[ Page 151 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 151

Mr. Stupich — 155

Mr. Rogers — 163

Mrs. Dailly — 166

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 170

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, it's a privilege to stand in my place this evening to speak on the Speech from the Throne. While I appreciate that the attitudes regarding the speech may be divided in this House, I believe that the citizens of British Columbia will reflect very positively on the message which was contained in the speech. The Lieutenant-Governor, in offering the Speech from the Throne this year to the citizens of British Columbia, stressed the very positive action of the government in the past as well as in the future, and stressed some very important principles which are part of the philosophy of the government of British Columbia.

There has been a considerable amount of consideration and discussion in the province about one of the first comments in the speech of the Lieutenant-Governor, and that was to do with the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation concept of offering shares to individuals in British Columbia. I appreciate that members across the House do not necessarily share the enthusiasm which most citizens in the province have indicated for this. I know that the members across the floor had a mild problem in deciding which way to turn. Originally, upon first blush, the decision was that they would reject it out of hand, and then, upon sober consideration, it was decided that they may as well live with what is there. So there was a minor flip-flop, which is reminiscent of the famous debate on daylight saving time a few years back.

The concept of individual citizens in British Columbia having within their possession a share of the resources of this province is very basic and philosophic to the concepts that we, on this side of the House, believe in.

I appreciate and I can understand the philosophy of those opposite who suggest that citizens of a province or a country should entrust to a government that jurisdiction and that they should, by way of their election of members to a Legislative Assembly, entrust to them the resources of the province.

There's a very important difference in philosophy. Members on this side of the House believe that individual members of society should have that opportunity of being personally involved rather than represented by government. It's a very basic difference in philosophy. I appreciate that that difference in philosophy is what makes a horse race. That's why people are involved in different political parties. That's why there is difference of opinion. I'm not condemning any one opinion. One is as legitimate as the other. It's a matter of whether the majority of people within a jurisdiction support one or the other. The results of the last election in British Columbia indicate that people in our province support the concept of individual ownership, rather than ownership by proxy through a government.

The Lieutenant-Governor's message to the people of British Columbia was very concise. It mentioned some specific programs which are being offered to the people of our province in this year, along with a review of many of the accomplishments of the government over the past three years. We believe very strongly that individual citizens in our province are the most important ingredient in our society and that no government can claim to have greater wisdom or capability than that which would be condensed from all the citizens within our society. We do have a system which permits people to make a choice and to ask their representatives to speak on their behalf. Each of us in turn takes that opportunity in this House.

It's a difference in philosophy. I recognize that. Many members in this House do recognize that. Once that difference in philosophy is resolved, then the people are told to do the job. The member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) in his address to the House today made a very important point — I think perhaps it was the only important point — when he said that a government is given the mandate to govern. When a government chooses to make use of that mandate, of course, it is open to criticism. Our system permits, recommends and encourages that criticism to come through.

But there's a difference between criticism and politics. What we have witnessed in this House, day upon day upon day, not only in this but in previous sessions, is just an exercise in politics. There's no question in my mind and in the minds of many citizens in this province that the BCRIC share offering is perhaps one of the greatest innovations that any government in our country has been able to develop. I have no doubt that if the opportunity was before the former government, they might indeed have done the same thing, and would have been telling us what a great idea it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: I doubt it.

[ Page 152 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, all right. It's quite possible that they would have, though, because it is a very good idea. The opposition has reluctantly agreed to the concept. Their leader, who was criticized by other speakers in this House, reluctantly came to the point after he had checked the wind and understood that people thought it was a great idea. He reluctantly said: "Well, maybe we won't cancel the distribution, should we be elected as government, and we won' t try and buy it all back and force people to sell their individual ownership."

AN HON. MEMBER: They will.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, they won't.

AN HON. MEMBER: They would if they could. They'd take it back.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, they won't take it back. They won't be given the opportunity to take it back and the people of the province know that. You can fool people once, but you can't fool them twice. They won't be fooled again in this province.

The harping of the opposition in relation to this throne speech is most interesting, because with the major newspapers in Vancouver being on strike, the members of the opposition must really wonder: "What should we say to attract a headline? Does 9:30 at night mean anything anymore? Is there a deadline for newspapers?" What we heard from our member for Revelstoke-Slocan and the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) was repetition of the same speeches we've heard for the last four sessions. We heard 1979 introduced in this House by the Leader of the Opposition on a replay of MEL Paving, of the BCR, of natural gas — of which he suffers from an overabundance — and of the great railway to the Yukon or Alaska or wherever.

The same stories have been going on now for four years. He's the Xerox-Copy Kid, with the same speeches. I might say that I was disappointed in some of the speakers' inability to come up with something new.

There are members on the opposite side of the House who do introduce a new system or method of debate each session. But there are some who lack the ability to accept reality and just recycle speech upon speech upon speech. It's the same old nonsense that we've heard for so many years. The headlines did not follow those speeches this year. No wonder! Surely the press gallery is getting tired of reprinting the same information and the same comments year after year after year. There are no new ideas being offered to this House from the opposite side. There is criticism, yes — criticism which they feel to be legitimate — which is their role, but nothing new.

We are asked today to accept from one of the members opposite that their leader, in the role of a Messiah, is going throughout the province offering new and exciting schemes which are being accepted by all political parties, by businessmen big and small, by industrialists and by others, with such great excitement. If there is a secret in this province today, it's widely known. It is that British Columbia more than any other province in our country is the province to lead our country into the future.

When you have the opportunity of attending First Ministers' Conferences or interprovincial conferences across our country, and when you hear from older provinces, and when you hear from other parts of our country about the incredible envy they have for our province, and they ask, "Do you understand your potential?" I think you respond to them that, indeed, we do. Indeed we recognize the greatness of our province. We might tell them that, of course, there is an official group of people who do not recognize the greatness of our province, who have through concerted efforts attempted to keep our province back, and who bad-mouth our province so others may hear, for their own common, limited political desire. The public can't be fooled all the time. The public can't be fooled much of the time.

The members opposite seem to feel that the opportunity for the citizens of our province to make a decision may be near. Well, I think that decision has already been made. Should the Premier decide at some time in the future to ask the people of our province to, once again, take the opportunity of deciding who should be government of this province, the answer is already known. This government will be returned as the government of British Columbia, to complete the job that has been started.

I thought it was most interesting that one of the members opposite said that they can compare the record of the NDP and the record of Social Credit. My goodness gracious! What audacity to even suggest that someone compare. Oh, of course, they'll compare, but what a dreadful comparison. How uncharitable would be any member of the government to ask any intelligent individual to compare the record of the NDP and the Social Credit government. I wonder, indeed, if members of the NDP would like a handicap system of some kind so that, perhaps, the comparison would be more fair. Of course, they are handicapped. But comparison?

[ Page 153 ]

My goodness gracious! What a comparison could be offered to the people! I thank the member opposite who suggested that, because I'm sure no one on the government side had considered comparing the records of the two governments. It is a record of despair and a record of accomplishment; it is as simple as that.

