[ Page 61 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Logging on Queen Charlotte Islands. Mr. King — 61

BCRIC shares. Mr. Stephens — 61

Funding of drug and alcohol abuse programs. Mr. Cocke — 62

BCRIC shares. Mr. Barber — 63

Throne speech debate.

On the amendment.

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 64

Mr. Macdonald — 67

Mr. Smith — 72

Division — 74

Throne speech debate.

Mr. Stephens — 74

Statement

Queen Charlotte Islands logging dispute. Hon. Mr. Waterland — 83

Mr. King — 83

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate.

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 84

Mr. Lauk — 89

Presenting reports

Assessment Appeal Board annual report as at December 31,1978.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 93

B.C. Steamships Co. (1975) Ltd. financial statements report as at December 31,1978.

Hon. MR. Veitch — 93

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KING: We have in the members' gallery today a visiting family who are very old friends of mine: Bud and Claire Robinson and their three children — Joan, Bonnie and Cliff. I would ask the House to extend a warm welcome to them.

MR. COCKE: Also in the gallery today, we have from the Royal City 30 Douglas College students and their instructor, Ms. Lorna Kirkham. I would like everyone to acknowledge them.

Also, from that marvellous Okanagan Valley, we are visited today by Mr. and Mrs. Jim Rheaume, who is very active in that community.

MR. HADDAD: I am honoured today to have three visiting gentlemen from the Interior. I have in the Speaker's gallery Mayor Rick Grieve of the village of Elkford, the coal capital of British Columbia. Accompanying him is Mr. Ray Miles, his clerk administrator, and Mr. Paul Crawford, planner for the East Kootenay Regional District. Would the House please make them all welcome.

MR. STEPHENS: I had lunch today with Mr. Dan Wilson, a childhood friend I knew before I went to school. We grew up together in Calgary. Throughout our lives we caused much trouble wherever we went. I was pleased to learn over lunchtime that we're still both doing the same thing. I'd like the House to welcome him.

MR. SPEAKER: It reminds me of the days when I listened to confessions.

Oral questions.

LOGGING ON QUEEN
CHARLOTTE ISLANDS

MR. KING: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. Can the minister give the House a report on any progress respecting QC Timber logging on the Queen Charlottes flowing from meetings between his ministry and the federal Minister of Fisheries today in Vancouver?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Meetings are continuing at this hour. I have nothing to report at this time. I understand the meetings are going very well. If the member wishes, I will report later this afternoon when I have something more definite to say.

MR. KING: I appreciate the minister's cooperation in that respect. I do hope that he will report to the House at the earliest opportunity. I do hope also that he knows what is being discussed at that meeting.

My supplementary question: has the minister agreed to bury the cutting permit to comply with federal fishery closure orders on the particular area involved?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I haven't agreed to anything. The negotiations are continuing. I'll be very happy to report to the House when I have something definite to say.

MR. KING: Can the minister explain why his officials failed to answer calls from Hon. Romeo LeBlanc for six days regarding discussions on this dispute?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: My officials and myself have been very anxious to communicate with the federal government, and have not refused to take any calls from anyone.

BCRIC SHARES

MR. STEPHENS: My question is for the Minister of Finance. On March 9 they made a statement to the press. I'm quoting from the Express:

"Finance Minister Evan Wolfe said Thursday nobody knows how much it will cost to distribute free shares in B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, but he scoffed at the estimates made by the plan's critics."

The figures I'm now reading about in the newspapers sort of make me laugh, because nobody has a close handle on the exact cost. Now approximately three weeks later, Id like to ask the minister whether he has a handle on the cost of distributing these shares.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the member is alluding to a newspaper article allegedly referring to statements which I made. I think I explained yesterday, for the benefit of the members, that there will be a full explanation of the estimates of this proposal in due course, in the budget speech.

MR. STEPHENS: Surely the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for this cost, could at least tell us whether he has a handle on it, and give us some kind of an estimate of where he is going. Surely the public is entitled to know that. You don't have to sit

[ Page 62 ]

around and wait; just confirm you know what you are doing.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I guess the member doesn't hear too well. I wouldn't want to pre-empt the material in that speech. For the benefit of other members, there will be full details on the matter at that time.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, they are as contemptuous of the question as they are of the House. I notice the cabinet benches are empty again today.

FUNDING OF DRUG AND
ALCOHOL ABUSE PROGRAMS

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Health. In view of the fact that one of his colleagues spent an estimated million dollars on an ad program for moderation in alcohol, can the minister explain why local alcohol abuse programs are getting short shrift on their requests for funding when these programs are the logical backup for that magnificent ad program that's being done by another minister?

The Minister of Health probably needed to be woken up, but now that he is, Mr. Speaker, I have a question.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Ask the question.

MR. COCKE: Can the minister explain why the local drug and alcohol abuse programs are getting short shrift from you and your office?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, if the member for New Westminster has a question, I don't know where it is. If perhaps he could sit down and explain what he means sometime, and send it over to me, I'll be happy to answer his question. If he would like to ask about a specific program, I'd be happy to try and answer his question, but there's no question there.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, it's a general problem and I've heard about a number of them. I'll ask you a specific question about the Richmond alcohol and drug abuse team. They cannot continue a children's program in an area where 54 per cent of the population is under the age of 17 and where alcohol abuse is widespread. This program is very, very important to that area and, Mr. Speaker, talk about a short shrift, this is precisely what they are getting. Will the minister take this program and others seriously? It seems to me that he is spending an infinite amount of money on a wasteful heroin program and ignoring a very serious drug problem in the schools.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the question is yet. Nevertheless I would like to respond to the member for New Westminster that in the past three years the Alcohol and Drug Commission in British Columbia has steadily increased its services to all parts of this province to the point where we now have, for the first time in the history of British Columbia, a major treatment centre in every region of British Columbia. A new one will open within the next month or six weeks at Round Lake near Vernon, the first in the history of this province dealing specifically with native Indians.

In addition to that there have been community counsellors, Outreach workers and detoxification centres opened on a steady basis for the past three years; and we brought all of those funded agencies into a system of care which is now both consistent and cost accountable to the province.

The member for New Westminster referred, I think, to one specific funded agency, although I don't recall him mentioning the name. I assume he's talking about the one in Richmond which is known as Radet. At a time when government funds are under demand from all kinds of areas at an unprecedented level and at a time when governments are attempting to restrain their spending in every way possible, the funding from the British Columbia Alcohol and Drug Commission for the agency in question is being increased well above the levels to which other agencies have access. As a matter of fact, that agency will have an increase in its budget from about $70,000 to over $82,000 for the coming fiscal year. That's an increase of almost 20 percent at a time when most government-funded agencies are being asked to keep within the general government spending restraints of about 5 percent.

Incidentally, that agency's first funding ever from government came after this government took office and was able to rearrange its priorities.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I regret that when questions take on a general nature, the answers to those questions are sometimes lengthy. Perhaps we could be more precise in our questions.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have had a good deal of experience with this minister and his ability to become precise. As a matter of fact, he is so imprecise that he talked about the first ever native Indian situation. What

[ Page 63 ]

about the Sugar Cane reserve at Burns lake? That was set up under our government long before he was even dreamed of as minister of anything.

What the minister is talking about is a program that has been community funded largely because he has ignored this particular program — and he talks about an increase. Actually it's a great reduction, because the moneys have come from other sources. But they have millions in this government, and I want to know if the minister is going to take the children's problem seriously. Otherwise it is going down the tube and the minister knows it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I understand now why the previous government was in so much trouble with its financing. It's because they have people like that last speaker doing the addition for them.

But, Mr. Speaker, Round Lake in Vernon will be the first residential treatment centre for native Indians in this province. That's an achievement of which I am very proud.

Secondly, the organization in question in Richmond to get back to the specifics of his question was not funded by the previous government. It begged at the door for funding until this government took office and we made that funding available.

Mr. Speaker, I don't care how that eminent economist from New Westminster adds up his figures, but an increase of government funding from $70,000 to $82,000 works out to 20 percent, no matter how you slice it.

MR. COCKE: I just would like to correct the minister when he says 70. He doesn't even know his own budget. It was 73-something. He's making up his figures as he goes along.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: How much will it be next year?

MR. COCKE: It's going to 83 and it's totally inadequate.

He hasn't answered the question. What is he going to do with those 54,000 children in Richmond?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask that member from New Westminster: "when are you going to stop beating your wife?" That's the same kind of question.

BCRIC SHARES

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance, who tells us he doesn't know how much it's going to cost the taxpayer to give away the five free shares. We know on this side of the House it's going to cost millions — millions more if you get away with it.

I am informed that your administration, through the British Columbia Systems Corporation, has very recently approved the hiring of some 50 students under a summer works program. I am informed that the Systems Corporation is assigning these students to flog shares in the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation.

HON. MR. WOLFE: What's that word?

MR. BARBER: Flog. Push. Promote. Tout.

I wouldn't think they would be selling then because they're not licensed to do so. If they are selling them we should know about that too. However, I presume that they are observing the law and not directly selling the shares themselves, as they do not appear to be licensed to do so.

My first question is: can the minister confirm the accuracy of this report that some 50 students are being hired under a summer works program? If he can, could he tell us precisely how many students have been hired to do this job for the purposes of the Resources Investment Corporation, for what duration they are being hired, and at what total expense to the taxpayer they will be hired?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I should remind the member that the designated minister for the Resources Investment Corporation is the Premier of this province; but I'm quite prepared to respond to the question on his behalf.

You have asked whether there were some 50 students for this project. I'll take the question, in terms of the detail of it, on notice. I can only say that in a distribution project of this size, where there are some 2 1/2 million people involved, I think you would appreciate, as everyone else in this House would, the size of this undertaking and the need to have necessary staff there to accommodate the people of this province, to facilitate their eligibility and their access to these shares. So I think we should all agree there is a need for a sizeable structure to take care of this. The members across are bandying around figures. They're obviously inflating their idea of what this project may account for, trying to mislead the people of this province. As I've indicated previously, in the interests of providing access to these shares for all of the people of this province, there is a need to have a well-organized structure to make these shares available.

[ Page 64 ]

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. MR. MCGEER: Last evening, when we were so rudely interrupted by the clock just as I was getting warmed up a little bit on accuracy of statements, and the seriousness with which this Legislature and the people of British Columbia might be prepared to take a non-confidence motion from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), it was only with the view in mind that elaboration should take place with respect to the appropriateness of such a motion and the accuracy of the facts and opinions brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition.

He would have led you to believe that the province of British Columbia and its economy were suffering woefully under this government. The facts, and I'm going to present them, are that the most fortunate thing that ever happened to British Columbia in its history was the removal of that opposition from office in 1975. Since then British Columbia has became the bright spot economically in Canada. Here we have that opposition not only putting non-confidence forward in this government, when it has out-performed every other government in Canada, but is asking once more to have leadership in this province to repeat the ruination they brought to British Columbia from 1972 to 1975.

I want to read some economic facts. The opposition should become aware of them. The gross domestic product, real product, in this past year for Canada was 3.4 percent, for British Columbia, 4.4 percent; increase in public investment in Canada was 7.7 percent, in British Columbia, 11.1 percent; retail trade, Canada 11.7 percent, British Columbia, 13.4 percent; manufacturing shipments; Canada 18.8 percent, British Columbia 21.5 percent; employed labour force — the NDP said how badly Social Credit was doing — Canada 3.4 percent, British Columbia 4.4 percent.

There is one item where British Columbia did lag behind the rest of Canada. I'll read it to you: "consumer price index: Canada 8.9 percent, Vancouver only 7.7 percent." That's where we weren't leaders in Canada in the increase in prices. In every one of these major economic indexes, British Columbia is outperforming the nation, it's holding inflation better than the rest of Canada, and yet the Leader of the Opposition and his government — that performed so dismally during their three years of office — is placing non-confidence before the people of British Columbia. What nonsense!

Now I want to continue with this little economic lesson for my friends opposite, because it describes — and I put this on a large enough sheet of cardboard so that everybody can see — how the NDP performed during their years in office. Look at it, Mr. Speaker. These are statistics from the Ministry of Economic Development, the gross provincial product changes in real dollars since 1971. These are the percentages you see during 1972 — the last year we had a free enterprise government before the holocaust in British Columbia — which show an increase of 10.4 percent. Then, mind you, during the first year of the NDP government, the percentage went up 11.9 percent as the upward momentum continued.

Now, Mr. Speaker, look that happened the next year. It went down to 4.3 percent. Then, the year the NDP ware defeated, when the Liberals got together with the Conservatives and the Social Credit to produce unity in this province for the purpose of getting rid of a government that was an economic disaster, the real provincial product went down 1.3 percent in that year. Look at the trend. That's this magnificent economic machine of British Columbia heading into the ditch.

Well, what's happened since then, Mr. Speaker? The following year, they complained about all the harsh and terrible things that were done, and how the Premier and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) shook down the people of British Columbia to try and pull this economic vehicle out of the ditch, there was a real increase of 5.1 percent. The next year, still struggling in British Columbia, it was 4.1 percent, but it's now on the rise. It was 4.4 percent last year, and I tell you things are just beginning to take off. The machine is now out of the ditch, the dents have been knocked out of it, the mud has been shaken off and we've got that fine economic engine in British Columbia ready to move ahead again. The only thing we don't need is to have the NDP get control of the wheel again and drive it into the ditch.

I want to remind you of what the NDP did in its years of office. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, a company that I had the dubious good fortune to take over the day it ran out of money after having lost in less than two years $187 million — a record for public and private corporations in the province. We're not subsidizing automobiles in British Columbia any longer. We do have the lowest insurance rates, non-subsidized, in all of Canada. The waste and the mess have been cleared off and still the NDP isn't satisfied.

[ Page 65 ]

We had similar problems with B.C. Hydro when the NDP were in charge. For the first time ever that corporation lost money. We had trouble with the ferries. We had trouble with the railway. We had trouble with every single organization that ums catered to by the NDP form of management.

