[ Page 95 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate.

Mr. Lauk — 95

Hon. Mr. Bawlf — 96

Mrs. Wallace — 100

Mr. Bawtree — 105

Mr. Levi — 109

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'd ask leave to table a document. The document is an issue of the Ubyssey, who don't often get it right, but, by George, on this occasion they have. There's a very thorough story on the press conference with respect to the fusion reactor, in which we made it quite clear about the slim chances....

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. McGEER: Oh my, they don't want the newspapers tabled. Well, give it back to me, Mr. Speaker, and I'll ask instead that the issue be sent across to the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett). He's got many friends on the campus and I think he'd like to read the news reports from there.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the reason leave was not granted is that we cannot ruin the traditions of the Legislature and the press gallery, and table the accurate reflection of a press conference.

Mr. Speaker, before we adjourned for supper, I was referring to the Premier's credibility.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Yes, it's mostly on your tie.

We catalogued time and time again the inaccuracies and misrepresentations made to the people of the province of British Columbia with respect to the government's actions and policy. I was dealing with the statement made by the First Minister of this province that B.C. was not for sale. I asked the hon. members of this House to consider the record of this government. Consider the sale of Panco Poultry to one of the most disreputable multinational corporations in the world — we cannot even eat a chicken or a turkey in the province without compensating foreign shareholders.

It's a shocking thing indeed. Why, as the statement "B.C. is not for sale," which came from the lips of that First Minister, so misrepresentative of the record of that government and that Premier's attitude? The Foreign Investment Review Agency was established by the federal government to prevent foreign takeovers. The Premier was making direct representation to the federal government to try to destroy that federal agency so that British Columbia could be sold to foreign interests. Victoria buses sold to Gray Line; Panco Poultry sold to Cargill.

What's the proof of this deliberate design in the backrooms of this government? The proof is a secret federal cabinet document that the next Premier of British Columbia released on January 18 of this year. The document was signed by the federal Minister of Industry and says that B.C. has strongly resisted the federal policy of trying to keep Canadian industry Canadian.

Because of this strong opposition from British Columbia, the federal government is considering watering down their policy to make it easier for foreign interests to acquire British Columbia businesses. I think it is sad, indeed, that we have such a weak-kneed federal government to bow to the pressure of a government that wishes to sell out what remaining industries are Canadians- and British Columbian–owned. It is a clear and unmistakable condemnation of this government's policy towards foreign ownership. What does foreign ownership mean to us in British Columbia? What it means to us is compensating foreign shareholders. I ask the new Minister of Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Veitch): what's a fair return for an investment in the province of British Columbia? Most people would say 10, 13, maybe 15 percent. That's high.

What about the foreign-owned corporation of Kaiser Resources? Do you know what the average return since its operation in Sparwood has been? The average annual return has been 35 percent. Who owns the shares of Kaiser Resources? Foreign shareholders. Foreign shareholders are compensated. The same with B.C. Tel shares: 56 percent of the profits of British Columbia Telephone goes to foreign shareholders.

Is it any wonder that our imbalance of payments is so high? An imbalance of payments represents that money which flows out of this country, which flow into the pockets of foreign shareholders. It is our annual mortgage payment for the negligence of this government and the federal government. Is it any wonder that we are on the tail end of the American economy? Is it any wonder that we have one million unemployed in Canada, and the highest unemployment rate of all industrialized provinces in Canada right here in British Columbia? Right here in this province we have the highest unemployment rate, the highest bankruptcy rate, the highest foreclo-

[ Page 96 ]

sure on homes.

What's the result of that sellout? Since this government took office, there have been 74 foreign takeovers with a loss of almost 5,000 jobs. It's a loss in the sense that those jobs are not as secure with foreign company ownership as they are with domestic ownership. I can give you example after example after example over the years where this has proven to be the case, where foreign competitors take over similar operations in Canada and shut then down to create a market for their own companies that produce in the United States.

It's a sad record — little companies and big companies. Crow's Nest Industries, Salmo Forest Products, MK Canada Natural Resources, Brameda Resources, Northwood Properties. B.C. is not for sale, Mr. Speaker? What about the credibility of this government? What about the credibility of that Premier who has no longer seen fit to sit in this House? For four years he has attacked the NDP for his own failure, attacked the previous administration for his inability and ineptitude in getting the economy moving in this province.

And now he is up in Prince George blaming the federal government. He realizes that the people are no longer listening to his empty and hollow statements about the NDP based on misrepresentation. He has made those statements so often now that the people of this province disbelieve him. He is now attacking the federal government in panic and in desperation. He's like a little boy blaming everybody but himself for his own failures and his own mistakes. In four years he has done nothing. He's created a smokescreen attack in every inept move he's made. More bankruptcies; more foreclosures; we're being taxed to death; ICBC premiums are outrageously high. He has presided over four years of economic disaster in this province and he has no one to blame but himself, certainly not the NDP and certainly not the federal government. It's his responsibility.

There have been four years of economic misery, Mr. Speaker, and these years have been characterized by a divisive and poisonous government, a government that does not call upon the province of British Columbia and its people to join together in unity to solve their economic problems, a government that deliberately separates and divides the people of this province to fight one another, and a Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) who thrives on teachers fighting parents and school boards, and school boards fighting teachers, and so on. He likes that; he thrives on it. I'm saying that this divisive and poisonous government is destructive of the fabric and the unity of this province and soon, I hope, it will be defeated.

HON. MR. BAWLF: I rise in my place to speak in support of an outstanding throne speech, one which heralds the 1980s, a new decade in this province — a decade which will be heralded as well in the days to come by what I am confident will be an outstanding budget speech, a budget speech which will take us into the first months of 1980 as a fiscal period.

Mr. Speaker, we have had in the few hours since this outstanding throne speech the charade of a cynical, tired non-confidence motion. The NDP leader — the pro tem NDP leader — has had the gall to suggest that this government is lacking in economic planning, that this government has not given outstanding stewardship to the economy of this province.

I think it will be appropriate to put the discussion which has occurred in recent hours and during the past couple of days in a context which can be drawn from unimpeachable sources. The sources are cited in a book entitled "The 1,200 Days: A Shattered Dream"; the sources come from within the NDP. Let us begin with the observation of the former NDP MLA for Richmond, Mr. Harold Steves, who says: "We were never given any more than 60 minutes' warning of what was going to happen." Well, Mr. Speaker, that was 60 minutes more than the people of British Columbia got.

Let us go to another memorable quote, this one from none other than the former Premier, the former Minister of Finance, that all-seeing economic genius who, upon seeing the first double-entry bookkeeping year-end balance, said: "What's this $2,000 doing in here twice?"

Let's examine the record of these economic geniuses who've been attacking the credibility of an outstanding government. I quote from page 82, "The 1,200 Days: A Shattered Dream."

"Barrett had not kept expenditures in check. These had risen in 1973-74 over $113 million, 5 1/2 percent above budget predictions that had already called for an increase of $361 million. In 1974-75 the discrepancy between original and revised estimates had soared even higher, as actual expenditures increased 14 1/2 percent over original estimates."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BAWLF: "Overruns had been experienced in welfare, $100 million; in education, $56

[ Page 97 ]

million over allocations which themselves were already up to $67 million over 1973-74; and in health, $25 million over estimates already up almost $110 million over the previous year; a total of $147 million for other departments, whose total budgets had been already increased $221 million over the previous year.

"This lack of caution continued in Barrett's 1975-76 budget, which called for the outlay to be increased $692 million to over $1,050 million. This represented a 27 percent increase over the previous year's actual expenditures, and a 41.5 percent rise over budget estimates."

I'll go on:

"Barrett had intended to balance the budget by raising the provincial income tax by five percentage points to 36.5 percent of the federal rate."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR BAWLF: But wait!

"At the eleventh hour, though, adviser Marc Eliesen, the real Finance minister, convinced the Finance minister that the move would be an act of political harakiri. Less than 16 hours before the budget was to be presented, Barrett and his advisers were scurrying about trying to make up this sudden loss of revenue estimated at $115 million."

That's economic planning, Mr. Speaker.

"Although the NDP leader had previously decided to end the practice of underestimating revenues so he could balance his new budget, he now went to the opposite extreme and overestimated them by $200 million. This situation was apparently objected to from every chartered accountant in the Finance department to every deputy minister they could buttonhole on budget day, with particular emphasis on the serious overestimation of the forest revenues.

"In response, there were considerable objections, needless to say, from an intelligent opposition. The younger Bennett, the then Leader of the Opposition, and the Finance department's chartered accountants, were to be proven right. Resource revenues plummeted $165 million; sales tax dropped by over $60 million; corporation taxes declined to $57 million below estimates. These declines were only partially offset by the rise of other revenues, resulting in revenues amounting to $191 million less than predicted."

That's economic planning, Mr. Speaker — strong leadership.