My critic and my friend, the member for Vancouver-Burrard, emphasizes very often the number of bankruptcies that are recorded in the province, ignoring completely the number of incorporations that take place in our province. You know, the official opposition would have everyone believe that it is sinful and almost criminal for anyone to take a chance and go broke. This happens many, many times, as everyone who has been involved in business knows. There's a very legitimate opportunity to go broke, to be unsuccessful. There is no guarantee in life. And certainly government does not have that role to play, to guarantee someone is going to be successful. Government does have a role to play — that it will not interfere in the opportunity of someone being successful.

Today one of the members opposite derided the Ministry of Deregulation, and I know that the term "deregulation" may offend some great students of English, such as our member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King). It's a bit of an awkward word, but nonetheless the intent is very clear, and the effect is very important. In recent times we have seen people who have thrown up their hands and said: "I've had enough of regulation; I've had enough of red tape; I've had enough of bureaucracy. I will take my money, I will take my capital and I will go elsewhere."

There are those in certain political parties who are so unsure of their own capabilities that they will permit bureaucrats to handle everything. Instead of making decisions themselves — decisions for which they were elected — they will appoint, they will provide authority for appointed people. They will have a committee. They will have a commission. They will have someone else make that hard decision. They can always say: "It was non-political. We didn't make the decision. Someone else did." The people are not well served by such a concept. It may be very convenient for members who haven't got the guts to make decisions for which they were elected, but it does not serve the people. The people of this province and the people of this country have had about as much as they need and as much as they desire from appointed bureaucrats who do not have a responsibility to the people but serve only those who appoint them.

What a convenient way of avoiding an issue. What a convenient way of making a decision by allowing it to slip down to those people who are appointed. Then you can remain Simon-pure and say: "Well, we didn't do that. We would never do that. We would never make a decision." Bureaucrats, commissions, committees, authorities and all the rest of it to avoid responsibility. It's interesting to speak to common people in our province, to ordinary citizens who expect their government to make decisions to assist them, rather than allowing some person who was appointed to make that decision.

MR. KING: Who are the common people?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for Revelstoke Slocan wondered who a common person was. My friend, I would suggest that if you worked very hard for the next decade you might raise yourself to that status of being a common person.

MR. KING: Are you uncommon?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, let's not interrupt the member. He was doing so well.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Thank you very much.

The citizens of the province, I'm sure in the near future, will be given an opportunity to speak once again.

MR. COCKE: I hope they are.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, I hope they are, Dennis. New Westminster is looking for a complete new look. I think they'll start with their MLA, along with Columbia Street. I don't think it's proper for members of the House to bet on various things. One of your members turned me down tonight on a bet.

We have a Minister of Deregulation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) . That's a big cause of humour on the other side apparently. The Minister of Deregulation, according to our throne speech, is going to bring in regulations to rescind redundant legislation. I think perhaps that the model the Minister of Deregulation may use is the rescinding of the "Redundant Governments of 1975 Act" to a bill by way of the general election of that year.

It's interesting that some of the members opposite say: "The government on the other side won't forget they won." Yet it's obvious that their biggest problem — in their thinking — is they can't forget they lost. I wonder how many people would prefer to be in that position. There is nothing improper about winning. I thought the concept and idea of contesting a

[ Page 154 ]

situation was to win. There is nothing improper about winning. Surely congratulations should be offered rather than criticism. There is nothing particularly wrong about losing. The NDP, and the CCF before it, had great experience in losing. They are good losers. They've had experience. They should be.

There is certainly a difference between the CCF and the NDP. There are many people of history who belonged to the CCF who were people of integrity. Unfortunately it's not hereditary. When you passed through the metamorphosis of change from the CCF by way of marriage with the CLC into the NDP, you lost a great deal in translation. You can claim what you wish from your political ancestors, Mr. Member. You're going to have to convince people. Your words are inadequate. You're going to have to convince people that you have retained some of that integrity.

MR. COCKE: That's right, I was there in 1948. Where in the hell were you?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, you were there in 1948.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. minister please address the Chair and assist in maintaining order.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I certainly will.

There were many people around in 1948. Some of those continued to develop since 1948. Others are mired in the errors of 1948. We do have some very good examples in this House tonight. He says: "Where in the hell were you in 1948?" That was it. I'm quoting it.

In 1948, as I recall very vividly, I was standing in front of a shoe factory in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan when Tommy Douglas was producing shoes for the people, all left foot, along with the woollen mills, along with all the other socialized industry of Saskatchewan that went broke.

Mr. Speaker, many people have stayed back in 1948. The only good thing about 1948, Mr. Member for New Westminster, was the coins of Canada.

The importance of the throne speech has been lost because of the political difficulties of so many speakers in this House. The seriousness of the throne speech has been ignored by so many because they're repeating that experience they learned in 1948, year upon year upon year, without improvement. It's fine for them to criticize, reject and offer alternatives, as they call them — retreads, recycles — yet, begrudgingly, the opposition, including our lone representative from the Conservative Party, had to look upon some of the positive aspects of the throne speech, including the concept of denticare, a concept which was offered to the people of Canada in 1933 by the CCF. Isn't that wonderful? Isn't that wonderful that the CCF offered the concept of denticare in 1933?

Why didn't they introduce it? Well, they were never given the chance to introduce it because they were never elected as government. But the NDP was elected as government. Did they bring in denticare? No. They would have solved all the problems of the universe. We've heard that time and time again, year after year. They were going to. They would have. They were going to do it.

I hope that the introduction of denticare into our province alleviates many problems for many citizens. That, certainly, is not a partisan concept by any government; it's a good concept, and I hope that the people of British Columbia are in the position to afford it, are responsible in making use of it and that the benefits to them are wide-felt.

The Ministry of Human Resources and other ministries within our government have recognized 1979 as the Year of the Child and Family. Surely such a concept, in coordination with the United Nations' recognition of the International Year of the Child, is well beyond partisan politics. There are many children within our province in need of assistance. There are many children who have been ignored for many, many years, through no fault of any one individual or government. There are many children who have finally received some assistance from government to overcome their handicaps.

MR LAUK: Now they've got their five free shares.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for Vancouver Centre believes that the way to alleviate a blind child's problem is to give him five free shares of something. He just referred to that, Mr. Speaker. That is not the manner in which to relieve such a handicap, Mr. Member. You approach the problem seriously, pay attention to those people who understand the problem and then respond.

Yesterday I had the honour of speaking to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind at their annual general meeting. The CNIB was very gracious in commenting about how the government of British Columbia has responded to the needs of visually impaired children. I'm not interested in seeking political points, when any government responds to the needs of such children. We are in a position,

[ Page 155 ]

in 1979, to be the beneficiaries of the great technology, study and science which has given our civilized world tremendous technological advantages and children with various problems and handicaps the chance to live a more normal life.

Many technological advances are available through associations such as the CNIB, the Western Institute of the Deaf and others, to allow children to lead a more normal life.

I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the government of British Columbia has recognized that opportunity and has seen fit to provide funds to allow such organizations to obtain such apparatuses to allow these children to enjoy a much more normal life.

There's no great political advantage to being humane. There's no great political advantage to keeping handicapped people down somewhat if you can possibly assist them. Through the International Year of the Child, and the Year of the Child and the Family in British Columbia, many citizens of our province, young and old, will benefit from the awareness of government which assists them in enjoying a much more normal life. The technology is available to us. All it takes is good will and, in many instances, capital to permit them to enjoy life, and this will be done this year of 1979.