We had three big industries in British Columbia: mining, forestry and tourism. I want to tell you what happened to those three industries under the NDP. What they managed to do was something that the alchemists of old couldn't possible have achieved.

They turned ore into rock. They managed to create despair in the mining industry at a time of record world mineral prices. They demolished the mining exploration industry in British Columbia. It dispersed and moved throughout the world.

Now I want to talk about forestry. That's an industry that was in trouble too. Fortunately, under Social Credit, it's regained its health and its optimism. Capital investment in the forest industry since the new government took over — and it's mentioned in the throne speech — $720 million spent in 1976, $850 million in '77, $934 million in 1978. There'll be more and more and more as long as this government is in power.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

The philosophy of the government deserves mentioning at that time because it underlies the performance of the economy. The hard statistics which we can present to you today are not just hopes and theories that we put forward when we took office. It's three years later and we now have the facts, the figures and the statistics to back up that performance and to show that the thinking wasn't wrong on this side of the House despite what the NDP said during those years. The thinking wasn't wrong. It was correct, and the figures are here to prove it.

It's well to recall that people from the treasury benches and the rest of the Social Credit members stood up and said certain things needed to be done to provide confidence and to provide progress. They weren't talking through their hats. They were talking common sense. So perhaps when we start to enunciate the philosophy that underlies these government policies, people can recognize that the relationship between this and the performance of British Columbia is not an abstract one, but very real.

The Premier of the province want to the national government and to the other premiers in Canada and said that if this country was to regain its promise, if we were to became the wealthy and prosperous country that seemed so certain and logical to us given our resources and our fortunate circumstances in the world, then we had to have better management of our economy at the government level. We couldn't go spending willy-nilly, year after year, more and more and more, taking ever more of the private sector and diverting it into the public sector. If we did that sort of thing, British Columbia and Canada would no longer be competitive. After all, we're working in Canada now with an 83-cent or an 84-cent dollar. We do that at a time — when there never has been greater demand for our resources, when the opportunities for Canadians free from hostile external forces have never been better, when we've got skilled and able people. No country on earth spends more of its gross provincial and national product on universities and an educational system than does Canada.

We do have the skilled people, we have the resources, and we have the will. How is it then that we're so non-competitive that our dollar drops to 84 cents? There is only one answer that makes any sense and that's logical, and that is the management that comes particularly at the government level. Recognizing this, the leader of this government and the Premier of British Columbia went to the national government and to the other governments of Canada and said: "We have got to restrain spending in the public sector. That's the only way the private sector can expand. That's the only way that we can become competitive on world markets. It's the only way to the kind of economic progress that will allow more generous social services."

There was lip service paid to the theories of the Premier of British Columbia. Only one government in the nation has followed that advice, and that has been the government of British Columbia. We have said spending in the public sector must be restrained. There must not be the 27 1/2 per cent per year that characterized the NDP in office, when they had this tremendous desire to spend other people's money in the hope that they would get votes. It didn't succeed. It put the economy in the ditch. What we've said is that we've got to restrain ambitions in the public sector for the health of the economy, for the future of our children and for our own prosperity in the future. Yet that's being attacked by the opposition over there as being irresponsible.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, you've got their performance to look at — it's right there on the chart — and you've got our performance to look at, because it's right there in the hard

[ Page 66 ]

statistics from the nation and from the province.

MR. LAUK: Can you tell us where you got the figures?

HON. MR. McGEER: Certainly. I got them from Economic Development, but they are available to you.

I want to tell you one thing. I've got in my hand a publication called "Straight Talk" about what's happening in British Columbia. Here we go to economic growth: "Under Social Credit the growth rate dropped to 3.5 percent." There it is under the NDP. Do you see that long bar? The tremendous economic development under the NDP, and the little wee, poor economic development under Social Credit. Who would believe that kind of thing? It's utter rubbish.

I recall, when I was in opposition and some of these figures graced the treasury benches, bringing forth a complaint under the Trade Practices Act about false advertisement by the person who is the Leader of the Opposition now and was then the Premier. It was a protest because the same kind of garbled statistics were being presented to the public of British Columbia. Incidentally, in those days it was paid for by public advertising and commissioned by Manny Dunsky. Do you remember Manny Dunsky? He could have designed this brochure. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, it's filled with false advertising. I'm going to pass this piece of advertising, as I did with their advertising before, to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) for his investigation.

One of the important routes to prosperity in British Columbia is individual investment, individual commitment to progress in the economy, and individual effort. This contrasts, I know, with the philosophy and the approach of my friends opposite. You know, in socialist countries in Europe they say: "Everything is ours, but nothing is mine." We don't agree with that philosophy. We think we are going to make better progress if people in this province own a piece of the action and take pride in seeing it develop and improve.

I tell you, the members of the opposition are pretty confused about all this. The former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) said that he would paper his walls with the shares because, presumably, they would be worthless. The fastest way to make those shares worthless, so everybody could paper the wall with them, would be to return the NDP to power. This is the party that puts failure on a pedestal, criticizes success, hates progress. While the ones who held office before were saying that they wanted to paper the wall with their shares, others in the party who maybe are looking beyond the current representative in the front benches of the NDP, perhaps to others who might just be able to do a responsible job — heaven help us if they ever got to government — were taking a different view. What they were suggesting was that the NDP members should turn their shares over to the party, and they used that to fight the election campaign. I guess they needed a little help from the capitalists to finance their election campaign because the labour unions weren't doing it well enough.

MR. BARRETT: Attaboy, Pat! Sock it to us.

HON. MR. McGEER: I don't think it's going to be Social Credit that socks it to the Leader of the Opposition; it'll be the people of British Columbia. They socked it to him once, and they'll sock it to him again. The reason is because of the kind of nonsense-talk that we get in the Legislature, the kinds of irresponsible motions of non-confidence that fly in the face of experience and statistics.

MR. LAUK: If I can prove your statistics wrong, will you resign?

HON. MR. McGEER: My friend, you just go ahead and do your very best in the Legislature, as you always do. I want to say, the Premier of the province has stated that there's a 90 percent chance that there will be an election sometime this year. He's gone on record as saying that. The public of British Columbia will have an opportunity to choose between the record of the NDP, heading downward into the ditch, or the record of Social Credit, heading upward into the future.

I'm sure the public of British Columbia can choose wisely between socialism and free enterprise. I just hope they can choose wisely when it canes to deciding that there's only one free enterprise party in British Columbia that may be supported. When the NDP were put in office in 1972 it was because the vote was split among the Liberals, the Conservatives and Social Credit. That's an obvious fact. I think it's one the member who represents the Conservative Party should keep in mind: that the surest way to return the NDP is to forget that free enterprise is more important than any one political party, that if we're to have progress in British Columbia we're going to have to have stability and confidence in government. I think we do, which is more than we can say for the Leader of the Opposition

[ Page 67 ]

when he puts forward the kind of nonsense nonconfidence motion that's gracing the floor of the House today. I think, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, if you want to go to the public of British Columbia with any kind of credibility at all, you'd better do more thorough research, and you'd better have a better platform. The kind of the thing we've had from you so far this session makes you unworthy to be the leader and to ask for the reins of government again.

MR. MACDONALD: I kept wondering as I listened to the hon. minister, who has just taken his seat, what his uncle Gerry McGeer would have said about that speech, and about that hon. member talking of joining the gerrymander party. He says that we must trust the people, and the people will give their answer, and then he takes his little riding of Point Grey and he shrinks that small, with two members, and he eliminates two down here, and he puts a nose into Point Grey, and he makes Richard Nixon look like a political saint.

I watched that hon. minister on television only a week ago espousing the great fusion project for the province of British Columbia. He knew a lot and he was just telling you a little bit. Quebec and B.C. were neck and neck. B.C. had a little bit of a go in terms of getting that fusion project for British Columbia. Then, in the House yesterday, he said: "I explained at the time the chance of something this fortunate happening for B.C. or any other part of the world" — he didn't say that on TV — "was extremely unlikely." Now that minister has climbed away down. He hasn't pointed out that that project is just in the early stages of discussion. There have been no negotiations with the Russians as yet. The technology is not perfected. The idea that British Columbia should have a huge military, as well as civilian, nuclear fusion project which would make us the first candidate for the first atomic attack if World War III ever comes is something that hasn't been discussed in this chamber. It is something'for which the minister was spanked — since his TV interview — by the Premier. That' s why he's been backpedalling, back-pedalling, back-pedalling. I ask any of the ministers over there who have made public statements and have been spanked privately by the Premier and then have drawn back to raise their hands. I can name four or five of them aver there.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps for the benefit of all members, I could remind them that we are actually discussing an amendment to the motion. It reads as follows:

"That the motion in reply to the opening speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor be amended by adding the words: 'that 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 increasing, cost of living and municipal tax burdens."'

Now members on both sides of the House have strayed somewhat from this amendment....

MR. BARRETT: Why didn't you tell him that?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

I would prefer if the members could keep within the bounds of the discussion that has already manifested itself.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly content myself with answering some of the statements that were made yesterday, and then voting on this amendment, which is a very important one. I don't want to seem to be attacking the Minister of Science and Technology too much. He is an eminent brain researcher and surgeon, and he has a fine brain, but why does he keep it in a jar when we need it, when your party needs it, when your province and your country need it? Why does he keep it in a jar?

Oh, I did say something about putting those shares on the wall, and I went on to say I wanted to put those free shares on the wall to remind myself of the marvellous assets that were built up during the NDP administration, all of them in the black, all of them returning a dividend of about $18 million a year to the people of the province of B.C. Yes, that's something that the hon. minister who just took his seat never mentioned. He never mentions that when he says that the NDP led the province down the road to ruin. Did you mention, Mr. Minister, that those assets that you are peddling are the heritage of the people of B.C.? If the people of B.C. can get anything whatsoever in free shares or in any other way out of this government, they ought to thank their lucky stars.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: What are you rising on?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 68 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: I would be happy, Mr. Speaker, to discourse on Swan Valley....

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Regardless of whether it is the wish of the House, one speaks only once on an amendment, and the indications of the table are that you have already spoken.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, you dismissed the minister's request. I'm sure, after the speech we've just heard, anybody would have second thoughts about it. If he wishes to get up and change it, that's fine with us.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: However, that's not in order.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm the member who has the honour of holding the floor, and if the minister intervenes and says he's going out to tell the people of Point Grey about the success we made of Can-Cel and Plateau Mills and Ocean Falls and Kootenay Forest Products and the Westcoast Transmission shares....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Swan Valley.

MR. MACDONALD: You garroted that one before it had a chance. Yes, you did. And the B.C. Housing Corporation — you're going to garrote that one too. You're going to sell it off to international capital. You've been throwing this province away, throwing the money at the international companies, and pretending that's for the good of the people of British Columbia.

Now I don't know where that hon. minister got his statistics, Mr. Speaker. I think he uses statistics like a drunken man uses a lamppost — more for support than illumination. I just want to take a minute or two to quote the record on capital investment in the province of British Columbia under the NDP years and under the "gerrymander party" years. The source which I give.... The hon. minister with that crazy chart of his! You didn't say that you would resign your seat if it's wrong, did you? You were asked by this hon. member right across the House. Will you?

HON. MR. McGEER: I wonder if I might table that chart.

MR. MACDONALD: No, let's not table it.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. It is not an appropriate time to table documents or charts of any sort.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Whether or not it is the wish of the opposition, it is not the wish of the Chair, so would you please take your seat.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the minister misunderstood my question. It is very simple. All I asked you was: will you resign if that table is shown to be wrong? It's a simple answer.

HON. MR. McGEER: By what? Surely not the NDP.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, waffle, waffle! Who's the waffle party here anyway?

I'm quoting fran the B.C. Ministry cf Finance, from the "Financial and Economic Review", which appears every spring in the province of B.C. I'm quoting figures adjusted for inflation, and those figures show that under the NDP the level of investment in our economy grew at 5.5 percent per year — that's real growth. If you look at the figures on capital investment, of course, the actual dollar figures are much higher than that. For the Social Credit years, that level of capital investment in the province had shrunken to 3.6 percent.

Now the minister says that he doesn't agree with that. I'd like to debate that with him on any corner or in any hall in the province of British Columbia, because I think that never in the history of this province have we had such a mass of misinformation deliberately peddled by this government. And that minister leads the whole thing. He is the original fountain of misinformation in this province. They say he is a recruit that has just joined.... What do you call that party? I call it the Gerrymander Party. People have got various names.

I would like to debate those figures with the minister and quote the sources and show what really has happened to this province in the last three years compared with the NDP years. You've been telling them; but the people are beginning to realize the true state of affairs.

Now let me take one or two points in more detail, because I think it should be put on

[ Page 69 ]

the record — boring as it may be to you, Mr. Speaker. This document was not prepared by Manny Dunsky. I want to assure you of that. This is the government report on mining.

The minister who has just taken his seat and that minister who is chattering away there in the corner both said the NDP had ruined the mining industry.

This document was tabled in the House. It is a report of the Ministry of Mines and Petroleum Resources, page 91.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Never mind the mining industry. Let's take the government figures. These are the actual figures and I think there is a fair mode of comparison in these figures, because our Speech from the Throne boasts that the total value of mineral production in the province of B.C. has risen to $1.9 billion. Now when the NDP came into office the 1972 figure was $600 million — and I'm rounding them to the nearest hundred thousand. In 1973 that had grown to $1.1 billion; it went up again in 1974 to $1.2 billion; it went up in 1975 — still an NDP year — to $1.3 billion. I stop at that point to point out to hon. members that during the NDP years the total value of mineral production in the province, which includes metals, petroleum products, structural and other materials, had more than doubled. I'm quoting the government report. And yet that minister has the audacity to get up and try to bamboozle the people of this province and say we led the province down the road to ruin.

Now in the Social Credit years it has continued to increase, but at a much lower rate. It has barely kept up with inflation, which has been running at around 8 percent, 9 percent or 10 percent per year.