"Barrett began to demonstrate signs of panic as the reality began to become evident in succeeding weeks and months. On September 18 he vowed to balance the budget, proclaiming: 'We've been spoiled in this country. We've had it too easy and we've been led to believe that things come easy.' He ordered an expenditure cutback of over $52 million and a freeze on civil service hirings. He held back the transfer of gasoline and licence plate revenues to ICBC."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BAWLF: Oh! A little hanky-panky there.

"It was not enough. He then resorted to subterfuge, issuing a mid-year financial report on October 2 which declared a 'surplus' of $94.6 million, but neglected to mention non-budgetary transactions of $108.2 million."

I'll give you one further quote from this everlasting monument to the economic stewardship of those economic planners over there.

"Lacking formal or informal training in the fields of economics and finance, Barrett had neither the upbringing nor the inclination to use the positions of Finance minister and chairmanship of the Treasury Board for purposes of economic planning. According to a former Provincial Secretary of the party, the absence of economic planning characterized not only the approach of the Premier, but that of the entire government. The problem, he opined, was that the government had no idea of economic priorities. Nobody in that government ever sat down and said: 'What are we trying to do this year and how will we go about it?"'

Need I say more? These are the people who had the audacity to stand up here in recent hours and say that this government lacks economic planning.

Let us compare the record. That government increased spending at the average rate of 27 percent per year at a time when they could only have fuelled inflation. It was uncontrolled government spending. This government has kept government spending within inflation guidelines. This government has existed in a responsible framework.

When that government took office, the gross provincial product was 9 percent; in their last year they had driven it down to 1 percent. They came in on the greatest wave of

[ Page 98 ]

economic expansion in the history of this province, and in three years they killed it: it went from 9 percent to 1 percent.

MR. MACDONALD: Nine percent of what? Do you know what you're talking about?

HON. MR. BAWLF: The increase in the gross provincial product.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BAWLF: From 1972 to 1975, it was reduced from 9 percent increase per annum to a rate of 1 percent increase per annum. Today this government and this province are performing at a recovered rate of 4.4 percent increase per annum in gross provincial product, a full percentage point ahead of the national economy.

MR. BARRETT: Quote your source.

HON. MR. BAWLF: I'll quote a source. When that government took office, in their first full year, revenue from the forest industry to the coffers of this province was $282.28 million. The next year it had gone from $282 million to $186 million. In their final year, it had dropped from $282 million to $70 million. In the first year of this government forest industry revenue was up to $81 million; in the second year, it was up to $144 million; and in the third year it was up to $306 million. Mr. Speaker, that shows you the trend of the economic stewardship of two governments.

Mr. Speaker, that party in government drove capital out of this province. Between 1972 and 1975 capital investment in the forest industry declined significantly. Capital investment, which means the security of jobs in this province, declined significantly through a lack of confidence in the government of this province and an evacuation of capital.

In the years since 1975, capital investment in our number one industry stood at $562 million; in 1976 it rose to $720 million; in 1977 it rose to $851 million; and in 1978 to $934 million. At the present time the announced commitments of the forest industry for capital investment stand at over $1.2 billion, that is a turn-around in confidence.

Not only is capital returning to this province, Mr. Speaker, but entrepreneurial initiative — small business and large — in this province is being restored. And I give you the comparison for the three years that that party was in government as compared to the most recent three years: in total, incorporation of new companies in this province is up 38.6 percent over the three years of that party in government. The registration of extra-provincial companies, representing a return a confidence to this province, is up 52 percent over the three years they were in government. I ask you which record speaks for economic planning in this province.

One of the reasons that confidence is there is because we have a stable climate in labour management relations in this province. I give you the simple comparison, Mr. Speaker, of man-days lost through strikes and lockouts between the term of that party in government and our three years in government. In their three years in government 4,179,000 man-days were lost through strikes and lockouts in this province. In the three years that this government has been in office, compared to that 4,179,000 man-days, there have been 2,672,000 man-days lost. That is a very significant improvement.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kinnaird is not very happy about the comparison. Mr. Kinnaird would like to have the kind of handle on government that he had over that party when they were in government. Mr. Kinnaird, in fact, is not satisfied, to the extent that he would like to be the leader of the NDP, and that's apparent today. So we have a pro tem leader, and round one in that leadership struggle just went to Mr. Kinnaird last weekend in Esquimalt with the nomination of the candidate for the NDP in Esquimalt.

Mr. Speaker, we've had the red herring of natural gas prices thrown on this floor, and it smelled. It smelled of typical misrepresentation by those members opposite. They would criticize the provincial government for a price of $2.16 per unit for natural gas exports when they know full well that that price is regulated by the National Energy Board, and they know full well that the price is going to $2.30. And what is the excuse offered for this criticism?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a dollar below that it should be.

HON. MR. BAWLF: They are saying that it's a dollar below what it should be. The Mexicans are asking $2.80 per unit, and they haven't got it. But the approach over there is to kick them while they're down and to hold our best trading partners up to ransom. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that not only is it unprincipled, it is unwise — penny wise, perhaps, but pound foolish. The day is rapidly approaching when we will be glad we haven't seized every opportunity to kick our best neighbours

[ Page 99 ]

and our first trading partners.

MR. LAUK: You certainly have a way with words.

HON. MR. BAWLF: We're hearing from the member for Vancouver Centre, who went on a great cynical diatribe before the dinner hour about integrity. Mr. Speaker, I just have one question for him. I understand that he spoke the other day to the student body of Vancouver College, a Catholic high school in Vancouver. I would just like to ask him whether he included in his speech the reference that he and his party opposed funding for independent schools in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BAWLF: Let's hear it about integrity.

Mr. Speaker, this province has sound, stable government laying a solid economic footing for the decade of the 1980s. I want to say that as a Vancouver Islander I am proud of the progress we've made on this island under this government in three short years. We have completed the most costly highways project in the history of this province, which is the North Island highway, a project which would still be stumbling along in low gear under those people in government.

Mr. Speaker, we are proceeding, without the benefit of federal cost sharing, with the development of Duke Point in Nanaimo, which is a massive industrial port development in this province. We have on stream the largest ferry construction program in the history of this province. That is in response to the most outstanding tourist season in the history of this province, an all-time record for tourism not only on Vancouver Island but throughout the province, and an all-time record for traffic carried on B.C. Ferries, all of which occurred despite the efforts of that opposition — and, I might say, that government, when they were there — to discourage tourism.

Mr. Speaker, I recall the remarks of the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) in this House in an attempt to whip up a negative hysteria towards the tourist industry in this city and on this island. I recall the remarks of that member to the effect that tourism would fail here. I recall the talk of that member, the criticism of this government in regard to its economic policies on Vancouver Island. So we have long awaited his first constructive proposal for Victoria's economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, we had it the other day, and it was that we encourage the federal government to evacuate Work Point Barracks, the purpose of this being to accommodate an industrial park. We have land in this region coming out our ears for industrial parks if ever the municipalities in this region will get down to designating the land for that purpose. But along comes the second member for Victoria, the NDP member with the brainchild of the century, and what is his brainchild? He would have the federal government talked out of Work Point Barracks. He would have then shrink the national defence commitment in this community which is historic, which goes to the very roots of this community. Before he's done, no doubt, he would have to move a thousand jobs to some other posting. A battalion occupies that Work Point Barracks.

As far as I'm concerned, if there's a legitimate purpose that the federal government is serving today, it is the defence of this country; it is preparedness for defence; it is the role of international policing for peace. It is a role that should be expanded and it is a role that is a future part of the economy of this community. It's the stupidest solution I have heard, to have those people turfed out of a perfectly valuable defence installation in this city because the municipalities in this region cannot agree on an industrial site. A thousand jobs he would have leave this community.

Mr. Speaker, this government, I would remind you, has brought three new Crown corporation head offices to this community. This government has brought stability to government employment that that member opposite would have thrown away. This government brought about the early reconstruction of Ogden Point after a disastrous fire, a reconstruction which assured the creation of more than 100 jobs in our last remaining major port facility.

Mr. Speaker, this government brought about a reform which has benefited the property taxpayers of my constituency. In this regard I would correct the remarks of the leader of the Conservative Party. He indicated, from total misinformation, that the property taxpayer in Victoria has suffered at the hands of this government.

In the period that this government has been in office the property taxpayers in the city of Victoria have seen an increase in the annual levy for school purposes amounting to a total of $3.1 million. In the same period increased aid to the city of Victoria, and through the city of Victoria to its property taxpayers, has been in the order of 82 percent, in the amount of $4.36 million which is

[ Page 100 ]

well in excess of the total increase in the school levy on those same property taxpayers. It's a result of this government paying its fair share of property taxes in this province for the first time. This alone has brought to the city of Victoria an increase of $1.6 million. Add to that the first municipal revenue-sharing program in this country, which is the envy of municipalities in every other jurisdiction — another $1.15 million through the city of Victoria to its property taxpayers. Add to that the increase in homeowner grants — a further $1,585,000, making a total increase in aid in three years of 82 percent, far outstripping the increase in the school budget. Let us not have any more misleading comments from the opposition benches on that subject.