Mr. Speaker, one of the programs which was mentioned by the Lieutenant-Governor in the Speech from the Throne was the universality of Pharmacare. Governments preceding ours, going back, I believe, to the late 1940s — perhaps that date is incorrect — introduced a basic concept of medicare, pharmacare or whatever you wish to call it, and it was improved upon over the years. Our government took upon itself the obligation to modify it even more, so that a family which has the problem of a number of children or a number of members of their family with chronic illnesses would not be faced with very large pharmaceutical bills. Through our universal system of Pharmacare they are permitted to take care of their family members without extremely high costs. Hopefully a denticare program will be introduced in our province which will alleviate that serious budgetary problem of so many families with children in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, a very important program which is being introduced by our government relates to a subject I spoke of before — deregulation. We have seen, in recent days, a number of people who have simply given up, and presumably have left the province with their capital because of excessive regulation, because of frustration on their part with bureaucrats, red tape and so on. The Ministry of Deregulation, at this session, is to introduce legislation which will bring under one authority the responsibility for coordinating the codes, the standards and inspection service relating to construction, the use of occupancy buildings and structures within our province. Although that may appear to be, on the outside, very technical and not too attractive, it is vitally important to our industry and to our economy in British Columbia. I believe that depending on the force with which our Minister of Deregulation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) and associated ministers allow themselves to go forward, we will have success, and it will be vitally important to the investors who are looking upon British Columbia as a place to make use of their capital.

Mr. Speaker, the ministry which I previously had the privilege of administering was involved in a program to provide Crown land to citizens of our province, and the new Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is following through with legislation at this session which will see that the citizens of our province are offered the opportunity of owning their own corner of British Columbia. There are many who are opposed to the concept, many who believe that the province of British Columbia should not be used by people, certainly not by citizens of British Columbia, but should be used for some other purpose.

Mr. Speaker, we have the capability and the capacity to make good use of our lands and to allow the citizens of our province the opportunity to own their own. Such is the theme of the throne speech this year — that British Columbia belongs to the citizens of the province, not to the government of the province of British Columbia — and that separates the philosophies of the two sides of this House: the individuals, represented by the government side; and huge government, bureaucratic government, red government, represented by the other side of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Collectivism.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Collectivism. "Big is good; big government is good; Big Daddy can take care of you; we know best. How dare you allow ordinary citizens the right to have something to say about the destiny of their province? Vander Zalm, you started that."

I sincerely hope that the people of British Columbia will be provided with an opportunity very soon once again to speak out collectively and tell the rest of the world that British Columbia is in safe hands.

MR. STUPICH: The minister's closing remark

[ Page 156 ]

reminds me of a time — I think it was in 1960 — when the then Premier of the province was speaking at a meeting in Vancouver. He said he was so pleased that so many cabinet ministers were in the audience because they could hear when the election was going to be at the same time as the rest of the people in the province. He's hoping tonight that the people are soon going to have an opportunity, and wondering, just as all of us are, when that will be. He will find out not one moment sooner than the rest of us. He'll be told.

On my first opportunity in this session, I'd like to make some reference to the Speech from the Throne — the people who were members of this House and who are no longer with us.

W.A.C. Bennett — I was a member of this House for six years while he was Premier. He was certainly a man who will be long remembered.

Dorothy Gretchen Steeves was not nearly as famous or infamous as W.A.C. Bennett, depending on your point of view, but certainly was a person of extremely high intellect — one I knew well. I think it was a great gain for me that I did have an opportunity to know her well, and a loss for those who didn't have that same opportunity. She was a truly remarkable, extremely capable woman and an excellent MLA.

With further reference to the Speech from the Throne, I'd like to say, on a positive note, that I welcome the reference to the Duke Point development at Nanaimo — a development that Nanaimo has been talking about, wondering about and waiting for for a very long time. The Speech from the Throne refers to the massive Duke Point project in Nanaimo as another example of federal-provincial joint funding. This will result in the direct creation of 1,100 new jobs. It is an economic shot in the arm that Nanaimo sorely needs. For some time we wondered whether or not we were ever going to get it.

I can't help but compare this paragraph from the Speech from the Throne with the previous one, which I presume must be the other example. It talks about providing 1,200 new jobs and $4 million help — 1,200 new jobs in the B.C. Development Corporation. It would appear as though the one project in Nanaimo is almost 50 percent of the total contribution that B.C. Development Corporation has made to the province in the history of this government. That doesn't surprise me one little bit. I'm not surprised that this is all the government has contributed to the development of B.C. under that particular minister.

When I read some of the minister's comments from the past few years about this project, starting March 15,1977 — at which time he was talking about the development of a steel mill in the Duke Point area — I reacted in a rather dismayed fashion. I phoned his ministry to find out what the minister was talking about. They apologized for him and said he really didn't know where Duke Point was. He thought it was somewhere 30 miles north of Nanaimo. I was to ignore his comments about the possibility of a steel mill in that area and I was quite happy to do that.

Then further newspaper stories referred to the possibility of a steel mill being built in the province. They said that any plans NKK had to develop a steel mill in B.C. went out the window with the defeat of the NDP government in 1975. I've told you previously that the NKK was quite interested in developing a steel mill in British Columbia. They were heavy users of B.C. coal and knew that the government they were dealing with at that time was determined to get full value out of our resources and determined to use the coal to provide job opportunities in B.C. They realized that if they were going to continue getting our coal, they would have to start doing something here in B.C. But with the defeat of the NDP, there was no need for them to think any more about creating job opportunities in B.C. They were dealing with a new government that was interested only in getting rid of our resources.

The minister started talking about the deep-sea port development in May — the first newspaper story I have is May 14, 1977. We now see it in the throne speech in March 1979. When B.C. Development Corporation acquired the land, the minister at that time was talking about an early start on the project. Speaking in Nanaimo in November 1977, some eight months later, the minister was still talking about an early start and saying that the only thing holding it up was negotiations with the federal government. In January 1978 it was all ready to go ahead, starting almost immediately. It's still going to start immediately, if not sooner.

On April 19, 1978, the minister is still talking about it starting almost immediately. He says it's just around the corner. Mr. Speaker, you're too young to remember the stories during the Depression about how prosperity was just around the corner. With the Minister of Economic Development the Duke Point start was just around the corner for two years. Finally, in spite of the Minister of Economic Development, it did happen. The ministerial blasts start the Nanaimo Port project, September 30, 1978. It did get going. We welcome it. We're glad to see it happening in

[ Page 157 ]

Nanaimo.

I'd like to tell you a little bit more about the history of Nanaimo. I was doing a bit of reading on this and I thought it might be interesting. Interesting that the socialist NDP, if you like, has represented Nanaimo constituency for a longer period than any other political party since we started keeping track of these things. For 28 years the socialist NDP members have been representing the constituency of Nanaimo. The first one was James Hawthornthwaite, in 1901. That started it. For 28 years NDP members have represented the constituency.

The second longest party to have a representative in the House is the Liberal Party, which had two members: Mr. Sloan, who represented the constituency for some 12 years; and a Mr. Pearson, who represented it as a Liberal for 13 years and then as a coalitionist for a period. Then there were other coalitionists — they called themselves Social Credit. The coalitionists in total represented the constituency for 21 years, the Liberals for 25 years. The Liberals are ahead of the coalitionists, whether they be Social Credit or Liberal coalitionists. The Conservatives even had a fling at it for four years.

