[ Page 1303 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Presenting reports

Ministry of Labour annual report. Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1303

Oral questions

Highways weed-spraying programme. Mr. Skelly –– 1303

Purchase of B.T. Rogers heritage site. Mr. Barnes –– 1304

Alleged availability of Hydro documents. Mr. Macdonald –– 1304

Number of persons on income assistance. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm answers –– 1305

Appointments to Human Rights Commission. Ms. Sanford –– 1305

Subdivision applications near Prince George. Mr. Skelly –– 1305

Real estate licence fees. Hon. Mr. Mair –– 1305

Travel Industry ministry press releases. Mrs. Dailly –– 1305

BCBC rental charges. Mr. Barrett –– 1306

Layoffs of BCR workers. Hon. Mr. Phillips answers –– 1306

Committee of Supply: executive council estimates

On the amendment to vote 5.

Mr. Smith –– 1308

Mr. Kempf –– 1310

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1311

Mr. Nicolson –– 1312

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1314

Mr. Calder –– 1316

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1318

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 1320

Mr. Shelford –– 1322

Hon. Mr. William –– 1323

Mr. Macdonald –– 1325

Mr. Lea –– 1327

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1328

Mr. Macdonald –– 1330

Division on the amendment –– 1330

On vote 5.

Ms. Sanford –– 1330

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1331

Mr. Gibson –– 1332

Mr. Levi –– 1333

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1333

Mr. King –– 1333

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1333

Ms. Sanford –– 1333

Mr. King –– 1334

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1334

Mrs. Wallace –– 1334

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1334

Mr. Levi –– 1334

Mr. Gibson –– 1334

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1334

Appendix –– 1338

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I have two introductions to make today. First of all, would the House welcome a group of students from the newest secondary school in the constituency of Saanich and the Islands, Stelly's Secondary School in School District No. 63.

Also, Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is Captain Jack Parker, accompanied by Mrs. Parker. Captain Parker is the senior master of the Seabus-Burrard Inlet ferry system. In fact, he was the instructor of the operating crews for Seabus. Within about four weeks or five weeks we shall be noting the first anniversary of the inauguration of that service.

I think that members of the House, in addition to welcoming Captain and Mrs. Parker, will be interested to know that, as of late Monday last, the three-millionth passenger was carried on Seabus across Burrard Inlet, well ahead of our expectations.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming two citizens from the city of Vancouver, Reverend Robert Wolfe and Reverend Lawrence Gower of the Metropolitan Community Church.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to advise you that we have 80 enthusiastic students here from Clarence Fulton Junior Secondary School in Vernon. The young people come from Vernon and district. They are members of our Clarence Fulton Junior Secondary School Band, an outstanding band. Unfortunately there are just too many to be in the galleries, but they are touring the buildings and I would ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like the House to join me in welcoming a man who rendered great service to this province and to the government, Mr. Barrie Clark, who is sitting right above you in the press gallery. I might say that I extracted a promise from him to say only nice things about all of us on his new programme.

I would also like to introduce two good friends of mine and former constituents who are sitting in the members' gallery, Mr. George Roman and Mr. Jim Pennington, and I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I first want to add to what was said about Mr. Barrie Clark, who was a distinguished member of this House, and made a very signal and difficult contribution as rentalsman of the province of B.C. - a new field with all kinds of problem He deserves the heartfelt thanks of all British Columbians for wrestling with that very difficult administration. We wish him success in the future.

I also want to introduce a distinguished constituent of mine who is sitting in the gallery up here, Mr. David Taylor of Vancouver East.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries this afternoon are students from Windsor Secondary School in North Vancouver. I am sure the House will be on its best behaviour while they are here.

MR. DAVIDSON: In the gallery this afternoon are Mr. Al McClellen from Edmonton and a friend of his from Richmond, British Columbia, Judy Calloway. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Touring the buildings this afternoon will be the student band from the Grand Forks Secondary School, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Thomson. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. William files the 59th annual report of the Ministry of Labour.

Oral questions.

HIGHWAYS WEED-SPRAYING PROGRAMME

MR. SKELLY: I have a question for the Minister of Highways and Public Works. The B.C. Honey Producers' Association has received information from your ministry that almost every highway right-of-way in the province is to be sprayed with such herbicides as Tordon 10-K and Tordon 22-K. And the programme even includes areas such as the city of Vancouver. In view of the high unemployment in the province of D.C., why does the ministry not use student employment for mechanical vegetation control?

HON. MR. FRASER: In reply to the member for Alberni, we have a very definite weed-spraying programme. It is conducted as follows: District highway managers submit to the regional landscape supervisor lists of sites where weed control is needed. Application to the inter

[ Page 1304 ]

ministerial pesticide committee is made for each site and conditions of approval for each site are met, including, where required, public notice 15 days prior to application. Application is done by trained regional crews who hold herbicide applicator certificates issued by the Ministry of the Environment. I'm not aware of what you have said in the broad sense. But with regard to the procedures they have to follow for hiring students, the Ministry of Highways and Public Works intends to employ 1,000 students this year.

MR. SKELLY: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, what will be the increased cost of herbicide control this year over previous years, and what will be the increase in the amount of active herbicide ingredient used? The minister has obviously been prepared for the question, so he should be prepared with an answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Whenever there are detailed questions it's perhaps wiser to place the question on the order paper.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I haven't got the detailed answer on cost. I'm not so sure of the other part of your question.

MR. SKELLY: On a further supplementary, did the minister say he was prepared to answer the question about cost now, and about the active ingredient later?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, no, I'm not, but I can certainly get the estimate. The programme hasn't started.

PURCHASE OF B.T. ROGERS HERITAGE SITE

MR. BARNES: I have a question for the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs. On May I you took as notice my question: "From whom did the B.C. Housing Corporation purchase the northern half of the B.T. Rogers heritage site and for what amount?" Since it has so far been apparent that this House will not get answers, will the minister at least tell the House if he intends to rescind the 30-day eviction notice given 20-odd self-employed tenants by the B.C. Housing Corporation?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order on at least three counts. Does the minister wish to reply?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Just three, Mr. Speaker? No, I simply want to say in rebuttal that I undertook to give an answer to the hon. member and an answer will be given.

MR. BARRETT: In a year.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, David, soon.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question has been taken as notice. The first member for Vancouver East.

MR. BARNES: This is a different question; it's not the same question I asked him before. I asked him if he was going to rescind the eviction notice given to 20 people...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member please come to order?

MR. BARNES: ...by the B.C. Housing Corporation. This is a different situation.

(Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member not have any regard for the Chair?

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

ALLEGED AVAILABILITY OF HYDRO DOCUMENTS

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe): I have here another hush-hush thing, "don't talk to the nasty members of the press, " from B.C. Hydro, just received by all Hydro employees, with some statements in it that tender documents were available to The Vancouver Province reporters, which simply isn't so. Was this issued with the approval of the Minister Of Finance, who is a director of B.C. Hydro?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

MR. MACDONALD: On a supplementary, is the minister aware of the memorandum that I have in my hand? Has he since been made aware of this?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'm not aware of what the member has in his hand.

MR. MACDONALD: Does the Minister of Finance, as a director of B.C. Hydro, believe that the tender process should be open to those inquiring about it, including members of the media? It states in here that these two gentlemen did have an opportunity to review all tender documents on various contracts. Do you agree that they should have the right to

[ Page 1305 ]

look at the tender documents? Should it be an open process?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully ask the member to send the memorandum over so I can have a look at it. I'll take the question as notice.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Human Resources on a question taken as notice.

NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON INCOME ASSISTANCE

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The hon. first member for Vancouver Burrard (Ms. Brown) asked me for the latest statistical information with respect to the number of people on income assistance. Here is the latest figure available to the ministry: February 28,1978, the number of people on income assistance - 112,636.

MS. BROWN: I also asked what is the number of these who are employable. I wonder if the minister can give me that information now.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I can five a further breakdown, but I can't provide the information requested here now. Women, single 9,254; men, single - 16,018; dependents 58,701; heads of household - 28,663.

MR. DAVIDSON: Can the minister give us as well the figures on the same statistics for 1977,1976 and 1975?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't have the exact figures. It's only 1,000 less now from what it was in 1977; it's about 4,000 less than what it was in 1976; and it is 16,000, or thereabouts, less than what it was in 1975.

APPOINTMENTS TO

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

MS. SANFORD: My question is to the Minister of Labour. The province has been without a Human Rights Commission now for over four months. I appreciate that human rights is low on the Social Credit priority list, but how much longer can we be expected to wait for these appointments?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order in that it anticipates future action of the minister.

SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS

NEAR PRINCE GEORGE

MR. SKELLY: Another question to the Minister of Highways and Public Works. Some time ago I asked the minister to provide me with a list of subdivision applications in the Chief Lake and Ness-Nukko Lake areas near Prince George which were submitted during the period when the inclusion of that area was recommended for the agricultural land reserve but delayed through political interference. Is the minister now prepared to answer the question? Also, would it help the minister if I provided him with a list of the file numbers for 17 applications covering 1,500 acres in the area of inclusion and the names of a number of Social Credit members making those applications?

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, Mr. Speaker, we're attempting to get the answers and w-'11 bring them here as soon as we've got them.

REAL ESTATE LICENCE FEES

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, there don't seem to be any questions today so perhaps I can give an answer. Yesterday the hon. second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) asked me a question concerning real estate licence fees. I have checked into the matter and found that the real estate council have asked me for my permission for them to raise their fees to real estate agents. I have not made any decision on the matter and don't expect to make a decision for another week or 10 days.

TRAVEL INDUSTRY MINISTRY PRESS RELEASES

MRS. DAILLY: This is to the Provincial Secretary. Have any press releases been issued on behalf of the Provincial Secretary from the Provincial Secretary's ministry or your Travel Industry ministry which were produced or printed by private agencies?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Vrlak Robinson was the agency that looked after the Royal Hudson tour, and they did do a press release. That's the first and only one that comes to mind at the present moment.

MRS. DAILLY: May I ask why the Queen's Printer is not involved in this? What makes it different?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, the co-ordination of the Royal Hudson tour is a very complex one. Not only does it involve a very complex situation of routing the train and the tracks with CPR and CNR lines, et cetera, and other private lines, it also entails co-ordination of people across the country who are visiting the train and so on. The firm that was men

[ Page 1306 ]

tioned was given the undertaking to take care of the whole tour from the start. It's a 39-day tour across Canada to Chicago, Minneapolis, St. Paul and back through Minneapolis, Winnipeg and then back home. In the 39 days it covered 19 cities and it involved a tremendous , amount of organization, in which they were part

Mr: Speaker, it wasn't part of the question, but I think the House would be pleased to know that during that trip, the Royal Hudson on its 19-city visit received front-page, full-page coverage in all of those cities, television, radio and so on, which made it possible for people in the United States and Canada to receive the invitation to the Captain Cook Bicentennial of our province.

MR SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I would like to remind members on both sides of the House that questions are not to be so long as to extend beyond the period of question period, and answers are not to be so long as to go beyond the scope of the question.

MRS. DAILLY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. My very simple question was: were there any press releases issued by any other agency besides the Queen's Printer? The answer, I understand, is yes. So my next question is: How much was paid? How much did this cost?

HON. MS. McCARTHY: I'll have to take that as notice. I don't know.

MR. SKELLY: 1 have a supplementary to the first question, which the minister didn't take as notice, Mr. Speaker. Under the former administration ministerial press releases were made available immediately to all members of the House by distribution to the boxes in their offices. Now the ministerial releases are sent through the parliamentary post office and we don't get them until five or six days later at the minimum. Will the minister look into this situation to see that all members of the House get press releases immediately they are distributed to the media?

HON. MS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'd be glad to do that. I hope that's not a reflection on the post office, but I'd be very pleased to make sure that there is a direct mailing. Yes, I'd be happy to.

BCBC RENTAL CHARGES

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Highways and Public Works. Some time ago I asked the Minister of Highways and Public Works if he would inform the House what formula is used to arrive at the rental charges to ministries by the B.C. Buildings Corporation, and if the minister would table in the House a list of all the government buildings, their value and the amortization figure on each building. The hon. minister took the question as notice some time ago, and I wonder if he had the question answered now.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, my version of that question was that he was killed by the bell.

MR. BARRETT: There's no bell now!

HON. MR. FRASER: I didn't have an opportunity to reply, and you were gone. But the value of rentals to ministries is based on market value, which is taken from the Assessment Authority. We assess a 3 per cent administrative charge where we deal with the private sector.

MR. BARRETT: Will you table the list?

HON. M. FRASER: Yes, we can table the information.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to a question raised during yesterday's question period by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) concerning the British Columbia Railway.

Leave granted.

LAYOFFS OF BCR WORKERS

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That member alleged that a large number of layoffs had taken place recently because of the railway's practice of routing wood chips and lumber shipments via the CNR through Jasper and the Red Pass junction. I want to deny this categorically. There have been no layoffs of the numbers of engineers and trainsmen that that member alleged. It is true that 17 men were laid off last fall but that was during a work reduction because of cessation of work on the Dease Lake line and cessation of normal summer work.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now you just listen to me a minute while I answer the question.

The practice of routing eastbound freight through Jasper and the Red Pass junction is a normal railway practice. I thought that member

[ Page 1307 ]

was a vice-president of the railway at one time.

I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, that it's very good business on behalf of the railway. It's a good business practice. As the originating line, the British Columbia Railway still gets its share of the tariff, and I repeat that this routing is an established business practice. In fact, at one time 70 per cent of the railway's eastern rail lumber shipments were routed this way at no loss to the B.C. Railway. At present, less than half that amount are routed that way.

In short, Mr. Speaker, that member's statement was riddled with inaccuracies and I think it's worthwhile to tell the House why. He sought his information - well, you brought this up, Mr. Member; just listen - he sought his information from a crew dispatcher at the British Columbia Railway and when he was told that the dispatcher was unable to give him the information and that he should call a senior member of the management personnel, he didn't bother to do so. So he placed a lot of misleading and inaccurate information in front of this House. I think that member should be censured by the other members of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we must try to keep answers to questions within the scope of the questions themselves.

MR. LAUK: On standing order 42, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: Efforts were made to call BCR's Hugh Armstrong all morning and all afternoon. The phone lines were off the hook or busy, so don't hand me that garbage about calling Hugh Armstrong. Why are you muzzling these dispatchers at that level? They should give me that information.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, that railroad runs so good that the phones are busy all of the time.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, what has just taken place is not provided for under standing order 42.

