[ Page 117 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Kickbacks in agricultural industry. Mr. Levi — 117

Logging dispute on Queen Charlotte Islands. Mr. King — 117

BCRIC shares. Mr. Stephens — 118

Funding of fire prevention. Mrs. Dailly — 118

The budget. Mr. Cocke — 119

Inquiry into conduct of former Chief Justice. Mr. Macdonald — 119

Cowichan estuary task force report. Mrs. Wallace — 119

J. Henry Schroeder report. Mr. Levi — 120

Presenting reports.

Legislative Library. Hon. Mr. Schroeder — 120

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Transfer of B.C. Telephone Co. shares. Mr. Lauk — 120

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate.

Mr. Levi — 121

Hon. Mr. Hewitt — 122

Mr. King — 128

Mr. Strongman — 134

Mr. Haddad — 138

Mr. Nicolson — 141

Hon. Mr. Veitch — 147

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Before we proceed, perhaps you would permit me to inform the House that the government has been notified that Mr. Robert Strachan, the former leader of the official opposition and former Agent-General, has undergone surgery in Nanaimo Regional Hospital. Certainly, on behalf of the government and all members of this House, we would express our hopes through you, sir, for a very speedy recovery to Mr. Strachan.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, would it be in order for the Speaker to send the appropriate message on all of your behalfs?

MR. MACDONALD: Your very proper request is unanimous in the House. The opposition, of course, supports it fully. We're very concerned, and we hope for a speedy recovery.

MR. SPEAKER: I will carry out your request faithfully.

MR., KEMPF: Somewhere in the gallery with us this afternoon are three gentlemen I would ask the House to make very welcome: Mr. Joe Kline, who resides in that great riding of Saanich and the Islands on North Pender Island; and Messrs. Tony and Lloyd Schmidt from the province of Saskatchewan. I would ask the House to make them very welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would like to ask all members to bid a very, very warm welcome to Sister Connolly and 35 grade 11 students visiting Victoria from the Convent of the Sacred Heart in Vancouver. Nice to have you aboard.

MR. COCKE: I would like the House to recognize a person who has had a great deal of touch with this House in the past, who moved from here to Ottawa, and then to Washington, and now has graced this House with her presence again. She is Marjorie Nichols, the syndicated colonist and great reporter. Nice to have her back.

MRS. JORDAN: I had a surprise and very pleasant visit in my office this morning from three teachers from W.L. Seaton Junior Secondary School in Vernon. Mr. John Fraher, Mr. Gregg Fraser and Mr. Grant Nelson. They're in the gallery somewhere this afternoon. I would ask the House to bid them a very warm welcome.

MR. BARNES: Unfortunately the people I'm about to introduce were unable to be in attendance personally due to the demands on the seats. However, I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Greg Canton, his friend Nancy, and her children, Edmond, Ernest and Eugene.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Seated in the Speaker's gallery today are Mrs. Arman Morton and her daughters, Celeste and Chantelle, of Victoria. I might say here they are related to a very august member of the Fourth Estate, Mr. Charles La Vertu. Would you make them welcome.

Oral questions.

KICKBACKS IN AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

MR. LEVI: I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Last May 18 and 24, I asked the minister's predecessor a question regarding the evidence of kickbacks that was in the hands of the staff of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. On May 24 the then minister replied that he had written to the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs federally, because there was some discussion about the Combines Investigation Act. I wonder if the minister could tell us the results of that correspondence. What was the position of the federal ministry and what was done in respect to the evidence available?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to take the question into consideration, investigate that specific reference and respond to the member at a later date.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is taken as notice.

LOGGING DISPUTE ON
QUEEN CHARLOTTE ISLANDS

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Environment. Has the minister transmitted any communication — either a letter or telegram — to the federal Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, the Hon. Romeo LeBlanc, with respect to the logging dispute on the Queen Charlotte Islands?

HON. MR. MAIR: I hope the member will understand when I say that to the best of my knowledge, I haven't personally. Now it may be that somebody from my staff has. I'll investi-

[ Page 118 ]

gate the matter and get back to the member.

MR. SPEAKER: This question is taken on notice, I think.

MR. KING: On a supplementary, I just wanted to ask briefly if the minister would be kind enough to advise the House whether or not his office or any of the staff of the ministry have corresponded in that way.

HON. MR. MAIR: I presume that you're referring, Mr. Member, to the Queen Charlotte situation, which is presently causing some problems. Yes, I will undertake that.

BCRIC SHARES

MR STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In August 1977, when he was debating the bill which became the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation Act, he quoted section 3(6) of that Act as follows: "The corporation will not extend its services to the industrial or commercial component of the private sector." Would the minister please tell us how he can now justify what appears to be a deliberate breach of that section by allowing the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation to use the computer services of the Systems Corporation?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I don't follow the member's line of questioning in terms of using the services of the computer services of Systems Corporation, in terms of the private sector. However, I think he referred to a clause in the Act. There's no such clause in the Act that I'm aware of.

MR STEPHENS: On a supplementary, I may have misled the minister. I was referring to the Systems Act, and section 3(6) of the System

Act says: "The corporation shall not offer or agree to provide data-processing services to the industrial or commercial component of the private sector." Now the B.C. Resources In vestment Corporation is an industrial and commercial component of the private sector. How can you justify that corporation using the Systems Corporation's computers to sell its undistributed shares? That's a total breach of the Act. How do you justify that?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I would suggest that the member perhaps puts this in writing to me. He's asking me for some kind of a legal opinion as to whether or not it contravenes the Act. I cannot follow that. Would he supply that in writing?

MR. STEPHENS: I appreciate the fact that the minister may need time to answer the question. However, it will be in writing in the Blues tomorrow. Would you please read it and then give me your answer?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the purpose of question period is to ask questions, not to make statements.

FUNDING OF FIRE PREVENTION
AND FIREFIGHTING PROGRAMS

MRS. DAILLY: My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. In your ministry, vote 31 — the fire marshal vote — is for $1.4 million. Fire prevention and firefighting are two items that come under this vote. Last year you announced two grants from the lottery fund: $200,000 for smoke detectors in profit-making nursing homes, and $500,000 for training firemen. Was the lottery fund used to hide the fact that your fire marshal vote was to have a $700,000 overrun this year?

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Is that an answer?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I'd like to hear the question to its conclusion. Please proceed.

MRS. DAILLY: Can the Attorney-General explain to this House why the public of British Columbia should pay for smoke detectors in profit-making businesses?

HON. MR. GARDOM: In answer to the hon. member's first question, the answer is no. In answer to the hon. member's second question, our desire, Madam Member, was to save lives, and I think that's a very good use to put the lottery funds to.

MRS. DAILLY: On a supplementary, we all share that desire, Mr. Attorney-General, but there is a question here of political ethics also. I want to ask the minister again if he thinks that the lottery fund should rightfully be used to subsidize nursing homes which are private, profit-making institutions.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Madam Member, we consider — and it was a government decision — that this is a most appropriate use of funds for the specific purposes that I've indicated. For far too long there have not been adequate methods of fire prevention in a number of nursing homes in the province. We wish to provide some

[ Page 119 ]

degree of stimulus to get this underway. It was totally approved by the fire authorities in the province, and I honestly would not think there is a single person in the province of British Columbia who would differ with the stand that we took. I consider it to be completely correct.

MR. MACDONALD: Enforce your standards.

HON. MR. GARDOM: If I enforced my standards, you wouldn't be in here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. This time is being utilized and it is part of question period.

MRS. DAILLY: A final supplementary. Why does the Attorney-General not enforce fire prevention in private nursing homes instead of taking public money to increase their profits?

HON. MR. GARDOM: It is being enforced, Madam Member, and you will also remember the great amendment that was proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver South last year — which I do recall you voting for — to amend the Act to provide this kind of assistance. I do hope, Madam Member, you are going to be as much in support of Arson Alert in the province of British Columbia as you are of putting out fires in nursing homes.

THE BUDGET

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, since the great Prime Minister in the east did something unexpected, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. What will it cost the people of British Columbia to reprint the budget?

MR. SPEAKER: I think there is an inherent assumption in the question.

MR. LAUK: Is the budget described as a dynamite budget now to be described as the firecracker budget?

HON. MR. WOLFE: This budget is going to be the best budget British Columbia has ever seen in its entire lifetime. I will see you get a copy.

INQUIRY INTO CONDUCT OF
FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE

MR MACDONALD: Without quoting from a newspaper, the Colonist, because that would be contrary to the rules — it is a paper that tries very hard to follow the fine line between partiality on the one hand and impartiality on the other in its political reporting — I want to ask the Attorney-General, who has more inquiries underway than "Sixty Minutes, " whether it is true that, following a TV program, he is investigating the conduct of the former Mr. Justice Branca.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I will be making a complete statement concerning the program tomorrow, not today.

MR. MACDONALD: The statement has been made that you are so doing; I want to know now whether you are or are not making that inquiry.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You have my response.

MR. LAUK: To leave a cloud over the head of a former judge of the court of appeal for one day is totally irresponsible. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the purpose of question period is to ask questions and not to make statements. To gain the floor under the pretence of asking a question when the intent is to make a statement is clearly abusing the forms of the House. I must warn against it.

MR. LAUK: I apologize to the Speaker for that indiscretion. I meant to ask if he will now change his answer to the previous question.

COWICHAN ESTUARY
TASK FORCE REPORT

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment and it is one that deals with a subject that his predecessor became very familiar with, due to my questions. I would like to ask him about the Cowichan estuary.

As I'm sure the minister is aware, the task force has been meeting for over a year now. We expected something in May. We expected something in August. We still do not have a report. Can he assure me and other members of the House that this task force will be reporting and, if possible, tell us when we can expect that report?

HON. MR. MAIR: Like the member, I have a great many concerns about that problem, and I've expressed them publicly in the past. I can assure the member that the report will be handed down and that the meeting of the En-

[ Page 120 ]

vironment and Land Use Committee for the purpose of examining that report in its entirety is scheduled for the first part of April. I'm sorry that I don't have the precise date.

I would lake to say that it could have happened earlier; however there have been some technical reasons and some practical reasons why it couldn't. I don't want to have a meeting of the Environment and Land Use Committee that does not have the widest possible representation, so I've given it as much forward scheduling as I thought was appropriate in order to ensure full representation by all people who are interested. The meeting will take place then, and, I would assume, without making a commitment — because I can't commit my colleagues in advance — that the report would come down shortly thereafter.

MRS. WALLACE: On a supplementary, I understand from what the minister has said that the task force report is complete and that ELUC is going to be considering it. Is that correct? Can he tell me whether or not that task force report has been reviewed and has the approval of all members of the task force?

HON. MR. MAIR: I will have to take that question as notice.

MRS. WALLACE: Aha!

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, I'll have to take it as notice simply because it is loaded. If some person on the task force has expressed some minority view somewhere down the line, I'm certainly not going to fall into that trap, Madam Member. I'll come back to you tomorrow with a complete answer.

MR. SPEAKER: It is always in order to take a question as notice.

J. HENRY SCHROEDER REPORT

MR. LEVI: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can the minister give us some indication of when he intends to table the J. Henry Schroeder report on the capital market study, which I understand has been in the ministry since last August and cost the taxpayers $125,000?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The answer to your question is no.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder presented the annual report of the Legislative Library.

MR. LAUK: Under standing orders I ask leave to move adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance. The matter is the fact that the British Columbia Telephone Go. has made an application currently to the Canadian Radio television and Communications Commission to allow the transfer of a certain number of shares in British Columbia Telephone to General Telephone and Electronics of Connecticut in the United States, thereby increasing foreign control in ownership of British Columbia Telephone and allowing more of the profits of B.C. Telephone to flow to the United States.

As a decision on this matter, I am informed by the CRTC, is imminent, it is of vital importance that the House debate both the proposed share transfer and the Premier's complicity in this share manipulation, which is a matter of public record, although the extent of his involvement is still a secret.

MR SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I must first look at the motion to see whether or not it is in order.

MR. LAUK: To assist you in that regard, I file correspondence with the table: my letter to the CRTC; my letter to Hon. Jack Horner and to Mr. Couture, acting chairman of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, a reply from Hon. Jack Horner; and a reply from Pierre Couture.

MR. SPEAKER: To the motion, hon. members. First of all, I wish to thank the member for the courtesy that he has extended to the Chair of giving at least a few minutes' notice of the motion so that we could be prepared for this decision.

As all hon. members will know, it's the responsibility of the Chair in these matters not so much to assess the urgency of the matter in question but rather to determine the question of urgency of debate which warrants all other business of the House to be set aside for the time being. There have been numerous rulings from this Chair and other Chairs in the dominion in which the ruling clearly states that if there is an opportunity when the subject could be embarked upon, and that opportunity exists in the immediate future, then the motion is not allowed. That would have to be the ruling again in this case, in order to be consistent. If members wish to have a reference, perhaps you would like to refer to May's sixteenth edition, at page 369, or May's seventeenth edition, at page 364. I would have to rule the motion out of order.

[ Page 121 ]

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, yesterday during the debate I was not aware that an application had actually been been made by B.C. Telephone to the CRTC. I have been made aware of that fact. It now becomes imminent. There are people who have spoken already in the debate who are now precluded from speaking on this important matter. Would that have any influence on Mr. Speaker's decision?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The point is well received but not too well taken. The matter in question is surely wanting to be debated by the member making the motion. As far as I know, the opportunity still exists for him, and will exist within a very few moments, to take the matter in hand.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. LEVI: One of the things that concerns me particularly about law enforcement in this province is that what we have is a knee-jerk reaction from the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) every time he looks at the TV set when there is a program called "Connections" on. In 1977, when "Connections" came on, he made some rumblings about possibly looking at a crime commission. As a result of that film, the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair), who had had the advantage, I understand, of a pre-screening of the show, set into motion a study I've referred to in question period. The capital market study was to deal, among other things, with some aspects of the operations of the stock market. We don't have that report. The minister of the day, the present minister, refused to table it.

