[ Page 1263 ]

CONTENTS

Motion

Expression of condolence to Moro family.

Mr. King –– 1264

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1264

Mr. Gibson –– 1264

Mr. Stephens –– 1264

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Transfer of BCR freight to CNR. Mr. Lauk –– 1264

Announcement of government projects by backbenchers. Mr. Gibson –– 1265

Licence fee for real estate agents. Mr. Levi –– 1265

Effectiveness of BATmobiles. Mr. Macdonald –– 1265

Study of vegetable marketing boards. Mrs. Wallace –– 1266

Number of people receiving social assistance. Ms. Brown –– 1266

Brannan Lake. Mr. Stupich –– 1266

Cash on hand. Mr. Gibson –– 1267

Recreation and Conservation regulations. Mr. Nicolson –– 1267

Mill waste. Mr. Cocke –– 1267

Driediger land holdings. Hon. Mr. Hewitt replies –– 1267

Committee of Supply; Executive Council estimates.

On vote 5: amendment.

Mr. Loewen –– 1268

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 1269

Mr. Gibson –– 1271

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1274

Mr. Haddad –– 1277

Mr. Bawtree –– 1278

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1278

Mr. Kahl –– 1279

Mr. Kerster –– 1281

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 1281

Mr. Stephens –– 1282

Mr. Lloyd –– 1283

Mr. Cocke –– 1284

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 1285

Mr. Lauk –– 1288

Mr. Strongman –– 1291

Mr. Lea –– 1292

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 1296

Mr. Lauk –– 1298

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1298

Mr. Lockstead –– 1299

Mr. Veitch –– 1300

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce to the House with sadness that Dorothy Steeves, otherwise known as Gretchen Steeves, who was a member of this House in the 1940s, died yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the Speaker could undertake to express the sympathies of the House to the family.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased and honoured today to introduce a very special visitor who is on the floor of the House. fie was for 20 years the Premier and Minister of Finance for our province of British Columbia; he has served in this Legislative Assembly for a total of 33 years, having been first elected in 1941 as the member for the constituency of South Okanagan. He was re-elected in the subsequent elections of 1945,1949,1952,1953,1956,1960,1963,1966,1969 and 1972.

Mr. Speaker, in the past few weeks and also in last year's debates in this House, even the members of the opposition have recognized the outstanding contribution that this man has made to the province of British Columbia and to our nation of Canada. I will say without contradiction that the father of our present Premier, Hon. W.A.C. Bennett, is only now in danger of losing his reputation of being the best Premier this province has ever had, by virtue of having his son as Premier of the province. Mr. Speaker, will the House welcome the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I am saying a few words because I suppose I was in the House longer with Mr. Bennett. We're so glad he's in good health. He had a little bout of illness but he's bouncing back. I don't know quite what the Provincial Secretary said, but the son can't hold a candle to the old man. No way.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, I would like to add my welcome to the former Premier and to tell him that no matter what he's heard in the last few days, the job isn't open.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, my father was in the House with the former Premier and he told me that he respected the former Premier and I agree with my father.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, it may be presumptuous of me to welcome the former Premier, being the newest member on the floor, but I know that he spends most of his time as one of my constituents. During my campaign, two young lads from Langley who came over to help me knocked on his door and introduced themselves. He looked at them and said: "Who is Vic Stephens?" Well, I hope he knows now.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: 11r. Speaker, in the members' gallery we have a very fine group of young people. They play in a band called the 14 Karats and they've traveled the province. They're a real success. I would like to introduce them to the House and have the House welcome them. They are Rod Pigeau, Doug Cooney, Kelley Breaks, Gordon Davies and Juanita Vander Zalm.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we have with us today a delegation from Port Alberni: Mrs. Kathleen Pickles, Mr. George Martin and Mrs. George Martin, Mrs. Barbara Worthing, Mrs. Margaret Webb, Mrs. Kathleen McKinnon and Mr. Robertson. We've had a very fruitful meeting this morning discussing the various matters that concern senior citizens particularly. They represent the New Horizons discussion group from Port Alberni and I would ask the House to welcome them and bid them well in their meetings today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are 32 students from Charles E. London Junior Secondary School in Richmond. They are accompanied in their visit to the House today by their teachers, Mr. Henderson, Mr. Green and Miss Dadson. I would like the House to welcome them.

MR. SHELFORD: I would like the House to welcome Mr. Bob Henderson of Smithers - who is from the Guides and Outfitters' Association -and his dad, Hugh Henderson from Victoria.

MR. DAVIDSON: Today in the gallery we have some very special guests, from possibly as far away in our country as any have been in the House this year. They are here on, exchange from Chesterfield Inlet in the Northwest Territories, east of the Hudson's Bay area. We have Mr. Titi Kadluk, an education representative of the Victor Samituk School in Chesterfield Inlet and with him Mrs. Theresa Komaksiutisak, a prominent member of that community. And from Hellings Elementary School in Delta we have Mr. Al Willms, principal, and also from Delta, Mrs. Julia Blair. I would ask the House to give them a very warm welcome.

There are also approximately 76 students in

[ Page 1264 ]

the precincts, 19 of whom are from Chesterfield Inlet, and some 70 from the Hellings Elementary School. I would ask the House to welcome them as well.

MR. LOEWEN: In the gallery today are a class of students from Edmonds Junior Secondary School and their teacher, Mr. Gel, from the great constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds. I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming them this afternoon.

HON. MR. BAWLF: I would ask the House to add to their welcome today 13 students from Victoria High School, accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Mills Herman. .

MR. SMITH: I would like the House to recognize today a friend of mine from North Peace River, a big-game guide and outfitter, Mr. Red Sorenson and his wife Agnes, who are seated in the gallery.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I ask you to welcome 55 students from Garibaldi Secondary School in Maple Ridge in my constituency of Dewdney. I ask you to welcome them especially, because they are not favoured to be in the gallery today. Through a misunderstanding - which was no one's fault - their place was taken by another class. But they are in the precincts and I wish you would make them welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, as sometimes is the custom - and with the hope of not encountering a division - I would like to welcome any of those few remote citizens who may be in the gallery who have not yet been welcomed by this assembly.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move that the rules be suspended and ask unanimous leave to move a motion regarding the death of the former Premier of Italy, Premier Aldo Moro. The motion is that this House convey to the family of former Italian Premier, Aldo Moro, and to the government of Italy, the prof found sympathy of the House on the death of Mr. Moro by a senseless act of terrorism which has robbed the world of an important political leader.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, the government would like to severally associate ourselves with the remarks of the hon. House Leader of the Opposition. This is a course of event that apparently is gaining a degree of criminal popularity in the world. It is one to be condemned by any democratic society and any free speaking individual.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, people die around the world every day, I suppose, in the course of their duties but some individuals die particularly in the cause of civilization. I think we must never forget in this democracy or any other that individual liberties and their preservation depend upon a delicate balance between civil law and order on the one hand, and democratic and constitutional control of the state on the other. That is the balance that terrorists seek to undermine, and that is what free men everywhere must defend, even if it sometimes means defending it with their lives. I strongly associate myself with the resolution of the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to associate myself with the motion and give it the full support of my party. I think this is a particularly difficult situation because we know the problems that face governments and leaders of governments throughout the world. To be faced with a decision not to negotiate a settlement under such extreme circumstances takes great courage. I sincerely hope that this man has not given his life in vain.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that this House convey to the family of former Italian Premier Aldo Moro and to the government of Italy the profound sympathy of the House on the death of Mr. Moro by a senseless act of terrorism which has robbed the world of an important political leader.

Motion approved.

Oral questions.

TRANSFER OF BCR

FREIGHT TO CNR

MR. LAUK: I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development. Can the minister confirm that the British Columbia Railway has transferred shipping of chips and packaged lumber, ordinarily shipped on the British Columbia Railway out of Prince George, to the CNR line, to Jasper and Red Pass Junction through to Vancouver, which indirectly or directly has caused the layoff of between 20 and 23 BCR enginemen and dozens of British Columbia Railway trainmen for up to six months?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm not aware of the

[ Page 1265 ]

situation, Mr. Member, of which you have apprised me, so I will certainly take the question as notice and report back to the House at the earliest possible date.

MR. LAUK: To the [illegible] minister, Mr. Speaker: could the minister also explain to the House after his own investigation why, when I called the crew office of the British Columbia Railway in Vancouver, they refused to confirm the information about the layoffs and the running of BCR traffic to the CNR line?

ANNOUNCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT

PROJECTS BY BACKBENCHERS

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of genuine puzzlement to the Premier. I have in my possession press releases from three different ministries in which six different Social Credit backbenchers are making announcements on behalf of the government for projects in their ridings. In spite of my searching, I haven't been able to find any evidence of opposition members being given the same treatment. Is it a policy of the government to have Social Credit backbenchers associate themselves with government announcements based on funds voted by this House, but not to allow opposition members the same privilege?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No.

MR. GIBSON: Supplementary. Might we then expect, Mr. Speaker, that the statistical record of opposition members in being associated with government announcements might be improved in the next few months?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I have no way of predicting the degree of competency in which any MIA will dig out information from various ministries and make his constituents aware of it.

MR. GIBSON: Since the Premier brought that up, is he aware that in some of these press releases the members concerned have nothing to do with the projects being announced?

LICENCE FEE FOR

REAL ESTATE AGENTS

MR. LEVI: To the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: has the minister made a decision to double the licence fee for agents to $50 under the Real Estate Act?

HON. MR. MAIR: No, Mr. Speaker, I have made no such decision.

EFFECTIVENESS OF BATMOBILES

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Attorney-General when he's going to get the bugs out of his BATmobile programme and make it effective and deploy the necessary manpower so too many of them are not spending time sitting on police parking lots.

MR. SPEAKER: The question regards future performance, but the Attorney-General may answer.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm sorry, what did you say, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The question involves future performance. However, the A-G may answer.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Good point. (Laughter.)

MR. MACDONALD: Go to Gotham City and find out how the BATmobile programme should be run.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We know the kind of cities that you go to, Mr. Member, if we want to get into that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. GARDOM: Now I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the CounterAttack program is working well and it's working well by virtue of the acceptance by the general public of the programme and the acceptance, I'm sure, of all members of this House. The BATmobiles have been a highly significant factor in the CounterAttack programme and, to the best of my knowledge, sir, they're being deployed efficiently and effectively.

In certain areas I did receive some information last week that they were perhaps not being utilized constantly, and that's always a problem. We can have situations where officers are taken off the machines for the purposes of a serious crime. They've got to respond to a call and that type of thing. But on balance, sir, I can assure you that they're receiving great public acceptability, they are doing the job, and we're cutting down on the number of deaths on the highways arising from drinking and driving.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the question is whether the programme is really being made effective. Is the Attorney-General aware that after his statement a BATmobile sat idle in Oak Bay last Friday night in the police parking lot where, presumably, there would be no clients for it, I wouldn't think.

[ Page 1266 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, I'm not aware of that, but those kinds of situations can happen periodically, Mr. Member. Probably at this point in time there are certain police vehicles sitting in parking lots throughout the province, as they were during your regime as well.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, a vicious counter-attack.

STUDY OF

VEGETABLE MARKETING BOARDS

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the other day I asked the Minister of Agriculture a question regarding the study he was undertaking on the amalgamation of the two vegetable marketing boards. I have a further question for him today. I would like him to tell the House who is doing this study.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I assume, - the member for Cowichan-Malahat means the consulting firm. , Coopers & Lybrand is the firm that has been mentioned.

MRS. WALLACE: A supplementary. That was not mentioned in the copy of the news release I have, and I was curious as to who was undertaking it.

Could you tell me, Mr. Minister: what is the time frame for the study and what is the estimated cost?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, Mr. Speaker, I can't. As I mentioned the other day the discussion has been ongoing between the Interior Vegetable Marketing Board, the B.C. Coast Vegetable Marketing Board and my staff for some time since last fall when we assisted the Interior Vegetable Marketing Board. They're engaging the consultants to look at the mechanics of it and it will be a co-ordinated effort between the two boards, my ministry and the consultants.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister didn't mention anything about costs. Are the consultants engaged on a per them and, if so, what is that per diem?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'll take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker, and report back to the member.

NUMBER OF PEOPLE RECEIVING

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, three days ago in the debate on the Premier's estimates the

Minister of Human Resources confessed that-he had been sitting in his seat three days waiting for a question, so I've got a question for him now.

Thirty-six days ago, on April 4, 1 asked the Minister of Human Resources if he would tell me the number of persons in the province who were in receipt of social assistance. On April 17, 1 asked a second time for that information. Today, Mr. Speaker, for the third time, I am asking this eager minister to please let us know the number of persons in this province who are in receipt of social assistance.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order. It has been asked before in question period.

MS. BROWN: A supplemental? A new question?

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps a new question.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, on both occasions the minister took it as notice, so I am asking him whether he's got the information for us now, a third time, 36 days later.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry. I thought I had it in my desk drawer, but I'll certainly bring it forth. It's on my desk, no doubt, and I'll bring the information.

BRANNAN LAKE

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, two days ago I asked the Minister of Recreation and Conservation....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: No, it's another question.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm at a loss. I was going to ask the same question of the Provincial. Secretary, because she too was approached by the group known as the Steering Committee for Better Use of Brannan Lake and by the Marine Gardens Association. I know she's not here, Mr. Attorney-General. It's just my way of reminding the Minister of Recreation and Conservation that I'm still waiting for an answer from him.

MR. SPEAKER: There was a question?

MR. STUPICH: There was, but the minister left.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. I've been reading with great

[ Page 1267 ]

interest these documents he took to Ottawa with him, and in his presentation he indicated that one of the steps that the province would propose to take would be to promote free trade by making changes in marketing boards and the liquor control board. Now he went into some length on how he , us proposing to move with marketing boards, but I would like to ask him today when he is going to take action with the liquor control board and how he intends to accomplish this.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I know the question is out of order, but I'd like to tell the member that I've already explained in the House that the proposal to the other governments was a comprehensive proposal that must be taken in total and not in individual cases and, as such, no individual part of that proposal will be implemented without the full co-operation on all of it.

To end the type of local preference that takes place between provinces is just one of the steps that would be part of the trade package of the economic package. As such, I've already advised the House that no such recommendation proposal or background papers should be discussed or taken on an individual basis without the relationship to the other parts of the economic package.

CASH ON HAND

MR. GIBSON: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Just to allow him to indicate his mastery of his department, I ask this question every now and again. Could he tell us, as of the latest reporting period, how much money we have in the bank?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Quite a bit.

MR. GIBSON: Just within $10 million or so, if you can come that close, Mr. Minister, how much and when was it?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the member should place that kind of question on the order paper. Such a figure varies from hour to hour and it's furthermore available through the quarterly report which is available every three months.

RECREATION AND CONSERVATION REGULATIONS

MR. NICOLSON: I have a question for the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. Has the minister or his ministry received any requests for changes in regulations as a result of the recently held convention of the B.C. Western Guides and Outfitters?

HON. MR. BAWLF; Mr. Speaker, we have had a number of presentations from the guide outfitters association suggesting ways in which they would like to see regulations and legislation improved, as is their right to do and as is customary with every sector of the private economy.

MR. NICOLSON: Have any of those requests been acted upon?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I would ask whether that is out of order. But in any case, I could say no, not in an immediate context.

MILL WASTE

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'll direct a question to the Premier as Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. In view of the fact that the Energy Commission in B.C. tells us that we are wasting, by throwing away and by ignoring wastes from the lumber industry, a fuel that could provide 8 per cent of B.C.'s power, what is the government of British Columbia and what is the Premier doing about seeing to it that this energy source is put to work?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, if the member had been in his place when I discussed this in estimates, I gave a detailed answer on how the government had allocated part of a $2.2 million budget to the B.C. Energy Commission, who are conducting studies along with the mills in the central part of British Columbia, to the effect of utilization of waste woods and waste materials in the forest industry.

In looking for energy alternatives, it has been a priority of this government to make up for the time lost when we were not government and this matter was not studied. This money has been allocated for the first time and those studies are underway.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. * Speaker, with leave, I would like to respond to a question that was raised in question period yesterday.

Leave granted.