On top of that, thanks to the foresight of the former Social Credit government, we have a Provincial Capital Commission in this city, devoted to the beautification and enhancement of this unique city. As a result of this government's effort we have a much improved Inner Harbour, and we have the historic Crystal Gardens under restoration. We have plans now well underway for the construction of a convention centre on government land in this city's harbour, which will secure, with the cooperation of this government, more than 1,000 permanent jobs for this city.

It's noteworthy that the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) has remained totally silent on this subject. We can only conclude from that that if he's not supportive, he's against it. And if he's against it, it would be his choice in government to take it away — the same as they would take away the shares from BCRIC. They would take those away as well. They would deny private ownership. They would deny the right to have and hold and decide on one's personal financial future. They would have us relieved all of our individual prerogatives in this society. I want to tell you that their promise to take away those shares is just the tip of the iceberg.

I ask these people opposite what they would take away if they were in government. What would you take away? What companies would you take over? What rights would you take away? That's where they are attempting to mislead this Legislature and the people of this province. They are hiding their real intentions behind a bunch of tired rhetoric. I challenge them to tell their true intentions to this Legislature and the people of this province. Theirs is the practice of subterfuge. I quote their own party members in "The 1,200 Days; A Shattered Dream."

They don't want the system to work. They don't want individual initiative to succeed in this province. They don't want the kind of initiative that built this province in the first place. They want to undermine it; and then they would like to take it away; and they would like to have their own socialist utopia. And that's the straight goods. No amount of tired mish-mash of waffle from over there in attempting to avoid an outstanding throne speech can conceal that.

In three years they erected an unprecedented array of obstacles to all types of initiatives. I have the duty and the honour to bring some of those obstacles down under my ministry, and I intend to do so. I intend to cut the red tape, the maze of over-government and red tape that we inherited from that party in government. I intend to do so in light of the fact that this government will entrench individual rights so that no NDP government to come could ever withdraw them. We will have, as this throne speech has indicated, a bill of rights to entrench those individual rights. We will have a fair compensation Act to deal kith expropriation by government. We will have legislation to remove discrimination against individuals by reason of age, sex or geographic distribution in the application of automobile insurance rates. We will have services for people that are building on an outstanding record in government. This government brought in long-tem care. This government brought in universal Pharmacare. This government is spending on new hospital construction at the unprecedented rate of $100 million a year. This government will bring in denticare, which will ensure adequate protection for every individual.

There has been no constructive comment from the opposite side on the plans outlined in this throne speech which will launch us into the 1980s with unprecedented security and quality of life for the people in the province, and with better-defined rights for the individual — just a lot of tired, misleading rhetoric to conceal their real intentions. No matter who is the leader of the NDP, whether it's Blood-in-the-Streets Kinnaird or incompetent, scheming Dave Barrett, the people in this province are not going to fall for that again.

MRS. WALLACE: I wasn't quite sure, as I listened to the previous speaker and two or three before that, just what we were discussing in this Legislature. I had rather thought that we were discussing a throne speech brought in by that government and that we were the opposition over here offering our ideas and criticisms. It seemed as the debate went

[ Page 101 ]

on that the people over there were opposing something or other that the people over here were bringing in. I'm a little confused as to whether or not they are discussing the throne speech, or whether they're still fighting the election. It seems that they are still fighting the election of 1975. Perhaps the call for the federal election has sort of prompted them into an election spirit, and they're beginning to warm up for a provincial election.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I was very interested in the remarks that the first member for Victoria made and the reading that he gave us from the little book that he had. I have a paper here that I'm going to read a little bit from.

MR. KEMPF: Did you read the book?

MRS. WALLACE: Oh, yes, I read the book. I've read "Son of Socred" too.

This is something called the News Advertiser. It says it's Skeena's most-read newspaper. I'm sure you're familiar with this, Mr. Member for Omineca. It has some interesting things. It talks about "Dogs Still Call the Shots in Terrace Area." I guess that's a problem that this provincial government has put up there. Here are the firefighters signing a petition because they're being cut off at Kitimat. That must have something to do with provincial funding. "Skeenaview to be Closed." That's a long-term care hospital.

That's not really what I wanted to read to you. I wanted to read to you something on the other side of this January 23 issue. It's called "Socred Finances. A Comment."

AN HON. MEMBER: Author?

MRS. WALLACE: The following financial document is made by a John Green, provincial Conservative Party finance critic. It's very interesting. I'm just going to read you a small part of it. It's talking about the 1975-76 budget. It says:

"One of the things done by the present government that masks the true record has been to increase the spending totals for 1975-76, which is generally considered to be the last year of the NDP government. It is usually overlooked that Bill Bennett controlled the spending and accounting decisions for the last three months of that year. And every dollar of the spending that he could put on the books in that time made the NDP record look worse and his own look better.

"It was during that period that he had Clarkson, Gordon and Co. 'coordinate the production of certain unaudited financial information,' to quote the cautious wording of the accounting firm's report. Using the Clarkson Gordon figures, Bill Bennett on February 20,1976, told the people of B.C. that the NDP government had run up a budgetary deficit of $541 million. The actual figures, when the accounts for that year were closed, was $139 million.

"The Clarkson, Gordon report also contained a statement that the Premier may not have been so pleased with: 'If an expenditure is made on March 31, the fiscal year end, it will enter into the calculation of the surplus or deficit. If it is made a day later, it will not. Therefore, the timing of the expenditures or revenues can have a significant effect on the final result.' Anyone who chooses to believe that Bennett-Wolfe used their legitimate control of the timing of those last-minute entries in order to give Barrett-Stupich a fair break is perfectly free to do so. They might also want to check under the pillow to see what the tooth fairy has left for them."

I think it's very interesting that the financial critic for the Conservative Party would write that kind of a commentary about this present government and about the former administration.

I'm sorry the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has left, but I just can't resist. This is the paper he sent over to us to supposedly justify his position, and I just want to read you a couple of bits out of this. He says they told it right, so you know I've got his word for this. I'm quoting from the paper he sent across the floor.

"'But the decision to proceed with"' — and he's talking about the reactor — "'let alone locate the plant won't be taken for three years.' McGeer faced a hostile reception from reporters who suspected the minister was milking the scheme for pre-election publicity."

This is what he told us was also 100 percent correct, so he can't argue with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: He can't back down on that one.

MRS. WALLACE: That's right.

He goes on to say the public broadcasting systems know "that serious problems remain in developing a first wall, a blanket, which can

[ Page 102 ]

effectively contain the nuclear fusion reaction." That is very interesting. This is the paper he sent us to justify his position.

"McGeer admitted B.C. has only a slim chance of being chosen as the project site if it goes ahead, and there is still strong competition from Quebec, Sweden, Finland, France and Italy for the site."

Here's an interesting one:

"McGeer said he expected opposition to the proposal from some environmental protection groups, but he said 'sophisticated environmentalists' would not object."

I wonder what a sophisticated environmentalist is?

AN HON. MEMBER: A Socred.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, that's probably it.

Then there's just a final one: "McGeer termed speculation on success of the bid as premature." Really!

I have been very impressed with one thing in the throne speech, and that was the dental care proposal. I'm not going to say too much about it at this time, because we can't really know what that proposal is until we see how much funding is provided to establish that dental care program. I've listened very carefully to the speakers from the government benches, and every one of them in referring to that program has just backtracked a little more than the one before. I suspect when we see this program it's going to be even less all-inclusive than the supposed universal Pharmacare that was introduced a few years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: It'll be administered by the tooth fairy.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, it'll be the tooth-fairy dental care program.

This government has insisted that they are doing wonders for the economic development in this province. Well, it certainly hasn't come into the Cowichan Valley. I have had numerous people in my constituency office with excellent projects. I had one group of people in who have a method of manufacturing a very decorative wall board from alder. It's something akin to the old-fashioned V-joint. They could produce this from wood that is actually going to be destroyed. As anyone who went on the foresters' tours will recall, the stand of alder that Pacific Logging has had for some 25 years is going to have to be removed, because they simply cannot find a market for it. Yet here we have this group of people who have a very good product. They can produce it, and it will be economically competitive with decorative plywood paneling. It can be produced. They would employ about 30 people....

MR. KAHL: What's their name?

MRS. WALLACE: They have been trying desperately for funding. Those are the kinds of industries that B.C. Development Corporation should be funding.

MR. KAHL: What's their name?

MRS. WALLACE: There is no way that they can get funding from B.C. Development Corporation. They have tried the B.C. Development Corporation. They have tried various methods of funding, and nothing has happened. They have not been able to get funding. In fact, the interest rates are cheaper to go to a private bank than they are to get funding from B.C. Development. There is a company that would provide something like 30 jobs in the Cowichan Valley. It has not been able to get into production because of lack of support from this government.