MR. BARNES: On a point of order. I'm not sure if it's a point of order or personal privilege, but I would like to ask your assistance, Mr. Speaker, if you will. I'm somewhat confused about the rules respecting question period, because I attempted to give a preamble on a question which dealt with a portion that was taken as notice. However, I did introduce a completely new question, and I would wonder if the Speaker would clarify for me why that was ruled out of order because it had been taken on notice. I find nothing in the Hansard records to indicate that that question has been asked previously.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Perhaps rather than take the time of the House we could review that together and read the rules together.

MR. BARNES: I feel that you are being perhaps humorous and I can appreciate that, because it's a very obvious and real impression on all of us. However, I put quite a bit of time into asking questions, the same as anyone else, and these questions are serious. This is a serious part of business. I think that the questions are even more important when time is involved, and we have about three weeks before people are going to be kicked out of their quarters. I've asked the minister and he's evading the question. The government side is making jokes and having a good time. We're trying to co-operate with you. I ask a question, I get no answer. I would like to know what you are doing in question period when you rule out of order on a question that is new, and say that it was taken on notice.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think, hon. member, the Chair has your point, and perhaps we could sit down together and clarify the matter for you satisfactorily, rather than to take the time of the House. Is that agreed?

MR. BARNES: Well, we'll see what happens.

MR. SPEAKER: I thought it was agreed that we proceed.

MR. BARNES: This is a different matter. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask leave, if the House is agreeable, to call resolution 12 standing in my name on the order paper, as a matter of urgency.

Leave not granted.

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.

[ Page 1308 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before starting I would remind all members that we are on a motion and the motion is that the salary of the hon. the Premier as provided for in vote 5 be reduced by $27,997 to the sum of $3. That is the motion we're discussing.

MR. SMITH: Thank you for the reminder, Mr. Chairman, because I was about to say at the start of my remarks that I'm aware of the fact that we're on a motion to reduce the salary of the Premier of this province, and that I wish to devote my remarks to the reasons why I would not support such an irrelevant motion.

As I recall in the debate that has taken place, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) introduced the motion to reduce the Premier's salary and went into a great harangue about the reasons why the Premier had failed in his responsibilities to the province and to the people of the province because of the oil and gas industry. I'd like to suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the members of the House, that to suggest the Premier of the province has a prime and personal responsibility for each and every portfolio of government is a completely irresponsible assumption. It may have been a tactic designed by the NDP in lieu of any constructive debate during the Premier's estimates or anything that would have lent some credibility to the arguments that they advanced.

But I think that the thing that is the most revealing to me is a remark made by the first member for Vancouver East - not in the House, but outside the House - immediately after moving the motion to reduce the salary of the Premier to $3. What did the hon. member have to say to the press concerning the non confidence motion? "Macdonald said in an interview outside the Legislature: 'The nonconfidence motion to lower the Premier's salary to $3 was a bit of fun, but designed to make a serious point."' What was the serious point, Mr. Chairman? We haven't heard it. We haven't heard any debate from the opposition side of the House that would lend any credibility to the mover or the seconder or to those people who support the motion that is before the House this afternoon - not one thing. It was frivolous to the extreme.

The person who seconded the motion, even though there was no need to second the motion which was presented to the House - the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) - in opening his remarks concerning the motion that's before us said this: "I take pleasure in seconding the motion to reduce the Premier's salary because the Premier answered no questions of significance whatsoever." Mr. Chairman and hon. members, that statement presupposes that questions of significance have been asked by some hon. members of the opposition at some point in time during the whole debate which has taken place surrounding this motion. I haven't heard any debate taking place in support of that motion which is worth mentioning.

Mr. Chairman, what we have had in the place of debate by the opposition is a typical opposition harangue - uncoordinated, irrelevant, asinine, a mish-mash. There was nothing of substance to support the claim that they have made that the Premier's salary should be reduced. It is probably the worst debate - it is and it has been the worst calibre of debate - on the part of the opposition that I have witnessed in 11 years in this assembly. Believe me, I thought I'd heard some irrelevant debate in this chamber in the last two and a half years, but this has to be the greatest non-debate that we have ever had in this chamber. It has to take first prize.

I challenge any thinking member of this House - and by their performance I think I should exclude the members of the opposition from that category - to examine the transcript carefully and then show me just one reasonably intelligent argument articulated by the benches opposite which touched even remotely on the Premier's responsibility under vote 5. In place of debate we have witnessed an opposition diatribe.

It's been devoid of content. It's barren, it's been disjointed and it's been shallow, conjured up, I'm sure, by a party in desperation, by an opposition party which have demonstrated time and again by their actions in and outside of this House that they have developed an expertise for substituting personal attack and character assassination for reasoned argument or debate. Let it be on their heads, hon. members; let it be on their heads.

For me and from the position that I occupy as a member of this Legislature, I have great pride in supporting the Premier's salary and the programmes that have been advanced by the Premier and the members of his cabinet. For three and a half years I had the misfortune to argue with the then Minister of Highways and the Highways ministry concerning an arterial highway programme for Fort St. John that was long overdue. It had been promised for years, was promised again for three and a half years during the administration of the NDP and not one thing happened.

Do you know the only thing that happened? The then Premier of the province said to the then mayor of Fort St. John: "If you support me politically, that arterial highway pro

[ Page 1309 ]

gramme is going to get done. No problem about it." So the then mayor of Fort St. John was taken in by that promise. He joined the NDP and almost ran as a candidate in the last election. That was the only smart move that he made because both the mayor of Fort St. John and the then Premier of the province were defeated. So the highway programme didn't get off the ground but it has in the last two and a half years. It's two-thirds completed. It's a multi-million dollar programme and it will be complete by the middle of this summer.

I received many promises from the Minister of Highways concerning the Fort Nelson-Fort Simpson road. That's all 1 ever got - promises - for three and a half years. The first year that this government replaced the NDP, that programme went ahead. It was continued last year. There's a continuation of the programme going on this year. Before long, we will reach Fort Simpson, or our portion of the road between Fort Nelson and the Fort Simpson border. A hovercraft has been ordered and will soon be delivered to make a river crossing in anticipation of a bridge going in in two years time. These are the type of constructive programmes that have come about as a result of a Premier that cared and a cabinet that cared and a collective will to get the north moving again.

From the position that I occupy, it's perhaps a little easier to see than for most, but all one has to do is go into the north country and see what happened in terms of oil and gas exploration within 60 days after the present government took office.

MR. MACDONALD: That was our programme.

MR. SMITH: Ha! Your programme was a disaster, Mr. Member, an absolute disaster. You almost killed oil and gas exploration in the Peace River country. It's $12 million something to brag about as compared to $120 million a few years later, just for the right to go out and explore? Don't talk nonsense, Mr. Member. You were a disaster as a minister in charge of energy in this province and I'm sorry to say that you've learned very little since your defeat, very little about energy resources in the province of British Columbia. So don't try to feed me any flim-flam about what happened in the oil and gas industry. I know where it's at and 1 know what happened during your term of office and what's happened since.

We've had a great increase in recreational facilities attributed to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) and his predecessor, the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , who held that portfolio for a little while. In short, in three and a half years of the previous government all 1 ever received was promises but no action. In two and a half years under the present administration led by the Premier of the province, I've got more action than the NDP.... Well, they didn't do anything. Every major programme that we have asked for has either been completed, partially completed or is on the way in the north. That's an accomplishment that we can be proud of, an accomplishment that we feel to a great extent has to be a contribution made by the ministers of the Crown and the Premier of this province.

That's why I say the motion is a facetious one; it's irrelevant. It's one that should never have been moved. I'm sure that the opposition members, if they were to talk to you and I privately, would say they wish they'd never got into this programme and moving this motion because they know that it's become the 'greatest embarrassment that has happened to them this session.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Omineca.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, I think that if you would refer to Beauchesne and your own ruling of just a couple of days ago....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you're quite correct. However, this debate has been prolonged for a great deal of time and the ruling has not changed. The first member on his feet was the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) . There will be plenty of time this afternoon to recognize you.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you're not going to take advantage of the Chair by being....

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, here we have members getting up and claiming that we're delaying debate, and yet you're only recognizing government members. Let the record show that.

(Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, Madam Member, I can read you the quotations from May, and I'm sure you've heard them before.

(Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. KEMPF: I'd appreciate it if you'd read them again, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 1310 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd be delighted to, hon. member. On page 415 it says: "When two or more members rise to speak, the Speaker shall call upon the member who in rising in his place is first observed by him." That's the 19th edition.

MR. NICOLSON: And....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if you wish me to read the whole chapter, I will, but I would suggest that when you have some time you can come up here and borrow my book, or you can wait until some other time. I have read it into the record two times this session, perhaps three times.

MR. KEMPF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It would appear that the member is going out to get his crying towel again.

Mr. Chairman, I too rise in this debate to speak against this motion, and in so doing I want to do two things. Firstly I want to voice my disgust at the type of debate which has taken place in this House, as did the member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) , particularly from those opposite in the official opposition during the estimates of the Premier and now during this absolutely frivolous and pathetic vote of non-confidence.

I have been reluctant to enter into this debate, for to do so is to acquiesce to the type of deterioration which that official opposition is trying to bring about in this chamber. It's shameful and it's totally irresponsible. here they are, in what is supposed to be the most respected and highest court in this province, acting like a bunch of irresponsible and badly behaved school children. Again, I say, it's shameful and personally I'm sick to death of the entire situation. For 10 days now - and in fact for the last six weeks - the level of debate in this chamber from that side of the floor has been a disgrace. And now we see before us being debated a motion to reduce the salary of the Premier, as the member for Vancouver-Point Grey said last night, at a terrible additional cost to the taxpayer of this province.

I wonder if the official opposition realizes that because of this ridiculous motion we have already spent more than the salary of the Premier for this whole year. It's ridiculous and it's totally irresponsible. They were bad as government, but they're even worse as opposition. But I guess that's part of the socialist experience. Reduce the Premieres salary indeed!

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: No. Sit down and I'll have my say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KEMPF: I want to tell the hon. members that the people of my constituency think it's a frivolous motion, and they don't think much of you, either, Mr. Member. They know that our present Premier is heralded all across this nation as being one of the best Premiers in all of Canada. They know also what this government with this Premier's guidance has done for them as citizens of this province. I have no need to go through that lengthy list once again in this chamber. It's all on the record and it's all very well known by the people of British Columbia.

I was amused the other day by the Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) - who is not in his chair again today - when, during part of his rhetoric, he made fun of the fact that our Premier is a workaholic. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the people of British Columbia, and in particular the people of my constituency, do not poke fun at that. They know that this Premier and this government have had to work virtually day and night to return this province from the socialist experience. It's an experience that they never again want to see in the province of British Columbia. The problem was, hon. members, those socialists, and in particular the member for Prince Rupert, did not know what work was in government and they still do not know what work is in opposition. It's very apparent from the level of debate Emanating from that side of the floor. It's very apparent that they still don't know what work is. But the people of this province do. They know and respect hard work and accountability, and they know that that is what this Premier and this government stand for. Mr. Member, you don't know what that is. The people of this province will show that understanding at the polls, Mr. Member, whenever the Premier decides to go to the people. And, Mr. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) who also is not in his seat this afternoon I'm sure that, when that time is, you for one as a member of this House will be sorry.

The members opposite speak of the common people of this province. Well, I don't consider any of the people of this province common, not one of them.

MR. MACDONALD: Who said that?

MR. KEMPF: You did. Many of you over there said that.

[ Page 1311 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Quote my words.

MR. KEMPF: You talk all the time. You don't even know what you talk about.

MR. CHAIRMAN. Order, please, hon. member. Please address the Chair.

MR. KEMPF: I don't consider any of the people of this province as being common. They are a great people and they live in a great province, a province which is rich, firstly, because of its people, a province rich in natural resources and a province which now truly has strong leadership in this Premier. And we'll keep it that way. Reduce the Premier's salary indeed!

In comparison to that former socialist, has been Premier, who wanted his vote of nonconfidence debated merely to satisfy his jumbo-sized ego, our present Premier's salary should be doubled, hon. members. We on this side of the floor know that and the people of the province of British Columbia know that. That is why, Mr. Chairman, I will register my negative vote on this frivolous motion.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few comments on the motion before the House. The member for Omineca summed it up very well and I'm sure he speaks for the majority of people in the province. Certainly the citizens of Richmond agree - with the reference to those people in Omineca - that this is indeed a frivolous motion. It's a waste of the time of the House, as is much which occurs in these chambers, unfortunately.

The suggestion that the Premier of the province should be censured by way of a salary reduction is perhaps based on tradition, the tradition of an opposition who have nothing positive to say about anything and who cone up with a cute little slogan about a three-dollar bill and reduce the salary to that level, hoping they will pick up some type of a headline or a cute comment in a column. But apparently even that has been missed by most of the news reporters, who recognized what it was all about - just a little bit of fun.

The most important factor, I suppose, that a Premier of the province my be called upon to possess is an ability to transmit confidence to people outside of the province - and confidence to those who reside within British Columbia - confidence which was lacking in this province during the reign of the former government when they were "in power, " as they so often like to say, confidence which is absolutely necessary if we are to attract people who wish to invest, develop and progress in British Columbia.

About 10 days ago I had the opportunity of responding positively to an invitation for the opening of a new plant in my constituency of Richmond. It's not the largest plant in the world, but it's a substantial investment of more than $10 million, and the people who were involved in it at the highest possible level, the chairman of the board or the president of the company who can- from a sister province for the opening of this plant, made very, very clear the reason it was opened in 1978 rather than earlier, as they had planned. The reason was very simple: they had no confidence in British Columbia prior to the last election.

They simply would not take the chance of investing that money into a food-processing plant because they had no confidence that that plant would remain within their jurisdiction, within their control and that the government of the day - the NDP - would not take a share. They wanted nothing whatever to do with British Columbia at that time. Since the election and since this Premier has taken office, their confidence has returned and they've returned with a substantial investment and jobs for the people in Richmond.

The private sector of the economy is responding very positively to the very positive leadership of our Premier. But it is not only the private sector that is responding in a positive way. Even those who work for the government at the municipal level, regional district level and every other level of government we have in this overgoverned province have confidence when it comes to public works.

In my municipality of Richmond, one of the great problems faced by that municipality when we became government was to do with the topography and drainage of Richmond. There were drainage problems which had not been resolved, problems that were ending all development of any kind in Richmond, including residential development, and the point was reached that the city council of Richmond simply said: "No future development will be approved because we do not have the funds for drainage."

This government, because of the confidence in the Premier and the confidence in the people, was able to make an arrangement whereby Richmond was loaned money and they had the confidence to go ahead so that once again all of that building is permitted, the planning is approved, and the homes are being constructed. Industry is being established because the problem has been resolved. They have the confidence that they can continue to build because they know that the agreements in which they have engaged themselves with this govern

[ Page 1312 ]

ment will be honoured, not cancelled in a little while after making the public announcement. It won't then be cancelled, pulled back.