DRIEDIGER LAND HOLDINGS

HON. MR. HEWITT: The first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) asked me questions yesterday regarding a Mr. Driediger and land holdings in Langley. He mentioned that this land is under the agricultural land

[ Page 1268 ]

management branch of my ministry. We act, Mr. Member, as an agent for the Land Commission, which actually owns the property.

With regard to the violation of bylaws of Langley, that, of course, is a municipal affair and doesn't fall within the jurisdiction of my ministry.

The comment was that he placed two houses on the property contrary to the lease, which is correct. A directive was issued by my ministry requesting that these things be removed, as under the lease there were only two houses allowed on the property. Since that time, Mr. Driediger has visited my ministry's office in the Cloverdale area. He said that one of these houses is in such condition that he wishes to demolish it and replace it with one of the houses he has moved on. The second house that he moved on he has been advised to remove by June 1. He agrees to remove the extra house and we are in agreement to his replacing it with the new house he has moved on, after he has demolished one of the older homes. This would be subject to the Langley bylaws, of course, as we do not want to overrule them.

As to whether we are negotiating an option to purchase said lands, I believe that is incorrect because the lease he holds has an option to purchase in that lease. It's my understanding the lease has been in effect for over a year.

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.

On the amendment.

MR. LOEWEN: I trust that the good humour of last night will prevail this afternoon as we carry on the debate of this particular motion.

Last night I had just begun to get into the concerns that I had and the things that I wanted to say.

First, to have a winning combination you need a winner for a leader. The word is out in British Columbia, and the word is going out across the country, that British Columbia is heading for another 20 great years of growth and prosperity. Confidence is returning to the people of British Columbia.

Confidence is returning to the people of Burnaby-Edmonds. The senior citizens in Burnaby-Edmonds appreciate the SAFER programme. And confidence is returning to the motorists of Burnaby-Edmonds, particularly in the announcement that Marine Way is finally going to be constructed. Confidence is returning to the independent schools in Burnaby Edmonds, particularly since we passed Bill 33. And the mothers and the fathers of the homes will not have to pay double school taxation. Confidence is returning to labour in Burnaby Edmonds. Labour wants to work, they are happy to work and they realize that they have jobs again. Confidence is returning to the housewives in Burnaby-Edmonds. They realize that at last stable food prices are returning to British Columbia. Confidence is returning even to the young people and the school children, who realize that they are going to school to learn. Again and again they have told me of their appreciation of the basic guidelines in education.

Confidence is returning to the professional people, the people that we educated in our universities. Instead of leaving British Columbia, they are staying to help the people in British Columbia.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, even the sick people in British Columbia realize they will be taken care of in new hospitals that are being constructed by this government.

We must not forget the small businessmen who are again regaining confidence in Burnaby Edmonds, as the people of Burnaby-Edmonds again have a greater amount of money available to buy goods in British Columbia. As red tape is being removed, they again have confidence that better days are ahead for them.

The large investor, the international investor, again, Mr. Chairman, is receiving confidence. They have the confidence that this government will be fair to their investment and that they will not open shop and begin to compete across the street.

Respect is also returning for British Columbia across this country and, in fact, not only this country but internationally - respect for British Columbia and respect for the strong leadership here in British Columbia. It is our Premier's strong leadership, it is his understanding of what makes things happen, it is his understanding of what has made our country great, it is his confidence in the people of British Columbia that has earned the respect and confidence of all the people of British Columbia and of our great country of Canada.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to say that I will vote against this motion and that I, with the people of British Columbia, again have confidence in this province because of the great leadership of the Premier of British Columbia.

[ Page 1269 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Although it's hard to believe, when one has listened to the debate over the last 10-odd days, this motion of nonconfidence pertains to leadership and how leadership affects people. I would like to take this opportunity to advise you, Mr. Chairman, and to put on the record in this province for all to see how the NDP leadership - or leaderlessness - affected the people that I represent, and 1 won't take a week and a half to do it.

In our area of the North Okanagan under the NDP leadership we had a radical change, and I'd like to list just a few of these. I might also add that we've had a radical change back again.

But let me discuss highways for a moment. Carr's Landing Road, designed and ready to go under Social Credit, but under NDP cancelled; under Social Credit today it is completed. The Westside Road of Okanagan Lake under NDP cancelled; today it's nearly completed. Highway 6 into the village of Lumby - under the NDP plans were cancelled; under Social Credit today, four-laning is underway. Highway 6, Aberdeen Road to 27th Avenue in Vernon under NDP was cancelled; today, four-laning is underway. The Okanagan Landing bypass, Mr. Chairman, a great necessity in our area, a long-term commitment with dollars invested by Social Credit, under 1, WP was cancelled; and now today it is in the deep-freeze because of the land freeze.

Personal care, Mr. Chairman, today called intermediate care. A programme for the North Okanagan was started under the former Social Credit government, but under the NDP was cancelled; today under Social Credit it's near completion. A senior citizen's highrise, an impossible financial situation under the NDP, is today near completion with a $1 million grant.

The milfoil weed programme - the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) will appreciate this. Under the NDP, the only answer to this malignancy that was overtaking our waters from the Minister of Resources of that time was: "I'm not going to clean up a rich man's yacht basin." Today under the Social Credit a major and cautiously thought out programme is not only underway at local request, but is almost totally financed through the provincial government.

The lumber industry, Mr. Chairman, nearly suffocated under the NDP in our area, and it is growing stronger and more confident today under Social Credit.

The tourist industry was almost slaughtered by the NDP and is now recovered and has had one of the best years in many years. The way the NDP brought in land control under their leadership made paupers of some people in our area who were forced into fire sales of their land. It made instant millionaires, overnight, of other people in our area. Even those who were made instant millionaires under the NDP felt it was an unconscionable action. The residue that we have today are older people, long-time farmers, locked onto their land which they are no longer able to farm because of a lack of market. This will remain until our current Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) , under the leadership of Social Credit, will find a solution.

The NDP leadership - or leaderlessness -killed many legitimate, necessary and practical projects in the North Okanagan. They nearly broke down our economy, they frightened our people and they nearly destroyed our initiative, which was perhaps the worst sin of all. The people of North Okanagan lost under the NDP. They don't want NDP philosophy and they don't want NDP-style leader losses again. They would oppose this motion, Mr. Chairman. I oppose this motion.

The leadership was put on the line in the last election, and the leader of the NDP not only lost his jurisdiction as Premier of the province but he lost his seat. Mr. Chairman, the people who spoke at that time and chose competent, knowledgeable and aggressive leadership were the people who count most, not the ones in this Legislature but the people of this province. And the people whom I represent would want this motion opposed. I oppose it because we want Social Credit and Bennett-style leadership. We want Bennett-style competence and we want Bennett-style human concern.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize the next member, I would remind all members about the relevancy rule in our standing orders. The best way for the relevancy rule to be applied is for members to police themselves. We're to discuss the conduct and administrative conduct of the Premier and the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, the motion that is before the House at the present time is a far-reaching one because it strikes at the fundamental leadership of the leader of this government, the Premier of this government. I don't have to go any further than to just consider for a moment the record of this government under the Premier's leadership in this area where we reside as a Legislature, the city of Victoria.

I begin with the fact that this area of Victoria has one of the highest populations of

[ Page 1270 ]

senior citizens in proportional terms in the province. Consider that this is the government which brought in long-term care after months and years of rhetoric from their predecessors in government; this is the government which brought in long-term care which will assure adequate health care for all of our senior citizens. Mr. Chairman, that, together with the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters, has brought equity and security to our senior citizens throughout the province, notably in this constituency, not in the form of a few token senior citizens' housing projects but a programme which is indeed reaching thousands, just highlights the benefits of this Premier's leadership of this government in my constituency.

The list is a very long one as I contemplate the record of this government in my constituency alone. This government under the Premier's leadership is committed to the payment of full property taxes on provincially owned lands and buildings in this city, a promise which the former government made but never kept. In fact, the former Premier had the audacity to tell the people of this community that they had no right to expect a fair and rightful share of property taxes. Mr. Chairman, this government has met that commitment. This government has met it to the tune of about $1.5 million in revenue, which is rightfully due to the city of Victoria so that the property taxpayers in this community do not have to subsidize the provincial government. On top of that, this government under the leadership of this Premier brought in revenue sharing for municipalities. Certainly the pioneer of its type in all jurisdictions in Canada, revenue sharing is bringing to the city of Victoria an amount of $3.2 million in revenue assistance in this current year.

This is the same government which established the first rentalsman's office in this city. [illegible] office is to overcome a situation which prevailed under the former government where a citizen of this community seeking redress of a problem in connection with rental accommodation was forced to write or telephone repeatedly to Vancouver to obtain the assistance of the rentalsman. Upon repeated requests to the former government, there was still no action. This is the government under this Premier which delivered that service to Victoria. This is the government which, if the members will cast their memories back to last summer and the disastrous fire at Ogden Point, went to Ottawa and secured an immediate reconstruction of the warehouse and crew ship terminal at that facility, our only major port facility in the

Victoria harbour. That facility is now nearing completion, as a testimony to the prompt action of this government and to the expeditious way in which this government under this Premier carries on constructive dialogue with the senior government in this country.

This is a government, Mr. Chairman, under this Premier, which established an economic development commission in this community by meeting more than half of the costs of that office. The commissioner is working diligently to improve employment opportunities in this area. Alongside of that, this government, under this Premier's leadership, has established the most comprehensive student Employment programme anywhere in this country and in this city. That programme is being pursued under a joint effort between the Ministry of Labour and the federal Ministry of Manpower. It is providing the best service in student employment that's ever been seen in this community.

Mr. Chairman, this is the government, under the leadership of this Premier, which went to Ottawa and obtained more than $1 million in commitments, apart from those I just mentioned in regard to the harbour, for a complete reconstruction of wharf facilities, ferry terminal facilities and fishboat moorage in this harbour. Those projects are going on today, right out the front door here. That again is testimony to the expeditious way in which this government and this Premier have carried on their business with the government of Canada.

This is the same government again which is committed to restore perhaps one of the most significant landmarks in this, the oldest city in the province - the Crystal Gardens, a building which, when it's restored, will be a landmark once again, a source of pride to the people in my constituency for many years to come and a great source of enjoyment. Along with that, Mr. Chairman, this government has co-operated with the Greater Victoria library in the establishment of a new central library downtown. It has co-operated with the neighbourhood groups here in the establishment of New Horizons premises, in the establishment of an expanded Victoria YW-YMCA and in the establishment of many other needed facilities in this area for recreation of people of all types and abilities.

This is the government which has brought to the oldest collection of buildings in this province, the Old Town of Victoria, a programme to improve that area with the undergrounding of wires. That work was begun and finished expeditiously in a very few months.

This is the government - and this is perhaps

[ Page 1271 ]

most fundamental to the well-being of this area - under this Premier which has embarked on the most aggressive tourist promotion campaign that this province has ever seen. Testimony to that is the fact that use of the B.C. Ferries is up 20 per cent in terms of vehicles in the first quarter of this year over the comparable period in the previous year. This is the result of the very aggressive and outstanding promotion of our Cook bicentennial celebrations which will bring unprecedented benefits to this community and to Vancouver Island as a whole.

This is the same government, Mr. Chairman, which Linder the leadership of this Premier has established three new Crown corporations with their head offices in the city of Victoria. I'm speaking of the B.C. Buildings Corporation, the B.C. Ferry Corporation and the B.C. Systems Corporation, which are very important to the economy of this community.

Perhaps the most important project of all that this government has undertaken with the enthusiastic support and leadership of our Premier and our Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is the construction of a major new hospital, the major hospital in the history of Vancouver Island, costing some $44 million. It's a 450-bed hospital, with construction beginning this summer, which will render to Victoria and indeed to the whole of the southern Island some of the best acute health care facilities in Canada. At the same time, Mr. Chairman, that same programme includes a new computerized body-scanner at- the Royal Jubilee Hospital at a cost of $1 million. Also for the Royal Jubilee there is a commitment of some $9 million for planning and construction and improvement of that hospital. I could go on with a long list of activities and commitments.

I shouldn't fail to mention the four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway into this city, a project which was talked about for years and about which nothing was done until this government and this Premier took office. The extension of the Blanshard expressway out of this city to connect it with the Pat Bay Highway, again a project in that instance which was talked about for all of 15 years, but nothing done about it.... As a matter of fact, the former government started talking about so many airy-fairy plans that the whole concept looked like it would never come to fruition. That project too is undertaken now, and both of them are to be completed next year. This government has done more for Victoria than any previous government, certainly more than anyone would have dreamed of Linder the former government, the NDP government, and that is due to the leadership of this outstanding Premier.

Mr. Chairman, I have one more comment. The member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) had a list out here of what can only be construed as a complete and utter cornucopia of misinformation with her list of services cut back. I just want to touch on the one that my ministerial responsibilities relate to, and that's the ferry service. She alleges that we're cutting back in ferry sailings and services.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I can't go through all the schedules for all of the runs in the ferry system, but I'll just give you an example of the summer schedules between Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen. In 1975, when that party was in government, they had a total of 16 sailings daily, each way, with a total capacity of about 3,000 cars. Last year we had increased that to 3,600 cars each way, and the summer schedule this year will deliver 4,100 cars each way with a total of 24 sailings each way.

Mr. Chairman, that statement by the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) that we are cutting back in service or in sailings is complete nonsense. We are using every vessel at our disposal at every opportunity, where there is a need, and the scheduling increases just in the past year have increased the licensed capacity for passengers between Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen from 15,000 daily to 18,800 daily. Now there's no possible basis in fact for the allegations of that member opposite, Mr. Chairman.

That just indicates the problem of that party in that they are endeavouring to apply their standards to the Premier in assessing his performance, and by that I mean they count on their fingers. That's about as far as they are able to see with their understanding of the responsibilities and the objectives of good government.

Mr. Chairman, this motion is frivolous. I certainly intend to oppose it, and I regard it as a sham.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I stand in my place today to make a plea for handicapped children and their families in this province. One Social Crediter after another has gotten up in this debate with respect to the Premier's salary to say that the government and the Premier have done some good things. I do not disagree with that. I do not take away one good thing that may have been done by this government. At $4 billion a year you have to do some good things. They've made some mistakes too - one or two.

But that's not what I'm talking about now.

[ Page 1272 ]

Right now I am talking about the potential plight of handicapped children and their families in this province if the Premier allows policy directions indicated within the Ministry of Human Resources to become the law of this province. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief on this topic and cover the main policy aspects that the Premier could properly be charged with.

I tabled in the House yesterday after question period a copy of a document entitled "Draft Personal and Financial Contributions Towards Services." That document refers to a variety of social services, but the ones that I am particularly interested in the others may be debated on their merits relate to handicapped children. It states that under certain circumstances persons in receipt of social services shall be charged for them, and here is the governing paragraph:

"The maximum financial contribution per family expected will be the lesser of the following: the amount indicated by the income test, the cost of service, or an amount equivalent to the total basic maintenance rate for a foster child of equivalent age, or an average of such rates if the service is to a family."

Mr. Chairman, what does that mean in terms of the major programmes for handicapped children that are enunciated in the balance of that memorandum? The memorandum sets out three effective dates when services will become chargeable. The first date is "effective immediately" - that is as soon as the Premier and the executive council see fit to approve these recommendations if they are proceeded with, as they must not be in the case of the handicapped. Effective immediately, residential programmes would fall under this financial stricture.

Mr. Chairman, I am advised that residential programmes for the handicapped currently are, generally speaking, costing the parents concerned some $50 per month. The actual cost, if that is to be the criterion, would be something over $1,000 a month.

The income testing system - let me give you the example of a family with three individuals. The income test figure is $615, and a family with an income above that would be....

The minister is shaking his head. It's right here in the GAIN regulations of December 21,1977. Are they out of date?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: January 1,1978.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you. In any event, it's that order of magnitude, some $600 for a family of three. In any event, Mr. Chairman, whatever the number may be, a family with an income above that amount - and the average family with a handicapped child has an income above that amount - is responsible for the difference. So in effect, under this residential programme, the real cap on the amount to be contributed would be the foster child cost in the neighbourhood of $200 per month. It is a very considerable increase.