MR. KAHL: What's their name?

MRS. WALLACE: The broken record over there....

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: No, they are not goats. They are legitimate people trying to operate a business in the Cowichan Valley. I am not going to be bullied into using their name. There is another concern.

MR. KAHL: How can anybody help them if you won't tell their name?

MRS. WALLACE: I'll talk to anyone who's prepared to talk about then. What can you do about it, Mr. Member for Esquimalt?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. WALLACE: There is another very innovative system of producing building material. There is a gentleman from Austria who lives in the constituency, who has the technology. He is a qualified technologist in producing building blocks, as used in Austria, made from wood wastes and cement. He, too, has been trying to get some assistance. He is working with the local Economic Development officer. This has been going on for some three years. He was one of the first people who came into

[ Page 103 ]

my constituency office. There again is a project that could provide low-cost building material and it's a fireproof building material. It, too, would provide jobs.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Since when did the Minister of Forests have anything to do with small business and the B.C. Development Corporation?

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Certainly, I'll send them down to you.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, the members across are having difficulty dealing with the member. I think that they should be brought to order with respect to giving her time for her speech.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair could not agree more with the point of order. Continue please, Madam Member.

MRS. WALLACE: The first group of people I was talking about that do the wallboard from alder were looking for a government loan of something in the vicinity of $30,000, which would have in turn produced 30 jobs. That's $1,000 per job. I was very interested in noting some of the figures that came over my desk from the joint programs sponsored by the Minister of Tourism and Small Business Development, provincially, and the federal body, where they are funding the forgiveable loans for small industry. These are additions, not new industries. New industries cannot start up. This is simply to increase existing industries.

I did a little calculation on those figures. Sure, they're providing a few jobs. I think there are about four or five jobs caning up in the Cowichan Valley as a result of that. But do you know what those jobs are costing, on an average, according to the figures provided by the Minister of Tourism and Small Business Development? It's costing the taxpayers of this province something between $4,000 and $5,000 per possible job to be created by an increase or an addition to an existing industry. I think that represents some of the imbalance in this government, where a new organization that is prepared to go into some economic investment and prepare a new product, create a new industry, is not able to get funding. Yet existing industries are able to get funding, at such expensive cost, even to provide one or two jobs.

One of the things, of course, that is very close to my heart — and I'm sure it is very close to yours, Mr. Speaker — is the cost of food. As you know, you and I and other members of this House have been doing a tremendous amount of study on the cost of food. I don't know whether you share my disappointment with the results of our study or not, but I am very disappointed with the results of that study. It was a time-consuming study; it's a costly study.

The figures in tonight's paper — and I heard the program on the radio this morning — have indicated that food has gone up in excess of 21 percent in just the last few months. Last year the cost of food went up by 21 percent, and there were indications then that it would increase even more in the coming year, and that appears now to be borne out. Some of those prices, of course, were increases at the farm gate; but it is interesting to note that the increases at the farm gate were far less than the increases at other levels. For example, in February this year the price of turkey went up by 36 percent at the retail level. The final price, Madam Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), went up by only 12.5 percent a pound. Do you believe that that's fair? The retail price of chicken want up 71 percent during the same period; the increase at the farm gate, 15 percent. In June of 1978 the price of bacon went up 22 percent and 34 percent; sausage rose by 75 percent; but the hog price received by the farmer rose only 5.8 percent.

While this was going on, Mr. Speaker, we found that at the retail level prof its increased by 38 percent, but their sales volume increased only 17.4 percent. Now it doesn't take a mathematician to recognize that there's something very strange going on there. And when you couple that with the differences in the percent increases between the price at the farm gate on those few examples that I have given and the percent increase in prices at the consumer retail level, it points out to me in no uncertain terms that there is a problem in the food distribution industry.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, the report that has just been filed in the House says that everything is well. This report cost the taxpayers $3 million. There are approximately 78,000 words. Do you know what that works out to? Forty dollars a word.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: We've produced, as the minister says, a lot of other documents which will sit on the shelves somewhere. I don't know if

[ Page 104 ]

you have read them, Mr. Minister. I have read some of them. I haven't read them all, but I think we are in the minority, Mr. Minister. You may have read some of them too, Mr. Speaker, because you worked on that committee. He shakes his head.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Not all are research reports. I haven't even seen them all yet, Mr. Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). Eventually, perhaps, I will. But there are two or three chapters that deal with processing in this report, that deal with food at the retail level and at the distribution level.

You know, I suppose in my calculation of the cost per word of this report I should have given some weighted average to the recommendations, because the recommendations are the things that are probably the most important. The recommendations are interesting.

The only really extensive recommendation coming out of these pages of verbiage that does anything or makes any recommendation relative to the retail and distribution end of the food chain in the way of any suggested moves that might improve the situation — in spite of these figures that I've just given you, Mr. Speaker, that indicate to me in no uncertain terms that there are problems there — is one of about 120 words.

This is $4,800 worth of advice that the government is getting out of this committee. I'm going to read it to you:

"The committee recommends that some form of consumer information program be established that would describe the various B.C. food sector concerns and needs, to better inform the public about how the provincial food production processing and distribution sectors function, in order to alleviate some of the mistrust and suspicion on the part of the consumers. This might well be carried out by all segments of the industry from producer to retailer in a consistent manner, with coordination of information being undertaken by the proposed B.C. food products marketing council."

That's $4,800 worth of advice to this government, and that's not going to do much of anything for the cost of food to the people on fixed incomes and low incomes in this province. The report donates one small paragraph — a couple of sentences — to that whole problem of people on below-average incomes.

I agree that for a person who is earning a good income, an average income even in British Columbia.... The average income that is used in this book is $17,000, which may or may not be correct. I think it's probably fairly accurate. On the basis of that, about 15 percent of your disposable income is spent on food if you live in British Columbia. But how many people are getting much less than that amount of income? How about the people in the lower brackets?

I always read these little blue sheets and yellow sheets that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) puts out very carefully. They're put out by the nutritive division of his ministry. They give the cost, moderately low-cost food plan at Victoria prices. They're very detailed. They give the prices for an adult — male, female — then the various age groups. This particular one gives the costs for February 1978 and February 1979. It's a very interesting one, Mr. Speaker, because, according to the Minister of Health, the cost of providing a low-cost but adequate diet right in Victoria has gone up an average of 40 percent in one year.

For example, to feed an adult male in February 1978 cost $69.30. In February 1979 it cost $94.17. To feed a 13- to 15-year-old male child in February 1978 cost $67.56, and in February, 1979 cost $93.18. Now those are the kind of cost increases that have occurred in one year, according to the Minister of Health.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Per month, yes. Those are the Minister of Health's figures. You want to talk to him, if you think it's too much. Don't talk to me.

MR. KAHL: Is it too much?

MRS. WALLACE: No, it is not too much. But I wish you would tell that to the Minister of Human Resources because as you know, we have had some ignominious increases in GAIN recently. They're not even effective yet; they will be effective April 1,1979.

I would just like to point out what has happened with those increases. Based on the Minister of Health's figures, for a family of four — the average-size family — it would have cost approximately $215 a month to provide an adequate diet in 1978. But by February 1979 that had increased to $300; that's about a 40 percent increase.

Now if you're in receipt of social assistance and if you're living alone, the support portion of the new increased allowance is $110. That's for food, for clothing, for entertainment, for transportation, for telephone; for everything except shelter, you get

[ Page 105 ]

$110.

According to the Minister of Health, food costs $94.17, so that leaves you something like $15 or $16 for all those other things. You know and I know that instead of eating a nutritive, adequate diet, people who are on those kinds of limited incomes are not going to eat properly. It's affecting the health of a whole group of people who are in that low-income bracket. If it happens to be two people, a man and wife — a woman lives much cheaper than a man apparently, as far as food costs go; it's $94.17 for the man and $71.34 for the woman — it comes to a total of $165.51. But two people are entitled to a total support of $175. That leaves $10.51 to provide two people with clothing, transportation, entertainment, telephone — all those extra things — for a full month.

Now it's unfortunate that the Minister of Health and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) didn't talk to each other before these increases were brought about. It's nothing short of a disgrace that those kinds of raises are being treated as outstanding increases for people, when, in fact, people have less buying power now with the raises than they had back in February 1978 because in February 1978 you might have just stretched it and made it do, but it is impossible to make it do at this point in time. This government is not facing its responsibilities to the citizens of British Columbia, to the people who are working for a minimum wage and to the people who are unfortunately unable to get employment.

Yesterday we had some outstanding figures quoted in this House — I believe it was by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) — which indicated that the true number of unemployed was something in the vicinity of 200,000 rather than the official figure of 111,000. When there are that many people unemployed it is obvious there are not enough jobs to go around, and that this government has failed miserably in its job-creation program. It has failed in its services to people and it has failed to get the economy going again. It seems prepared to sit back with committees and commissions and, in my opinion — at least in the committee that you and I sat on, Mr. Speaker — we were taken to the cleaners. We spent $300 million and got something that is going to be of little or no value to any group of people in this province. We were taken to the cleaners by the people we employed.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Ask the man sitting next to you, Madam Member.