In respect to the Attorney-General, he's not come out of his slit trench. He puts his head up and he says that we're probably going to have a crime commission. We've been attempting for three years to get that minister to develop some kind of policy which is consistent and a continuation of the policy that was brought in by the former Attorney-General, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), when he organized, set up and put into operation CLEU. We have had no such backing from this minister in respect to CLEU; we have yet to receive an annual report from CLEU. We have not received in your tenure of office an annual report.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: "It is coming," he says. It's been three years and he hasn't even produced one report. I asked last year if some of the members of this House could be brief ed on what CLEU is doing. The sum total of his response to my request is that I'm now on the mailing list for the CLEU newspaper clipping monthly files. What I would like is that some of us could sit down with the Attorney-General and the people in CLEU and get some idea of exactly what they are doing. We don't have any idea.

That minister is also responsible for sitting on a number of cases which involve serious white-collar crimes. He has 23 cases in the ministry which the RCMP are still waiting for him to make decisions on, which involve bank transactions and receivership. He shakes his head. I got a letter from your deputy minister. He's going to look into it for the second time. When I asked last year I got no satisfaction about it. The minister is indicating to us there are no problems. There are no cases waiting to be approved — none at all. There are no problems with the banks. They've looked into the Greek connection with the Bank of Montreal and everything is fine. I'm telling the minister everything is not fine.

One of the things he was cautioned about last year and the year before is not to fall into the trap of going the route of the Quebec Crime Commission. That's not the route to go. The suggestion made to him last year was to give the initial problem of how the commission would operate to the justice and legal committee so that you could get people in — people from all around North America — to make recommendations. Last year he indicated CLEU had gone around North America and had prepared a report. Has he got the report? If he has, would he be good enough to table it so that we know just what kind of policy he is making? We have no indication whatsoever from that minister about any kind of policy against organized crime. Every time the CBC puts on a film, he knee-jerks. He gets up and he says: "Oh, we've got to do something about it." That's the way he's operated that ministry since he's been the minister. Of course, one can ask how such a disorganized minister can do anything about organized crime. It's just incredible.

The main thing is that last year he was asked a serious question in relation to the behaviour of some of the banks. We have heard from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) that the fifth largest industry is the heroin trade, something like $250 million. I asked him last year if does he not have some concern. Are they not prepared to look into where that money goes? Where does the money

[ Page 122 ]

go? Which banks are handling it? We know from the report in Quebec that some of the banks are implicated: the Bank of Nova Scotia, the Bank of Montreal, the provincial bank. Has the minister done anything about that? No. The only thing is that he behaves a little bit like a scared rabbit every time he sees a TV show. And he tells us — according to the press — that he wants to wait until he has seen the third program before he makes some kind of decision. What I suggest he should do is go talk to the RCMP. Go talk to CLEU. They'll tell you about organized crime. You don't need the CBC or to watch a film to find out what the problems of organized crime or white-collar crime are.

The only suggestion I have for you, Mr. Minister, is that you are highly incompetent and in no way can you handle the ministry that you've got. You made a complete shambles of what was a first-class attempt to attack organized crime by the former minister. You've done nothing.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place to speak on the throne speech, and I welcome that opportunity. Before I proceed, I would like to compliment the mover of throne speech, the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), and the seconder, the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster), on the excellent speeches they made in this House.

I would also like to compliment the member for North Okanagan, Mr. Speaker, who, I think, paid a tribute, to the former Premier of this province, W.A.C. Bennett, that I couldn't elaborate on. She did an excellent job, and I think she spoke for all British Columbians in regard to our appreciation of the man's dedication over the past number of years.

A sound economy, in my opinion, is what provides the people's services for a province or for a country. I think we can indicate to the people of this province that over the past three years we have developed, once again, a sound economy for British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the NDP, the opposition party, often talk in the negative. The one item they keep bringing up time and time and again is the number of bankruptcies which have occurred in this province in the past three years. Well, I'd like to talk in a positive vein regarding to the number of incorporations that have taken place since this party came into office, as opposed to what was happening prior to 1975.

In 1973 there were 9,402 B.C. companies incorporated; in 1974, 9,766; in 1975, 10,267. There ended the regime of the NDP.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I would think the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens), that great private enterpriser, would certainly not heckle these comments, because it would indicate to him, I think, that private enterprise is going ahead in the province of British Columbia. He was talking about the socialists to the right and the socialists to the left when he got up and spoke, and I've got to tell you, I think he's one of the most left-wing conservatives I've ever seen.

MR. KAHL: Sasquatch power.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, he relies on Sasquatch for research, I think it is. Is that right?

In 1976 the rate of incorporations of B.C. companies went up to 12,355; in 1977 to 13,209; in 1978, 15,215 B.C. companies were incorporated. There was a tremendous increase in those three years compared to the three years of the NDP. The registration of extraprovincial companies, Mr. Speaker.... Extraprovincial companies are, of course, those companies that are from outside of the province and are going to be doing business within the province. We see a growth there as well, because in 1973 to 1975 there were approximately 1,650 extra-provincial companies incorporated in British Columbia and registered in British Columbia. From 1976 to 1978 that number increased to 2,470.

Mr., Speaker, other members on this side of the House have raised other indicators as to how this economy has improved since 1976, but I'd like to repeat them. In the B.C. gross provincial product, the percent changed in 1978 — 4.4 percent. That's the real growth in British Columbia. In the gross national product, the real growth was 3.4 percent. We outstripped the growth in the national product.

Public and private investment increased by 11.1 percent compared to 7.7 percent. Retail trade in British Columbia had a 13.4 percent increase; for Canada it was 11.7 percent. Manufacturing shipments out of British Columbia increased by 21.5 percent; for Canada it was 18.8 percent. The labour force available in British Columbia grew by 4.2 percent in 1978, and for Canada it grew 3.7 percent, which would indicate, I think, to you that we are getting a considerable amount of immigration into British Columbia, whether it be from other parts of Canada or other parts of the world.

The employed labour force, Mr. Speaker, grew by 4.4 percent. The number of people employed

[ Page 123 ]

in British Columbia increased by 4.4 percent, out of a total labour force increase of 4.2 percent. So I think that's an indication that a greater percentage of people are working in the province. But Canada's Employed workforce only increased by 3.4 percent. That's another indication that this province is moving again.

I'd like to deal with some comments in the throne speech regarding the mining industry, Mr. Speaker, because that party from 1973 to 1975.... If they did nothing else, they did one thing well: they drove the mining industry out of this province. That's the one thing they did real well. But since that time, although there is a little bit of concern by the mining industry over just what's going to happen if an election comes, and so some of them are waiting, there is an indication from the mining industry that there is more activity, and I can give you some of those figures.

In the throne speech it speaks about mining for molybdenum in the Atlin area. This is a proposal, and should this come about, the proposed workforce will be about 300 people, to be housed in or near the Atlin area, and an estimated mine payroll of approximately $6 million. Other locations are Ericksen Creek, by Cassiar; Alice Arm; Babine Lake; the Sam Goosley property, on which the announcement has been made. On the Sam Goosley property it will, I believe, take something like $60 million to start that project up, and a workforce of 400. When the mine is complete you will be looking at 200 people and a $4 million payroll. The ownership of that is by Placer Development of Canada, a Canadian company, reinvesting their profits in the economy of British Columbia. And that's the way we want to see it.

This is an indication to the members of this House that the mining industry has finally recognized that that party over there is not going to be in power, and that we are back in power for some time to come.

Granduc Mines is reopening in Stewart.

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

HON. MR. HEWITT: In 1980, Mr. Member.

MR. LAUK: You closed it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, Mr. Member. Even you know better than that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Please proceed.

HON. MR. HEWITT: When it comes back into production there will be 330 people working in that mine, another indication that the province is on a sound financial basis at the present time.

Let me give you another announcement. I don't go back to 1974 newspapers, 1976 newspapers, 1942 newspapers or whatever; that's what the opposition does. I like to get things that are fairly current. What I find out from the speeches that are made by the opposition is that most of them are the same ones I heard last year and the year before. I like to try and bring something new, because I feel that they should learn something. Here's a release from Cominco dated March 12, 1979. The news release says that the company's modernization and expansion program, a multiphased series of projects at Comincols Trail and Kimberley operations, will cost more than $425 million when completed in the mid-1980s. This is another indication of the confidence that the mining industry has in this government.

We talked about other activities in oil and natural gas. Let me give you an indication of the drilling that's going on in this province. In 1973 the number of wells drilled in this province was 177; in 1974, 148 — going downhill or, as the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) said, "going down into the ditch." Well, it got to the bottom of the ditch in 1975, because in that year only 82 wells were drilled in this province. In 1975 all the well drillers had gone to the Yukon.

HON. MR. GARDOM: They ran on strong leadership.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, not strong leadership, Mr. Minister.

But let's see the turnaround. We reached the bottom of the ditch and now we're coming up, as the Minister of Education said the other night. In 1976, 189 wells were drilled in this province. In 1977, 328 wells were drilled. In 1978, 408 wells were drilled. 'that's an indication, again, that in the oil and natural gas sector of my ministry, the industry is now recognizing and assured that there is a good future for that part of the industry in British Columbia.

The member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) made some comments the other day regarding natural gas. He made a speech asking us to raise the price of natural gas — and so did the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) — to $3.20, I think the figure was. But after all that great debate we had, and listening to him, the member for North Peace River (Mr.

Smith) got up and commented on the number of wells that are being drilled in the north. The response from the former Attorney-General, the member for Vancouver East, was: "What's the

[ Page 124 ]

good of it? You can't sell the gas." He was responding to the exploration activity in the north.

One minute they're asking, "Why don't you raise the price? Why don't you get more? Why can't you compete with Mexico?" — and stating all the wrong figures for Mexican gas. In the next breath, they turn around and say you can't sell it. If we can't sell it, what's the sense in raising the price? I wish they would get their act together. They're all mixed up.

In regard to raising the price of natural gas, I just want to read this article, which was in a recent paper, concerning the marketing problems and the concern there is in the industry.

"The marketing problems continue to pose the greatest threat to western Canada's booming oil and gas exploration play, says the spokesman for the Canadian Petroleum Association. 'Oil companies have shifted from development drilling to exploration drilling, because they believe there is little point in drilling known gas reserves to establish high levels of production when markets are unavailable. Companies are sufficiently encouraged by the prospect of natural gas exports to continue a high level of exploration programs."'

The article is saying that we can discover gas; we can determine reserves; but we have to be competitive in the marketplace. We have to be competitive with those other sources of energy. When the Leader of the Opposition says we should compete with Mexico and raise the price of our gas to the Mexican level, he is just sort of touching on the subject. Unfortunately it gets in the record, and members such as myself on this side of the House have to get up and correct him.

I can tell him, the discussions have only just resumed between Mexico and the United States, and the price being discussed is $2.80 U.S. — not $3.20 or $3.50, as he said in the city of Penticton last week, but $2.80. He would lead you to believe that we should raise the price to $3.20. But the U.S. Energy Secretary, James Schlesinger, stated that one of his major concerns about paying higher prices for natural gas to Mexico was that Canada will undoubtedly expect equivalent prices for its gas. So if Mexico makes a deal with the United States at a high price, we would automatically be in a position to be competitive and raise the price as well. Or, conversely, they wouldn't buy from Mexico because they can get it from us cheaper.

The concern of our mining industry — our drilling industry — is that there's no sense drilling and finding the reserves if you cannot find a market for them. If we were to raise our gas prices to the above-mentioned extent, we could seriously damage the U.S. Pacific Northwest market for Canadian gas at this time. In effect, the market is as soft as a gas bubble, and if we raise our price too high, we lose the existing markets we possibly have at the present time.

With the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, of course, we're on a "take or pay." We have to buy the gas from the producers — as the members know in the opposition — then turn around and sell it. But we have a commitment to buy it. As a result, we could find our Petroleum Corporation caught in a position where they are buying the gas and don't have a market for it.

Mr. Speaker, the key to the matter is that we live in a world marketplace. Now if we can identify sufficient natural gas reserves to ensure our domestic use for numbers of years to come — so we don't fall short — then we would have gas supplies available for export. We should be able to get a good return. The return we get allows for additional exploration and, of course, keeps the cost to our domestic consumers at a lower level, because the return we make on export sales helps offset some of our costs of production.

Again, the Leader of the Opposition is just touching on a subject, but it was his throne speech and did stand up and do it well. But he just touches on the surface and we have to correct him for the record. I think one of the problems is, again, that we hear the speech annually. He keeps getting concerned; he's looking over his shoulder most of the time. He hasn't got time enough to write a proper speech, get all the facts down on paper and tell the people of the province the total story — not just one or two small parts of it.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Alaska oil railway. The concept, as I understand it, was for the movement by rail to a point in the north of British Columbia, where it will be transferred to a pipeline and then moved onward to Edmonton. One of the concerns that the federal government had was the roadbed costs in providing that railway. Also, there is the environmental problem. As the members in the opposition well know, every time you attempt to do something in the north, whether it be the building of a pipeline or a railway, you have considerable environmental impact.

They were also concerned about the transfer problems between the pipeline and the railway. The other fact was that it could take con-

[ Page 125 ]

siderable time to determine just how severe the environmental impact would be. Of course, the construction would follow after that. It would take much longer than any pipeline proposals that were currently being floated at that time.

The other important item is that the rail line project could not be privately financed, as opposed to the pipeline project. There's a lot of discussion going on about that.

The pipeline projects are financed by a consortium, as opposed to having a railway which would have to be funded partially, at least, by the provincial as well as the federal government.

The comments of the Leader of the Opposition dealt with large figures, indicating to this House there were great dollar values to be lost because we didn't take any action. I'm just saying that all the story should be told. I think any government has to look at all factors: the economic impacts, the returns, the cost, the benefits, the environmental impacts, et cetera. For him to stand up for about half an hour and say, "This should be done, and it's as simple as that," is misleading the public.

AN HON. MEMBER: If it's that simple, why didn't he do it?

HON. MR. HEWITT: He wouldn't know how to do it, Mr. Minister.

Turning from the oil and natural gas and mining activity, I'd just like to say that it seems to me that it's an indication to the people of the province of British Columbia that in the last three years, regardless of all the political rhetoric, this government has brought in balanced budgets. We've determined our revenues. In the first year it was pretty tough. The people of the province had a tough time. We determined our revenues, and we determined the services we could provide for the people. We've met those commitments of services to people. We've met our forecasted revenues.

