[ Page 27 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Forest cutting permits. Mr. King — 27

BCRIC shares. Mr. Stephens — 28

Closing of Provincial Museum during spring school break. Mrs. Dailly — 29

B.C. government position on senate reform. Mr. Macdonald — 29

Presenting reports.

Select Standing Committee on Agriculture final report. Mr. Bawtree — 30

Throne speech debate.

Mr. Barrett — 30

On the amendment.

Ms. Sanford — 44

Mr. Levi — 50

Hon. Mr. Hewitt — 53

Mr. King — 56

Mr. Stephens — 58

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 59

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have some friends here today in the gallery from the fair city of Revelstoke: Mrs. Walter Larsen and her son, Bernard, former neighbours of mine. I would ask the House to extend a warm welcome to them.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce two guests from the Parksville area of the Alberni constituency: Mrs. Grace Head, who manages the NDP office in Parksville, and her friend, Mrs. Olive Fraser. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I too have some friends in the gallery today. I would ask the House to welcome a fine young teacher and his family from Vernon. Mr. and Mrs. Dick Joba, with their two daughters, Kristi and Shannon, are here to see the House in action.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, we have four visitors from the municipality of Richmond in the gallery today. I'd like to introduce Mr. and Mrs. Robert Ransford and their grandsons, Bobby and Kenneth, who are on their first trip to the buildings.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, also from Richmond are four members of the Richmond Alcohol and Drug Abuse Team: Ms. June Millson, secretary; Mr. Bud Lerette, administrator; Mr. Dave McElroy, president; and Mr. Jim Jorden, vice president.

I would also like to introduce two outstanding people from. the great city of New Westminster, the Royal City, Mr. and Mrs. Peter Andrusiak. I'm pleased to see them in the gallery.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today, coming all the way from the fair city of Duncan in order to hear the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), are Allan and Norma Heyd, and William Richter. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. BARBER: There are two people in the gallery whom I should like the House to acknowledge. The first is Mr. Doug Berg, a photographer in Victoria, and the second is Mrs. Carol Pickup, the chairperson of the Greater Victoria School Board.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, from the great city of Vancouver, I would like the House to welcome Mrs. Peggy Lee and Mrs. Burke to the House today.

Oral questions.

FOREST CUTTING PERMITS

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Forests: what are the penalties to a company which fails to comply with a cutting permit?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, is this a question that is public knowledge? If it's public knowledge it's not a fair question. However, I'm not aware....

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the Minister seems to share your problem, but we have a new Forest Act and we have new regulations which are not generally public knowledge as yet. I simply seek information from the minister as to what the precise penalties are for a company failing to live up to a cutting permit, with respect to the annual allowable cut and any penalties that may be exercised in terms of the removal of timber from the quota.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the member is quite aware of the requirements, over five-year cut control periods, of timber licensees in the province of British Columbia. I am sure he knows that if, in any one year, the licensee's annual cut varies by more than 50 percent of what is required to be cut, then he is subject to a penalty to charges related to stumpage at the particular time.

And if, within a period of five years, a licensee's cut is not within 10 percent of the requirement, he is also subject to penalties.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is: why did the minister on March 5 or thereabouts issue a cutting permit to Q.C. Timber on the Queen Charlotte Islands when he knew that compliance with that cutting order would violate a federal fisheries branch order to halt logging on CP144?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, as usual the member is wrong. There was no cutting permit issued to Q.C. Timber in March. The cutting permit under question, CP144, was issued some time last fall.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not aware that his regional manager, Mr. J.A.

[ Page 28 ]

Biickert, issued a letter an or about March 5, reconfirming a cutting order which had been suspended by agreement between the provincial forest branch and the federal fisheries branch?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, once again the member is wrong. The cutting permit was never suspended.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, it's strange that the regional manager was moved to issue a letter to Q.C. Timber indicating that the provisions of the cutting order issued in 1978 and suspended by agreement between the provincial forest branch and the federal fisheries branch were reinstated. If the minister is not aware of that, he doesn't know what's going on in his ministry.

I ask a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker: did the minister receive at any point a communication or a representation from his colleague, the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair), responsible for fish and wildlife in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'll say once again that since it was issued, cutting permit 144 on Rennell Sound in the Queen Charlotte Islands has not been suspended by the Forest Service; and, yes, I have within the last couple of days received a telegram from the federal Minister of Fisheries and the Environment.

MR. KING: Well, the minister apparently didn't understand my last supplementary. My question was: has he received any submission or representation from his own colleague, the provincial minister responsible for fisheries, the hon. Minister of Environment?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The Ministry of Environment are in constant communication on many matters in provincial jurisdiction.

MR. KING: Another supplementary....

MR. SPEAKER: A concluding supplementary? Please proceed.

MR. KING: No, I didn't say that...a supplementary. Will the minister table any and all communications that have been transmitted between his office and the Minister of Environment respecting Queen Charlotte timber and cutting area CP144?

Unless they want to hide from the public a public matter with respect to Crown resources, the minister should not refuse to table this correspondence.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the minister has the question. Before we proceed let me just, for the guidance of the House, give you some insight into the matter that I referred to earlier regarding seeking information that is public knowledge. Beauchesne says on page 148 in section FF: "A question must not seek information set forth in documents equally accessible to the questioner, such as statutes, published reports, et cetera." I hope the House will use that for its guidance.

BCRIC SHARES

MR. STEPHENS: My question is for the Premier, but in his absence I will direct it to the Minister of Finance. On March 1 of this year an order-in-council was issued over the hand of the Minister of Finance authorizing a special warrant to spend $3 million. One of the reasons for that expenditure, as quoted from the order-in-council, is to "enable an offering to be made of additional shares to those members of the public who apply for and receive free shares in the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation." I would like to ask the minister whether or not he considers it proper for the government to be spending tax dollars to assist a company operating in the private sector to sell its shares.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I don't know if it's appropriate for me to answer on behalf of the Premier since he's the designated minister under this Act. As the person who signed the special warrant at the request of the person who was responsible for it, who states that it is of urgent need, I would respond in that respect. I think you asked whether it's appropriate for the government to spend taxpayers' money an behalf of this share distribution plan.

This money is not spent an behalf of the company. It is spent an behalf of the government and the people of this province. In the interest of distributing these shares free to all the citizens of this province, I would answer yes.

MR. STEPHENS: The minister did not answer the question. I did not ask him whether government money should be spent to distribute the so-called free shares. I asked him whether or not the money should be spent to enable an offering of additional shares, presumably to be sold by the corporation at $6 each. You are spending some of this $3 million specifically for that purpose. You have stated so in your

[ Page 29 ]

own order-in-council over your signature.

Direct your mind, please, to that question and answer it. Is that proper?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the entire matter of the expenditures required for this plan will be set out in considerable detail in due course during the budget speech. I think the member will have full information.

Insofar as his question is concerned, I think it was incumbent on the government to explain in full the details of the proposal. Anything withheld from that explanation we could be justly criticized for.

MR. STEPHENS: In the same order-in-council, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance stated that the expenditure was not foreseen. I would like to ask the minister at what date he did foresee this expenditure.

HON. MR. WOLFE: For the benefit of the member, Mr. Speaker, I don't remember the exact date, but it certainly was a considerable period of time after the budget measures of a year ago. That's the point.

MR. SPEAKER: On a final supplementary, the member for Oak Bay.

MR. STEPHENS: I have two final supplementaries, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair will not require any lecturing as to when questions will be final. The fact is that there are other members wishing to ask questions. We have a shortage of time in the period, and therefore the decision of the Chair will have to be final in regard to final questions.

MR. STEPHENS: I will accept that, Mr. Speaker, but as the leader of my party I should be entitled to the same number of questions as the lead-off questioner of the official opposition.

Since the minister stated in this same order-in-council that the expenditure is urgent and for the public good, can he explain why the House is sitting so late? If it is so urgent, why was this House not called back into session in January and February?

CLOSING OF PROVINCIAL MUSEUM
DURING SPRING SCHOOL BREAK

MRS. DAILLY: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Curtis). I know he is not here. Who is the acting Provincial Secretary? The Deputy Premier? Who could I direct my question to? I feel it is important to bring this up today. That's why I'd like to know.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the House Leader could direct you in this matter. The Chair does not select the alternate minister.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Provincial Secretary has to do with the Provincial Museum. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has decreed that this is the week for the spring break and many students and young people — and adults — are making trips across here to Victoria with the one purpose of visiting the Provincial Museum, and yet the museum is closed. It's closed, Mr. Speaker, in a week when we have hundreds — maybe thousands, according to the figures over there — of students and adults coming to visit it. I would like to ask the acting Provincial Secretary why the museum is closed this week.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Madam member, the Provincial Secretary is not here; the Deputy Provincial Secretary is not here today; but I am here today and I can assure you that I will bring your question to the attention of the Provincial Secretary when he is in his office tomorrow morning, probably before 9 a.m.

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you.

B.C. GOVERNMENT
POSITION ON SENATE REFORM

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question for the Attorney-General — in his capacity as Attorney-General. There is a very significant and important constitutional reference going on now in the Supreme Court of Canada, namely, whether or not the government of Canada can unilaterally change the structure of the Canadian Senate and amend sections 21 to 36 of the BNA Act. My first question is: is the government of British Columbia, which has such an interest in these matters, represented before the Supreme Court of Canada in that reference?

HON. MR. GARDOM: What's your second question?

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I'll answer the first first; I have to do these things. The answer is that the government of British Columbia is not represented.

My second question to the Attorney-General is: why are you not represented on a matter of great constitutional importance to the prov-

[ Page 30 ]

ince of British Columbia?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Hon. member, it's a very technical question and I would like to give you a precise answer. I therefore take it as notice this afternoon.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Attorney-General of British Columbia to tell me what the position of the province of British Columbia is on the question of whether or not the Parliament of Canada can unilaterally amend the BNA Act in respect to the Senate? Does this government have a position and would the Attorney-General tell me what it is, please?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Hon. member, as I've indicated, I've taken the question as notice. I'll take your supplementary question as notice as well.

Presenting reports.

MR. BAWTREE: I have the honour to present the final report of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture; and I move that the report be taken as read and received, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order or privilege I would seek your guidance. The report that has just been filed by the member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) has been labelled as such, I would take it, by all members of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. My point of order is that while, in fact, we discussed the draft, we have at no time seen the final report nor have we voted on it.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in speaking to the point of order, I think the fact is that the committee was not only empowered, but was commissioned to report to the House. Two members were clearly designated to report at the earliest possible time. I understand that this is the time. Please recall, hon. members, that this is not a motion to adopt the report, but simply a motion to receive it as read. It is the only way I'm aware of that the House can come into possession of the report itself. Perhaps at a subsequent time when a motion is proffered that would require its adoption, the report could be debated. At that time, all of the debate considered in order could be heard. I would caution, hon. members, that debate would be proscribed to some degree. Let me give you an example. If matters happened in committee which were not included in the report but this House wished to be brought to the floor by virtue of debate, it could not be allowed according to Beauchesne. I use this as an example. Suffice it to say, the motion is to take the report that is before us now, and to receive it as read. I think that motion is entirely in order and, as far as I know, not debatable, but your point of order is well taken.

Motion approved.

MRS. WALLACE: In view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave of the House to file a minority report.

MR. SPEAKER: On the question of minority reports, I would refer to Sir Erskine May's eighteenth edition, at page 642: "A minority report is the opinion of the committee as a committee, not that of individual members which is required by the House, and, failing unanimity, the conclusions agreed to by the majority are the conclusions of the committee.

Sir Erskine May does not provide for the filing of minority reports. Therefore, I would have to take the entire matter of filing of minority reports under advisement to give it a little further study to see if there is even a way I could suggest to the member it could be done. In any instance, leave has been asked. I will do the House the favour.

Leave not granted.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. BARRETT: I welcome the opportunity of addressing this session of the fourth meeting of the thirty-first parliament. I am always amazed at how quickly time passes, particularly the long gap in the period since we last met. I am pleased that all the members are in good health, that our absence from each other has tempered our opinions of each other, with, I'm sure, warmer feelings about our present relationships and our future relationships, especially if an election should happen to be called while we are sitting here.

Since obviously the members across the way have no part in that decision-making process, should the surprise announcement come down, we will probably learn of it first and we will try to tell our colleagues over there as quickly as we can what the decision is. We will let you in on what is happening because we noticed that the Minister of Finance has to

[ Page 31 ]

wait for the word from the crystal ball before the orders-in-council are passed. I want to thank the Conservative leader for bringing the Minister of Finance to task, and the Conservative leader has a very interesting point.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Don't destroy him.

MR. BARRETT: I think he is doing a wonderful job of destroying you. He's the only true Conservative around here.

I want to say that, in terms of being back, we have lost five former members of this House Among those members, some of whom I knew personally, others I didn't, was the former Premier. I had the opportunity of sitting across from him for over some 12 years. I want to say that despite our many heavy and severe political differences, this chamber has its own atmosphere and its own relationships. It is only appropriate in that context that I say he will be very much missed in terms of the very nature of the process of the parliament of British Columbia.

As you know, by the carvings above your very head, we have only been functioning in this chamber since 1897. So much has happened in this province in such a short period of time that it is really remarkable when we reflect upon that passage of time that a great deal of our lives of those of us who were born in this province has taken place over the official period of the life of this province. Certainly no other politician in recent history left his mark in this province as much as W.A.C. Bennett did. I want to say that I, for one, will miss his presence in the province. I will never forget his presence in this Legislature, whether we agreed with him or not. It was a magnificent presence in terms of public service to the people of British Columbia. I think all members should remember that.

I want to mention a predecessor of mine, Roderick Charles Macdonald, who was the Conservative member from Dewdney. When I first was elected in 1960 Mr. Macdonald had been absent from that seat for some eight years. And yet one of the very first phone calls I got as an MLA was from R.C. Macdonald, who offered to be of any assistance he could in terms of service to the residents of that area, whom he knew personally, when from Haney on it was a smaller population and people were known an a first-name basis with their MLAs. I never forgot that call from R.C. Macdonald. He did a tremendous job as a cabinet minister and as an MLA. His passing will also be missed.

I didn't know the other two members, but I did know Dorothy Gretchen Steeves. If there ever was a dynamite character in British Columbia politics, it was Dorothy Steeves. She came into this House during the thirties, when tremendous debates took place in this province over severe unemployment and severe and chronic economic problems. She was present in this House when the first socialized medicine bill was passed in the province of British Columbia. In 1936 a Liberal administration passed a socialized medical care program. It was never proclaimed, but from that day on in the province of British Columbia, the role of socialized medicine was a primary factor in every debate leading up to, finally, the winning of that battle and basic medicare services being available in the province.