Effective October 1,1978, of this year, this new policy would be applied to special needs day care. Special needs day care, Mr Chairman, is pre-school training, generally; speaking for ages three to six, for the developmentally handicapped, mentally retarded or otherwise. Depending on which particular school you're looking at in Vancouver or Richmond, the actual cost is something in the neighbourhood of $250 a month. The current parental contribution, I believe, is around $35 a month.

So if special needs day care is to be charged for, that is going to mean an increase to most families again of something in the order of $200 a month.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're completely wrong there.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Minister, this is what this memorandum says.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps this might be better canvassed under the....

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Well, I want you to stand up and take that fear away from them right now.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You ought to be really ashamed of yourself. You're supposed to be responsible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This might be better canvassed under vote 152, but in any event would you please address the Chair?

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You ought to be totally ashamed of yourself, using the handicapped. That's the second time you've done that in the last several years.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I simply have to respond to that shot from the minister. He says: "...using the handicapped." I want to ask that minister: who was the minister who refused to pass on that $22.50 of federal

[ Page 1273 ]

money for - what was it? - 18 months or some thing in that neighbourhood?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That was another phony thing on your part, and I'll explain it in a minute.

MR. GIBSON: That was not a phony thing at all. You got that extra money in respect of the handicapped children and you know it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You know it was wrong.

MR. GIBSON: And then you ran $100 million surplus in your budget.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please address the Chair.

MR. GIBSON: That's the pre-school programme for the retarded. But the sad one is the infant development programme.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Watch out what you say, because you don't know a thing about it.

MR. GIBSON: According to this memorandum: "Effective April 1,1979, the income test must be applied to all services given by the family support worker, the infant development programme and all ongoing social work intervention." Now I'm reading from a memorandum that the minister acknowledged in the House yesterday was authentic: the infant development programme, effective April 1,1979.

Mr. Chairman, this is, generally speaking, a home-based programme for developmentally delayed children, Downs Syndrome and others, on referral from doctors, from health professionals of various kinds and, more recently, from parents. There always has been some difficulty, some tendency on the part of some parents to wish not to believe the possibility of development delay in their children and a wish to stay away from involving the rest of society in this. Gradually, through programmes of the department, the parents have come, through the infant development programme, to more and more involve health and training professionals in the early years of development delay when there's the best chance of doing whatever may be done.

A charge there -"the income test must be applied, " it says - would be one more deterrent in an area that is already fully sensitive enough in terms of human feelings.

Mr. Chairman, in question period yesterday the minister was talking about people in effect ripping off the social services system.

I don't know what he may have in mind in other parts of his department ' but the handicapped people are not ripping off the system. They are not voluntarily handicapped; they have no choice in the matter. The suggestion that handicapped parents should pay an amount for, let's say, L;ay-care services equal to that paid by other parents for day-care services makes the assumption that the handicapped children are in the program because of the parents, because the parents want to work or something like that, rather than because of their special needs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I think perhaps when I spoke earlier about relevancy, you might want to consider that. I would think this matter might be better discussed under vote 152 which is yet to come.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess what I'm doing really is making an appeal to the Premier to recognize and to re-endorse what has been the policy of our society. I think it's fair to say, certainly in British Columbia. I think it's fair to say that all across the country it is the evolving policy that those mental and physical disabilities which fall upon people through no fault of their own, and are of great moment in all ways including financial ways, should at least, insofar as the share of the financial burden is concerned, be shared as to their entirety by the whole of society and not simply by the family concerned.

That is what is wrong with this policy proposal. Whatever numbers the minister may come up with, it's the policy that's important. I am begging the Premier to say that that policy will continue the policy of this province, and that these financial burdens which are no fault of the individual will be shared and continue to be shared among all members of our society and not just that particular family.

I make that plea because of all of the other burdens that are felt: the sense of endlessness of coping with a particular situation, the sense of what happens when the parents are gone, the neighbourhood problems, the school problem , the problem of other children. All these things the families themselves have to bear, and there's no way that anyone can help with that, except with sympathy and advice. But in terms of financial things, yes, there can be some help given. Help is being given now, and I make this plea that the system not be changed along the lines of this memorandum that has been circulated in the minister's department. I make that plea directly to the

[ Page 1274 ]

Premier.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Firstly, I, of course, rise in opposition to the amendment before us now. While perhaps it doesn't require to be said, I would like to say in any case that should some of the remarks that have been made by the opposition have been taken seriously by anyone, I, like all other members on this side of the House, certainly wholeheartedly support the Premier in the excellent job he's doing. While this job, like every job in government, is extremely difficult at times, the fact that we have strong leadership, the fact that we have a Premier who is imaginative, who can put forth ideas very strongly, very effectively and be a leader not only in British Columbia but throughout the country through his very worthwhile pronouncements, helps those of us that are in these positions to continue and to be very enthusiastic in our role.

I also want to take this opportunity to outline some of the enormous benefits that have accrued to my constituency because of the leadership that has been given by the Premier and this government over the last several years. I recently spoke to a person who visited my constituency office. That person was attempting to recall the situation as it was before we became government.

He said: "You know, it's strange how sometimes we relate the change to the small things we remember rather than perhaps some of the more major things that we ought to remember which could well be of far greater importance." he cited as an example the fact that he drives down the freeway daily from Guildford to Vancouver.

lie says: "You know, it's only a little better than two years ago when I used to drive down that freeway in real frustration, because the whole of it, all the way from the Langley boundary into Vancouver, appeared like a garbage dump. I want you to go back and especially pay a compliment to the Minister of Highways for the fact that they are doing an excellent job in maintaining that entrance to Vancouver in an orderly and tidy manner as it ought to be."

I think perhaps it is sometimes in the smaller ways that we can relate to the changes that have taken place and to see how things have improved and are continuing to improve in this great province.

I am very grateful for the announcements which have been made by the Minister of Highways for the highway improvements in my particular constituency, which is the largest municipality in Canada and the fastest growing area in all of British Columbia. I am very appreciative of the help which has been given through the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of the Environment in providing moneys to the various diking districts to upgrade the dikes that affect the agricultural areas. Certainly that has been a tremendous help to them and a tremendous help to us because, for the amounts given them, they have proved enormous results.

I am grateful, too, for the enormous savings that I have been able to bring about which have been a real assistance to the municipality by the takeover of the social services which previously had to be administered by the municipality at a substantial cost, and for the effective decentralization that has taken place since. Instead of one large, overcrowded office where people sat, queued up, waiting in line with a number in their hand to be served at a counter when they required help through social services, they now can go - or will, in any case, very quickly as the fourth office opens up - to different offices in different areas of the municipality where they can be dealt with in a far more appropriate manner.

The Municipal Affairs ministry has provided more moneys through the various grant systems to the municipality than we've ever been able to receive, and each and every time all members of council commend Municipal Affairs for the changes that have taken place, which have helped municipal coffers enormously. Also, the senior citizens are very grateful for the grant given so that they might expand the Sunrise Pavilion Centre, which has served the elderly people of Surrey well.

I have two independent schools within my constituency, Our Lady of Good Counsel, and Fraser Valley Christian High. Both will benefit enormously from the legislation which provides assistance to independent schools.

We are grateful to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) for the help given in expanding the library facilities. Once more, it was something that was lacking for a long time. And this government provided that assistance.

The vocational school - which hopefully will proceed in the not too distant future - will be a tremendous help for the citizens of Surrey and provide an alternate form of education, which has long been lacking.

But, Mr. Chairman, I'm terribly disturbed when I hear remarks such as have been made by the former speaker, the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , when he speaks about the handicapped. I suggested that he was using the handicapped in making those statements, and I would like to explain that the parents of those handicapped children, the

[ Page 1275 ]

members of that family, are sufficiently burdened without this additional worry. And when they hear an hon. member get up in the House or get on television such as apparently the member did last night or make statements to the press about the things that are going to happen Which will be of enormous detriment to those families with handicapped children, it provides a further burden for them. I just want to take a few moments here to explain.

First, I have already explained that the memorandum which was released somehow, and which has been talked about these last several days, was a memorandum between the deputy minister and the executive staff and regional managers. And we've long heard from all members of this House that somehow there ought to be better communications before a decision is made, that there should be sufficient input from the community and from the various people who daily provide the services to people in need - and this is what we're doing in the ministry. We're giving the professionals, the social workers, all people in the ministry the opportunity to have their input, something which they've not previously had. These are the people who are daily on the front lines; they're providing the service; they know the needs because they work with the families that are being assisted. And we have regular sessions in Victoria at which they have an exchange of information. I have myself visited practically every office in the province where social services are being provided. The deputy minister is constantly making contacts, visiting and discussing. This is a good, healthy way of running a ministry. This exchange adds to assuring not only that the programmes are more accountable, but that they will provide the services in the best manner possible.

And again, this particular memorandum is an example of that, and my deputy minister happens to be a man who is action-oriented. And yes, he does attach dates to proposals, because I think the date of implementation or the suggested date of implementation, for whatever change, is important too. The fact that the hon. member on the other side has referred to those dates would indicate the importance of providing those targets. My deputy minister happens to be a man who not only provides various proposals and puts them forth to staff, but puts a target on them so that, if the answers are forthcoming, they ought to be in by a certain date. He puts a target on them to assure that we do get the input and get it at the time required. That particular memorandum certainly is only that now - a proposal from the deputy minister which has been discussed with staff and there have been various interpretations put on that proposal. But I want to reiterate once that there will be no attempt whatsoever to place a further burden on handicapped families, one that would not be borne by people who are receiving the services and who are not burdened by a handicapped child or other member of the family. But as the member mentioned, we do have special day-care programmes, and these special day-care programmes provide for a range of people. They're not all handicapped in the sense outlined by the member, but that's all right - they're fulfilling a very necessary need.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, this is very interesting, but I really think it would be better discussed under vote 152. We're currently discussing a motion. I appreciate the fact that the member for North Vancouver-Capilano brought the point up, and I attempted to bring up the point of relevance with him. I'm going to remind you, as an hon. member, about the point of relevance. And if hon. members choose to disregard the Chair, the Chairman will have at least tried to do his duty.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member's total presentation was on the basis of this, because he felt that the Premier should provide leadership in this area. And I'm referring to these programmes because I think all of this is taking place on account of the excellent leadership we receive through the Premier and through his office.

The special day-care programmes, which are presently being provided to the majority, have no charge at all. Normal day care, of course, is being charged according to the income of the individual receiving the service.

There have been suggestions put forth, and certainly that particular memorandum which has been referred to is in line with that suggestion that at least those receiving the benefits for the reasons that others might receive them without having the special portion of the programme contribute to that part which would be for normal day care. That proposal is certainly one that is worth debating.

The special day-care programme has expanded considerably in the last several years. As a matter of fact, in that area we now have a level of service such as we have not previously enjoyed. We have also moved very vigorously towards incorporating regular day care with specialized day care so that at least all youngsters involved in the programme can have the benefit of those services which are provided to each group that is making up the total component.

[ Page 1276 ]

The member made reference to the infant development programme. Once more, Mr. Chairman, we have expanded the infant development programme by possibly, I guess, 200,300 or 400 per cent over the last several years. Again, the infant development programme is one which certainly receives the support of the Premier. It is a tremendous programme. It serves a good many parts of tile province, and it is a very necessary programme which I support wholeheartedly. It's a programme which is encouraged by the Premier.

The Premier has also encouraged a new programme which was developed only in the last six months to provide better facilities and better opportunities for those afflicted with autism. Within Woodlands School we now have a particular effort being designed to attack the problem of autism in British Columbia.

The Premier is also very supportive and certainly wholeheartedly stands behind the expansion which has been given to the children in crisis, or the child-abuse programme. We have expanded that programme threefold, fourfold, fivefold. It's far broader now than it has ever been.

Once more, the residential programme has been expanded. As recently as a week ago we provided over $1 million to expand the residential programmes to provide for handicapped people in the lower Fraser Valley area particularly and certainly in the area of North Vancouver, from which the member hails.

[Mrs. Dailly in the chair.)

So we have seen a tremendous improvement in all of these programmes. But no doubt the matter of parental contribution will remain one for debate over the next several months, and I think that's a healthy thing. I think certainly there must be people everywhere in British Columbia who are concerned with the fact that we have a lot of youngsters who are provided for through various good foster homes, but that only 6.5 per cent of the natural parents contribute anything towards the maintenance of their children in foster care, and that out of that 6.5 per cent by far the majority contribute no more than the family allowance given them by the federal government.

Madam Chairman, the final thing I want to make reference to is the suggestion that somehow the Premier and this government were responsible for withholding money due to the handicapped - namely $22.50 a year and a half ago. I think it is very appropriate that I use an example which has come to light in the last week.

Every time we decide to increase the rights for handicapped people in the province of British Columbia, be they individuals or members of a family, we negotiate with Ottawa for that increase, although from time to time the increase is announced before the increase takes effect and the negotiations continue. It is assumed, and rightly so, that the federal government should pick up 50 per cent of the cost of that programme, as they do in every other province in the country. However, we recently announced a $20 increase for handicapped people.

MR. GIBSON: That's 12 months after.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The member says that is 12 months after. The $22.50 that the member referred to was the federal portion of an increase which had been granted in part by the previous administration and part by us -largely by the previous administration - and for which we were not getting the federal share until well after the fact. When the federal government finally came across, the member - who should know better because he certainly has close relations, I understand, with others in the Liberal government in Ottawa - suggested that because the federal government was six months late or a year late in paying their share of the money provided to handicapped people, somehow this was new money for the handicapped. Those were moneys due the province because of increases that had been granted earlier.

We recently announced a $20 increase for handicapped people to take effect July 1,1978. Last week we received a letter from the Liberal federal government in Ottawa - of which this member on the other side for North Vancouver-Capilano is so proud - which said: "Hey, the handicapped people in British Columbia are already getting enough. They are already getting more than all other handicapped people anywhere else in the country, so we are not going to give it. If you want to give an increase, you do so at provincial cost. But despite our cost sharing with all other provinces, we will not cost-share in that province."

I say shame on the federal government for r that particular decision, and I would suggest the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , who stands up for those Liberals in Ottawa, should view this realistically and, along with this government, petition those members in Ottawa who represent this province and say, "Why treat British Columbia differently?" and "Why not provide for the handicapped, as the Minister of Human Resources,

[ Page 1277 ]

the Premier of the province and all members of this government are wanting to do?"

AN HON. MEMBER: He's going to join them too.

MR. GIBSON: I stand up for the handicapped.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: So contrary to what the member for North Vancouver-Capilano has said, this province is moving ahead to provide for handicapped people, moving ahead of all other provinces in Canada. As a matter of fact, we're moving far ahead of the federal government to the point where they're deciding not to share. Shame, I say. Shame.

And, Mr. Member, I hope you now understand finally, and that you still stand up and defend the Premier and this government for what we are doing for the handicapped in this province, and that you will denounce the federals for the withholding of their contribution to that very necessary programme.

I am proud of our Premier. I think we have the greatest Premier this province or country has ever seen. I know that British Columbia will progress because we have a positive government. We are moving; we are seeing things happen. The future of British Columbia for its people is like it has never been before. We don't need a whole lot of negativism. We want people to be positive about the opportunities that exist here, and this government will bend over backwards and do whatever it can; it will work day and night to make it happen because it can be done. We have the best of resources; we have all the opportunities. We're the greatest place in the country, the greatest place in the world. We have a Premier that can make it happen and will make it happen.

I am very much opposed to this ridiculous amendment which has been presented by the opposition.

MR. HADDAD: Madam Chairman, I think that you make a very beautiful improvement to the Chair.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Take all the time you wish. (Laughter.)

MR. HADDAD: I'm going to be very brief, Madam Chairman. I have a few remarks, though, and I would like to start off by saying that it has always been my opinion that you judge a man by his accomplishments. Believe me, in two and a half years, Premier Bill Bennett and his government have provided good, sound administration for the overall benefit of the people of British Columbia.

1 can qualify this by my experience throughout my constituency of Kootenay. I would like to read two or three examples. The provincial government has been deeply concerned about the Kootenay electoral district and has planned many programmes to extend and help the people in our area. In the Sparwood area, a new 27-bed hospital should be finished in June of this year, at an estimated cost of $2.8 million. There is $85,000 worth of fire alarm system being upgraded in the Kimberley hospital, and this project should be completed this year. In the Cranbrook area, a large expansion programme is planned at the Cranbrook and District Hospital, which should be completed by 1982 at an estimated cost of $4 million. I expect this upgrading programme to begin this year.

