free enterprisers.

The problem is that the Sun will not be able to withstand this, nor will the Columbian be able to withstand this, because it's out there free.

MR. LEA: They've got their own socialist rag.

MR. COCKE: That's right.

Mr. Chairman, let the Premier reassure us. Let the Premier get up in this House and tell us that we're not going to be put to the expense any longer of paying for their PR, this glossy piece that does nothing but give a biased interpretation of everything that the government is doing. I really think it's criminal. It is theft, in this respect - that it's taking right out of the taxpayers' pockets to put PR in this government's hands.

I would just like to end, Mr. Chairman, by saying this: I wish Dianne Hartwick every success in her upcoming fight.

MR. NICOLSON: Today we've seen typical manoeuvring of this government party, Social Credit. It's one thing, at least, that has been a holdover between the old Social Credit government and the present Social Credit government. That is that quite typically, when they're faced with facts, when they're faced with the mounting amount of unemployment and the disenchantment and the loss of faith of business people in this province - when there's a growing amount of disillusionment -what do they do? They attack Ottawa, they attack Ontario, they attack Quebec, just as the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) did today, just as the Premier does almost every day without fail.

Whose fault is it? Is it really the fault, as the, member for Dewdney seemed to imply, of Ontario or Quebec that the ferry rates were increased in British Columbia? Is it their fault that they doubled the ICBC rates and they took the purchasing power out of the hands of the people of this province? That member gets up and the Premier gets up and he carries on this particular thing....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: The member for Omineca says: "I dare you to say that in Burns Lake." Well, I hope that member will accept the challenge of the member for Prince Rupert which has been openly put to that member to debate with him in Burns Lake. If he doesn't want to debate with him, then I challenge him to debate with me.

Mr. Chairman, the only link that binds that old government to this new government is the tactic of trying to divide people, to divide country versus city, to divide business from labour, to divide the organized from the unorganized, to divide the old from the young, the rich from the poor, or to fight east versus west, north versus south, and when it fits them, interior versus coast. That's what the Premier was trying to do the other night. The Premier, when he was faced with the very real challenge of getting on with the transit problems in this province in his speech, said that recent events have made us aware that transit in the lower mainland is subsidized by the Hydro customers not only in those areas but in

[ Page 1111 ]

all parts of the province. He said that Hydro users in Nelson-Creston and Rossland-Trail have been subsidizing, unknowingly perhaps, through their Hydro bills. Is that true, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. BENNETT: They're in West Kootenay.

MR. NICOLSON: Now he corrects himself. Now he's become aware that people up in Rossland Trail and Nelson-Creston ridings get power from West Kootenay and from the city of Nelson Power and Light, and haven't been subsidizing....

AN HON. MEMBER: The people don't believe a word you say.

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker has a ruling.

MR. NICOLSON: A ruling? Okay. Well, I would just like to point out to 'the minister that instead of doing that division routine, instead of trying to appeal to the base instincts in people, why doesn't he do something that's positive? If there's an inequity, that inequity in the transit services can be solved for the price tag of $3 million by providing transit services throughout the areas of the province that have requested it. It can be solved by an annual subsidy of $3 million, so don't pit cities against the rural areas, don't pit the interior versus the coast. Get on with the job. Do something positive.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed to the motion, I have now had an opportunity of considering the matter of privilege raised by the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) .

The hon. member complains that as a result of erroneous and misleading statements made by the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) , his efforts to seek answers in the House have been frustrated.

The hon. member for Nelson-Creston tabled transcripts relating to the speech of the hon. member for Omineca and a copy of a speech supplied to him by the member for Omineca, which copy, according to the statement of the member for Nelson-Creston, was not a copy of the speech which had been delivered.

It is the duty of the Speaker to be satisfied that: (a) a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been established which would justify such proceedings taking precedence over all other business in the House, as provided for in May's 17th edition, page 248, and (b) that the matter in question has been raised at the earliest opportunity, as provided for in May's 17th edition, page 377.

If these prior conditions have been met, any further action is for the determination of the House. If they have not been met, the matter mu t proceed by way of notice of motion, should the member so wish.

On the issue of whether the issue has been raised at the earliest opportunity, I notice from the material tabled that the statement in question was made in the House on April 12. Although the hon. member states that he raised the matter at the first opportunity, there is no explanation of the delay. I note in the 18th edition of Sir Erskine May at page 343 that a matter was refused precedence when a newspaper article published on May 6 was not raised until May 14 and that a matter involving a speech made on a Saturday was not raised until the following Tuesday.

Possibly the delay in bringing this matter forward was occasioned by the member for Nelson-Creston having to obtain a transcript which he tabled, although he has not so indicated. I, of course, accept the hon. member's statement that he raised the matter as soon as he was enabled to do so.

It appears from Speakers' Decisions, Vol. 2, page 46:

"A question of privilege was raised, predicated on a member submitting to the House incomplete and erroneous information which %us misrepresentative of the real facts. The Speaker ruled that no question of privilege was disclosed so as to dispense with the usual notice of motion."

I also note in the Journals of the House of 1975, at page 29 and page 35:

"A matter of privilege was raised, relating to information given to the House which was alleged to have been inaccurate and misleading. On this occasion, the Speaker observed: 'Claims of breach of privilege raised by members relating to the veracity of statements attributed to members continue to plague the records of Hansard in Ottawa. The numerous claims of privilege to be found there have consistently been rejected by the distinguished Speakers of that House whenever they occur.",

Again, it was ruled that if the matter was to be pursued further, it should be by regular notice. There is no doubt that the House may

[ Page 1112 ]

treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt. However, under the present circumstances, which are closely analogous, if not identical, to those under review in the decision to which I have referred, I cannot find that there is a prima facie matter of privilege raised which requires precedence over other public business calling for the immediate interposition of the House.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.