There's something interesting about one of those representatives, George S. Pearson. As an individual, although he changed parties along with changing times, he was the Minister of Labour, Minister of Health and was Provincial Secretary. He was really an important person in the history of this province. As Minister of Labour he was particularly important. I'm sorry the Minister of Labour isn't here this evening. I'd like to compare the two. George S. Pearson, as Minister of Labour, was not only the minister of the Labour department; he was the minister for labour. He was widely respected and highly regarded by that particular constituency that he represented when he was Minister of Labour. In 1947 the government of the day decided to bring in some very repressive labour legislation. George S. Pearson, as Minister of Labour, publicly disagreed with that legislation and would not introduce that legislation. How different from the Minister of Labour we have today, a man who has publicly taken a position on several occasions with respect to labour issues, only to knuckle under to a government decision to do otherwise, and then to pretend that that was his position all along. I'm proud to say that the Minister of Labour who represented the Nanaimo constituency was a man who had principles — not a man who moved from one party to another because he changed his political opportunistic attitude, but a man who was a Liberal first and a coalitionist second. The Liberals joined the coalition when he was part of it. Nevertheless, he was a man of principle when it came to dealing with his labour constituency and a man to be respected for his stand on that.

Several of the members opposite feel that they can stand up and compare the record of the Social Credit government with the record of the NDP government and come out ahead. I'm really amazed. It takes a very selective memory to try to pick some good things out of their record and compare them with what they feel are bad things in our record.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You should know better. How can you stand there...?

MR. STUPICH: The member opposite, for example, has hinted several times in the debate, never too loudly. He's talked about Swan Valley....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, until we can get the hon. minister to restrain himself. I think he's had the opportunity to express himself in this debate. Perhaps he would like to give the other members the same opportunity. Please proceed.

MR. STUPICH: The Swan Valley issue was raised with legislation that was introduced by that minister. You'll recall that legislation was dropped. The government didn't want to discuss Swan Valley in this Legislature. They were prepared to talk about it, not to have it discussed on the floor of this Legislature. The legislation was allowed to drop. At least they showed enough intelligence to drop that issue without having it discussed publicly on the floor of the House. What about some of the other issues? The Socreds talk about their resources policy. Goodness gracious! They were going to turn the economy around. They certainly did. They turned it around — down. Talk about coal royalties, the development of our resources. You'll recall that when we arrived on the scene on September 15, 1972, B.C. was getting a royalty on its coal that averaged 14 cents a ton. Three years and three months later, that royalty was up to an average of $1.44 a ton, with the promise and the agreement, on the part of Kaiser Coal, that it would go up a further dollar on April 1. Although the profits of Kaiser have increased enormously since that date, the royalty has not changed.

HON. MR. HEWITT: What's their tax rate?

[ Page 158 ]

MR. STUPICH: I suggest you look at the profit, and you'll find out that they didn't make any profit at all until the NDP arrived on the scene in 1973. That was the first year in which they made any profit at all. The profit went up year by year and the royalty went up year by year. The royalty was going to go up higher again, and the profits will continue to go up, but the royalties have not gone up, to their discredit.

The minister dared to raise the issue of natural gas prices. Maybe he's new in his department and just doesn't know the history of this situation. I took the opportunity, since the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) spoke on it, to do some checking with the B.C. Petroleum Corporation and the B.C. Energy Commission.

In point of fact, when we arrived on the scene on September 15, 1972, according to the B.C. Energy Commission we were actually getting 28 cents a thousand cubic feet for our natural gas export price. It went up to 31 cents almost a year later; it took us that long to get any kind of movement at all.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'm not saying what somebody else said. I'm telling you that I'm saying that I got the figures from the B.C. Energy Commission and from the B.C. Petroleum Corporation.

On November 14 we got that price up to 61 cents. There had been relatively no movement prior to that. It took us over a year to get it up to 61 cents, almost double what it was before. On November 1,1974, it went up to 81 cents. On July 1,1975, we got it up to $1.60; that was the highest price during our term in office, although further price increases were provided for, according to the agreement. But even if we accepted that figure of $1.60 com-pared to 28 cents, that's an increase of almost 500 percent — 5.7 times.

The minister said: "Oh, but you increased the price for B.C. consumers as well." B.C. consumers were consuming roughly 10 percent of the total gas. The 90 percent that we were selling abroad we increased by 5.7 times. The B.C. consumers were saved from that increase, because although the price charged to B.C. Hydro was higher, we kept the lid on the prices charged to the local consumers. We did that quite deliberately. We knew that the gas part of B.C. Hydro was the part that was making money, and that that division of B.C. Hydro could well afford to pay more for the natural gas it was buying and charge at the same price to the consumer. We were looking after the consumers, but we were also getting more money for the people of B.C.

We knew that the price of natural gas was going to go up. With the Arabs increasing the price of oil and with the price of all kinds of energy going up worldwide, we knew that no one would live for long with a price of 28 cents a thousand cubic feet for natural gas. With the price of everything else going up all over the world, it was bound to go up. Had we not moved in and established the B.C. Petroleum Corporation when we did, the price of natural gas would have gone up.... I'm not suggesting for one moment that it would not have gone up the way it has. It might even have gone up more, for that matter, had we not stepped in.

We made sure that the increase in price went into the pockets of the people of British Columbia, not into the pockets of the international oil companies. There is no doubt that that is what would have happened had we not established the B.C. Petroleum Corporation. As much as the Social Credit members of the Legislature of the day opposed the establishment of that corporation, that's one corporation that even they haven't dared tamper with. They haven't done much about getting more money for the people of British Columbia since that date. There's not been much change in price since that date. Nevertheless, they haven't dared tamper with the establishment of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation.

One of the members — I think it was the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Veitch); he's not here, either — mentioned what they've done for tourism. Mr. Speaker, you and I were here in 1976, and we can remember what they did for tourism in 1976, can't we? The price of B.C. Ferries was more than doubled and the tourist year was the worst in the history of British Columbia. For the first time, tourism went down so badly that people were ruined. The number of bankruptcies that have happened since then can no doubt be attributed in part to the move on the part of that government to more than double the cost of travelling on B.C. ferries. You'll recall also that their reason for doing that was based not on economics, not on the loss to the B.C. Ferries, but entirely on political revenge.

They had a report prepared that told them that if they increased the price of travelling on the ferries by even 50 percent, it would have a serious effect on traffic across the Gulf of Georgia. In spite of that report and in spite of the knowledge of what they were going to do to the economy of British Columbia, they proceeded to more than double the price as an act of political revenge. There

[ Page 159 ]

has been recovery since, and they've had the nerve to boast about it. Since then, they've spent a lot of money encouraging tourists to come to B.C. They say: "Aren't we good? Everything is so much better now than it was in 1976 when we ruined everybody. We're really great, aren't we?"

Then there was the Prince Rupert pulp mill. You will recall the then Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) and now Premier of the province travelling to Prince Rupert and reassuring the people of that community that if his government were elected they would not close down that pulp mill for renovations, for improvements, for changes. It wasn't too long before they closed down that pulp mill and put some 340 people out of work. That's the kind of promises we get from that group opposite, and yet they've got the nerve to compare their record with ours.