The people services that are provided by government are not provided by a money tree in the back yard of the parliament buildings, but by a stable economy that is supported by government. It supports the industries of this province, it supports the commercial operations of the province; it supports the small businessmen of this province. If the government can give that support, the private sector can generate those revenues.

Let's look at the people services. We've increased the homeowner grant to seniors to $480. We brought in a SAFER program — shelter aid for elderly renters — to help offset some of the effects of inflation, to assist those senior citizens in enjoying their own apartment dwelling, their own rented accommodation, in their later years. It's an excellent program.

We brought in universal Pharmacare. We expanded the old Pharmacare program and brought in universal Pharmacare so that all members of society would have some protection.

The Minister of Health brought in the longterm care program, where people who were confined to nursing homes, et cetera, did not have to worry about the heavy cost — sometimes upward, possibly, of $1,000 a month. The government picked up the tab over, I believe, the $6.50 a day.

The hospital construction program in this province is greater than it ever has been before, an indication again of the people services.

In 1979 the throne speech talks about the denticare program. It 1979 it talks about the expansion of the home-purchase assistance program.

The thread of my whole speech is trying to get the point across, on the record — unfortunately, I can't get 2.4 million people in this hall, or I'd tell them all — that the economy must be stable and the economy must be prospering before you can provide the people services that are needed in this province. We've done it.

I want to relate to another comment in the throne speech regarding my ministry. The throne speech talks about a comprehensive energy policy. I would like to deal a bit with it.

These are some of my thoughts. In my ministry we are developing an energy policy for presentation. I would like to indicate to the House what I see in that energy policy.

First of all, that policy must determine the security of supply of energy in years to come for the province of British Columbia. We must determine the adequacy of supply. It must be a fairly long-reaching policy, one that's flexible, that can change with development and improvements in technology. At the same time, we must always keep in the forefront of our mind that we have a responsibility to supply energy to the province and to the people of British Columbia.

The Middle East crisis that we went through in 1973, and that we're going through right now, is an indication to all governments that they must have a plan and they must have a plan that is flexible enough that it can deal with those types of situations. The policy must identify provincial sources of supply.

[ Page 126 ]

What are our alternatives?

Oil. What is our demand now for the use of oil and what is our adequacy of supply? At the present time we supply about 25 percent of the oil we consume in British Columbia — 25 percent and going down, Mr. Speaker.

Gas. We have a tremendous amount of activity in the north and a considerable amount of new known gas reserves.

Electricity. What are our alternatives for the production of electricity?

Coal. I believe we have one-third of the coal reserves of Canada in British Columbia.

Wood waste. There is a tremendous potential for the generation of energy from wood waste.

Mr. Speaker, those are basically the guidelines related to those sources of energy. They are basically this: the availability and the economic viability. You can have supplies in the ground, but if the cost is too great, compared to an alternative, you must be able to recognize that.

There is no sense in us giving direction to industry or to commerce or to residential development to use a certain source of energy when we don't have the reserve capacity. We must recognize the cost to the consumer, because although those people over there keep calling us a millionaire cabinet and keep talking about all the millionaires, we're looking at all consumers: the senior citizens, the families, the apartment dwellers, the homeowners, industry. We've got to recognize the cost to them.

The key elements of this proposed energy policy, Mr. Speaker, would go something like this: the security of the oil supply — how do we determine that? Because we don't produce enough.

There are our relationships with other parts of Canada and the world — the encouragement of the development of our own resources. We've got lots of resources out there. We've got wood waste; we've got coal; we've got gas. Because we have known gas reserves, we should possibly encourage the greater use of natural gas in place of such sources of energy as oil.

Efficiency in the use of energy — let me give you an instance. We need coordinated forecasting. We've had great discussions over the years about the forecasting of energy demands by the B.C. Energy Commission and by B.C. Hydro. We have great debates because one is so high and the other is so low. In my policy, Mr. Speaker, we've got to bring together the thinking so we start on a common basis. We use the right input, as opposed to one group using one set of figures and another group using another. Because what does industry think when they see two different reports with different end results? They are a little concerned. So we have to have a coordinated energy forecasting system.

The managing of our energy surplus is in the best interests of the province, and I say export falls into that category. I think the national NDP leader usually gets up and says: "We've got to use our own resources. Don't ship anything out. We've got to use it." He says that on one hand. "Keep it for us." That's what he says: "Don't share with anybody; keep it for us." But that just doesn't work, Mr. Speaker. We are in a world market situation. Because if you say that on one hand, then you better start saying: "Don't ship our offshore oil to us. We can't import oil if we can't export what we have a surplus of." The point I'm making is that we can and should export where possible because the dollars we receive from export sales, of course, will assist us in further development and will keep the price to the local consumer lower.

Conservation, I think, is one of the keys to this energy policy. If we can save a barrel of oil, 1,000 cubic feet of gas, that's the cheapest source of energy we have. For every one we save, we have one left in reserve. It's the cheapest source of energy.

Co-generation. Industry or municipalities, if they can, burn up industrial wastes and hog fuel, create energy and co-generate that with our utility companies. That offsets other sources of energy such as oil and makes better use of our energy reserves in this province.

Surplus energy producers. Those industries that have their own energy sources could be developing their own electricity, say, on their own property. If they have the capacity that is idle, why not make use of it? We should develop policies and legislation that allow them to assist in meeting the energy demands of the province.

Research and development. We must always look to the future. I think the Minister of Education, Science and Technology (Hon. Mr. McGeer) touched on it very well, but this policy has to identify the need for constant research and development of alternative energy sources such as solar energy. A lot of work has been done on solar energy and it will probably take a lot more work to make it completely economically viable, but we have to keep looking down the road and working towards that goal.

Wind power. Tidal power. Geothermal energy, Mr. Speaker, is where you drill like you would drill for an oil well or a gas well down into the mantle of the earth and tap a source of steam. That steam, of course, can be captured,

[ Page 127 ]

can be cleaned and can be used to turn a steam turbine and generate electricity. Outside of the city of San Francisco, at a place called the Geysers, they have 16, I think, of these wells that are on stream and supplying power to the city of San Francisco. We have the opportunity and we are doing studies into that at the present time.

So, Mr. Speaker, those are basic outlines of what I think an energy policy should be about. It's a major task. It's not a simple task to say: "Oh, we're going to design an energy policy." We have to, you might say, put some meat on the bones. But it's a timely task. We know that the federal government is looking at an energy policy. We know that the United States government is looking at an energy policy. Everybody is aware of the vulnerability of the economy and of society if you can't throw a light switch and turn on lights, or you can't plug in a milking machine on a farm, or you can't turn the wheels of industry. So up front in every government is the need for an energy policy, and this government is going to bring one in this year.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on a few other items, but the main one is.... I'm not sure whether the gentleman is here; no, he's gone. The throne speech says basically this: "Governments are elected to govern; governments are not elected to compete in the private sector." That is why that this government has brought in the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, moving those Crown-owned corporations back to individual ownership in this province. It's a great move.

Let's talk about other things regarding companies owned by the government: an outfit called Panco Poultry, the chicken-plucking plant. You people know about that. We heard all about that last night from the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), I believe.

It's interesting, I think, that in doing a little research late last night.... You know, the opposition members here really struggle for material to use, and I think they are a little worried. There's a guy in Ottawa by the name of Stu Leggatt who is coming to town, you know. He's coming to town, and they're a little worried. Either they've got to get on the right side of the new leader, or they want....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: How could you get on the right side of that leader? On the left side of that leader — that's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Jim Kinnaird? I thought he was the leader.

HON. MR. HEWITT: We'll get to him. There are a lot of them over there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps, hon. member, if you would address the Chair, then we would have a little less of this unofficial banter.

HON. MR. HEWITT: It's a case, Mr. Speaker, of using half the facts; I won't say half truths, because I would probably get an objection.

I wanted to touch on the statements that were made in the House of Commons on December 14 by Mr. Leggatt, who was talking about Panco Poultry in British Columbia recently being purchased by Cargill Grain Co., one of the largest multinational grain firms in the world.

"I wonder if the minister can advise us whether good corporate citizenship is one of the criteria of the Foreign Investment Review Agency and, if such is the case, whether the agency will take into account the fact that Cargill Grain Co. has committed at least 105 violations of the Wheat Board regulations and is not a particularly good corporate citizen in this company. Will that matter be considered by the agency?"

Now he said 105, but the member for Vancouver Centre only said 100, so he couldn't get the facts right in the first place.

Mr. Horner responded, and I thought this was rather cute, because they were talking about the Canadian Wheat Board, and Mr. Horner is a farmer, right? He comes from Alberta.

"Hundreds of thousands of farmers have violated one regulation or another of the Canadian Wheat Board at one time or the other, but in my opinion they are still good Canadian citizens."

The minister went on to say:

"In assuring the hon. member, let me point out to him that what the Foreign Investment Review Agency looks at is significant benefit to Canada. I'm sure in this case, as in many others, the agency will try to ascertain how much benefit Canada can derive from this proposal."

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that's exactly the same approach that this government took in determining the bids for Panco Poultry: the benefits for the people of British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well then, we'll carry on, Mr. Member. I'm glad you said that. I could

[ Page 128 ]

comment about Panco Poultry, that it was purchased, and on the fact that it was used as a political tool during the election in 1975. Do you remember the letter that Ernie Hall put out? He used the employees of Panco Poultry for his own good; it didn't do him any good because he got beaten anyway. It was purchased in 1974; it suffered a loss in 1975; it wasn't until we came to power, that it turned around and made a prof it — just like the rest of the province.

There is a conflict of interest between government and the chicken industry. Government regulates the broiler industry by marketing board legislation. Panco Poultry bad four broiler farms and seven turkey farms, which was over and above the quota they were allow-ed. It was a vertically integrated company which that party over there usually speaks against — hatchery farms, feed mill, processing plant, et cetera. In the sale of Panco we took into consideration the future of the company, the security of employment and the return to the taxpayer. I can tell them that the farm community wanted those farms back into the farm community, not held by the big company. I can also tell those members over there that the Broiler Marketing Board, made up of farmers, agreed to and endorsed the sale of Panco Poultry. There were bids on the feed mill, one from Cargill Grain, a high bid; the second one was from Hepple Brothers in Langley. And that sale went to a local firm, Mr. Speaker. The sale of Panco gave us the highest return, gave us a five-year forward planning program, and $4 million expansion to take place upgrading and further processing of turkey with the benefits to the turkey producer.

The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) said that it could mean a shutdown of the company for Cargill's benefit. He doesn't recognize or say anything about the fact that the turkey industry is under national supply management, which controls imports and protects the local farm community.

Mr. Speaker, I've got a number of other things, but I just want to quickly touch on something else. I ran too long on my debate. I am very pleased that the throne speech recognized the need for the protection of the Okanagan lakes in this province. The program will be brought forward and will ensure the high quality of the Okanagan lakes for the benefit of the orchardists in that area and for the tourist industry in that area. That is something that this government has recognized, and I'm looking forward to seeing the program of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair), because those lakes are the life blood of the Okanagan Valley. It is, to my way of thinking, an excellent indication of how this government is looking at the environment in this province and attempting to protect it.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to give you titles of the throne speeches over the past number of years:

1976-77: "Time to Tighten our Belts, Ladies and Gentlemen, Because the NDP Drove this Province into the Ground."

1977-78: "Cautious Optimism."

1978-79: "A Foundation to Build On."

1979-80: "A Plan for the Future."

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to support the throne speech,

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity during the current session to really take part in the official debate, and I would like to add my voice to that of the many of the members in the House who have expressed regret at the passing of the former Premier of this province, the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett — and to his family. I think it's been noted publicly, by all legislators, that he made a significant contribution to the public life of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to comment very briefly on some of the points made by the previous speaker, and I trust that he'll stick around to hear what I have to say. He made much of being in conflict with chickens, and the only observation I have in that regard is that it would appear to be an even match. I did appreciate his discussion of energy policy, and I commend him for entering the throne speech with something positive to talk about, rather than a constant attack on the opposition for alleged misdeeds of the past. I hope that, perhaps, other ministers will understand that they did win the election in 1975. They have a mandate and a responsibility which goes with it to govern in this province and to bring forward policy for debate in this illustrious chamber, policy which everyone can debate.

The majority of the discussion so far, particularly from the cabinet benches, has been digging into the past in an effort — somewhat panic-stricken, Mr. Speaker — to try to discredit the former government. Let the people decide. The people have seen the NDP in office, and the NDP made their mistakes, and certainly this government has made their mistakes. I think one of the things this government has yet to learn is that, you know, one shouldn't have too much pride or be too stubborn to admit that you have made mistakes and to attempt to learn from them. There's a touch of arrogance that characterizes this particu-

[ Page 129 ]

lar government at the present time.

The minister made some comment about getting the mining industry going again. He talked about Cominco and the major capital investment that that particular company has undertaken. Mr. Speaker, surely the minister knows that that modernization program was started during the NDP term of office, mainly in response to the fact that the Cominco firm was being fined $30,000 a day by the Workers Compensation Board in this province for failure to comply with health standards and to adequately protect the workforce in that plant. That was one of the major reasons that they embarked on the expansion program, and the minister tries to take in some credit to his government for this expansion program. Come on, don't be ridiculous. I think Cominco was rather embarrassed that they bad to be subjected to major fines on a daily basis, and the only way they gained relief from those levies by the Workers Compensation Board was to sit down and lay out a plan for modernization and better safety standards that would protect the workers from noxious gases and from hazardous materials. That's a matter of record.

I know the president of Cominco in Trail very well, and he is a reasonable man. They were stuck with an old plant; previous administrations of that company had let it run down. They have done the positive thing now, but for this government to take credit for the nebulous case of a company finally updating a plant that was a threat to the health and safety of workers is just a bit much.

He talked about Granduc. I will deal with that a little later. Granduc closed down during their tenure. It is supposed to open up again. I hope it creates some jobs. I hope there is a net gain of jobs rather than a net loss, because this government is basically a net loss, Mr. Speaker.

The minister finally went into the Mexican gas caper again. They seem to have a design over there to try to zero in and attack our leader over here, who is doing something positive for the province of British Columbia. He is going around this province offering some leadership, offering some positive development programs, and interesting people from all parties, people from corporations and people from trade unions in pulling together and getting the economy going again, not in two-bit, carping, political partisanship. They seem concerned and upset by that, Mr. Speaker.