Dorothy Steeves was one of the original fighters for the old CCF, and was a seatmate of the late E.E. Winch and Harold Winch. She will be very much missed by many citizens in this province, who hold her memory very, very close.

Mr. Speaker, this may be the last time that we're together, depending upon the surveys. You see, we don't have polls by the government of British Columbia; we have "surveys of opinion." If you take a poll and you ask somebody, "How would you vote if there was an election tomorrow?", that's known as polling; but if you take a survey and ask people, "How would you vote if there was an election tomorrow?", that's known as surveying. If you are confused by the difference, so am I, but nonetheless, we don't have "polling," we have "surveying."

We were going to have an election last fall. Yes, we were. Everything was ready to go, except that the Premier took a survey and discovered it was a bad poll. As a consequence, he backed off from calling an election and said: "We have to do more study, and we have to go out and reach the people more." So they went on with more Socred mini-conventions, trying to reach their diminishing party.

Now we know that there is a certain Mr. Goldfarb who does the polling, or the surveying, or the examination, for this government, and we know that things aren't going too good for the government. I understand they are blaming it on Goldfarb, and they may want to switch surveyors. But nonetheless, we do know that the Premier is now testing to see what the reaction is to the five free shares. It reminds me of the Nixon administration — certain phrases are no longer operative.

Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, when we were told there was no free lunch? That's no longer operative. We're going to have five free shares, and on the way to getting those shares we're going to give the banks $5 every time you walk in to fill out the application.

[ Page 32 ]

That's why the former Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) was taken out of the job of being Minister of Human Resources. Even he wouldn't allow the banks to have five bucks an application form for doing very little. Even he would call that a welfare ripoff and shovelling money out of the back of the bank or into a bank. So we have a different Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) who will explain to the poor and the handicapped: "Don't worry out there. You can go in and apply for your five free shares and the five bucks will come off any grant we give you.

Mr. Speaker, I've watched this government shovel out $25 million in a phony share scheme to try and get itself re-elected, using the taxpayers' money to play a shell game with shares. And I know whose idea it really was originally. It was not the Premier's idea; it was the Minister of Education, Science and Technology (Hon. Mr. McGeer) who came up with that brainwave. Yes, it was that former Liberal member's idea. He has done extensive research into the way the brain operates. Considering how he handled ICBC and messed that up, you have to reflect on him being the one who initiated the five free shares.

The Minister of Science and Technology made an announcement a week ago that there was going to be a billion dollar investment in British Columbia for a new fusion centre. I want to criticize the CBC for having the nerve to phone down to the United States to the chairman of the committee working on this project, and ask them if the minister was correct. The CBC should not be allowed to make long-distance phone calls checking up on the minister, using taxpayers' money to find out that the minister was a little premature — not his birth, but his actions.

The chairman of the United States committee said: "Oh, no, no, no, no. It's too early to talk about whether or not we are even going to have a fusion centre. We're four months into a one-year study, as a committee, to decide whether or not we should recommend whether or not we should even have such a centre, and it will take five years after that, if the recommendation is to go ahead with the centre, to find a location for that centre." And when the CBC reporter asked the American spokesperson on that committee if Dr. McGeer's statement was correct, he said: "Who's Dr. McGeer?" He explained to him that it was Dr. McGeer who was a member of the cabinet of British Columbia, and he said: "Well, the minister is obviously premature."

Now did the minister go to the press and say that he was flying a kite, or letting up a balloon, or does he just make these statements and run from them? I would like the minister to explain what knowledge he has about the location of that centre, if the committee that's meeting in Vienna is still eight months away from delivering its first report, before it even gets an with the final report. But it's not unusual, Mr. Speaker, to hear other comments from other ministers about things that will never happen in British Columbia.

One of the first things I want to talk about is the sale of natural gas. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, when we were elected to office, my colleague, the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), discovered that the Social Credit Party preceding us had signed a 15-year contract to sell gas to the United States at 32 cents per 1,000 cubic feet. Now the Social Credit Party supported the sale of that gas for that price. When we came to office we discovered that the gas price was far too low, that the Canadian and British Columbian taxpayers were being skinned on that deal, and as a consequence of that member's actions we got the price of gas up to 64 cents for the United States. After we doubled the price of gas to the United States, the opposition — then Social Credit — screamed and hollered that we were charging too much to our American friends. Because they screamed and hollered so much, my colleague then upped the price to 99 cents. They screamed and hollered some more, so my colleague put the price up to $1.45.

Every single time, Mr. Speaker, that my colleague fought Ottawa to get the price of natural gas up, the Social Credit opposition in this House fought tooth and nail against our efforts. They only began to shut up about their opposition to my colleague when my colleague pointed out to them while we were selling gas to the United States under Social Credit at 32 cents, and then under us at 64 cents, Mexico and Texas were selling their gas at that time for $1.25. The Canadian producer and the Canadian taxpayers were subsidizing the natural gas price to the United States.

In conjunction with the Premier of Alberta, my colleague managed before we left office to get the price of gas up to $1.96 U.S. Three years have passed, Mr. Speaker, under this so-called businesslike administration. Last year, in 1978, we sold 159 billion cubic feet to the United States, and we sold it for $2.16 U.S. During that period of time, the United States has been buying gas from Mexico, and while we've been selling it to the United States at $2.16, Mexico was selling it for $3.20 U.S. I would ask that the government explain to all the taxpayers of this province who are now forced to suffer cutbacks in hospital care,

[ Page 33 ]

cutbacks in terms of school costs, and to have increased burdens on property tax, why it allows its natural gas to be sold into the United States market at today's price of $2.16 U.S., while Mexico gets $3.20.

Can you tell me, Mr. Speaker, why this government has not said a single word in opposition to the federal government keeping the price of natural gas artificially low? Last year alone, because we did not charge the same price as Mexico, the taxpayers of British Columbia subsidized natural gas into the U.S. market to the tune of $159 million. We had the privilege here in British Columbia of subsidizing American industry, American homeowners and all natural gas users from British Columbia. We had the opportunity of handing over that gas at a cost to us of $159 million in general revenue that should have returned to the people of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, can you tell me why Mexico gets a better price than British Columbia does? I ask you this question, Mr. Speaker: if it's good enough for Mexico, why is not it good enough for British Columbia?

In the Toronto Globe and Mail, page 1, March 22, 1979, we see a front-page story: "Approval Is Expected for Gas-Price Increase." It says: "The federal government is expected to approve this week an increase in Canada's natural gas export price to about $2.30. A 14-cent increase is going to be allowed by the federal government." I challenge the minister responsible to produce one single document where he's made the case to have our gas sold in the United States for the same price that Mexico gets for theirs.

I believe, until it is proven otherwise, that this government has never made a case to get the same price for gas as Mexico. I believe that this government has never gone down to Ottawa and demanded that the price of gas go up to the same level as Mexico's. If I was a Mexican, I'd come up and contract to buy gas from British Columbia for $2.16, ship it down to Mexico and sell it back it to the United States at $3.20. As a matter of fact, when you think about it, the Mexicans might be wise to come up and offer $2.50 more than what the Americans are paying us for gas, change it into liquefied natural gas, take it down to Mexico and ship it into the United States. They'd still make money.

This government is part and parcel of an oil company domination of natural resources sales policy in this country. They stand condemned for not asking for the same price. This is a horror story.

You go out to your constituencies and tell them why your government hasn't got the guts to collect this additional $150 million that would be, coming in to municipalities, schools and hospitals if all we did was ask the same price as Mexico. We're not asking for any favours. We're not asking for a special deal. But there is absolutely no justification for the taxpayers of British Columbia to be subsidizing the U.S. market to the tune of $150 million a year out of this province.

If you want to give shares — if you want to really give the people of British Columbia something to participate in — let British Columbia set up a committee and decide publicly that we want to sell our gas to the United States at the same price as Mexico. Let every taxpayer have a direct rebate of every penny that this government hasn't got the guts to collect from the U.S. customer.

This report in the Toronto Globe and Mail goes on to say that an export price increase of 14 cents per thousand cubic feet would add about $140 million to the annual bill to the U.S. purchaser. If 14 cents would add $140 million, one dollar — which would be necessary to catch up to the Mexican price — would bring in $1 billion more per year to the taxpayers of Canada.

We have astronomical federal deficits right now. It grieves me to report that the last time British Columbia fought for equalization on gas prices was when my friend, the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), was the Attorney-General. Since the election of Social Credit, there has not been a peep about those gas prices. The Social Credit government has deliberately allowed them to fall behind Mexico's prices.

This is very important. It means that not only are we selling our gas cheap to the United States, but we are subsidizing industries which use natural gas to finish B.C. products and which are competing for the same markets.

When lumber is dried in Washington and Oregon, and that lumber is dried because we supply them with cheap B.C. natural gas, the price of their lumber products is kept down and we are forced to compete on a differential basis on the exchange of the dollar rather than on the natural marketplace. Why should we pay for this?

I notice that the government is totally silent and has not a single explanation as to why this gas differential exists. I would suggest that this government consider joining OPEC. At least the oil-producing nations have had the guts to get together and demand a world price for their product. But have we done that? Not at all. In terms of oil, the case is also repeated. I want to say that,

[ Page 34 ]

obviously, giving them gas has had an effect.

So we find a situation that most taxpayers don't know anything about. The Social Credit government of British Columbia is subsidizing American customers to the tune of $150 million a year while saying that it doesn't have enough money for hospitals or schools or roads. We'll leave that, Mr. Speaker, for the time being; we'll come back to it during the estimates of the minister concerned.

I want to go on to another topic and that is the topic of the British Columbia Railway. I'm sorry that the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is not here today. Or does it make any difference? We've been given this document, the report of the Royal Commission on the British Columbia Railway — and it's worthwhile remembering a few things about why there was a royal commission on the railroad.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that a certain MEL Paving Company came to my office when we were in government and, in the presence of the former Attorney-General, they said that they wanted their contract renegotiated to upgrade the price that they were receiving. The Attorney-General advised them that if they had any complaint about that contract — and there were suggestions of fraud relating to the original handout of that contract — they should go to court. We were not going to settle in our office any contract where there was an allegation of fraud by the previous administration.

They went to court, Mr. Speaker. What did we discover? In the interim, while the case was being heard in court, an election ensued in British Columbia. This government was defeated, the new government was elected; and before the court could bring down its ruling, the new government settled the MEL Paving case out of court.

There was a lot of heat in the first session over that and the heat generated very little light. You will recall that first session, Mr. Speaker, where, within months, we had 12 public inquiries or royal commissions. Every day that we brought a problem to the government they set up a royal commission or an inquiry to escape their responsibility.

Well, rather than deal with the MEL Paving case, the government announced that they'd have a royal commission on B.C. Rail. You know what happened during that royal commission, Mr. Speaker. The royal commission took its job seriously, and the government was surprised. One of its recommendations was that the government close down the Fort Nelson extension. You remember, Mr. Speaker, we were told there would be no political interference with the royal commission; whatever the royal commission recommended would be all right; the government wouldn't interfere. The government sat on that report for 3 1/2 months, and then made a decision that they were not going to pay attention to the royal commission and would keep the Fort Nelson extension open. Political interference? The whole thing has been political interference from day one. But let's read some of the things the royal commission said.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to quote from page 14. I find this very interesting.

"For at least three years prior to our appointment it had been known in Victoria that the railway's affairs were in a serious mess. The election in the fall of 1972 of the NDP government under Premier Barrett was soon followed by discovery that there had been significant misstatements of BCR's financial affairs. Its accounts had indicated modest profits for many years, when application of proper accounting principles disclosed that it had lost money every year for at least two decades and, by the end of 1973, had a cumulative deficit of $66 million."

Mr. Speaker, the royal commission has accused the former Social Credit government of lying. Now what do you think of that, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Justice Lloyd McKenzie, Mr. Sydney Welsh, Mr. David Chapman — chairman and commissioners of the royal commission set up by this Social Credit administration — have charged the previous Social Credit administration with lying. They deliberately lied to the people of British Columbia. B.C. Rail had lost $66 million up to 1973. They had not kept proper accounting of the railroad. The fact is that the very people who crossed the floor to join Social Credit, and used to criticize the accounting of the railroad, are now in a position to defend that path. They go on to talk about a melancholy record — a melancholy record, indeed. We were being told that the financial affairs of this government were managed successfully by the previous administration, yet we find that a royal commission tells everybody that there is a mis-statement of accounts in B.C. Rail.

We go on to discover other things. This is how Social Credit built the railroad, according to the royal commission.

"The line had been inadequately engineered to Fort Nelson. It was built an muskeg and unstable side hills, with frozen fill material propped up in places with plywood, and laid unballasted or subgrade in others. It suffered 270 derailments in two years of operation. They had

[ Page 35 ]

used frozen soil as a base for the plywood on top of the muskeg to build that railroad."

The taxpayers of this province were paying a massive subsidy to operate that railroad. While we were in government, and took the responsibility to upgrade that spur line, I recall the attacks made by the present government when they were in opposition, saying that it was terrible, we shouldn't have wasted that money, the line was perfectly good.

Mr. Speaker, the basic truth about the railroad is exposed in page after page of this royal commission report. What is the truth of the railroad today? The truth of the railroad today is that more insidious political interference is going an than ever before. This so-called businesslike government has been playing politics with B.C. Rail, simply because it has not had the nerve to deal with the role that the railway plays, in terms of its basic responsibility to the people of this province.

There was the decision to close Railwest. This decision involved hundreds of jobs manufacturing our own railcars in this province and was a significant factor in the economy of British Columbia. It had been started under the New Democratic Party. While the railway was under the scrutiny of the royal commission, the government arbitrarily made a decision to close the Railwest car plant. It didn't wait for the royal commission to give it any idea, because the car plant was started by the NDP socialists, and, as they like to say, they decided to close it rather than give it a chance. I read from the royal commission that the plant had to deal with this "mystery decision." While the royal commission was sitting, a mystery decision came in telling the railroad to close Railwest. It was a political decision made by the government and the Premier. It belies his very statements that there was to be no political interference.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I quote from page 46 of the royal commission:

"After the appointment of the commission and prior to our Squamish hearings, B.C. Rail decided to cease producing its cars at this plant, although the plant had produced only 1,400 cars to meet the railway's original projected potential of need of up to 7,250 cars."

Do you remember the debate in this House when we attacked the government? We said you were closing down that plant in the face of information that railcars would be needed by B.C. Rail, other railcars would be needed nationally, and by a premature closing of that plant we would be abandoning jobs that affect not just the hundreds of people that work there, but thousands of others, in terms of supplying goods and services to Railwest. The railway itself had told the government that it needed 7,250 cars. The railway built 1,400 cars, then it was ordered to close down. Since that time, the taxpayers of British Columbia have been required to lease over 1,500 railcars manufactured in the United States to serve British Columbia's needs.