Just look at the BCR as one example. When we arrived in office the Dease Lake extension was in progress — the Fort Nelson line. We've all heard stories about the Fort Nelson line. We've managed to keep it operating in spite of the fact that it was a railroad built on political promises rather than good ballast. Nevertheless, we managed to keep that line operating, and we proceeded with the Dease Lake extension because we believed in the future of the province of British Columbia.

The hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) referred to Beale's Letter, but not this one, an earlier one. This is the letter that deals in large measure with William Andrew Cecil Bennett, and it talks about his attitude towards the development of the province and the importance of a railroad.

"W.A.C. Bennett had a broad vision. Forest development was never isolated, but was part of a total program. Energy and rail could not stand alone. Both must be linked very closely with resource developments so that all could benefit."

It also talks about the forest development in the area, the importance for Fort Nelson of pushing the railroad on and not stopping at Fort Nelson. Mr. Speaker, I disagreed with W.A.C. Bennett on many issues for most of the six years that I was in the House, but when it came to being a British Columbian, and one who was determined to build the economy of British Columbia, one who recognized the importance of the trio that he mentions here — forestry, energy and transportation — then there was no disagreement. I agreed with him that the railroad had to go ahead. I still agree the railroad had to go ahead.

I disagreed with this group opposite when they closed down the Dease Lake extension. I disagreed with them when they threatened to close down the Fort Nelson extension and, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you are as worried as I am as to what this government will do in the unhappy and unlikely event that it is elected, with respect to that Fort Nelson extension.

For three months they agonized over what they would do with that recommendation from the royal commission about closing down the Fort Nelson extension. Then, when they thought they were going into a fall election, the Premier said they were going to keep it operating. The member from Fort Nelson pretends to be optimistic that that extension will keep operating one day after the next election if that group is re-elected. It's just a pretence. It's a bold pretence, but I'm sure he doesn't believe for one moment that that railroad will keep operating. I'm sure it will fold.

This government has no faith in the future of British Columbia. This government does not have the vision that W.A.C. Bennett had. This government does not recognize the importance of keeping transportation going, of extending the transportation links, let alone the importance of extending the transportation link into Alaska. They closed down the Railwest car plant, and then almost the day after had to start looking for more cars. They've ignored the Reed and Associates report completely because they're not terribly interested in building a railroad. That's government enterprise. It might succeed. We can't have government enterprise succeeding; we have to close down that railroad. If we push it on it might be a good thing for B.C. It might be that the government will get some recognition for doing something good economically. That would never do.

Look at the NDP record — and they talked about our record. Mr. Speaker, you'll recall that when we arrived in office September 15, 1972, Ocean Falls had half closed down. Half the men had left town; the plant was closing. It was all going to be abandoned. As an NDP government, we couldn't stand idly by and see that happen. So we bought it and kept opera-

[ Page 160 ]

ting it, and it's still operating and still successful.

You will recall that a deal was almost consummated to sell the Canadian Cellulose holdings to Weyerhaeuser, and you will recall also that part of the agreement of sale was that the Prince Rupert pulp mill would close down completely. We couldn't stand idly by and see that happen. The previous Social Credit administration could. They were prepared to see Ocean Falls close down completely; as a matter of fact, it had half done so. They were prepared to see Canadian resources sold to Weyerhaeuser, even though it meant closing down the Prince Rupert pulp mill.

So what? That's private enterprise; it's free enterprise. They weren't concerned.

We kept Ocean Falls going. We took over Canadian Cellulose. We kept Prince Rupert going. We established the Railwest car plant, because we didn't have enough cars and couldn't get enough cars to ship our lumber. It was important to keep our economy going. We were looking beyond that.

The minister responsible for energy was talking about the need to plan. Well, we were planning too. But we were also trying to enter into long-range contracts with the province of Alberta to ensure an oil supply. We weren't just planning for the sake of planning. We were doing something concrete. Associated with that there was the possibility of an oil refinery, and we had gone a long way towards arranging the financing for that oil refinery. We were really doing something, Mr. Speaker. Those plans have been dropped, along with the NKK steel plant that was dropped immediately after the defeat of the NDP administration. The B.C. Rail plans were dropped as well, along with all these other things.

Some reference to mining has been made during this discussion. Well, how can they talk about what we did to mining compared to what they have done to mining and hold up their heads? Only two mines have opened since 1975. In the three years and three months since the election only two mines have opened, and one of those — Afton Mines — was arranged by the hon. first member for Vancouver Center (Mr. Lauk). The deal had been made by the NDP administration, by that then Minister of Mines.

The Mining Association said in November 1978: "By the end of 1978, no new mines will be in sight, no mines have announced plans for production and no construction is underway." Bob Matthews, director of the B.C. Mining Association, said: "If the decline does not stop, we may not have a mining industry in British Columbia." And this is not dated November 1975; it's dated June 16, 1978. Bob Matthews says again:

"Unless we open more mines quickly, the mining industry will largely disappear. There will be only 18 operating mines in B.C. by this year's end."

Yet they've got the nerve to stand up and talk about mining as though it were something they invented. The first member for Vancouver Centre asked how many have closed. Well, it's an interesting list. It's a sorry list for the province of British Columbia. These are mines that have closed since the election of 1975: in 1976, Granduc mine, 80 men laid off; 1976, Phoenix mine, 23 laid off; 1976, Texada mine, 176 laid off; 1978, last year, just several months ago, Granduc mine, 320 laid off; 601 men laid off in that period. In addition, Craigmont has announced plans to close in 1979 with a loss of 320 jobs. And they talk about mining as though it were something they invented.

I think it was the Minister of Small Business Development who made some reference to Dun and Bradstreet. Well, I'm going to refer to Dun and Bradstreet as well, Mr. Speaker. I wish he were here to hear my reference.

In March this year Dun and Bradstreet said British Columbia was the number three province as far as bankruptcies were concerned. Now that's really a record. Social Credit have always liked to have B.C. on top, always liked to have us number one. Well, we're only number three when it comes to the number of bankruptcies in the province. They talk about how we formed more companies. More paper companies are being formed every day. But what does it mean for the economy of the province when existing companies, companies that have been operated in B.C. in some cases for as much as 100 years, find themselves forced to close because of economic conditions in the province? These are not economic conditions brought on by the NDP administration but economic conditions that have developed and deteriorated under the present administration.

Mr. Speaker, I think I should say something about the BCRIC shares. There have been a lot of comments about these on that side of the House in particular. I think we should remind ourselves how it was possible for the government to establish the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation in the first place. I think it is advisable to remind ourselves that, with one exception, all of the assets turned over to B.C. Resources Investment Corporation were assets that were acquired by the NDP administration at a very good price for the people

[ Page 161 ]

of British Columbia.

One of those assets, Plateau Mills, was in the process of being sold to an American group. You recall, Mr. Speaker, the comments from some political leaders about B.C. not being for sale. Well, there was one administration in the history of this province that was determined that B.C. would not be for sale and acted on that. Plateau Mills was in the process of being sold to an American group. The NDP administration of the day were not prepared to sit idly by and see these resources sold from out of our hands into an American group, and we moved into the negotiations. We offered the owners of Plateau Mills the same price as they were going to get from the Americans.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) please come to order.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad the member for Omineca reminded everyone that when we did pay that price, we got it for $3 million less than it was worth. That was a good deal for the people of British Columbia. What we did was to offer the owners exactly the same price as the Americans were offering, and the deal was made.