We were taken to the cleaners, and this cabinet, this government, have been taking the people to the cleaners with their taxes, their assessments and their abuse of the little people in this province. They claim to be doing things for individuals. They talk about a bill of rights that's going to protect individuals. I can tell you, there is no economic freedom, no bill of rights, and they have done nothing to secure economic freedom. The cabinet and the government have taken the people to the cleaners and I am confident that when the election is called, the taxpayers and the voters of this province will take this government to the cleaners once and for all.

MR. BAWTREE: It's an honour for me to take my place in this debate, representing the Shuswap constituency. It is more than a year, I think, since I had the opportunity to enter into a debate on the throne speech. During that time, we had two important additions to the cabinet. I would like to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Skeena (Hon. Mr. Shelford) on his appointment as Minister of Agriculture. While there are great difficulties in facing the food industry today, I believe there are also great opportunities with us now and just over the horizon. I know that under the minister's direction, with his great experience, opportunities will be grasped for the people in agriculture and for the total economy of the province.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I also congratulate the member for Burnaby Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch) on his appointment as Minister of Tourism and Small Business Development. His attitude towards red tape and bureaucracy will be of great assistance to small business in this province.

In recent days and weeks there have been many changes and statements made with regard to a committee that was sitting in this province for many long months. One of the charges that has been made, I believe, is that there has not been sufficient accountability in that committee. Well, I would just like to point out that one of the first things that happened when that committee was set up was that there was an accounting system established before any moneys were expended. That system was reviewed at that time by Mr. Harold Price, the departmental comptroller assigned to the select standing committee. He indicated that the accounting system not only met all the government's requirements, but in fact substantially exceeded those requirements in the

[ Page 106 ]

provision of detailed accounting information.

There have also been charges about overruns with some of the computer corporations. It is true that there was on one occasion an estimate that came in considerably higher than what had been originally indicated — $31,400. I believe the statement has been made that there yes a $33,000 overrun. The amount over was $31,400. We persuaded the company that they were not completely blameless, and they picked up $18,000 of that overrun. The committee in fact paid for $13,400. That seemed to be a legitimate price for the services they gave us. The mover of that motion to spend that money was the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and the seconder was the hon. member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) .

On another occasion, there were charges made that some of our employees were using their equipment without any authorization from the committee. Well, it just happens that it was all in Hansard on July 27, before any equipment rentals were made. The various prices were all discussed in great detail in front of the committee, and it was moved by Mr. Stupich that we endorse the chairman's recommendations. Then we had a great deal of discussion on the matter. The hon. member for Boundary Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) came up with a great many suggestions and concerns that he had about hiring that particular consultant to provide some equipment to the committee. He said: "I suggest that this type of arrangement can cause problems — if not now, then at a later time. I think that not only must you be innocent, you must appear to be innocent also." And he went on to explain his concerns in some detail.

The hon. member for Nanaimo said:

"Mr. Chairman, I don't know just what the minister is concerned about. We have offers from a number of people. The persons who have done the legwork on this have told us that the equipment offered by this company called Goldenrod is at least equal to any other equipment that's offered. I see no harm in a person, other than an MLA, having one or even several contracts with the government ongoing. If he were an MLA it would be a different matter, but there's nothing hidden about this. It's all open and above-board. His rate of pay as a consultant is shown in this document. It's been agreed to."

Everything was completely above-board and in open discussion.

Then I see in the paper that there has been some concern about the fact that the committee did not come in with any recommendations that would reduce the price of food in this province. Well, first of all, Mr. Speaker, that was not within our terms of reference. But I'm a little surprised that that member should be making these suggestions at this time. The hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) knows full well that the largest ingredients — there are many ingredients that make up the price of food in this province — are the price of the raw product from the primary producer and the cost of labour. So when she goes around saying that she wants to reduce the price of food, what she's saying is that she wants to roll back the price that the farmers are getting for the food. Yet the evidence that we have is that in most products the farmers are not making an excessive profit and in some cases are making no profit at all.

The other largest ingredient going to make up the price of food is the cost of labour in this province. And I'm very surprised that that member would suggest that she vents to roll back the wages and salaries of our workers in this province. Even though those in the food industry are getting more than they are in most other places in Canada and the Pacific Northwest, I didn't think that she would suggest that they be rolled back. Yet that is what she's suggesting.

I think she's also trying to indicate that there are very large profits being made at the corner grocery store by those people who stay up until 10, 11 or 12 o'clock at night servicing their customers. I don't believe that the profits at that level are excessive either. And in the major chain stores it's been well documented that the profits on sales before tax are 2 percent. That means that if we got rid of all the profits and the taxes on those profits, we could reduce $1 worth of food down to 98 cents. If we took the profits after taxes — that is one cent, 1 percent — we could reduce the price of food from $1 down to 99 cents, hardly significant enough to make very much difference in the cost of the food basket in this province.

So much for the statements from the hon. member. But before I leave this discussion on the committee, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members of the committee who worked so diligently. And I also want to recognize the contribution that was made by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy). They made a very significant contribution.

Mr. Speaker, probably the most significant message coming out of the throne speech in this debate is the great difference between those of us on the government side and those in the opposition. The message is loud and clear: the rights of the individual must take

[ Page 107 ]

precedence over an all-powerful state. We believe the individual, on his own initiative, with encouragement from government, will create a higher standard of living for all our citizens than will a socialist regime that believes in controlling the lives of all our citizens, that believes in controlling all businesses, including the financial institutions.

We all know what happened in those three years when the province was under the socialist regime. Industry faltered; investment money left this province at a faster rate than ever before in our history.

Nowhere is the philosophical difference greater, I suppose, than in the handling of the shares of the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation. The NDP would have us believe that the shares are worthless, which means that they did not spend the taxpayers' money wisely when they bought — or stole — those businesses. At the same time, they want all their supporters to turn the shares over to their party to finance the next election. The member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) says he wants to finance his campaign with the BCRIC shares. Well, he'll either be running a campaign with no funds or else he disagrees with his colleagues. He should disagree with his colleagues, really, because he knows full well that the shares, under a progressive government and a healthy economy, are a good investment for the people of B.C.

While they are confused as to the value of the shares, they're also confused about ownership. They think that government ownership is just as good as individual ownership. They don't understand that there is a difference between what is ours and what is mine. You know the difference, Mr. Speaker. When you speak of your charming wife as your wife, you don't mean our wife.

Individual ownership confers many privileges and responsibilities that are not available to state ownership. I know the vast majority of people in this province know that there is a difference, even if the socialists don't. And just as there is a difference between the Social Credit and the NDP philosophies on ownership, so is there also on individual rights.

We in this party believe that government should serve the individual rather than have the individual made a servant of the state. The introduction of a bill of rights will, through legislation, guarantee fundamental freedoms for all people in this province. The rights of the individual will be further protected by the introduction of new legislation dealing with the expropriation of property. I know the property owners in the Shuswap area will welcome legislation to reduce the present multitude of expropriation statutes. The normal process is for government to introduce more and more new legislation and leave the old in the statute books. The Repeal of Obsolete Statutes Act will be seen as further proof that we are serious when we say we intend to reduce unnecessary government and free business and the individual so they can build this country as our parents and grandparents did.

One of the most important services the government can provide for its citizens is accountability. This government in the past 3 1/2 years, since December 1975, has an enviable record of accountability. The appointment of an auditor-general, the issuing of quarterly financial reports and the creation of the Committee on Crown Corporations all introduce a measure of accountability. This record of accountability is necessary to instil confidence in our citizens that their affairs are in good hands. This was sadly lacking under the NDP and was the greatest factor which led to their defeat in 1975. The people of this province want, above all else, a proper handling of their tax dollars.

I note that the leader of the Opposition.... I'm referring now to the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett), not the chap who's been going around the province holding leadership rallies. I would just like to suggest that maybe we should have a contest in this province and find out just who the leader is. Maybe we could call it "Would the Leader of the Opposition Please Stand Up?" I note also that there is very little confidence in that leadership on the other side of the House. Taken their great, esteemed leader introduced a motion of no confidence in this government, five of their members supported that motion and spoke on it. Less than one-third of their members supported their leader in that motion.

As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is claiming credit for the denticare program, but nothing could be farther from the truth. The truth is that this program has been introduced in spite of the NDP, not because of them. The socialists don't realize that programs of this kind are not brought in because somebody sits down and writes a nice program. This can be brought in at this time because our government has worked for many months and years to build a healthy economy and managed the affairs of this province to the point where we can afford a denticare program. The 100,000 increase in the number of jobs in this province in the last three

[ Page 108 ]

years is very impressive, but it's just the beginning of what we will accomplish in years to cane.