We are slowly getting away from the moratorium concept in this province - moratoriums very often established because someone simply will not make a decision. So their decision is: "Let's have a moratorium. Let's not make a decision. Let's just freeze the situation." Coming into office this government found moratorium upon moratorium upon moratorium - if that's grammatically correct. When decisions were tough, when decisions had to be made, the former government's attitude was: "Let's have a moratorium on development. Let's have a moratorium on logging. Let's have a moratorium on everything." No decisions were necessary. These moratoriums, unfortunately, had a time limit and the time arrived when decisions had to be made. Because the Premier's leadership decisions are being made, and the decisions are not always to go ahead with what was being considered. Quite often the decision is no, don't go ahead. But a decision has been made and the people are no longer hanging in suspense. They can either move elsewhere and plan, or get on with their business. But they're not being hung up in this moratorium problem.

We have Grown lands in the province which cannot be used by the citizens because it's in some type of a freeze, some type of a moratorium, some type of a special area where there's some attraction. So they tie up 50,000 acres because of a physical attraction that could be preserved in an intelligent way. But no, a pressure group says: "No, don't you move in there." A moratorium is established. The loggers say: "Forget it, we'll go somewhere else where we can cut trees." The miners say: "Forget it, we'll go somewhere where we can extract the ore, or build a road; we'll go to the Yukon. " The Yukon, perhaps, was one of the only jurisdictions which was saddened by the defeat of that former government, because their claim-staking dropped and their mining activity dropped from the surge when the moratorium party was in government in British Columbia.

The facetiousness of the motion before us is well recognized by all citizens of the province, including those who sit across. We recognize that maybe, indeed, it is a little bit of fun. But the people of the province of British Columbia are having a great deal more fun now, because the people in British Columbia recognize that they have for the first time in a number of years - five years or so -a competent leader. Dignity has been restored to the highest office in this province, integrity has been restored. We are no longer laughed at. We are respected as a province and as a government, and the Premier is respected as a leader in this country. That's vitally important because we are, at this moment in time, entering into some very vital decision-making times in Canada's history. The leadership that's been offered by our Premier has been extended through the committees on Confederation, where British Columbia is now considered one of the key provinces as it relates to Confederation - how Canada is to be governed and what the future of Canada is to be. It isn't considered the joker in the deck anymore. When you have an opportunity of witnessing the nationally televised conferences of First Ministers, you don't have to feel ashamed or embarrassed when you see your Premier now, because he handles himself with dignity - as that office should be handled -not as the joker making wisecracks.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I'm sure the majority of members in this House will do the proper thing when the question is asked, and that frivolous motion will be quite rightfully defeated.

MR. NICOLSON: I don't intend to take very long, but the previous speaker talked about dignity in office. If by dignity in office he means arrogance, then I guess there's dignity in the office of the Premier. If dignity in office to him means contempt for the effects of levying an onerous burden of taxation on the people of the province, then I guess that that office has dignity. If dignity means driving this province into the ground, and not paying attention to detail and the disastrous economic consequences of closing down parts of this province - closing down Notre Dame University in Nelson, closing down the Railwest plant, closing down Swan Valley Foods, closing down all kind of areas in this province - then, Mr. Chairman, I suppose that that office has dignity.

Mr. Chairman, we have a Premier who has gone back east, made his great speech and gotten some national attention talking about bringing government spending under control, and yet he comes home and he increases the budget for public relations this year by 57.7 per cent. $7,951, 000 was spent on public relations and they are going to spend $12,546, 000 this year. I wonder why we need such an increase in public relations. Could it be that the dignity which is supposed to be attributed to that office just isn't selling to the people of British Columbia, that the people of British Columbia are looking a little bit further, a little bit deeper, and they're asking a lot of

[ Page 1313 ]

questions? I think they are asking questions about this Legislature; they're asking questions about the Social Credit Party and the New Democratic Party. Certainly they are reaching their conclusions and they're reaching their decisions.

They look at the increase in one ministerial department alone, the office of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) . Last year $83,100 was allocated for public relations and this year $434,000 has been allocated, an increase of 422 per cent. So one can realize that certain departments would have to increase in the budget for bringing certain new programmes to the attention of the public. In other departments there are no new programmes - they brought in their new programmes last year -but I see very little reduction in any of the budgets, except in Mines and Petroleum Resources and Recreation and Conservation.

I was rather amused to hear the comment of the member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) . He , talked about the oil rigs and exploration starting up within 60 days of Social Credit taking office, and yet another member said that all of the oil rigs had left the country when we were in office. Somehow, miraculously, those oil rigs got yanked out of the ground down in Texas or Venezuela or Australia or some other part or maybe in the Near East, and suddenly within 60 days they appeared in the oil fields around Fort St. John. I find that is rather interesting. I think that anyone who wants to take the trouble to read some of the business pages of November, December and January of late 1975 and early 1976 will see that those programmes were underway and had been negotiated by the previous government.

But let's not dwell on the past, let's talk about the present. I would like to take this very huge increase in the advertising budget and relate it to something else which the Premier has said. I said in an earlier debate that the Premier would sooner divide people -he would sooner set up-country against Vancouver - than come to grips with the issues in this province, and that has been at least one thread linking the old Social Credit Party with the new Social Credit Party. They'll divide north versus south and east versus west, men versus women and youth versus older, mature people, rather than face issues.

And here is a classic example. The Premier, during the debate, said:

"Recent events have made us aware that transit in the lower mainland is subsidized by the hydro consumers, not only in those areas, but in all parts of this province. Hydro users in Omineca, Prince Rupert, Fort St. John, South Peace River, North Peace River, the Cariboo and Kootenay And then he included Nelson-Creston and Rossland-Trail, which are served by West Kootenay Power and Light and by City of Nelson power.

"...have been subsidizing, unknowingly perhaps, through their hydro bills for a number of years the cost of transit. Those transit costs were accelerated by actions taken by the government already outlined in this House by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing."

So the Premier's type of solution when we have a very serious transit problem is to say that the interior - and that's where I classify myself; certainly he included my riding here - has been subsidizing the lower mainland. Mr. Chairman, would it not have been much more positive had the Premier said that for $3 million ... ? You know, they might not have increased the PR. They might not have increased it from $7.9 million to $12.5 million, an increase of $4.5 million. Instead of that increase in the PR budget of $4.5 million, could we have not been more positive and could we have not come up with a better solution than setting the interior versus the lower mainland to divert them from the real issue of transit?

I'd like to read a letter which was sent out to the chairman of the regional board and the Regional District of Central Kootenay. I know that these letters went out to every regional district in the interior. It said:

"Dear Mr. Chairman and board:

"As you are aware, over the last year or so there has been a significant expansion of transit system outside of the two metropolitan areas. There are now 14 systems with over 100 buses in operation. You can appreciate our first priority is to ensure the successful operation of these system ."

Well, the ones that are outside the metropolitan areas, Mr. Chairman, were brought into operation under the NDP.

"Your regional district is one of 29 jurisdictions which have been expressing interest in establishing a transit system. If we were to proceed, there would be an additional requirement for 150 buses and an annual subsidy of $2 million to $3 million."

Well, what would the people sooner spend $4.5 million on - PR, or maybe $2 million to $3 million on a subsidy towards providing transit so that people - I know in my riding it would be elderly people - could be served all the way from Kaslo into Nelson, or inter

[ Page 1314 ]

city trips between Trail and Nelson? I'm sure that places like Salmon Arm, Chase, Celista and Kamloops, and other areas between Burns Lake and Vanderhoof, and many other areas, could be served by a type of public transit.

This letter was signed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) , and we have, in his own hand, proof that to serve the requirements of all of these regional districts, $2 million to $3 million in subsidy....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Read all of it.

MR. NICOLSON: Do you want me to read the rest of it? I've read one half of it:

"The present financial and legislative capacity of the transit services division of this ministry is clearly not capable, with its existing responsibilities, of handling this expansion. I am hopeful that certain changes can be effected in the months ahead. I would then be in a position to respond to your request this fall.

"I know that this timetable may be disappointing. However, I am sure you will agree that adequate staff and financial resources are essential to successful implementation.

"Thank you for your forbearance in this matter."

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing came in a little bit late, but I am referring to statements made by the Premier in which he said that the transit in the lower mainland is being subsidized by Hydro customers. 1 don't dispute that, but I do say that the positive way of responding to that inequity is not to somehow make the people of Vancouver the villain of the piece. The positive way to respond to that would have been for that minister in charge of transit to have maybe jumped up and spoken on its behalf for that kind of money, the $2 million to $3 million. When we look at the priorities here of increasing one item in the budget by 57.7 per cent, I'd like to see a referendum on that. I'd like to see the Premier hold a referendum as to whether or not people feel that there should be an increase of 57.7 per cent on PR.

Mr. Chairman, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) made a very good point. I'd like to see a referendum held on the point made by the member for Omineca. He said we shouldn't be reducing the Premier's salary to $3, we should be doubling it. I'd like to see a referendum held on that, and if the referendum fails, I'd like to see the Premier call an election.

I think that that would be a very interesting way of testing the way that the people of this province feel about some of the fiscal priorities of this government, the posturing, and what they consider to be dignity in office - whether it is ducking out of meeting with people in an open and public way with a series of well-advertised public meetings with full, one-hour question periods following, Mr. Chairman. I think that that is the type of direction and that is something that this Premier has not done and will not do. And for that reason he is relying on the old clichés, the old ways - divide and conquer. Try to set people from the north against the people of the south, blame everything on Vancouver when you're speaking in Nelson or Fort St. John.

Mr. Chairman, I just say that that isn't good enough. We've got a lot of flim-flam. It's obvious we're going to get a lot more. We're going to have an increase in PR of almost 60 per cent if this budget is followed and if this addition is followed. I have gone to the trouble of adding this all up. I'm sure that the Premier was not presented with this information, and I would hope that he might reconsider the amount that is being spent on that. When one considers how much he spends on PR in his own immediate office, when he's surrounded himself with about four people whose sole duty is to look after his own press relations, then, Mr. Chairman, I don't know if there's much hope for that either.

So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your attention. It's great to be recognized in this debate.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the seriousness, the weight and the importance the opposition attributes to its own motion is certainly noticeable today when at this very second, as I am speaking against this motion, there are four members of the opposition sitting opposite - four members, and one is leaving, making only three. Let it be recorded that it is so serious and so important to the opposition that they cannot stand to be in the House when the truths of the government side are being recorded. Let it be known to the people of the province of British Columbia that they're so chicken to hear about their past record that they won't stay in the House.

Let it be recorded that today only three of the official opposition are here, and there isn't even a Liberal opposition member or a Conservative opposition member on the seats opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're having a caucus meeting.

[ Page 1315 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak against the motion. I can't think of a more frivolous motion. The attendance by the opposition certainly pays tribute to that. They themselves know it is frivolous. It has been recorded by the eastern press, by the western press, by leaders in business, by politicians across this country, by citizens of this province that the one leader in Canada who has brought and restored credibility to government is the Premier of this province at this present time.

I really have to laugh when they talk about public relations campaigns because that is all that the three and a half year administration did. They spent money to try to buy the votes of the people of British Columbia. If they talk to us about public relations campaigns, Mr. Chairman, let me tell you that the Dunsky disasters, the people sitting opposite, spent $80,000 to design - not to produce anything for the people of British Columbia - a logo to make their British Columbia government under the NDP look good. That surely wasn't the kind of expenditure that the people of British Columbia wanted. They told them so in 1975 and they told them loud and clear.

We talk about public relations. In front of me I have a book that was produced by the then Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. I believe this is the same minister who, by virtue of the people of the Nanaimo area and the people who support his party by feeding tax dollars into the lottery or the bingo area of the NDP headquarters in Nanaimo, is now in the research department of the NDP - the former member for Vancouver East and the former Minister of Lands. There were 880,000 copies at approximately a cost of $157,000 ordered just within a few hours or a few days of the election of 1975. At that time, inside the cover they say that it's a quarterly publication. This was the first publication and they weren't able to do it any longer after that because, miraculously, the government changed hands. But it was going to be mailed free and it was sent to every home in the province, a slick publication: "Land, B.C. Resource Magazine." If it had been sent out four times a year, that would have been $650,000 a year approximately.

It's funny, but that former Lands minister was so articulate, so great in his handling and management of the affairs of the people's money of this province that when we took over government and had a look at the books, we found out that he didn't even have financial authority for the printing of "Land" - not even the authority.

Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that in this government, our Premier has brought credibility and stability to the province of British Columbia after the havoc wreaked by those members opposite while they were in government. I want to take just one industry, the ski industry.

Now the member for Rossland-Trail has just spoken and he's left the House. But let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that in his particular constituency, there is a great industry in this province called the ski industry. It wasn't developed under the members on the NDP side of the House. He had an opportunity as a former minister of this House to have brought the ski industry ahead instead of to its knees. But the potential of the ski industry in this province is incredible. It is because of the leadership of our Premier that there are going to be many, many ski areas in this province opened up.

The member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis) , under the Premier's leadership, has brought forward a programme of modern highways of the air which are going to bring airstrips and airways into all of the hinterlands of this province to open up ski areas. 1 predict that there will be hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars which will be invested in this province in après-ski and ski facilities in the province of British Columbia which will make the ski industry of British Columbia one of the greatest in the world. We have the greatest mountains in the world; we should have the best resources in the world, and we're going to have them. That's because of the leadership that we've had from this Premier.

We have seen leadership to bring forward the potential for the province which is a contrast to the kind of leadership that we had between 1972 and 1975. Let me just say this to you, Mr. Chairman. In just this past year in this province, we have seen confidence returned in every industry, in every walk of life; we have the citizens of our province confident that we have hope once again.

It's not at all inconsistent that the NDP would bring forward a motion that is so negative. It is not inconsistent with %.hat they do, how they live and how they operate in terms of their political party. There's nothing positive about that side of the House, and I'm sorry for them because we've got a great and positive province. I really feel for the citizens of this province who cannot be positive and look forward to a future for our young people in this province and portray it the way it should be. Always with the NDP the cup is half empty; it's never half full.

The cheapest shot of all, I think, has been

[ Page 1316 ]

this kind of a motion that has been brought to the floor of this House against a leader of our party and the Premier of this province who has shown the leadership he has.

I'm going to tell you that last year in the province of British Columbia, 1977, the people on the other side of the House kept telling us what a bad year it was going to be. It was going to be a terrible year; people weren't coming to British Columbia. Obviously they didn't want them to come to British Columbia. Even as recently as January or February of this year, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) tried to tell people that Captain Cook shouldn't even be celebrated 200 years after he set foot on these shores because, really, there was something wrong with Captain Cook. The member for New Westminster would like to surround it with a negative programme ; he'd like to do that.