Mr. Speaker, the royal commission had a file letter submitted to them on June 14, 1976, signed by Mr. I.H. Nicholls, chairman of the car committee, with a copy going to Mr. McPherson, the operations manager, and Mr. Shannon, chief of transportation. What does this memo say?

"Attached for your consideration to Mr. Sturgeon, Hunt and Karmazenuk is an offer to lease 40 wrap-around bulkhead flats by Tiger Leasing Group. We have asked for some more detailed specification and we will advise you further. R.J. Karmazenuk advises Railwest is bidding on 150 wraparound bulkheads for an eastern customer who wants delivery in January 1978. His proposal is that Railwest build the cars as a tack-on to the 500-order they are currently running for us, and the BCR lease cars through to December 1977, after which they would be sold. Eastern rail lumber loadings indicate we should be ordering 1,000 bulkhead flats for construction through 1977."

Here is an internal memo by the car committee of BCR saying to Railwest that we must, in 1976, put in an order for 1,000 new bulkhead flatcars because we'll need them in 1977 and 1978 for the lumber traffic. The government of the day had this knowledge, Mr. Speaker, and this was in the projection of 7,000 cars. When the minister was sitting in this House telling us that he couldn't get any more orders for Railwest, Railwest was making itself available for 1,000 bulkhead flats that should have been ordered by BCR.

MR. KING: Is that truthfulness?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to cast aspersions on whether or not the minister told this House the truth or not, but going back over the statements in the evidence it is obvious that BCR was ready, willing, able and desirous of buying another 1,000 bulkhead flats. Railwest knew it; the government knew it. They closed down Railwest, those jobs are gone, people went bankrupt, and as a conse-

[ Page 36 ]

quence of that 1,500 railcars were leased that were built in the United States and that should have been built here in British Columbia.

Is that truthfulness? Is that good business? It was the pure hate that the minister had for an NDP idea that led to the closure of that plant. It was pure hate born out of spiteful politics that closed that plant. The royal commission makes it very clear that the railroad was operating on projections that were validated, and the royal commission was told halfway through to close down Railwest. On page 47 of the royal commission report it says:

"The plant had been in operation only 26 months and made less than 20 percent of the maximum number of cars which BCR predicted that it would need over an eight-year period. The skilled workforce had been recruited with promises of long-term employment, and many had purchased homes in Squamish on the strength of these representations."

Listen to this, Mr. Speaker. Royal commissions don't normally use this kind of language, especially when they're talking about the people who hired them. While the royal commission was sitting, the following took place: the commission asked its financial adviser, David Sinclair, to investigate the Railwest mystery and report its findings in a week's time when the commission would be at Prince George. This he did. The Railwest car plant was ordered to be closed by the government — direct political interference. The royal commission, and Justice McKenzie, said this was a mystery to them. They were in only one week to find out the government's justification for their political interference in closing down that plant.

Mr. Speaker, every citizen of this province should know — regardless of being a Socred, NDP, Liberal, Conservative or non-political — that this government was willing to go to any length to criticize the former NDP administration. Its rush into that arena knew no bounds, and they closed Railwest before the royal commission had a chance to give a report.

The royal commission was given an explanation. It did not verify the explanation; it is being discreet in handling the explanation. The royal commission said:

"The explanation was that the railway's original prediction of possible car requirements had been over-optimistic, that it had been obtaining cars on long-term leases because it could not wait for Railwest to fill its needs."

That in itself is contradictory. That railway was ordered to go out and lease cars. The railway was ordered to go out and lease cars when within the railway's possession was a recommendation that they get an with building cars. And then once the railway was ordered to go and lease cars, an excuse was made to close Railwest.

Haw can you look taxpayers of this province in the face and tell them that this government has done everything it can to alleviate unemployment? How can you tell the citizens of this province that you're a businesslike administration? How can you justify this to Social Credit members and supporters who live in many parts of this province and expect something better of you? You deliberately killed the Railwest plant, knowing very well that it would be an additional cost to the taxpayers to go out and lease cars.

Then we come to the Fort Nelson extension. The royal commission recommended that the Fort Nelson extension be abandoned. They're entitled to their opinion. They discovered that the Fort Nelson extension was built on plywood. We knew that, but we had spent a lot of money to upgrade it because we had a commitment to the North Peace River area to keep that railway open.

The government had the royal commission's report on the Fort Nelson extension for 3 1/2 months without saying a peep publicly about it. It kept it secret, and you have to ask yourself why the government kept the royal commission report secret for 3 1/2 months. The answers are obvious. The royal commission recommended that the Fort Nelson extension be abandoned.

The government and the Premier knew politically that they couldn't abandon it. The government did not have the courage of its conviction in terms of backing up the royal commission. As a consequence, they hid the report and, like a small child, put the report in a closet and hoped it would go away, because they didn't want to deal with it. What was the consequence of this? Investments that were waiting to be made on the Fort Nelson extension were not made. Jobs and businesses depending on the railroad were at a standstill. W.A.C. Bennett sent a telegram to the people of the North Peace River area attacking this government and, in effect, telling the people in that area: "Don't despair. Someone with some common sense will do something." Do you remember that headline in the Vancouver Province? "W.A.C. Bennett Sends Telegram to Peace River District." You'd think we were in government. You'd think it was us that caused the problem. We find that the Premier read his father's telegram and went into hiding again.

[ Page 37 ]

Then they decided to go up on a railroad tour. They spoke to gatherings of children that they got out of school for the day.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, the Premier's wife was kidnapped on another trip. Let's get it straight. Oh, that trip cost thousands of dollars for a PR man to travel with the Premier. I'm glad you reminded me of that one.

MR. KING: What was his name?

MR. BARRETT: His name was Butler. He was the guy who was the public relations man who thought up the belly-flop championship of the world. Do you remember that? That was held in Richmond. The only regret of the government is that Minister of Travel Industry at the time didn't think up the idea. The belly-flop championship of the world was such a success that the taxpayers hired this PR man to travel with the Premier so that his wife could be kidnapped on the way up the railroad. I'll leave that one to history.

That was the trip when he got the bad news from Goldfarb. That's when the fun trip turned into a nightmare, when the survey said: "Don't go, Bill. You're down the tube."

The report recommended the abandonment of the railroad. Three and a half months later, by direct political interference, the government said: "Ignore the royal commission. We're going to keep it open."

I ask this question: can you tell me why the government continued the royal commission after having made a decision without the royal commission's knowledge to close Railwest? After having ignored the royal commission's recommendation to abandon Fort Nelson, they could have at least had the decency to call off the royal commission and say: "Look, we're going to ignore you anyway. Take your money and get out of here." Instead of that they spent $3 million on a report and were ignoring it all the way through. Some people had to go to court to get some of that money.

What about the significance of the government's response to the commission's two interim reports? This is where I like lawyer's language. On page 50, there's a quote here, obviously written by a lawyer. Now what has happened here is that the lawyer, who was a judge on this royal commission, had just been kicked in the head. He had been told that whatever he said in the royal commission the government was going to act on. He had just been run over by a diesel freight car or diesel engine. He had pulled himself together and said, in effect: "Something has happened here. It appears that we're writing messages to the government, but they are not paying attention to us, but we still got to send the bill in anyway."

The significance of the government's response to the commission's two interim reports and the consequences of the decision regarding the Fort Nelson line are discussed in detail in the course of this report. In other words, they shoved it way into the background of the report, where they regret that the government had slapped them on the wrist and told them: "Keep up the job, boys, but we're not going to pay any attention to you at all." Well, a job's a job. I mean, if you're going to do a royal commission job.... And I want to tell you Justice McKenzie did a first-class job on this royal commission. Justice McKenzie did the citizens of this province proud. He went on with the job, knowing very well that he was going to be ignored by the government.

This is a treasure. This document, I know, will be circulated to every household in British Columbia as part of the Social Credit report to the people. Page 76:

"The decision of the government to undertake reconstruction of the Fort Nelson extension and continue its operation will result in further capital costs and operating losses exceeding $90 million during the next five years."

What has gone on this year? I don't want any of this to get out of the Legislature, but there's been a little more fibbing going on. We were all told that the B.C. Rail made a profit this year. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) said it; the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) said it. Forty-eight hours before we came back to this chamber for this session a special warrant was quietly passed, shoving $20 million into the B.C. Rail to cover the losses on the B.C. Rail. While everybody was told out there that they've got the railway under control again, a special warrant for $20 million taken out of the taxpayer's pocket and was shaved into B.C. Rail to prop up the Fort Nelson extension.

I know the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) will give a detailed explanation of that when the the mayors and the councils come asking him for more money. I bet you he didn't even know it took place. Did you? Did you approve of that extra $20 million going through on a special warrant 48 hours before the House sat? Were you there at cabinet? Did you think it was okay? Is that how you run your business? He nods in approval, or in desperation.

[ Page 38 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps, hon. member, you'd address the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: The decision to do so, contrary to the recommendation of the commission contained in this interim report of December 30, appears to have been based essentially on political considerations.

Here is a royal commission set up by this government deliberately to announce a brand-new policy that there will be no more political decisions on the B.C. Rail. They don't even get past page 76, where they say that there are already political decisions being made while they're sitting. The decision to do so, contrary to the recommendations of the commission, appears to have been based essentially on political considerations, a response to pressure from local interests of the type which has characterized political direction of the railway's affairs from its inception. You're playing politics with the railroad. Judge McKenzie said so. Why didn't you fire the royal commission when you knew then that the game was over? What an insult to the royal commissioner. What an insult to the people of British Columbia.

Then it goes on to talk about what went on with the Dease Lake extension: the political interference by Social Credit after the NDP had signed an agreement with the federal government to continue the Fort Nelson extension. It goes on and on and on, page after page after page after page, criticizing the present administration for making political decisions daily about the railroads, interfering every single day in every single way while the taxpayers were subsidizing the royal commission and the railroad.

There was one other prospect: the prospect of having the federal government involved in the development of the railroad. The first agreement ever signed between British Columbia and the federal government was arrived at between the New Democratic Party, when we were in power, and the federal government to arrange for a subsidy and a cost-sharing of building the railroad right through to Alaska.

I'm not going to go through a great lengthy examination of the royal commission. But I've got to make the case that the royal commission made better for government policy in recovering this railroad, when the New Democratic Party was in power, as it did under Social Credit.

Without taking any credit away from former Premier W.A.C. Bennett, it was a fact that that railroad had been ill-planned, improperly engineered, and it cost the taxpayers of British Columbia, according to the royal commission, $700 million to build a railroad to nowhere.

The royal commission says: "Close the railroad down." As a matter of fact, it is a curious thing to examine the statements of the former provincial Minister of Transport and Communications, Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis, on examining the evidence given by the royal commission, went into northern B.C. and made a speech saying that we should close the railroad down and truck everything out of Fort Nelson and we'd save money. That was the first time that Mr. Davis began to fall into bad favour. He came back to the House and we asked for an explanation of what he meant by "trucking." He didn't give us an explanation.

Mr. Speaker, when we came to office and found the horror story discovered and confirmed by the royal commission — when the royal commission said the government was lying, it's not the opposition that said it; it's the royal commission that said it — we discovered what had gone on with that railroad, and we decided we better make the best of a very bad mess. We had extensive meetings with Mr. Jamieson, who was in the federal cabinet at that time and still is, and Mr. Marchand, who has since left the federal cabinet. Those were successful negotiations with the Liberal administration. They were tough, but they were fruitful.

The Liberal administration in Ottawa made a commitment for the first time to have tax dollars come back to British Columbia to complete the railroad to Dease Lake and beyond. Why? Everybody knew what a mess the railroad was, but there was one saving possibility, one part of the vision that has always been an ingredient in the history of that railroad, going back some 70 years: that was that someday, somehow, that railroad would pay if it could be taken through to Alaska on a joint venture basis with the Canadian government, with the United States government, with the Yukon, with Washington state, and with British Columbia.

Very quickly I realized, Mr. Speaker, that that dream shared by Duff Pattullo and by the Premiers who succeeded Duff Pattullo, Boss Johnson and W.A.C. Bennett, that that germ of the idea of continuing the railroad through to Alaska would be the only way that the British Columbia taxpayer would be finally rewarded with the vision of getting that railroad completed.

Mr. Speaker, time after time people lamented that there was not extensive enough research done on the validation of that railroad. Those complaints were correct. The former administration had not done adequate research. Dur-

[ Page 39 ]

ing our years, we were stuck with that commitment and the only course that we could follow.... Rather than play politics and call a royal commission and dump all over the previous Socred administration, we decided that the responsible course was to go ahead and try to clean up that mess.

There is evidence now, Mr. Speaker, that the vision was not empty, that the possibility of local traffic and indigenous traffic along this rail route was indeed there. Even the royal commission reports an this map a limited number of projects, as I point out to you — the mines and forests possibilities on the existing line, plus the extension to Lower Post.

Now why did they say Lower Post? During the time the royal commission was sitting, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government and the American government came to an agreement on a new natural gas pipeline, and the Premier of this province announced that British Columbia would bargain for its fair share. I have to remind the House of those debates, because British Columbia hadn't even taken a written position at the time the Prime Minister went to Washington. It was only after the Prime Minister came back from Washington, D.C., with the proposed agreement of where the location of that pipeline should be that the present Premier and administration began to discover that there might be something in it for British Columbia. Well, there was something in it for British Columbia.

Have any of the cabinet ministers to do with trade and development ever heard of the Reed report? Is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who is now responsible for and getting familiar with his department, aware of the Reed report? Just nod your head. Is the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) aware of the Reed report and the consequences of this study in terms of providing new jobs in British Columbia? Just nod your head.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must remind you that....

MR. BARRETT: Is the Speaker aware of this report? Just nod your head.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps you could bring this up during question period, which would be the more appropriate time.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, question period is very difficult without the Premier around. They can't get their instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I won't hold the House in suspense any longer. There is a copy of this Reed report in the library, one copy, and it says on it: "Not for circulation."

At first I thought it was confidential. At first I thought: "Aha, we've got a story. They're trying to hide this report." So what I did is, I had a researcher go in and photostat the report thinking that I had a gem here. Then after I made a copy I went back into the library and I said: "Why is this marked 'Not for circulation'?" "Oh, " they said, "there's a simple explanation." I said: "What's that?" They said: "It's the only copy we've got." I then asked my research staff: "Do you think the ministers have a copy?" They didn't think so. "Did any cabinet minister ever ask for it?" They didn't think so. "Has it been a matter of discussion, do you know, by research staff, or has anybody pulled it out for the government?" They didn't think so.