When our party formed the government in 1975 the mining industry was in a shambles. Most of the development had been chased out of this province into the Yukon and elsewhere around the world. The forest industry was not confident enough to invest in capital improvements. The tourist industry was putting up with worse roads than this province had seen for decades. In just three years the capital investment in the forest industry has gone from $562 million in 1975 to double that amount at the present time. The revenue from our forests was estimated to be $135 million in 1975, but you remember that those estimates were really not based on anything much more than a crystal ball. We all remember that that was just wishful thinking, as the revenues that year turned out to be nearly $100 million less — $44 million rather than the $135 million that was estimated by the Minister of Finance. By comparison, the revenues this year are the highest on record, at approximately $250 million. The mining industry has returned to this province, the workers have come back from the Yukon and from other places around the world. Last year mineral production was valued at nearly $2 billion.

I want to say a few words about my constituency and the surrounding areas, and how the government policies will affect them.

The impact of the Revelstoke Dam construction has created growth, not only in the Revelstoke area, but also in Salmon Arm, Sicamous and some of the smaller areas such as Malakwa. You can get a fairly good idea of the impact on the various communities when you realize that the increase in school numbers, in numbers of school children attributable to construction, has been greater in Sicamous than in Revelstoke, where the construction is taking place.

There is great need to have new industries and job opportunities coming onstream to take up the slack when the dam is completed. The tourist industry has great potential for growth in the Shuswap and Revelstoke areas. My constituents welcome the $50 million travel industry development agreement. This will almost certainly improve tourism in that area. The most important ingredient to improve tourism, however, is, and always will be, a Minister of Highways who is prepared to build roads rather than tell the tourists to go home.

We all know what happened under the last government. We have a number of people who feel there is an opportunity for the production and processing of agricultural products in the Shuswap and Okanagan areas. The announcement that greater assistance will be available for establishing processing plants, and for range management, will be welcome.

You all remember what was happening under the NDP regime. They were going to create a processing plant in the Interior of the province, at Enderby. They were going to invest in that company. It was going to be run by the government, and very largely owned by the government. However, the program never got off the ground. Nobody in the area had sufficient faith that it was a reasonable project. Then what happened, of course, the Social Credit got elected. Today that plant, in a neighbouring town, is nearing completion and will be slaughtering the first birds on April 16, under private enterprise.

One program that is just now starting in the Shuswap, and will be continued in the future, is the program to improve the productivity of our forests. It is imperative that we make an all-out effort to harvest more trees than we do at the moment. I am sure that we can in the future harvest at least 150 trees where we now harvest 100. The commercial thinning and fertilization of our timber stands will provide the mills with sufficient timber, so there need be no reduction in the allowable cut.

If, at the same time, we embark on a program to log off the large tracts of decadent cedar and hemlock stands, and reforest those areas, we will be able to achieve an increased harvest in the future for our children and grandchildren. I believe we should funnel all our unused labour resources into a forest improvement program. There are many make-work programs at all levels of government that I believe would give greater return over the long term if channeled into our number one industry. I suggest that many of our handicapped, people on welfare, and recipients of unemployment insurance could all be usefully employed in our forests to improve the yields.

The people of the province are appreciative of the efforts of the Minister of Health in providing the long-term care program. We in the Shuswap are happy to receive approval for a number of projects, for the expansion of the Enderby Hospital to allow extended-care beds. Phase One of the Shuswap lake Hospital in Salmon Arm expects to be going ahead by September, with Phases Two and Three coming onstream in the coming years.

The intermediate-care facility in Salmon Arm for 75 beds, plus 10 outpatients, will be a first for that area. The Pioneer Society are to be congratulated in pushing this project to the extent that construction will be started in mid-summer.

[ Page 109 ]

In addition to this construction presently underway, approval has been granted by the minister for the establishment of a community health centre in the village of Chase. Unfortunately the Kamloops Hospital decided not to go ahead with that proposal. Therefore, I'm sure the Salmon Arm Hospital will be assessing its position to see if it could administer such a facility in that Chase area.

The opposition have said that things are very bad in this province. They're always preaching doom and gloom. I would just like to give you a few statistics.

The value of exports through British Columbia ports has increased to $9.5 billion this last year compared to $8.3 billion in 1977. The provincial economy, in total, generated an increase of 4.5 percent. The gain in average monthly employment, as to a total of 1.1 million. Compare this advance with the 1976-77 charge of 2.8 percent. The average unemployment rate declined to 8.2 percent last year, from 8.5 percent in 1977. For Canada as a whole, average employment increased by 3.4 percent and the unemployment rate averaged 8.4 percent. In British Columbia, labour income from salaries and wages climbed to $14.3 billion from $13.3 billion in the previous year. Production in the mining industry, although failing to show a very significant charge, did increase to $1.95 billion. It's an unfortunate fact that the mining; industry is not coming along as rapidly as it should. Most mine developments are being held back until after the next provincial election. The industry was burned very badly once. No one can blame them for including politics in their assessment and in the feasibility studies they are presently undertaking.

This province is once again enjoying a sound economy.

MR. COCKE: Oh, came on. Nonsense! You just quit and see.

MR. BAWTREE: Once again, yes, Mr. Member, the province is able to create economic growth to supply jobs for our people. It has been achieved with great difficulty and I know the people will not readily throw it away, as they did in 1972. We are just beginning. I would like to quote from one of the greatest leaders of our time, Sir Winston Churchill.

"Now this is not the end; it is not even the beginning of the end; but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

Now that we have re-established sound economy in this province, we will go forward. We will go from strength to strength, for the benefit of all our citizens. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEVI: Well, I must congratulate the member who has just sat down. When in doubt, always quote Winston Churchill. If you can't remember the quote, just make it up as you go along. That's the way he used to do it, anyway.

I was a little surprised.... Now there's that horrible little man over there who is going to chirp all night — we've got 40 minutes — you know, if we could have that little man sit over there quietly, we would have a very enjoyable last 40 minutes. So you keep casting your eye at him, Mr. Speaker; give him that gimlet eye of yours to keep him quiet.

I was somewhat disappointed with the previous speaker. When he was talking about the food commission — in his capacity as the former chairman; I think it's now, as they say, defunct, since the committee's not operating — he said, in reply to something that the member for Cowichan had said regarding the committee doing something about food costs and food prices, that it wasn't one of the mandates of the committee. Well, I would beg to differ, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, that that was one of the mandates of the committee. I would call your attention to phase 4 in the overview. If you go to the end of that section, it says:

"The committee shall consider any changes in the present food marketing system which may be beneficial to consumers, producers and merchandisers, and shall recommend methods whereby government may influence the adoption of such changes."

We've been told that the committee spent just over $3 million — $3 million of expenditures in relation to the whole question of food and land and agriculture. I have mainly concentrated in looking at the report on the food aspects, because in my capacity as the critic for Consumer and Corporate Affairs, that was the thing; I was mostly interested in. I must say that after reading the recommendations in the summary section, I am a little at a loss to know what the committee was doing in its research in respect to the whole question of food. They say in the report that they used not original data, but collected data existing in the literature. There is no original research done in respect to that question — that

[ Page 110 ]

man is going to open his mouth again, Mr. Speaker; I'd much prefer that he didn't — there was no original research done in respect to this question of food.

It says so right in the report. What they did was collect a lot of existing data.

And then they go on to say:

"The food prices in B.C. do not appear to be too high when compared to those prices in the rest of Canada, to those prices in other countries and to those prices in the past or to the level of income earned or the portion of disposable income spent on food in British Columbia."

That was based purely on a collection of data that they got from other areas, except that they did do a survey. We don't have any of the specifics on the survey, but they talk about a survey.

"B.C. residents are not required to pay a greater amount of their income for food than residents of other areas; indeed, B.C. residents appear to pay one of the smallest proportions of income. However, the above conclusions are based on averages. It is undoubtedly true that food prices may be too high for some people of fixed or low incomes."

And that's just the group I want to deal with: fixed- or low-income people, and my colleague for Cowichan started to develop this point. There are about 600,000 people in this province, 25 percent of the people of this province, who come within that category of fixed or low incomes. They are not in the position to only spend 15 percent of their disposable income on food.

In order to make my point more specific I want to take two categories of people who by edict of the government remained at the same level of income for three years. I just want to deal with the people who are classified as handicapped in this province, and people who are in the 60-to-64 GAIN program, or GAIN-less program. In January 1976 the amount of money that was granted to those people was $265, which was an increase that was announced by the previous government, and it came into operation by the present government. That was for the handicapped and for the 60-to-64 group.

On April 1,1976, the people over the age of 65, who were part of what used to be called the Mincome program.... The Mincome program was the handicapped, those 60 to 64 years of age, and the over-65s. The over-65s received the quarterly increase; it had been the practice to pass on the OAS-GIS increase in this province since January 1974. But the handicapped and the 60-to-64 people did not receive that increase. It is only within the last three months that there has been talk that they're going to get some kind of increase in any case.