But last year in this province, 1977, we had the highest increase in tourism of any province in Canada, according to the Canadian government office of tourism. And let me say this to you, Mr. Chairman: that took leadership from all of this side of the House, because it said to all of those people on that side of the House that didn't want anything to work that we're going to make it work. Why, they even tried to make it negative to smile in the province of British Columbia. They don't even want people to smile. These are cheap shots -a cheap kind of political manoeuvring in order to try to regain the confidence the people of British Columbia had in that party in 1972 when they sent them to government.

Let me say this to you: there are many, many things that we found when we came to government which would be a shock to the people of British Columbia if they knew the mismanagement and the incredible ineptness that had gone on for three and a half years. And yes, we're workaholics in the Social Credit Party and on this side of the House. I'm going to tell you, we're workaholics. It took a band of workaholics to clean up the mess that they left; it sure took that, and it's going to take a lot more. I'm going to tell you what we have going for us. We've got the confidence of the people of the province of British Columbia in a Premier who has over this past two years shown himself to be a great leader of this province, shown himself to be one of the greatest leaders in Canada, and is recognized as such.

We have the proof of leadership that has been written by other people who view us, other countries, other people in other parts of the province, other people in other parts of the country. The proof of leadership is accountability and credibility and leadership which this Premier has shown in bringing forward quarterly reports for the people of British Columbia. How confident was that side of the House when they wouldn't even let the people of British Columbia in on the financial picture and called a provincial election at the height of winter? How confident were they? We talk about lack of confidence; we talk of lack of credibility in this motion. How credible, how confident were they when they called an election in the middle of winter?

I'll tell you, we have the confidence built by this Premier: quarterly reports, an auditor-general for the first time in the province of British Columbia, an ombudsman for the first time in the province of British Columbia. I'm going to tell you, that takes confidence. Crown corporations' Reporting Act - that takes confidence. I'll tell you what it takes; it takes a leader who doesn't mind the accountability and the scrutiny of the people of British Columbia, that's what it takes.

Mr. Chairman, we're not afraid of opening up the books; we haven't been afraid of opening up the books. We have shown it and we have seen it in leadership from this Premier. We have shown it in leadership from this govern--ment. I feel so very sorry for the official opposition that they don't have anything more constructive in their criticism or in their opposition. I always thought, Mr. Chairman, that the official opposition of this House should have the responsibility and take on the responsibility of true opposition in a constructive way to assist not their party but to assist the people of British Columbia. That's the kind of constructive opposition that we're expecting.

I'm going to tell you this, on this side of the House we're not going to uphold a motion which is so frivolous that that side of the House is not serious at all about. It's a game. They just put a motion on the floor of the House and then they go to coffee, it's so serious.

I'm going to vote against this frivolous motion, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CALDER: Mr. Chairman, this motion of non-confidence in the Premier by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is absolutely contrary to the economic activities in my constituency. I couldn't find myself supporting this motion because of the work that is presently going on in the constituency of Atlin. I might as well state right now that on behalf of those fine people in that northwest riding, I'm in support of the work of the Premier, the ministers and the government. I'm just going to

[ Page 1317 ]

have to vote against this motion.

Relating to the remarks yesterday of the Minister of Education, it's interesting to note that we are spending the people's money to the tune of $60,000 a day. Do you know that this is the twelfth day that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has held up this vote with the introduction of this motion? It now totals about three-quarters of a million dollars. This becomes a serious matter mainly because there hasn't been any constructive debate from the other side of the House. I find this quite serious when you think of the amount of money we are spending on this absolutely useless motion by the opposition.

I couldn't think of supporting this because this motion is contrary to the establishment of the air ambulance service in my constituency, a service I have fought for. I might as well tell you that I'm not bragging, Mr. Chairman, but I have been solely advocating this very service ever since 1950. All these years a lot of people have been supporting me in my riding on that one particular issue.

The other day I just couldn't believe my ears when the Leader of the Opposition was getting up there, pale as he is - the old paleface - yapping away and claiming credit for this service. I couldn't believe it.

I'm surprised that the former Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke) didn't enter into the debate. He knows better. I give him credit for establishing the principle of air ambulance service when he introduced the pilot programme in Stewart, and that was as far as the opposition went on this service. Believe me, I followed it. After all, I was the sole advocate for this service. There isn't anybody on this floor who can deny that.

To hear somebody replying to a certain question by giving search and rescue figures.... In 1974 this service was established in Stewart as a pilot programme. Because there wasn't very much money spent on that service in 1974, in 19751 requested that it be extended to include the more isolated areas of Telegraph Greek and Iskut and Dease Lake. I wasn't lucky on that one. I got lucky in Stewart.

I give credit to Mr. Cocke. He tried his best and at least he recognized the principle. But the establishment of air ambulance service was provided by this government through this present Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) . I don't want to hear any more remarks on this matter. This is one member who has followed right to the full the establishment of air ambulance service in this province. I would like to thank the Premier, the ministers and the government for this service.

I couldn't support this motion because I'll go along with the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) - the word "confidence." The Atlin constituency accrued in the early days from the Klondike activities, the goldrushes, and so we have a mining situation in the Atlin constituency. It's mining territory. My gosh, when those royalties cam in, let me tell you, the exploration dwindled right down to about seven little companies all the way from 40. But by gosh, thanks to the work of the present Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and the government and the Premier, we're getting back to these companies in the exploration.

I couldn't support this motion because the government is spending, starting off last year, through the Premier and the government and the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, almost $40 million on road construction in the Atlin constituency. If I was to support this motion, if the constituents in the Atlin riding were to hear that I supported this motion, I'd be kicked out tomorrow. It's impossible. I couldn't do that. I just can't see myself supporting this motion because of the $40 million that is being spent from Kitwanga to Stewart, Terrace to Stewart, Stewart to Cassiar, Stewart to the Yukon border. By gosh, we're committed to paving a lot of this.

I was very interested just before the House commenced here for this present session when the RCMP statistics indicated to me, during my visit to Dease Lake, that the traffic on the Stewart-Cassiar road has increased by 30 per cent. That's tremendous. They also indicate that it's 30 per cent less on the Alaska Highway. It just goes to show you the activity on this road. And we are doing something about this road because it's an access to development economic-wise and $40 million. By jeepers, I'll tell you.

I couldn't support this motion on account of what relates to the road in that we now have provided an avenue by which the Cassiar Asbestos company is now going to divert every ounce of asbestos fibre from the seaport of Skagway into the seaport of Stewart, and the seaport of Stewart is now under construction. The devil will I vote against this motion, for God's sake, with that. We're doing everything in addition to the seaport and to the export of asbestos. We are presently negotiating with one or two companies in the forest industry with a real, sincere hope that nobody will leave Stewart in terms of the closure of the Granduc Mines. Of the 320 people we're talking about, we know that almost 80 people are going to remain. It means that only 240 to 245 transients may be leaving. But thanks to the company, a lot of then have been provided

[ Page 1318 ]

these homes and they would rather remain. We're hoping that these people are going to be provided with employment and we're doing our best to provide work for these people. I cannot see myself, with this negotiation, supporting this motion. Come on!

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, the Provincial Secretary also mentioned airstrips. I'm delighted to hear the Premier and the government state to this House that they would do something on airstrips, absolutely delighted, because this, in addition to the road, is access.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) yesterday.... You'll notice that I sat here and looked straight in your face when you were talking about the coastal.... I'm very serious about listening to his remarks because his city is involved in this, and I wanted to hear everything that he had to say. I go along with a heck of a lot of things that he said about this coast line, because it involves Stewart and Alice Arm and Kincolith in my riding. I think this is one of the reasons why we're upgrading and sometimes even paving and providing a beautiful access from Kitwanga to Stewart to assist those people.

In addition to that, the return trip of these barges that are going back into the seaport of Stewart on this asbestos situation is also going to assist with this freight. I'm very happy that at least we're going to do all our best to provide what the member said yesterday. We're not overlooking this. It's our main concern. The ministers and I are right on their tail on this particular aspect.

I want to say this, and please do not refute my remarks. As of two years ago, there's very little unemployment in the Atlin constituency. Anybody want to challenge that? Our policy in northern development is absolutely keen and we're hoping that this situation will continue.

To lower the salary of the Premier is a really disgusting motion. As a matter of fact, we should be increasing it. Just take a look at the budget. I'm rather embarrassed that we're paying the Premier the salary of a tenth rate baseball player. We should be increasing the top rate.

Don't forget the 55 boys here that play in the same ball game. I hope the Minister of Finance is listening very clearly. So, anyway, it has been a serious discussion and I hardly miss the discussions here, but I am one of those members who is very disappointed in the empty seats on the other side. You know, we've been accused of runaway. The leader hasn't spent very much time on the floor of this House. He wasn't even here to vote on the budget. The whole crowd over there has been runaway.

I would just like to conclude my little remarks here, Mr. Chairman. On this motion, you just have to compare the two leaders, the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition. There is just no comparison. I know what my constituents say. They're happy the way things are going and they are in support of our Premier.

I'm going to tell you one of the reasons why the Leader of the Opposition is not here. He fears the people at his back. Believe me, there is a leadership convention coming up on that side of the House and it's going to be a bloody one, believe me. They're absolutely disorganized on this very key point and that's why so much disorganization reflects in this House in delay tactics and everything else. I'm sorry to see this. There are some good, honourable men on that side of the House but their leader is the key to this disaster that we are witnessing on the floor of this House.

Mr. Chairman, I shouldn't say any more. On behalf of my constituents and in support of the good Premier, believe me, I will be the first to jump on my feet when you call the vote.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The Provincial Secretary mentioned it and the member for Atlin mentioned it:the lack of attendance on the other side of the House. I think every member on this side who rises in his place should, for the record, indicate how many people are in attendance on the other side of the House. They're up to four and they're quickly going down to three. And then there were none.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to stand up and speak on the calibre of leadership we have in this government in the Premier. I just want to touch on the Ministry of Agriculture for a moment and then make a few comments regarding my riding. In 1977, through the leadership of the Premier and this government, we signed a new $60 million ARDA agreement, which is a five-year commitment to agriculture in this province. That's a commitment to help an industry grow and prosper, and it indicates what can be done with good leadership.

We also embarked on a monumental study. The Select Standing Committee on Agriculture took on the task of finding out where our problems lie in agriculture in this province. And it's through leadership such as the Premier's that, when the results come down, it will indicate how we can plan properly for the future of agriculture in this province - to create a

[ Page 1319 ]

foundation for agriculture in this province in order that we can build a better agricultural industry and have no more "Swan Valleys." We have a commitment to agriculture in this province, as indicated in the throne speech and the budget speech. This government recognizes the value of that industry and the leadership of this government has spoken out very strongly for the agricultural industry in this province.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to touch for a moment on my riding, and I think all other MLAs have covered areas of their ridings. Sometimes we forget, when we talk about budgets -whether they be Health or Education, and we talk in billions of dollars - that it takes good leadership, leadership such as the Premier has given, to cover off some of those small items. There we don't talk billions of dollars, but they're important items for small communities in this province. I can think back to attending an opening with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) at a medical clinic in Rock Greek - a very small community, but this party thinks of those small communities and helps them throughout the province. So when we get the comments from the opposite side of the House that we're car dealers and millionaires, go through the ridings, hon. members, and look at the work that is done in those small communities, those backroad communities, because this party is concerned about all the people of this province - young and old, rich and poor - all people.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, the roads were falling down - and that's another comment I'd like to make to the good Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) . In 1977, through the capable leadership and the efforts of the Minister of Highways, $8 million were spent in highway construction in Boundary-Similkameen to improve the roads in my riding, and I think that's a tribute to this government and to the leadership of this government.

And let me touch on another thing, which is the Corporation Capital Tax Act and the amendments that have gone through or are going through in the Act. In my riding, I would suggest that I have in my riding more family motel operations than any other riding in the province. And there are a lot of small businessmen and small corporations. Through the leadership of this Premier and this government we have amended that Corporation Capital Tax Act in order that those small businessmen don't suffer this minor irritating tax that was in place, and I think that's appreciated by the tourist industry in the Okanagan Valley. And it has assisted a great many of those small-businessmen. So the members on the opposite side of the House, when they talk about big business and big corporations - the friends that we supposedly have -the record indicates the assistance we've given not just to those small communities, those backroad communities, but also to the small businessmen of this province. That's a good record and a record that that party over there couldn't meet.

Also in my riding we have a very small community, Hedley, which was almost a ghost-town in the past. Thinking back of the problems they had at Hedley with young people and the concerns that were in that community-and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) became involved and the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) became involved and the people of that small community became involved and, with assistance from the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, they opened up a sports facility there for their young people, a ball field and a skating rink -again, an effort to assist these small communities in this province.

I could go on and on, Mr. Chairman. I can tell you about the Broadacres residence in Grand Forks, which is for the mentally handicapped and which will be opening up in June of this year with the assistance that was given by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) . But with all these things that are done, I think we have to look to the calibre of leadership we have in this government and to the fact that you have to have that type of leadership if a government is to function and get things done - not like the previous administration, which used to talk about it and always said they were going to, but they never did. It's an indication of the type of leadership we have, the excellent leadership we have. And the motion that is on the floor, as other speakers have said, is a frivolous motion. There has been no content to the debate of that party on the other side of the House. They haven't got an issue, they can't find an issue and so they come forward with a frivolous motion.

The provincial economy of this province has been turned around. They know it, we know it and the people out there know it. More jobs are being created, unemployment is going down, the economy is on the upswing, and I think that again reflects on the type of leadership we have in this government.

What this motion really says is that the opposition has panicked. They really cannot find an issue, they've resorted to poor debate

[ Page 1320 ]

in this House, and they've resorted to this frivolous motion. Really, I think the people out there are beginning to wonder what is going on. Where is that opposition that's supposed to keep the government on its toes? Probably the best thing they could do, Mr. Chairman, in closing, would be to withdraw the motion so the people out there can understand that we're here to do the government's business - the people's business - as opposed to debating this type of frivolous motion.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I see we have the opposition up to five members now. I think it's very interesting that they should be practising getting along with three to five members because, if they're lucky, that's about the number of members they'll have after the next election in British Columbia. They're up to five - absolutely amazing.

Mr. Chairman, I have to stand and speak against this frivolous, ridiculous motion put forth by the hot-air gang on the other side of the House. My colleague, the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) , made a statement which I'm afraid I cannot agree with. He said that you cannot find gas in British Columbia without drilling. I tell you, we've found gas in the form of hot air emanating from the opposite side of the House for the last 12 days.

Our hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) a few moments ago made mention of the land magazine which was produced by the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. She was, of course, responding to the nonsense brought forward by the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) who was complaining about the money that our government spends on public information. Our government is not ashamed of its programmes. We have good programmes in this province and we feel it our responsibility to let the people of British Columbia know about those programmes. Yes, we are spending money to make the people aware, and we will continue to do so.