I would like to point out another factor, too, in the area of road maintenance. Fifty eight miles of road have recently been repaved at a cost of over $4.5 million. This is part of the $7.2 million expenditure on highways in our area in the last year. Between Elko and Wardner, 17.2 miles of highway have been repaved, as well as 23 miles of the Elk Valley road. Between Marysville and Skookumchuck on highway 95A and 95, 17.8 miles of highway have recently been resurfaced. These contracts have created employment for about 140 people in total during the time the work was being done.

Now, Madam Chairman, these are just a few things that have transpired in my constituency right across, not only in the larger area but right to the smallest areas. This, in my opinion, is progress. It has been many years since work has been done on these highways or any bridge replacements. We have a bridge being replaced today at Wasa, which is on the main route to Radium Hot Springs and on the Banff. The bridge that is being used has been in existence for many, many years. It was a hazard. It's about ready to be washed out, but it is now being replaced and should be finished within the next few months.

Besides covering the hospital construction, highway maintenance and new bridge construction, we have other bridges that are being reconstructed, particularly up in the Elk Valley. This government is doing things for people. This government has a leader with administrative ability second to none in Canada. This province is moving ahead, and in only two and a half years all of these accomplishments have been done not only in my constituency, but throughout the entire province.

I say to the hon. members: watch the acceleration of this government in the next two and a half years, as I understand that this government has a mandate for five years. I

[ Page 1278 ]

will vote against the motion of non-confidence in our Premier as I have every confidence in his leadership.

MR. BAWTREE: Madam Chairman, I must compliment you on your eyesight. I have difficulty with many of the chairmen not being able to see to this end of the chamber.

The opposition, by introducing this motion, have once again proven that they don't really know what the people out there in the province are thinking. They proved it once before, of course - or rather the people proved it in December, 1975.

Under the leadership of our Premier, this government is giving new direction to this province. New confidence is being established all over this province. New businesses are started and we know that there were a record 13,209 incorporations last year alone. The importance of the forest industry is being recognized once again and investment in that industry is extremely high all over the province, and, of course, in the Shuswap as well.

Interest in the mining industry is very high right across this province. Although I do not have much mining in my constituency, those people who are engaged in that activity are quite happy with the direction that things are going at the moment. Because of the confidence in the mining industry, the investors and the prospectors have once again returned from the Yukon. We all know what happened in 1972 to 1975. There was a new Immigration Act introduced in this province that forced most of our miners and our prospectors out of the province and into the Yukon.

In my particular area, the tourist industry is enjoying a very healthy and prosperous year once again. Small businesses are being created at an ever faster rate. of course, the same as all other places in this great province of ours, the highway system is being upgraded and millions of dollars are being spent and thousands of jobs are being created to provide a reasonable transportation system in this province.

All these things are happening in our province, Madam Chairman, and the NDP are apparently not aware of what is going on. They are not aware that the people of this province are happy with the Premier and the government and the direction in which this province is moving. The people are happy that this government is improving the opportunities in this province and preparing British Columbia for the 1980s.

If there is any area that the people of this province are unhappy with, it is the area of the control and management of our Legislature.

We have not improved, unfortunately, the way we look after the people's business in this province. We are still wasting time and money on frivolous discussion and debate. The people of this House, and therefore of this province, have been subjected to pointless and irrelevant debate for more than a week, and now have further debate on a frivolous and time-wasting motion, with the sole object of delaying even further the business of the people of this province.

Madam Chairman, along with all other thinking people in this House, I reject the motion that has been introduced and I intend to oppose it.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I want to say that I have studied the amendment before us, which has the intention of reducing the salary of the Premier. I've studied this amendment very closely. By reducing his salary, it recommends reducing his'salary to $3. That's a substantial reduction, and as much as I would normally agree with a cost reduction, I'm going to oppose this one. I'm sure you will agree, Madam Chairman, unbiased as you are with what I'm about to say.

But before doing so, I can't help but draw the attention of the House to a series of questions addressed to the Premier during, his estimates having to do with the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, the development of the valuations associated with the transfer of shares having to do with that corporation, and what authorization had been given for such a report.

I think the House would want to be reminded of the fact that just two years ago now, we had the well-known credit union report on the B.C. Savings and Trust which, unbeknownst to the present government, we were presented for a bill for shortly after taking office. This bill amounted to some $150,000 and we could find absolutely no record of any instructions. No authorization, nothing in writing could we find in any of our files having to do with any authorization for such a report. I think it's important for the House and you, Madam Chairman, to be aware of this fact in discussing circumstances surrounding the B.C. Resources Corporation.

Now 1 only want to say very briefly that in supporting the present Premier and opposing any concept of reducing his salary by way of lack of confidence, I would like to characterize this debate in just two ways - that is, by comparing him to the former Premier. The most obvious way to compare him to the former Premier is in their handling of the financial and economic affairs of the province of

[ Page 1279 ]

British Columbia. With the former Premier what did we have? We had a laissez-faire attitude towards budgeting, culminating in a deficit of $400 million in their final year in office, a year in which they, in fact, inflated the revenues by $300 million or $400 million in order to head off the inevitable in terms of a deficit operation. In other words, we characterized the former Premier as one who created debt for this province. Of course, under the present Premier, faced with similar economic conditions in the first year of office and a very difficult circumstances ' what do we have? We have much more careful financial administration, winding up with a surplus of $76 million which can be harnessed today to put towards economic development and job creation.

The second way in which I would like to characterize the importance of the leadership of this Premier is by comparing him with the former Premier in his attitude towards relations with our national government.

Under the former Premier, the relations with Ottawa were, if anything, strained. They were unco-operative. We have the former Premier on the few visitations he made with the national government playing the part of the national clown, finding it very difficult to negotiate. There was very little progress being made on negotiations. With the change in government and our present Premier, we have an attitude developed with a complete change.

Madam Chairman, you just ask the officials in Ottawa and the national cabinet ministers if they don't agree that there has been a pronounced change in attitude towards the dealings with Ottawa which are vitally important to this province. The result of this has been a fantastic impact in terms of revenues created in cost sharing arrangements with our national government. In effect, we've gone to Ottawa with a very co-operative attitude to interest with the primary attitude of keeping the province's interest first.

I have here a list of agreements made between Ottawa and the British Columbia government which have been negotiated since January 1,1976: the coal planning subagreement, signed in January of 1977, developing a federal revenue of $1.5 million; the Western Northlands Highway Agreement, signed in March of 1977, 15 million of national contribution for the construction and improvement of Highway 37 from Stewart to Watson Lake, and the completion of this highway between Meziadin Junction and Kitwanga; the west coast ferry agreement, concluded in April of 1977, amounting to 8 million - the first time, Madam Chairman, that we've had an agreement for subsidization of tile coastal ferry service; the coal planning subagreement of [illegible] of 1977, $5 million; the special agricultural and rural development agreement, in Hay, 1977, $6 million; the general ARDA extension in June of 1977, $3 million; the industrial development subagreement, a five-year agreement signed in July of 1977, amounting to $55 million of federal contribution; the agricultural and rural development subagreement, a five-year agreement signed in July of 1977, amounting to a federal contribution of $30 million; the conclusion of fiscal arrangements negotiations with the Ministry of Education in July of 1977, amounting to an $80 million federal contribution to post-secondary education - an area which had been completely left on the table during the former administration; the salmonid enhancement programme, phase 1, $150,000; and the Okanagan Basin implementation agreement, $5 million - a total, Madam Chairman, of $439.5 million. And I should include in that, of course, the federal-provincial agreement on the B.C. Rail extension, amounting to $61 million. That's progress in terms of the new attitude toward the national government, generated and developed by our Premier Bill Bennett, and totalling revenues from the federal government of $439.5 million.

So without equivocation, Madam Chairman - as the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) put it the other day - this is a crummy motion. In fact, I disagree with it. All members on this side of the House would disagree with it, and you know who else would vote against this motion, if you would ask them? Every provincial Premier in Canada would disagree with this motion. The Prime Minister of Canada and every federal cabinet minister would disagree with this motion. Madam Chairman, it's a ridiculous motion and we should vote on it right away.

MR. KAHL: The motion is one that I'm opposed to. I rise in my place today to speak on behalf of the constituents of Esquimalt and oppose this frivolous, stupid motion put by two members of the official opposition. It's not surprising, however, when you consider that the first member for Vancouver East (1:1r. Macdonald) moved the motion and the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) seconded the motion. I suppose there are some who would think that, even for them, the introduction of the motion is an accomplishment. They've done very little in their constituencies and very little in the chamber. I rise to speak briefly of the accomplishments of this government and the Premier in the constituency of Esquimalt.

[ Page 1280 ]

A much talked-about hospital, tile key care hospital in the Greater Victoria area for many years - planned, supposedly, and talked about by the NDP when they were in government, but nothing was done - has been announced by the Minister of Health, the Hon. Bob McClelland, and this government. This project, which will cost in the neighbourhood of $35 million to $40 million, is a major accomplishment in the greater Victoria area, and I'm certainly very pleased to have it in my constituency.

MR. LEA: Un a point of order, Madam Chairman, I'm becoming quite concerned about what could be a real blow to democracy happening on that side of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's no point of order.

MR. LEA: It is a point of order.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: I will decide, Mr. Member, what is a point of order. Would you carry on, Mr. Member?

MR. LEA: Madam Chairman, government backbenchers and cabinet ministers alike are striking at the very heart of democracy in this debate. They are not referring to hon. members by tile ridings which they represent, but by their surnames and their given names -and I think that that's a real blow. It's against the rules of our House, and the member for Esquimalt should know better, Madam Chairman.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: You made a point. And I think that all members - on both sides - in the future will pay serious attention to the comment made by the member for Prince Rupert. Thank you. Proceed, Mr. Member.

MR. KAHL: The Helmcken Road hospital in my constituency is much needed by everyone in the greater Victoria area. It was very surprising, but it showed the lack of concern and knowledge the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) has about the situation in the community to the west of Victoria. He said there was no public support from the western communities for the Helmcken Road hospital. It's indicative of the little bit of knowledge that the second member for Victoria has of any area outside of his own constituency - indeed, any inside his own constituency.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. KAHL: That will show the place where the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) ranks in order of knowledge of what goes on in his own constituency.

There's a second hospital in my constituency. It's an extended-care hospital on the priory site. It's another well-deserved and long-awaited project announced by the government which will be built by the Premier and the Social Credit government of the day.

Human Resources. A major family-oriented institution in the Esquimalt constituency, The Pacific Centre for Human Development, was on the skids under the former administration. It was losing funding. Under tile present Minister of Human Resources and the Social Credit government, it has regained that funding and has provided assurance to tile people in tile community that that counselling service will be available.

MR. LEA: How are subdivisions going?

MR. KAHL: The member from Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) across tile floor shouts: "How are subdivisions going?" I think it is unfortunate the member for Vancouver is not in his seat because, if he were, you could turn around and ask him how subdivisions are going. he's in tile land-speculation subdivision business, and you could find that out from your own side of tile House.

The regional Human Resources office in Sooke was opened up by this government to provide services to local people in local communities. To provide for tile needs of tile community, Spencer Junior Secondary School has been newly constructed. There's a new extension for an elementary school in Sooke. There are band facilities in Spectrum Senior Secondary School and Colquitz Junior Secondary School. All of those were provided for by this government.

Highways - the Trans-Canada Highway project, an expenditure of $10 million to $12 million provided by the present government; the continuation of the East Sooke Road; several million dollars spent on the West Coast Road out to Port Renfrew and Jordan River.

AN HON. MEMBER: All overruns.

MR. KAHL: It's ridiculous, 11r. Chairman that we should stand here and debate a frivolous, stupid motion put forth by two irresponsible members of the opposition.

I stand in my place today to vote against this motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, all members of this assembly are honourable. I must ask you

[ Page 1281 ]

to withdraw the word "irresponsible." Please withdraw the unparliamentary word.

MR. KAHL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll withdraw that the members on the opposition are irresponsible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, hon. member.

MR. KERSTER: The quality of leadership in this province has been clearly defined by those on this side of the House - at least, by those who have spoken in this debate against this motion before me.

We've heard about the positive progress made in all areas of this great province. My constituency is no different. When I look back on what has been achieved since the people of Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody and electoral area B decided against the former absentee member, I'm both gratified and extremely proud. I'm proud of my constituents. I'm proud of this government. I'm proud of our Premier. I'm proud of the progress in my riding.

Examples: a hospital underway, two libraries built, two senior citizen recreation centres opened and more on the way; two schools, four major highway projects - more of those on the way too; improved services to people; $19 million new industrial development park in Coquitlam alone; major housing growth.

Does this sound like poor leadership, Mr. Chairman? Those are just a few of the points of progress and a few of the areas where we have made an awful lot of progress in the Coquitlam area. I could go on and on.

It's not necessary for me to extol the virtues of leadership embodied in the hon. member for South Okanagan (Hon. Mr. Bennett) . This province and in fact this whole country is applauding that progressive leadership. But both this country and this province are very poorly served by the time-wasting negative carpings of that opposition. I totally reject this latest in a continuing series of silly opposition motions.

HON. MR. FRASER: I just want to say a few words. I'll only take half an hour to talk about this amendment, but 1 think first of all.... Mr. Chairman, I know that you read out this amendment when we started a few days ago on it, but I think it should be read out again because we've a large audience here and I don't think they know what we're talking about. So I want to refer to this amendment, moved by the member for Vancouver Last (Mr. Macdonald) and seconded by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) , which states as follows: "That the salary of the hon. Premier as provided for in vote 5 be reduced by $27,997 to the sum of $3." It is signed by a scratch here, a chicken track, but I think the last part is "Macdonald." There wasn't even much effort into the signature.

I might forget, 11r. Chairman, but I want to speak against this motion. I consider the motion an insult to this Legislature, apart from the fact of what it does to probably the best Premier this province has ever had. You know, our friends over there aren't very interested in hearing what we have to say.

MR. LEA: Neither is the Premier. lie hasn't been here all day!

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, he's been here for 10 days. 11r. Chairman, the Premier of this province has been tied up here for 10 days and 10 nights ....

MR. LEA: Why? Are you ashamed of him?

HON. MR. FRASER: I think that's quite insulting when there are lots of serious things to do.

Why do I say that? I'll tell you why I say it. I am one of the few members in this House who have had the honour and distinction of serving with his fattier as well as with the son. I have served with them both. The author of the fact that our present Premier is the best Premier the province ever had is his own father. I think lie can speak from experience.

The other things that I would like to say here are that the first member for Vancouver East, being the mover of this motion.... You know, I was in this House when he was the chief law enforcement officer of British Columbia, the Attorney-General. If ever a saw a display of lackadaisical approach to responsibilities, it was when he was Attorney-General. But only after we took over the government did we find out some of the things that happened, and that member who moved a notion of non-confidence in the Premier of this province is the member who put his signature to a document that gave away 150 acres of provincial land for $1 a year for 99 years. He didn't even do that in a legal, proper way, and he was the head law officer of this province.

HON. MR. CHABOT: What was the land worth?

HON. MR. FRASER: The land was worth varying, values, but a very minimum of $30 million. I refer to the Oakalla lands, or a part of the

[ Page 1282 ]

Oakalla. lands. You know, that bunch over there also said at the time that they were going to relocate Oakalla. but you know, they hadn't done one thing regarding the relocation. They gave away the assets first and then did nothing after.

HON. MR. CHABOT: They did something after -they lost two seats.

HON. MR. FRASER: That was a straight election deal to re-elect the members they had. But that even backfired because the then members for Burnaby-Willingdon and Burnaby Edmonds lost their seats on that deal. Even the voters of Burnaby could see through that one, so that really backfired. This member for Vancouver East has the audacity to come in here and be the prime mover of a motion to reduce the salary of the Premier of this province, who has done more to straighten things out in this province in many, many years....

MR. LEA: Speech!