In terms of real growth, it isn't doubling within the three-year period but it is barely keeping up, if at all, with inflation, which is stagnation. I quote the figures in these years: 1976 — $1.5 billion; 1977 — $1.8 billion. Last year — and this is the figure they boast about in the Speech from the Throne — it went up to $1.9 billion. That last increase, about which this government boasts in the Speech from the Throne, is much less than the ordinary inflation of prices in that period of time. It is really a retardation of the growth in mining during the Social Credit years.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Nonsense!

MR. MACDONALD: I'm sure we should talk to all industries, Mr. Minister, and we should also consider the public welfare of the province of B.C. We should consider the consumers of the province of B.C. We should consider our international payments, and that's what we do.

I just want to add some other figures, because yesterday, speaker after speaker, and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) in particular, spoke about how we have destroyed oil production and gas production in the province of B.C. Would you just nod your head? Do you say that it declined during the NDP years? You talked also about petroleum products. Will you agree that during the NDP years the record was good?

Here are the actual figures. Let me just put the actual figures on the record, because you have been going around this province with misinformation for the people. I'm quoting from the 1977 Department of Mines report tabled two days ago. In terms of production — I'm not talking about dollar values now — in 1974 it was 19 million barrels, in 1975 it was 14 million barrels, in 1976 it was 15 million barrels, and in 1977 it was 14 million barrels. This shows that you're well below the best of the NDP years in production. In 1977 you had come up to the lowest level of oil production of the NDP years.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: The former Minister of Mines says: "What's that got to do with anything?" I'll tell you What the relevance of that is, Mr. Speaker. It is not only that oil production was better under the NDP years. It is also that this Socred coalition government policy of throwing money in hundreds of millions of dollars at those oil companies has not even led to the production levels of the NDP years. I've given the figures before, and I'm going to bring them up to date before the end of this session, because I think if there was ever a giveaway of resource revenues, it's taken place in oil and natural gas and coal on an unprecedented scale. It hasn't worked, because the money that you have flung at these international oil companies has gone out of British Columbia, never to be reinvested in this province. It is not producing more oil.

Now look at the actual figures for natural gas. Another of the fairy-tales this government talks about throughout British Columbia is how we destroyed the production of the natural gas and how they had to throw a lot of money at the companies by increasing the field prices to maintain production when they came

[ Page 70 ]

in office. I know figures are boring, but I'm going to place them on the record.

Gas production in the province of British Columbia — and again this is from the official department report — was as follows, in billions of cubic feet: 1973, 475; 1974, 410; 1975, 400; 1976— the first of the Socred years — 380, a drop of 20 billion cubic feet in actual production; 1977, 390, a drop from the NDP years of ten billion cubic feet of natural gas. Notwithstanding those figures, you go out — and as I say, it's the same in natural gas as it is in oil — and you fling money at these international companies expecting that you'll do something for the people of British Columbia. You've increased the prices, of course, to the domestic users of those fuels.

AN HON. MEMBER: We've doubled it in one year.

MR. MACDONALD: Production? You've reduced the royalties and reduced the return to the public treasury. You know the extent and dimensions of this kind of a giveaway of a resource that disappears — natural gas and oil do not last forever. When you have giveaways, whether in massive millions of dollars to international companies or in profligate conservation of those resources, then you've done irreparable and irremediable harm to the province of British Columbia in your three years of office.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Ha!

MR. MACDONALD: The hon. minister who is interrupting me, who is now the Minister of Mines, began, as the others have begun — including the minister who just took his seat — with a personal attack on the Leader of the Opposition. I want to say that none of them laid a glove on the arguments he advanced in a careful, informed and new presentation of the economic situation in the province of British Columbia. A great deal of his speech was given over to the possibilities of thousands of jobs and the extension of the railway to Alaska, a project which is devoutly sought south of the border, a project which is devoutly sought in Alaska, and a project in which the Premier of the province of British Columbia has been totally asleep at the switch. There is simply no economic leadership whatsoever. I have not heard a word of rebuttal of the Leader of the Opposition's remarks about the railway.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Ask them what they said down in Ottawa about the railway cars!

MR. MACDONALD: I have not heard a word of rebuttal except the chattering of that Minister of Mines who got up in his place. He had something to say about the destruction of the Railwest industry, which, I think, he is referring to, and the loss of those jobs. How many as it? It was about 400 at Squamish, at a time when the orders were there for the railcars that were needed by BCR. They had to lease them because they couldn't produce them with B.C. jobs. They had to lease them from eastern Canada, and the need in the grain trade is for additional jobs. If that minister is ready to rebut that with a reasoned argument, why didn't he do it? He'll have a chance on the main motion. We don't mind a full and searching and fair debate in this House. When that minister gets up and makes an implication, he carefully treads the laws of this Legislature. He didn't say the Leader of the Opposition was a liar — I've got the Blues here — but he suggested it. The innuendo was there, and I say that kind of personal attack and aspersion shows a bankrupt minister that ought to be taken out of office.

Don't worry about the credibility of the Leader of the Opposition. The minister is leaving the chamber at this time. It is certainly better than the credibility of those ministers on the bench opposite. As I say, none of you have laid a glove upon the main points and very important points that were made in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Hear, hear!

MR. MACDONALD: Before I sit down I just want to say two or three things about the remarks of the Minister of Mines in respect of natural gas. His first point was the picky and silly point that I referred to yesterday — that we said the price was 32 cents per 1,000 cubic feet and you said it was 31 cents. That's good debating. My recollection is that under the long-term agreement it was a little shade under 32 cents. The hon. Leader of the Opposition was being fair in terms of what we raised it from. I think it was 31.6 cents under a long-term agreement that lasted till 1989 that was entered into by the previous, Social Credit administration between Westcoast Transmission and El Paso, the purchaser in the United States, which provided for delivery of British Columbia gas till 1989. When you talk about a sellout, just think back to those years. Think back to what is happening today. What a giveaway that was! What a giveaway that was by the Social Credit Party in terms of our natural gas! At 32 cents there was no provision of an

[ Page 71 ]

escalation clause. The delivery across the border of 809 million cubic feet per day to 1989.... And, when — contrary to what this minister said yesterday — the hon. Leader of the Opposition became Premier of this province, his first act was to break that contract. I use those words deliberately. It had nothing to do with the NEB.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, that's right, not in 1973 or 1974.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, you said it did.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Not in 1973-74.

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

MR. MACDONALD: All right. I'll tell you how that was done.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I know how it was done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: The minister is showing utter ignorance of his portfolio. When he made his speech there he said that we raised the price to the people of the province. That's not true. We did break that contract, and I don't mind using those words — the contract as a terrible sellout for the people of B.C. — by setting up the new public corporation, the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation. It was by that device, if you want to call it, whereby it became the owner of the gas, that we were able to get out of that Socred contract.

The other thing the minister said was that we increased the prices to the people of the province. I want to say that one of the things we did was increase the wholesale price from British Columbia Petroleum Corporation to B.C. Hydro, which distributes gas, to Inland, which distributes gas, and to Pacific Northern, which distributes gas.

That did not necessarily mean that the residential and industrial consumers of the province of British Columbia were bearing that increased cost, because we deliberately had a two-price system. We thought that the people of the province of British Columbia should have a break in terms of the industrial and residential costs of their own resource, compared to the international price. And that's what we did.

I'm not going to go word for word through all of the things that minister said. He made a great point that the $1.96 was not an NDP thing, and he said it was under the National Energy Board. Nod your head if I've got you right — that it was the National Energy Board, not the NDP, and it was in 1976.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that again is showing complete ignorance of what happened in the province of British Columbia, in the department which he heads. That last price increase from, I think, an initial $1.60 to $1.96 — I'm not going to get into one cent here or there with this; that's petty debating, which is just ridiculous — which that minister said was not brought into effect by the NDP government, was worked out at a federal-provincial conference which I had the honour to attend, along with the Premier, in 1975. There w got the federal government to agree to a phased-in increase, which was first in the $1.60 range and then went to $1.96 in the second stage, which we arranged and which happened in 1976. Now when you say that was under the NDP, Mr. Minister, you simply do not know what you are speaking about in terms of your own ministry.

Finally the minister criticized the leader of the Opposition in terms of us asking for the same price that Mexico is obtaining for its diminishing resource of natural gas. What the minister does not know, in terms of the increase allowed by the NEB — now up to $2.16 (U.S. funds) — and the new increase that is sought, which was agreed to between Trudeau and Donald MacDonald, who was then the Minister of Energy, and Premier Barrett, as he then, and myself....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, perhaps, in order that we can ensure orderly debate, if the member who is speaking would continue to address the Chair, and the members would not all interrupt him, it would assist me a great deal. Please proceed.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the latest report from the Globe and Mail on the Mexican negotiations says this:

"The new Canadian gas export price will still be far below the price being demanded by the Mexican government, currently about $3.20, with provision for automatic escalation for new gas being offered for sale in the United States."

So while Mexico — and some of that gas is flowing now — is asking for $3.20, this government in terns of its policy, which is to give a free hand to the international companies in terms of their escalating profits — and, believe me, they have been escalating — is content to make pussycat purrings and be very content that the National Energy Board might raise the price to $2.16.

[ Page 72 ]

What I say in relation to those figures is that hundreds of millions of dollars are being lost to the province of British Columbia from this diminishing and non-renewable natural resource, because of the fact that you have put the international companies first. You have never gone down to Ottawa, like a tiger, to fight for the proper increase. We are not going to get, as far as you're concerned, the price for our gas that Mexico will get for their same gas; and that is costing hundreds of millions of dollars in this province of British Columbia. When the people in this province see the returns to themselves from the resources they own going down like that, when they see the profits of the international companies going up like that, they should know who they have to thank.

The very first thing that Premier Bennett did in terms of energy when he came into office — and you all ought to remember it — was in January 1976 when he packed his bags and hustled down to Ottawa and said that the oil companies should have the Arab price for a barrel of oil. He said that was then $13. As a result of that kind of policy, which is to throw money at the international companies and hope that something may come back to the ordinary people of this province, which it hasn't.... It is that kind of policy — total damnation by big business, by special privilege — that has marked these three years of Social Credit administration.

To that I would add, because fact after fact in the speech of that Minister of Mines was wrong, that he simply does not understand his portfolio. And I say that that points up the other factor that we are talking about, which is business mismanagement of the economy of B.C. and incompetence in relation to our affairs — particularly our resources — in the last three years of that gerrymandered party.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to take my place in debating the amendment that's before the House. It's particularly a pleasure to speak following the dissertation we've just heard fran the hon. first member for Vancouver East, who has a very selective memory and really is no better at dealing with facts and figures now than he was when he occupied the position of Attorney-General, with the responsibility for energy in the province of British Columbia. He still hasn't learned anything. He still has not learned any of the actual facts about what is going on in the field of energy and resources in the province of British Columbia. All he can talk about is great giveaways and sellouts to international cartels and corporations, which is not a fact.

First of all, if he's really interested in what's happening, particularly in the field of petroleum and natural gas exploration, he should have referred to the one accurate barometer which indicates activity in drilling for gas and oil in the province of British Columbia. He conveniently forgot to read any of those statistics, even though he had in front of him the same report that I have in front of me. The accurate indicator or barometer is how much work goes on in the field of gas and oil exploration in any given year. Let me read into the record what happened during the years of the NDP administration as compared to what has happened in years since then.

In terns of total drilling activity in the province of British Columbia, the record was one of improving conditions from 1966. through to 1972. In 1972 the total number of wells completed.... This is exploratory wells, some of which hit gas and oil. Not all of them did, but in relation to other parts of Canada, a high percentage of completed wells had the capability of producing either gas or oil. We peaked that year with a drilling program of 224 wells completed; in 1973, 177 wells were completed; in 1974, 148; in 1975, 82. In other words, the picture was very, very plain. It was pointed out to the then Attorney-General many, many times that under the NDP administration the oil and gas industry and the exploration for oil and gas had all but deserted the province of British Columbia. We had many, many arguments on this particular point, Mr. Former Minister.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Okay, let me read the figures to you again. In 1972, 224 wells were drilled in British Columbia; in 1973, 177; in 1974, 148; and in 1975, the last year of your administration, 82. It was downhill all the way. In 1976 we were back up because the oil and gas exploration activity moved back to the province of British Columbia within 60 days after the election. The total for 1976 was 189 exploratory wells, up from 82; in 1977, 328; in 1978, 408 exploratory wells were drilled in British Columbia.

Let me relate that in terms of employment, Mr. Speaker, which they say we're not creating in the province of British Columbia. In the year just completed....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where'd he go?

MR. SMITH: He's left the chamber. He doesn't want to hear the truth.

In the last year, over 90 drilling rigs were

[ Page 73 ]

employed in the province of British Columbia, compared to a low of less than 20 in the last year of the administration of the NDP government. Ninety rigs require approximately 40 people — those that are actually employed on the rigs and those that service the rig. Forty is a low estimate of the number of jobs created by one drilling rig. With 90 rigs drilling continuously in the province of British Columbia, multiply it by 40 — that's 3,600 jobs at least. I would say that it's closer to 4,500 or 5,000 jobs directly attributable to the increased oil and gas exploration in the province of British Columbia. So don't let anyone ever tell you that the exploration business was a great success under the NDP and a disaster under the present administration.

As a matter of fact, the direct opposite is true, and I presume that is why the member for Vancouver East has left the chamber. He doesn't want to hear facts. He never wanted to hear facts when he was a member of government, and as a member of the opposition he still does not like to listen to facts.

The production of gas and oil in the province of British Columbia was never healthier. There's no question that we would like to find more producing gas and oil wells in the province, but you do not always have the success ratio that you would like to achieve. When a drilling company goes into a program, believe me, they would dearly love to find more producing oil wells. From the standpoint of what has happened, most of the production in recent years has cane from the production and the finding of new natural gas discoveries. But we do have a new producing oil field just now coming into operation a few miles north of Fort St. John. It's a field which at the present time is producing a fair volume of oil and has great expectations for increased production in the future. Hopefully, if we can find more fields of a similar nature in northeastern British Columbia, we will be able to reduce our reliance on crude imported from the province of Alberta. That is what we are trying to achieve in the province of British Columbia, and we have great hopes for success.