But that land magazine was the ultimate in political propaganda that I have ever seen in my life. That magazine - one issue - consumed the entire year's budget for our ForesTalk magazine which has been produced in this province for so many years, and which is a very informative, non-political, information educational tool for the people of this province, describing things about our forest industry. That former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources consumed one entire year's budget for ForesTalk to produce that political propaganda sheet which he entitled Land magazine. It is absolutely ridiculous for that member for Nelson-Creston to speak about this government spending money to inform the people of British Columbia about our programmes, right on top of the wasteful, political propaganda nonsense that was produced by that government for three and a half years.

Mr. Chairman, I won't speak for long, but I would like to mention some of the things which were said by a couple of the members in the opposition about the B.C. Resource Investment Corporation and the forestry based companies which will become a part of that corporation. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) in speaking yesterday said that his government stepped in to save Can-Cel from falling into the hands of American ownership.

MR. LEA: No, I didn't.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: That's what he said; read the Blues.

MR. LEA: No, I did not. You read them. I didn't say it.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: They're very proud about the success of Can-Cel. The only reason that Can-Cel has been successful was because of the hard-nosed directorship and management of that company refusing to be pushed around by the government of that day. They succeeded in spite of that government, and not because of them. And, of course, Mr. Chairman, the success of CanCel could have nothing to do with the quadrupling of the price of pulp during that first two years they were owned by the government. Probably not related in any way, shape or form to that.

I want to be more general about that government's acquisition of forestry-based companies, Mr. Chairman. They grabbed Can-Cel. They forced themselves into the Plateau Mills operation, into Kootenay Forest Products, and into Ocean Falls. They spread the tentacles of government monopoly and ownership into the forest industry, and the obvious and stated objective of that former minister was to eventually take over the entire industry. He told members of that industry coming into his office not to worry about their future because they were going to be government utilities eventually anyway, so not to worry about it. And that is the reason, Mr. Chairman, that there was absolutely no investment taking place in this province in the forest industry during the term of office of that government, I see we are now down to four members in the opposition.

That government did everything they could

[ Page 1321 ]

possibly do to discourage job-creating investment in this province, and they shattered the investment confidence of the entire world in British Columbia. There was nothing happening. The policies of our Premier today have changed that; they have turned the tide of that shattered investment confidence. Now people are investing in British Columbia and creating jobs and opportunities in this province for our people and ensuring the future of that very important industry. The policies of this Premier and of this government have done more to enhance the investment climate in this province than ever before in the history of British Columbia.

This province, Mr. Chairman, has the best Premier of any province in Canada, the best leader of any political jurisdiction in Canada or in North America. I think we should all be very proud of the actions that he has taken and the things that he has done to improve the lot of the people in this province. Investment in our resource industries was non-existent, in our forestry industry, in our mining industry, but it is returning. Right now we have a total of $1 billion committed to investment, dollars that are being spent by the industry in this province to ensure its future and to ensure jobs and opportunities for our citizens.

This ridiculous, frivolous motion is just another time-consuming tactic of the opposition because they are afraid to debate the real issues before this province today. Mr. Chairman, I will most definitely not support that motion.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief. I have just returned from Ottawa and two days of discussions with the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, the Hon. Andre Ouellet and his officials and officials from this ministry. Arriving at the airport at about 1:30 this afternoon, I was shocked and very disturbed to hear that this particular motion had been proposed by the official opposition.

I really wonder, as other members on the government side of the House must wonder, what the motivation is. Is it to draw attention from difficulties within that particular party? I think that perhaps it is, and others have spoken about that. How many have we now? One, two, three, four members of the official opposition and one member of the minority parties - five members of the opposition here debating this apparently significant motion as far as they are concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I said I went to Ottawa for a couple of days and, as all of us must from time to time, it is necessary to meet with Ottawa officials here or to travel to the nation's capital. But it is appropriate, I think, that I was reminded again this week, on the basis of a 48-hour visit, of the very high esteem with which our Premier is held across this country - without question, a man of national stature, a man who has brought British Columbia back into national and interprovincial discussions where we should have been during the NDP years, but where we weren't. The former Premier, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) , who is not in his seat, made good television entertainment, but I can watch Johnny Carson for that sort of thing.

But the documentation, the material which is prepared, the thought that goes into it, the skill with which British Columbia's position on a variety of issues is presented in national and interprovincial conferences is without parallel in this country. This Premier has gained, as I said earlier, national stature, and continues to identify British Columbia, to represent British Columbia across the country and in other parts of the world as a man of dedication, a man of imagination and a man who will be on the political scene for a good long time to come.

The Leader of the Opposition, who is still absent, reminds me, Mr. Chairman, whenever he has the opportunity, that I changed political parties. If he thinks that his remarks embarrass me or provoke me, they don't. They did in the first few weeks and months after that change in 1974, but I chose to serve with this man, the Premier of British Columbia, in opposition. That was the commitment that I made then and it's the commitment I make today in this debate. 1 say, Mr. Chairman, no regrets, not one regret, not one disappointment. If I had it to do over again, sir, I would do it in precisely the same way.

We have a Premier who has several qualities which I think are essential in leadership, be cause I could not serve under a man who imposed his will on his cabinet colleagues or on his caucus colleagues or, indeed, on other individuals in government. We have a man who has demonstrated, since we formed government, accessibility, a willingness to listen to varying points of view. But to take that point a little further, we then have a decisiveness, a seeking of the consensus, a willingness to hear ideas which may not appeal to him at the moment but which, in terms of the discussion of the moment, are important. Accessibility and decisiveness and recognition of the problems and the opportunities which face any government in any province at this particular

[ Page 1322 ]

time in Canada's history....

With respect to this ministry, I would point out, as I did in my participation in the budget debate, Mr. Chairman, that we have made more progress - not "I", sir; we, as government, all of us - in terms of financial sharing with local government than in the last 20, 25, 35 years, perhaps longer, transferring provincial revenues to local government, something which I, as a mayor of a large municipality for some nine years, sought, hoped for, but felt was not attainable. It was part of our Premier's campaign in the late part of 1975. It was part of this government's policy, and it was brought into force at the earliest possible time.

In Creston the other day, Mr. Chairman, attending the annual meeting of the association of Kootenay and Boundary municipalities -that's one of the area association meetings within the general umbrella or framework of the Union of B.C. Municipalities - we had four resolutions which will be forwarded to the UBCM and may or may not be forwarded to the provincial government following that annual conference of UBCM in September. There were four resolutions suggesting that the government should do certain things. The average from that particular area association, I'm informed, over the past years has been 18 or 20 or 22 resolutions. We're doing something right when we cut by that significant percentage the number of resolutions presented by local government to an area association.

I have spoken before, and other members have spoken before, Mr. Chairman, about shelter aid for the elderly renter. Occasionally, of course, we hear from the former government, the NDP:"Yes, we were going to do that. We had it in mind. We were starting work on it." The fact is they didn't deliver. This government delivered. It must be evident that they were going to. "We intended to do, we wanted to do...." We've heard that from the NDP so often in the time since December, 1975. This government and this Premier introduced - and the Premier in his particular case showed great enthusiasm for - that particular programme for SAFER, shelter aid for elderly renters. Again, I would remind the House that just a few weeks ago we had representatives from all provinces but one - and I believe the one was one of the Maritime provinces - in British Columbia to examine SAFER, to see if it could be introduced in their particular home provinces. That's the kind of leadership that we have in British Columbia. That's the kind of national recognition that we have in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I can't believe, as I could not believe when I left the aircraft today, that such a motion, a frivolous motion, would be presented by the official opposition. There is no doubt in my mind why it has been presented, and there's no doubt in my mind haw I shall vote.

MR. SHELFORD: Mr. Chairman, I certainly won't take long this afternoon. Certainly I want to say right at the start that I won't be supporting the motion because in no way would a motion such as this help the constituents up in Skeena. There's no question; it's very clear. It's a vote of non-confidence which, of course, if passed would cause an election. The people of my area certainly do not want an election at this particular time. They want the government to carry on and govern, and that's what they were elected to do. It certainly should be a year or so before we get on with an election.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Then I would say, in fairness, that first the people themselves will be the judge, not the members of this Legislature, and this vote of non-confidence is simply taking that away from the people. They elected this government for four or five years, and I think they have a right to expect that the government will govern for that length of time. I do not think the members of this House should decide that they want to run in an election in less than three years. I think it is completely ridiculous.

It is always easy to find fault with any government. I think any one of us could do that, and quite a number of us have. But there are many good things going on in my particular area, with quite a number of schools, hospitals and a new courthouse being planned that will start fairly quickly. And a new health centre is supposed to go in this summer.

The total building programme in Terrace is by far the largest in its history. It will be over $12 million this summer. There's already a big shopping centre and a construction with the walls up - over $6 million. There are two very large cafes, one that will seat 350 people, and a banquet room. The people of that area certainly do have faith in this government or they would not be carrying on with buildings of this nature.

This type of building is going on in all centres. There's another big shopping centre going in at Kitimat and several new buildings in Smithers. We also have the new regional highway district office in Terrace which services that whole north country and is of great benefit to ridings up in that northwest cor

[ Page 1323 ]

ner, such as Prince Rupert, Skeena, Atlin and part of Omineca. We don't have to go clear through to Prince George to make our wishes known to the regional highway office. This is the first time we've had a district highway office in that northwest corner and it's certainly a great asset. The highway building programme has been excellent and no one could criticize that in the least. We have resurfaced hundreds of miles of road; in fact, it was resurfaced the whole way from Hazelton to Terrace which is 90 miles in my own particular riding. They're doing a stretch on the Kitimat-Terrace highway this year.

It certainly needed it because all of this highway throughout that northwest was full of potholes because it had been left with very little work for the previous three years. There will be over $20 million spent on highways in my particular area. The member for Atlin covered that fairly well in detail when he was talking so I won't go into that. But it certainly is a great asset to that northwest and far better for the area than if a railway had been built from Terrace to the north. The road will open up more areas than the railway would. I think this is an excellent move on the part of the government. I hope later on it will be extended with a ferry connection from Tsawwassen to Kitimat so that British Columbia can take advantage of the pipeline supply to the north.

I would say Canadians generally are far too critical of their leaders. In my experience, when I was in Europe I never found any country that criticized their leaders as much as Canadians do. I think it's a great shame that we really do because we want to encourage people to go into leadership and we want to encourage our young people to get involved. It certainly doesn't make them feel too good when they either sit in this House or listen to the radio and hear members calling each other idiots and such and such across the way, and criticizing their leaders such as we've seen this last while.

I believe myself that any leaders that happen to be in this Legislature deserve a great deal more support and certainly need a great deal more support during these difficult times - because they are difficult. Let's face it, there are difficult times in every democracy around the world. And I think the more we tear each other apart in this place, we don't tear the other guy down; we tear ourselves down with him.

HON. MR. GARDOM: And the system.

MR. SHELFORD: That's right. I think we should be very, very concerned because there won't be MLAs sitting in this place if we carry on the way we're going because people will say: "The system is no dam good. Let's get rid of it." I think people in all democratic countries have to take a hard look at what they do about tearing their leaders down. I think that's what is wrong with our system because we have to tear the other guy down rather than building on top of what he's done. I think it's something we should all strive to do.

I would say this debate has certainly gone on far too long. I won't continue to make it that much worse because I believe this debate is a little bit like the day after a good party. Everyone puts their best into it. It was a very long discussion and like a good party, it's very difficult to remember what came out of it because anything that was good came out quite a while ago. So I think it's time we got on with the business of the people, first of all by defeating this motion, and got on with the work so we can get the session over and let the government ministers get out into the country and govern, which they were elected to do.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would like to take a few moments of the committee's time to express my views in opposition to this motion. The motion has been referred to as being frivolous, and there's no question that's right. But frivolous though it may be, the members of the committee should not misinterpret the purpose of the member for Vancouver East who moved this motion.

For a number of years in this House I have had an opportunity of watching that member and I know that he never does anything without a purpose. Principally, the purpose is to decide upon some glib statement that will catch a headline; then you build your speech or action in the House to make sure that is carried forward. That certainly is the case here as demonstrated by the remarks he made outside the House after bringing in this motion. He makes a mockery of this chamber and a mockery of his position as a member, and I think that the people of British Columbia are beginning to recognize that now.

But there is another more important reason that this motion is being brought forward today. Consider the course of this session to date and the performance of the members of the official opposition during the course of these sittings. Their debate on the throne speech was lacklustre; their debate on the budget was dismal; and their performance so far in the debates in estimates in this committee has

[ Page 1324 ]

been pitiful. Recognizing that that performance of that party is being recognized by the press and by those who attend to the business of this chamber, they decided they had to do something to resurrect their fortunes because, as the member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) pointed out, a leadership convention is on the horizon and there are some challengers for the position occupied by the member for Vancouver East, whose way was bought into this assembly.

I remember when they had the last bloodletting in that party. The present leader sat where the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) now sits. What an appropriate place for the first member for Vancouver Centre to sit. I suppose he selected that chair hoping that somehow or other natural and perpetual succession would give him an opportunity that would otherwise be denied him because of his lack of ability. There are, of course, a couple of others.

That opposition is so divided that from day to day they can't make up their minds what position they are going to take in debate and how they will address themselves to the business which is brought before this chamber. So they choose this opportunity to distract attention from their own lacklustre performance by criticizing the Premier of this province, and through him the government. Then when we rise with our opportunity in debate and having no opportunity until they made this motion, they mumble across the floor how we are delaying the course of the business of this House. Did they think that we would sit idly by and allow such a frivolous motion to be placed before this House without ensuring it was answered? It is a motion which is only fit to be answered by the way that I am sure it will be answered in just a few moments by a resounding defeat on the floor of this committee.

I must say there has been one aspect of the debate from those in the official opposition who have seen fit to support this motion which gives me trouble. It is a criticism of the Premier of this province for taking his proper position as a First Minister in this country. It is a failure on the part of the official opposition to recognize the significance of the position which was taken at the First Ministers' Conference in February of this year. It's a failure to recognize that the economy of this nation is bound up with the economies of all of the provinces, as well as the national government; that we don't have one economy in this nation but one which is different because of regional differences; that it's an economy which must be brought into adjustment at the national and regional levels if indeed the provinces are to discharge their responsibilities.