The Granduc thing is a bit of a bogeyman. It closed under their tenure and I hope it opens again. That's a promise and I hope it comes about. But on the Mexican gas thing, the minister is wrong. An article in the Toronto Globe and Mail dated March 22 talks about the National Energy Board authorizing an increase in the export of natural gas from Canada. It notes that the new Canadian gas export price will still be far below the price being demanded by the Mexican government — currently about $3.20 with provision for automatic escalation — for new gas being offered for sale to the United States. Now doesn't the minister know what is going on? He has petroleum resources in his charge and he doesn't even know. He's not abreast with current developments in the export price of that commodity right here on this hemisphere. What's the matter with the man?

In terms of mining, what's happened? Sure, some mines closed down during the NDP term of office. I can tell you that the world price of minerals at that time was not good and it hasn't been good since. But for the record here's what the mining people of British Columbia say. The B.C. mining association notes only two mines opened since 1975: Afton copper mine, which was negotiated and started under the NDP — and that's a matter of public record — and a small gold mine, Northair. The mines that have closed since 1975 are quite numerous; there's been a net loss of 233 jobs in the mining industry since 1975.

Now I'm not blaming the government for that. It's a matter of world prices. But for them to run around saying, "Look how great we are; we've instilled new confidence and mining is booming," is just not in accordance with the facts, Mr. Speaker. It may make for filler for a speech if you're not particularly concerned and if you don't have any particular regard for the facts, but surely a minister of the Crown should be a bit more concerned than that.

Mr. Speaker, so much for the minister's presentation. I once again do congratulate him on at least five minutes of his speech, when he discussed energy policy. That should be a matter of record in this Legislature by all parties, because energy policy is a pressing and urgent matter, not only in British Columbia but throughout the length and breadth of Canada.

Coming to the throne speech, my main criticism is that it has no strategy for stimulating the economy or for creating employment. That has to be a priority in this day and age when we have 112,000 British Columbians out of work.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Yes, officially — probably many more. It has to be a priority when the cost of

[ Page 130 ]

living is increasing almost to the double digit level annually. It has to be a concern when, hand-in-hand, inflation and the cost of living are eroding the disposable income of people throughout the length and breadth of this province. I find nothing in the throne speech that comes to grips with that particu-lar issue which, in my view, should be a priority.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), in his dissertation to this House, outlined a plan for creating employment and tremendous investment capital in the economy of British Columbia, through the extension of the British Columbia Railway to the state of Alaska. People may debate the wisdom of that move, but certainly there is great interest. Certainly there is technical data to support that extension as a viable enterprise. The Leader of the Opposition, regardless of his political persuasion, is trying to do a selling job on behalf of British Columbia in terms of creating jobs and investment. I commend him for that. I'm proud that the leader of our party, rather than being just a negative critic like so many on that side, is taking positive steps and giving positive leadership. Let's contrast that with what is happening on the government benches and in the text of the throne speech.

Interjection.

MR. KING: No, there are not many left there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Only 2 1/2.

MR. KING: No, the large minister of small .business is still in attendance. [Laughter.]

I want to tell you that there is no initiative and very little vision in this government. They certainly do not have the stature and the vision of the previous Social Credit government who, although I disagreed with them strongly, had some imagination and some verve in them.

One of the greatest areas and opportunities where this government could provide a stimulus to creating employment, investment and job creation, is the forest industry. It is our primary resource. It is our major resource. Rather than seizing this opportunity when the economy needs a stimulus — mainly because of the gouging that this government has inflicted on people and used to slow down the economy in the previous years — they have not only failed to offer any provincial initiative, but, lamentably, they have failed to take advantage of dollars that were available from the federal government for investment in the province of British Columbia. I say that it's totally irresponsible and scandalous.

Here is a headline in the Colonist. I think it's March 23,1979:

"Forest Millions Untapped. The provincial government has failed to take advantage of millions of dollars in federal grants toward forest management projects. Forests minister Tom Waterland conceded this Thursday during questioning at a news conference called by the B.C. Association of Professional Foresters. But he hoped negotiations with the federal representatives would lead to agreement for use of the funds."

Now, Mr. Speaker, this government is telling us how great they are, while ignoring the 112,000 unemployed. To blandly admit that he had failed to capitalize on millions of dollars that were available from the federal government for investments in our forest industry is almost criminally irresponsible at a time like this. We have 112,000 people who could be employed in regeneration projects in the forest industry. Lord knows, we're millions and millions of acres behind in terms of tree planting, and that alone is a worthwhile function in terms of job creation.

We are certainly in bad shape, in terms of the inventory of the forest resource in this province, and people could be put to work not only in the regeneration process, but in an up-to-date, proper appraisal and inventory of the resource that we have in this province. Yet there are millions of dollars going by the board, simply because the Minister of Forests was not on his toes protecting British Columbia's interest.

At the same time we have a headline from the Fort Nelson News indicating that the forest industry is in serious trouble in the north because of a major error in inventory. "Forestry Bugged by Spruce-Goof" is the headline. It goes on to outline a horrendous story of the danger of eliminating our supply of timber in that area, or at least jeopardizing it, to the extent that we can't maintain existing cutting and employment levels. This is going on while the minister sits idly by and allows federal dollars to go by the board, simply because he hasn't been on his toes and been responsible enough to demand those dollars, and to create programs to employ people, to put those dollars to work here in the B.C. economy.

Mr. Minister of Small Business, where were you? If the Forests minister hasn't got the acumen to take advantage of this, surely the portfolio of small business implies that you should have some incentive and some initiative in this regard? Get on your toes and do some-

[ Page 131 ]

thing for the people of British Columbia. We've not only lost federal dollars in terms of an opportunity to create employment in British Columbia, but I want to outline to the House today how the government — the Minister of Forests particularly — have failed to support and encourage small businesses who depend on the fibre of our forests for their enterprise and for their workers.

In the first place, we have a major new tree-farm licence being renewed, the first one under the new Forest Act. We had the call for public hearings on the renewal of that treefarm licence so that the public and small entrepreneurs could make a representation and find out whether or not the current licence holder had done an adequate job as custodian of that public timber, whether or not he had fulfilled all the obligations imposed upon him through his cutting permits, and so on. The minister refused to call a public hearing. He decided that it wasn't necessary for the public to know the basis and the criteria upon which that licence was rolled over and renewed.

Even the Victoria Colonist, which I think my colleague said resides somewhere between partiality and impartiality, commented on the minister's position and criticized it. The comment was:

"Mr. Waterland won't even listen. Over the next two years about 26 tree-farm licences in British Columbia's giant industry will come up for renewal. The fate of vast timber tracts owned by us all, and worth billions, will be settled. As matters stand, these renewals will all be settled by the provincial government behind closed doors."

This is the government that brags, even in this throne speech, about regard for the public and protection of individual rights. Has no one ever told this government that the public owns that timber? The public owns that timber, and they have a right to have a say in the proper harvesting and the proper management of that resource. It's sheer arrogance for the minister to conduct those hearings in the privacy of his office.

I have a copy of a letter that I received from a private citizen that she had written to the minister indicating that she was interested in sitting in on an open hearing respecting the first tree-farm licence renewal application in this province. I'm going to read the copy of the letter the minister re turned to her. It's dated February 28, 1979, and it's directed to Mrs. Victoria Inskip, Fremlin Street, Vancouver:

"I am replying to your recent letter in which you ask that we hold public hearings when replacing existing tree-farm licences, and you expressed concern about the destruction of virgin forests. This will also reply further to your letter of February 6, addressed to the Hon. Premier Bennett on the same subject. I am following the procedures determined in the Forest Act when replacing tree-farm licences, and perhaps you know that the Act does not provide for public hearings when an existing tree-farm licence is replaced."

Did everyone hear that clearly? "The Act does not provide for public hearings when a treefarm licence is replaced."

I recall the debate on the new Forest Act. I recall questioning the minister. In the June 29, 1978, Hansard I asked the Chairman with respect to subsection 27(10):

"This section does not apply to a treefarm licence entered into under section 29, which is the public hearing aspect of it. "

And the minister replied as follows:

"Mr. Chairman, I realize that there have been a number of individuals and interest groups lobbying for public hearings on the roll-over of tree-farm licences. We cannot do it, for several reasons. The most important reason is that it is going to be administratively impossible, really, in the time-frame within which the TFLs are rolled over. I would rather that the decisions on roll-overs be made on the basis of what is really best for the industry and not through perhaps heated public debates. We are, however, requiring that advertisements of the facts of roll-over be published, and anybody who wishes to raise an objection or have input into the roll-overs is more than free to do so. I don't think anything in the Act precludes us from having public hearings if we feel it is necessary."

That was the minister's answer.

What happened to the cabinet anyway? Are they afraid that their words are going to come back to haunt them? There's one cabinet minister in the House right now. I say that is absolutely shocking. The small minister of big business is sitting in his place, and he's the only one here. Some throne speech!

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: What about us guys over here?

MR. KING: You can't get in the cabinet; you

[ Page 132 ]

didn't join the Liberal Party first. You have no hope.

I want to draw your attention to these two statements by the minister. On the one hand, he responds to the lady asking for the public hearing by saying: "Perhaps you know that the Act does not provide for public hearings when an an existing tree-farm licence is replaced." InHansard, in response to a question from the opposition, he said: "I don't think anything in the Act precludes us from having public hearings if we feel it necessary." Those two statements are obviously in conflict.

I have a question for the minister. I want to ask when he was telling the truth. Was he telling the truth when he responded to this lady, or was he telling the truth in the House? Obviously, he wasn't telling the truth on both occasions. I'm mystified as to which statement is accurate, because they are diametrically opposed. This is the man who is charged with the custody of the forest industry in British Columbia.

They haven't done very much for small business. They may brag about everything going great. I don't know who they are talking to. Perhaps they are talking to themselves and perhaps drinking their own bath water, as politicians.

I read Beale's Letter. It's an industry newsletter which reports on the health of the forest industry. I'm not getting the same impression from Beale's Letter that I'm getting from the cabinet. Their letter of March 31,1978, just a year ago, had some of these observations by the editor:

"We asked forest managers — and replies come from every sector — how they feel about: (1) the Bennett government; (2) Forest minister Waterland; (3) the B.C. Forest Service. Some replies."

Here's a sampling:

"For the first time in 24 years I will vote against the Socreds in the next election, and I'll vote against Waterland. We are a small company and unimportant to the Forest Service. Anyway, I don't expect to be around. We'll be closed for lack of raw material. Is that helping small business? The Bennett government has shown itself to be an anti-integrated company. They've perpetuated discriminatory minimum stumpage on the coast."

Another respondent says:

"Government's intent is to correct, but drastic cuts in public spending are required. Waterland has no record of accomplishment. Forest Service must realize that the present stumpage formula is punitive."

The next respondent says:

"I'm disappointed in the Bennett government. Due to their reluctance to display leadership in the public and in the economy, they are puppets of the corporations."

This is what people in the business sector are saying. Another one says:

"I'm apprehensive about the Bennett administration. After two years of inaction respecting our industry, they are unaware of the problems."

And on and on it goes. That was last year. There was concern and it was expressed in the industry newsletter.

I've been in touch with a mill at Enderby — I think the member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) has too. The manager is Bob Mee; the mill is the company of Morrill and Sturgeon. They've had some financial problems, but they managed to keep working. They had a workforce of 55 people. But they've had to close down because of lack of supply. They could not obtain through the Ministry of Forests a firm supply of fibre. So they've closed down, losing 55 jobs in the riding of the member for Shuswap. Now he seems to be trying to justify it from a position in the Legislature which he does not occupy and probably never will.

Mr. Speaker, that's just one of them. In the Premier's own riding we have the reports on the layoffs at Gorman's mill, a long-range possibility. This is January 23, 1979:

"'Employee layoffs due to a timber shortage is a long-range possibility but not an immediate one,' says John Gorman, president of Gorman Brothers Lumber and Box Ltd. at Westbank. Mr. Gorman told the Westbank and district chamber of commerce Thursday that layoffs could result unless his company gets a more secure timber supply allocated to it by the provincial government."

Another report tells how the takeover of a firm, Northwoods Co., in the Interior of British Columbia by a major multinational corporation threatens the independent mills in the Okanagan and the interior part of the province. Concern is expressed over the closure of many mills such as the one at Enderby, the one at Westbank and another one in the Grand Forks area.

All of these things indicate to me that the government's bragging about how well they have the economy moving may be fine in terms of rhetoric to convince themselves, but it seems to be doing little to keep the economy going and to protect jobs. Mills are closing, businesses are folding up but the government keeps telling themselves: "Don't worry. Things

[ Page 133 ]

are better now than they were last year." I say that is pretty shoddy stewardship, Mr. Speaker, and nothing to be proud of at all. No wonder there is disappointment expressed in industry newsletters. No wonder the strident cries for help in many of these small mills are coming to the opposition.

I think the most significant one and the most poignant statement made by any of the small entrepreneurs is contained in a submission which the Minister of Forests received from Sultana Corp. It's a cedar products mill at Yahk in the East Kootenay. They've submitted a major brief along with maps and documentation to show that while at least eight small mills in the East Kootenay are faced with closure or cutback because they cannot obtain a supply of timber, much timber is being cut and burned on a Hydro, slash line, many of the larger licence holders are not cutting their annual allowable cut, and that timber should be reallocated. They've done an excellent job of documenting their allegations.

Let me read you the paragraph with which they conclude their dissertation. This is a group of people representing the Kootenay Secondary Mills Association. This is what they say:

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

What a terrible indictment of this government's performance! And they have the gall to suggest to this House that they have the economy moving. Well, I suppose they do but it is moving the wrong way, Mr. Speaker. It's a terrible indictment and I have not heard the Minister of Forests or the Minister of Small Business (Hon. Mr. Veitch) give any response to this kind of plea that is coming in from all over the province from small entrepreneurs.