Mr. Speaker, I then today had one of our research staff phone Reed and Associates and say: "You gave this report to the royal commission over a year ago. The import of this report is to indicate that if the railroad goes through to Alaska, thousands of jobs will be created here in the province of British Columbia, small businesses will flourish on the railroad route, and major investments will be made in the mining and forest industry. You gave this report to the railroad. Have you ever been asked to appear before a cabinet committee? Have you ever been asked to meet a deputy minister from any department of govern ment? Have you ever been asked by any cabinet minister to sit down and discuss this report that involves the creation of tens of thousands of jobs at the initial, secondary and tertiary levels?" And the answer was, fromReed and Associates, that once they filed the report with B.C. Railway they were never called by the government.

Mr. Speaker, while the Premier and his cabinet colleagues have given excuse after excuse after excuse for over a year and a half why there are no new jobs in British Columbia, while they closed down the Railwest plant, while they closed down the Dease Lake extension, they have had in the government's possession a report saying that if the government would lead and get that railroad through to Alaska, thousands of jobs would be created here in British Columbia, and they haven't done a single thing since they had this knowledge.

Mr. Speaker, we have been subject to the indignity of a former Minister of Human Resources telling the unemployed: "Give them a shovel." We have been subject to the indignity of backbenchers of that government accusing

[ Page 40 ]

people of being lazy and not finding jobs. We have been subject to the indignities of the Premier of this province, as a primary issue, spending all his time trying to find more Senate seats for broken down politicians. And while all of this has gone on, this report has been in the government's hands and there hasn't even been a cabinet meeting on it, a cabinet ministers' meeting on it, or a deputy ministers' meeting on it. Go and tell that to your Socred mini-conventions. Go and tell that to the people of British Columbia. You are disgraceful.

Mr. Speaker, the first thing the Reed report addressed itself to was the impact of the gas pipeline construction in one section of British Columbia. I remember very clearly my colleague for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), my colleague for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) and my colleague for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), and others in this group, asking the Premier to state his position clearly in this House and before the people of British Columbia: what would British Columbia ask in turn for allowing the pipeline to go through part of its territory? You will recall that the official opposition said that it would require, as part of its terms, that 90 per cent of all goods and services needed by that pipeline going through British Columbia would be supplied, as a condition, from British Columbia firms, well-established in British Columbia, if they have those services, and that 90 percent of employment on the pipeline should go to British Columbia taxpayers first, as a condition. The Premier said: "Oh, well, we're looking into that."

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer you to page 22 of the Reed and Associates report given to this government. The title of this page is, "The impact of the Alcan pipeline on B.C. Rail," and I read one paragraph:

"The pipe will originate from points in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario and will be brought west by rail. Because of the danger of pipe damage during the transfer between modes of transportation, companies wish to minimize transformation points. Rail movement directly to final storage is desired, even if more expensive than alternative modes."

The alternative modes would have been to offload the pipe and put it on barges and take it up the west coast.

"Consequently" — and listen to this, Mr. Speaker — "if B.C. Rail were completed at Dease Lake, much of the barge traffic might be captured."

While the government was making a decision to close down the Dease Lake extension it had information coming to it that major traffic could be built up on the Dease Lake extension, if it carried the pipe to the pipeline.

"Similarly, if B.C. Rail were extended to Lower Post, British Columbia Rail would capture still more of the Yukon section traffic. Even for the B.C. section, completion of the Dease Lake extension or extension to Lower Post would have an impact on the pipeline as the truck haul distances would be shortened considerably. The annual tonnage involved under three rail construction assumptions are shown in table 2."

Page 23, Mr. Speaker, goes on giving a table of the traffic and what it would be carrying. Page 24 is a summary. It says, that the B.C. Rail share of that pipeline construction has to be evaluated on three scenarios: case 1, the Dease Lake extension being abandoned; case 2, the Dease Lake extension being completed; case 3, rail extension to Lower Post.

Mr. Speaker, it says that the annual revenue from that pipeline for the three years of construction alone would be $41 million just carrying traffic for the pipeline — $41 million of guaranteed business at a minimum, and the line was shut down. Forty percent of the cost of building that line would be paid for by one project alone. The line would be there ad infinitum. The line would be there to serve future needs right through to Alaska and the Yukon. One project alone would generate $41 million of the capital cost, 40 percent of the capital cost to build that railroad. And what did this government do with the information? Absolutely nothing.

You explain to the taxpayers of this province, the unemployed in this province, the tradespeople of this province, why millions of dollars worth of work has gone down the tube, when this government had the information that keeping the railroad going would have provided $41 million worth of traffic on that line. Isn't that enough, Mr. Speaker? And that's just one project.

It isn't bad enough, when you consider what's next in the report — a detailed report on mineral traffic for British Columbia, on total traffic for the Yukon and Alaska over B.C. Rail, projected to the year 2000, page after page after page, documented. This report was done by a Mr. Halveson, subject to the Reed and Associates total report, paid for by the Social Credit government. This report states that if the railroad were built all the way through to Alaska, the maximum amount of traffic needed to make it economically viable would be two million tons of traffic a year.

The only other known report on that is done by

[ Page 41 ]

a Mr. Walt, a consultant to the Alaska government, whose estimate is that it would take three million tons a year to make the railroad economically viable. So we have a difference of opinion between an Alaska economist who says three million tons a year, and an economist whose report to the government of British Columbia says two million tons a year. But they both agree that if the railroad were built now, by the year 2000, based on known projects and projected volumes, it would carry 11 million tons of traffic per annum.

There is not another railroad in all of North America — the CNR or any of the great American railroads — that shows any of the traffic potential close to what this railroad has in terms of the development of British Columbia and Alaska.

We are talking about thousands of jobs. We are talking about a $2 billion investment, of which the United States would have to pick up for their share almost 80 percent. We're talking about a project that there is great interest in in the state of Alaska, in Washington state, and in Washington, D.C., in the federal cabinet of the present administration. On page 56 of this report, it says:

"Over the years there has been considerable interest in a transcontinental railway connecting Alaska with the 48 states. In April 1976 a conference to discuss the issue was held in Juneau. The state Legislature approved a $50,000 study for the department of commerce and economic development to investigate the potential. This resulted in a report, a preliminary study of Alaska-Canada transcontinental rail connection to contiguous United States."

This is the R.S. Wall report of January 1977. This study concluded that the potential warranted the undertaking of a comprehensive cost benefit analysis. Of the total inbound freight, the study estimated that approximately 310,000 tons in 1975 originated east of the Rockies, or 24 percent of the total. It was concluded that this, logically, would travel by rail, if available. Projected as a 7 percent annual increase, this tonnage reaches 610,000 tons in 1985.

Then he goes on to state exactly what the projections are for existing tonnage, and makes the case that the railroad could be viable within 20 years on inbound traffic alone. When you consider the potential of outbound traffic you have to cut the time in half and understand that if that railroad were completed today, within ten years it would be the most profitable railroad in North America, generating jobs and investment right across the continent.

Reed and Associates was instructed by this government at the end of the report to prepare some scenarios. Do you know what a scenario is? You lay out a plan in front of the economists and you say: "If we were going to do this, this and this and this, what would be the impact?" Of course, when you lay out a scenario, you give away your intentions in terms of what you hope, or may do.

Here are the six scenarios given by the Social Credit government to Reed and Associates. It's important for the people of British Columbia to listen to these scenarios.

The major assumptions are: is northeast coal to be developed or not developed? Now listen to that. The government asked Reed and Associates to consider whether or not northeast coal is or is not going to be developed. That's not what the Minister of Mines told us. He said it is going ahead. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) said it was going ahead. But they told the consultants to consider a scenario to see whether or not it would go ahead or not go ahead. Somebody's fibbing.

The next assumption was given to Reed and Associates before the royal commission finished its report. The assumption was that the Dease Lake extension is or is not to be abandoned. The government was considering that before the royal commission finished its report.

The third assumption: a connector is built from CN Rail at Smithers or Hazelton to the Dease Lake extension so that the long haul to port at Prince Rupert or Kitimat, now through Prince George, is appreciably shortened. That was part of our projected plan with the federal government. Spur lines are built in to Stikine Copper and Liard Copper.

AN HON. MEMBER: Way off.

MR. BARRETT: Who said "Way off"? This is the instruction from Social Credit to Reed and Associates. I'm only reading your own information back to you.

B.C. Rail is to be extended to Lower Post. The transcontinental link is constructed. This government ordered Reed and Associates to examine the scenario of the impact on British Columbia if the transcontinental railroad was built through to Alaska a year and a half ago. They were then given the following briefs in terms of what was to be included. Number one, the Dease Lake extension is to be abandoned, northeast coal development, hydro power supplied to Stikine Copper and Liard Copper. What about that, Mr. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)? Does your government have a pro-

[ Page 42 ]

posal to develop hydro, power for Stikine Copper and Liard Copper? You're not the Minister of Mines anymore. Talk to him. He doesn't know.

The next one was the Dease Lake extension, abandoned, and the northeast coal, not developed. The government was telling Reed and Associates to consider an economic blueprint if we didn't go ahead with northeast coal, and the Dease Lake extension was abandoned. They abandoned it anyway.

Three: Dease Lake abandoned; northeast coal development; northeast coal used at Stikine Copper and Liard Copper.

Four: Dease Lake extension completed; northeast coal not developed.

Do not leave now, Mr. Minister of Mines. This is your only chance to read this copy.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's mining in parks.

MR. BARRETT: He's mining in parks? Oh, he's not in Mines anymore? I'm sorry, I forgot. I apologize, Mr. Minister. You can come back.

Dease Lake extension completed; CN Rail connector constructed; line to Stikine Copper and Liard constructed; northeast coal developed, and so on and so on. But listen to this last one, Mr. Speaker. Taxpayers' money was spent to prepare this report. This is one of the scenarios the report was asked to consider. Dease Lake extension completed — fair enough; CNR connector constructed — fair enough; line to Stikine Copper and Liard Copper constructed — fair enough; northeast coal developed — fair enough; northeast coal used at Stikine Copper and Liard Copper — fair enough; rail extended to Lower Post — fair enough; Alaska transcontinental line constructed. Then it goes through a working study of each one of those scenarios for page after page after page. This is the most thorough report in existence anywhere dealing with a scenario that the transportation link of B.C. Rail be completed right through to Alaska. This report comes up with the conclusion that the only feasible way to make the B.C. Rail viable, and serve the needs of British Columbia, and provide jobs for all British Columbians, is to take the railroad through to Alaska, and that means political leadership.

Mr. Speaker, the royal commission got the Reed report and had to conclude in its recommendations to the government what to do with the railroad. They said that the railroad was a disaster. They said that the previous Social Credit administration had not told the truth about the debt. They pointed out that $700 million in accumulated deficit had been acquired by the railroads It said: "Close the railroad down; forget the sorry mess, except, and unless, or until...." I quote page 206 chapter 4:

"It is always conceivable that completion to the Yukon and Alaska might be undertaken by the federal or United States governments in pursuance of some national or international policy objective. BCR should not participate in such a scheme without guarantees from the governments involved against operating losses on the line, as well as payment by these government of capital cost to be incurred."

Mr. Speaker, there was only one hope left for the railroad; it is the same hope that has been the dream of the foundation of the railroad all along, and that is to negotiate with the United States, with the federal government, with the government of Alaska and with British Columbia to build a joint publicly owned railroad from Washington state right up to Alaska, on the same basis as the St. Lawrence seaway. It would mean that the American taxpayer who is subsidizing transportation through the Jones Act, the Canadian taxpayer who is subsidizing the Fort Nelson extension and other services, would have their first chance of making the railroad system viable. The Reed report gave the government a direction; the royal commission confirmed it. These documents have been in the government's hands for over one year.

Mr. Speaker, it is to the eternal shame of the Social Credit administration that they have done not one single thing to improve the lot of the taxpayers, long suffering on this railroad, or to go ahead with that railroad to Alaska.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

"Oh," they said, "the Americans aren't interested." The Premier of this province said he's done everything he could to get the railroad to become viable; but he shut it down. The Minister of Economic Development said he's done everything he could to keep the railroad going. Goodness help us, no wonder it was shut down. Mr. Speaker, one year has gone by. Has the Premier of this province made any effort to contact the United States government and discuss the railroad proposal with them? To my knowledge, the answer is no.

Has the Premier of this province made one effort to discuss with the federal government the continuation of the railroad through to Alaska? To my knowledge, the answer is no.

Eighteen months ago the Premier and the Minister of Economic Development had a meeting with the Governor of Alaska to set up a task

[ Page 43 ]

force to look into the railroad, and not a single darn thing has been done since then.

As you know, we were defeated in 1975. We're now the opposition. Bill Bennett said in the election campaign: "Vote for me, and I'll get British Columbia moving again." There's a $2 billion investment waiting to be made in the province of British Columbia up through the Yukon into Alaska. There is a need for political leadership to initiate these discussions.

In December a Washington state senator came to my home, and sat and enjoyed a cup of tea with my wife and I, and said: "I have a message for you."

I'm the Leader of the Opposition. I don't speak for the government.

He said: "I have a message for you."

I said: "What"s that?"

"Without going into any of the reasons," he said, "would you be interested in going to Washington, D.C., and talking to Mr. Brock Adams, the Secretary of Transportation in the United States government's federal cabinet, about continuing the railroad through to Alaska?"

And I said: "But we're not the government."

And he said: "But you might be again."

And I said: "Yes."

"Would you be willing to come to the United States and talk to Mr. Brock Adams and a few other people?"

I said: "I'll give it consideration."

I contacted him early this year and said: "Yes, I've discovered that the provincial government and the Premier of this province have not done one single thing to further that railroad in British Columbia to provide thousands of jobs for British Columbians, and I will be willing to go along." And I asked him if it would be useful, in his opinion, if I brought a prominent British Columbia businessman who was not an NDPer to accompany me in those talks: Captain Harry Terry, a friend and an associate of the former Premier of the province; a self-proclaimed financial helper to Social Credit. Aside from his political connection, he is a prominent British Columbian and has had years of experience in pioneering transportation needs in this province. This is non-political; I thought it was.

They wanted to know whether or not somebody in British Columbia would have enough guts to provide leadership to get this project going.

I went to Washington, D.C. I visited with Brock Adams. He is the United States Secretary of Transportation. We visited with the Hon. Warren G. Magnuson, United States senator from Washington state, third in line to the President of the United States. I met with Senator Jackson's staff in Washington, D.C., and I met with an old acquaintance and friend of mine, Senator Mike Gravel from Alaska. Senator Gravel has been on public record as having met with me in Alaska a year ago endorsing the proposal of taking a railroad to Alaska. So it was a renewal of acquaintance between myself and Senator Mike Gravel.