The people who are knowledgeable in the oil and gas industry tell me that we have only scratched the surface in the province of British Columbia. But the area that is to be explored, in relation to that where they have proven production, is many, many times larger than what we already know about, in terms of our oil and gas reserves in this province.

Who was it that said there was no gas in Grizzly Valley? It was the expert from Vancouver Centre, the lawyer from Vancouver Centre who knows all about oil and gas exploration, who told us the Grizzly Valley was a write-off. Believe me, it will become one of the most important producing areas in all of the province of British Columbia. It will help offset the production that we lost from a field across the border and in the northeast corner of British Columbia a few years ago. We lost most of the production from that field. At least we have replaced that with the production that is on stream now and will come on stream from the Grizzly Valley area. Probably some of the most prolific gas formations in this province have been discovered in that area. It's got a great future. Along with the coal development that will go on adjacent to that area, many, many more jobs will be created in the province of British Columbia.

Another thing that I wish to speak about is the position taken by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) with respect to extending the railway through the Yukon into Alaska. It's a worthwhile endeavour to contemplate. I think all of us would like to see a railway extended beyond our boundaries. But let me say this: the Leader of the Opposition was derelict in his duty to the people of British Columbia when he suggested that the state of Alaska and the United States should get together with the federal government and settle the problems that are involved in the extension of a railway. As far as the province of British Columbia is concerned, the first and most important requirement before that extension takes place is the protection of our own province in relation to how we control a railway which is presently within our own provincial boundaries.

If we cannot extract from the federal government the type of agreement that gives us complete control over the B.C. Railway, then we have no right extending it through the Yukon and into Alaska, because we'd lose control to the federal government. If there's ever a battle that we will have to be very, very efficient in defending ourselves in, it is the battle that will go on, and is going on presently, between the federal administration in Ottawa and our province and other provinces with respect to who controls what, particularly in the field of resources and in the field of transportation.

If we give away our right to control the British Columbia Railway to the federal government, as they have control of the CNR, then Lord help the residents of the province of British Columbia, because we will have given away an asset which would greatly enhance the Yukon and Alaska, and for what? For pottage. For nothing. We must retain control. Yet the leader of the Opposition in

[ Page 74 ]

his speech said: "Let's set up a Crown corporation jointly between Canada and the United States and the province." Do you know who would be the ham in that sandwich? British Columbia would be the ham in that sandwich, no one else.

So let's not take anything that was said by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to the extension of that railway at face value. It doesn't stack up. The Premier of this province, I am sure, along with the ministers, is very aware of the fact that we would be giving away a birthright, really, of the people of this province if we sell out to either the federal or the U.S. government with respect to the extension of the railway to the Yukon and into Alaska. We do not want to became subject to dictation and control from Ottawa with respect to the expansion of that railway, that transportation link, and the exploration and control of our own resources. We have that control now, and I say, let's keep it in British Columbia for all time.

The leader of the Opposition, in his amendment, suggested that the burden of municipal taxation is greatly increased under the present administration. Nothing could be further from the truth. He doesn't know, or doesn't understand, or doesn't care to understand — I'm not sure which, but it may be a combination of all three — the actual amount of money that has been contributed to the municipalities in the province of British Columbia. In my own riding, as an example, it has more than doubled in the current year, as compared to the last year of the NDP administration. It has more than doubled in terms of direct grants to municipalities for water, for sewage and for resource revenue sharing; it has more than doubled from the time that they were government. Why has that been possible? It's because of a policy of increasing the revenue to the Crown through the development of our resources and industry.

We have fulfilled the commitment made by the Premier of this province to the municipalities in British Columbia to share resource revenue with them. That is being done on an ever-increasing basis. The homeowner grants have been increased steadily, which has helped to reduce the burden of municipal taxation on the people of British Columbia. In all points, with respect to the amendment that is before us, we have out-performed the official opposition when they were government. It is a nothing motion produced by an opposition who seem to be incapable of producing any new ideas, any new thoughts or any new direction for the province of British Columbia. What they do is resort to ridiculing the things that have happened in the last three years under the present administration.

No thinking person in this Legislature can support this amendment. Those people on the opposition side of the House, if they vote on the basis of their conscience and their representation of the constituents by poll, will reject the motion, as will the people on this side of the House, and the member for North Peace River.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

NAYS — 2 4

Division ordered to be recorded in the  of the House.

MR. STEPHENS: May I also begin by recognizing the contribution of the former Premier W.A.C. Bennett to this province. I was not in the House. I never had the pleasure of sitting here and participating in his government or in opposition to his government. I think that many good things have been said about him over the past few weeks. I would like to just quote the words of George Bernard Shaw that were often quoted by Senator Robert F. Kennedy. I think these words sum up the former Premier better than anything else. Shaw said: "Some men see things as they are, and ask why. I dream things that never were, and ask 'why not?'"

MR. LOEWEN: Keep dreaming.

MR. STEPHENS: I can assure that member that that is precisely what I intend to do. I intend to accept these words that Mr. Bennett used and followed and make that my guideline so long as I am in politics. Yes, Mr. Member,

[ Page 75 ]

you can count on me to continue to dream.

I would like, also, to recognize the efforts of the former member for North Vancouver Capilano, Gordon Gibson, who sat beside me in my first session in this House. I will ever be grateful to him for the help and assistance that he gave me. He never refused to give me full cooperation on some of the matters that arose that I was not familiar with. I find being here now without him a little bit lonely, but I recognize how important it is for me and my party to renew our determination to ensure that the government of this province does not fall into the hands of just two political parties who call themselves by different names, who say different things, but in the end seem to do just exactly the same.

One of the great issues in British Columbia today is the question of honesty in government. The Premier has indicated time and again over the last few months that if he had an issue, he would go to the people of British Columbia. He may think that the Heroin Treatment Act was an issue, or he may think that the giveaway shares in the Resources Investment Corporation is an issue. The fact of the matter is that the people of this province know that the overriding issue is whether or not they can expect honesty in their government. When the voters of this province look at this government they fail to find the honesty and integrity that they are entitled to.

There has been a breach of trust, and the whole parliamentary system functions on trust. Our system is not trapped and cornered by a constitution written down in words as is the American form of government. That's why it's so terribly important for members of this House not to breach this trust. The responsibility is far greater on a member of any parliament than it is on any representative in any House in the United States, because we carry on our shoulders not a written constitution that tells us how to behave, but many years of history that guide us. And I have seen over the past year or two or three under this present government a total disregard of this parliamentary trust that the people are entitled to have.

Let me give you some examples. Let's talk about the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation. This is the kind of thing that we have been hearing. In January of this year the Premier made front-page headlines with his announcement of his giveaway shares, and he said that the book value of the 15 million shares in the initial offering available through the banks and other financial institutions in early March would be about $10 each. That was the statement of the chief spokesman for this province. I didn't realize that he was an adviser in stock market matters, but evidently he claims to be. On March 2 he made another statement. He said that the underlying book value of each additional share was $12. Those shares jumped from $10 to $12 between January and March before they had even been distributed or sold or marketed. And then he went on to say that British Columbians are going to have a once-in-a--lifetime opportunity to buy them for $6.

Now, Mr. Speaker, he is going to stand before the people of this province, as he has done, and he is going to tell them that because he knows what he is doing — and he has had made a lot of money; I don't know whether he has made it in the stock market or not; I understand he made most of it by subdividing land — because he presumes that he is an expert in the market, the shares are worth $10 or they're worth $12, but they can buy them for $6. Now isn't that wonderful? We have five shares given to us and we're told that they're worth $10 or $12 a piece, and before we even get them in our hands he cuts the value in half by selling the same shares for $6. So they're not worth $10 or $12. He automatically and deliberately, through his political interference with a public company operating in the private sector, reduced the value of those shares by at least 50 percent. But that's not the end of it.

After he makes his sales pitch on behalf of this public company operating in the private sector, after he's done his work, they decide after political pressure that we must have a prospectus after all. They wanted to exempt themselves from putting out a prospectus, because, for heaven's sake, let's not tell the public what it's really about. But the political pressure forced him to charge his mind on that. So out came the prospectus. And what does it say? Let me read part of it:

"The common shares are not guaranteed in any manner by the Province of British Columbia or any other government, nor has any government any direct or indirect obligation with respect to them. Since BCRIC has only recently commenced operations, potential projects and investments in which BCRIC may participate, or which may be acquired by it, are not but known."

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Marvellous! The Premier of the province tells the people that this is the best opportunity they'll have in a lifetime, and the prospectus says they don't even know what they're going to do with the money they raise.

[ Page 76 ]

And the prospectus tells the people of this province that there is no way that the Premier is going to back up his statements. It goes on to say:

"In addition, results experienced by BCRIC subsidiaries over the past ten years are not necessarily indicative of future performance. No representations can be made as to the future influence of these factors on the price of BCRIC's common shares."

"No representations can be made." Yet the Premier has been tearing around this province making precisely those representations. I say, Mr. Speaker, that is a total abuse of his position and of his office.

The people of British Columbia are not being fooled; they know that what the Premier says he cannot back up. He's encouraging the people of this province — many hard-working people, many senior citizens who have worked very hard to save their money and put it away in case they need it — to speculate on the stock market.

Mr. Speaker, if the Premier is so concerned about investing in the stock market, I tell him that there are better investments on the market than this one, and every single British Columbian, before he or she invests in this corporation, should go and ask his or her broker or banker or somebody who knows what they are talking about whether his or her money can be invested better than according to the Premier's direction. Who is the Premier to interfere in this private sector, and spend his money and the taxpayers' money and his time and his authority telling the people of this province that they'd better take their hard-earned money and invest it in his pet project, when the corporation itself says it's trying to raise $500 million and doesn't even know what it's going to do with it.

Interjections.

MR. STEPHENS: Oh, they say "sure." You know, they're all in support of it now, but six months ago there wasn't a member in that government who even knew that this was going to happen. And the reason they didn't know it was going to happen is that the Premier didn't know what was going to happen.

What's happened with this corporation is that when it was put into effect I, for one, thought, hey, what a tremendous opportunity, at last the opportunity to do the Conservative thing, to take those Crown corporations and break them up and get them back into the private sector where they belong. What a tremendous opportunity. But he thought he was going to find an underwriter who was going to sell the shares.

Read the debates. Read what the Premier himself said when he set up this corporation. He constantly referred to it as a voluntary investment by the people of British Columbia. There was nothing about giveaways. He never heard of that until the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) got up and put it in his ear, and then he preferred the idea.

So what did he do? He found out that you can't sell these shares. He found out that nobody would underwrite these shares. The investment community said: "Look, Mr. Bennett, there are many better investments on the market than this thing. Why should we underwrite it?" Of course, he'd got it in place by this time. Oh, sure, he'd got it in place and he'd had newspaper publicity and he was going to get rid of these socialistic institutions. So he had to find another way to go about this, Mr. Speaker. And what did he do? He decided that because his political fortunes were in trouble, he'd give them away. Marvellous! And what did he call them? Free. Well, they're $20 million free.

These people who sit on my right, who set up these companies, took the money from the taxpayers and they used it to buy these assets. I don't know what they paid. What was it? Was it $30 million or $40 million you paid for these assets? In any event, they took my money and the taxpayers' money and they bought these assets. And then that happened? Along came the next government and said: "Hey, these assets that these dumb socialists bought for $30 million or $40 million are now worth $150 million..."

Interjections.

MR. STEPHENS: "...so let' s get them back in to the private sector."

Instead of selling off the shares in those individual companies and those assets of $150 million for what they were worth and putting that money back into the general revenue where it came from, and then putting it back into the taxpayers' pockets by cutting out the sales tax, which would have given everybody a profit on their investment — and it wouldn't have cost the government anything to do it; it would have been based on a sound business practice — they said: "Oh, no, we'll spend another $20 million of the taxpayers' money to buy their votes, to bolster up our political fortunes."

And I defy the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), in two days now, to tell us in this House what the cost of those things is. All he

[ Page 77 ]

can say is: "I don't know." He said it before and he said it today. He doesn't know how much the people of the province are going to have to pay for this political scheme.

MR. BARRETT: Do you believe that? He knows what it's going to cost.

MR. STEPHENS: Well, if he knows, he should have the courage to stand up and say it. His Premier is away and he doesn't know what to say.

So what have we done? The taxpayers have bought these assets with their own money. Now their own money is being taken away from them to put these assets back. But where are they going? "Individual enterprise," they scream in the throne speech. "We believe in individual enterprise." Sure, but what you've done is you've taken those assets that have been paid for twice by the people of this province and you have forced the owners, the people of this province, to go and stand in a line and fill out your silly application forms just to hang on to something they already own, something they've bought and paid for. Boy, I'll tell you. Free enterprisers? You've got to be kidding. You guys out-socialize the socialists.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Phone up Sinclair and see what he thinks about it.

MR. STEPHENS: Boy, you missed a great chance. You had the chance of a lifetime to do what a Conservative would do, but you blew it; and you blew it because you're afraid of this rag-tag bunch of socialists sitting over here. You're scared to death of them. You haven't got enough confidence in your own free-enterprise policy to do what you should do.

Mr. Speaker, you know what they should have done? I've got a great idea. Instead of using the B.C. Systems Corporation and all of the information that they're going to extract from the medical records and the motor-vehicle records to find out who there is in British Columbia, there's a simple way, you know. There's a voters' list. Why didn't you just take the voters' list, take your share certificates, stand outside of the polling booth and hand them out to the people as they go in and check their name off the list? That wouldn't have cost you anything and it would accomplish the same purpose. I wouldn't be surprised if they did it. Why didn't you sell the share certificates in a businesslike manner?