So we should examine what kind of impact the effect of food costs had on those two categories of people, something like 25,000 people in total. For three years those people were denied any increase at all, yet in those three years we saw the cost of food increase by 30 percent. Yet that government that boasted every year of a surplus of $101 million, $143 million and $148 million did not have any feeling to say that these people would be entitled to an increase. For three years that went on, and 25,000 people in this province received no increase.

In the report they say, yes, there are problems with people on fixed income. The figures were quoted by my colleague for Cowichan — the Victoria study, the information coming from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland). It costs $90 for someone to live in a family if it is an individual and $75 for a woman. Let's take the $90 and take somebody at $265 — that certainly isn't 15 percent of their income or 20 percent or 25 percent or 30 percent; that is 34 percent of their income — and examine within that $265 the impact of the rent. After all, rents went up something like 21 percent over these three years. What I'm trying to point out, Mr. Speaker, is this: this is a government that has said constantly that it has concern for the people. I pointed out to you just one small group, 25,000 people, who for three years were forced to live on the same income, as though it was the year 1976, and in the space of one year — between March of this year and March of last year — we've seen an increase in food of 21 percent. They are to be condemned for that kind of action.

I want to return just for a minute to the report. What I would have hoped we would have got out of the report is a firm recommendation in respect to some kind of provincial food policy, a policy in respect to what the government is going to do to give leadership in terms not only of the food industry but in terms of food pricing and growth of the agricultural community, so that we can move towards a greater degree of self-sufficiency than we have now.

But that's not in here. In fact, they talk about two possible solutions for low-income people. They say in the report: "It is undoubtedly true that food prices may be too high for some people on fixed or low incomes. The focus in that case should not be towards lowering food prices but towards enhancing

[ Page 111 ]

those low incomes. This is regarded as a social problem and not the fault of the food system."

One of the things that they have not taken a look at.... They talk about doing something about incomes. You have people on fixed incomes. You are talking about a further transfer payment. More money from the taxpayer to subsidize these groups. If you're talking about people who are earning low incomes, then you're talking about doing something about improving those incomes. The only time-honoured way now in this country in this community to get income improved if you're working is to have a collective agreement and to be able to bargain for it.

So the two options that they talk about are the kinds of things that for years that party has always railed against: no more subsidies, no more welfare for the poor. Then they talk about in the report.... We'll see when we get into the debate just how many people endorse this kind of stand. But what they have avoided completely in the report is discussion of the problem of prices. For two years in this country we had the AIB that was supposed to be in there to look at wages and prices. Only in six examples did it do anything about prices, but in well over 3,500 examples they did something about rolling back wages.

It seems to be, particularly in the free enterprise system, that there are no solutions whatsoever to increasing food costs, other than somehow getting more money to people, whether it's a subsidy or a transfer of payment to people on fixed incomes, and then bleating rather calmly about the idea that the people should get more money from employers in the non-collective agreement area. To me, the way they look at it is not very practical.

Surely the committee would have spent some worthwhile time examining some of the factors that make up high food costs. I do not accept what the previous member said, Mr. Speaker, about the profit picture.

You know, he talks very blithely about the fact that they had only a one cent profit on the dollar, when we're talking about a volume of food expenditures in this province of over $2 billion. This is the food expenditure in this province, over $2 billion; and in the country, almost $16 billion.

One of the areas we needed to look at last year; we tried to elicit something from the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), to direct that committee to look at the whole question that was raised by the staff of that committee and by members on this side of the House on the whole question of kickbacks — kickbacks in supermarkets in terms of the large producers and the chain stores. There was an absolute refusal on their part to do that. We heard some bleatings from the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) that we have no jurisdiction to do it. Yet the province of Ontario have done it. They at present have a royal commission which is looking at this very fact. They've gone to some expense to set that up. We didn't have to go to any expense. We had a committee that was there, sitting, and could have done something about it, and didn't.

AN HON. MEMBER: We did.

MR LEVI: No, you didn't. The member dreams that you did. I'm telling you that you didn't do anything about it. If there was information that you had in terms of cancelled cheques — and we were told there were such cheques — we were told by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that what he has recommended is that it be sent to the combines investigation people. We'll have to find out from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether the information went down and what was the evaluation of the combines investigation people — in fact, what happened.

It is no good you saying or the former Chairman saying across the floor that "we did do something about it." You had an opportunity to convene the committee, to have a series of public hearings in which you could have asked directly the major chain stores just exactly what is this question of kickbacks. But you avoided it. Completely avoided it. It would have been an opportunity to clear up once and for all a very serious problem that exists. It's talked about. We know that a lot of people are prepared to talk in camera. We know that people are prepared to talk on the phone and tell you all sorts of things. They won't come forward. We will see what happens as a result of the royal commission in Ontario.

That committee, if it failed in one area particularly, it failed to come to grips with the question. It's a question that has been around and hovering over the food industry for at least 20 years, since the combines investigation people had an inquiry in 1958, when they missed an opportunity. Three million dollars, incidentally, is three times the amount of money that all of the government in 1978 spent on information on nutrition.

We did not get an in-depth look at the whole question of corporate advertising, and that kind of thing that goes on in the industry.

It's no small industry, this whole business of advertising. In 1978 some $90 million, as

[ Page 112 ]

spent on advertising in terms of food. We know that for every dollar that's spent on food, 14 cents goes to advertising and packaging.

We would have been happy to see some recommendations coming out that were firmly placed in here in respect to what we might deal with in terms of the large chain stores. There has been some move by some chain stores towards no-brand packaging. We've yet to see the results of that kind of experiment, but it might very well be that it's a move in the right direction. That should have been looked at by the committee. And if it was worthwhile endorsing, it should have been endorsed and more encouragement given to move in that direction. It's simply not good enough to come in with recommendations suggesting that if the food is too high, then we've got to give people more money in terms of salary. We've got to look at the mechanism and find out whether in fact the incredible corporate concentration that exists in the major food chains is a serious factor in respect to food prices. Based on some of the inquiries that have taken place — not in Canada but in the United States, in Senate hearings — I would suggest that corporate concentration is a factor. That was missing in some of the terms of reference that they had to look at in this report.

I hope that we can look forward to some debate at the appropriate time — presumably in the Agriculture estimates — in respect to this report.

In respect to the problem about the expenditures and whether proper expenditures were or were not made, I would suggest to the chairman that he might do a service to himself and to the committee and put the whole thing in the hands of the public accounts committee and let them have a go at it and see exactly just how money was spent and if it was spent properly. That kind of process can always be useful to future commissions and future committees.

I want to turn now to another committee, a standing committee of the House, the Standing Committee on Crown Corporations. It's in its infancy. It's beginning to find its legs, and some interesting work has been done. I have a number of criticisms about it which I've expressed to the committee, and I'm prepared to express. The meetings of that committee are not frequent enough. I think there are some serious problems with the kind of work that we do in respect of looking at some of the Crown corporations.

I do have some serious concerns about those Crown corporations that are not in the schedule of the Crown Corporations Committee. I'm very concerned, particularly in view of some of the problems that I have read in respect to the Systems Corporation, why that Crown corporation is not part of the schedule of the Crown Corporations Reporting Committee. I have also raised the same question: why isn't the British Columbia Building Corporation on the schedule of that committee?

That would be a golden opportunity for that committee, not only for the members of the committee but for the staff of the committee, to go almost hand-in-hand with the building of the Crown corporations and seeing the mechanisms as they are developed — not have to go in after three or four years and wade your way through the bureaucracy and the reports and work out — which is a very big time factor — what kind of questions you want to elicit in order to get some understanding of what goes on in Crown corporations. I'll have more to say about the question of the two corporations that do not at present come under the Crown Corporations Reporting Act.

It's interesting that three years ago, when the present government had its first throne speech, the theme by the mover and seconder was one of freedom. We heard great speeches in those days about the need for freedom and individual rights. As a matter of fact, I think my friend from Dewdney spoke in the debate in his usual arrogant fashion. Yet it's taken three years and four months for that government to come up with some ideas about what they are going to do to protect the freedoms they say are in jeopardy. I'm not aware of those freedoms that are in jeopardy. I mean, when they said it three years ago, that was after the election in which one of their themes in that hysterical election was something about freedom.

So for over three years they've sat back, and now they've come up with an idea that we're going to have a bill of rights. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I am very cynical about that kind of bill of rights because I've been very cynical about the Premier's complete involvement and obsession with wanting to became a constitutional expert overnight. With all the problems this province has to face, he's spent most of his time fiddle-faddling around the constitution. He sees that as a major priority. Now if he's bringing in a bill of rights, if it is a last-minute thing because of sane things that the former Minister of Human Resources said, well, that might have merit. But I doubt that that guy has that kind of influence, so I don't think that's the reason for it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Hold it. You know that's not right.