The only thing they do, Mr. Speaker, is set up a Ministry of Deregulation. It sounds like a laxative. But in terms of cutting the red tape and providing programs to help people, there's nothing positive whatsoever, not a thing. Their main thrust, despite this sorry record; despite the fact that while firms are closing down because they are not capitalizing on federal dollars; despite the fact that the forest industry is lagging behind in terms of regeneration because they are not capitalizing on federal dollars; despite the fact that this Minister of Forests has shown no sensitivity to or understanding of the needs of small independent people in the forest sector is to come in with a throne speech which talks about how great they are and says they're going to bring in some rights for individuals.

I want to tell them, Mr. Speaker, that would be a lot more meaningful if they would create some employment for individuals in this province. If people are economically secure, they are much stronger in terms of protecting their own interests. That should be the first priority of this government. We warned them three years ago, Mr. Speaker, when they doubled ferry rates, when they doubled and tripled car insurance rates, when they jacked up the price of home heating fuels, Hydro, rates and so on, that they were taking more out of the economy than the economy could stand and that it would slow down and stagnate, and that's precisely what has happened.

Now they come in with pathetic little offerings, hoping that the public will be so forgetful that they will now reach out thankful hands to this government for the small blessings that they receive and return them to office in the next election. I say that's a cynical approach and they should be ashamed.

They offer nothing positive in the throne speech. As I said earlier, they seem to have a new strategy, and I think it's a political strategy, rather than anything else, and that is to attack the Leader of the Opposition for offering positive programs in this House. Perhaps they feel that if they vilify our leader enough it will take the focus of attention off this government's responsibility to govern and to offer programs to get the economy moving, to create jobs. Perhaps they feel that it's a good political strategy to try to tear down the one political leader in this province who is offering positive and exciting solutions and programs for the economy of B.C. Perhaps they think it's neat to try and sidestep their responsibility.

Interjection.

MR. KING: It's quite true, my friend. I want to say that I'm very proud of our leader and the job that he has done in terms of promoting British Columbia. He has many people in this province interested — not just politicians on all sides of the House, but people from industry as well, people who are more interested in getting the economy of B.C. going than playing partisan politics. He has a sensitivity and a humanity; he feels and understands for all those 112,000 unemployed workers out there; and he feels that it's incumbent upon him, and upon our party, to try to not only criticize this government in terms of their short-

[ Page 134 ]

comings, but to offer positive programs too. I think that all of British Columbia will thank him for that. He has worked for the betterment of all British Columbians, and I think the people will, in fact, remember that when this government musters the courage to go to the polls once again.

MR. KEMPF: They remembered in 1975.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and many of the cabinet ministers spend hours in this House condemning the NDP. I suppose that's all right, if they can't stand the heat of focusing in on their responsibility to govern. You're the ones who are introducing policy; you have that mandate.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the NDP made some mistakes. But we brought in a lot of wonderful programs too. But I want to tell you that our government never had to go to court to gain a court ruling proving that we didn't torture insects. This is the first government in the history of Canada that ever had to go to court to get a ruling demonstrating that they don't pull the wings off flies. A sad commentary. The only question left to be litigated with respect to this government's performance is the kind of torture that they've inflicted upon hundreds of thousands of people in British Columbia, and that decision will be in with the next election. It's a charade and it's a bit of an irony that they bring in a throne speech talking about people programs, but totally ignoring the need to get the economy moving again and put people to work and return investment confidence.

They zero in, these people of all people, on human rights and protecting individual rights. When a minister of the Crown, the former Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), goes around this province singing songs casting slurs and aspersions on racial minorities in this country, I think that's scandalous. I think it takes a particular kind of brass and gall for a government of that ilk — when the First Minister never repudiated the statement, never demanded a retraction, never sanctioned or censured that minister — to come in with a throne speech presuming to be the defender of civil rights and human rights in British Columbia. What a sham! If he believes in the issues which are contained in the throne speech, then he should have risen to the occasion, when his minister offended decency and offended minority groups, and publicly demanded an apology from that minister or removed him from the cabinet. It's a terrible performance.

I hope that other ministers, as we go on in this debate, will tell us something of plans in their own ministries — for bringing some positive programs to British Columbia, for getting down to the bread and butter issues, for dealing with the people that can't afford ever-escalating baskets of groceries in this province.

It's fine for the fat cats and millionaires to talk about civil liberties and all that but there are 112,000 suffering unemployed out there that don't need that kind of shrift from this government. They need something positive and they need jobs, Mr. Speaker.

MR. STRONGMAN: I rise in my place to add support to last Thursday's Speech from the Throne. It was a wide-sweeping speech, one that covered many facets of our society, and will have an effect on almost every man, woman and child in British Columbia.

I'd like to preface my remarks today by recognizing the passing of the former Premier of our province, the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett. He was a man of vision, a man of the twentieth century, and far ahead of his time in his thinking and his actions. He shaped the province through the immense growth of the fifties and sixties. While not everyone in this room could agree with him politically, we'd do well to emulate his total commitment to British Columbia. In summation, he was a man of tremendous capacity and accomplishment — a man who will be sorely missed. Life must go on, but we are forever richer for his presence, and forever in his debt.

Last Thursday was my fourth Speech from the Throne as a member of this House. And as in each previous speech, it reinforced my belief and commitment to a free enterprise system and to a Social Credit government in British Columbia.

The keynote of the speech is summed up on page 2. It really restates the Social Credit philosophy and the things that we are striving for as a government and as a political party in this province. I quote:

"A basic principle which my government will place before this Legislature involves the rights which the individual ownership of the business and industry in British Columbia can give our people. Members of this assembly will be asked to confirm through legislation this principle, that this principle endures under the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation. For some time now, my government has been expressing concern that the ownership and management of the rich resource potential of this nation has been falling into fewer and fewer hands. My

[ Page 135 ]

government believes that there are many who have talked about the ownership of our resource corporation falling into fewer and fewer hands, but have done little or nothing about it.

"Recognizing that there are those who'd resolve this problem through government ownership, my government affirms that secondhand ownership does not permit individuals to have any of the options, privileges and responsibilities which individual ownership gives."

That's the NDP solution. Big government ownership of all resources. Take them out of the hands of the people of the province and put them into the hands of the few who seek power in this province.

"My government believes that the ultimate freedom and security of Canadians rests on the rights and responsibility of individuals to guide their own destiny. The right of individual ownership should never be surrendered to government."

I stand for that. The people of my party stand for it. I think most thinking people in British Columbia would agree. Every B.C. resident will become an owner of our valuable resources in the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation. Individuals will be allowed to own only up to 1 percent. A few societies will be allowed to own up to 3 percent, namely those holding pension funds. One of the outstanding attributes of the plan, in my mind, is that it gives every person in this province a better understanding of the free market system. That's the system that built this country. It's the one that I support. It's the one most people in this province support.

The capitalistic system may be far from perfect. Compared to the socialist system espoused by — and I use the words of the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) — this rag-tag bunch of socialists sitting over here who are in favour of big government, big unions and, through big government, big business, a capitalistic free enterprise individualistic system that we favour sparkles like a diamond in a field of wet socialist clay.

We have proved through actions as government over the last three years that this Social Credit government is against big government, against big unions, and against big business. What we are for is the right of the individual in all aspects of life. That will be enshrined in a bill of rights guaranteeing fundamental freedoms to all our citizens. That is a bill I'm sure everyone in this House will support.

Throughout the Speech from the Throne there are many suggestions that will affect the family, that will put in tune many of the existing bills and existing legislation with the Family Relations Act that we passed last session. We're also going to repeal obsolete statutes by putting legislation forward that will be an Obsolete Statutes Act.

In 1975 we inherited as government an insurance company, ICBC, a classic case of mismanagement, a case study in government interference, ineptness and gross stupidity. In less than 18 months of operation, it lost over $150 million and in a very conservative estimate — if they had remained in government — the NDP government would have lost another $150 million in the second year of operation. Your Social Credit government has turned the corporation around — we no longer have a loss but a very slight profit from a well-run company serving all B.C. citizens.

Now the final basic flaw has been cleared away in the Speech from the Throne. I think it bears repeating, so I will read the upper half of page 3, paragraph 4, into Hansard:

"To ensure that the auto insurance industry in this province cannot discriminate with respect to rates on the basis of age, sex, marital status or geographic location, this Legislature will be asked to consider rights for the motoring public of British Columbia. My government believes that youth should carry no penalty, and that all drivers in British Columbia should have their individual rights protected by applying the principle that good drivers should not be penalized because of age, sex, marital status or geographic location."

From now on, drivers will pay premiums based on their driving skill, not their age, arbitrary geographical location, sex or marital status. The ones who will be affected the most greatly by this change will be those teenagers and young people who are responsible drivers and who do not have accidents. They'll be paying the same rates as you and me.

I'm pleased to see our government showing confidence in the youth of our province. They're the next leaders and I think with the new philosophy at ICBC we've given them some respect. At a time in their life when money is a very difficult problem, they'll be able to afford insurance. I hope they will show the responsibility we believe they have.

In keeping with our commitment to the individual's basic rights, an ombudsman will be appointed this year. It has taken a long time to select a candidate, but I am sure we will have his name before us in the very near future.

This year, as you well know, is the Year of

[ Page 136 ]

the Child. I continue to quote from page 3 of the throne speech:

"'The Year of the Child and the Family' in British Columbia. My government will announce new programs for children and families to be introduced by my social service ministries of Health; Education, Science and Technology; Human Resources; and Attorney-General. My Minister of Human Resources will greatly expand services to handicapped children. The family services aspect of that ministry will also be strengthened."

I think this is one of the most important things we can do in our society. We're very successful, we have great amounts of money, and yet some people still seem to be disfranchised, not always having the same opportunities that most of us have enjoyed.

We have improved educational opportunities and better job training. We're going to double the number of scholarships in grade 12, so that those academic students can move on to post-secondary education.

We have new programs for gifted children; new programs for those children with learning disabilities; and a method to recognize their problems early enough for them to move on into adult life, trained and able to contribute to our society.

Sports scholarships. These, in my mind, should be tied not only to a man or woman's capability in athletic endeavours, but to their capabilities in the academic sense.

One of the things that our Minister of Education accomplished during his three years in that office was to change the direction of post-secondary education. We now have regional colleges, industrial arts schools and technical colleges. No longer are we moving children from the secondary school level through to a university training, preparing them for jobs that don't exist. We're finally training people in disciplines that provide jobs.

During the Speech from the Throne, I was pleased to see a government commitment to a multiculturalism policy. As we well know, this province and this country are made up of every ethnic group. The fabric of Canada — the strength of Canada — is made up of these people and yet, for the last seven or eight years, we have had a biculturalism policy foisted on us by a federal government. It is about time that people in Canada started to realize that this is a multicultural society, not a bicultural society. I would hope that if there is a change in our federal government, the new government will see multiculturism as one of the strengths of our country and no longer try to foist a philosophy on people who really don't believe in it.

In my mind one of the shining aspects of the Speech from the Throne is the commitment of our government to place denticare in the hands of every person in British Columbia. I support that concept. I believe that dental care should be available to everyone. There I s no question of its worth, and I'm sure each member will support whatever legislation is put forward by our government.

However, I do have some concerns. I'm afraid of the cost, because I believe that the cost could be astronomical, especially if dental care is to be free to everyone. It's my firm belief that nothing is for free; somewhere, some way, people have to pay for it. I believe that there must be a cost attached to every benefit that people get, because as soon as cost is taken out of the benefit, people lose sight of its real worth. I think this can be explained and illustrated with our present medicare system. Doctors and hospitals are now virtually free to us. I venture to say there are very few people in this province that know what a doctor charges when they visit his office. I would say there are very few people in this province who know what is paid to the hospital for one day while you're there. Once something is for free it ceases to have any value. Doctors now in our medical system spend much of their time treating ailments that a few years ago would have been treated in the home. Now 30 or 40 percent of the time is wasted on ailments that should be looked after by the individual himself. We must not let that happen to dental care. I suggest that we have a program of dental care similar to our Pharmacare plan, deductible on a family basis.

A second concern: if we go into a provincewide dental care plan is it going to be a government-administered plan, and funded by the government? I hope not. There are many private firms in the market right now. They're selling and carrying dental coverage. They should be allowed to stay, and they should be allowed to expand. I would hope that we will get a commitment from the minister early on in the debate, after the budget speech, that private insurance companies will be allowed to stay in the dental care field. I'm sure that dental care will come to us at a lower price. Certainly any time a government takes over that type of insurance policy, the costs skyrocket.

One of the items that I did miss in the throne speech, and one that I had hoped would be reinforced — although I know that it's something that's not going to happen overnight — is a continuing government commitment for negative income tax or guaranteed annual wage.

[ Page 137 ]

I happen to be a supporter of this concept. I believe most people in the House are. Yet it seems that without federal support or provincial support elsewhere, it's a pie-in-the-sky dream that we won't see. I believe the only way it will happen is if governments — our government, other provincial governments and the federal government — begin studies to see if it can't be used in this country. Negative income tax to me, guaranteed annual wage, is one of the most important things that we can do for people as we move into the twentieth century.

On the economic level in the Speech from the Throne it was interesting to me to note that we had created, since we became government, 98,000 new jobs. We're going to be giving low--interest loans for small business under the new Ministry of Tourism and Small Business Development. Finally, we're going to consolidate all economic programs under one umbrella — again, the Ministry of Small Business Development. As a businessman myself in private life, one of the most difficult things that I could ever imagine was to try to determine what programs may or may not be available to me, to help build my business. Most often, I gave up. I think that I'm indicative of other businessmen in the community. By the time you find out there is a program available, it's too late to use it; the business has passed you by. Under the Ministry of Small Business Development I'm sure the minister will have that cleared up as quickly as possible. I happen to think it's a priority.

I was pleased to see that the government has a continuing commitment for a trade and convention centre in Vancouver. I note with pleasure that BCDC gave $4 million in loans last year and created 1,200 jobs. An example: the Duke Point project in Nanaimo will create another 1,100 jobs.

The Economic Development ministry in trade missions in 1978 created $45 million in sales and 1,500 resulting jobs. It goes on and on.

I quote from page 7 of the throne speech:

"My Ministry of Environment will also open up new opportunities for business initiatives designed to improve the recovery of materials from waste."