I have said nothing publicly about my visit to Washington, D.C. Captain Terry has been on two hotlines. He was asked questions about it and answered them candidly. But I will say this now: it is evident to me that the United States government is sincere in its desire to see this project completed. In my opinion, speaking purely for myself, I sense a total frustration by the United States government over the fact that this government hasn't initiated one squeak of talks with them about this project. Why else would the United States government ask the Leader of the Opposition to discuss this project?

After we returned to British Columbia I received an inquiry from Senator Lysen's office: was I aware of the fact that since my return from Washington, D.C., that the Washington state Senate had passed a resolution, endorsed by Senators Lysen, Ridder, Talmadge, Van Hollebeke, Benitz, Hansen, Gaspard, Williams, Rasmussen, Woody, Talley, Peterson, Donohue, Vagnild and Morrison, endorsing the proposal of building a railroad through to Alaska? I'm informed that a copy of this resolution went to the Premier's office. I do not know if it's been read; I don't know if it's been acknowledged.

Mr. Speaker, I have no authority to sign any documents for British Columbia. I have no legal status to say: "Yes, British Columbia will sign to allow you to spend American dollars to provide jobs to complete that railroad on a joint-ownership basis in the hands of the people of the United States and Canada — British Columbia and Alaska — in a joint international venture when international cooperation is essentially desired now more than ever."

I received a call and was asked if I would be interested in further meetings on this project. I asked the people who called me: "Why?" They said: "We do not intend to get mixed up in British Columbia politics or Canadian politics, but in our opinion this project will be beneficial for the United States, for British Columbia, for Canada and for Alaska. We are interested in getting this project going any way, anyhow, by getting public awareness of our desire to cooperate with Canada and with British Columbia."

As a consequence, Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday

[ Page 44 ]

this week I will be travelling to Seattle and meeting at 2 p.m. with Mr. Aubry Davis, the regional representative to the Secretary of Transport in Seattle. Another federal cabinet minister in the United States government is to be directly involved; a Mr. Leonard Sarrie, regional representative to the Secretary of Commerce, will also be there.

Mr. Speaker, the minister finds all of this very amusing. I would think that any normal person sitting through this experience would be embarrassed that his own leader and his own government isn't out at these kind of meetings trying to provide jobs for the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I then informed a press conference today that a most unusual invitation arrived at my office last week from the state of Alaska, and was to be announced simultaneously with my announcement today. I have been asked by the Alaska state Senate and the Alaska state Legislature to address them in joint session on April 3 on a railroad proposal that they are in favour of: to complete this railroad to Alaska in cooperation with the United States. The invitation comes from Senator Clement Tillion, president of the Alaska state Senate; Representative Terry Gardiner, Speaker of the Alaska state House of colleague of yours, Mr. Speaker; Senator Michael Colletta, the majority leader of the Alaska state Senate; and Senator Jalmar Kerttula, the minority leader of the Alaska state Senate. All parties and both Houses, in an unprecedented procedure, have asked the Leader of the Opposition to speak to a joint session.

Mr. Speaker, at a time when we have 112,000 people unemployed in British Columbia, at a time when we have bankruptcies at a higher rate than at any time in the history in this province, at a time when this province is crying for political leadership and decisiveness to get British Columbia moving again, we have a throne speech that promises a bit of denticare and tiddlywinks through the rest of it.

Mr. Speaker, an opportunity to build British Columbia on a solid foundation of transportation cooperation between this country and the United States and Alaska is waiting to be realized. The taxpayers of this province have already paid $700 million of their share. It is estimated that the project will take $2 billion to complete; British Columbia's share of that completion would be approximately $200 million. Because of previous policies we have put this province in a debt position of $700 million, and the only way to save that debt position and provide jobs and security and proper growth in the second half of this province is to continue the railroad, and the railroad would be completed mainly with the expenditure of other jurisdictions' money.

Why no leadership, Mr. Speaker? Why no imagination? Why no drive?

The Premier has been travelling around this province saying that Dave Barrett is the best salesman in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that very kindly given tribute. I said in response to the Premier calling me the best salesman that it was easy for me to be the best salesman; I had the best product to sell — and I always tell the truth, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I challenge this government to explain to the people of British Columbia why they let this massive opportunity slip by. I challenge the Premier of this province to tell the people and the taxpayers of this province why he has not acted on this challenge. I challenge the cabinet ministers to tell the world why they've ignored the Reed report and not done their best to provide jobs for British Columbians.

On June 31 will be going to Alaska, where I will be putting forward the position of the New Democratic Party. I hope that my position will be understood by all people in this province, regardless of their political affiliations, regardless of their stations in life.

This one project could mean more to the future of every British Columbian than any other single endeavour that is now on the table. Because this government has not acted on this potential, because it has ignored the Reed report and the royal commission report, because it has been a failure in providing leadership and economic security, I regret that I have to amend the Speech from the Throne with the following words: "But this House regrets that the speech of His Honour fails to show any economic planning directed to solving unemployment and fails to indicate policies to reduce the ever-increasing cost of living and municipal tax burden." Mr. Speaker, I urge every member to speak and vote for this amendment, so we can truly get B.C. going again, rather than just playing politics, as this government has done for three years in office.

On the amendment.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I rise to second this non-confidence motion which was presented by the Leader of the Opposition. After waiting for nine months, and waiting until late in March to call the House in session, you would think that the throne speech presented last week to the members of this Legislative Assembly would come to grips with some of the prob-

[ Page 45 ]

lems that have been outlined today by the Leader of the Opposition. That seems pretty basic. Here we've gone all this time without a session, here we see the economy of the province still stagnating, unemployment still rising, the cost of living still rising, and yet this document does not come to grips with any of those problems.

Do the members on the government side not buy food? Don't they buy clothes? Don't they buy fuel oil? Don't they see the signs on the small businesses throughout the province that say "closed?"

HON. MR. VEITCH: That's on Sundays.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, the new minister makes light of the economic problems facing the people of British Columbia today. He's the minister who's supposed to be in charge of small businesses. Does he not know of the bankruptcies? He has not been in office too long, but surely by this time he should have the figures about the bankruptcies in this province. He smiles.

I don't think they are aware, based on the comments made by the new minister in charge of small business. If they are aware, they don't seem to care.

Mr. Speaker, since the MLAs were called back last Wednesday to first of all prorogue and then to hear the throne speech on Thursday, the best news that the people of British Columbia have had has not come from the Premier or any member on that government side. Certainly it has not come through this throne speech that was presented. But it came this afternoon from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) . The Leader of the Opposition is the only one who has given the people of this province any hope and any optimism.

Mr. Speaker, they are the ones who are largely responsible for the economic problems. Yet they've made no proposals to rectify the sagging economy, the high levels of unemployment and the high cost of living. But it's very interesting that it's the Leader of the Opposition that the political leaders are looking to in order to get any kind of development going in this province. It's very unusual for a leader of the opposition to be asked to speak to a special joint session of the Alaska state Legislative Assembly, to hear his proposals about what to do about B.C.'s economy and what to do about B.C.'s high unemployment rate. They don't look to the Premier; they look to the Leader of the Opposition. That group over there has been making a mockery of any proposals regarding the extension of the B.C. Rail. They've done nothing to assist the people that are affected by the B.C. Rail and by the high levels of unemployment in the northern part of the province.

The political leaders who are outside of this country have no confidence in the Premier, just like the people of British Columbia no longer have any confidence in the Premier of B.C. It's a good thing that the province does have a political leader who has some initiative, who has a vision, who has some leadership, and who is willing to try to improve the situation for the people of the province. It's refreshing to hear, Mr. Speaker, that instead of another shutdown like Railwest by this government, or another sellout to an American firm, as in the case of Panco Poultry, or in the case of the special services that were provided under the Pacific Stage Lines, we can hear a positive proposal. It's the first one that we have heard since this House was called back into session, as far as the economy and unemployment and the cost of living is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, early last week the Ministry of Economic Development released its annual review of economic activity in British Columbia. This report predicted that the province's gross domestic product will rise by about 3.5 percent in 1979. Mr. Speaker, this is well below the 1978 figure of 4.2 percent. We had the mover and the seconder trying to present a glowing picture of the economy of British Columbia the other day. But the figures released by the Ministry of Economic Development do not show that. They do not show that, Mr. Speaker, and I don't think anyone on this side of the House was convinced by the attempts made by the mover and seconder on Friday to paint a rosy picture about the economy of B.C.

This same report predicted that the number of unemployed in British Columbia will rise in 1979. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it will rise in 1979. It is unfortunate that this prediction was not included in the throne speech. We didn't hear any mention of that whatsoever. But then maybe the Premier doesn't listen to the predictions of his Minister of Economic Development. Maybe the Premier cannot even hear the Minister of Economic Development, because we were told the other day by the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) that the Minister of Economic Development is adopting a low profile. I'll say he's adopting a low profile! And that's very unusual for him, Mr. Speaker, because you'll remember when every member of this House could well hear what the Minister of Economic Development had to say when he sat in opposition as the MLA for South Peace River. In fact, everyone in the whole buildings could

[ Page 46 ]

hear what he had to say whenever he was on his feet. But now he's adopting a low profile, we're told by the MLA for North Okanagan. We can't even hear him anymore. Mr. Speaker, he seems to have faded into oblivion.

But the economic picture is bleak. We are told by the government itself through the Ministry of Economic Development that the unemployment picture is going to get worse. Unemployment in B.C. is going to rise. Certainly, thus far in 1979 we have seen that happen. In January the number of unemployed people in B.C. was 110,000. That's according to Statistics Canada. This rose in February to 112,000. The adjusted unemployment rate jumped to 8.5 percent in February from 8.2 percent in January. But the unadjusted unemployment rate, which is a more accurate figure since it measures the number of people actually unemployed, stood at 9.4 percent for February.

I think it is also worth noting that this trend toward higher unemployment in B.C. is the opposite of the current national trend towards slightly lower unemployment rates. For example, the national unemployment rate declined slightly from January to February while our provincial rate rose. We are going against the trend across the country. In B.C. it's rising while, across Canada, the average is coming down.

This means, of course, that things are getting worse in B.C., but we didn't hear about that in the throne speech. The new Minister of Small Business doesn't even seem to be aware of it. He laughs, Mr. Speaker. In light of these pessimistic statistics and trends, the government's attempt to paint a glowing picture in the throne speech must be dismissed as a pre-election public relations attempt. That's all it is. I think we're going to go to the polls soon and I think this throne speech, which attempts to paint a picture of a good economic situation in the province, is just an attempt at good public relations prior to an election. We all remember that election slogan — "We will get B.C. moving again" — that's what the Socreds said when they were campaigning. But if you look at the unemployment statistics alone, you can clearly see that the only movement has been in reverse since 1975, when the Socreds came to power.

For the first three years of Social Credit government from January 1976 to December 1978, the average unadjusted unemployment rate for British Columbia was almost 8.5 percent and the average number of unemployed people for that period of time was 97,000. When the Socreds were in office from January 1976 to 1978, 97,000 was the average number of people unemployed. This situation has become worse in 1979.

Now what were those unemployed statistics when the NDP was in power? This is important because the present government is always accusing the former NDP government of mismanaging the economy. I'm sure you've heard that, Mr. Speaker, coming from this government. In fact, looking at the three complete years of NDP government from January 1973 to December 1975, we see that the average unadjusted unemployment rate, 7.1 percent, was significantly below the rate of the three years that they have been in office. The average number of people unemployed during that period of time was 74,000, not the 97,000 that it has been since the Socreds first came into office. I think those figures are very important when you compare the two governments with respect to unemployment alone. It is a significant indicator of the whole economic trend that has taken place since 1975. There is no doubt, when the two governments are compared, that the government that was in office between 1972 and 1975 gave a far superior performance to the one that is now sitting on the government benches.

Who suffers most from this depressing trend towards higher and higher rates of unemployment? Later on, I will examine this question in light of figures which indicate that women and young people are particularly susceptible to unemployment.

They are the ones who tend to be first to lose their jobs when the economy slows down. For the moment, however, I think we should realize that all of us are affected by unemployment. We who are privileged to sit as members of this Legislature are only too aware of the pain and the hardship inflicted upon our constituents by high levels of unemployment. At least those MLAs who sit on this side of the House are fully aware of it.

Because we are politicians, we are sensitive to the complaints of our constituents. The lack of jobs in my constituency is a subject of great concern to the citizens who live there, and certainly to me as their representative in this Legislature.

How can people build their lives and raise families in a community where there are so few opportunities for work, or when the fear that their jobs may be lost dominates day-to-day life? Many of those who do have jobs live in great fear that they too may become unemployed. The unemployment problem affects them and introduces uncertainty into their lives, although this does not show up in the unemployment statistics. The lack of jobs in my constituency, and most of the constituencies in this province, is a fact which leads many British Columbians to lose hope. It depresses

[ Page 47 ]

the life of many of those communities. Those are the side effects, that cannot be measured in the monthly statistics produced.

I find it sad that the existence of some 112,000 officially unemployed British Columbians seems to cause so little alarm in the ranks of the Social Credit. The economic potential of 112,000 of our fellow citizens is currently being wasted. It's tragic. In addition to the very real human hardship caused by unemployment, it also represents a huge loss to our economy. These unemployed people could be earning incomes, paying taxes and stimulating the economy with expenditures. Instead they are in effect pushed aside and given small sums to keep them quiet and apparently forgotten. This attitude has a particularly damaging effect on our young people. Denied the opportunity to earn a living or to acquire all-important job experience, thousands of young people are being left by the wayside because of the policies and lack of initiative of the current government.

In 1978, fully 45 percent of the unemployed in British Columbia were in the 15 to 24 age group. I think that, in many ways, this is the most depressing aspect of our very depressing unemployment problem in this province. Where is the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips)? Where is that man who used to make so much noise? Where is the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams)? It's his ministry that produces these figures on a monthly basis, yet the Minister of Labour does not seem to be involved or concerned about what is happening in the field of unemployment in B.C. today. Maybe he is too busy writing letters to Missouri these days and doesn't have time to concern himself with the unemployment of the young people.

He has a youth unemployment program, which is mentioned in the throne speech — it's there, but I'm sad to report that in spite of the fact that the unemployment figures are going up on a monthly basis, the throne speech makes no mention about any improvements made in that youth employment program to try to put some of our young people to work. I'm sad to report that the Ministry of Labour intends to create jobs for about the same number of young people who were able to obtain jobs last year through that program. Don't they realize that the situation is worse, the need is greater? The youth employment program should have many more millions of dollars in additional funds in order to begin to meet the needs of young people looking for work. This government is incredibly insensitive to the needs and the problems people face. They have a surplus of $145 million in the treasury, maybe even more, yet they are unable and unwilling to meet the needs of the people.