HON. W. FRASER: I would just like to say that the member for Prince Rupert has got lots to say. I -had the fortune, or misfortune, of taking over where he left off as Minister of Highways. I want to tell you, we inherited a great highway system from them. The highway system was full of potholes. They did fill them for four months of the year with snow, but when the snow melted the potholes showed up again and they really didn't have any remedies. They didn't believe in a road system and they just let it deteriorate.

I might tell you, Mr. Chairman, that due to the leadership of this Premier, instructions have gone out that we will improve the highway system in British Columbia. We have been doing that since 1976 and the results are showing up now. Last year we had the largest highway programme in the history of British Columbia, and I want to tell you that it will go on again this year and hopefully next year because it's a case of necessity. Our citizens want it, demand it, and they're going to get it.

The member for Prince Rupert, when he was the Minister of Highways, made a speech one day regarding tourism and said: "Yankee, go home. Go on home, we don't want you here." Well, we didn't have a proper system for them to drive on and they did go home. I want to say that tourism is of a high level of priority in this government. Thanks to the Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. irs. McCarthy) they are coming back in droves. Last year was up 14

per cent over the year before, and I'm sure it's going to be that again. I would like to tell you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the opposition, instead of having a highway system that British Columbians are ashamed of , they're going to have a highway system they're proud of, starting in 1978.

I'd just like to refer to one more experience I had when they were the government. I'd like to refer to the B.C. Railway just for one minute. You know, it spun its wheels more, and there was no movement of freight or anything to the interior of the province for practically all of 1975. The member for Revelstoke-Slocan was the man in charge and he wasn't a bit interested whether it ran or whether it didn't. I was a member of a delegation of concerned citizens that went there. Now, thanks to the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , that railroad in 1977 never spun a wheel, but pulled trainload after trainload of 150 loaded cars of freight to seaboard. It is the lifeline of the interior and of the north of British Columbia.

I would say, Mr. Chairman, this opposition is the most irresponsible opposition we have ever had in this Legislature. They have been 10 days with personal attacks on the best Premier this province has ever had. I would just like to say to them that it's about time they grew up and smartened up, because they have a responsibility to be a responsible opposition.

I am certainly voting against this ridiculous amendment, and I would just like to close by saying that whether they think it or not they have no credibility. They will never be the government of British Columbia again because they were known and will always be known as the stupid spenders.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Chairman, I've waited rather late in this debate to have anything to say because I wanted the opportunity to assess the various speeches of the various members, and I'm a little late in doing that. I think the minister of listening loud and clear probably said it best last night, if I might just refer to the Blues. He said: "Mr. Chairman, I was reluctant to stand in this debate" - that's quite a statement - "because I've listened and I've been in this House for a few years. I think I first came into the House in 1966."

MR. LEA: lie's not even sure of that.

MR. STEPHENS: I've checked that, and he's right - he did come in in 1966.

"Never in all the years I've been here have

[ Page 1283 ]

I seen the level of debate reduced to the quagmire that I've seen in the last 10 days."

I'd like to associate myself entirely with those remarks. I might say this: I've listened to everything the opposition has had to say about this government, and I've listened to everything that the government has had to say about this opposition, and I agree with all of you.

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to join my colleagues in speaking against this negative motion. I'd also like to respond to some of the irresponsible remarks from some of the opposition MLAs regarding the treatment the Premier and his ministers have been affording to my riding. I don't know why it is, but I seem to have a lot of NDP delegates up to my riding continually. I know it's a dynamic riding and one of the prettiest parts of the province, and you're welcome to come up any time you want, boys. But I think that perhaps some of you should pay a little attention, a little priority, to your own riding. I think my colleague here can tell you what happened to a Leader of the Opposition when he didn't pay any attention to his riding. The voters certainly told them what they thought of that.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the Health minister (Hon. Mr. McClelland) indicated yesterday the priority his ministry is putting on my riding on the hospital construction and the requirements in Prince George. He mentioned the 75-bed extended-care unit that's going in, the power plant, boiler room reconstruction and the accelerated phasing of the reconstruction programme for the hospital, totalling some $11 million.

It seems odd, Mr. Chairman, that the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (11s. Brown) yesterday stated that Prince George was overlooked, and that the minister was dangling a carrot in front of it. She must have meant the previous NDP Health minister. They spent two and a half years trying to buy a rest home, and then never bought it or never built it. The present Minister of Health has it under construction right now. Talk, talk, talk -that's the difference. All in all, Mr. Chairman, I'm quite satisfied that our area is getting the attention that it deserves, the budget deficits are being looked at at the present time, the construction programme is scheduled and is on the road.

The minister never mentioned the $2.4 million new health unit that's been constructed in Prince George. That was also talked about by the former administration. They planned it and designed it for two and a half years, and we tore the plans up when they they came in. They were completely unsuitable for the north. It's been redesigned by a Prince George architect, Mr. Greenwell, and it's a terrific health unit. Its going to be copied across the province. That's the difference between talking and planning.

I also had the pleasure of joining the Health minister on a trip to Valemount where we opened a diagnostic clinic that they've been waiting for for some 10 years. The former government also talked about building this, and talked about it and talked about it. But ours was the government that put it together. I think perhaps the regional district chairman stated it best. He said: "Things are supposed to go better with Cocke, but the north had to wait for McClelland to deliver the health facilities."

Mr. Chairman, I don't have to indicate the attention and priority the Highways minister has given my riding. All my constituents know what he has done for us up there. He has programmes we've been waiting for for 10 years on stream. I'm very proud that the Premier has selected such a very capable Highways minister. He's getting value for the dollars and he's got a very active programme underway.

I indicated that I'm getting pretty regular visits from the NDP MLAs to Prince George. Three of them went up last year and tried to turn a school trustees' convention into a political forum, but most of the trustees are too intelligent to be taken in by that. We listened very patiently the other day to the remarks by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) regarding his trip to Prince George. He had a great deal to say about the reception received by this government's Minister of Education. I can tell you, his interpretation of that visit was certainly different from my own.

I want to tell you what a visit by the minister from this government can mean in terms of productivity. For years in the north we have faced a short construction season. This has affected projects in many areas. Public housing projects, health projects have all been affected, and, as the members of the Prince George School Board can tell you, the school projects have been affected very adversely by the short construction season that we have.

Well, Mr. Chairman, after a visit by this Minister of Education, I was pleased to be in a position to report today to the chairman of the school board that only after 48 hours back in Victoria, this minister has cut the red tape, cut the bureaucracy and paved the way for early contract approvals for some $11 million worth of school construction in the

[ Page 1284 ]

Prince George school district. Furthermore, five projects of great concern to School District 57 have been given the final okay: the Heritage North Elementary School, a $750,000 project; the Red Rock Elementary School - this replaces a very rundown school -for $562,000; the College Heights Elementary for $770,000; the Haldi Road Elementary for $537,000; and the Shady Valley Elementary School - this one is a $556,000 project. Mr. Chairman, I believe that indicates the difference between talk and between action. We're certainly catching up with a backlog of schools in our area, and I'm sure all the board members and the public will be very pleased with this.

I would also like to stress that steps have been taken within the Ministry of Education facilities services division to provide for the expediting of the additional major contracts so that our construction season can be taken into consideration. The basic work will be able to be completed; the foundations and the steelwork will be let in a separate phase so that construction can proceed through the weekend. This will result in no more holdups on our construction by the time the normal contracts have been let as they have under the past ministers. We've always missed a construction season, so I'm very pleased to see that this will be going ahead. This will affect five more projects in my area: the College Heights Senior Secondary addition; the Mackenzie Secondary addition; the Pinecone Elementary; the Hart Highlands Elementary addition, and the Fort George South Elementary addition.

I have to say the Premier has chosen his Education minister very wisely. While the NDP MLAs were lobbying the trustee convention, the minister and the staff attended meetings with the Prince George School Board, the administration trustees and myself to resolve the problem on the construction schedules.

We also met with the College of the New Caledonia council and the staff members to discuss the programmes and construction priorities that they're faced with, and I'm sure all my constituents enjoy the priority they're getting now.

I was kind of surprised at the concern the NDP showed over the possibility of the BCR Fort Nelson extension being shut down. It did not seem to be too evident yesterday when a small Labour dispute in Prince George shut down the entire operation of the BCR. I never heard one member of the opposition criticizing that at all. It's certainly funny how their priorities get mixed up so quickly. They keep stressing how important the BGR is, and when the entire line is shut down, not a one has a comment on it. I'm very pleased to see it's back in operation again at the present time. I hope the union members concerned will realize the impact it has not only on the interior but on all their fellow union workers and the other people who depend on that line for services to the interior.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think the NDP MLAs have to worry about Prince George being shortchanged. The Premier has selected his cabinet very wisely; the Premier has set the pace for his cabinet. Our Premier has led our province back to economic stability. I speak against this motion; I urge the House to defeat the motion and get on with the people's business.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the only thing wise about the way the Premier selected his cabinet was that he made sure that the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) sits in the far right-hand corner of this chamber. One of the reasons I say that is the fact that that member for Fort George was extolling the virtues of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) . You know, Mr. Chairman, that member for Fort George was too lazy to come and hear the Minister of Education speak in his own riding when he was home. Not only that, I never saw him once at the convention. He wasn't introduced, an unfortunate faux pas on the part of that member who talks about playing politics. The fact of the matter is that this party is interested in education for this province. We're interested in listening to the concerns of responsible representatives from all over the province. We were there to listen to those concerns. That member didn't get off his fat prat and get down and listen to what they had to say.

Oh, yes I heard, Mr. Chairman, I watched him as he met a few of his good Socred faithful in the lobby of the hotel early in the morning, went to a hotel room....

MR. LLOYD: On a point of order, I ask that member to withdraw his unparliamentary remarks. He doesn't know anything about my schedule, but he carries on. He made some remarks about a fat prat. I think I cover twice the ground that fellow does with no trouble at all. I want that withdrawn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, would you please withdraw your remarks?

MR. COCKE: Withdraw what? I'll withdraw "fat prat, " thin prat. No, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member has found some of

[ Page 1285 ]

your remarks offensive. Would you please withdraw them?

MR. COCKE: Yes, I withdraw anything that he finds offensive, before or in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to deal any longer with what that member had to say other than to say that it would be wise for him to get thoroughly involved in education. It would be wise for him to not turn his back on it because I feel that's what he did when he was in Prince George.

Coming around to the First Minister, one of the reasons I certainly support the motion is the fact that he's not doing his research. He's got a staff as big as one could perceive and he came in the House the other day waving his arms and indicating that in Ontario they are closing down beds in the Sick Children's Hospital for budgetary reasons. He read a newspaper. You know, if he had any kind of research going for him he would have known that in the last 10 years that hospital has been half occupied and it's been an embarrassment for the province of Ontario. Finally they've got around to closing a few beds.

Mr. Chairman, let me tell the First Minister that infant and children's morbidity has been cut way down and also there's a reduction in the birth rate in the great province of Ontario. So they did what was necessary. But what had that got to do with any argument that he might have made? All it showed is that he comes in here, makes loose talk - no research, no nothing - and expects us to be confident in the First Minister of this province.

I tell you, Mr. Chairman, one can't be confident in this minister. He still hasn't shown any kind of humility. He still hasn't shown that he exhibits shame in having run our province into the ground economically, from the standpoint of service in every area of his government. How then can we do otherwise than to support this resolution that calls for the reduction of his salary to $3? And $3 is probably an overpayment.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) , having been in the House for some years, still hasn't learned the rules of the House. He's a very slow learner. He doesn't know that you can't talk from anywhere but your own seat.

MR. KEMPF: He's been here longer than you ever will be.

MR. COCKE: That's strange coming from you, one-timer. Anyway, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have to support this resolution.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could have your indulgence and that of the House just to suspend the rules so that I can introduce a class of youngsters from the Kerrisdale Elementary School.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. McGEER: I wonder if the members could make the group up there welcome? It's their first visit to the Legislature. They're studying government and I hope that the afternoon will be a memorable one for than and not a shock as it has been to other classes that we've had in our Legislature.

Mr. Chairman, the issue with respect to the motion we have before us now is not the competence of the Premier of British Columbia. That's beyond question. He's earned more respect in Ottawa and across this country than any Premier in the history of our province. His ability and the respect the country has for him is beyond question. What this motion does is raise the issue in this province of the competency of the opposition; that's what is raised by this particular motion. Because when the opposition introduces a frivolous, nonsense, ridiculous motion of this kind, it says far more about them than it does about the Premier of the province.

What we had before this non-confidence motion came before us - the most ridiculous one that I have ever seen in 16 years in this assembly - was 10 days of speeches, ridiculous debate. Not one speech by that whole opposition.... I make an exception, Mr. Chairman, of the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) and the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Stephens) , but not one speech in 10 days from that official opposition was worthy of 10 minutes' time of the public of British Columbia.

You've been given a research staff. Theoretically you've been given the kinds of assistance that would be required to produce in this House something of worth and moment. All you are doing is wasting the public's time. It doesn't matter about the MLAs. You arranged it so that you would have an annual salary when you were here in government, and our time doesn't count. But it costs $60,000 a day to operate this Legislative Assembly, above and beyond the MLAs' salaries, and when you take time up day after day after day with your silly nonsense questions, what you are doing is wasting the taxpayers' money.

There are responsibilities, Mr. Chairman

[ Page 1286 ]

that go with opposition in this province of British Columbia. Those responsibilities include relevant debate, good research and not the kind of silly nonsense that you've been coming up with this session and the session before, Mr. Member.

There is a responsibility that goes with being in opposition in this province, and it isn't to waste time for the sake of wasting time, which goes on day after day, week after week and month after month. Mr. Chairman, we have that kind of time wasting in British Columbia simply because the people who are here in opposition can't think of anything intelligent to say. They can't think of any reasonable criticism. They can't sort the good from the bad, and what happens? The final, ridiculous, end result of it all is the sort of irresponsible motion that was put forward by that official opposition when they moved to reduce the salary of the best Premier in Canada.

Where, Mr. Chairman, is the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) today? Where is he?

MR. LEA: In Alberni.

HON. HR. McGEER: In former times, if such a thing as a non-confidence motion in the Premier of the province was put forward, the press gallery would be packed, the galleries upstairs would be packed, every member would be in the House for something that was tense and important. But this opposition has reduced debate in this Legislative Assembly to such ridiculous lows that when a motion of this kind is put forward, nobody pays any attention to it.

For once, Mr. Chairman - and it didn't apply when that Leader of the Opposition was Premier of British Columbia - we've got some respect for this province in Ottawa. That's why in the last two years arrangements have been negotiated - never before done in the history of British Columbia - that have brought hundreds of millions of dollars into this province. That's what confidence in office does. It's what respect for the province of British Columbia does. Mr. Chairman, every time now we have an interprovincial conference or we have a First Ministers' Conference, people look to British Columbia to see what they're thinking and what they're doing. And what do we have from the official opposition that has missed it all and that can't see the point? We have the kind of trivial, ridiculous debate that characterized them during this whole parliament, culminated by this stupid motion that was put forward.

How can anybody take you seriously? I tell you, Mr. Chairman, what needs to be done in this province is to provide the people of British Columbia with a competent opposition. We'll have an opportunity later on in this Legislative Assembly to debate, under vote 1, the money that goes to the Legislature itself, the competence of the opposition and the job that this group over there is doing.

Mr. Chairman, years and years ago when I first came into this chamber there was competent debate in the opposition. I don't think now, looking in retrospect, it ever came from that group over there. There was good research being done by other people who sat down in the corner, like the present leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) , who gave you ideas and propped up your debate. When you were in opposition you didn't understand what it was all about. When you got into government you proved it, like children playing with the leaders of power. And now that you've been in government and you're back in opposition, you still don't know how to do the job, either of government or of opposition.

Contrast, Mr. Chairman, what it was like after two and a half years with this government here when the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) brought in the best budget British Columbia has had in 20 years. That's what's happened after a period of time of competent leadership in this province. But I want to contrast for you what had happened when the NDP had been in power after two and a half years. Never was there a more favourable time in history than when the NDP took over; never was there more money in the coffers of the provincial treasury; never were revenues coming in faster and easier than in those days.

MR. LEA: You didn't say that when you were a Liberal.

HON. MR. McGEER: I never said there was a shortage of money, Mr. Member, never that there was a shortage of money. But I'll say this: while you were in power there was never such a shortage of competence in this history of British Columbia.