As a few of you will remember, I have spoken on a number of occasions on the need for an industrial liquid waste disposal system in the lower mainland. All of us are aware of the great tragedy we experienced in Delta, where liquid wastes were allowed to sit in a yard and eventually leach out into the surrounding area. To me, Delta, and that particular situation in Delta, is merely the tip of an iceberg, an iceberg that is going to turn over on us and really cause a great deal of difficulty. All we need is some government help. I'm pleased to see it outlined in the Speech from the Throne. If we could have that type of support, industries would move into this market. They would have their consciences clear, because most people who are dealing with industrial liquid wastes are disposing of them in an incorrect manner.

If we are to develop secondary industry in isolated areas like British Columbia, the government must also support us in other ways. I think it is interesting to note some of the statistics that were given in this speech, that, from 1961 to 1971, 51 percent of the jobs created in the private sector came from small business and, from 1971 to 1978, 67 percent of the jobs created have come from the small business sector, the private sector.

If we're going to develop that type of industry, we have to give it support. One of the major problems facing small businessmen in British Columbia is that we have the skills, we have the raw materials, we have the people, but we are in an isolated market. We have to ship products long distances. To me, the government has to start looking at our transportation costs, fuel costs in getting the product to market, truck loading rates for moving the product into other parts of Canada, and tax incentives on out-of-province shipments. As I said earlier, we have the skills and expertise, but an isolated market has economic factors that must be dealt with. I would hope that the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry of Small Business Development will address themselves to them.

B.C.'s economy is healthy. The government's role is to remove red tape, give expertise and advice to small entrepreneurs and economic support to struggling business. All these have been recognized in the throne speech and I am proud to support it.

Finally, I cannot sit down before making some comment on the remarks of the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) as he addressed the House yesterday afternoon. I have been a Tory supporter, a supporter of the Progressive Conservative Party all my adult life. I happen to be a Socred provincially, a Progressive Conservative federally.

Yesterday the provincial leader of that great party gave an address to this House that, to me, drove the last nail into the coffin that was once the provincial Progressive Conservative Party. His evaluation of BCRIC shares would boggle the mind of even the most astute economist. We have heard stockbrokers interviewed time after time on television and they say, to a man, that the net worth of one

[ Page 138 ]

of these shares is approximately $12. The B.C. Resources Investment Corporation is going to sell them to the people of British Columbia for $6. The Progressive Conservative leader tells us that's a bad deal. Because we're selling them for $6, that's all they're worth. To me that is just gross stupidity.

To be as simplistic as I possibly can and not insult the intelligence of most members of this House...but, for the benefit of the member for Oak Bay, I will be simplistic. I have a seven-year-old child. Suppose I had 12 pennies in my band and said to her: "Will you get me six? I'll trade you." What would her reaction be? Well, I can tell you, she wouldn't say a word. She would go to her piggybank and get the six pennies and I would give her the 12 and I would have a deal and she would have one. For some reason, if you move the decimal points over a few figures, the member for Oak Bay can't figure out the arithmetic. We have a fantastic proposition for the people of British Columbia. It's revolutionary. For the life of me, I can't understand why the member for Oak Bay can't understand two-digit arithmetic. Work it out. It's $12 in assets for $6 in cash — a good deal.

Later in his address yesterday he said:

"You're on your way out. Mr. Speaker, they're going. They're going. They're going down.

"This government was put together for one reason and one reason only. That was to defeat this ragtag bunch on my right.

"They ran around saying: 'You'd better vote for us because if you don't, you're going to get those other terrible people.'

"You're going to be saying the same thing for your tactic. You're going to be screaming and hollering: Don't vote for the Conservatives. It splits the vote. In 1972, if you think the vote was split, if that scared you, then you'd better tremble and crawl under your bed. This time we're going to tear it apart."

You're right, Mr. Member for Oak Bay, that does frighten me. To me, there would be nothing more disastrous than a fragmentation of the right-of-centre vote in this province. You wish to tear us apart. I hope you take that address, that message to every person in this province so that they can recognize you for what you are. You wish to feed your ego, and there's nothing more disastrous than a leader with an ego far greater than his intellect and his ability to reason. If you do succeed, your ego will be satisfied and we will have, in your words, "this ragtag bunch of socialists" as our government.

Interjection.

MR. STRONGMAN: I hope you do take that message to the people. I hope you take it out every day of the year. I know it will make you a defeated candidate in the next election. You will destroy the free enterprise system just to feed your ego. A vote for you, in my mind, is a vote for them — this rag-tag bunch of socialists. Even the federal Progressive Conservative Party have turned their backs on you. Sinclair Stevens, the national leader, ignores you. The federal PC MPs have disowned you. Provincial PC MPs write their constituents, disowning you. To me, you are an embarrassment, and a laughing stock to most of the Tories in this province. An enigma.

Take that message to the people: "I will be a super-hero. I'll destroy them. Vote for me. You will get the rag-tag bunch of socialists for government. I will have succeeded in destroying free enterprise. Vote for me."

"Who's 'me'?"

"Vic, that's who."

"Vic who?"

MR. HADDAD: I will take this opportunity to welcome back all the hon. members to this fourth session of the thirty-first parliament, and again urge them to be on their best behaviour and uphold the dignity of this House. So far that dignity has prevailed. Everybody has been on their best behaviour. I think we will get along well.

I was very impressed with our new Lieutenant-Governor, the Hon. Henry P. Bell-Irving, and his very capable delivery of the throne speech. I wish him many years as the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia. Good health to him and Mrs. Bell-Irving.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I am again very proud and honoured to be a member of this Legislative Assembly, and to be representing the people of the constituency of Kootenay. It is with pride that I stand here and support the complete program outlined in the throne speech by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

The first, second and third sessions of this thirty-first parliament have been highly productive for the people of British Columbia. This, our fourth session, promises to be the icing on the cake in benefits and progress to a better life for the people of British Columbia.

I would like to speak about the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation that our Premier, Bill Bennett, and his government

[ Page 139 ]

have established — a corporation that will be the pride of every citizen for all time to come. Our children will grow up owning a piece of this great province and its development. However, I was watching on television the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) answering questions posed to him by the news media regarding BCRIC. The hon. second member for Vancouver East stated that it was illegal for a member of the Legislative Assembly to take a gratuity from the government. In reading the prospectus I find that no one can buy BCRIC shares unless they qualify for the free ones. If this statement is correct it should be rectified.

I must add that this is quite true. I have listened to many of the speakers accusing the second member for Vancouver East of not being correct in most things. I have to admit right now that he is correct in this. It has to be rectified because I, for one, plan on putting my entire life savings into BCRIC.

I understand that if Joe Clark is elected as the next Prime Minister of Canada he intends to give everyone a piece of the rock. He has stated that Premier Bennett's gift of shares to the people of British Columbia is highly innovative and he is to be congratulated on this progressive move. That's what Joe Clark said.

Individual ownership of the resources of our province will help make every man, woman and child proud to know that they hold in their hands their own little piece of our great province. Premier Bennett has made history and will be long remembered by the people who take the time to understand his motives for giving the five shares in BGRIC to every eligible resident of British Columbia.

A British Columbia bill of rights will be gratefully acceptable to our people and to our lawyers and judges and by the total judiciary system. If my memory serves me right, the Rt. Hon. John Diefenbaker gave to the people of Canada the Canadian Bill of Rights when he was Prime Minister. It is very fitting, then, that British Columbians should have their own bill of rights set down for them. This is another first by this democratic, free-enterprise Social Credit government.

Further, our Attorney-General is adding to our rights with the introduction of a fair compensation statute that will ensure proper compensation to all people and businesses that are undergoing expropriation by public or private enterprises and agencies.

Climaxing this excellent legislation will be the introduction of the repeal of obsolete statutes, which will help provide more protection for individual rights. I say keep up the good work, Mr. Attorney-General; the people of our province will long remember these much needed improvements.

Rights for the motoring public of British Columbia are long overdue. I am sure that the application of the principle that good drivers should not be penalized because of age, sex, marital status or geographic location by the auto insurance industry in this province will help provide those rights. I hope I understand correctly that this legislation will apply to all insurance companies doing business in British Columbia. I sincerely hope that it isn't strictly for ICBC.

I would like to recommend that this government give consideration to changing the Act or regulations regarding driver infractions. I would recommend that infractions not be held against the automobile and vehicle licence, but rather that any penalties be charged against the driver. I would add further that I have had several complaints regarding this, and no doubt every hon. member in this house has, where you loan your car to someone who goes out and has an accident, and the charges then are all against your licence and your car, and you lose your right to the reduction in insurance, and the driver has got off scot-free.

It is gratifying to know that our Minister of Human Resources will greatly expand services to handicapped children and family services. I ask our Minister of Human Resources not to overlook our handicapped adults.

British Columbians are proud of the healthcare programs that have been put in operation by our Ministry of Health. The long-term care program and the universal Pharmacare program, introduced and implemented last year, have put our Ministry of Health ahead of all other provinces in Canada. Now we have legislation coming before us, a new comprehensive denticare program, to assist the people in our province who do not have any dental-care insurance. This will give them a measure of protection from the high costs associated with basic dental care. I say nice going, Mr. Minister of Health.

While speaking about this Minister of Health, I would like to compliment him on the wonderful work he did in my constituency — and, I am sure, throughout the province of British Columbia — in addressing and speaking to the high-school children and to the school children in all classes, asking them not to smoke cigarettes or pot, and giving them a good, sound bit of advice. It was really appreciated by my constituents, and I'm sure they will welcome him back at any time.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that our Minis-

[ Page 140 ]

ter of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) will be placing before us a simplified application process for the release of Crown land. I would like to suggest to the minister that when issuing the new application form he give all departmental personnel a short course in how to translate the application form into quick action. He will also place before us a home purchase assistance grant for first-time home buyers. The release of Crown land is urgently needed in my constituency, and I earnestly look forward to the minister's new legislation covering this.

I wish at this time to ask the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing to give his attention to a much-needed camper and trailer park at Tie Lake, near Jaffray, in my constituency. This park is at the south end of Tie Lake, and all that is required are outdoor toilets, garbage barrels and supervision from your park attendants. The road and parking stalls are already built and have been in existence for many years. The people in need of this park area are willing to pay a daily rate. Local people from Fernie and Cranbrook, and also tourists, have been denied the use of this campground, due to the lack of services that I have mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the youth job program. The youth job program last year was heavily over-committed. I have noted that the Ministries of Tourism and Small Business Development, Forests, Agriculture and Labour are going to jointly fund this program, a much-needed expansion. Increased funding is required, and I sincerely hope this is intended for this year. Our students are in need of this work to assist them with their educational. expenses.

Mr. Speaker, our Minister of Education, Science and Technology (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is to be commended for improving educational opportunities for our students, for the improved job-training programs and the increased value of grade 12 scholarships. At this time I would like to extend the appreciation of my constituents, and myself, for the cooperation the minister gave us in the construction of new schools and the renovations and updating of some of our older schools. We are also looking forward to the day that a contract is let for the building of the new East Kootenay College in Cranbrook.

Mr. Speaker, Premier Bennett is to be congratulated for the establishment of the Ministry of Deregulation. I am sure that all ministers will be delighted to assist in removing conflicting and overlapping legislation from their ministries. When this job is complete it should make obsolete the game of ring-around-the-rosy, or a ride on the merry-go-round.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transportation, Communications and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has the appreciation of the people in the constituency of Kootenay, and myself, for our improved highways, new bridges and the soon-to-be-built new road to our airport. I read in the throne speech where the minister will be improving the ferry service, which, I am sure, will make everyone on Vancouver Island very happy. The increased jobs being generated throughout our province by this aggressive minister will soon reduce unemployment. It is gratifying to note that 98,000 new jobs have been created in the workforce since 1975. At that time it was stated that we have approximately 100,000 people out of work. It is obvious that if we have 112,000 people out of work today, then we have had an increase in population, and I can only assume that the majority of these people came from other provinces in Canada to enjoy the good life in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) has done an outstanding job in encouraging development in the private sector and is to be commended on his success in negotiating over $300 million in federal-provincial agreements for economic development. The minister was successful in negotiating another $50 million for the travel industry development agreement, a first of its type in Canada. This will surely generate private sector investment.

This Ministry of Economic Development will pursue further federal funding which will generate more and more jobs in British Columbia. I can't understand the hon. members of the opposition making statement after statement that this government has done nothing in the way of job creation. Mr. Speaker, trade missions mounted by the Ministry of Economic Development during 1978 have resulted in firm additional export sales of $45 million, or the equivalent of 1,500 new jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Environment has offered new opportunities for business with initiatives designed to improve the recovery of materials from waste. In my constituency of Kootenay we have a small group of businessmen who are starting a wood-preserving business that will utilize most of the waste in our wood and sawmill operations. I had some of the principals of this new enterprise come to Victoria to discuss their plans with the Ministers of Forests and Economic Development. This new venture will employ 25 to 30 people; these are new jobs. I stress this particular point because it is a fact that over 70 percent of all new jobs created are created by small

[ Page 141 ]

businesses employing less than 25 people.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on telling you about the accomplishments of other ministers and their ministries and the excellent contributions they are making for British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go ahead.

MR. HADDAD: I haven't got time.

I would like to close my reply to the throne speech by saying to Premier Bennett: Mr. Premier, you and your government are doing an excellent job and you are to be commended for getting British Columbia moving again and on the way to being the number one leading province in all of Canada.

MR NICOLSON: It's a pleasure to follow the member for Kootenay. It seems to be Kootenay Day here today in the Legislature. I enjoyed the way in which the member delivered his speech. I don't know if I agreed with everything that was said, although I certainly did agree with some of the points that he made, particularly about the insuring of cars as opposed to the insuring of individuals. I hope that there are some changes along that line.

Mr. Speaker, I think one of the things that distresses me as we start this fourth session of the Legislative Assembly is that the government's performance with this very strong mandate has been perhaps not unplanned, but the basis for the planning. has been one of political motivation toward a political goal rather than toward a goal which would simply mean good government and fulfilling the wishes and the ambitions of the very capable and the very deserving people of the province of British Columbia.

I say this because the pattern of this government has been to cancel, disrupt, delay almost everything that was in progress. And I'll mention one or two things. It was the Minister of Deregulation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) who tried to paint a picture that the North Island Highway was built under this government. It's rather interesting. That was first promised, I understand, in this Legislature to the people of North Island back in 1956 by the then Minister of Highways, P.A. Gaglardi, if only they would elect Dan Campbell.