Health care in this province is in shambles. I'd like to give you an example about the shambles that we see in health care. I'm very pleased that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is in here this afternoon, because in Campbell River, after years of work, a society has finally succeeded in completing a new intermediate care unit, the first in Campbell River, which will accommodate 79 residents.

The Yuculta Lodge Society has spent innumerable hours and I don't know how much effort and I don't know how much money. They've received the support of virtually every organization in Campbell River in order to complete Yuculta Lodge. The organizations have shown tremendous support for the society. They've donated furniture; they've donated money; they've donated paintings; they've done everything that they possibly could to make sure that Yuculta Lodge was completed so that the 79 beds could be filled and so that a need which has not been met before in Campbell River could finally be met.

We had the official opening of Yuculta Lodge in Campbell River nearly two weeks ago. Two weeks later there is still not one resident in Yuculta Lodge. Not one person has taken up residence in there, because of haggling over a budget, because the Minister of Health refuses to budge from his position, refuses to consider the problems of operating Yuculta Lodge under the kinds of terms that he wishes. It sits empty.

Can you imagine? When all of those people are in dire need of intermediate care; when the building, with the cooperation of every organization in Campbell River, has finally been completed; when it is finally opened, not one resident can move in. It's tragic, and it relates to unemployment. I can assure you of that in case you were considering that it did not relate. The staff is ready to go.

For a building like that to sit empty is absolutely inexcusable. This government must be condemned for it.

Yuculta Lodge is not the only problem. Campbell River Hospital is facing a dire problem. I want you to read this headline which appeared in the local paper just this week. This is from the Comox District Free Press. It refers to St. Joseph's Hospital in Comox: "Hospital Must Cut Staff and Ten Beds."

The Minister of Health, by applying that 5 percent limitation across the board, has forced Comox Hospital, its administration and its board of directors into a an absolutely impossible position. They're cutting staff. Ten

[ Page 48 ]

staff are going to have to be laid off — or at least the equivalent of ten staff — because what they are going to do is cut back on the hours of some of the people who are working in order to meet the requirements which have been applied by the Minister of Health.

St. Joseph's Hospital and its administration have done everything they possibly can to meet the requirements of the Minister of Health. They are laying off staff, closing down beds, reducing the cafeteria service, and cutting out what is called "extra nourishment" for the patients in the hospital. They have done absolutely everything they possibly can to meet the requirements of the minister, and are now in an absolutely impossible position.

The only thing those administrators and the hospital board could do was to close down ten beds and lay off staff. The Minister of Health writes them back and says: "You are not permitted to close down ten acute-care beds at Comox." He doesn't tell them that he's prepared to give more money so that they can operate. He has put that hospital board and its administration in an impossible position. I hope those staff will not have to be laid off to add to the unemployed. I hope the Minister of Health will see some reason and that he will relent and that he will ensure that sufficient funds are supplied to St. Joseph's Hospital at Comox so that they can continue to operate with the present number of beds.

On top of the financial difficulties that they have already faced by the 5 percent limitation, they have also been informed that because of the shortage of extended-care beds, they have had 15 extended-care patients in acute-care beds, and have been funded at the acute-care level.

The Minister of Health has now informed them that instead of $110 a day for the acute-care beds in which they have had to place extended-care patients because there is no alternative, the hospital will now be paid not $110, but $34 a day in order to try to supply the needs of those people who require extended care. Mr. Speaker, that's less than what he's paying them in the extended-care unit itself.

I don't know if the minister is even listening, but if he is not aware of the predicament that he is putting the health care and the hospitals in in this province, then it is time he soon learned.

The administration at St. Joseph's Hospital tells me they can no longer ensure that they can provide a safe level of care for the patients in that hospital, because of the position of the Minister of Health and this government.

I am hoping that those ten people at Comox will not be added to the list of officially unemployed in this province. But, Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago I did use the term "officially unemployed, " and I really think that that term needs some elaborating and some further description. A great many of the economists feel that in actual fact there are far more than the 112,000 officially unemployed in British Columbia. These people are the so-called "hidden" unemployed, and it is only recently that the province of British Columbia has recognized the hidden unemployed and has done some studies on it.

Statistics Canada has looked at this question, and in the first study of this kind that it did on the hidden unemployed, Statistics Canada discovered that there were 263,000 people who were actually unemployed in March of '78 but who were not officially counted as being unemployed in the Statistics Canada national survey. The reason that this large group of people were not officially counted was that they had not actively looked for work in the previous four weeks. But these people did want jobs. Let's be clear about that: they wanted jobs. But they did not appear on the official statistics list because they did not look for work during the previous four weeks, and it's probably because they believed, with some accuracy, that there were no jobs available. Perhaps they had already searched for jobs for months without success. Perhaps the small number of job advertisements in the newspapers or at Canada Manpower discouraged them.

In any case, the Statistics Canada study showed that there were 263,000 more people out of work than the official national figures. This was for March, '78. This represents, Mr. Speaker, an increase of 25 percent over the official statistics for unemployment.

I am pleased that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), through the ministry's labour research bulletin in February of '79, this year, has looked at this. According to the Ministry of Labour reports on this, they found that in March of 1978 there were 18,000 hidden unemployed in B.C., in addition to the 108,000 who were already declared officially unemployed at that time. Now this represents roughly a 17 percent increase over the official figure. So you see, Mr. Speaker, there are far more people who are unemployed than those official figures reveal.

Now if we take a look at the statistics for February, '79, we see that there were 112,000 officially unemployed. That's for last month. According to both Statistics Canada and the B.C. Ministry of Labour, we should increase

[ Page 49 ]

this figure by 17 percent to obtain a more accurate estimate of unemployment in B.C. So if you take the 112,000 and add the 19,000 hidden unemployed which are now revealed through the Ministry of Labour's own bulletin, we come up with a figure of 131,000 unemployed — not 112,000, but 131,000.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is not a political estimate by myself, but it comes from accepting Statistics Canada's own admission that there are many discouraged workers who want employment but are not included in official surveys and statistics. The B.C. Ministry of Labour also appears to accept this view, judging by that February research bulletin which contains an article relating to the hidden unemployed.

Now I think we should ask ourselves whether there might be an even greater number of hidden unemployed than Statistics Canada is prepared to admit. Statistics Canada admits there are official figures and there are unofficial figures revealing the hidden unemployed. Even those figures do not tell the whole story with respect to unemployment in British Columbia. For instance, native people living on Indian reserves are not included in Statistics Canada's calculations of the size of the labour force and the number of unemployed.

There are currently some 33,000 native people living on reserves in B.C. For some reason, it's very difficult to obtain recent. figures on unemployment among reserve residents. Fortunately, after some considerable effort, I was able to acquire some very interesting statistics which come courtesy of the Minister of Economic Development. According to these figures, some 1,600-odd people were officially unemployed on reserves in B.C. at the time of the 1976 census. Now this seems quite small, and the reason is that the native people tend to have a very low participation rate in the labour force. So the figures that the Economic Development ministry came up with, based on the '76 census, were some 1,600. That's very low. Because the labour force participation rate for native people on reserves is only 58 percent — some 20 percent below the B.C. average — we are justified in concluding that there are a great number of people, who are discouraged workers, who are living on Indian reserves but who should be added to the list of unemployed in British Columbia. According to some of the Indian spokesmen, unemployment on some reserves is as high as 90 percent. That's shocking.

It's impossible to come up with an accurate estimate of the number of native people who are in fact part of the hidden unemployed. I will use a very conservative figure of, say, 3,500. Add that on to the 1,600 people found by the Economic Development ministry and we can assume we have about 5,000 people who are unemployed, living on reserves, who are not even included in either the official statistics or the so-called "hidden unemployed." This figure probably errs on the conservative side, I should add. This rough estimate of 5,000 native people in both the official and hidden unemployed categories should be added to the figure that we've already come up with of 131,000, making a figure of 136,000. So you can easily see that if you look into the real problems of the unemployed, and look into the real figures with respect to the rates of unemployment in this province, 112,000 is not nearly accurate.

If you look also at the figures with respect to those people who are employable, and are currently in receipt of social assistance, we find that at the end of December there were 23,968 people who could be employed. But because there are no jobs, they are in receipt of social assistance. They're not considered. They're not considered. Very few of these people are likely to have been counted in those Statistics Canada surveys. I should add that 23,968 employable people in receipt of welfare as of December 1978 is 1,151 more than there were in December of 1975. That certainly belies the story that many of the Social Credit people have been trying to tell the people of this province.

Let's assume there were 10,000 people who are on social assistance who have not given up hope at this stage and who are out actively looking for work. They would not be counted. We now have the figure up to 141,000 actually unemployed in B.C. We're not getting a clear picture or an accurate picture as to what is happening in terms of unemployment in B.C. We certainly are not getting it from the group over there. They did not even mention in the throne speech the official number of unemployed, let alone any of the hidden unemployed or those people who are an reserves who are not counted.

Do I have only three minutes left?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I notice the green light is on. I believe that is right.

MS. SANFORD: It's on. Well, I'm going to have to cut my remarks short in order to ensure that I don't violate the rules of the House and go beyond the allotted 40 minutes.

I've not even mentioned the problem that women are facing in terms of unemployment. The government does not recognize that. The

[ Page 50 ]

government does not recognize that most women work because they have to, not because they want to.

Mr. Speaker, the government has failed to deal with the problems of the economy. They are doing virtually nothing about the unemployment statistics; in fact we're told by the Ministry of Economic Development that the situation is going to get worse. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is contributing his part to make sure that those unemployment statistics get worse.

But this throne speech, Mr. Speaker, is totally lacking in addressing those serious problems which affect the people of the province: taxation, the cost of living, the economy and unemployment. The talents of all of those 141,000 people who are looking for work in this province are wasted.

I have no confidence in this government, Mr. Speaker. No one on this side of the House has any confidence in this government. I now second the motion made by the leader of the official opposition.

MR. LEVI: I would like to join with my colleagues in supporting the amendment, which says in part that "the speech of His Honour fails to show any economic planning directed to solving unemployment and fails to indicate policies to reduce the ever-increasing cost of living and municipal taxation burden." What we've seen from the government — from a government that is perhaps unique in Canada — is that in fact it has an unemployment policy, not an employment policy. It has an unemployment policy, because some weeks ago the chief financial officer of the government, the Minister of Finance, announced that there would be a 5 percent ceiling on expenditures that would affect the municipalities and that would affect the school boards. We've heard from the Minister of Health that the 5 percent ceiling will affect the hospitals.

All of this inevitably leads to two things: first of all, a reduction in service; and certainly a reduction in employment. This is part of the policy of unemployment that this government has had. They were warned three years ago by no less an institute than the C.D. Howe Institute at the time when they brought in very heavy taxation in the form of increased ICBC rates and increased personal taxes. People had less disposable income within a year of the life of this government than they had previously.

They were told that now is not the time — this is three years ago when we had an unemployment problem — to exact from people high taxation, but rather to lower taxes and to use the money for job development. They decided to go the other way of heavy taxation, overtaxation, and now they actually brag about the fact that they have a $300 million surplus that is sitting in the bank, $300 million which, if put into the economy with a very serious attempt at some job creation, would have a multiplier effect of about 1.6. That would take it well over $400 million of money that could be invested in the generation of employment.

But that's not the style of this government. The style of this government is to simply deal with the questions of unemployment. It is ironic that today the government is attempting to get a great deal of political kudos out of the BCRIC share development, taking all of the assets that were acquired by the previous government and then convincing people that these are great assets, they are worth investing in and that everybody should go out and buy more.

We can recall in this House the kind of bitter fights that we had over the years when each bill was introduced that led to the acquisition of those assets. Why was that done? Why did we acquire the assets? We didn't acquire them immediately, because we particularly wanted to get into the inside of the forest industry, but we had to prevent a further erosion of the economic control of our own industries. We had to prevent what was even more important at that time — the possible loss of 1,500 jobs in the north in relation to Can-Cel. That's why we originally got into those kinds of acquisitions. That is important, because that was the business of projecting jobs and the further development of jobs.

Now we have the government telling us that the way to go is to buy the shares and then we will get into more development. The irony of it is that particularly in relation to the oil and gas development, they're going to give that out; they're going to give it away to other people to develop. The BCRIC is not even going to get involved in that kind of thing. Other people are going to benefit; other companies are going to benefit from that kind of development. So we don't know yet. We don't know yet at all what kind of generation of jobs is going to come out of that. So what we have is a continuing of the policy of unemployment.

Well, I can tell you this — we have bit of a policy of unemployment-making over here too, and that's to get rid of those people over there in the next election.

It seems fairly inevitable that we are going to an election as soon as the Premier can stop

[ Page 51 ]

long enough to read the poll results. I mean, right now he's in the north and presumably looking at how he's going to develop a lot of jobs by dint of getting more people to sit in the senate. That's what he seems to have preoccupied himself with for the past two years — the amendment to the constitution. I'm sure all of the people in the gallery go home every night and worry about the fact that we don't have more senators from British Columbia. We have to listen to the kind of claptrap the Premier talks about in tabling all of these questions before the First Premiers' Conference, but have nothing to do with looking at what's happening on the home front in terms of job development.

So what are his two greatest contributions to the economy of late? He's now appointed a minister who's going to be responsible for fisheries and small business; then he has another minister who is going to be responsible for deregulation. I think he's being very unkind when he says it's deregulation. It was put to me that really it's "destrangulation." Let's stop strangling small business in its attempts to get things going — and big business too. The remarkable thing is that they've taken three years to come around to the recognition that there are serious problems of red tape.

They had to find a job for the minister, who had been fired out of his previous job, so they made him the Minister of Deregulation. That's his job, and so far we haven't seen anything he's done. We're very curious about his estimates, because we want to know how much bureaucracy is needed to deregulate bureaucracy that creates all the red tape. But estimates make no contribution at all to the development of jobs. We've got to hear from the Minister of Tourism and Small Business (Hon. Mr. Veitch). He mustn't fall into the trap that the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) always falls into; he gets up and says that the number of companies formed in British Columbia are increasing all the time, then very lightly glosses over the number of bankruptcies. That minister knows, because he has a closer and more recent association with the business community, that bankruptcy figures don't tell the whole story at all. Bankruptcy figures really only tell one-third of the story. Bankruptcies, in relation to businesses in British Columbia, are at an all-time high — almost 900.