MR. LEA: You didn't say that when you were a Liberal, and I'll get the Hansard to show it to you. Your principles change from one side of the House to the other.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, after the NDP had been in power the same length of time this government had been in power, they had turned around all of that money that was in the bank. They had turned around all the purchasing revenues which were coming into this province,

[ Page 1287 ]

and the province of British Columbia was on the skids after that two and a half years. They turned record revenues into deficits. They had taken power at a time when there were record prices for our natural resources. At a time of record world prices they managed to turn hope into despair in this province of British Columbia - that's what they did.

MR. LEA: Quote some numbers.

HON. MR. McGEER: The investment in the mining industry, Mr. Chairman, after they were in power for two and a quarter years, had disappeared entirely in this province. There was no more exploration of any kind going on; petroleum resources, mining resources - it was all finished.

MR. MACDONALD: Ridiculous!

HON. MR. McGEER: Ridiculous? Those were the facts. They were quoted to you. Mr. Member, if you'd been in this this chamber they were quoted to you by the Minister of Mines - he had the facts. The petroleum revenues - he gave you the numbers - were right down to $12 million a year, and after one year in office that had been turned around. In January of this year alone, one sale was six times the highest revenue you ever got.

MR. MACDONALD; A giveaway.

HON. MR. McGEER: You may call it a giveaway, but it's jobs and it's prosperity. That's what you took away from British Columbia, Mr. Member - jobs and prosperity.

MR. MACDONALD: Selling the province.

HON. MR. McGEER: Even your friends in the labour movement.... After you'd been in power for two and a half years there was chaos in the labour movement. We were going to record highs in man-days lost. When this government had to take over, there was such chaos in labour management relations that we set a record here in British Columbia: more than Italy, more than any country in the free world, right here in British Columbia. That's the legacy you left; now the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) has cut it down to just one-tenth of what it was under your direction. You couldn't even run the labour side of things.

And then, Mr. Chairman, we've heard the criticism of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) over here. Yes, the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) put it best. When you were in power the then Minister of Highways (Mr. Lea) was saying; "Yankee, go home!" Now what have we got from our provincial Minister of Travel Industry?

MR. MACDONALD: Robbie Sherrell.

HON. MR. McGEER: A special smile for the tourists. And because they've got a special smile now instead of being told to go home, we've got a tourist industry again.

Mr. Chairman, the facts are well known. The incompetency, the bumbling, the total lack of comprehension of the responsibilities of government are known to all the people of British Columbia. What yet has to be discovered, Mr. Chairman, is the incompetency of this group in opposition. Because in opposition, in the years in the wilderness, is where you develop the responsibility that is required to govern the province. If you're not responsible in opposition, if you can't bring forward good debate, if you can't analyse the problems of the province, if you can't understand when a motion is in order and when it's totally ridiculous, if you haven't got that sense of proportion, then, believe me, under no circumstances are you ever competent to take over the leadership of our government.

Mr. Chairman, we don't need any replacement of the government in British Columbia or the Premier. We've got a strong government and we've got a superb leader, but what we do have to do in British Columbia is to begin thinking about the quality of that opposition, because you're demonstrating your complete inability even to sit responsibly in opposition. There is not one of you over there who's competent to be the Leader of the Opposition. Any of you would be a complete disaster taking over the responsibility of government.

MR MACDONALD: On a point of order, standing order 43 speaks of repetitious debate. This minister has just been repeating these same sentences six, seven, eight times over. Is repetition a rule in this House, Mr. Chairman, or not? Is there nothing new to say that this minister has got to offer? Is it 43 or not?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Standing order 43 is irrelevant and repetitious debate. Hon. members, on the point of order and on this entire motion, the Chair has endeavoured to draw the members' attention to relevancy in debate, and we have had no response from any members on relevancy in debate - or almost no response. Although this is the first time that repetition in debate has been brought forward, I would caution the members that perhaps all of us could

[ Page 1288 ]

consider whether or not we are tedious and repetitious. It is incumbent upon the members speaking that they consider whether or not they should obey the rules in our standing orders.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I hate to be repetitive, but I can tell you I'm not taking a week of the time of the House asking stupid questions again and again and again and again. I don't think that's the way to make your mark in this assembly or with the province of British Columbia. It's by good, solid performance.

If I stand up for 10 minutes and say the same important point two or three times, it would be just in the hope that I would see some small glimmer of understanding over there.

The member for Prince Rupert may have asked what the Liberal Party did for years over there. Well, I want to tell him, Mr. Chairman, what the Liberal Party did. The Liberal Party provided that NDP in opposition year after year after year with the ideas, the quality of debate and the things that made it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, we were responsible. We were responsible for a deceptive thing, Mr. Chairman, because with the research that went with that Liberal group over there, the press and some of the public drew the mistaken conclusion that the NDP was fit to govern - and that was wrong. Yes, we did a disservice.

The problem that the NDP has now is that there is only one Liberal over there to carry the debate. He's the only one who's said anything sensible on the opposition side during the whole session. You're hurting over there as the official opposition because there is only one Liberal, and heaven knows what you'll do when he's gone. But I will tell you this: what has been proved by there being only one Liberal over there in the opposition is the complete incompetence of the NDP. They just don't have people to carry the debate for them any longer. You don't have people to prop you up, and that's why you look so bad.

I say once more that this motion is the most frivolous, ridiculous motion that we've ever had in this assembly. Of course it will be voted down. But remember who moved it and remember that that opposition group over there is the most incompetent opposition that has ever sat in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: There was such a lot of meaty material in the speech of the Minister of Education, it's very difficult for me to find which area to respond to. I could answer in kind and say: "So's your old man, " or "Your mother wears army boots, " or something like that. A man who is highly educated - some uncharitable people say he is highly educated beyond his capacity to understand....

But you know, Mr. Chairman, I did agree with one thing. He said that the leader of the Liberal Party made a very sensible speech in the Legislature this session. I recall that he did too. He said that the issue of coal licences in this province in the last several months was the biggest resource giveaway in the history of Canada. The Minister of Education of course agrees that that is the sensible speech that the leader of the Liberal Party made.

The Minister of Education said that this was a frivolous and silly motion - and a few other epitaphs - but if it's so silly, so frivolous and so irrelevant to the Committee of Supply, then why have all of the cabinet ministers and a third of the backbenchers gotten up to desperately defend the Premier in the face of this motion? If it's so frivolous, why don't you just ignore it? Why did the Premier send notes around and ask everyone to get up to defend him, or whatever else?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Don't get excited, Mr. Whip. All right, so he asked the Whip to go around; he didn't send a note. I'm sorry. Don't worry, I won't tell who told me. The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) is getting excited. Mr. Chairman, I won't tell anybody who told me. I won't tell the Premier the member for Dewdney told me.

The Minister of Education said in his remarks: "This Premier has more respect in Ottawa than any other Premier in Canada." If he meant more respect by the federal government, I could well understand, because this Premier has done less to defend provincial rights for the province of British Columbia than any other Premier in Canada. It's little wonder. There he goes, hit and miss, can't stand to take the heat.

He's going out to hack and hew at another poor, pot-smoking teacher. He wants to get emphasis away from the incompetence of his own office. But you know, Mr. Chairman, this Premier has done very little to defend the rights of British Columbia under the British North America Act, and what we're entitled to. He's done very little to bring to the federal government's attention the tremendous

[ Page 1289 ]

imbalance and unfairness of tariffs and freight rates. He's done very little to get what is our due of a share of fair taxation in this province. It's no wonder the federal government loves him, and they should because he's a sell-out not only to the big corporations but to the big government in Ottawa.

MR. LEA: They think he's a mark.

MR. LAUK: They say they're always looking. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) says that they're always looking to this Premier to see what he's going to say. Well I do not know who's doing that, because this Premier has been criticized for making very airy, idealistic statements at federal-provincial conferences, empty promises and so on. He's saying we haven't changed our economic policy since 1875, or something like that, but he does nothing about it. He should do less talking outside of this province and more work in this province. The people aren't impressed with these PR shows, taking all his flacks, including ministers, to these federal-provincial conferences, going in front of the cameras, following them around everywhere. For the major problems of this province, he's not doing a thing to establish an industrial strategy to deal with the BCR or the taxation imbalance in this province. That's why we placed this amendment on the order paper, Mr. Chairman.

You know the Minister of Education talks about funds from the federal government. Nothing new has happened. No new money has come to this province that would not otherwise have come to this province in the ordinary course of events and the normal negotiation between two levels of government - the government of British Columbia and the government in Ottawa.

You could take one example: the $10 million shared amount for coal research in the northeast. This was a memorandum of agreement with the DREE officials going as far back as 1975 under the New Democratic Party administration. There's nothing new. What are they talking about? Again, they are a government of PR, of tinsel and image, not a government of substance, Mr. Chairman.

This minister has the nerve to get up and talk about the competence of the opposition. He has the nerve to talk about that, when he has created by his own petulance one of the biggest medical white elephants in the history of the country out at UBC costing $150 million, which will haunt the career of the present Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) for the rest of his political life for giving in to the petulance of the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) .

It's not to be believed, the lengths to which this coalition will go to keep its ranks together. This minister talks about competence when the Crown corporation under his tutelage has gouged the people of British Columbia for three successive years of automobile insurance premiums, so much so that he has hoarded in ICBC coffers $521 million. And he's supposed to be a competent minister? It's a sheer political ploy, Mr. Chairman.

He's talking about chaos in the Labour movement before we'd taken office. I can say to this chamber and to this committee that that is the most insincere comment I can possible expect, because that minister knows enough to know that labour leaders and business leaders and politicians across this country have praised the B.C. Labour Code and have given it the credit for labour peace in this province. Everywhere you go, in industrial management relations in this province and around this country, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) is praised and respected for bringing in that legislation and for conducting himself in the most impartial and competent manner of any Minister of Labour in the history of this province.

And talk about competence: may I remind the Chairman and the Minister of Education, through you, Mr. Chairman, about the competence of the previous Minister of Labour before the NDP took office? He was a man who was so frightened of labour unions he had to come through the tunnel from the Douglas Building to get into the parliament buildings, and it was so right and so correct for the member for Revelstoke-Slocan to stand in his place in the House when we were the administration and say: "If that ever occurred to me, I would resign." Talk about competence, Mr. Chairman.

Finally, dealing with the Minister of Education, Mr. Chairman, he claims that the competence of the opposition is the real question. He said that he was competent, and, by the way, the Minister of Education has a propensity for giving in to self-praise and talking about high quality item such as himself. I was trying to cast my mind back to his days when he was in opposition and trying to determine whether there was a grain of truth in what he was saying about his competence as the leader of the Liberal Party in those days, and of his competence serving in the Liberal opposition. I must say that watching his career very objectively and with some degree of good will the only competence that he showed was when he stepped down as leader of the Liberal Party.

[ Page 1290 ]

The second point is that I think he has deceived himself into thinking that competence, Mr. Chairman, means to switch parties, because it took him from 1963 until 1975 to make that decision. That's why he's the Minister of Education, not because of his competence or incompetence as a member of the opposition. It's really tongue-in-cheek, or, in his case, silver-tongue-in-cheek, or silver spoon in cheek, that he makes this kind of comment.

Mr. Chairman, we have moved this motion against the Premier of this province because he has failed to make decisions and because he has failed to plan an economic and industrial strategy for the province. He has failed to answer the legitimate questions of members of the opposition, and the Minister of Education characterized those questions as being meaningless. I suppose what he means is that any question they refuse to answer is meaningless.

I should remind this committee before they vote on this amendment that this Premier has failed to make a decision after almost four months of indecision on the Fort Nelson extension of the BCR. This Premier has presided over a government that blamed Ottawa for the closing of Railwest, and several hundred jobs went down the tube. I should say, apropos of Railwest, Mr. Chairman, that now cars are in short supply all over the province. We're told by the Minister of Economic Development that the reason they are in short supply is the poor winters in the east. As far back as the first recorded history in Canada, most Canadians know that there are poor winters in the east.

Mr. Chairman, the poor winters in the east are not the cause of car shortages. It's the incompetent, bungling planning of this government, a government that only looks in its narrow vision through a microview of the economy. It doesn't look at the whole economy and know that there would be car shortages and that Railwest was an essential ingredient to the industrial strategy of the province of British Columbia.

When they closed Railwest they blamed the Ottawa government in the east for the closure. When there are car shortages indicating that they should have kept it open, they blame the weather -in other words, God, I suppose. But they won't accept any responsibility and that Premier will not accept responsibility, Mr. Chairman, and that is the nature of this motion and that is why we're moving it with such vigour.

I will be making an announcement shortly about a further need for railcars that, had we kept Railwest open, could have meant a multimillion dollar contract and the preservation of those hundreds of jobs. I'm meeting with certain individuals now and an announcement I hope will be made very soon that will show that the demand for those cars exists and that the economic viability of Railwest was and never should have been in question. This Premier has no industrial strategy. He has presided over a government that has brought excessive and disastrous taxation to ordinary working families in the province. He has presided over ministers who are gleefully shovelling our resources out the back of the province - gleefully doing it. And yet they have the nerve to take credit for his image on a national basis at these federal-provincial conferences.

I say again that he should be spending his time in B.C. getting his own house in order before he pretends that he's a national statesman. We have high taxes, we have indecision on the British Columbia Railway, we've been waiting three years for a new forestry Act. He shut down Railwest, he's shutting down the Fort Nelson extension, he shut down the Deas Lake extension, he shut down Notre Dame, he shut down four or five mines in the province, he's selling off the producing Crown corporations, and he fired a minister. That's his record. I defy you to say where the positive programmes are. Where is the industrial strategy, where is the vision of the future, where is the hope for the people of British Columbia?

I said yesterday and I say again: his party is born in negativism, hate and division. From that kind of atmosphere, a positive government, a government that can do things, an activist government, cannot possibly evolve because it is only kept together by fear and hate. They have no plans, no strategies, no policies, no programmes and no competence even to put them into place.

Who presides over these?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Yes, you know a lot about that, Jack. He knows a lot about pogroms, not programmes.

Mr. Chairman, let me tell you something: this government is being presided over by a First Minister who is leading this province into disaster. I say again that every right thinking, reasonable member of this committee would vote for this amendment and reduce the salary of the First Minister to $3 because, if you're thinking about positive action in this province, not negative action, that's

[ Page 1291 ]

precisely what he's worth.

MR. STRONGMAN: I rise today to speak against the non-confidence motion in the Premier. During the last five or six days of debate -"debate" is really a poor word for the prose that has been flowing in one direction from the opposition to the party in power - the Premier has been defending the estimates of almost every ministry in the government. Since he sets the pace, places the demands and sets the stage for the various ministries - he is the quarterback - and since the opposition chooses to attack the Premier through each and every ministry in the government, I think it's appropriate for me to look at the Premier and his ministries through the eyes of the people of Vancouver South.

I can say that the people of Vancouver South are delighted with the results of the Social Credit party, of the ministries that come under the purview of the different ministers, and particularly of the First Minister of this province.

Vancouver South is a cross-section of the people of this province. It's very populous.

MR. LEA: Where have I heard that before?

AN HON. MEMBER: Another travelogue.

MR. STRONGMAN: The member for Prince Rupert wonders where he's heard it before. You're going to hear it again, Mr. Member. I write my own speeches, good or bad. Yours are written by someone else and mostly bad.

Through the eyes of the people of Vancouver South, let's look at what's happened in the various ministries - since we are attacking the Premier. What about long-term and extended care? For the first time, the people of this province are looking at long-term care at a $6.50- a-day charge, unheard of anywhere else in this country and unheard of for sure anywhere else in North America. There are increased benefits to all recipients under the GAIN programme, including new eligibility for people who are 55 years of age. There is universal Pharmacare. A new children's hospital - talked about by the previous administration, but nothing was done about it - is now under construction, and we'll have children in that hospital within three or four years. SAFER - a programme designed to benefit people who are disadvantaged because of fixed income and based in rental accommodation - a first for British Columbia, a first for this country, and an outstanding programme. There is also increased home care, and a YMCA in Langa'ra.