They elected Dan Campbell, and what happened? P.A. Gaglardi amplified his remarks after the election. He said: "Well, it's a ten-year program." In all fairness, it took a little bit more than ten years to even get started. The government, I guess, was probably under Wesley Black by that time. It did get started in 1971.

The government went on, a new government went on and continued the building of that highway. It was this government that cancelled and caused a particular program — I believe it was the carrot program — to be dreamed up by the people of North Island. They bad to do that in order to force this government to complete the last two contracts of that highway program. That's the truth of the matter. They wanted to delay. They didn't like that pressure. It was not in keeping with their very careful political plan to cancel all activity in 1976, cancel it through 1977, and then start to move things towards completion in 1976 in the hopes of a 1979 target for an election year.

That's what they did also with the highway in Nelson-Creston and Rossland-Trail. I believe the member who just spoke was the mayor of Cranbrook. He was present at the opening way back, I believe about 1961 or 1962, of the Kootenay Skyway. At that time it was promised they would complete the other link from Salmo over to Castlegar. That was promised years and years ago. I think the Socreds promised that in about 1962. Work started on that two weeks after an NDP government was elected. The major roadbed, the major construction was completed on that very important highway link that the government delayed and delayed. The official opening did not take place until last fall. Again, the government didn't want to give any credit to the previous administration. They wanted to create the impression that they, and they alone, had been involved in the building of that new and very valuable addition. They were willing to delay the opening of that for a good solid two years in order to fit their timing for election rather than good sound government and going ahead and finishing that project on schedule.

I've seen this delay in terms of intermediate-care homes. I've seen this delay in terms of housing for senior citizens. I've seen this tactic of delay and this type of timing. There are two excellent examples which I've already given to the minister. I'll give a few more.

I'm glad the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is here. I'd like to talk about another delay. Recently in Creston a meeting was held. The Provincial Secretary was invited to attend the meeting. He notified them that he was unable to attend. He sent his deputy minister, a Mr. Turner. This affects all the Kootenays, east and west. It affects the riding of the member who just spoke, and it concerns the government's complete lack of direction, complete lack of policy as to what they intend to do in terms of regional libraries. This was promised by the previous minister

[ Page 142 ]

responsible for libraries. I can't lay it all at the feet of the Provincial Secretary, this lack of direction, this lack of policy. But last year we were assured in estimates by the minister who is now Minister of Deregulation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) that we were going to have a very concise, very well-spelled-out library policy. This is the way that this is perceived today.

Here is an article by Helena White on the Creston Valley Advance, a person who not only is a columnist but has also been very much involved in the planning of a regional library system. Her article of March 19, following the visitation from that assistant deputy minister, is called "Death Of A Dream." She says that five years ago almost to the day a bunch of people got together to create a library system for the Kootenays. They came from all over because this was to be a system to serve the entire Kootenay area. There's no argument that they were on the right track. A system can offer more services to people economically. They were long accepted in other places. Now the people of the Kootenays say: "It's our turn."

The Kootenay Library System Society was formed. The provincial government encouraged the society, because formation of library systems was a priority in the province under any political party. So the people worked and worked. They came up with a plan of service and a budget to go with it. This Kootenay system would provide bookmobile service to rural areas. A mail service to even more isolated places would guarantee lots of books and materials in local libraries, and an information service. Crowded libraries would get larger quarters; there were all manner of goodies. The best part was that the provincial government would pick up a share of the tab. The entire operation would cost local taxpayers about 1.5 mills; it was a bargain. She asks: "So why didn't we have it?" She said: "Well, even bargains have to have a referendum."

Before this could happen there was a change in provincial government. It shouldn't have mattered. It had never happened before when it came to library support — not under the old Social Credit government — but this time it did. There was a freeze on government spending in 1976, the society was told. The systems in operation would be supported, but there was no support for a new system — no funding, no referendums. It was as simple as that. The society people weren't put off. In fact, indeed, they did continue. They found it very difficult to find out just what the financial situation was going to be. Library services were switched from Provincial Secretary to the Department of Recreation and Conservation, and now back again, which has been very confusing but has served the tactic of delay.

The society had a session with the Hon. Sam Bawlf with no results. Then the department came under the Provincial Secretary, Hugh Curtis. The society sent a brief to Curtis asking for some answers. Curtis promised to attend an annual meeting of the society in Creston last Saturday — this being dated March 19 — but he sent a substitute. He did not send a bearer of good ridings. The upshot of the whole thing is that there is not going to be a Kootenay library system in the foreseeable future. There will be a library support of one kind or an-other, but the system was, after all, just a dream. The dream involved an estimated 6,000 hours of volunteer work in preparation — a waste of time. Now the society will probably disband. They wanted to create a Kootenay library system for us. That is not going to happen.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that all hope is not yet lost. I would hope that the Provincial Secretary will be looking at this, and will be even at this late date enunciating a clear and distinct policy as to the support of library systems. We note that the Minister of Deregulation announced support and expenditure of some millions of dollars for library service here in Victoria, and I would applaud that, but it can't go on in an ad hoc sort of way, and government cannot put this off any longer unless this is to be a government simply for the metropolitan areas, and if it's to ignore people who live in rural areas and small Interior communities.

I'd like to return to the theme of the ad hockery of this government. I guess for the fourth time and, of course, before the election as well, in 1975, we heard the government promise to get on with the job of providing Crown land to people at affordable prices. After 3 1/2 years of this government they're still promising it, and it's rather indicative of the lack of real sound planning of this government, the manner in which this thing was announced in the first place.

First of all the Premier flew a little bit of a kite and then the minister responsible announced that they were going to make 64 million acres of Crown land available in three- to five-acre lots for people who wanted housing.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's a lie.

MR. NICOLSON: That's what the minister said. It was only after some people pointed out....

[ Page 143 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I don't object, considering the source of that remark.

[Deputy Speaker rises.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. I must ask the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing to withdraw his statement that it was a lie.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member for Nelson Creston attributed certain remarks to me which are certainly a falsehood. I wish he would withdraw the erroneous remarks he has attributed to me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. minister, you're well aware of the rules of this House. I must ask you to withdraw the words "that's a lie" without any comment on it. You may have an opportunity later in the debate to correct these matters, if you feel so inclined. Could we just have a withdrawal, please?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I withdraw.

[Deputy Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I would then just quote from the Times for February 6: "Lands Minister Jim Chabot had said Monday" — well, this is when he finally retracted this statement — "that the government would sell 64 million acres of land in three- to five-acre lots to B.C. families for residential, recreational and agricultural use."

Mr. Speaker, I also heard voice clips on radio and read several other things which indicated the total lack of thought that preceded that announcement. That area of land is 100,000 sections of land. A section 1s, for the minister who might not be familiar with the dimensions of land, one mile by one mile by one mile — one square mile.

MR. KAHL: How many acres?

MR. NICOLSON: That's 640 acres.

Mr. Speaker, this was an astounding statement. The magnitude of the ignorance encompassed in that statement was absolutely earth shattering. One hundred thousand sections of land is approximately an area of land which would have stretched from the U.S. border up to Kamloops and from Alberta over into the Pacific Ocean. That's about the size, the rough order of magnitude — and I'm pretty sure of that too.

Who could possibly have thought of such a thing and announced it? What Crown minister could have announced such a thing if it had been part of a well-thought-out, well-planned announcement? It could only have been announced if it were a bit of pure political desperation, having receiving the latest Goldfarb poll, and been prompted and forced upon the minister. So we'll welcome the progress of this promise. We will look with very great anticipation.

Then we see that the minister says that that was, of course, a little bit of a mistake. If we were to have distributed that amount in five-acre lots, it would have required increasing the population of British Columbia by 40 million or 50 million people.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: The minister says he didn't say that. That again is a quotation from the Times for February 6. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how inaccurate the papers can be when it comes to quoting this minister.

Well, the main point and a very serious aspect of this is that when this announcement was made, it immediately brought concern to the forest industry, fish and wildlife groups and the agricultural industry, because they realized that much of this Crown land is very important for grazing, very important for the computation of annual allowable cuts, very important for the wildlife ungulate habitat and very important for many other things. What is demonstrated by that statement is that insufficient planning preceded that statement. That statement was made ad hoc; it was made off the cuff, and even today the minister has to do a lot of ice skating to talk about how he is going to deal with this. On the one hand he expects there won't be too much demand; on the other hand he says that there might have to be a lottery system. So, Mr. Speaker, we will watch this with great interest.

I hope that some Crown lands can be made available to people to bring about reasonably priced housing, but I hope that it is done in a well-planned way and that it is not done at the expense of other industries, other livelihoods and other resource values in this province.

I'm glad that the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is in the House, as he usually is; his attendance record is very good. I would like to bring up the matter of a statement the minister made concerning the risk of avalanches, and particularly this winter's very tragic record of fatalities in avalanches. Perhaps the minister would like to

[ Page 144 ]

dispute this quotation as well, which also comes from the Victoria Times, Tuesday, February 27:

"Parks minister Jim Chabot said Monday there is little he can do to take the risks out of helicopter skiing and he does not propose to put an end to it. Chabot said that, as with hang gliding, anybody who takes up helicopter skiing knows there are risks involved, and there is little he or his officials can do to remove these risks."

I would hope that the minister would reconsider those remarks. I don't propose that helicopter skiing be banned. It's something which I have enjoyed. But there does have to be something done. Coming from Invermere, as the minister does, he should be very well aware of this. Something must be done to upgrade the quality of guiding in the skiing industry.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's coming.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm glad to hear that from the minister — that it's coming. Well, then, there is something you can do, Mr. Minister.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I know of a tragedy which occurred two or three years ago in which a couple, experienced mountaineers, thought that for a change they would put themselves in the hands of an experienced guide. This was not a downhill skiing trip but a cross-country skiing trip. When you go with a group you have to do what the guide tells you. It would be absolute chaos if you disagreed with the guide and decided to go off on your own.

This couple was brought into the area by helicopter. The party of 10 or 20 people with a guide was dropped off. The guide, apparently exhausted, had just come from a previous trip. They were to go cross-country and stay overnight, I believe, at some site and rendezvous with the helicopter the next day. Some bad weather brewed up — I think there was fog along the ridge which they had intended to follow — so the guide decided to drop down from the ridge and traverse some slopes lower down.

The first indication of trouble was when two different avalanches came down. Instead of returning to the ridge, this guide made the decision to press ahead. As I recall, the third avalanche was the one that took some people down with it, including this person's wife. She could not be recovered in time. So they were delayed and had to carry on under this very tragic circumstance. Just to show the degree to which some of these things can be so slipshod, when they failed to arrive at the time of rendezvous with the helicopter, the helicopter returned to its base and did not even notify anyone of the failure to make the rendezvous.

I say that something can be done. It's obvious that people who are going to engage in this industry are subject to great pressures. When people come here from all over the world and the avalanche conditions are there and the person's holidays happen to conflict with very hazardous avalanche conditions, it's something that someone doesn't want to cancel. But surely there are things that can be done. I think it would not only protect the lives a people, but it could also be some measure of protection for the people in the guiding industry. There should be criteria set as to how many hours or days a guide can be out without having some time off to recuperate. In this particular instance, there was every indication that the guide made poor judgments, possibly due to fatigue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you quoting from Howard Johnston?

MR. NICOLSON: No, I'm not quoting Howard Johnston's speech. I would be pleased to give the minister the source of the information. I'm not intending to disclose who the people are, either, but I must say that they, live within the new extended boundaries of the minister's riding.

So this is an area that something could have been done about last year, and something can still be done. I certainly am glad to see that the minister has reconsidered his position on that particular matter.

Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) could have been here, and he usually is. Another example of the use of public relations by this government in the creating of image is borne out by the continued advertising of the BATmobile as part of the Counterattack program. My first speech in 1976 urged the minister to do something about the problem of impaired driving. I believe that I gave a report to the minister which was done by the justice council in the Nelson area, and one of the recommendations of that report was to have mobile breath analysis units in the field. I wouldn't fault the Attorney-General for the tremendous cost of putting BATmobiles in the field, but I will fault him for continuing to pretend that they are a deterrent when, in fact, none of the RCMP staff sergeants or corporals that I have

[ Page 145 ]

talked to would use them. None of the municipal police that I know want to use them, because it is a fact that they can be beaten in court, mostly on the grounds that you cannot create a stable temperature in these mobile breath analysis units. Also they have been beaten in some other cases because a phone was not available. The BATmobile, I'm very sad to say, at present sits out in that minister's riding. I've seen it in Osoyoos....

HON. MR. HEWITT: They're waiting for you.

MR. NICOLSON: I've talked with some of the RCMP in your riding, Mr. Minister. Please keep those cattle from running at large up at the Richter Pass.

But, Mr. Speaker, they won't use it. The RCMP informed me that if they have evidence that somebody has been driving impaired, they're going to bring them into the station; they're not going to use the BATmobile. The BATmobile, in their opinion, is a big waste of money. And I'm sure anybody in this Legislature who has talked with police officers on this matter knows this to be a fact, and it's just a pure con job when we continue to advertise the BATmobile as the big deterrent.

What we need in this problem, Mr. Speaker, is enforcement. Unfortunately we made the wrong decision, and it is time we admitted it. What we need is to take the money that is being spent on shuffling these BATmobiles around the province and put it into enforcement. Perhaps we could install that permanent equipment in some small detachment and sell those vehicles, put them up for public auction and get rid of them. But it is a con job, and anybody who's been familiar.... I am sure the lawyers in this House must know that with competent legal protection anybody can beat evidence which has been collected in a BATmobile, and the police certainly don't use them.

Mr. Speaker, certainly one of the greatest problems with which we're faced today is the problem of unemployment. It's interesting to see the figures that the government will try to hold onto in order to tell us that everything is all rosy. They always talk about gross provincial product in constant dollars, and they trot this figure out. I've seen it in budgets, but it's such a questionable figure that it's never even contained in the statistical supplement to the Review and Outlook of the British Columbia Ministry of Economic Development; they don't use it in there. There are a lot of good indicators, though, Mr. Speaker, one being the level of activity.