But what about those people who have been taken into receivership, whose figures are not shown? The specialists, particularly the Dun and Bradstreet people, tell us you can double that from the number of bankruptcies, so we're up to 1,800. Then they tell us again that you can add the people who walk away from their businesses, who are unable to cope with the lack of cash flow, or who are unable to deal with the business at all. So when you talk about 800 business failures, then another 800 for the receiverships and another 800 for people who walk away, you're talking about 2,500 business failures, at least, going on in this province. This is a very serious problem, because the minister will be the first one to say that 65 to 70 percent of all the jobs generated in this province are generated by the small businessman. But he's going to have to be much more explicit and spend much more money than his predecessor, who last year boasted that his most massive contribution to small business aid was something just below $4 million. They are sitting there with their surplus of almost $300 million.

That minister knows if he's talking about job creation he's got to look to the small businessman and he's got to look to a much greater investment. We've got to look at ten times that amount. We've got to look at a $40 million to $50 million investment in terms of assisting those small business people to create jobs. Otherwise, nothing will happen. Something has got to happen very quickly, because if they start putting money into the economy to generate jobs, they know it will be the fall going into winter before the real effect of this is felt. Yet they've had opportunities for almost two years to do something. Almost two years. They've had a seriously inept Minister of Economic Development. I won't talk now about the mess that he made going overseas. I only want to talk about the mess that he's created here in the province. That's a very serious mess in terms of the amount of unemployment that my colleague, the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), talked about just before.

We have over 150,000 people unemployed, looking for work in this province. The great tragedy is that 40 percent of those people are people under the age of 25, who have no expectations whatsoever. That doesn't augur well for the young people coming out of high school, or for the young people coming out of university, to know that they have only six chances out of ten to get any kind of employment, and that the others who are not successful will wind up where the rest of the people are going. That is one of the serious criticisms that I have in relation to this government and its youth employment program.

It seems that in this province we're only concerned about youth who go to university, or to colleges. If the problem is in relation to

[ Page 52 ]

youth and universities and the question of fees, then get rid of the fees. But do something about those other young people who are not fortunate enough, or able, to go to universities and colleges, because they have problems all year round. If people who are going on to higher education need that kind of break, then take away the fees. This program has to be for young people 12 months a year, not simply for those who have to make enough money in the summer to get back into school in the fall.

It's time that that government, Mr. Speaker, addressed itself to the whole question of young people, because that's the kind of problem that touches every family that has young people in it. More young people today are unable to make the break from the family because they haven't an opportunity to be independent, because they can't go out and get the jobs to support themselves, and that's becoming a very serious problem. That's what they fail to do as a government — to address these problems.

The scenario for the government, when it came into power, seemed to be fairly obvious. They would do the bad things first, they would do the good things last, they would bribe people with their own money, and then they would go to an election. It seems to me that that scenario is a self-fulfilled promise. That's what's happening. And thrown into the middle of all that mess are the BCRIC shares. That was really going to underline what good guys they were. But nothing has happened. The great talkers about job creation have delivered nothing. They are not able to stand up and to point to any part of this province where they can show that they've created jobs. We can stand up over here and talk about all the jobs that they haven't created, talk about getting the province moving, moving people from employment to unemployment, moving control of Canadian industry from Canada to the United States. That's the kind of movement we've had from this government. But no planning in respect to job creation whatsoever. A lot of flowery talk in the budget. Every year we've had a lot of flowery talk in the budget and the throne speech, but no action. No change in the amount of jobs that are going to be generated for young people from this year to last year. No great expansive, forward-looking approach to the economy. It all boils down, Mr. Speaker, to the whole issue of the leadership of the government and the kind of confidence that it creates in the business community in respect to the economy.

We've heard time and time again that it's true that governments do not create jobs, unless they have to go out and take over companies, because if they don't they're going to go into foreign control and we're going to lose jobs. It's true in the general sense that governments do not create jobs, but what they do create, and what is essential, is the kind of confidence that has to be created, the feeling of confidence people have to have in the government, that that will lead to the generation of jobs by the business community. That's where this government has failed; that's where the Premier of that government has failed — its inability to elicit the kind of confidence from business people in the community to create jobs. Only the unemployment figures have continued to grow worse all the time.

Part of the throne speech makes mention that the Minister of Agriculture is looking for the improvement in employment by doing something about the processing industry. That's wonderful. If that can happen, that's good. But I ask a question: then why allow the sale of Panco to a firm like Cargill? Because that I can't understand. On the one hand they want to do something about the processing industry, and on the other hand they hand part of the processing industry over to a foreign dominated corporation. That's the inconsistency in the kind of planning that this government does and in what it talks about. I've seen it happen time and time again.

What we are concerned about when we constantly say that you have to pay attention towards the question of Canadian control versus foreign control, offshore control, whatever you want to use, is that we know that the decisions about the perpetuation of jobs will remain in Canada and will not be decided, as to whether a plant will live or die, in Minneapolis or New York. That is the argument that we constantly talk about over here. That is why we talk about some piece of the action in the major industries, and not to allow continually for industries that are developed in Canada, that are financed in Canada, to have the decisions made in the United States. We'll have more to say when we get to speak to the main motion on the whole question of this government's attitude to foreign control, because this particular motion deals with their failure do something about unemployment. They've done nothing about unemployment. They haven't come forward with one plan on what they're hoping to do, because it's part of that three year and four months scenario. "We hammered everybody in the beginning; we made the NDP look bad." That's what they hoped to do. Then they collected a lot of money, and now they want to start giving it out. There's a cynicism out there and it's been out there

[ Page 53 ]

for well over two years, where people have been saying that what they're going to do in the end is bribe us with our own money. People know that. That's why when the Premier thought last fall, when he ran around with a writ in his pocket, that he was going to call an election, he began to realize that he'd overplayed his hand.

We over here look forward to an election, and we look forward to it as early as he wants to call it, because they've had their chance. They've had their chance and no amount of BCRIC shares is going to bail them out of the kind of mess that they've created. The kind of mess that that Minister of Finance is responsible for in the Systems Corporation — no more of that. No more wasting of money in that kind of thing, no more BCRIC shares, because that's the kind of money that you could have put into job generation — $24 million.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: A hundred million dollars? What did you do with $100 million? You put it in the bank. That's what you did with $100 million. Then you took another $100 million and you put that into the bank. Now you've got $300 million, and what have we got? One hundred and fifty thousand unemployed in this province. That's sound economic policy? That's the kind of Socred treachery that has existed before, where you don't give two tinkers for the kind of people who need to work, but only for the rich people. You've generated no jobs. You've been a complete failure and it's time that you went, and the quicker you call the election, the better.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I rise in my place to speak against this motion, because I think the opposition are basically just going through the motions trying to find something to do to while away the hours, because they really haven't got too much to say. I've heard the old cliches, the old reports, the old comments by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), prior to making this motion that, really, we've heard before. You know, I used to think I was a newcomer in this House. A newcomer. A young fellow. I want to tell you that I'm getting a little tired of hearing the "old fellow" keep coming back with the same old story. I have to tell you that some of the comments that he has made in regard to gas prices and what they've done about the export price of gas....

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak on the motion.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I was going to speak on this, Mr. Speaker, concerning the economy and how this province is benefiting economically under this administration. I was going to speak during the debate on the throne speech. But when I heard the Leader of the Opposition make his statements during the throne speech, his comments, and then bring forward the motion, I felt it was only fair to speak on this subject now.

The motion states: the opposition regrets that the speech fails to show economic planning directed to solving unemployment. I think that the comments in regard to gas exports, to the activity in the oil and gas industry in this province and to the mining industry, will indicate that the economy is moving. If you will give me that latitude, Mr. Speaker, I will proceed.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Mr. Minister, as long as you keep in mind the fact that an amendment does have the effect of narrowing the scope of debate, and perhaps those remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition in the wider scope of debate in the throne speech reply are not afforded to those who will be addressing themselves to this amendment. The points in order under this amendment are economic planning, solving unemployment, cost of living and municipal taxation burden. Please proceed.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In regard to any economic planning, I think the motion says, "any economic planning." I would like to proceed on the basis that the Leader of the Opposition made some comments regarding what they've done in gas prices. You know, Mr. Speaker, I could very quickly call this speaker a liar, but I know that is not allowed in this House. I could damned near call him a liar, because he's very close to being one.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I meant the previous speaker, and not you, sir. Kindly excuse that.

MR. KING: Have you no respect for the rules of the House?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I should say the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, who is the one that I am referring to and have referred to from the beginning of my comments. I hope you appreciate that.

MR. KING: Quit swearing! Clean up your act!

[ Page 54 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I would take objection to both, hon. member.

MR. KING: Can you not express yourself without swearing?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh! Oh! Oh! You throw rule books at the Speaker, Mr. Member. I remember that. As a new member of this House, I remember you throwing rule books at the Speaker — an act, I think, that never before in any House, in any Legislature, in any House, was ever done before. You should be ashamed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. And now to the amendment.

HON. MR. HEWITT: And then he couldn't hit the chair.

Mr. Speaker, the comments were made by the Leader of the Opposition — previously to the comments he made here — on a TV program in a speech he made in my riding. The comments were in regard to the export price of gas when the NDP came to power. Let's face it, the export of gas gives the province revenues which help our economy move. Mr. Barrett made a comment in regard to the news article that I have. The news article indicates that when they formed the government in 1972, the export price was 32 cents per thousand cubic feet. The fact is, it was 31 cents per thousand cubic feet. That's a small point, hon. members, but when I go through this whole list you will see that the Leader of the Opposition says a lot, says nothing, and in most cases he never gets the facts straight.

The second item he mentioned was that they increased the price to 64 cents per thousand cubic feet on November 14,1973. The fact is, they raised it to 61 cents. Now it's rather interesting to look at the reasons behind this, because in the article it says: "The NDP then set up the petroleum corporation, doubled the price to 64 cents, took the profit to Victoria and started up Pharmacare and Mincome programs." That's what Mr. Barrett stated in his speech.

The only reason they could increase this export price — and get this, because this is rather interesting for somebody who is touting people services, et cetera — at that particular time was to increase B.C. Hydro's rate of gas, which they did, to 58 cents a thousand cubic feet. The only way that they could get the increase for the export gas is because it was 105 percent of Hydro's rate allowed them their export price, which was 61 cents a thousand cubic feet.

It's rather interesting that the man in his speech touts that he got all these revenues for export gas to bring in Pharmacare and Mincome. At the same time, he neglects to say that the domestic users of natural gas have an increase from some 32 cents up to 58 cents. Interesting. Where does it go? Who pays the price?

Let me move on. Then we get into 1975, and he says: "By 1975 the price was up to $1.96 in spite of the process of the then federal Energy Minister Macdonald." I've got to tell you that the price was only $1.60 in November of 1975. Actually, when you look back, they raised it to $1 in November 1974; they raised it to $1.40 in August 1975; and they raised it to $1.60 in November 1975. We turfed them out of office in December. They didn't get another chance to raise it again. However, the fact is that it wasn't $1.96 under the previous administration. The NEB sets the export rates, as you well know, Mr. Member. The NEB sets the rate, and you make your submissions to Ottawa. Is that correct? Sure you do. You know that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm just telling you what that leader, who has lost all his credibility.... He says one thing, but he doesn't say it all. I've got to tell you he's more worried about.... John Brewin didn't get the nomination but Mitchell got it. So he's all upset. He's all upset because Stu Leggatt is coming from Ottawa and he's going to have a go at him. He's so upset he doesn't know which way is up.

Interjection.

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

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm trying to tie in the fact that the export price of gas is going up because world markets dictate the export price. To be competitive in the world market, when other nations raise their rates, we are competitive and we can get a better return for our product as well. The last increase that the NDP brought in was in November 1975 at $1.60 a thousand cubic feet, and not $1.96, as was mentioned.

The member knows that the National Energy Board is the one that deals with the export price. He knows that.

On September 10,1976, under this administration we raised it to $1.80 Canadian. When I say "we," the NEB did. We, of course, had the opportunity to submit our briefs. On January 1, 1977, it went to $1.94 Canadian. Again

[ Page 55 ]

we had the opportunity to submit our brief. Then on September 21,1977, it went to $2.16 U.S. In the statements that the Leader of the Opposition makes he says it's now $2.15. He's still in error. It's now $2.16 U.S., and changed to U.S. in September 1977, on submissions that we made, from Canadian to U.S., which gives us a better return. In effect, that rate now, when you convert U.S. dollars to Canadian dollars, is $2.55 a thousand cubic feet, a considerable increase over the statements that are made. As you know, as one of the members alluded to over there, the proposal now is to go to $2.30 U.S.

The Leader of the Opposition, again commenting on the natural gas prices, says he would raise the price to $3.50 a thousand cubic feet because that's what the Mexicans are getting for it. I've got to tell you that there is no gas flowing out of Mexico to the United States at $3.50 a thousand cubic feet.

That Leader of the Opposition spent 20 minutes out of his speech.... He's disappeared now. He can't come back, I guess.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That was the other guy. He's got three that he's concerned about. He's got Stu Leggatt because he comes from Ottawa; he's got Jack Mitchell, who's labour's boy, and is going to overthrow him; and he's got that other fellow Kinnaird who's holding all those NDP rallies around the province.

MR. SPEAKER: To the amendment, please.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, I should get back to the amendment. There's one other name I forgot: Bob Williams is hanging in the wings just waiting.

Credibility is the issue, in my opinion, in regard to a leader who will present a motion to the House — a motion that says we failed to indicate policies, failed to show any economic planning. Well, I can tell you that the mining corporations in this province are sure pleased that we did some economic planning.

That party over there literally drove them out of this province. We've got more oil and gas rigs working in the north than ever before. But the one area that they really came on strong in was the mineral royalties tax — really got jobs going. I've got an article here which says: NDP Ghost Idles Mines Despite Price Raise." It says here:

"Also in the minds of many mining executives is the awareness that the Social Credit provincial government has already served more than three years of its mandate and an election could be called soon. Stung by the royalties and super royalties that the former government of NDP Premier Dave Barrett imposed in 1974, they are now wary of committing large sums of money without assurances that the political climate will continue to remain favourable to mining development."

That's their economic development. When they were in power, they literally ground the mining industry In this province to a halt.

MR. MACDONALD: Quote the figures.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In my estimates, Mr. Member, I will quote some figures to you which I think you will find interesting.

But, Mr. Speaker, the point here is that we're talking economic planning, economic development. It's in the motion. But royalties took companies that were making small profits and drove them into a loss position. Those which were at the break-even point suffered even greater. There are mines that ran into loss positions and became uneconomical and closed up.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) says "Cominco." But I think the hon. member for Nanaimo, being an accountant, recognizes that the mature mine in this province at the present time pays approximately 56.8 percent, I believe, in taxes. Out of its net returns they pay 56.8 percent. To my knowledge, that's the highest taxation of a corporation in Canada — higher than manufacturing. That's a mature mine. They just added to the load and in the end forced the mining companies to slow down, to slow down development, and in some cases close up the mines.