Listen to this. This corporation is making use of the B.C. Systems Corporation to sell its shares. Now how do you justify that, Mr. Speaker? I understood that the B.C. Systems Corporation was not to do anything for commercial or industrial private operations. I thought that was the commitment we got from this government. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) is going to have to face that. He's going to have to stand up and tell us how he can justify the B.C. Systems Corporation using its services to sell shares for a public company operating in the private sector. He told us, he promised us, there would be no subsidizing. I want to know who's paying for that. Who's paying for that public company in the private sector to use our services to sell its shares? Private enterprise. That's nothing but downright government interference in normal, everyday, private business. You should get your nose out of it. Don't try and tell the people of this province that you believe in private enterprise when you did things like that. I've never seen a more gross interference with the private sector.

MR. BARRETT: What would they have said if we'd have done it?

MR. STEPHENS: Would you have done it?

Mr. Speaker, when the present Premier as the Leader of the Official Opposition, he made some very serious allegations about government by order- in- council. Let me just read these. But before I do, let's start with the present Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who at that time, I think, was sitting somewhere around this position that I'm in now. They were talking about orders-in-council, and the member said this:

"Thousands of orders-in-council are passed, usually about 3,000 or more a year. I haven't attended any cabinet meetings, obviously, but I'll tell you this, Mr. Chairman. The first one I attend will be the last one that carries out the kind of order-in-council government that we have had in the province for years and years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Did Dr. Pat say that?

MR. STEPHENS: Yes, and further on he said this: "Mr. Chairman, I just don't have any confidence at all in the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council system. I think it's totally wrong.

But now let's go and find out what the member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) said.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is he a Liberal or Socred?

[ Page 78 ]

MR. STEPHENS: Well, I think he's probably always had the same stripe, this fellow, but this is what he said:

"We've seen in the past 12 months not only a large succession of orders-in-council, but orders-in-council which have provided special warrants of substantial amounts of money for specific purposes. For instance, I recall funding ICBC warrants in an amount of $5,000..."

Five thousand, wow! Rough, rough.

"...and larger amounts that went through to set up the necessary funding, things which perhaps should have rightfully been done by statute. I don't know whether it is wilful or not, but you seem to use orders-in-council with reckless abandon in my opinion. Shame on you."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. STEPHENS: Oh, that was the member for North Peace River. Then on February 4, 1974, the Leader of the Opposition (Hon. Mr. Bennett), as he then was, rose and said:

"Five thousand orders-in-council — a new indoor order-in-council record, Mr. Speaker. Well, many of them were, of course, routine. Many, many more of them deserve utter and complete condemnation because they have made a mockery of this government's claim to be responsive to the Legislature ."

Shame on you for not being responsive to the Legislature. I agree with the Premier. Good for him. He sure told you.

Then he went on to say:

"This open government" — referring to the NDP — "this responsive government has displayed, almost from the moment it took office, a total lack of understanding of its role as trustee of public funds. That may be funny to the Premier as the clown prince of British Columbia, but it certainly isn't funny to me. It shows a total disdain as a trustee of public funds, and a total disdain for the members of this Legislature who have a responsibility to share that trusteeship. They've done it by using the very weapon, by using orders-in-council. But the entire exercise is a sham, because the document was a sham." — He's talking about the budget — "The so-called budget was never intended to be a guide to the government spending plans. We know that a little more than three months after this budget was passed this government authorized over $25 million worth of special warrants and expenditures which weren't included in that budget.

"That figure of special warrants for expenditures not included in the budget is now over $110 million. They did it all by the device which horrifies the Premier, the order-in-council, the censored order-in-council which says little and hides all...."

Well that's very interesting. I am, as I say, very delighted that the former Leader of the Opposition, now Premier, has so much insight.

On March 1 of this year this present government issued an order-in-council, and it says:

"Whereas the sum of $3 million is required to enable the government to distribute to members of the public determined by the Minister of Finance to be eligible to receive free shares in the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation, to enable an offering to be made of additional shares to those members of the public who apply for and receive free shares, and to enable the minister to enter into and implement agreements with the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation and financial institutions and other persons for the purpose of distribution and offering; whereas this expenditure was not foreseen, or provided for by the Legislature, and is urgently and immediately required for the public good."

He then got the special warrant for $3 million, but what's it being used for? It's not just to fund these giveaway shares, but in the words of the order-in-council, it's to enable an offering to be made of additional shares to those members of the public who apply for and receive free shares.

Now isn't that wonderful? Not only are they spending our money to give away something we own, but they're spending our money to finance the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, a public company operating in the private sector; they're spending money to sell its shares. Wonderful! I'm sure glad this is a government that doesn't interfere in the private sector. I want to tell you, this tax money is my tax money and it's the tax money of the people of British Columbia. And they're angry, as I'm angry, that this government is allowed to take our dollars to fund private enterprises; to create a corporation, nothing but a holding company that wasn't needed in the first place; to handpick a group of people to run it so that the Premier and his group of people can have their own private little game of capitalism, supported by taxpayers' dollars. They've free enterprisers? I don't believe it, and neither do the people of this province. The people of this province know

[ Page 79 ]

when they' re being told the truth, and they know when they're being told something that is not true, and they have no difficulty in recognizing that this government is not giving us the straight goods.

But what about the commissions? The Premier, not too long ago — and again I believe it was when he was sitting in opposition — gave a lecture to the government at that time, telling them that they should learn a little something about the brokerage commissions. I'm referring again to Hansard, February 4, where the present Premier stated, referring to the Premier at the time: "Look, we made a million dollars for the people today." Those are paper profits, because you're not going to make any money till you go to sell those shares, and if you did go to sell, the Premier would learn something about brokerage commissions and how much they eat into those profits.

How much do they eat into those profits? Let's do a little calculating. They've changed the roles. Normally when you buy shares on the open market, in the free enterprise system as I understand it, you pay the brokerage out of your pocket, or the seller pays the brokerage for selling. But oh no, what have they done here? They've charged the brokerage to the corporation. They're going to sell, they hope, 85 million shares, and they're going to pay two-bits a share. Doing a quick calculation, that's over $21 million that that corporation is going to deplete its assets by just to sell these shares. The Premier should learn something about the cost of brokerage commission. This is not free enterprise, not a bit.

Mr. Speaker, we have missed a tremendous opportunity, just the greatest opportunity that we have ever had. Had we taken those corporations as they were, not imposed on them another bureaucracy.... They were running well. They were doing a good job and they were making money, so you've got to presume that at least their boards of directors knew what they were doing. But this government was not happy with that. This government of bureaucracy imposed a superboard on them: people who are really not interested in those companies at all, know nothing about them, people who are going to have to be educated, but people to whom that original board of directors are going to have to answer.

It's a superboard, a super bureaucracy. Why do it? Why not take the shares of these companies, as they were doing, and market them and underwrite them in a proper fashion? While you did it, why didn't we lead the world by putting a large portion of these shares into the hands of the workers of those corporations, to begin to build the finest opportunity that we will ever be faced with — the opportunity to create a profit-sharing mechanism in industry? You'll never get that chance again. You've blown it. It's too late.

What have we done? On speaking to brokers recently I'm told that at the rate these shares are being applied for, it's most likely that little more than half of British Columbians are going to get what they've already paid for. Through its own programs, this government is going to deny many, many British Columbians what is already theirs, and you are going to have to accept the responsibility for that. What an opportunity!

Let's talk a little more about the individual enterprise of the socialists on my left. Do you remember Canadian Pacific Investments and MacMillan Bloedel? Do you remember that? Those are two Canadian companies operating in Canada, controlled by Canadian shareholders. Evidently Canadian shareholders are not entitled to the rights of individual enterprisers.

The Premier got all excited. He came down off a mountain, tripping over his skis. He couldn't get down here fast enough to say that B.C. is not for sale. What he should have said is that B.C. is not for sale unless it's to Americans.

He makes his own rules. This government decides who is going to operate in the private sector. It decides the rules that they are going to operate by. They have no sense of justice, these socialists who sit on my left.

MR. BARRETT: Don't give the socialists a bad name.

MR. STEPHENS: You took care of that. I'm too late for that.

NDP — what does that mean? Social Credit — can anybody read those names and tell me what they mean? I'll defy you to tell me somebody who doesn't know what Conservative means. That's a name that means what I say it means. When I tell people I'm a Conservative they know what I am. When you tell them you're a Socred, you don't know what you are. You're mostly Liberals and you're some Conservatives; you're all mixed up. Do you know what a Socred is? He's a man who at federal election time — which we're going through right now — has got nothing to do. So because he's politically active, he goes out.... Some of them work for the Liberals and some of them work for the Conservatives, just to keep themselves busy, but they don't know what they are.

MR. BARRETT: What's a "progressive" Conservative?

[ Page 80 ]

MR. STEPHENS: That's redundant. [Laughter.]

Ask the shareholders of Canadian Pacific Investments and MacMillan Bloedel what they think of the individual enterprise of this government. The trust has broken down. The people don't believe them anymore.

Interjection.

MR. STEPHENS: Somebody has been talking about Sasquatches. I want to tell you that my executive assistant John Green, our candidate for Saanich and the Islands, who will be sitting here before long, has given up his Sasquatch hunting because he found them all here in this room. [Laughter.)

This government that says one thing and does another is not fooling the people of British Columbia. Let's talk about the property tax. Shall we talk about property tax for a while? First of all they brought in this amendment to the Assessment Act, which they didn't understand. It's only recently they've grasped the significance of what they've done. Through their policies and their policies only, they have increased property taxes in this province to the point where people are simply selling their homes. They are losing their homes. Businessmen are going out of business and are going bankrupt. What do they do? Because they haven't got the guts to stand up and take responsibility for what they've done, they've tried to blame the municipalities. They tried to impose an illegal order on them, telling them that they cannot increase their mill rates. They've tried to impose an illegal order trying to convince the people of this province that the municipal governments have been so dishonourable that they have simply let taxes get out of line.

I'll tell you what you did.

Interjection.

MR. STEPHENS: Well, I'll tell you what you did. First I'll tell you what you did because you obviously don't know. The first thing you did is you shifted $100 million out of your budget because you're so keen to balance your budget. You shifted it off your backs and put it on to the school boards so that the homeowners would have to pick it up. That's the first thing you did. The second thing that you did is that you shifted the burden of tax on to the urban areas, simply because that's where the inflation has struck hardest on land. So if a man and a woman trying to raise a family in Victoria or greater Vancouver happen to have a $50,000 house on a $50,000 lot, they're really getting stung far more than those more fortunate people who have a $50,000 house on a $10,000 lot. You have stung the people who live in the urban areas. You've really hurt them.

The third thing you did is that in just three years you increased the basic mill rate for school tax by more than 50 per cent. You shifted that burden again onto the backs of the homeowners. That's what caused the rise in taxes in this province and it is totally deceitful, Mr. Speaker, for this government to try to pass that responsibility off on the municipal governments.

The increase in provincial spending in this province in the last ten years is 413 percent. The increase in spending at the municipal level is just slightly more than one half of that amount. Now I ask you: who is responsible for increasing spending and increasing taxes? But you' re not going to get away with it. You're not going to get away with that deceitful act, because the people of this province know. They know who's to blame for the taxes on their homes. And if you won't admit it, they're finding out. You can't blame the municipalities. The municipalities are the most sensitive and the best governments in this country, and you have no legal right to be imposing these restrictions on them. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'd hate to have you for a lawyer, Vic.

MR. STEPHENS: That'll never happen. I have same ethics.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps, hon. member, if you addressed the Chair, the debate might proceed in a more orderly fashion.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, you know, these municipal councils throughout this province have for a number of years been the farm team for the Social Credit Party. It's from these governments that they have attracted many of their politicians and their candidates. But I want to say that any politician at the municipal level who is so lacking in self-respect to ever allow his name to stand as a Social Credit candidate in this province will have no credibility whatsoever. There's not a better and more responsible group of people than the local governments, and these people have tried to blame them for their own acts.

What is worse, the voters in municipal elections have been disenfranchised. This government has given the voters of the province the right to select the men and women that they want to run their affairs at the local level,

[ Page 81 ]

and this bunch canes along and tries to tell them that you can elect the men and women you want — sure, that's okay with us — but we're not going to let them do what they have every right to do. Free government, terrific. The socialists on my left....

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing free.

MR. STEPHENS: That's right, nothing free, not even five shares.

Let me give you another example of why the credibility and honesty of this government is in doubt. The Vancouver General Hospital needs $20 million. They have no hesitation in spending $20 million to make their political giveaway scheme work, while the hospital is crying for help. Just in the last few days Don McAllister, the vice chairman of the Lions Gate Hospital, resigned. He resigned because a year ago he told this government along with the board of that hospital that they could not survive on the amount of money that the government was going to give them. But they made them do it anyway and now they're in serious trouble.

The Premier went over to North Vancouver about five or six months after he created a vacancy over in that area and said: "I'm sorry you've got a vacancy; I'm going to be your MLA." He suddenly got interested in the area because he was going to call a by-election. Of course, the hospital board met with their new MLA and said: what can you do to help us?" His answer was: "Well, I don't know much about this, but I'll refer it to the Minister of Health."

That MLA went away, and a few weeks later the new MLA came over, the Minister of Health, and he said: "What can I do to help?" They said, "Give us some money." So he gave them $432,000, only three-quarters of a million dollars short of what they need to survive. They have no choice. They have no choice like many of the hospitals in British Columbia. They've got to lay off help. They've got to lay off help. They've got to cut their staff. This government tells me that they can justify the expenditure of taxpayers' money to give away shares to buy votes when they can't afford to spend another paltry three-quarters of a million dollars to help a hospital that is greatly in need. That's why the credibility of this government is dying. That's why the people don't believe you. That's why they're no longer listening to what you say. They're only looking at what you do. They don't like it.

This government talks about job development. That's a joke. This government hasn't created any jobs. I doubt very much if governments will ever create any jobs of substance, or any lasting jobs. This free enterprise government constantly repeats to me that they've got a Minister of Economic Development who spends $30 million of our tax money because he's really creating jobs. I don't see any special qualifications in that man to be able to create jobs in this province. I trust the private sector, and you don't, you socialists on my left. You don't trust the private sector. You don't believe they can do the job. You get a big surplus, and what do you say? "We're going to use it to create jobs." I say: "Why don't you give it directly back to the people it came from?" It's not your money. Surplus means overtaxation. You have no right to spend it. "Get your hand out of my pocket, and keep it out." That's what the people of British Columbia are saying.