MR. KEMPF: Garbage!

MR. STUPICH: That member for Omineca has the nerve to say "Garbage." Mr. Speaker, that member was a member of the public accounts committee when he and others of his party tried by every means at their disposal to get the previous owner of Plateau Mills to admit that he was terrorized into selling to the NDP administration, and the owner of that company said he was not. The owner of that corporation said that he was offered the same price by the NDP administration and that he was satisfied with the deal; he was dealt with fairly by the NDP administration. He said that, and it's recorded in the Hansard of the public accounts committee.

MR. KEMPF: What choice did he have?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. member for Omineca please come to order. Hon. members, standing order 17, subsection 2, says: "When a member is speaking no member shall interrupt him, except to raise a point of order.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. member for Omineca withdraw that remark.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. member for Omineca to please observe the standing orders of this House, because the guarantees that he requires of this Chair when he is speaking are the same requirements that must be required of him when other members are speaking. If the hon. member cannot observe the standing orders, then we will have to ask the House for the kind of remedies that are provided for in the standing orders.

The member for Nanaimo proceeds.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. STUPICH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The previous majority shareholder of Plateau Mills, Bill Martens, appeared at the public accounts committee and told us that he was dealt with fairly by the NDP administration; that the NDP administration offered him exactly the same price as he was being offered by the prospective American purchasers; and that he accepted the same deal as he and his fellow shareholders had previously negotiated with the Americans but had not yet signed. So he said he was extremely pleased with everything that had happened and he was still carrying on in some capacity in the company.

But it's true, Mr. Speaker, that, as the member for Omineca said in his interruption, it was worth $3 million more, because the day after we made the deal with Mr. Martens, the Americans, on finding out that there was another purchaser getting involved in it, changed their minds and changed their offer and said: "We're prepared to offer $3 million more." But by that time the deal had been signed and we, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, had bought for $7.1 million an asset that was worth in excess of $10 million, and that was just one of them.

Kootenay Forest Products, which was a loser at the time we bought it but which had thousands of acres of deeded land.... We knew when we were buying the plant that we were buying a plant that was not currently making a profit.

[ Page 162 ]

But we knew we were reclaiming for the people of British Columbia thousands of acres of timber land that were about to be sold to Japanese interests. To us, B.C. was not for sale, and we backed that up with action, because every time an opportunity arose for us to reclaim for the people of British Columbia some assets of the people of British Columbia, we reclaimed them in the name of the people.

The Canadian Cellulose interests — two pulp mills, sawmills and everything else that went with it — were in the process of being sold for $10 million. The member for Omineca may feel that we cheated someone there as well because we got that price down too. We negotiated; we were tough bargainers. On Canadian Cellulose, Weyerhaeuser was going to pay $10 million and they were going to close down the Prince Rupert pulp mill. There was no doubt about it. That was announced; everyone knew that; everyone knew what was happening. The deal was almost signed when we arrived in their office, but it hadn't quite been signed, Mr. Speaker. Fortunately for the people of British Columbia the election in 1972 took place on August 30 and not September 30. We were able to stop that. We were able to get the price down to $1 and we were able to reclaim for the people of British Columbia an enterprise that has been making money ever since, an enterprise that cost the people of British Columbia and that was sold to the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation.

The gas drilling rights in the Peace River really didn't cost us anything, except the loss of potential revenue in the future that is going to cost the people of British Columbia something when they might have been sold. George Froehlich of theVancouver Sun , the paper that used to publish in this province, has estimated the value of those to be some $200 million that the citizens of British Columbia will not have.

Somebody's going to get it, but it won't be the citizens of British Columbia collectively. All of those assets that cost the people of British Columbia in the neighbourhood of $38 million were sold by this administration to the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation for $151 million. That gave them a profit of $113 million. We did make a good deal.

For $38 million we bought something for the people of British Columbia that three years later was worth $151 million, and gave the government of the day the day they sold it a profit of $113 million, and gave them the opportunity for the Premier to put out a letter and personally promise to offer to all of the citizens of British Columbia five free shares which, at a value of $6 each, would come to something like $100 million, and he's still ahead of the game. He was able to do that. He was able to make this political promise, this election promise, this election bribe, because of the good sound business administration of the NDP administration.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that our first reaction as a party was that this should not happen; the people of British Columbia collectively should not give away something that was worth — if we include $200 million from the gas rights — $350 million. We should not give away to people who have the financial resources to go out and buy a 1 percent interest in this company, or even some lesser amount.... The people of British Columbia should not give up this $200 million of future revenue from the sale of those natural gas drilling rights. We should not give up the profits that are being made by these corporations that we had acquired in the name of the people of British Columbia, and in the event we formed a government soon enough, we would not allow that to happen.

That was our first reaction, Mr. Speaker. It was a reaction on behalf of the people of British Columbia, and it was a responsible reaction. But we realized an election isn't going to happen soon enough for us to be able to forestall this election gimmickry, so we had to take a second look at it, and there is nothing irresponsible about taking a second look.

Our second look is to advise all the people of British Columbia who are entitled to apply for these five free shares to get out there and apply for them. It's one way of getting back some of the extra $1,500 per family that has been extracted from the people of British Columbia as political revenge for then having dared to vote into office an NDP administration. It's their only opportunity to get something back from this government. They can get back at this government when the election is called, and I dare them to call it — the sooner the better. Let's get rid of them, and let's get on with B.C.

The Leader of the Opposition promised in 1975 that if he were elected as Premier of this province he would turn the economy around. By golly, Mr. Speaker, he's sure turned it around, and down. Let's get on with it. Let's get a new administration in, an administration that is determined to move British Columbia ahead, an administration that is determined to make the economy of British Columbia grow, and an administration that is determined to govern not in the interests of a few who can go out and buy shares, but in the interests of the people of our great and

[ Page 163 ]

glorious province.

I suggest the time is now, Mr. Speaker — the sooner the better. Let's get on with it.

MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, it's good to be back. I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same. I sometimes wonder every year when I stand in my place to address the throne speech if I'm not suffering from deja vu, because I never seem to be too early on in the proceedings.

I do join with you, Mr. Speaker, and the other members of the House, in mourning the passing of the former leader of the government of the province, Mr. W.A.C. Bennett. I had only two or three brief opportunities to meet with him. On one particular occasion, on a very wet, rainy Wednesday, I was delivering some filled-out membership forms to the Social Credit Party headquarters on Main Street, and lo and behold the president of the party came out of the back room and she said: "Have you got a car? Would you like to take a special guest to the Hotel Vancouver?"

I said: "I'll take your special guest, but all I've got is my truck."

I'll tell you one thing about that man: he wasn't proud at all. He rode in my 1954 Chevrolet van all the way down to the Hotel Vancouver, and the doorman just about fell over — and it didn't have "Mussallem" written on the back of the plates.

He was a great guy and a great personality. What's more, he gave me some encouraging words. I guess I owe him a debt of thanks. By taking some of his instructions I manage to find myself here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you sorry?

MR. ROGERS: In a way I am. My father here wants to ask you some personal questions.