We can look in this book and we can see that the population growth in British Columbia since this government has come into power has sunk from where it used to average 3.2, 3.0, 2.4 percent per annum, down to 1.4, 1.2. And they're hoping for 1.5 percent growth, I think, this year, according to these statistics. People being attracted to British Columbia — because of lack of jobs — have shrunk to about one-half. That's one of the real statistics.

Mr. Speaker, in one area, in the construction industry, there's about 35 percent unemployment, and for carpenters, 37 percent un- employment. These are things that people can understand. You can talk to then all you want to about gross provincial product in constant dollars and what that might or might not have done. Yes, if Daon Development has a good year down in California and creates jobs in California, that will help the gross provincial product, because they're one of the reporting companies here in British Columbia. But they're not building houses here in British Columbia, and very few people are, Mr. Speaker.

If we want to compare a few Decembers, and if we want to look at the number of dwellings under construction — not housing starts for one month, which can vary, but the number of dwellings under construction at a given time — we look to December 1975 when there were 12,274 units under construction in the Vancouver and Victoria metropolitan areas combined, according to statistics from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the monthly statistics. In December 1976 — and of course in that activity one year flows into the next and the planning which went on in '75 would come to fruition in 176 — the level of activity was 13,446 dwelling units under construction. Today we have about 37 percent of carpenters un-employed, and today, to compare December of 1978, just a few months ago, the number of dwelling units under construction was less than half of the 1976 level — only 6,631. That would tend to indicate that in the homebuilding industry, an industry which incidentally is largely non-union.... So on the one hand we have the union hiring hall carpenters, 37 percent out them out of work, and then the rest, about 50 percent unemployment in those building trades — drywallers, painters, carpenters, those who depend on the housing industry — and down to 6,631 units under construction in the Victoria and Vancouver metropolitan areas.

Mr. Speaker, those are things that people can understand. For an average carpenter, about 45 years old, it used to be that when times were rough he might have to wait around a couple of months to get a second posting out

[ Page 146 ]

of the hiring hall. Today the turnaround time is eight months, and then if he goes out and gets a job it might only last a couple of days. That's something that people can understand. Let the Minister of Education go and tell one of those carpenters about how great the gross provincial product is in constant dollars. You go and tell a carpenter that.

Mr. Speaker, this government has no vision. This government is operating from day to day, from crisis to crisis, and the only planning that they have been doing is in terms of delaying activity, and then hoping to crank some things up around election time. Well, it's hurt too many people, Mr. Speaker. It's hurt too many people. There is one big issue out there today, and if people were so happy why would they be asking this question? The question that everyone asks me is: when is the next election? That's what they want to hear. When is the next provincial election? And for most people in this province that won't come soon enough.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm pleased to rise and speak in this debate. I want to congratulate the mover, of course, on the Speech from the Throne, and the seconder. They did a wonderful job.

I too will miss W.A.C. Bennett. He was a splendid person. He was never negative. He never had a negative bone in his body. He never lived a negative day, or had many negative thoughts.

I'd like to congratulate the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rogers) on his re-election again as the Chairman of this House. I'm sure he'll continue to do the exemplary job he's done in the past.

I've listened to opposition speaker after opposition speaker on the other side ply their art — the art of the negative. I think it's time we defined the difference between the two philosophies that we have here in the province of British Columbia. Here's the difference: it's a difference in philosophy. Social Credit, free and private enterprise is the art of the possible, sir. It's the principle of the positive. The converse, of course, is socialism as exemplified by the NDP. That is the gospel of the negative. They feed on the negative things of life. They feed on the afflictions of people. Rather than talk about how people can help themselves, they look to whatever negatives they can find in society and tend to expand on these things.

I want to tell you this was a great throne speech. It's one of the greatest throne speeches I've ever heard. I've been reading throne speeches, I guess, for over 20 years.This is the best that I have ever heard. It tells of positive plans, sir.

We can't blame the opposition. We can't blame the hon. members opposite. They don't understand the system, sir. How could they possibly understand? They never, ever understood the system even though they tried to work in it for three and a half years. They had their turn at the tap, sir. When they came to power they thought that out there somewhere there were limitless resources in the province of British Columbia where you didn't have to do anything to get results. All you had to do was come in here and vote for results. They didn't seem to understand. They didn't know that government money came from the sweat and toil of people involved largely in the private sector. It was the people's money. They didn't seem to understand that.

Do you remember mining? Do you remember how they looked at mining? They thought they could go and kill the goose that laid the golden egg. The modern-day Aesop. They almost did. The goose was almost terminally ill. They almost did it through taxation. I heard a speech the other day that was delivered by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) . He said one of his first priorities would be to make sure that goose would never recover.

Do you remember back then that government intervention in the marketplace was the rule? Let's examine how well they did with that sort of a philosophy. It took extreme skill and dexterity to take an economy, buoyant beyond belief in this province and this country, and run it into the dirt in just 3 1/2 years in power.

Let's look at the years from 1972 to December 1975. Here is what happens when a government of any kind sticks its long nose into business where it should not. Adjusted figures from Dun and Bradstreet from 1972 to 1973 had an 11.9 percent increase over the previous year. With great skill and great dexterity from 1973 to 1974 they had lowered that to 4.3 percent. From '74 to '75 they'd managed to put that in brackets and have a decrease of 1.3 percent.

They were great managers. They bought up loser after loser in the marketplace. They went around this province and bought up, to my last count, some 40 companies, of which only two made a slight profit. And all the time investors and people in this province lost confidence in the government of the day.

Do you remember tourism at that point in time, hon. members, Mr. Speaker? It was "Yankee, go home!" It was "Line up at the border and take your chances." Here's how important the Premier of that day thought tourism

[ Page 147 ]

was to the people of this province, and here's what he did. He took the minister that had almost killed the golden goose of mining and made him Minister of Tourism. Do you remember the time? He's the guy who, when they asked him, "Mr. Minister, what do you think about mining during your tenure?" said: "I sure turned it around." Interesting.

In late 1975 and early 1976 tourism went zap because it was "Yankee, go home." Negative, every one of them.

MR. LAUK: Always negative. You haven't said one positive thing in this House since I've come here.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Well, you haven't been here, my friend. So how would you know? You've been running around getting people life sentences for defending them on parking tickets.

Confidence has returned to this province, and I want to tell you how confidence returned. Confidence in tourism returned from zap in 1975-1976. Last year we had a 15 percent increase over the previous year to $1.552 billion in our economy. I'm looking forward to an even greater increase, compounded in the next year. They say that mining was $1.1995 billion in our economy. I tell you that tourism is going to be so close to that in 1979 that they had better watch out.

What about small business? Let's look at it. Let's look at extraprovincial registrations in the province of British Columbia. These are the criteria, Mr. Speaker, that expand upon confidence in this province. In this year, in 1972, Mr. Speaker, over the present year, there was a 12 percent increase in extraprovincial registrations in the province of British Columbia. In 1973, sir, there was a minus-11 percent decrease over the previous year. In 1978 we had a 44.3 percent increase over the previous year — confidence in the government of this province.

The degree of confidence, Mr. Speaker, that outsiders have in the province of British Columbia is exemplified in these sorts of statistics. I'll tell you, about the only negative cloud that British Columbia has on the horizon right now is that bunch over there and some of the fellow-travelers that say they are Conservatives alongside of them. I think that was a great, positive throne speech.

We had a seminar in Richmond, Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago where we picked from over 1,200 prominent small business entrepreneurs around this province about 70 people, and we told them to come to this seminar and we said: "We want you to bring with you all of your problems." But we said, Mr. Speaker, that there is another side to this equation, and along with that, with every problem there is a solution.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened to these people. Some of it is exemplified in the throne speech. We are a government that listens; we intend to listen more and more to the people of British Columbia, unlike our predecessors. It's true that 67 percent of all the jobs in the private sector are created by small businesses with under 50 people employed. Eighty percent of the economic activity in this province is created by small business.

Here is something that the socialists don't seem to understand. That is, we've got to teach ourselves in this province and in this country to become employers if we're going to employ the people that we have. We can't become the serfs of government, We've got to teach ourselves to become employers.

I would like to give you two stories, both given to me as being true in every detail. First, a friend of mine — whom I think you know very well, sir — was coming over recently on the ferry. As he drove off the ferry there was a chap hitchhiking there. He picked him up and as he was driving along, my friend asked: "Where have you been?"

He said: "I live in Victoria and I have a wife and child, but I have been looking for work and I haven't been able to find it."

"What do you do?"

"Well, I'm not a plumber, but I'm a plumber's helper, and I think I'm a very good one."

The chap drove along. He pointed to a hill and said: "Do you see those houses up there?"

"Yes," he said, "those are old houses. What can we possibly do there?"

"If you're a plumber's helper, you could get a licence, you could get a truck and you could go to those places and fix water taps. You could put the washers in water taps. You could charge your $25 an hour that the other people charge who are back home waiting for something to happen. You could do maintenance work in those places."

Well, my friend let the hitchhiker off."This has been about the most interesting ride that I've ever bad," the hitchhiker said.

"Well," my friend said, "it's only interesting if you do something about it. If you will turn the thing around and become an employer...."

You see? That's where it is at. It's not pouring money into the system. The system is teaching the rule book as it works. It is teaching people to become employers and to realize they can grab the opportunities that are around them. It is not, as the hon. second member for Burrard (Mr. Levi) said, pumping

[ Page 148 ]

massive sums of money into the system. That's not the way it is done. It's people doing things for themselves and government getting out of the way to let them do it. That's where it's at.

We've heard a lot of talk lately about BCRIC shares and how they will do nothing for the economy. This is another way to teach people the value of enterprise and to invest 'in their own province, in their own country and to become employers of other people.

It's interesting to note, sir, that a few years ago a well-known taxicab company was faced with the following serious problems. A new taxicab company was permitted 11 new licences to operate in competition in the area they were in. Secondly, the drivers employed by this firm were made up of a mixture of drivers owning their own vehicles and drivers operating company-owned vehicles. As a result, there were continual personality problems. The company was not doing well.

One of the vehicle-owner drivers had been in the taxi business for a number of years. At heart, he realized the value of enterprise and felt that the above problems could be rectified if handled in the following manner. He approached the company to see if they were willing to sell out and, if so, what financing would be available. He was armed with all this information, and he called a meeting of all the drivers of this taxicab company. At this meeting and on several subsequent meetings he endeavoured to convince the drivers to invest in shares in a new company which would buy out the old one.

A year ago at 2 a.m. this gentleman was finally successful in obtaining investment pledges of $1,000 apiece for 45 drivers. Armed with $45,000 as a down payment on an agreed purchase price of $450,000, he successfully purchased the existing company. They were even able to include the purchase of the company that was created by the issuance of the 11 new cabs, their competitors. These 45 independent businessmen now own a share in the company, which, it is projected, will be paid off, debt-free, in three and one-half years, servicing all of their debts. Now their shares are worth $4,000 apiece. This is true in detail. I could give you the name of the company if I were permitted. It is true in every detail. That is free enterprise at work. That is teaching people to become employers in their own right. That is the way the system is supposed to work.

I heard a lot of talk from our very good so-called Conservative friend over there. He talked of being Conservative. He said you have to be pure Conservative or pure Liberal or pure NDP, whatever that is. He said that anyone who joined this group of people over there, who had left the other party, was something less than whole. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the people in the Social Credit Party are pure British Columbian, first and foremost. They're not tied to any federal political party. They are British Columbians first. They're not for the Conservatives; they're not for the Liberals; they're not for the NDP. They are for British Columbians, and that's the way it is supposed to work in a political party.

At the seminar I mentioned one thing, and that was that the bulk of the people at this meeting were not looking for grants and were not looking for handouts from government. Oh, yes, they wanted help. Did you notice that help was included in the throne speech? They wanted help by way of low-interest loans and they wanted a little lift to help them off the mark at times. But they don't want handouts. That's not the way this system works. If you get a handout, you enslave yourself to government. These people are too independent for that. They don't want to be enslaved to anyone.

You know, the socialists ran around saying they have some credibility in small business. They've got some phony experts like they have phony labour problems. They set up a phony expert out in Surrey who calls himself the Federation of Independent Business People, or something of this nature. Any small businessman who would put himself into the hands of the NDP would be like a chicken putting herself in the hands of the foxes. There would be no difference, no difference at all. The small business people know this. They don't want handouts and they don't want platitudes from any phony person. They don't want phony labour leaders who would like to become leaders of the party, running around idle, throwing up phony labour problems. That's not what the people of British Columbia want. They see through that.

They don't want bloodbaths on the streets either. When the next election comes — and I don't know when it will be — but when it comes, they will show those people. They'll tell you at the polls and they'll tell you in a very convincing manner, once again, that they don't want you. They want real people.

You know, the people we had at that seminar were real people who had to meet a payroll and pay other people, sometimes when they couldn't pay themselves. We had the kind of people who had to lay awake all night to get....

Interjection.

[ Page 149 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: You've never been there, hon. member. You've never employed anybody in your life. You've never known the perplexity of having to stay awake all night to pay your employees and know that you couldn't pay yourself. That's what small business is all about. You can stand up and talk about small business all you want, but until you've been there, sir, you don't know anything about it. You're talking in a barrel. What they want, sir, is to get government out of the way of business of people and let them get on with the job. That's all they want in this province.

I'm very happy that we have signed the $50 million agreement with Ottawa. This will help provide infrastructure for tourism throughout this province. It's my intention that too much of this is not given in grants, but is doled out properly to people by way of I'm-interest loans to help in this province and to help people do things for themselves.

Like the opposition speakers, I would like to go to the polls anytime. I'd be happy to go to the polls. I believe that at that time the people are going to reject the socialists and there will be a lot of NDP politicians here right now who will not return in a further parliament.

This is a great throne speech. It's a throne speech that is positive and that speaks of positive things in the province. The people who run around trying to be negative at every angle are not doing any service for the people they purport to represent. I'll tell you that right now. We've got to push the positive button in British Columbia; we've got to push the positive button in Canada, and we've got to get on with the job.

If you think that the last few years have been good in British Columbia; if you think it's been good in tourism; and if you think it's been good in business, with the positive attitude we have, hang onto your hats. British Columbia is running in high gear and the people know it. Whenever the election is called, we're going to return this government with many more members than we have at the present time. I look forward to that great opportunity.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, since the hour is almost 6, I think it's appropriate to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:51 p.m.