For the first time in a decade, the province of British Columbia has gone to a First Ministers' Conference prepared to offer constructive solutions to the problems which affect this province, the other provinces of Canada and the nation as a whole. For this, the official opposition would suggest that the Premier of this province should be subject to criticism. They suggest that he should have stayed home and looked after the affairs of this province. Well, they have been answered during the course of these debates when member after member and minister after minister has taken his place here to indicate the way in which the leadership of the Premier has enabled them to discharge their responsibilities and to attend to the matters that are important to this province, leaving nonetheless the time and the opportunity for the Premier to discharge that major role which he must have as one of the First Ministers in Canada, a role which he has discharged with such distinction that we now go to Ottawa and are greeted as no minister of British Columbia has ever been greeted before. He's greeted with respect and admiration not for the positions that we take but for the kind of government that we have brought to this province and for the confidence which we are restoring to this Pacific region of Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're a wrecking crew, all right.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, they're a wrecking crew. This motion is designed to be destructive and negative. I suppose that the NDP stands for the Negative Destructive Party, and they are certainly carrying out their mandate in that respect by introducing this motion.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think that adequate words can describe this kind of motion and the way in which the official opposition has attended to the debate on something as significant as this. I thought that the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) put it adequately: what this kind of motion does is to reflect upon the integrity of every member of this House and on the system. It would seem to me that perhaps really the purpose of this motion is to tear down the system which the member for Vancouver East speaks of supporting.

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order, is the member impugning my motives in moving a motion of non-confidence in this House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, perhaps it would

[ Page 1325 ]

be in order if you would wait till the Chair recognized you.

MR. MACDONALD: No, if he's impugning motives, you have to do it right away, don't you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, hon. member, the first thing you have to do is have the Chair recognize the fact that you're standing on a point of order, because the Chair has not yet recognized you. Hansard actually didn't even pick up your remarks. Perhaps if I recognize you on a point of order, you'd like to proceed now. What is your point of order, please?

MR. MACDONALD: My point of order is that I had that faint suggestion in what the minister was saying that he was not attacking the motion, but impugning my motives in moving it as wanting to destroy democracy or tear down the system. Mr. Chairman, if he was addressing himself to the issues in the motion, I have no objection, but....

HON. MR. MAIR: What issues?

MR. MACDONALD: I will tell you, if you don't know. He shouldn't do that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, the minister perhaps could qualify.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We thank the member for Vancouver East for making perfectly clear what his motives are. I was only reflecting upon the consequences of the motion, which the member must well recognize. It's a fair conclusion for anyone to reach - not necessarily inside this chamber, but certainly outside - and those who would have given the careful consideration to the consequences of the action which you took with deliberate and calculated purpose.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that all members of this House reconsider their positions and vote against the motion.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to join the group of members who are engaging in a bit of fluff this afternoon. We moved a motion of no confidence, and none of those members have addressed themselves to the issues on which the motion was moved.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, which ones? None. No the issue was a serious one - it was resource giveaway. And what have we heard? We've heard sort of Speeches from the Throne: potholes have been filled here and this and that. All the cabinet and all the members get up to say what a great person the Premier is - obviously after a caucus meeting. Did they address the issues in the motion of non-confidence? Did the last member who just took his seat say anything about what we say is a massive resource giveaway in this province? Did he even refer to it? Did he bring any reasoned rebuttal of what we have said on the floor of this House? No, he impugned the motives of the member for Vancouver East, that's what he did. Now that kind of thing can bring the system down.

I have a constituent here who wouldn't like what's going on today. He couldn't believe this. You know, he comes home to read his evening mail and he puts on his slippers, he puts on his glasses and he sits in his easy chair and he stretches out and he has a paper addressed to him: "John Palmer, 3109 Vanness Avenue, Vancouver, B.C." - personally addressed. So he picks up this paper and he sees a big picture of the Minister of Recreation and Conservation with a very good-looking young lady beside him and "Purser Sam McGladdery enjoys a mouthful of cake during festivities...." But he's an NDPer. He's one of my supporters in Vancouver East, and I haven't all that many and I kind of .... So he says: "Yechh!" and puts it down and looks at the next piece. Then he picks up his next piece of mail on the same day and it's personally addressed to "Mr. J. Palmer, 3109 Vanness Avenue." The ZIP is the same. And he sees the Minister of Recreation and Conservation with a big smile and a pretty girl and a mouthful of cake and he says: "Yechh!" and he puts that down.

Then he picks up the next item of his mail. He believes that there's a businesslike government in the province of B.C., one that wouldn't spend public money on political propaganda. I mean', that's one of the things we've been led to believe in the last two years - a very efficient, bottom-line government, eh? So he picks up his third piece of mail. "J. Palmer, 3109 Vanness Avenue." He likes to see his name. Then he picks it up and he sees the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, a pretty girl, and a mouthful of cake and he says "Yechh!" He says: "I'm beginning to doubt whether that's an efficient government of businessmen over there."

MR. KEMPF: Is that the best you've got?

MR. MACDONALD: No, it's the best you've got. It's fluff.

[ Page 1326 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. MACDONALD: It's pure fluff to spend the taxpayers' money on that kind of political propaganda and disturb one of my constituents when he sits down in his easy chair and thinks he's going to have a decent evening. You spoil his evening, and it is the kind of fluff that we've been listening to on this side of the House for the last two days in answer to a serious motion - pure fluff and public relations and so forth.

You should not, Mr. Premier - through the Chair - use the taxpayers' money for what is obviously political propaganda. No, you shouldn't. Well, I do not know. The pictures are good.

What were the issues behind the motion, which none of these members addressed themselves to?I listened to them all. We asked, for example, why it was that, after two and a half years in office by a businesslike government, there was no coal policy, although you had stated to the people of the province in another paper, distributed right to every home at the cost of the taxpayers, that a coal policy had been enunciated for the province of B.C. But there's not a word over there about that coal policy.

What was enunciated? Is that a businesslike government to have no policy? Or are there a number of policies? Nobody said what it was. The Premier is going to get up now and tell us, is he? What is it? Is it a bidding system, Mr. Premier? Is it a policy of granting the licences on a first-come, first-served basis -

as the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) wants to do in the coal committee - for $1 an acre? Then they begin treading them around in the speculative market. They do not always get them to produce coal, you know. They get them to sell. It's like a licence to make money. BP had to spend, as I said, $30 million as a start-up before they could begin to do any exploration and drilling on the Sukunka-Bull Moose leases that they purchased from Brameda and Teck. That's the imposition. That's the kind of resource policy totally out of control that we're complaining about on this side of the House.

We didn't want to have to listen to all these speeches from the throne. And now they say: "Look, we took into the public treasury $195 million." The Premier says $140 million, but I beg to correct him. Your sale of gas and oil rights in the last fiscal year was more than $140 million. You've got $195 million. And they took that, which is a sale of rights to the capital of the province. You're selling off leasehold rights in oil and gas for a period of 30 years, and you've jacked up the field prices to the extent that you make a lot on the sale of your rights. But don't forget that's for 30 years and don't forget that in the meantime the consumers of the province of British Columbia have had passed onto them a bill from the increased field prices - and I say my figures are correct - of $120 million each year. Now that's a resource giveaway. There's no other way to describe it.

You say the motion is frivolous, do you, hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) ?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. It is.

MR. MACDONALD: Answer that. Donot lecture us, as the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) did, that we have no material in our speeches. We do not need a schoolboy's lecture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes, you do.

MR. MACDONALD: We need answers to questions as to how you are giving this province away unless you're stopped. And that's what this motion is about. Resource management is totally out of control, resource rights speculation in this province has never gone on as it is going on at the present time. There's the oil giveaway, the $38 million a year passed on to the consumers, the extra amount that you've passed on, as a government, to the consumers of the province of B.C. and haven't taken into the public treasury - one of your many additional imposts on the people of the province. You could name them, you could use all the fingers of your hand - and you'd have to start over - for the taxes and rates and charges you've increased while you abolished inheritance duties and resource revenue in this province.

Now one member got up - and I've forgotten who it was, Mr. Chairman - and he said the Premier is accountable. That's the very thing he is not. The second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) talked about the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation in this debate, and not one of those members got up to reply to this. Do you know what he even talked about? You didn't rebut him.

He said in respect to that company that there was never anything like the lack of accountability that is being exhibited by this government. He said, in effect - and I support entirely what he said - that you've taken assets built up under the NDP administration -Can-Cel, Plateau and so forth - and you've turned them over to a public corporation which the government wholly owns. He said that you've undervalued those assets, and there's

[ Page 1327 ]

good reason to believe it. We gave the reasons as to why they've been undervalued. You're going to sell them off and not answer questions in this Legislature about that company, which is wholly owned at the present time by the people of B.C. You won't even give us the salary of the chairman of the board.

Now do you call that accountability? That is arrogance. They're still public assets; they haven't been sold off yet to the multinational corporations, as they will be. I can see they're going down that stream. For a little while, they'll be B.C. assets and then they will end up as multinational assets and Canada will be sold off once again.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Read the Act.

MR. MACDONALD: I have read the Act. The incredible folly of that Minister of Mines is part of this motion because he's supported by the Premier - the incredible folly of someone in charge of the second most precious resource in the province of British Columbia, not reading his Act, which is the Coal Act, and saying, "These licences that might be given are for one year only, " when in fact they're for 21 years.

Mr. Chairman, that is the background of a giveaway; that is the background of resource mismanagement that we cannot afford in this province. That's why we moved the motion. All of you get up and say, "That's frivolous, " and none of you reply to the substantial points we made. None of you defended the Premier on his arrogant insistence on refusing to answer questions about the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation in this Legislature. I defy any one of you to get back on your feet, because on this kind of a motion you can get back on your feet, and instead of telling us about the potholes in your riding, tell us whether you really believe that the Premier of the province of British Columbia should refuse to answer questions about a wholly owned public company, owned by the Grown at this time, which has had transferred to it $151 million at least in British Columbia's assets. He won't answer questions about it. That has got to be the height of arrogance.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I haven't mentioned all of the issues. What I'm saying is that those issues were not rebutted by that giveaway gang across the aisle. None of them were rebutted in this debate and instead we've had fluff, fluff, fluff - the kind of fluff, fluff, fluff that three times this so-called business-like efficient government deposited at the door of poor John Palmer.

MR. LEA: The hon. first member for Vancouver East, I think, has pointed out justly that this motion is far from frivolous. It's a motion that says we lack confidence in the Premier because of the handling of natural resources in this province. The member for Vancouver East outlined the massive giveaway to the international oil companies in gas and oil. He touched on the massive giveaway in coal licences.

Is it frivolous, Mr. Chairman, for the opposition to ask the Premier to answer to this House why it is that more coal licences are going to be handed out - approximately a further 400,000 acres - when under licence at this moment are 600,000 acres which are producing approximately 10 million to 12 million tons a year, when those licences that are out there now are capable of producing approximately 35 million tons of coal, and why the government's own projections and industry's projections show that it will be at least 20 to 25 years before there's any need for more than 35 million tons of coal to be produced and shipped out of this province?

Mr. Chairman, there can be only one reason that the opposition can come up with as to why these licences are being handed out, and that further, some more are about to be handed out, alienating another 400,000 acres of coal land. As in gas and oil, it's speculative. British Petroleum just bought out some licences in the northeastern part of the province for $30 million. What did the people who held those licences originally and subsequently pay for those licences? We know that under the Coal Act now, you pay $1 an acre rental and you pay $3 an acre in the first year, $4 an acre in the second year and $5 an acre in the third year, and the licence is for 21 years, as long as that work is done.

If we don't need these further coal lands for our projected markets for at least 20 to 25 years, why is the government so anxious to hand these new coal licences over to Shell and Imperial and Denison now? All they have to do to hold those licences, so they can take advantage of the future prices of that coal resource, is spend a little bit of money. For one coal licence, which is a square mile - 640 acres - it will cost them $2,560 in the first year. You add on $640 for the second year and another $640 for the third year. Of that, it's only $1 an acre that comes to the province, so if 400,000 more acres are alienated, that means an increased revenue to the province of $400,000. But what are we losing in terms of the future? What would the private sector pay for those licences 20 or 30 years down the road? Is it the people of British Columbia who

[ Page 1328 ]

are going to profit when those prices for coal increase in the coming years, or are we going to hand those licences out now to the private sector so that they can take advantage of the windfall profits?

We say, in the official opposition, that the people of this province who own those resources should get the advantage of windfall profits from the resources. The Minister of Labour and other ministers and other Social Credit backbenchers have said it's a frivolous motion, that we shouldn't put that very serious question to the government and ask for an answer. We've posed the question: why do it now? Why hand those licences out so that the private sector can take advantage of future prices for British Columbia resources when we can hold those licences and the people of the province can be the people who are the recipients of those windfall profits? There is nothing wrong with profits, but why should not the people of this province be the people who get the profits, as opposed to international oil companies?

That is the question that we have for the Premier. The Premier has refused to answer those questions through the length of this debate. He has refused. He says they have a coal policy but he cannot tell us what it is. He cannot tell us and the people of this province what that coal policy is. He has sat there and refused to tell us what the coal policy is and yet he meets with the private sector of the coal industry and oil companies behind closed doors. They even ask the civil servants to leave while they discuss what is going to happen. And he says that this is a frivolous motion? We want to know what the government plans to do with the resources of this province that we, the people of this province, own, and they call it a frivolous motion.

As the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) says, they get up one after the other and say: "Gee, we really like the Premier a lot and we think he's giving leadership." Yet they will not answer the basic questions that are put forth in the motion. Why are they selling out our future? Why is this government selling\out the future of the people of British Columbia? Why are they participating in the biggest resource giveaway in the history of this province? That is the question and they call that question frivolous.

Mr. Chairman, I have just come across, in the last few days, another resource giveaway that's going on in this province that is as monumental as the two that we've talked about - oil and gas, and coal. I now have another one. I'm 90 per cent sure that I've got my facts but I'm going to spend between now and when the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates come up to nail down the other 10 per cent. I am positive that we have another resource giveaway in this province that is going to be as large and as expensive to the people of this province as the two that we've already mentioned. They call it frivolous. We demand answers, on behalf of the people of this province. They call it frivolous.

There is not one member of this Legislature on that side of the House who who would not ask those questions and demand answers, if that member were on this side of the House. And yet, because they are in government back bench, they feel they have no right.

You know, Mr. Chairman, government backbenchers are not government. They are free to ask the questions that they want to ask on behalf of themselves and on behalf of their constituents, the same as opposition members have the right and should ask those questions. They are not part of the government and they should be participating in this debate, asking that government the same questions we are, not taking their place and saying what a good guy the Premier is. Personally I like the Premier, on a personal basis. I find him charming, I find him witty. But that is not the question in this House. The question is: why are the Premier and his government participating in the biggest natural resource giveaway in the history of this province? Why will they not answer for it, Mr. Chairman? Why do they try to hide the public's business from the public? The fact that they are trying to hide the public's business from the public is reason enough for a motion of non-confidence in that Premier and in his entire government.