What about the constitution? Oh, boy, there's a good one. The Premier of this province goes down to Ottawa and meets with all the first ministers, and he's got a grand idea. He's going to create a new senate. He's going to have the right to appoint the senators from British Columbia. But he thinks that he should have the right to appoint as many senators as Mr. Lougheed and Mr. Blakeney and Mr. Lyon all added together. Isn't that wonderful?

If this Premier is to have any credibility at all, surely he's got to go down there with a more positive plan for creating a new senate that he should have control over — that kind of power. Any one of Lougheed, Blakeney and Lyon would eat this Premier for breakfast. They're not going to sit by and let him have equal power to the three of them. That's just absurd. It's nonsensical, and it's childish. It has no credibility.

Interjection.

MR. STEPHENS: Do I disagree? You're getting close. No credibility. A modern democracy demands that we elect our senators. I do not want the Premier of this province appointing senators. I don't like the sound of senator Dan Campbell, quite frankly.

And what about the essential service legislation? I supported it. I supported that legislation, but I did not support the sneaky way in which it was done. Again, the trust and the credibility of this government is lacking. Why do you have to sneak up on people? Why do you have to make use of a special session of the Legislature to sneak that special amendment in at the end of an Act? What kind of an approach is that? And then to stand in this

[ Page 82 ]

House and promise the people of this province that they wouldn't implement it without further discussion, and then turn their back on that promise and go and do it anyway. That's the kind of dishonest approach that the people of this province are beginning to recognize. They cannot be trusted.

You're on your way out, Mr. Speaker. They're going. They're going. They're going down. This time they're never, never, never going to cane back. We made a mistake when we let them up last time. We let then up. A few of them on this side of the House sneaked across there and gave them a bit of a boost. Now they are a coalition. We know what happens to coalitions. We know what happened to the coalition government in this province in 1952. Just call that election and you're going to see it happen again. You're finished. Mr. Speaker, they're done.

This government functions on fear. This government was put together for one reason and one reason only. That was to defeat this rag-tag bunch on my right. That's what they went there for. I must confess that when you did it I clapped my hands and said: "Nice going. At last we're free of those dirty socialists." Boy, at last we're delighted to be rid of them. Then I find myself in this House, and I find there are 34 socialists on my left and only 18 on my right.

But they have accomplished their goal. Their one and only goal was to defeat the socialists, and they did it. They have nothing else now to hold them together. Anybody who wants to read the debates in this House over the last session and the previous sessions will see there is hardly a speaker who ever got up on that side of the House who hasn't simply said: "You think we're bad? You should have you guys." That's their argument. That's their debate. They have nothing else.

Interjection.

MR. STEPHENS: They have nothing else. It's their only common bond. They're going to came apart. They have no underlying philosophy, none at all. They don't believe in anything. They solve problems by slapping a band-aid on it and hoping it will heal up and go away. You don't know what direction you're taking, and neither do the people of British Columbia. You're all going to go out that door. That's the direction you're going. You are there because you frighten the people of this province. You say these people frighten them. Well, they did a pretty good job, on second thought. But they are there because they frighten the people of British Columbia. They ran around saying: "You'd better vote for us, because if you don't you're going to get those other terrible people." Well, at last in British Columbia the voters know it is no longer necessary to keep a bad government in to keep a worse government out. That's going to be proved in the next election. You're going to be saying the same thing for your tactic. You're going to be screaming and hollering: "Don't vote for the Conservatives. It splits the vote." In 1972, if you think the vote was split, if that scared you, then you'd better tremble and crawl under your bed. This time we're going to tear it apart.

Fear, fear. The people of this province are not going to put up with that again. They're going to realize, and they do realize, that if we're going to make this province as great as it possibly can be, the first thing we've got to do is to kill fear. I've never met a single individual in my life who has ever accomplished anything worthwhile who functions on fear, ever. That applies to political parties, and that applies to nations. We're saying to the people of this province: "This time, this time, stand up and fight. This time, don't let either of them scare you. They both work this thing to the middle! " This time there will be a political party on the scene that is prepared to take a bold, strong step to make this government what it can be.

Interjection.

MR. STEPHENS: The member for North Peace laughs. I'd be surprised if he even gets his party's nomination next time around. That's how badly he scared them in North Peace.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'll tell you one thing: there won't be any candidates you run up there.

MR. STEPHENS: We have a grand opportunity before us.

I was pleased to hear the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) yesterday, in his other capacity, talking about fusion energy. What I was disappointed at was that he's back-peddled from the greatest idea I've heard from that government for so long. I got excited when I read in the paper that this minister was going out to fight for British Columbia to get this project. Yesterday he stands up in the House and said: "I didn't say that. I just wrote a nice letter, and the Premier wrote a letter and hoped that you consider us." Come on, Mr. Minister, get out there and fight. What an opportunity for British Columbia Why do you back away from the best things that you've

[ Page 83 ]

got? Go after them! That's a great thing to have.

British Columbia is a wonderful province, very strong. I'd like to finish, by reading some lines from Tennyson. I think these apply to British Columbia. They apply to everybody in this House, and they should apply to all voters:

The lights begin to twinkle from rocks.
The long day wanes. The slow moon climbs. The deep
Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends,
'Tis not too late to seek a newer world. Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows, for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.

Thank you.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: This afternoon in question period the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) asked what was developing in the meetings in Vancouver regarding the Queen Charlotte Islands cutting permit No. 144. I would advise that the following press release is being released, and I'll read it to you:

"The provincial Ministry of Forests and the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans agreed today to allow logging to continue on a 48-acres site on Rennell Sound on the Queen Charlotte Islands, subject to implementation of a series of measures to control sedimentation in order to protect fish habitat in Riley Creek.

"The meeting in Vancouver was held to discuss the logging situation which had resulted in charges being laid under the Fisheries Act. The two departments agreed to a series of activities:

"1. QC Timber Limited would be clear to immediately continue logging CT144, including the sensitive zone to which federal fisheries had originally objected. The B.C. Ministry of Forests will immediately instruct the company to implement a settling basin system and other preventive measures to control sediment flowing into Riley Creek. The two agencies would jointly enter into an intensified research pro-gram on soil stability measures, logging techniques and erosion control to ensure that a similar confrontation does not recur in the future.

"Both departments agree that the current referral system was genuinely useful and should be strengthened. This referral system has already led to the development of a preliminary soil stability map for the Rennell Sound area.

"CP151, which is adjacent to CP144, had been approved for logging, but has now been identified as unsuitable by the Ministry of Forests, and will be subject to an intensive study by the resource agencies concerned. Mr. Johnson, the assistant deputy minister of the federal fisheries department, will be recommending to his minister that all charges be dropped."

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, this action reconfirms that the consultative process — which is, as a matter of fact, required by the Ministry of Forests Act — does in fact work and, I think, emphasizes the fact that unilateral action by any agency is certainly not acceptable and does not lead to good resource management.

MR. KING: I wish to thank the minister for making his statement to the House this afternoon. I'm sure that all members were genuinely concerned about the serious charges which had been laid against British Columbians as a result of the dispute. I particularly welcome the minister's last undertaking that consultation will proceed in the future between other departments, be they provincial or federal, where there is a conflict of interest between the functions of those departments. I only regret that the minister had not undertaken to consult prior to the charges being laid against loggers and resulting in a situation where the federal Minister of Fisheries was unable to contact the provincial Ministry of Forests for six days. I hope now that the minister is properly chastened and that he will undertake his responsibilities more seriously in the future.

MR. SMITH: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, it would appear to me as I recall from reading previous decisions that a statement by a minister — a ministerial statement — is in order without leave at any time during the debate in the House, or at any time that the minister can gain the floor. I believe the minister asked leave to make the statement, but I do not recall the member for the opposition from Revelstoke-Slocan asking for leave

[ Page 84 ]

to reply. I think that the Chair should perhaps review the procedure. If one side of the House is expected to conform to the rules of the Legislature, then both sides should be.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, one moment, please. This may clear the matter up. The asking of leave is only required because of the time in the debate. It's not normally required during other periods of the day. However, we are interrupting the debate at the minister's request, and leave is not required for response from the opposition. Does this conclude the matter?

MR. SMITH: I do not wish to dispute the interpretation of the Chair. But I would suggest that perhaps it would be a good idea to look at the procedure with respect to whether leave is required or not by members of the opposition.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will take your request under advisement.

HON. MR. MCGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'm taking my place with great pleasure in the historic throne debate, not to speak to an unworthy motion of non-confidence in the government, but to speak positively about the throne speech and particularly to give reports on the field of education and on the matter of science in British Columbia.

For the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) I will, at the conclusion of my remarks, have a good deal more to say about the International Fusion Project and the role that I hope Canada and British Columbia might play in that.

I did enjoy the remarks of the member for Oak Bay. Oak Bay always sends interesting members to the Legislature. In the good old days, they used to send Liberals. Now they send Conservatives. And nobody enjoys the remarks of Conservative splinter groups more than the NDP. They're your greatest friends. I can remember, Mr. Speaker, how the NDP used to say with chuckles that if Scott Wallace hadn't existed, they would have invented him. My, how the NDP when they were in opposition, and particularly the former member for Cowichan, Mr. Strachan.... How he enjoyed the speeches of Scott Wallace and how he licked his lips at the prospect of free enterprisers following the Conservative Party to the benefit of the NDP.

I think, Mr. Member, that you should say that that's precisely what happened in 1972; and that's precisely what you are proposing now. That would be the outcome of your success. If your proposal is to bring down a free enterprise government so that the socialists may come back to power, in hopes that after that, as your former leader had hoped, the way could be paved not for the philosophy of free enterprise, but for the purity of conservatism, on the assumption that former Social Crediters and former Liberals would get a blinding flash of light about big "C" conservatism, then that's of course what you should advocate.

But I think that perhaps the people of Oak Bay, along with others in British Columbia who don't just fear what would happen with the socialist government but actually have the experience, know; they have been here when it happened. That's the kind of thinking that you have to deal with. It isn't like it was when your former leader was making the speeches while the NDP rubbed their hands with glee, because nobody really knew. Lots of people used to say that if the socialists ever got to power they would not be as bad as they seemed. There were those who listened to their speeches and who believed that they were sincere. We were afraid of what might happen; but I think that, even in our worst moments, we never thought there would be clerical errors of $103 million — the former minister has just left now — we never thought that those things would happen.

The fact is that they did happen, and it's against that experience, that certain knowledge, not only of the history of your party — and I'm not talking about the days when they were government from 1929-33, because that was almost before some of us were born — but in more recent times, when their role as a power in British Columbia led directly to the socialists being in government and then what happened after that, that one should temper one's approach to the future. At least give a forthright and honest description of the consequences of your course of action.

Mr. Speaker, I did want, particularly in the throne speech, to say a few words about my responsibility as Minister of Education at the time of the International Year of the Child. This is a year in which the world is dedicating itself to the coming generation with the hope and expectation, which can only be achieved through improved education, to give to that generation a torch that will permit them, as they assume leadership in the world, to make this a better place than it is today.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

In British Columbia, as you will recall, we kicked off the campaign to recognize the International Year of the Child with the cere-

[ Page 85 ]

money on the lawn under the auspices of my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who will be chairman of a committee to present to British Columbians a whole series of events that will commemorate this historic year.

I know that when she speaks later in the debates in this House, she will be able to give you an account of what is planned for British Columbia. In the meantime, we particularly want to focus on the educational system in our schools, the ways in which it can be improved, commencing this year, that will have a lasting effect on British Columbia and, through the influence of our people, extend beyond our borders.

First of all, I want to talk about the education of all of our children, because we have felt in British Columbia that we have not had an appropriate and rational plan for handling youngsters that were handicapped in our schools. I made a statement about the responsibilities of the Ministry of Education in this regard, because it is the responsibility of those who are educators to handle the educational aspects of their problem. It is not an attempt to ply health care, family support and other forms of social service. These are equally important, and for many children they are even more important than education itself. The provision of these services in some cases will be the only means by which children may enter our schools and in some cases, of course, the agencies and these other supports became the primary focus for the youngster, so the education has to be provided by the system going to them wherever they may be.

In order to see that the job is properly done, we have set up at the provincial level an inter-ministerial committee. This committee will coordinate the necessary services that need to be given to these handicapped youngsters so they can have the maximum opportunity in their lives and receive the optimal educational and other services that they deserve.

Most of the problems will be solved at the local level by a local inter-ministerial committee. But wherever those committees fail to provide an adequate solution, there will be reference of that individual case up to the provincial level, where we expect to be able to solve it.

We've also got another group of youngsters that require special attention in our system — the learning-disabled. About a year ago, I appointed an advisory committee on learning disabled children. This committee was to report to me the action we should take. It's a complex area which has caused me a great deal of concern over the past three years. This is because there do not seem to be clear-cut answers for what is estimated, in medical and scientific circles, to be about 1 to 2 percent of the population who have relatively normal intelligence, but due to cross-wiring and neurological abnormality, who underperform substantially in our schools. If ve could find ways to properly diagnose this group and prescribe a teaching environment, we might tremendously improve their accomplishment and, therefore, their ability to contribute later in life.

What t we are going to do, first of all, is provide a screening service at kindergarten and grade 1, where youngsters who may have this kind of problem can be discovered and then be referred to professional committees, including medical people, who will be able to provide a firm diagnosis if in fact a learning disability does exist, if in fact it does.

I think we've got to distinguish those youngsters who have much higher native intelligence than would be revealed by the rate at which they pick up academic material presented to them in school, because a neurological abnormality will lend itself to unusual progress if special types of teaching, are applied. There's a difference between these youngsters and those who are just less endowed intellectually and are going to be slow learners. You can achieve more with the people with genuine learning disabilities. They are a small percentage of the total population, but if you give them special attention you can get unusual results. That's the whole principle behind this. According to pediatric neurologists, EEG specialists, psychologists and special educators, the answer is yes.