The Ministry of Education finally has core programming. It's just a start. I understand the minister is going to develop the core programme so that it encompasses the whole school system from grades 1 to 12. Private school support as been unknown in British Columbia, the only province that, up until Social Credit took over in 1975, absolutely refused to support private school education. Finally we have it under a Social Credit government, [illegible] a Premier that is in charge and doing an exceptionally good job in this province.

Student employment programmes, which have been developed over the last two years, are so much better than what was envisioned by the previous administration that they leave them pale by comparison. There is new labour peace - the man-hours lost in 1977 are one tenth those lost in 1974, when your administration was in power.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you taking credit for that?

MR. STRONGMAN: Certainly we'll take credit for that. We were the party in power. We were the ones that set the pace, set the tone for this province. You people knowingly destroyed it, and didn't understand how you went about doing it. You destroyed it on your own.

Tourism finally has come back.

Interjection.

MR. STRONGMAN: There's the butterfly stinging again. The most visible success that we have been able to achieve is that last year there were 55,000 new jobs in British Columbia.

I can't help but note the front page of the Province this morning. Of course I won't read it; I'll just highlight some of the data that's in the article. I think it points out the success that this government, our Premier, our ministries have achieved in the field of employment in British Columbia:

"Figures released Tuesday by Statistics Canada, which showed B.C. leading the country in employment gains, also disclosed a flurry of hiring activity in the financial, real estate and insurance groupings. Nine thousand new jobs were created in British Columbia in the month of April."

B.C.'s unemployment rate dropped from 8.5 to 7.7 per cent. Let's compare that with other areas in the country: New Brunswick, 14 per cent; Manitoba, 6.5 per cent; Prince Edward Island, 11 per cent; Ontario, 7.4 per cent;

[ Page 1292 ]

Newfoundland, 16 per cent.

MR. MACDONALD: What was the Ontario figure? I missed that.

MR. STRONGMAN: It was 7.7 per cent.

MR. LAUK: That represents 100,000 people unemployed. Are you proud of that?

[Hon. Mr. Gardom in the chair.)

MR. STRONGMAN: I'm proud, Mr. Member, that we have increased employment by 55,000 new jobs last year. Add another 9,000 to it; we've had 64,000 new jobs in British Columbia. I'm going to say that our government is proud of it and we're going to continue to improve that figure. The Premier is doing an excellent job.

The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) raised the point: "He should put his house in order before becoming an internationalist." Let's compare that with the previous administration. They burned the house down, and then went internationally to get help, and did not succeed. Thank God we got rid of you.

MR. LEA: One after the other, Mr. Chairman, we've seen the Social Credit back bench and the Liberal cabinet get up to defend a neutered Premier. If you are a mixture of those two, and neither one nor the other, you have to be a neuter. I believe that the actions of this government have proven exactly that. We've had tile Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolf e) and other people get up in this House and talk about the wonderful agreements that have been signed between the province of British Columbia and the national government since they've been in office.

1 have one - the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) also mentioned it - in my hand, the most disastrous agreement for marine transportation that's ever been signed by any government anywhere. It's on behalf of the people of British Columbia, they say, when the people in British Columbia have lost services and have accrued higher costs for freight since they signed that agreement. We don't need those kinds of gifts in British Columbia. We just don't need them.

And you know, Mr. Chairman, the strange part about it is that the Premier signed this without having read it.

AN HON. MEMBER: He signed it?

MR. LEA: He signed it without having read it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did he sign?

MR. LEA: Oh, his "x" is right here beside the other minister's "o" - or his thumb print. As the member said before, both are in peanut butter.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to talk about this agreement that was negotiated by a Mr. Chestnut, I believe, under the former Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, the member for Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis) .

MR. L&UK: Was his thumb print on it?

MR. LEA: He is a Rhodes scholar; he uses tomatoes for his thumb print.

11r. Chairman, this was negotiated without the Premier's knowledge of what was being negotiated, and he signed it without knowing what had been negotiated and what the terms of this agreement were.

After he had signed it, members of the Queen Charlotte and Stikine regional districts, along with mayors from many northern communities, came down here because they were concerned about this agreement. Their concerns have proven to be just concerns. because service in marine transportation has gone downhill ever since this government took over jurisdiction for those services.

At that time they had a meeting with the Premier in his office. The question was asked by Mayor Peter Lester of Prince Rupert to the Premier: "Are you going to subsidize freight?" The Premier said: "It is the policy of this government that we will not subsidize freight." Yes, you'd better leave, Mr. Premier, because that's a run-away thing, but we're used to it. He runs away from everything.

The Premier said: "This government's policy is that we will not subsidize freight." Let me point to the agreement that he had just signed hours before on behalf of the province with Canada. Section 4 of the agreement: 1) The province shall assume sole responsibility for the subsidization as may be required of ferry, coastal and passenger services in the waters of British Columbia. I guess that's as far as he read. Because what we find when we study this agreement is: 2) The province agrees that in accepting the subsidy from Canada as provided herein for the ferry and coastal freight and passenger service in British Columbia waters, it will ensure reasonable and adequate service for those services."

Mr. Chairman, its like when the Premier stepped out of his car and the reporter said: "Mr. Premier, were you wearing your seatbelt?" And the Premier said: "I'm sorry, but there

[ Page 1293 ]

was no seatbelt in the car." Then the television cameras zoomed in, and there was the seatbelt. Now I can assume that the Premier can sit on that sort of thing for a few miles and not notice it. But you would think it would have done some damage to his brains, which it obviously did. Because when he got out of the car, he couldn't recall that there had been a seatbelt in the car. Do we really believe that? Or did he just assume- that the reporter wouldn't check it and find out that yes, there was one and the Premier had told what appears to be a little fib. That's not that serious. We'll allow the Premier to tell those kinds of little stories because it doesn't really affect anybody except the Premier himself.

But when he signs an agreement on behalf of the province and the citizens of this province with Canada, and says that in that agreement the province is not accepting responsibility for freight, and then it turns out that written into the agreement signed by the Premier is that the province has accepted the responsibility for freight, that is a different matter altogether. But the Premier in his petulance has decided that even though he signed the agreement with Canada, there would be a subsidy for freight from the province of British Columbia for Marine Transport, and he has turned around and ordered two successive ministers - the one that he just fired and the one who has got charge of it now, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation - not to honour the terms of this agreement. That is what he has done.

The government of British Columbia is refusing to subsidize freight in the marine transportation system up the coast. They are refusing to do that. They are putting in passenger services to some areas. All of the passenger services that are being put in are accepted by the people on the coast, and they are passenger services, in some cases, that people have waited for for some time and that they deserve. I commend the government for that.

But what they fail to understand is that it isn't the passenger service that the people on the coast are concerned about. They are concerned about the everyday part of living -going down to the grocery store or going down to the hardware store or going down to any retail store and having now, since this government assumed the responsibility for freight service, to pay up to 40 per cent and 50 per cent higher for every item they buy in the store. Is that the kind of agreement, Mr. Chairman, that we want the Premier in his wisdom to sign with Canada? Is it the kind of agreement that was signed that the Premier is not living up to? Yes, it is.

The Premier has ordered his ministers not to subsidize freight. Yet he signed an agreement with Canada saying that they would subsidize freight. Is that the kind of Premier we want to run this province? Is that the kind of Premier about which one Social Credit member after another has stood in his or her place and said: "He's an excellent Premier."? The people on the coast of this province have had to pay 50'per cent more for retail goods out of the stores since that government has assumed the responsibility and jurisdiction from Ottawa. That is what is happening, and they are proud of it. They stand up and brag about this agreement when it has brought nothing except hardship to the people of the coast in British Columbia. Will they even step out of Victoria and go out and talk to those people and ask them what kind of a service they need?

A committee of the NDP traveled right up and down the coast talking with people. We talked with people in Stewart, the mayor of Stewart, the mayor of Masset, the mayor of Prince Rupert, city councils, labour councils, chambers of commerce. We said to those people: "What do you need to give you the kind of service that will be meaningful to the people on this coast?" They told us what they need. All you have to do, Mr. Chairman, is ask those people what they need and they'll tell you. But that government and that First Minister have not taken the pains to find out what is needed. Everyone on the coast knows that what is needed are self-propelled vessels with lift-on, roll-on, roll-off service and a good docking facility - a service that will not only supply from the southern end to the northern end, but one that can take care of the goods and people that have to be moved in intercommunity travel on the coast.

Everybody knows it and that government refuses to act. When I talked to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation responsible for ferries, I said: "Why are you not doing what it says in the agreement with Canada and supplying those kinds of services?" He said: "Because we don't want to interfere with the private enterprise people who are left on the coast."

Isn't that nice? The private enterprise people are few in number and sadly lacking in ability to supply the needs of the coast, and that government will not put in the service that they signed and said they would because they don't want to go in and hurt anybody who may be in free enterprise. Don't the people matter more? Don't the people come first in

[ Page 1294 ]

the priority of this government? The answer is no. Over and over and over again, by actions, not by words, we have seen people in this province suffer through high taxation, through lack of service, through cutback of service, and they've got the nerve to stand up and say that that's leadership and that this motion should be defeated.

They mentioned another agreement that they had signed with Ottawa and they just pass it over. They say: "We signed this agreement." What does it really mean? They signed an agreement to cancel rail development in the northwestern part of the province. For that effort, they didn't get $80 million dollars; they got a loan from the federal government. They oftentimes forget to mention that they didn't get any money from Ottawa. They took a loan from Ottawa and the terms of that loan were that this government would shut down rail development in the northwestern part of the province. The member for Skeena knows and he should be in his place in this House talking about the rail spurline from Terrace to Groundhog and how much it means to the social and economic future of his community and all of the northwestern part of the province. The member for Skeena knows, don't you? We're looking at you now, Mr. Member. You know it, don't you? He hides behind the paper.

But he knows that this government made a drastic mistake and played with the future of the northwestern part of this province in order to borrow $80 million from Ottawa so that they could stand up and say: "What a good boy we have in the Premier. We balanced the books."

MR. STRONGMAN: That's the worst speech you've ever given.

MR. LEA: The member for Vancouver South says it's the worst speech Iove ever given. Well, just listening to his, I do not know who he is to judge because every speech that he gives is exactly the same. He's a little bit of a sycophant trying to get into the cabinet that doesn't want him.

One agreement has brought poorer and more expensive services to the people on the coast of British Columbia, the Queen Charlotte Islands, to Stewart, to Bella Bella, to Bella Coola, to Ocean Falls, to the Sunshine Coast. They signed an agreement that gives the people of the coast a poorer service and they're paying 50 per cent more for it. They don't thank you for it. Still this government will not listen to local residents; still it will not listen and understand that the service that was taken away is the service that should be replaced. Just because the federal government made a stupid mistake and they had a Rhodes scholar in there that removed the subsidy to Northland Navigation and this government sent another Rhodes scholar down to negotiate it and we ended up with a fiasco is no reason for this government to carry on and to make the service even poorer and even more expensive than it is now. That's what they are doing.

Talk to anybody on the coast. Talk to any small businessman. Talk to any mayor. Talk to any president of any chamber of commerce and ask them what they think about your coastal transportation policies and the implementation of those policies. They'll tell you that it stinks. You stand in this House and talk and brag about signing this thing that brought nothing but havoc and higher prices to the people on the coast. And you brag about it? It's absolutely ridiculous. You close down rail development and economic development in the northwestern part of the province for an $80 million loan to balance your books so you will look like good boys and girls and you brag about that. You put in jeopardy industry in Kitimat, in Terrace, in Prince Rupert, in Stewart, in Cassiar and in Hazelton - that whole northwestern area you put in jeopardy by your stupid signing of an agreement that shut down economic development through rail development in northwestern British Columbia -and you stand in your place and you brag about it. What have you got to brag about? You've absolutely ruined the economy of northwestern British Columbia. You've cost the people of northwestern British Columbia nothing but money and you stand up and brag.

The Premier goes into caucus and cries a little bit and says the member for Prince Rupert said that none of you are defending me. "Tomorrow would you all go in and say what a good boy I am?" And in they trot, they trot, they trot, and they stand up one after the other and say: "Look, Mr. Premier, I'm defending you now, now that the opposition has pointed out the fact that we were saying nothing and doing nothing and running out of the House and leaving you to defend yourself." We got to the point where the Premier had to run out of the House. The Premier hasn't been in here for hours. He ran out of the House because he couldn't take the heat and he's sending in his little boys and girls to stand up and say: "Oh, Mr. Premier, we're sorry that we did not defend you up to now, but we're going to do it now." The Social Credit back bench and the Liberal cabinet.... Do you know something? They deserve to be in that party, those Liberals and those Conservatives,

[ Page 1295 ]

because it is a party of hodge-podge principles and lack of principles that this province has never seen before. They deserve to be in it because, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) said, they checked their principles on this side of the House when they walked over there.

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) wants to rise above it all and pretend that he's still a good guy. I think the present leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) put it very succinctly and well when he said they thought they were going over to join a bicycle club and they found out they were in a motorcycle gang, and they don't like it, because the Attorney-General can't go to his funny little dinner parties any more and be "good old Garde." Now he's the Attorney-General that followed Robert Bonner, and he's doing exactly the same kind of things.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) used to stand on this side of the House when he was a Liberal member and speak about morality and about civil liberties. He's in a party now that has a new national leader. What do you think about him, Mr. Minister of Labour? Do you think he's the kind of guy and the kind of party you want to be in? You made the choice - live with it.

The Minister of Education [illegible] doesn't give a darn what party he's in as long as he can be the big cheese that runs around talking about throwing people out of work without being charged by the law. There is some rumour that some teacher smokes some grass, and he says, "Fire him."

That's the kind of people we have: people who will not defend civil liberties, people who will not bring this province to an economic prosperity because of their petulance and their bad negotiations with Ottawa. Now the Premier has said to them: "You get in there and defend me, or I'm going to tell you, there'll be some cabinet shuffles." We hear that in the cabinet room there's only one minister who's allowed to call him "Bill." We heard all about it, and we heard about a little social gathering where the Attorney-General said to the Premier: "May I speak now, sir?"

The Minister of Labour I really love, because he, along with the Attorney-General, tried to stand a little above his colleagues and goes around saying: "Oh, we may be Socreds provincially, but we still have morality federally." But now they've got a new federal leader. You know something? You can't just take part of it. You've bought the whole thing, I'm afraid. He is your new federal leader. Are you proud of him? Are you proud that you joined that party now of the man who is going to go out and fight abortionists and homosexuals and bankers? That's his big platform.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can you relate this to the motion?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Oh, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) says he's proud of him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Could we relate this to the motion?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There's nothing wrong with fighting abortionists.

MR. LEA: What about bankers?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEA: What about homosexuals?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Right. There's nothing wrong with that, says the Minister of Human Resources.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, we have listened all day to weak little speeches by weak little members standing up in this House talking about their excellent Premier because he told them if they didn't they'd be spanked.

The Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) sits there and listens to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) give him credit for signing an agreement with Ottawa. I looked across and I said: "Alex, doesn't he know?" He laughed, because I signed the agreement when I was Minister of Highways. Yes, he knows. This agreement cost $80 million, eh? This one? Another agreement cost everybody on the coast a big 50 per cent more for their retail goods and also they take credit for something that I signed. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) takes credit for something the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) signed. What have you signed that wasn't negotiated or signed before you got there? Not a darn thing, except that when the federal government wanted you to drop the sales tax three points, you refused, and only dropped it two points, and then you tried to take credit for the two.

[ Page 1296 ]

The only thing that Premier has ever done since he's been in is spend $4,000 for makeup on TV, trying to bring this government into an American style of government by making state of-the-province addresses with his $4,000 makeup on, with all the props behind him, and run around this province not saying a darn thing except: "What a good guy I am." That's all he's done. And he has a bunch of ministers too frightened stiff of their own hides to stand up and fight for the people of this province, because they want to be in that cabinet more than anything else. And those Socred backbenchers who don't stand a chance of ever moving up, are you proud of this agreement?

MR. MUSSALLEM: You bet.

MR. LEA: You're proud that rail development's'been shut down in the northwestern part of British Columbia because they needed $80 million.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. LEA: I'm addressing the Chair. Mr. Chairman, are they proud? They say yes, they're proud. The member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) is proud that rail development has been stopped dead in its tracks in the northwestern part of British Columbia, affecting his riding and affecting his communities. He's not proud of that, but he should stand up and say so.