Mr. Chairman, they have not answered those questions. The Premier has not even attempted to answer those questions, and those other members, those government supporters and members of the government, would have the nerve to stand in their place and say that this motion is frivolous. They them elves know that it is not a frivolous motion. They know that it isn't but they are so tied in to political ideology that they cannot think for themselves.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Just as a wrap-up, as stated by the member for Prince Rupert just now, I have never met behind closed doors with the mining industry. He just said the Premier had met and invited people to leave the room I and that is an incorrect statement. And, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to deal once and for all

[ Page 1329 ]

with this question of a suggested giveaway on oil and gas rights.

I want to put these figures clearly on the record because now you will know who is the giveaway gang in British Columbia. Here is the answer from the B.C. Energy Commission in regard to field prices, both during the term of the NDP and during the term of this government. In response to my seeking an answer from them and the question the other day posed by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) when he said: "I find that absolutely astonishing that the Premier of the province says now he's going to find out why we gave away the store last year. It's exactly the same with those coal licences. Nobody over there knew anything about the kind of thing that was happening right under your eyes until it would have been too late, then you flip flop. You say you're going to bring in a new Act, and when I ask you why is it that you already...." He never finishes his sentence. Then he says: "Never mind, you've passed the order-in-council and given away an additional $120 million a year to the natural gas producers of the province of B.C. when there is a surplus of gas at the present time. Now you're saying we must set out and find the reason." He says that is irresponsible trusteeship.

Here is the answer, and that member's figures are wrong. There have been two increases in producer prices during this administration, and recommended by the B.C. Energy Commission. The first was a net increase of 15 cents per thousand cubic feet on January 1,1977 and the second was an average increase of 15 cents per thousand cubic feet on November 1,1977. This gives a total revenue increase of $92 million annually on a total B.C. gas production of 305 billion cubic feet.

During the period 1973 to 1975, the former government authorized increases in the producer price of old gas totalling 37 cents per thousand cubic feet, and 53 cents per thousand cubic feet for new gas production. This includes the former government's payment of producer income tax liabilities, which is now part of the price. Therefore the former government granted extra revenues to gas producers in excess of $112 million per year on total B.C. production. They gave away $112 million a year and yet they did not have the corresponding rise in either gas exploration or in land lease disposition giving revenues to the province.

The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) tells me, and he's told this House, that with that big giveaway by the NDP they only got $18 million in bidding leases on this bidding system they're talking about with coal in 1974, and only $26 million in 1975. Yet in our revenue in the calendar year 1977, we got $140 million. They gave away more and yet they encouraged no exploration and they didn't get the revenue back on the bidding side. I want to know where the money went. I want to know where that money went, because when you put up producer prices it should come back to the government in bidding. They put up the producer prices far more than we put them up. I've just given you the figures, and yet the money didn't come back in revenue through the bids, or only $18 million of it. We collect $140 million. Where is the other $122 million? Where is it? Where is that money? Who got that money?

MR. MACDONALD: The public got it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Where did it go? It didn't come to the province of B.C. You gave them, Mr. Member, $112 million a year, and you only got back $18 million in bids. That's all. The giveaway gang is the NDP. Let's make it clear, once and for all. There are the figures and there is the story, and we'll tell that story not only in this House but in all this province. They gave it away; it never came back in bidding. Now where did the money go? Who's got the money? That's what we must know: who got the money in 1974 and 1975? It never came back through bidding. It went out in increased money to the oil companies - $112 million a year and you only get back $18 million in bids.

We raised them, yes, over two years, $92 million a year. But we get $140 million in the calendar year and, as he says, in the fiscal year, 195 million. The suggestion was made that somehow British Columbia had a giveaway and that Alberta to the east was giving much less to their producers than we are.

Again, that is wrong. I mentioned this the other day in the House but I will say it again. One of the biggest producers in British Columbia and Alberta gave us their figures as of the other day: they are receiving 32 cents at the wellhead for old gas in British Columbia; they are getting 39 cents in Alberta. We are paying less but we are getting more exploration. Again, they are getting 62 cents for new gas in British Columbia and 64 cents in Alberta - more in Alberta.

No, Mr. Chairman, that idea is wrong that somehow British Columbia is being fleeced. We see the figures and we see the period in which that government gave $112 million away annually to the big oil companies and did not get the return in bidding for exploration and leasing. We gave away the money. We never got

[ Page 1330 ]

the money back. We didn't get the exploration and the jobs, and that's the one tragic part of it. You were attacking and were not encouraging. There was no confidence in Fort Nelson and Fort St. John for the people to work during that period. And yet Iove got the figures to show that wells drilled increased from 82 in 1975. In 1977, there were 330 wells drilled in British Columbia. Reserves increased from a discovery of an additional 139 billion cubic feet in 1975 to 643 billion cubic feet in 1977 to add to our store of energy reserves for this province.

They base this on the giveaway gang. Yet there are the figures from the energy board. There are the figures that suggest that they gave away $112 million a year to get back $18 million in bids. On the advice of the commission, we raised wellhead prices to $92 million annually but we are getting back, in the calendar year, $140 million - $195 million in the fiscal year. I'll tell the people and I'll let them make a choice on that point alone. Who was the giveaway gang? The people are going to ask and we are going to have to find out: where did the money go in 1974 and 1975?

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the Premier suggests that during the period of the NDP administration we increased the field price of old natural gas by 37 cents and new gas by 53 cents - 1972-75. Did we increase it from zero to those prices? When we left office the prices we had established and which were adequate were then 35 cents and 55 cents. Yet the Premier gets up here and says that during our administration we increased it by 53 cents for new gas.

What were the prices, Mr. Premier, when we formed the government in 1972?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Tell us where the money is.

MR. MACDONALD: It couldn't be that kind of an increase. That would mean that in 1972 they were getting nothing. The Premier is all mixed up Mr. Chairman, during the period of the administration of the NDP, through the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, we brought revenue into the public treasury which had never been there before. There was no revenue at all before. The old giveaway gang was in full charge. They had sold our gas until 1989 at 32 cents per thousand cubic feet to the Americans on that long-term contract, and nothing came back to the people of this province. But after two and a half years of New Democratic Party businesslike administration, it's time we got this province of British Columbia, which we all love, back to a businesslike administration.

Through BCPC we increased the returns to the people of this province by - how much was it, Mr. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) ? - between $150 million to $200 million every year. If we were engaged in a giveaway, why did the Premier come into office and double what we had given away? If were were on a giveaway, you've doubled it since.

Disgraceful, eh? We had adequate gas prices in 1975-76. Our field prices were just right, but the old giveaway gang came along and they said: "We'll double them. We'll give the companies whatever they ask for." That's a giveaway! What other word can one use to describe it?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

Hon. Mr. Bennett requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On vote 5.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I notice some dismay on the expression of the members of cabinet on the other side, but I would just like to say that if I'd had these questions answered four days ago I needn't be on my feet again today. I have asked on several occasions specific questions of the Premier under the minister's office vote, and I would like at this stage to have the Premier very quickly -so that we can get these votes through - give the same commitment that he gave in the House

[ Page 1331 ]

during discussion of his estimates last year with respect to the establishment of the committee on Vietnam.

I raised this in the House the other day with the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) . She took the question as notice and gave us no commitment. I've spoken with the MLA for Atlin (Mr. Calder) , who is the chairman of that committee. He indicated to me as well that he had been attempting to have the committee established, but without success.

Now last year, Mr. Chairman, there was no money set up in any special fund, but the Premier indicated on February 21,1977: "That's fine. It will be done and the money will be found." The only thing I am asking is that the minister make that commitment this afternoon.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I have no report from that committee as to what their recommendations are.

MS. SANFORD: That answer is completely inadequate. The committee has been meeting and it is now defunct as a result of the House being prorogued earlier this year. There is no way the committee can do any further work until that resolution is again established and until we get the commitment from this government that they intend to follow through with the distribution of those funds which the minister said in the House last year would be found. Now I want the Premier this afternoon to give us a commitment that that money will be found and that the work of that committee will continue.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the Provincial Secretary, I understand, has said the selections committee will be meeting to deal with House committees. This House deals with reports of past committees. I have no knowledge of a report to the House of the committee and I'm not prepared to say anything until I see such a recommendation.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, we worked last year in this Legislature to try to have the government assume the responsibility which this Legislature had assumed some years earlier - unanimously, I might add - as a result of an initiative by the now Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) when he was sitting on this side of the House as a Liberal. That commitment was made. The Premier has not today indicated that he will find that money and that the commitment of this House will be lived up to.

All I want from him to say is that the money will be made available, that the committee will be able to continue its work and distribute $2.25 million to the children in Vietnam for medical purposes. He gave the commitment in the House last year. Mr. Chairman, I see absolutely no reason why he cannot get up and reiterate that position that he adopted last year. He's not prepared to do that. He's sitting there shaking his head.

I suspect that they want to do away with that committee. They do not want that committee to complete its work nor do they want to commit any funds to the children in Vietnam for medical purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I want a simple commitment from the Premier that the government is still prepared to carry out that unanimous endorsation of a resolution. The resolution was passed last year in June. Everybody voted for it. All I want from the Premier is for him to say. "Yes, we will find the money. We do have an obligation. We have made a commitment." I think the Premier wishes to get up.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the House appointed a committee last year. We have received no instructions from that committee.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the Legislature does not receive instruction from that committee. That committee was established to find ways and means of distributing funds for medical purposes for the children of Vietnam. That committee understood, based on a state.-nt made by the Premier in the House last year, that that money would be available.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Where should the money come from?

MS. SANFORD: Last year the Premier said the money would be found. I am making the assumption that the government is going to renege on that commitment, that the $2.25 million will not be made available, that the committee will never be re-established and that all of the work that has been done over the years has been for nought, because I think this government wishes to go back on that commitment.

It was very clear last year in this Legislature. The Premier said the money would be found, the commitment would be lived up to and today he refuses to give this Legislature that assurance. That's all I'm asking for - the same assurance that he gave last year. It has nothing to do with any committee reporting back to the Legislature. It won't report until it's prepared to spend that money. The Premier knows that. He's playing games this afternoon.

[ Page 1332 ]

All he needs to do is stand up and say: "Yes, we are prepared to live up to the commitment to the resolution which was adopted unanimously in this House as a result of the suggestion that was made originally by the member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound, now Minister of Labour."

I hope the Minister of Labour gets up because he was quoted in the Vancouver Sun last year

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Standing order 43 talks about repetitious debate;you are now becoming repetitious. The Minister of Labour's estimates are not up at this time and therefore we should probably keep this to vote 5, which would be appropriate.

Also, might I advise you that the conduct of a committee should not really be discussed at this time either.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, when I mentioned the Minister of Labour's name, it was not in connection with anything that's under his jurisdiction as Minister of Labour. I was making reference to an article which appeared in the Vancouver Sun last year at which time the Minister of Labour said very definitively that yes, he felt that this Legislature had an obligation to send the funds to be used in Vietnam to assist children medically. There's no doubt that those funds are needed.

We have a letter from UNICEF addressed to the chairman of that committee, dated February 27,1978. The author of the letter, H.S. Black, indicates to the committee that UNICEF has operated in Vietnam for many years and continues to do so because the needs of children in that country remain critical. They remain critical, according to UNICEF.

The organizations that we have been working with have attempted time and time again to come up with projects that would be acceptable for funding under the resolution. Mr. Chairman, my belief is that the Premier and that government are reneging on that responsibility that they accepted last year.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, just to follow up briefly what the hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) said, I think we are seeing some dangerous precedents set here where resolutions of the House and even orders of the House may be ignored by government inaction. loll have more to say about this one later, but there was an order of the House last year, as you may recall, that there was to be a committee to investigate the breach, or not, of the Constitution Act with respect to the actions of three members of this House. It was never followed up; that order of the House was not obeyed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You wouldn't sit on the committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, it's not relevant under vote 5.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, that's all I had to say about it. That was an illustration.

The other point is that a resolution of this House with respect to funds for Vietnam was moved by the hon. member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound and passed unanimously by all parties in the House. A Vietnam committee has been working in several sessions since that time, and I would say working diligently and working carefully and doing its best to ascertain that if money was to be spent, value would be received and accountability would be received for those funds.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I fail to see how this relates to vote 5.

MR. GIBSON: It relates to the responsibility of the Premier, who last year took it upon himself to say that yes, this money would still be there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we're dealing with his administrative responsibilities and I would ask you to relate it to that.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, surely the Premier is leader of the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, hon. member, on that basis, everything becomes relevant under vote 5.

MR. GIBSON: As I examined the debate of the last few days, that's been the case. And this is one that is well established as one that the Premier has commented on.

The point I'm trying to make - and I'm not trying to be very lengthy about it - is that it is essential that a resolution of this House, if it is to be withdrawn, must be withdrawn by this House as a specific action and not be allowed to lapse because of inaction. As I see it, a resolution of this House, particularly when it is in a case like this, is a commitment by the people of British Columbia through their representatives in this House. If it is to be withdrawn, I suppose the government has the right and the power and authority in this House to do that. But it

[ Page 1333 ]

should be done by that route and not through inaction.

I want finally to say that the Premier did not see fit to make any response whatsoever to my plea with respect to the threat on provision of social services to the handicapped posed by policies currently under consideration within the department of the Minister of Human Resources. I think that is unsatisfactory; I think that the Premier has the ability to give us that assurance now. I wish that he would.

MR. LEVI: Would the Premier tell me what the $83,000 is that's covered under "grants, contributions and subsidies" in his budget? There is a new item in vote 5.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In vote 5 (80) . Is that correct, hon. member?

MR. LEVI: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Second from the bottom of the page?

MR. LEVI: Second from the bottom of the page, Mr. Chairman.

It is an item which has not been there previously and under 80 in the explanatory note on page H-315, it says: "These are payments other than for goods and services made for the purpose of furthering ministerial programmes."

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Can't you keep that chatterer quiet, Mr. Chairman? Why doesn't he go out and dig some coal or something?

"Payments include those to individuals and non-profit organizations, municipalities, government agencies and Crown corporations." Is the Premier's ministry going into the granting business - is that what it is? It's a new item.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll look it up.

MR. LEVI: Well, while he's looking he could perhaps also tell us what the functions of the public information officer will be, and that salary is $20,652.. That's a new one. That comes under the executive council administration. Perhaps he would be able to tell us that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, under vote 80 - grants, contributions and subsidies , $83,000 in 1977-78 $59,000 was provided for this purpose under the other expenses category. This is to provide for British Columbia's share of the cost of the Canadian Inter governmental Conference Secretariat. The CICS receives its funding from the federal and provincial governments according to a federal-provincial financing formula. The formula provides for 50-50 federal-provincial costsharing, with the provincial half divided among the provinces on the basis of population. The CICS reports to representatives of the federal and provincial governments at an annual meeting. That's what that is for, hon. member, through you, Mr. Chairman. I'll deal with the other one in just a minute.