I also have some thankful words about our new Lieutenant-Governor. It seems to me that every time a Lieutenant-Governor or a Governor-General in Canada is ending their term there is speculation in the streets: "There are no more people like the last one." They always seem to find them and our latest Lieutenant-Governor has taken over the role of that very responsible job. He is doing a wonderful job so far. I'm sure he and his wife will continue to do an excellent job for the province.

Speaking of new arrivals on the scene, the member for Skeena (Hon. Mr. Shelford) once again finds himself in the role of the Minister of Agriculture. I think he's back among friends and he's certainly very comfortable in that portfolio. I know he'll do an excellent I job.

But the real surprise is it's hard for me to imagine anyone tackling the portfolio of tourism with more enthusiasm than the previous minister (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). It would seem that her efforts are being surpassed by the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch). Lord knows, he has ridden on railway trains and had his son dressed up in a Boy Scout uniform and all sorts of wonderful things in efforts to promote tourism in this province.

I was hoping the member for Revelstoke Slocan (Mr. King) would stay in for this one little bit. It's been something that's been concerning him, I know. I'd like to speak about it before I get into the debate on the speech itself. Recently, in the Queen Charlotte Islands, some loggers were arrested by officials of the federal fisheries department with drawn guns as they were laying down their chainsaws. Actually they were not loggers. They were fallers. The press was incorrect in having reported them as loggers. Fallers would not like to be known as loggers. They are, in fact, fallers. Anyway, they were arrested by the fisheries officers, and it reminds me of a brief instance I had last September. One of my constituents asked me if I'd ever had the privilege of working on a fishboat. While I had, I told him I would be delighted to do so again. I was invited to spend an evening in a fishboat off the mouth of the Fraser River doing what's known as a standard gillnet operation. We went out one evening at 8 o'clock and I asked him what we expected to catch. He said: "Oh, around 120 fish." About 7 o'clock in the morning we had almost 500 sockeye on board. Instead of selling the fish to a cash buyer, we took them into the fish docks at the foot of Commissioner Street. Since I had raingear and gumboots and that special stick with the nail in the end that they use for putting the fish in the basket, I was down in the hold. Lo and behold, a rather young lady with a hard hat and a badge on and a holster on her side with a .357 magnum in it came aboard the vessel. I had a beard at the time, some of you may remember. I didn't really look like an MLA. In fact I really did look like a deckhand on the boat. It shouldn't have made any difference anyway, and I'm glad it didn't. But I asked her what the gun was for and she produced the gun and said: "The gun is for me to look after people like you."

No sooner had I finished unloading the fish than I got home and had a shower and went down to my constituency office and dictated a rather long letter to Mr. Romeo LeBlanc, the then Minister of Fisheries, and I sent a car-

[ Page 164 ]

bon copy to the Attorney-General. It was a concern of mine that the city of Vancouver has a police department which are armed and which very seldom ever produce their firearms. The RCMP have officers who patrol the city of Vancouver dealing with narcotic smuggling and some with special federal interests. Vancouver city has harbour police as well, who are also armed. So I was a little curious to know what happens. I'm told that not only do the fisheries officers in Canada carry arms, but they are the most heavily armed of any of the police forces in Canada with respect to the power of the handguns that they carry. While the fisheries department is undertaking some form of training program to see that they don't shoot their feet, they are as yet not completely trained.

I would think that this incident in the Queen Charlotte Islands would bear a little more close examination of the necessity for arming the federal fisheries officers. I realize it's a federal matter, but it does overlap with the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General. The fewer handguns we have in place in this province, in official or unofficial hands, the better off we'll all be.

Some of the members went to Maui in the few months that we weren't sitting. I didn't do that. I decided to visit Canada, what with the dollar being at 82 cents. I decided to visit our beautiful arctic. I want to recommend to everybody that if you ever get a chance to go up to Coppermine, as long as you're not with Greenpeace or the Sierra Club, you'll be treated with an absolutely wonderful time. I would recommend that if you get a chance to go up there, you do so. It is a beautiful desert. It's a part of Canada which very few people ever get to see. We get to see what the CBC tells us it's all about. It really isn't that way. Instead of George going to Maui next winter, I recommend you come with me. We can take your airplane and go up to the arctic.

Now to the throne speech. There are many items in the throne speech which each of us wishes to address in our own way. The highlights depend on your own priorities. What you find as priorities might be different from what someone else finds as priorities. In my particular case, I think probably I speak for most of my constituents when I say the most important thing in there is the one that financially means the least, but in terms of privacy and personal freedom means the most. That's the announcement of the government that we will be having a provincial bill of rights. The bill of rights is not something you can necessarily use to bargain with every day, as you can your BCRIC shares, but something which you can refer to in those times when you're under stress from one or more agencies of the government, or your neighbours or someone else. I look forward to that.

The announcement of a dental program is again welcome. I think that many other members have spoken of it. One of the concerns I have is that those people who should be going to the dentist now — who should be going to the dentist after this program is announced — will still not be going to the dentist, because of a historical fear of the dentist. The poor people, who in many cases have poor nutrition and could avoid the trip to the extractionist, may still be reluctant to do so. I hope the program will encourage people, especially children, to go to the dentist, because that's where the whole thing is so critically important. If we can get the children to go to the dentist at a young age, we're going to be able to see benefits further down the line. It's another one of those instances where you've got to make an investment before you see the dividends.

Now the Minister of Deregulation has mentioned some things in the building code. I've spoken in this House before about what I consider to be the evil monopoly of eastern Canadian manufacturers — the Canadian Standards Association. I know that he has heard my piece on that in private and here in public. He's indicated that at some point along the line we're going to have standardized building codes. In terms of the average person and his own private dwelling, nothing could be more important in this province than to have a contractor or contractors, be they subcontractors or primary contractors, to have a same set of guidelines and rules for every municipality. In the Greater Vancouver Regional District there are areas where a man can cross the street and enter into an area with different rules of plumbing, different rules of wiring, different rules on gutters, different rules on all sorts of things. The standardization of those rules will eventually mean, not necessarily cheaper housing, but a decrease in the cost-of-housing increase which we have been experiencing.

I don't think there is anyone who can quarrel with the decision to make the driver responsible in insurance rather than the vehicle. I have always had some difficulty in looking at my vehicle and trying to explain to it that it has a good driving record, when in fact a good driving record belongs to the driver. It's like this camel trader here from the Kootenays, who has had the same problem of lending a car to a friend and finding out the car comes back with a crumpled fender. Then he

[ Page 165 ]

is accused of being a poor driver, although we know he is an excellent one. It's a tradition in the family. I find that very encouraging.

The BCRIC shares are something which people have discussed. I sometimes get the feeling, tongue in cheek, that maybe the members of the opposition ask: "Why didn't we think of it first?"

Interjection.

MR. ROGERS: Do you find that amusing? I applaud the program. I think it is excellent. There have been some very, very interesting remarks from the opposition as to what should be done with the BCRIC shares. There have been quarrels about the amount of commission paid to the agents for selling BCRIC shares. If you're looking for investments, I would advise all of my constituents and all of the people that may listen to me to deal with an investment dealer. If you are concerned about banking, you should deal with a banker. Asking your banker whether or not you should invest in equities is a little bit like asking the priest whether it is okay to pray on the side. It's a conflict in terms, there's no question about that. It's a conflict in terms.