Are they proud that the people on the coast of this province are paying up to 50 per cent across-the-board raises for their retail goods? Are they proud of that? They say yes. Are they proud of the fact that I signed an agreement with Ottawa that gave this province $5 million a year that it hadn't had before for northwestern highway development? Are they proud of that? Yes, and they have every right to be because the only agreements they have signed are ones that have brought disaster to this province. These are the agreements they've signed. The ones that they're bragging about that have brought prosperity to this province are the agreements that we signed. They know it. That's the reason for the lame .little excuses of standing up saying: "I like the Premier too and he's a good guy, and he's excellent."

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) was the leader of the Liberal party and led it right down the tube. Then they sent to Ottawa to get a new leader - the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. William ) and the Minister of Education, two of the big movers - saying: "David Anderson, come on out here and save us." When he got out here, they stuck knives right in his back. That's what they're going to do to you too, because that's the way they operate -knives right in his back. They're going to do it to the Social Credit before they're through and don't you forget it, because once you take a walk across the floor and leave your principles, you'll do it again and again, because you can't stop once you start. You can't be pregnant a little bit, and you can't lose your principles a little bit, Mr. Chairman. You're all the way.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I was very interested in what the member for Prince Rupert, who is leaving the chamber, had to say. He told us about the committee that the NDP have of cabinet ministers that went to communities and asked: "What do you need?" Well, I'll tell you, that committee came to Kamloops, and I'd like to tell you a little background, Mr. Chairman, because this will give you an idea of what our Premier faced and this government faced when they came to government.

In 1973, six communities, which were selfgoverning communities, against their will and without a vote, were suddenly amalgamated into one city of Kamloops. There was no preparation, no integration of services - nothing. When they asked for a vote, they were denied it. A citizen took it to court, Mr. Chairman, and he won. The Supreme Court of British Columbia said: "You are entitled to a vote." The government appealed; they didn't like anybody to have a vote. The Court of Appeal of British Columbia said: "You are entitled to have a vote."

MR. LEA: What did the government do?

HON. MR. MAIR: They passed a law saying: "You are not entitled to a vote."

At the same time they did that, they decided it would be a very good idea if 10,000 acres of Indian land went into that city at the same time. Did they ask the Indian band? Did they consult with the Indian band? The answer is no, and you know it. They took it in. They stole it. Now the first thing we did when we came to government was to give the Indians back their land within three months.

During the time the new city council was struggling with this great conglomeration of communities made into a city against the will of all of its component parts.... The member for Prince Rupert is right. They did come to town. And I'll tell you who came to town. Mr. Lorimer, the former Minister of Municipal

[ Page 1297 ]

Affairs, came to town.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'll tell you about that. The member for Prince Rupert came to town and Gerry Anderson came to town.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes, they did. They asked: "What do you need? What would you like?" And we told them. There was only one problem: they never gave it to us. They never built a road. They never gave us the money they promised us. They never gave us a damn thing. They were always going to do it and never did it.

I'll say one thing for the member for Prince Rupert: at least he stayed awake. You'll never guess what Mr. Lorimer did.

In the middle of the meeting with the mayor and 12 aldermen, the public, the member for Prince Rupert and Gerry Who, guess what Mr. Lorimer did? His pipe fell out of his mouth and he fell sound asleep.

This, Mr. Speaker, is what our leader and this government faced in my community when we came to power. Let me tell you what this government did to rectify these wrongs.

First of all, we paid the money that the previous government said was owing to the city of Kamloops - that seemed reasonable. They promised the money and never gave it.

MR. LEA: It's not true and you know it.

HON. MR. MAIR: It is true. Then the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon Mr. Fraser) came and he said: "I'll tell you what we'll do. Because they made such a mess and because they left you in such a state of affairs, we are going to extend the agreement to maintain the highways that we agreed to." The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) came and said: "We'll extend the policing for another year." In fact, we did both for two years.

In 1977 the Minister of Highways and Public Works spent $11 million in that constituency.

MR. LEA: That included the agreement with the city.

HON. MR. MAIR: It does not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. MAIR: Let me tell you what he did. For the first time in the history of British Columbia it is now safe to travel by road from Cache Creek to Kamloops. There are passing lanes. "Murder Mile" is no longer "Murder Mile, " and it is going to be better and better and better.

The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) came to town and the first thing he saw was a development in Savona. A Quebec iron foundry wanted to come to Savona to put in a foundry and bring some industry to the area, but they couldn't get it. Do you know why? Because the former Minister of Highways personally intervened and refused the highway access, and you know it.

MR. LEA: You're darned right I did.

HON. MR. MAIR: And for that reason you'll never carry that constituency again, or that part of it. Now they complain about unemployment; A community tries to get rid of its one-crop image, and they won't let them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister sat quietly during the debate of the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) . Perhaps the member for Prince Rupert could extend him the same courtesy.

HON. MR. MAIR: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad that you observed my good demeanour during that debate - it was hard, but I managed.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: He doesn't need defending. The Minister of Education put it right, Mr. member: you're the people that need the defending.

Now let me just point out one other thing that the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the Minister of High ways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) have done for the city of Kamloops. Fifty-five acres of industrial land for industrial development, next to one of the finest industrial parks in British Columbia, have been opened up and are now going to provide jobs, are now going to help the economy of Kamloops and the whole of the province. There's one other little thing, before I deal with one other matter, Mr. Chairman - Afton Mines. It's not owned 5 per cent or 10 per cent - or any thing - by the government; it's not subject to any sub rosa, sneaky, secret agreements in that member's desk. It's open as a ' free business, paying its taxes, and providing 300 jobs for the people of Kamloops - a mine that was discovered under the Social Credit government of 1972, and brought into production by our government in 1977.

[ Page 1298 ]

Now let me just say one final thing, if I may, Mr. Chairman, particularly to the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) , [illegible] said words to the effect that under this Premier this government has done nothing for provincial rights. I want to tell you something: under this Premier we have - and I think it's the only one in the whole of Canada - a full-time Deputy Minister of Confederation and Constitutional Affairs with a full-time staff and a full-time advisory group of the best academic minds in Canada not just in British Columbia but in Canada working on this problem. We have leadership in the western Premiers' task force on constitutional trends, leadership in every area of constitutional matters. And I want you to know, Mr. Chairman, that there is no government in Canada - and I include the federal government -that is as well prepared as the province of British Columbia is for the constitutional conferences that are to come.

Despite what people opposite may have to say, I didn't come into politics because I had to. I came into politics because there was a need for good government in this province. I came into politics because I met a man who'd indicated that he was going to be one of the finest leaders that Canada ever had. He was, and is, the best Premier. I support him, and this House ought to support him. Only fools will support this motion.

MR. LAUK: I'll only be a moment. There were so many corrections to make in the last member's speech, Mr. Chairman, but I will just rise to correct the most glaring.

The minister referred to a sub rosa - this is either a friend of his in Mexico or a legal term - agreement between the government and Afton. He pointed over to me and said: "In my desk." The two letters in question, as the Minister of Economic Development and Petroleum Resources should know - and the press certainly does know - were released in a press conference in the fall of 1975. There was nothing sub rosa or secret about them. It is typical of the kind of charges that are being made by that very irresponsible cabinet. They feel that they can just drag people through the mud with any charge they like without a scintilla of proof, without backing it up, hoping some youngster in the press gallery might carry the words. But so far they have been wrong, and I'm delighted that they have been wrong.

These charges which were made particularly by the member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) , whose organization in Kamloops printed a falsehood in the constituency report....

HON. MR. MAIR: Then sue.

MR. LAUK: I'm not going to sue - Has your constituency got any money?

HON. MR. MAlR: Yes.

MR. LAUK: Oh, another widow.

Mr. Chairman, the report stated that Afton was a Social Credit enterprise. The press conference only included Norman Keevil Jr., Norman Keevil Sr. and myself. I'm quite surprised that he's talking in that vein. There was no secret deal and subsequently the Minister of Mines ;and Petroleum Resources brought in.... The 5 per cent ownership was an offer to the government by Afton Mines to participate in the ownership of the mine through the government purchasing share.

Now this side of the House does not mind investing the people's money in very sound enterprises like that.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Oh, you may laugh. You just set up a sell-out corporation ;.here the most productive Crown corporations in the world are being sold off to the people who already own them, and you have the nerve to laugh at that. Anyway, the Minister of Mines of this administration brings in an Act giving a 2.2 cents incentive without anything coming back. He had already eliminated the 5 per cent royalty. Afton was going to pay 5 per cent royalty, and they would have a 2.2 cent per pound copper incentive. It was a good deal; they sold it down the river. Now Afton has a 2.2 cent per pound subsidy and they're not paying any royalty. So it's a net outflow from the provincial treasury that only the incompetence of that Minister of Mines and the First Minister of that province could bring about.

I think we should all vote for this motion. I'm sure all the backbenchers are convinced now that they should.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, there is only one reason for this very fractious and frivolous and facetious motion, and that's because the once-proud NDP... You don't think that's funny? This once-proud NDP are fractured and they're splintered and they're torn apart, and that's the reason they're coming up with this nonsense.

My colleague, the member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) summed it up perfectly this afternoon. You cannot accept the fact that the public of this province has rejected you, and you're sore at the Premier of this

[ Page 1299 ]

province because of that. You're sore at him because he went to the people in B.C. with a message that he wanted to restore the business confidence and the economic confidence that had lost itself during your reign. You're sore that he went to the people and he wished to have a government that was properly and truly accountable to its taxpayers. You're sore that he wished to ensure that it would have social reform, but certainly not socialism. And you are sore that he wanted to see there would be fiscal responsibility and social responsibility. You people still fail to comprehend the fact that dollars do not grow on socialist trees, but they come from the efforts of B.C. citizens.

The Premier of this province has lived up to his promises; he has complied with his undertakings. He gives his best every day and in every way, notwithstanding that he has faced the grossest amount of personal invective and attack that any individual has ever experienced in this House, and personal derision and scorn coming from the weakest opposition, as my colleague from Point Grey said, that his province has ever had. There were few, if any, speeches on improvements and policies, few, if any, constructive alternatives offered, but all the time there was personal invective and personal attack.

If you think you're gaining in the eyes of the general public by that, my friend, you're losing. You're not making any marks for that at all. Not only are you attacking this government, but through this government you're attacking the majority of the people in B.C. who have supported this government and are supporting it today and will support it to a victory in the next election.

The electorate independently made its decision and it called the shot in 1975. It wasn't the Nanaimo friendship society, or whatever that place was called, who made the decision; it was the general public who made the decision. The Nanaimo friendship society didn't seem to have any difficulty in capital outflow of $80,000 at the back of a truck. But it was the public of B.C. who got fed up with the dollars flipping over the Rockies.

They're just like flapjacks. They got so congested they almost had to be flight patterned. The former Premier was worried, and he was worried because he got B.C.'s finances into a situation which was much like a beached mackerel in the noonday sun. Then what did he do? He did a great favour to the member for Nanaimo. lie dumped it on his doorstep, leaving him with the fumes. Then the former Premier, with the blessings of a man by the name of Macdonald and the blessings of another man by the name of Dunsky, ran on a campaign of strong leadership. It was strong, all right, Mr. Chairman. Operation Airwick.

And what did he advocate with the cupboard bare, facing huge deficits? lie advocated free pensions for housewives with no plans, no costimates and no dough. If you people had done a good job, you might well have been in again, but you flopped because of him and make no mistake of that. What was his party's response? A buy-in. It wasn't a love-in; it was a buy-in. The Nanaimo friendship society, or whatever, coughed up $80,000 to pay for a vanishing act. You know, I sometimes wonder how they managed to keep the boys in the white coats and the nets away from their operation.

This once proud CCF and this once proud NDP, and this rejection that we have over here -this manifest rejection in the eyes of the general public - are proposing to pay the Premier of this province $3.

MS. BROWN: That's more than he's worth.

HON. M. GARDOM: I'm sure the member for Vancouver-Burrard would be thoroughly prepared to go into the Premier's riding and run against the Premier on that premise at any point in time.

This kind of a cheap motion, this kind of a frivolous motion, this kind of a facetious motion, Mr. Chairman, reflects on no one but the New Democratic Party. There is fiscal responsibility in B.C. There is accountability. The province is back on its feet and the Premier has put it there, and thank God for it!

Mr. Chairman, there is no way that I'm going to support anything as stupid as this, and neither do the people of this province.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have just a few short notes here. But I must say, commenting on the speech of the last member, Mr. Chairman, that wasn't a very good speech in defence of the Premier or the government. As a matter of fact, if the government members really feel as they say they do when they get up to speak in this House, let's have an election. Let's go to the people right now. I defy you to go to the people right now and have an election. You won't because you haven't got the guts. You haven't got the guts to go now. You know very well you'd lose right now.

Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of material I'm going to use under the various votes when they come up, but I did think it appropriate at this time to discuss one aspect under this particular amendment of nonconfidence.

[ Page 1300 ]

The government announced just recently -today - some late-night ferry runs between Vancouver Island and the mainland, and I'll tell you quite honestly, I favour the concept. I agree that we should try the improved service. However, I want to read into the record a copy of a telegram I received this afternoon. This was a telegram from the B.C. ferry and marine workers' union that was sent to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation responsible for B.C. Ferries in this Legislature. The telegram says:

"We are extremely disturbed over your press announcement today concerning midnight sailings on route 1, of which we were previously unaware. This will involve schedule and manning changes not discussed with the union pursuant to article 1.03 of the collective agreement. Consultation today with labour relations manager of the BCFG showed he was completely unaware of this new schedule. Such action does not serve to improve the poor morale and labour relations climate which you have declared an attempt to improve." I raise this matter, Mr. Chairman, to display and to show to the people of this province how this government treats its working people. There was no consultation with the union at all as provided for in their collective agreement.

This is just one example - we have many, many other examples - of how this government treats the working people of this province.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, it was most interesting to hear the hon. member for Mackenzie speak about going to an election.

I'd like to give him a little information. He can't be talking to the same people that we are. We've had people in my riding going out week after week since the budget doing polls, just to find out what the impact of good government is upon the people of British Columbia and the impact of this wonderful budget.

Right now, out of 94 polls, we've completed 20-some polls. They are very experienced people that work in the riding. They are not paid; they do it of their own volition. Some of them are former NDP members; some of them voted NDP during the last election.

Last time during that election I won almost 50 per cent of the vote in a riding that has never really ever been anything else but the sole purview of the CCF or the NDP.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please do not presume the Chair. The fact that one of the members mentioned a challenge to go to an election hardly brings on the need for a poll by poll analysis in your constituency. Perhaps we could relate it to the motion.

MR. VEITCH: You're a very good Chairman, and I thank you. I am going to relate this to the good work done by the government under the direction of this great Premier. I'd like you to listen for a moment.

One of the things that was asked is: what is the fortune of this province under our Premier? With that in mind, this time around, compared to last time when it was a little over 49 per cent of the vote, we would win between 55 and 56 per cent of the popular vote. Now, Mr. Chairman, that is 55 to 56 per cent of the popular vote in the 20-some polls we have done out of the 94 polls in the Burnaby-Willingdon riding.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's 32 per cent for you next time.

MR. LEA: That's your own personal appeal.

MR. VEITCH: Well, thank you, hon. member.

Interjection.

MR. VEITCH: Talk about irrelevance. Would you kindly bring that little jack-in-the-box to order?

In three and a half years they brought the province of British Columbia to a point where we had to do some very drastic things. Now the people of British Columbia were never panty waists. They realized that this had to be done. Once having been done, once having set the scene, once stabilizing the economy of the province of British Columbia, they are now looking forward with confidence that the members of the opposition do not seem to possess.

We're looking forward to competence, not the kind of competence that would spend millions and millions of dollars of the people's money gambling on the stock market. They were talking about the new British Columbia resource authority, the new private company that would be upcoming. This is an attempt to take some of the things that we have bought on behalf of the people of British Columbia and give them back to the people so that they can benefit directly from them, where they should be in the first place.

Mr. Chairman, I'm very happy to support this Premier and this government.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was

[ Page 1301 ]

May 10,1978 granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.