MR. KING: I just have one brief question, Mr. Chairman, on vote 67. 1 wonder, since the Premier assumed the responsibility for this portfolio, what has happened to the ministerial executive assistant. I see that there is a vote of $19,500 for a ministerial executive assistant in this office and I wonder if that office is still filled by a ministerial executive assistant who formerly served the previous minister, or if it is temporarily vacant, or just what the status of that position is.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We have one executive assistant in the Premier's office, the executive director. That's the same position that John Wood held previously and it's at the same salary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Premier, if I can just do this for the minister, vote 67 is the one on page H96.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, under transport. Okay. Yes, we're doing the salaries together.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It was agreed that vote 5 and vote 67 would be discussed at the same time. The question that was posed by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) comes under vote 67, and a subsection of vote 67.

The member for Comox has the floor.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I wish the Premier would level with this House this afternoon, because they have no intention of proceeding with the Vietnam committee. They have no intention of finding two and a quarter million dollars, in spite of the commitments that have been made.

I spoke to the chairman of the committee....

[ Page 1334 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I have spoken to you once about repetitiousness of your remarks.

MS. SANFORD: All right. I'm going on to something new, Mr. Chairman.

I spoke to the chairman of the Vietnam committee and asked him whether or not the government intended to proceed with the resolutions. He told me that he had been trying but had not been successful. When I asked him why, he said he had been told there was no money, which is a very clear indication that the Premier and that government do not intend to go ahead. The Premier is not levelling with us this afternoon, and I'm very disappointed in the chairman of the committee not getting up and fighting on the floor of this House for the continuation of that committee. He told us that he would serve on that committee and do the best that he could do to distribute those funds. He knew days ago that this government was not going to proceed with that resolution because he had been told that they were not prepared to do it, and that the money was not there and therefore would not be made available.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I don't think the Premier understood my question. It's a very simple matter that I'm asking. There is a vote under the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications' office....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Premier has your question, hon. member.

MR. KING: Yes, but I don't think he understood it, Mr. Chairman. I'm clarifying it.

A ministerial executive assistant at $19,500 - all I want to know from the Premier is if that position is still filled or whether that position ceased with the termination of the previous minister. That's all.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That position is still filled. I would just point out to the House -I know it is clear to the opposition - but to put it on the record, while I am serving in the dual portfolio, which is temporary, of both Premier and Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, although we're going to vote the salary for a Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, I do not collect a double salary. I'm only paid as Premier. The staff connected with that office are all still in place, Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, and are carrying on the functions of that office in trying to help with its administration at this time.

MRS. WALLACE: Going back to vote 5, Mr. Chairman, I just have one quick question for the Premier. I notice that last year he had a staff of 22 in his office. This year he's budgeting for a staff of 29, in addition to the Transport and Communications staff that is now working for him. Would he be good enough to explain to the House who these extra seven people are and why they are required at this point in time?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, I'll get that for you.

MR. LEVI: While the Premier is looking for the answer on the item of the public information officer under the executive council administration section of vote 5, could he tell us what the function of that individual is?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Wait, I've got to keep flipping back here.

MR. LEVI: Well, we'll keep you on this one for a minute. You've got two portfolios; you should have two books.

Under executive council administration, about halfway down you've got an item "public information officer." It appears to be a new position. Would you explain what that individual does in respect to the executive council administration?

MR. GIBSON: Some weeks ago I asked the Premier what was happening with respect to negotiations between British Columbia and Ottawa concerning the signing of an agreement with respect to joint control of immigration. I wonder if the Premier could give us a progress report on this at this time.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I can answer that one quickly. It comes under the direction of the Ministry of Labour, and I can say now that discussions are proceeding. When you get to the minister's estimates, you may be able to get an update on the negotiations as they are today, but discussions are proceeding as they are with other groups that haven't yet concluded agreements.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, some time ago, I raised it in the House with the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , and he said at that time it was within the ambit of responsibilities of the Premier. The question of the proclamation of the Direct Legislation Act of 1919 - I think it is, on reflection, right and proper that it should be carried by the

[ Page 1335 ]

Premier, not only in his capacity as the head of the executive council which has to take the action to proclaim this particular bill....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there a bill before the House at this time?

MR. GIBSON: No, no. This is within the statutes of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recall that you have a bill before the House dating it sometime in that period.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, no. You will recall notice of a bi-11...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ah, yes, that's perfect.

MR. GIBSON: ... which may, or may not apply to this particular line of thought.

This was an Act which was passed by the House, Mr. Chairman, and it provided in section 40: "This Act shall come into proclamation at a date to be fixed by the Lieutenant-Governor by his proclamation." The Act, as I said, was introduced and carried by the Hon. John Oliver, the Premier of that day, a great Premier who brought this province the women's vote, the first public accounts of this Legislature and so on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, this actually involves legislation, and we're in estimates.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, no. This involves proclamation of existing legislation, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: "On matters involving legislation" is what the standing orders say. Proclamation is a matter involving legislation.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, that's like saying that the expenditure of money that we're talking about in these estimates is a matter involving legislation. No, that's casting the meaning of the word "involving" too far. This is a straight executive Act, which is the responsibility of the Premier and the executive council - namely, the proclamation of this bill. I say, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier should take the necessary action to proclaim this bill, because it provides a couple of things that we have long needed in British Columbia and which the Legislature in the past, in its wisdom, has seen fit to provide for but the government has not allowed to come into force.

The first of those is a mechanism whereby, if the Premier takes the right action, the people of this province, if they are concerned with respect to the actions of this Legislature can, by petition with a certain number of signatures, force this Legislature to do certain things.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you are specifically discussing legislation and I'm sure you're aware of the fact that you are in violation of our standing orders.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I am talking about the bringing into force of a law that has already been passed. All I want the Premier to do is proclaim it. The Premier is content to answer. But, Mr. Premier, I want to say for a moment why your answer should be yes, that's all. Or is your answer going to be yes? Will you proclaim it?

HON MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, as the member will know, a number of parts of statutes or statutes in whole remain unproclaimed. Part of a study going on in the Attorney-General's ministry is to clean up old Acts and contravening Acts, because over the years many Legislatures have brought in legislation later that did away with the need for such Acts. All such legislation is before any new executive council and those decisions will be made as the review is carried out.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I was of course delighted to hear the Premier acknowledge his concern with this and his responsibility for it. I say to him that it is important that he should move on this particular one because he should realize that there are people in this province who want more control over their governments, I don't care whether they are at the provincial or municipal level or wherever. They want control aver their governments and this Premier has before him by simple proclamation the means to give people more direct control over their governments, to provide in the one case for a referendum, and to pronounce upon bills that may or may not be liked by the people of this province. I ask the Premier....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, it's the third time I've brought this subject up. We mustn't discuss legislation under estimates. I'm sure you are well aware of that.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, let me say to you that we do discuss under estimates the administration of existing legislation; there's no question about that. Could I please have a nod of the Chairman's head on that one? We do discuss the administration of existing law.

[ Page 1336 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: We can discuss the proclamation of the bill, because that's an administrative fact, but the contents of the bill are not to be discussed at this time.

MR. GIBSON: But, Mr. Chairman, it's not a proposed bill; it is an existing bill and I am saying why it should be proclaimed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Nevertheless, hon. member, the discussion of the contents of the bill.... This is not the time under our standing orders to discuss it; it's as simple as that.

MR. GIBSON: But it's a bill that's passed. What other time could there be under our standing orders to discuss it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: There are several other periods of time - during the throne debate or the budget debate.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, love tried to tell the member that all existing legislation, proclaimed or not, is always under review by the current government. I will take that member's views, which he's now expressed, into consideration when the review is completed. Such a decision may or may not be made in the answer that he would like.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, quoting from page 766 of the 17th edition: "Estimates under consideration. The administrative action of the department is open to debate but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply."

MR. GIBSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. Now let us say for example that were we in the estimates of the Minister of Mines -I'm just using this by, example - it would be entirely proper to talk about the Coal Act and the way that the minister was operating the Coal Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member, that would be improper - just the administration of the Coal Act, but not the Coal Act itself.

MR. GIBSON: That's what I say - the way he was operating the Coal Act. I an talking about - and I have the Premier's assurance, so we needn't go any further with this - the reasons why the Premier should proclaim it, and surely a person has the right to say that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. GIBSON: I should tell the hon. members opposite that every time I hear an "aye" I'm adding one more minute to my remarks.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're hardly ever here so you'd better make the most of your time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: There's another chirp from the Minister of Human Resources, who yesterday refused to give the handicapped people of this province the assurances they deserve. The Premier has refused to as well.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Why don't you attend once in a while so you'd know what's going on?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the Minister of Human Resources please come to order?

MR. GIBSON: I might say, Mi. Chairman, that I will match the quantity of my attendance with that minister's any day, and I will double the quality of his attendance any day too. That man, who has done more to upset the handicapped people of this province than anyone else that I can imagine, has the gall to stand across the floor of this House and say something like that. He should be ashamed of himself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, we are discussing vote 5.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You do the harm with misinformation.

MR. GIBSON: The minister says I do the ham with misinformation, when I tabled in this House a letter from his deputy minister in his department that's striking fear into the handicapped people around this province. And he says that's misinformation. He should be ashamed of himself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. DAVIDSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the remarks by the member are totally out of order under this vote, and the time for the federal campaign is not yet at hand.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first part of your point of order is certainly in order. We are on vote 5.

MR. GIBSON: I would like to make reference

[ Page 1337 ]

to a communique which was issued after one of the recent federal-provincial conferences, if I can find it here. I assume, Mr. Chairman, that the results of federal-provincial conferences and communiques issued by the Premier are administrative actions falling within his capacity and are proper to consider under this vote. And I'm particularly interested here in a communique issued on April 14 of this year at the Western Premiers' Conference with respect to the proposed Canada Referendum Act. This communique, of course, was issued by the four western Premiers and I'd like to just put a little bit of it on the record.

They're speaking of the proposed Canada Referendum Act and they express concern with section 3 of that bill which provides that a referendum can be held on "any question relating to the constitution of Canada or relating to or arising out of a proposed or possible change in the constitution of Canada." The communique goes on to say:

"While the western Premiers agreed that it may be desirable for government to have the machinery to conduct plebiscites on certain matters from time to time, they strongly cautioned against any attempt by the federal government to substitute this machinery for the settlement of constitutional questions long recognized by constitutional practice and precedents as requiring the approval and consent of every provincial government."

Now reading through that, Mr. Chairman, I was interested at how this illustrates a point which governments under our system, both federal and provincial, so often assume, and that is that governments are more important than people. Sovereignty, while we appreciate that it legally resides in government, I contend morally resides in people.

There's a clear dispute here. What the western Premiers have said in this communique is that, even in a case where there is a clear expression by the population in a certain direction, governments might nevertheless be more important than people and should override this expression of opinion. This concern in a sense comes back to my concern with the Direct Legislation Act, and I would be glad of any comment the Premier might have to make on that.

HON MR. BENNETT: The concern of the western Premiers was that a misdirected federal government, rather than reflecting the spirit of Canada - which is a partnership between federal and provincial governments - could use that Act, rather than consultation with provinces, to unilaterally change the consti-

tution. Constitutional changes, where they fall into that grey area of either federal or provincial jurisdiction, must have consultation. At any time, either level of government - as the member for North Vancouver-Capilano knows - can constitutionally change areas already in their jurisdiction. The provinces can, and so can the federal government. It would be indeed unwise, in that area which requires consultation and co-operation, to give one of the parties an opportunity to misuse a piece of legislation that may be useful, but could be used in place of consultation. That was our caution, and that is a valid caution that all of the provincial governments have - I'm sure everyone has.

We must recognize the partnership that exists between federal and provincial governments in developing what I call national policy. For too long, many of the policies have been federal policies - that is, policies unilaterally laid down by the government of Canada, which don't reflect the best interests of all the regions of this country. We must keep that partnership of consultation. We must not, without the caution we expressed, end up with a mechanism that would replace that consultation.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the words of the Premier and I agree with him. The necessity of consultation is becoming better and better established and I think that is a very good thing. I want to say that I commend the Premier, and the other western Premiers, for the fight that they have made in that particular direction.

On this particular question, however, I ask the Premier: what would happen in a situation which I think the lawyers might call in extremis? That is a situation where, after all consultation had been exhausted, there remained some difference of opinion, but there was still a need to do something or to change something for the good of the country as a whole. I say this very carefully: after years of consultation and after minimal objection but with still no unanimity, would the Premier not foresee a possibility that the voice of the people, properly gauged and with guarantees of regional majorities in each area, might not properly be used to resolve an important deadlock?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the argument is anticipatory that, in the best interests of the country, governments would not get together. So right away in that type of question, I have to go back to the fact that the tradition of the country is co-operation of

[ Page 1338 ]

governments, and I don't anticipate that as a problem.

I do anticipate that if one of the parties were given the powers to unilaterally make changes, it would end the spirit of the country, if regions of the country which have a single resource peculiar to their area had that resource threatened or taken away by the rest of the country. It's dangerous, because our country is a partnership built on trust. If you grant additional powers that defeat the spirit of the constitution by allowing one of the parties to do an end run around or against any area....

That is the danger we foresaw, so what we raised is a cautionary note, recognizing the usefulness that this may have in some instances, but recognizing always that abused or taken to the ultimate use, it could do more to break up the country by ending that part.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Premier's words and accept them in that spirit. I want to make it clear that I did not suggest at any time that any party should have the unilateral ability to change the basic arrangement of Canada, but only that circumstances might arise when sometime it might be useful for the people themselves rather than any level of government to have that kind of authority. It could happen.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted for division to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a correction in the Blues of yesterday afternoon.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'm referring to a transcript of remarks I made yesterday in the debate, recorded on page 539-1 in the Blues of the afternoon of Wednesday, May 10. There are two corrections I wish to make. In listing the agreements between Ottawa and British Columbia negotiated and signed since January 1,1976, one item records the Western Northlands Highway Agreement signed in March, 1977 - $50 million. That should read $15 million, Mr. Speaker, not $50 million.

The other item is in relation to the salmonid enhancement programme, phase 1 - $150,000. That should read $150 million, not $150,000.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

MRS. DAILLY: I ask leave to withdraw motion 14 appearing in my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Curtis files answer to questions. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.

APPENDIX

11 Mr. Barber asked the Hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing the following questions:

With reference to the Minister's visit to Europe in 1977/78

1. Who accompanied the Minister?
2. What was the total cost of the visit?

The Hon. H. A. Curtis replied as follows:

1. " No one at Government expense.
2. " $2,843.74."