Here's how we are going to deal with them. We are going to establish two regional centres in British Columbia where we can assemble the people who have the capacity to make this diagnosis. We don't expect it to be made by kindergarten and grade one teachers. All that we hope to do is give them sufficient in service training and instruction so that they will be able to do the screenings.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER. Yes, maybe Mr. Lauk. Here's somebody who would fall into this category. Then we could proceed to proper diagnosis done by experts, and then prescribe a course of learning. I think you understand, Mr. Member, what we are hoping to get at.

What we also hope to do at these centres is to define — that is, to prescribe — a teaching system and environment which will permit them to make, according to comparisons with what is

[ Page 86 ]

taking place now, unusual progress.

Lastly, we realize that there needs to be, in our system now, a certain amount of in service training of teachers to handle the handicapped children. We're trying to set up systems now where there will be in-service education programs in the summer and some university credit courses in the field. This is how we are hoping to cope with those at the slower end of the scale.

I also want to speak about what we are doing at the other end of the scale. This is the special program that we are developing for gifted children. There are three reasons why our programs for the gifted children is every bit as important as any of the other special programs that we're establishing in this International Year of the Child. The first is the simple matter of right. That is, a gifted youngster, as any other youngster in our system, has a right to be offered as much education as he can or she can absorb.

If we give them less than they can absorb, of course, we're not doing justice to them and we're not fulfilling their right. The second reason is that the gifted later become the ones who make the greatest contribution to society. We expect more of them. We all benefit from what they give us later in life.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) is looking shocked and shaking her head, but I think every single person on earth has benefited from the insight, the intelligence and the discoveries of Einstein. We're celebrating his hundredth anniversary this year. He had difficulties with the educational system in his country. Indeed, he had to move to three countries for his education, but fortunately for all of the human race, he was not turned off by the educational system and did live up to his potential — for the benefit of us all. I would hate to think than an Einstein might come along in the schools of British Columbia and be turned off by a system which was unprepared to recognize his right to learn nor the obligation of the system to provide the challenge for him.

The third reason is that we cannot tell, any of us, what the outer limits of our capabilities are until they have been tested to the point where we fail. If we banish the concept of failure from our school system, if we reward achievement or if we apply success as the criterion, as an absolute mandate, whether there is achievement or whether there is effort, then we undermine the whole intellectual discipline upon which education is based. If we fail to challenge our most able, or anybody in the system, then of course what we're doing is undermining this mental discipline.

We're undermining the total structure of education, because the youngster knows it, the teacher knows it, and the parent knows it.

I suppose, of all the Ministers of Education in British Columbia, I've been the most demanding of standards in our schools, and I make no apology for that. I just say flatly, as long as I'm the minister, my expectation is that every single individual in the system will be challenged and that the program which is operated will cause that child to make an effort to excel. To do anything less than that, Mr. Speaker, is to do a disservice to our students and a disservice to progress in British Columbia, and that I'm not prepared to do.

I recognize that there are many people who do not agree with this. I suspect the member for Cowichan-Malahat is one, and there may be others in this chamber. I suppose there are many in the school system who do not accept this. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that the overwhelming majority of parents want it, the overwhelming majority of students want it and, even though there were some boos when I suggested these things today to the B.C. Teachers Federation, the overwhelming majority of teachers want it.

I want to speak a little bit about the appropriateness of some of our programs and what can be done when we try to steer youngsters into the kinds of challenges in our system that are appropriate and effective for them.

I think the greatest satisfaction I've had as Minister of Education came one day when I visited the riding of the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) . The Haney Correctional Institute used to be in his riding. It is now the Haney Educational Institute. The cells have been torn out and in their place have been substituted welding cubicles. The youngsters from the surrounding high schools are being invited up to that institution to make use of the shops, to learn auto mechanics and automobile repair. I don't know whether that was something special the member for Dewdney thought was required in British Columbia but, in any event, the end result of it has been that the youngsters in the high schools there are getting credit — while they are in high school — for vocational programs that they wish to take later on.

But what the teachers in the system tell me is this: youngsters who are candidates for being dropouts, who had been problems of discipline in the community and therefore who were the kind of potential delinquents that caused that Haney Correctional Institute to be built in the first place, are getting turned

[ Page 87 ]

on by school as a result of these programs. The idea of dropping out is furthest fran their minds, and while they are taking the greatest interest in same of these practical courses, they also realize that it's not a bad idea to learn some English and mathematics as well, and so their general ability in school is improving.

Best of all, Mr. Speaker, when they're leaving the school system they are getting jobs, not necessarily as welders or as automobile mechanics, but as workers in the community, because during that period when they were being exposed to the kinds of challenges that were appropriate to them, they learned attitudes of contributing, they learned work habits and they learned a positive approach to society, which is going to be the most valuable thing for them of all in later life. Now that's what w can do when we get proper articulation between our secondary school system and the world of work.

I want you to know that we regarded this as a pilot project, and that we are moving school by school throughout British Columbia to try and get this sort of thing developed so that every one of our youngsters is going to get a better deal in the future than he's got so far.

After they are through with the secondary system, then they've got the post-secondary system. This has undergone such rapid evolution in the last three years that many people ware beginning to lose track of the multitude of opportunities that are now available. We've got our three public universities, but now we 've also got a Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act, passed by this Legislature, which has permitted us to create five new provincial institutes to offer a broad range of programs in the specialist fields in which these institutes are earning their justly famed reputations. In addition to this, we've got regional colleges functioning in every part of British Columbia now, developing programs locally that will provide for university transfer, that will provide for career training and will provide for technical and vocational education.

Because the system is now sophisticated and complex, we've developed special methods of setting up governing councils, which will lead to the articulation of these systems and which will ensure their funding at an adequate level.

We've got this little booklet "Post-Secondary Education in British Columbia," so that people can read and understand the system that has been built up in these past three years. We're going to send one of these books, Mr. Speaker, to every graduating high-school youngster in British Columbia this year. And at the back of the book....

MR. LAUK: ...is your picture.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, it should be on the front. We've got somebody much more handsome, a very attractive young lady. I'll send it across to you.

But in the back you'll be able to find all of the courses that are offered in our institutions and the programs available. May I recommend, since it's available to people of all ages and of all backgrounds, that the NDP particularly study the programs on economics. You are all welcome to copies of this book, and they will go to every graduating student in British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: One copy or five free ones?

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, how many do you feel you need, Mr. Member? We'd be happy to supply your needs.

Mr. Speaker, the other responsibility that has been given to me this past few months by the Premier is in the field of science and technology. Most of us recognize that the products that will be in greatest demand in the world in the next 20 years are products that are being discovered today in laboratories, be they industrial or university, all around the world. If our industries are to became competitive, if they are not to fall prey to foreign interests, then our technology must be able to match the technology of other nations.

We find ourselves in Canada spending roughly 1 percent of our gross domestic product on science and technology, too much of that in government, too little in the private sector, while our competitors in all other advanced nations, save Greece and Spain and one or two others, are spending far more. In countries that have the greatest flow of advanced consumer goods, like the United States, Japan, Germany and the other nations of Western Europe, it runs between 2 and 2.5 percent of their gross domestic product.

British Columbia runs currently in research and development at only 40 percent of the Canadian average. Of all developed nations it falls at the bottom except for Spain. So this is why the government now has started to take same initiative to lay the groundwork here in British Columbia for a new industrial future based on taking advantage of the technology that does exist in our universities, in the B.C. Research Council, and in some but too few

[ Page 88 ]

of our industries. We have prepared a booklet, "Science and Research, " which outlines sane of the government programs which will be sent in the next month around the world.

MR. LAUK: Is your picture on it?

HON. MR. McGEER: Not on the front, as it might be.

But we have here, as with the other booklet, something which I think is a splendid attraction for science and research, which is the magnificent climate which has been created in British Columbia in a natural sense by the Lord and in an economic sense by Social Credit.

The member for Vancouver Centre was very, very critical of one of the moves that was made to bring control to British Columbia of a telecommunications complex. He thought it was a very bad thing that in British Columbia we should have our telephone company, with a board of directors made up almost exclusively of outstanding British Columbians.... He thought it was a very bad thing that they should have control of Lenkurt Electric and Automatic Electric.

The purpose behind these acquisitions was so that we could have developed here in British Columbia the kind of high-technology research-and-development venture that would put us literally into the space age in the telecommunications area. Just today, the British Columbia Telephone Co. has announced that a new research organization will be established in British Columbia called Microtel Pacific Research. It will have an initial technical staff of about 175 people; it will be one of the largest research laboratories in British Columbia; it will take on head-to-head the largest and most successful research organization in Canada, which is Bell-Northern Research, housed in Ottawa, Ontario. As a result of this move and this statement, British Columbia is now in the big leagues for industrial research in high technology.

Now I promised to say just a little bit more today about the International Tokamak project, what it means for the world and what British Columbia's role in it might be. I want first to say that I dissociate myself completely from the utterly irresponsible and totally stupid remarks made by the member for Vancouver East. I must say that they are characteristic, but they are the most uninformed statements I have ever heard about fusion research, the assets, the liabilities and what it means.

First of all people should clearly understand, as, I might say, sophisticated environmentalists understand around the world, that fusion is harnessing the world's energy. It does not carry with it the dangers of radioactive wastes nor the dangers of plutonium by-products from which atomic bombs can be made. Those are the characteristics of nuclear reactors of the fission type. I might say that as people look at energy supplies for the world in the next 20 to 30 years, we are faced with this problem. Quite apart from the expense, now that the OPEC nations have forced the price of oil beyond conscience; quite apart from that cost to society, particularly to the Third World countries, we will be running out before very long of these conventional fossil fuels — oil, natural gas and coal.

The burning of these fuels on a massive scale, as must take place if we are to have electricity as our servant and to run our machines, is going to create pollution problems of two kinds. The first of these is the normal. radiation hazard, the spread of radiation that comes particularly from coal-fired plants, but which also comes as the content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere accumulates and leads to the greenhouse effect, which could change the world's climate.

Quite apart from those problems, if we are to continue to have 110 volts when we plug our machines into the wall, the shortage of supply will require a proliferation of nuclear power plants. They are here in Canada and they are in every developed nation in the world. More and more of them will be appearing. They will not become obsolete until fusion power takes their place. Environmentalists realize this. They know that more nuclear fission plants are an absolute requirement for the world. There will be a proliferation of them; there's no question about that. That will continue until fusion becomes a reality. Fusion is considered to be feasible, probably in the first quarter of the twenty-first century. The concept behind the International Tokamak Reactor is that 10 to 15 years might be shaved off the present time line between now and when fusion, the harnessing of the sun, becomes a commercial reality.

At the present time, because of the breakthroughs that have been made at the Princeton plasma physics laboratory, where temperatures of the order of 80 million degrees are regularly being achieved in the Tokamak device that they have there, there is great optimism that rapid progress may be made. I have visited the plasma physics laboratory in Princeton, and I am aware of the optimism that they hold and the current planning which is taking place internationally.

The plans to provide an international facility were first put forward by the

[ Page 89 ]

Russians at a meeting of the International Atlantic Energy Agency. Those plans have been followed up by a series of meetings where steering committees headed by Russia, Japan, the United States and the western European complex are currently setting specifications for what this facility might be. A go, no-go decision will be made within a year, according to the feasibility of the design which is developed between now and the time of taking that decision.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Of course, a decision as to the site of INTOR is premature. That decision will not be made for another year. Already Sweden, Finland and other nations in western Europe have officially asked to be the site of this INTOR reactor. Canada has made no such overture to the International Atomic Energy Agency or to the nations that are currently designing this facility. The request that went from the Premier of British Columbia to the Prime Minister of Canada was that our nation take the step that other countries have taken before us and say that we would like to be considered. If other provinces in Canada are not interested, British Columbia is interested. British Columbia wants Canada to notify the International Atomic Energy Agency and the member nations who are designing this facility that we would like to be looked at.

After they have come and inspected, it may be that we won't want the facility. I would think we would want it, despite that the member for Vancouver East says. Perhaps even when he understands it, he would be in favour of it. He certainly doesn't understand the first thing about it now. It may be that a contribution would be expected from Canada or British Columbia that was beyond our means. For one reason or another it might be that we decided that it was unsuitable for us.

But I believe some place in the world is going to be extraordinarily fortunate because that facility will come to them. Their engineers will have the inside track on what will surely be the world's most valuable technology in the century to come. For Canada, which already has international engineers of great reputation designing pulp mills and other kinds of facilities all around the world, I think it appropriate that they have made available to them the technology that will go with the most sophisticated engineering of all time.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that despite what that member and his leader have said already in the House on this project, they will withdraw those irresponsible statements and join with the sensible members of this House in providing the support, the moral strength, the initiative, the daring, the imagination and the common sense to get behind this project for British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: I am privileged to take my place in this debate for the first time as my party's education critic. As such, I have some comments to make with respect to the previous speaker and his speech just concluded.

The point that should be made with respect to the fusion debate is that the minister made his remarks as usual in a forum where he fully expected, as a very much more experienced politician than a scientist, that the reaction of the public would be that such a project was imminent. It was designed for that purpose and the opposition and the press have caught him at his devices again. All the dancing and the manipulations and the weaseling and the sliding that he is providing us with today still do not relieve him of his responsibility to be more honest and truthful outside of this chamber to the people of the province.

First of all, in my inquiries of scientists who have experience in the field.... When I heard the minister's remarks — because I too was startled by them — I had no idea that fusion had travelled along such a rapid path, that we were now almost any day going to have a major project come into the province of British Columbia to pull us out of this disastrous economic recession. I find now that it is decades away. By the minister's own admission, it's extremely unlikely that it will come to the province of British Columbia. In other words, it's political gamesmanship again.