We have another one which is Granduc. It looks as though that one is going to reopen and benefit the town of Stewart.

But under that previous administration it was pretty difficult to get ahead and make any type of economic advances in this province. They talk about bankruptcies. The little fellow over there in the corner who blew $100 million talks about bankruptcies, but he doesn't talk about the number of companies that have been incorporated in the past three years. I hope to bring those forward during my comments on the throne speech.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, there are more people working in this province than ever before, Mr.

[ Page 56 ]

Member, and you know that as well as I do. Our rate of growth is better than any other province in Canada, and you know that as well.

Mr. Speaker, I can recall back in 1976, when our first throne speech came in, we had to look at some pretty serious times and we had to try and improve the economy and try to get this province back on track. I believe the Premier of this province said that we have to build on a solid and stable foundation.

Well, it has taken the three years. We are now on a solid and stable foundation and because of that we can bring in new people programs that are needed in this province. We can improve on programs. We brought some programs in last year — the SAFER program, the long-term care program — because this province could afford those programs, and everybody benefits. We have to have and they know we have to have — I don't know why they keep going on and on about the things the nasty old government is doing — a stable economy in the province to generate the revenues for this government or any government to provide the people services in the province.

Mr. Speaker, I have one last comment regarding the economic development which they say we haven't done: the BCRIC shares. Now I don't know but I would think that they would understand that the opportunity to have individual ownership, share equity in a company provides us with a sound financial economic base that we need to have support, equity financing in this province, people investing in their own province, in their own British Columbian incorporated companies. This gives the opportunity for people to understand a little more about the industrial, the commercial, the economic, the financial world in which we live. It's important we understand that. We just can't come like they would lead you to believe — the money tree — and keep plucking off the dollar bills. We have to have that sound financial base and the BCRIC shares give individual ownership to people and give them an idea and hopefully an education in how they can support the B.C. industry and B.C. economy.

Mr. Speaker, they talk about reducing the municipal taxation burden, and the ever-increasing cost of living. The Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, which went out and listened to the producers and the consumers, did research, identified where some of the weaknesses are and brought forward a report which the chairman tabled today, in an indication of the economic planning that has been done in this province in that field.

I think that taking into consideration the research that's being done and the information that's being gathered, it will improve not only our primary industry of agriculture but also our secondary industry of processing in this province.

Mr. Speaker, this motion talks about municipal taxation burden. They don't comment too much about revenue-sharing, about the fact that if the economy of this province is improving then we can share those revenues with our member municipalities — our villages, our communities — so that the people locally can have additional services or possibly cut down their taxation load.

So those are items which, I think, relate to the motion. The only thing I'm concerned about is that somebody listens to that man — I'm sorry, that member over there — whose credibility is lacking, who is concerned about the fact that he's got more people tapping him on the shoulder, telling him to move over and get out. He is emotionally upset, Mr. Speaker, and I think he should go on a short vacation, and I hope we can provide him with the opportunity when the election is called and we'll make it a permanent vacation.

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order. The minister said that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) was — and he used the expression — "a damned liar." He then went on to instance that by saying that the price of natural gas as stated by him was 32 cents per thousand cubic feet, when really it had been 31 cents. The fact of the matter is that the price in 1972 was 31.6 cents and the Leader of the Opposition was closer to the exact amount than that minister; and that minister shouldn't make that kind of an imputation in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. The point is well taken, although had anyone called anyone a liar in this House I would have interjected, I would think.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I did — not with respect to the point of order — hear that term used and it was rather inflammatory, and I don't think the minister should use that kind of language in referring to any member of this House, either in a direct or an abstract way.

He concluded by referring to "that man, " Mr. Speaker. You know, it's just an indication of contempt, of disrespect for a member of this House. If the government members are that consumed with hatred and fright over our leader, I guess we can understand it; but it shows a small individual, indeed, who has to resort to that kind of conduct and that kind of language.

[ Page 57 ]

Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment put forward by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) and my colleague, the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford). I'm not going to get into the oil debate. The direction of our motion is our concern that there is nothing in the throne speech to indicate any initiative, any incentive or any drive to get the economy moving. We've mentioned specific matters in the amendment that we think deserve the attention of government.

My colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, outlined areas where there is an opportunity for economic direction, only to be scoffed at by various of the cabinet ministers, who should be weighing and paying close attention to anything that would get the economy of British Columbia moving again, no matter where it comes from in this Legislature. If they are so picayune and so narrow politically as to pan an idea simply because it comes from a political opponent, they are not serving the best interests of the people of this province. It's as simple as that.

Mr. Speaker, the minister who just sat down talked about the things that have been done. He talked about SAFER, a great program for people. I thought that was a bit ironic and a bit too much. That is an excellent program, but the only problem with it — and perhaps the reason why this government could afford it — is that no one can qualify. They've set a level so high under that program that I've had no less than 15 young married couples in my riding apply for assistance under the program — not the SAFER program, but the housing program — and not one of them has qualified. And they come out with a whole variety of social programs which, in themselves, sound very, very good, but in terms of the rules for qualifying they are altogether unrealistic and beyond the reach of the average British Columbian.

Mr. Speaker, he talked about my colleague from Vancouver-Burrard blowing $100 million. That money was spent on people services in this province. That money was not blown; that money was spent on people. The big difference between the minister and my colleague is that he feels it's justifiable and admirable to blow money on blacktop, but it's horrendous if we spend money in support of people who need help, who are handicapped and indigent in the province. It's a matter of priorities.

I do not want to get bogged down on this. I had occasion to look back through some old newspapers, and I just want to go over some of the headlines that appeared in the papers after this bunch came to office. This is not my line, but here's the headline in the Victorian. It was on July 7, 1976.

HON. MR. HEWITT: They're out of business.

MR. KING: Yes, they're out of business. Exactly. You're getting the point. They are out of business along with a whole lot of other small industries in this province because of your over-taxation, because of your mismanagement. Precisely.

The headline says: "Island Economy Facing Big Crisis Under This Government." Then I went to another paper. This one's the VancouverSun , dated June 29. One of the headlines here is: "Nine MLAs Reveal They're Millionaires." They can pay the taxes, but the people of British Columbia couldn't. These are the headlines they made. These are the programs they initiated. "Socreds Purge Land Commission" — a headline in the Victoria Times dated Thursday, October 7, 1976. Here we have the VancouverSun of March 27. Look at that headline, a smiling Minister of Finance. The headline is: "Socreds Dig Deep Into Public's Pockets." No wonder they have a $3 million surplus.

On it goes: "Government Raids Wallets to Balance Budget" — the Vancouver Province of Saturday, March 27, 1976. Look at those headlines. And they talk about economic planning. They talk about their good stewardship. This outfit, who call themselves businessmen, have done more to destroy incentive and initiative in this province during their brief tenure than at any time in the history of British Columbia. Absolutely a destructive government.

Then we have the ICBC story in the Colonist of Friday, June 25,1976. The. Minister of Science and Technology and Education and ICBC (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has this to say: "There is a surplus at ICBC, but it's all spoken for. After doubling the rates and gouging young people in this province, he says: "There is a surplus, but it's all spoken for." There are the headlines they made.

My point is, Mr. Speaker, that in the current Speech from the Throne they come in with little goodies directed at people through the surplus they gouged out of their pockets over their three-year tenure, hoping that they can buy back their support and their votes after gouging them, after mismanaging the economy, after overtaxation, after failure to generate employment, after record levels of unemployment, when the Premier, who was then Leader of the Opposition, ran around this province taking out Lord knows how many thousands of dollars of television time, not only here In B.C. but in America, to condemn the NDP because there were some 93,000 unemployed at that time.

[ Page 58 ]

If you would listen to him, Mr. Speaker, you would have thought the world was coming to an end. He got elected on that platform. He got elected on the promise of reducing that amount of 93,000 British Columbians unemployed. He got elected on a promise and a pledge to get British Columbia moving again, and there are the headlines.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the throne speech to indicate any initiative or incentive. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), who is responsible for our primary industry, has promised to make some of the resource available for small entrepreneurs in this province. Look at some of the recent headlines with respect to the state of small business related to the forest resource of this province.

Here is a headline: "Takeover Imperils Independent Okanagan Mills" — an article by Harvey Southam in the Vancouver Sun. "Enderby Millworkers May Lose Their Jobs" — the Vernon Daily News.

"An Enderby sawmill employing 63 people with a monthly payroll of $50,000 will be shut down in ten days because of government inaction, a spokesman for the company said today."

Is that sound management? Is that assisting small enterprise?

Here's another one, Mr. Speaker. "Layoff at Gorman's Mill a Long-Range Possibility. 'Employee layoffs due to a timber shortage are a long-range possibility and not an immediate one,' says John Gorman, president of Gorman Brothers Lumber and Box Ltd." at Westbank in the Premier's riding. In jeopardy there are some 200 jobs.

Mr. Speaker, we have here a submission made directly to the Minister of Forests from an association of small millowners in the East Kootenay. It contains this windup paragraph:

"The large foreign monopolistic companies with the aid of government, have placed a legal curtain around Crown timber, prohibiting access to small business operators. This action makes the small businessman a foreigner in his own country."

That's the kind of stewardship they have brought. They have completely discouraged initiative and enterprise by small British Columbian entrepreneurs and they have encouraged further monopolization by foreign multinationals. There's nothing in the throne speech that indicates any trend to turn back this dangerous trend that they have started in British Columbia's economy.

Mr. Speaker, I condemn them for it. I think this government is beneath contempt when they respond to a motion of this kind with personal slurs against the Leader of the Opposition, of whom they are no doubt frightened. We're proud of our leader over here. We're proud of the man who leads our party. He's not out on some junket to protect the senators of this nation; he's here offering sound economic programs to get B.C. moving again. If the government had any vestige of responsibility or common sense, it would be endorsing the resolution that he put before the House today.

MR. STEPHENS: I had not intended to speak to this amendment until the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) got up and started flailing around an old newspaper clipping about how the world is coming to an end because of the policies of the NDP.

I would just like to make reference to another newspaper article, dated November 1978, from the Financial Times. It says:

"Although they will never say so in public, industry officials feel that the government of the Social Credit Premier, Bill Bennett, is not much different from Mr. Barrett's. Mr. Bennett, they say privately, is merely paying lip service to the concept of free enterprise."

So I totally align myself with that statement, and I've been saying it all along.

I haven't seen any policies of development by this government, or the previous one, that would do anything for this province. They both believe in the same thing, Mr. Speaker. Oh, they have different names, funny names, but their names don't describe what they are. They have funny names, but they do the same thing. They both believe they have it within their power and ability to solve the economic problems of this province through their economic planning. Well, I wouldn't trust the economic planning of my business to a single member of that government. What right have they got to stand in this House and tell the people of this great province that they know better than the people how to design the economic destiny of this province? What a joke! Free enterprisers? You've got to be kidding! At least the socialists who sit on my right say what they are. The socialists who sit on my left say one thing, but they end up doing precisely the same thing.

There is one other thing I would like to say to those in this government who think that employment is really on the move in British Columbia, and that you are solving this problem. I've just had handed to me an advertisement in the Daily Colonist, and it is under the heading of "Carrier of the Month." There's

[ Page 59 ]

a picture of a fine-looking, middle-aged gentleman there, wearing a turban, and his name is Hardayal S. Pannu. This gentleman has a Bachelor of Science and Master of Science degree, with honours in physics, from the University of Punjab in Lahore. This man, since June 1978, has been giving excellent service to approximately 120 Colonist subscribers. Now I'm a great supporter of newspaper carriers, but I'll tell you, when the economy of this province is such that men with this kind of talent and education have to carry newspapers in order to survive, then I think this government had better take another look at their economic policies.

HON. MR. McGEER: We heard a long and interesting speech from the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. I intend to comment on that speech and on the inopportune and inappropriate motion of non-confidence placed before a government that has done remarkable things, considering the unprecedented handicaps placed in the way of the new administration by that group of incompetents over there. I listened for many years while the Leader of the Opposition was a backbencher in the NDP ranks. He was wrong in most of the things he said then. He was a good speaker. He entertained the House. But he was usually wrong. Then he became the Leader of the Opposition. His speeches were still entertaining, but they were still wrong. Again, it didn't do the public of British Columbia a great deal of damage. But then by a strange — and in retrospect, unbelievable — development, he became the Premier of the province. He was still entertaining as a speaker.

But now when he was wrong it hurt the province of British Columbia. He's a veteran member of the House; he's been here almost 20 years. He gets better every year as a speaker. But he's as wrong as he ever was.

I only intend to deal, before we adjourn this evening, with one small matter that the Leader of the Opposition raised, again illustrating his unerring capacity to get things wrong. This involves something which should be of interest to the Leader of the Opposition, since he's talking about the enormous investments, running into many billions of dollars, that are being proposed to bring energy south from the high Arctic, down to the population centres, in order to supply our power needs. That is why, in Vienna — and the Leader of the Opposition was correct in this — an international planning group is seeking ways to short-circuit the time that is currently projected for supplying the world with fusion energy, which will make it no longer necessary to build these immensely expensive channels for bringing down fossil fuels and then creating the pollution that the burning of them produces in our society, because we will have harnessed the energy of the sun to become a servant of man on earth.

But the Leader of the Opposition was quite incorrect in saying that the INTOR project, which will be the largest international undertaking in history, was ever said by me to be something which would come to British Columbia. We have established — the Premier did so last December — a Ministry of Science and Technology in this province. I thought for a new ministry it might be a reasonable way to start to suggest that the largest scientific project in history might be located in our province. I explained at the time that the chance of something this fortunate happening for British Columbia, or any other part of the world, was extremely unlikely.

The request that went from the Premier of British Columbia to the Prime Minister of Canada was simply to ask whether or not he, on behalf of British Columbia and of our nation, would notify the International Atomic Energy Agency of an interest and a desire on the part of our province to be considered for this world-shaking, unprecedented and important scientific project. Now that's a pretty simple set of circumstances, one that you would think any member of the House would be able to understand. I think 54 members of this House could have got it right. I think there's only one person who has consistently been able to demonstrate an ability to get it wrong, and that's the Leader of the Opposition. And it's this uncanny ability to get things wrong all of the time that led British Columbia down the road of ruin that characterized the three years the NDP were in office.

The hour is late. We will have much more to say on this subject tomorrow. I would respectfully move that this debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.