[ Page 113 ]

MR LEVI: You mean it' s true? That's why he's bringing it in — because of what you did? My gosh, that man has got more influence than I thought he had.

The thing is, on the question of rights, when the bill comes in, we're going to have an opportunity to hear from all of those people over there just what rights are in jeopardy and what rights need to be enshrined or entrenched. We've got to entrench these rights; we've got to put them in. Then we're going to have a real, conflict because....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: It's "entrenched," Bill, because if you don't entrench them you wind up in the trenches having to fight for them.

But 3 1/2 years later they come up with the idea that they want a bill of rights. That's what the public out there are screaming for. They're not terribly interested in high food costs. They're not terribly interested in unemployment. They're not worried about the loss of health-care standards. They're worried about a bill of rights. If anything, in my estimation, Mr. Speaker, is a boondoggle, it's that kind of thing.

MR. SKELLY: You need one under Social Credit.

MR. LEVI: Well, but that's something the NDP have to bring in, because if they bring in a bill of rights, who knows what will be in there? Car dealers, car kickers, millionaires — my God, the people won't even be in there. One has to be very skeptical.

I would have thought the one piece of legislation that might have come in.... It's something that people on that side have talked about, that the Premier talked about the first year and the second year, but he didn't talk about it last year. Where's the conflict-of-interest legislation? That was a big discussion. That was one of the Premier's big things he was going to do. He was going to straighten out this problem of conflict of interest, and it is something that needs to be straightened out. When are we going to get the bill?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It will be done.

MR. LEVI: We just got a cabinet secret. The Minister of Municipal Affairs tells us it is going to happen. He should know, because in the department that he is responsible for, he has a man who is kept very busy looking at some complaints, particularly in the municipal area, about conflict of interest. I think there have been something like 10 or 12 in the past 2 1/2 years in various municipalities where officials have been involved in the dubious practice — and I think it is a dubious practice — of purchasing land when they're employed by municipalities.

There are other areas of these kinds of conflict of interest. Where is that legislation? It's not here. I don't know that we have to see whether, in fact, it's going to come in. If not, then I think they're missing out on an opportunity to introduce something. They have a desire to let the sunshine in. You're going to have to let the sunshine in on the whole question of conflict of interest.

I want to talk just briefly, if we've got another 15 minutes. I want to talk, just for a minute, through you to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) who sits there so quietly taking it all in. That's very good. I want to talk to him about the B.C. Systems Corporation. When I made a statement two or three weeks ago about the B.C. Systems Corporation, I utilized a report that came to us in the mail. It was the third draft of a report from a committee of deputy ministers. They'd all seen it, and they'd all agreed to it. They were deputy ministers of the six departments who were the major users of computer services in the government. This was not a report that we had made up. This was a report by six responsible ministers. The date on it was October 15.

The first response we got from the minister and one of his officials was that the report was out of date. We heard from one of his officials to say that the deputy ministers were guilty of sour grapes. We will have an opportunity, when we get into the debate on the minister's estimates, as to whether he agrees with that description that there were sour grapes in respect to the deputy ministers. Or were, in fact, the deputy ministers, after analysing the situation, stating their major concerns about that corporation? What we are concerned about is the contents of that report, which says that things are not as they should be, and there are two recommendations from the deputy ministers which strongly suggest that a great deal of the control of the corporation should go back to the department.

The question is: where does the minister stand on this? We have some mixed statements from himself and from his official. As I understand it, the corporation came into being officially in September, 1977. From the public accounts of 1977-78, it was presumably operating. They have an income and expenditure. It's all there in the balance sheet. It

[ Page 114 ]

officially took over the functions of all the departments, according to the 1977-78 public accounts, on April 1,1978.

What we'd like to know from the minister, and we'll have to get that, of course, in his estimates, is when the report was requested.

If it was requested four months after the corporation was set up, that would take us to sometime in July, 1977. The report was completed in October, 1978 and delivered to the minister who, presumably, had an opportunity to look at it. That would take us sometime into November and then, presumably, some decisions would be made to do something about the problems. We hear from the president of the corporation that the report runs out of date and everything is okay.

Well, we still don't hear that everything is okay, but we've yet to hear from that minister as to exactly what actions he took, if any. He might have decided in November to do something about the Systems Corporation when, lo and behold, the Premier came along and dumped BCRIC shares right on top of the corporation, took the president of the corporation away from his major job of running the corporation, and said: "You're in charge of the BCRIC share issue. Get with it." And there we are. Those are the facts that are in the report, which the minister says is out of date.

What he's really doing is putting down six senior deputy ministers in the department, who are asking....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: What are you so twitchy about?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. We only have ten minutes to go before the hour of adjournment. Perhaps we can have a little quiet for the last ten minutes.

MR LEVI: We have to have an opportunity for the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) in his estimates to come clean on exactly what is taking place in the Systems Corporation. Nobody is talking about dismantling the Systems Corporation; we want to know just what exactly are the administrative problems in there. If you have problems with department heads, with other deputy ministers, then there has to be some discussion about working it out.

We hear from the president of the corporation that it's all soul. Well, that's remarkable. If it's all soul I want to know what an advertisement from the Ministry of Health is doing in "Business Week" advertising for programmers for computer programs in that ministry. What' s going on there? If he tells me everything is okay — that's the statement that the president made — everything's okay. The sour-grapes people have been satisfied. Yet they're advertising outside the Systems Corporation for work in the Health ministry. What has really happened? Has the Health ministry won the argument, that they want to take back what is in the first and the fourth recommendations? First, they want to take back the decision of what kind of system they want; second, they want to be able to go outside the system. So we want to know about that. We haven't any of those answers.

We'd also like to know from the minister if he could tell us whether in fact the person who has replaced the chief financial officer of the corporation.... Is he still there? Is he the man who comes from Clarkson Gordon in Toronto? We've asked, but we haven't heard from the minister whether in fact that's not a conflict of interest when Clarkson Gordon are the auditors of the corporation. Yet the person who is the acting finance chief is somebody from Clarkson Gordon himself.

Now we know the minister has told us this afternoon that the BRIC share thing will have to quit until the budget comes down. I don't know what he's going to tell us in the budget about the BCRIC shares, unless he's going to produce for us a balance sheet. That's not his style to come down with a lot of facts and figures about expenditures. He usually tells us that it will be available all in good time. When will it be available? When the public accounts come out. And when will the public accounts come out? Well, since he has his accountability, and he's got his auditor general.... For years in this province we used to get public accounts in August of the year. Now we get them in January of the year.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: You haven't been in the House long enough to know anything, Mr. Member.

We used to get public accounts every August. Now we have to wait until January.

HON. MR. WOLFE: How many quarterly reports do you get?

MR. LEVI: The quarterly reports don't tell you anything. What kind of nonsense are you talking? Quarterly reports — what do they tell you? Not one of then is audited. Quarterly reports — what nonsense. Every one has a headline on the top: "This is not audited." What are you talking about — quarterly reports? The only thing we can go on is the information that's contained in public accounts, and now

[ Page 115 ]

we have to face another six months before we get them. I'm sure the the kind of answer we're going to get from the minister, when he brings down his budget, is that all of the information on the expenditures of BRIC and the calculations in the estimates will then be available in public accounts.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Those backbenchers say I'm wrong. My God! He knows something I don't know. We haven't heard anything yet from the minister. He's sat quiet. The minister has been so quiet. He has allowed the presidents of the corporations to give all the answers. He's allowed that president to put down the deputy ministers who wrote the report. It's not something that they initiated themselves. It's a report that the minister requested, yet we have not one word from the minister as to what happened as a result of that report.

We don't know, to this day, whether anything was done at all in respect to that report, if we are to presume that from the minister's own words — they started the report four months after the corporations were set up in July. It would probably take that long to do some kind of report. Remember we were looking at a third draft, but we don't know from that minister what took place at all.

He's decided to be very silent about it. He was warned in the beginning about rushing in and trying to do everything in terms of centralized computer systems. They might have been trying to work things out, but when the chaos of the BCRIC shares was dumped on them, there was no possibility at all of working anything out.

I suspect, on the basis of the advertisement that the Department of Health has now got in the March 9 edition of "Business Week," that some of the departments have taken the bit in their teeth. They've gone out and decided that for the benefit of the department they're going to have to obtain their own services. We don't know, and we want to learn from the minister whether in fact this is the tacit understanding that exists between the minister, the corporation and the departments — that things are so bad that we had better let them go out so they can complete their work, because one of the reports talked about the question of the availability of time.

Another part of the report talked about cost. We raised that question of costs in the estimates last time. When we talk about the whole question of accountability, which they've been talking about over there, we want to know — and we're serving notice on that minister that we intend to find out from questions, both in his estimates, presumably in the debate on the BCRIC Bill, when it cones out — just exactly what's going on there in terms of that system, and in terms of accountability in expenditures of the public money.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:57 p.m.