I will just make a few comments on the minister's speech with respect to education and then deal with the substantive speech that I have to make with respect to the throne speech debate. The Education ministry under the guidance of this minister has been a very sad one indeed. It cannot be more honestly characterized than by referring to the minister's remarks as he opened his speech. He referred to the Year of the Child and that event on the lawn on the opening day of the Legislature, where innocent young schoolchildren were used in a scandalous political way for the benefit of the Social Credit Party. It was a form of political child abuse that only this party is capable of, Mr. Speaker.

Each child was exhorted to applaud the new Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), and they refused. They were exhor-

[ Page 90 ]

ted to applaud the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), and they refused. When it was explained to them by one of the officials there that they could at least applaud the Lieutenant-Governor, there was a sprinkling of cheers. For that they were rewarded with five free medallions, commemorating the Year of the Child.

With that scandalous performance on the part of the Minister of Education and the new Minister of Human Resources, he has the audacity to stand in the House and promise more cynical programs misusing small innocent children. Surely it is nothing more than an idle threat. The opening day fiasco must have taught him a lesson because he looked embarrassed when he joined me on the stairs — sought out my company — hoping for his rather callous and insensitive acts.

You know, an alderman in the gallery just passed a note to the NDP caucus. Alderman Doug Drummond of Burnaby is in the gallery. Maybe the House could welcome him.

He points out, as many citizens of the province of British Columbia, school teachers, children, students and parents.... Why is the minister constantly announcing new programs, constantly telling us about new screening processes, that he devises on the island of Dr. Moreau? This kind of vivisectional approach to the spirituality of human beings is frightening — a la the angel of death. Right from Brazil we've got a new screening approach.

I shouted across to the Minister of Education: "What evidence is there of neurologically diagnosable learning-disabled?" He said: "EEG." There's no evidence whatsoever, none. Psychologists — there is one who invented the term dyslexia. Ask any educationalist, any scientist, what dyslexia means. It means you can't read. Pediatric neurologists have no clinical evidence that can diagnose a learning-disabled. So when in doubt don't do it at age 10; go back to kindergarten and screen them.

HON. MR. McGEER: Careful, careful.

MR. LAUK: No, there's no evidence. We've checked it out.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Produce the evidence and I'll gladly retract the statement.

I do fear that an early screening process, Mr. Speaker, in all sobriety and seriousness to the Minister of Education, is a big mistake. Let's reserve judgment; let's not announce programs prematurely. There may be other methods. Don't jump the gun because you may think it's politically advantageous to do so.

But what bothers me is this minister's clear commitment to the concept of failure. He lives failure, he breathes failure, he talks failure, he reinforces failure, he says failure leads to excellence.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, there's a classic example. If ever there was an example of the failure to lead to excellence.... Well, I won't complete that statement.

The minister constantly talks about rewarding excellence, punishing failure, and this kind of approach to education. This is the kind of destructive thing that he's implanting upon society, and which is being rejected by the population — not the majority, which is why he was booed this morning at the Teachers Federation. He'd be booed at the Home and School Association; he'd be booed in a student gathering; he'd be booed by any self-respecting group of citizens who live in the twentieth century and not in some other century.

I must admit, though, that the Minister of Education is one of the finest minds of the thirteenth century. When he has no other approach to give to the process of education, he tries a system that has failed for centuries. He tries a system of reward and punishment in schools, which has always failed. He is going around this province criticizing the public education system, undermining the morale of students and teachers and parents alike, and he wonders why for the first time, since Donald Brothers, a Minister of Education was booed at a federation convention.

MR. BARRETT: Shame! Donald Brothers?

MR. LAUK: Donald Brothers. That was in 1972, just prior to August 31.

MR. BARRETT: That's a pretty cutting remark on Donald Brothers.

MR. LAUK: Donald Brothers. We all remember him. He was booed, too. You're in good company. I'm not sure of the equality of IQ there, but you could figure that out.

The approach that the minister is taking with respect to failure belies every movement in education for the past 50 years.

I'd like to point out, before moving on from education topics for the moment, I want to

[ Page 91 ]

make other comments on behalf of the opposition in the minister's estimates. There was a front-page story on the newsletter of the B.C. Teachers Federation that I'd like to draw to the minister's attention. While he's undermining the morale of the public educational system in this province, there are some things that are happening that he should be made aware of and, on behalf of British Columbia, take great pride in.

"Surrey's Discovery School's unique school for parents has won both a 1979 provincial and a national Hilroy award in recognition of innovative and useful educational planning. Vancouver school board area counsellors...."

Then it describes the program for the school.

What is the basis of this program at Discovery School which won a provincial and national award from educators in the province of British Columbia? The basis of the school is this: "Preach success, reinforce accomplishment, and de-emphasize failure." That's a quote fran the manual which set up the Discovery School of which the minister is obviously not aware, which won a national award, bringing recognition to our school system fran across the country.

The manual says: "Preaching failure leads to the lowest common denominator of achievement in the public school system." That concept has been accepted nationally and internationally, and the awards are flowing in in spite of a minister who ignores his department's advice and takes an expedient political point of view with respect to his portfolio.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the credibility of the First Minister of this province. It's time for my round-robin resume of the Premier's little white fibs and dissemblings which are chronicled in British Columbia history. I want to point out these problems with the Premier's credibility because he still is making statements to the public of this province based on erroneous facts. It's up to the people of the province to judge whether or not he is deliberately trying to deceive them.

Let's go back to the election of 1975. We all remember the great election ads that appeared in the big city dailies and other newspapers throughout the province. A hundred thousand people were unemployed, it said. It was brought to his attention that there were nowhere near that number unemployed and that it was a false advertisement.

Another advertisement, Mr. Speaker, appeared in the Vancouver Sun, December 10,1975, page 19: "Social Credit Will Not Abolish Rent Control" signed Bill Bennett. Remember that ad?

Rent controls are virtually abolished in the west end of the city of Vancouver, Mr. Speaker. The first and second members of that riding are flooded every day with complaints of gougers, of rent gouging going on in the west end, and I will table evidence of rent gouging going on in the city of Vancouver as a result of the abolishment of rent controls.

Then we remember during the campaign the dealing in stolen property, the telegram affair. We began to start to build an image of the character of a man who could become the First Minister of the province. Shortly after he became First Minister, we had the seatbelt fiasco where he told the press.... He was asked a question by the press once on the question of whether he would wear a seatbelt. He said: "Yes, when the car is equipped with them." When questioned by reporters on whether he was wearing a seatbelt in the car he had just stepped out of, he replied without a moment's thought: "No, I wasn't. The car didn't have seatbelts." The camera moved close up where the Premier had been seated and the reporters looked inside and the seatbelts were right there.

That's on the lighter side of the news. I haven't finished yet. Stay tuned, Mr. Minister. I've got a lesson for you too on human rights and racial discrimination. I've got a lesson for you too; stay tuned. When a Crown minister of this province can lend validity to racial discrimination in this country, with impunity from the First Minister, we've got a problem in the society.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: It's not just Rene Levesque, Mr. Speaker, it's....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: What did you say?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The minister thinks he can call me a Polack, you see. He feels that a Crown minister can do that with impunity. But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, when I speak to high school students in my constituency, many of whom are Indo-Canadian, Chinese, French Canadian, Italian, Portuguese.... They don't think it's funny, because they say to themselves: "Who is next at the hands of a mind like that? Who is next?"

The First Minister, the Premier, was questioned whether or not he had a driver. You remember, that was back in 1976. "No," he

[ Page 92 ]

said. Upon checking, we found that Norman Sharpe was listed as an administrative assistant to the Minister of Highways in an order-in-council. The security staff told us he was the Premier's driver. Another little one. We'll just ignore that one. Okay.

Do you remember October 1976, at the Social Credit convention? The Premier waved a piece of paper around, saying it was the NDP budget for 1975-76 and that it was brought in for about $5 billion. He said that in front of the whole province of British Columbia and then later on admitted it was nothing more than the departmental requests made by the Treasury Board. Do you remember that? A deliberate attempt to deceive the press in October 1976.

Do you remember the blacklist? The Premier was asked: "Has anyone in your office ever forwarded a blacklist of names of public servants to any minister identifying them by their political sympathies?" He said: "Absolutely not." "Absolutely" means absolutely — there are none. Twenty-four hours later, when it was obvious that a list of political identifications did go out of his office, what did he say? "Well, I didn't know that, and I'll look into the matter." No, he didn't say that; that's what he should have said. What he did say was: "Well, that's not a blacklist." Do you remember that? "That's not a blacklist." Shades of 1984. It's called re-think or double-think.

Do you remember the Dease Lake scandal? I asked the First Minister in this House: "Did you make a deal with the federal government to shut down the Dease Lake?" In other words, did you get the $80 million to shut down Dease lake? He said: "No." Then I pointed out to him the federal government said he did. He didn't answer. I asked him again. He didn't answer. Do you remember what he called the shutting down of the Dease Lake, Mr. Speaker? "A pause," he said. "A pause in construction."

Talk about credibility. And then the cherry on the cheesecake: the B.C. Tel shares. He comes out and he makes an announcement that we've saved British Columbia from foreign damnation by giving 5 percent more of the B.C. Tel shares to Connecticut. But don't worry. The shares are going to be placed in a voting trust with a Crown corporation here in British Columbia. The dividends will still go to Connecticut. And the votes? They'll be voted by proxy. We phoned up Connecticut and they said: "Bill who?" We said: "He's the Premier of the province." We described to him what the Premier of the province said, and they said: "Well, it's okay with us as long as it doesn't interfere with the votes, or the shares, or the money."

They said it in a different way. They said: "Well, the 5 percent shares must be voted with the majority of the minority." We knew that 51 percent were already controlled by General Telephone of Connecticut. Is Connecticut in Canada, by the way?

This further 5 percent must be voted with a majority of the minority. That is, the other 45-odd percent that is floating around in British Columbia and elsewhere, held by a diffused number of shareholders. It's not bad, until we found out that the majority of the minority are proxy of the General Telephone of Connecticut. Who's kidding who? This catalogue of mis-statements, misinterpretations and misrepresentations goes on and on and on. That phony little deal about keeping CP investments out of British Columbia — where's he been? Didn't he sell some of his property to CP at one time?

MS. SANFORD: His very own?

MR. LAUK: He sold his own land to CPR. It's nice to know that he's not worried about his own integrity; only the integrity of the province. They're good enough for Bill, but not good enough for B.C. That's his watchword: conquer. But it was a phony deal. He said B.C. was not for sale. It seems that B.C. is not for sale to a Canadian company. Heavens knows that this side of the House does not spend too many of its waking hours in support of Ian Sinclair, or the CPR. It is a little bit inconsistent for the First Minister, who skied down the bunny hill in an open-necked mackinaw, to hold a press conference. There's nothing contrived about that. Nothing staged. Nothing histrionic. It was just natural for him to ski down the bunny hill, snowploughing. B.C.'s own bionic man. No heart. Just wires. Fluid pumping up....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, order, please.

MR. LAUK: I've got more on the bionic Premier. Right now he's eating bionic pot roast.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would just like to remind the member about the rules of the House regarding personal aspersions, and I'm sure that you will judge yourself accordingly in your remarks.

MR. LAUK: As critic of science and technology, Mr. Speaker, I feel eminently qualified to comment on this.

But B.C. is not for sale. Was B.C. not for sale when Panco Poultry with 350 employees was sold to that great Canadian British Columbian

[ Page 93 ]

company, Cargill Grain? Do you remember Cargill? Not only did they sell it to a foreign interest, but Cargill was fined $66,000 for committing over 100 violations against the Canadian Wheat Board. Cargill was taken to court in the United States as part of a conspiracy to keep the price of chicken high; convicted of artificially driving up the price of wheat in the United States; named in a United States court for short-weighing grain destined for hungry children in India; cited for illegally shipping buckwheat to Manitoba.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what kind of a company would ship buckwheat to Manitoba? [Laughter.] It's bad enough that they got Sterling Lyon. They've got to have buckwheat from Cargill.

They were named by the United States senate investigation subcommittee for manipulating transfer prices to obtain agricultural subsidies. Welfare buns indeed! They would sell wheat to an affiliate who in turn sold it to a second affiliate, so three subsidies would be collected without the wheat ever leaving the ship it was originally loaded on. In other words, the ship was sitting there in the dock and they were collecting subsidies by moving paper around. They now own Panco Poultry. We can't even eat a chicken in this province that isn't going to compensate foreign shareholders.

This government is saying B.C. is not for sale. It's already been sold by that Premier who is up there in Prince George. Remember he did that last year? He dropped the BCR report and ran out to another First Ministers' Conference.

MR. KEMPF: At least he knows where Prince George is.

MR. LAUK: Mein Kempf with his new hairdo. Hippie! He heard that the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Veitch) was supporting films up in Omineca and he's got a new hairdo. He's hoping to get a bit part as a rough-and-tumble Canadian logger up there. He keeps on walking in front of the cameras; he was forcibly removed twice from the set of that movie up there. Luckily they called the session or we'd have real trouble on our hands.

Mr. Lauk moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

DEPUTY SPEAKER; Just before I proceed, hon. members, I undertook to check on a ruling which I made this afternoon — or an observation which I made — and, quoting from the Journals of the House for April 26, 1978, this is the summary of remarks made by Speaker Schroeder on virtually the same situation.

"In summary, ministerial statements may be made without leave at the appropriate time — namely, before proceeding to the orders of the day. Leave is required, however, if a statement is to be made by interruption of another proceeding. When a statement has been made, whether by leave or by right, replies as previously described are allowed and do not require leave. However, as stated by Beauchesne, such replies are limited to explanation and making a few remarks, but no debate is allowed."

MR. SMITH: I thank the Speaker for bringing the ruling before the House. I would just suggest that he take a look at the Journals for 1976, page 83, for a ruling which had some application in a similar situation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. We will endeavour to do that over the dinner hour.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented the annual report of the Assessment Appeal Board for the year ended December 31, 1978.

Hon. Mr. Veitch filed the financial statements report of the British Columbia Steamships Company (1975) Limited for the year ended December 31, 1978.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.