But I did take a chance, hon. members. I did take this opportunity to check with various brokerage houses to find out what the odd lot commissions were on small sales. I find that while the BCRIC shares are being underwritten at $5 — the commission fee for one unit of five shares, or whatever increase it is — that is substantially below the Toronto and Vancouver exchange rates which vary between $5 and $15 for minimum registration. So as odd lot transactions, it's not out of line.

It's also not out of line for the registration commission to be paid by someone else. In many cases where an employer decides to make a stock option plan available for his employees, the employer picks up the commission and also underwrites the stock at a discount, which makes it attractive for employees. The program works very well. All of you have been to Woodward's. If you don't think the program works, ask anyone who has worked at Woodward's anywhere in this province for more than five years if they like the employee stock option plan. It's excellent.

We're giving the people of B.C. the opportunity to participate in a very exciting underwriting. The second member for Victoria has exclaimed that he would like to buy 95 shares because he wants to go to the general meeting and, in his words, "ask questions." Now we know the second member for Victoria has not participated in too many annual general meetings, so perhaps it would be incumbent upon me to advise him some of the things he can do. But first he said he was going to have to buy 95 shares.

Now he need only go to Vancouver, get an invitation to go to dinner at the home of the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), take the Fourth Avenue bus west to the end of the line, get off, wander down to Point Grey Road and, when he's there for dinner, ask to go to the bathroom. Once he's been to the bathroom, he should take a hot towel, put it up against the five free shares that are wallpapered on the bathroom wall of the first member for Vancouver East, and he'll only have to buy 90 shares because there are five free ones that someone else doesn't want that he can have.

Now there has been one other member — and I believe it was the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) — who said they're worthless shares in a bankrupt government. As a predominantly capitalistic person, I want to tell you you can make money out of worthless shares, especially if they're being underwritten at a premium. My advice to him is to take his five free shares. My advice is to wait for August 6, and on August 6, on opening day, when the market opens, all he has to do is walk into his brokerage firm and say: "Sir, I would like to short 5,000 or 10,000 BCRIC shares." When the shares hit a dollar or, as he says, if they're worthless and they hit nothing, he'll have a capital gain of about $60,000. It's not out of line. He'll have to pay capital gains tax on it. But if he believes the shares are worthless, then short them. If he believes they're worthwhile, as I do, then he should go along with them. I'm not giving him investment advice; I'm telling him how he can make money whichever way they go. He can always read it in Hansard. It's quite clear now.

I'm sorry that the Tory leader isn't here tonight. He was quoting Tennyson last night. He said there were socialists to the left of him and socialists to the right of him. Tennyson said it was cannons to the right of him and cannons to the left of him, and into the valley of death.... Well, I'm afraid he's riding into the valley of political death, and it's not 600; it's just him and his Sasquatch hunter. But when he turned and said to the members on this side that we were socialists.... There are not many things in this House that offend me, but that offended me. I had to drive my car all the way out to Oak Bay last night and park it on a side street in Oak Bay. Can you imagine the fear I would have had if I had woken up in the morning and some small child had taken a spray can and written

[ Page 166 ]

Interjection.

MR. ROGERS: That's right. In my neighbourhood, in my constituency, it will be disgraceful. Well, you know what happened to the socialists there.

He did tell us two interesting things, though. He said that in the off-season — if we can call it the off-season — if his government were elected, the budget would be slashed in half. I presume what he means is that we would go back to selling the hospitals to private corporations — like they do in Phoenix — and have them on a commercial, fee-for-service basis, Master Charge, Chargex, you know the story. I assume we'd go back to toll roads and toll bridges. I assume we'd do away with free education. I assume we'd do away with a lot of things..

He said: "I'm not a Progressive Conservative." The member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch) said: "Progressive Conservative is like military intelligence; it's a contradiction in terms." I suppose that's quite correct. He said: "No, I'm a true Conservative." He's racing into the thirteenth century at full speed. In fact, I have sad words to tell him; he's really a regressive Conservative.

So, Mr. Speaker, with that — my advice on how to make some money on the BCRIC shares, either way, and my kind words to the Tory leader — I'd like to thank you very much and tell you it's good to be back.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to pay tribute to. the memory of the former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett. I remember when I first came to this House, quite a few years ago now, how very kind the former Premier was to me and to those of us who were new members in the Legislature, and I shall always remember it. I think all of us will always remember the contribution which he made, in his own wisdom and with his own sincerity, towards this province.

I would also like to mention the passing of Gretchen Steeves. I don't think any of us here would have been present in the House when she was a member. I met her, of course, many times. I didn't see her at the time she was a debater in the Legislature, but I understand that she was, and will still be, despite the many fine debaters we have in this House, remembered as one of the best we have ever had in the B.C. Legislature. She was also a great humanitarian. I wish to make those opening remarks, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Now on to the throne speech debate, even though, at this late hour, I'm sure many people are getting somewhat weary, especially hearing some of the speeches that we've had to listen to tonight from the members of the government bench. Frankly, I intend to try and relate my remarks to the throne speech debate, because in listening to most of the Social Credit speakers in the last few days, it's been quite clear that they have simply used the throne speech debate this year as a rehearsal for their campaign speeches.

I don't think they are going to have too much success on the campaign platform if the tone of the speeches which we have heard here in the last week is going to be carried out when the election is called.

We had a lecture from the new Minister of Tourism and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Veitch), who suggested that the NDP were always negative and only the Social Credit were positive. Then he proceeded to give one of the most negative speeches I've heard in the Legislature this week. I can assure you that if the government members who receive their renomination go out on the campaign trail and continue to just preach negativism, I don't think the people of British Columbia are going to give any consideration to the return of this government.

There's a section in the throne debate that I'd like to read. It rather impressed me because of the hypocrisy of the statement: "My government believes that the principles of accountability and sound financial management are the essential foundation for creating individual security and individual opportunity for the citizens of British Columbia." After three years of this government with their fiscal mismanagement and their inability to handle the economy of this province...

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: ...how can any citizen in this province — and in your constituency, Mr. Member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) — possibly have any economic security? As a matter of fact, in the three years, the programs, whatever they've been.... We've failed to see any that the Social Credit have presented produce anything. Their economic and fiscal policies have been an absolute disaster. When policies are a

[ Page 167 ]

disaster economically and fiscally, naturally the effect reverberates throughout the whole province of British Columbia. I don't think people have ever felt so insecure in this province as they have since the Social Credit took office.

Something that the Social Credit government has failed to realize is that if economic growth is purposely stifled.... This is what this government has done in the last three years: they have stifled economic growth with their policies.

The rich are the last ones to be punished. Even if economic growth is stifled, the rich of any community can always afford to shelter their assets, their properties and stocks, and they can wait out the adverse economic conditions comfortably at the top of the economic ladder. But those who are lower on the ladder, even individuals with high incomes who may be taxed at high rates, and those struggling to get on the ladder in the first place, are prevented from advancing upward. That is the situation we have inherited in British Columbia after three years of Social Credit policies. They have been stupid policies based on an overtaxation theory which has been proved throughout this world in most forward countries to be absolutely the wrong thing to do in a time of recession.

I believe that these policies were brought in not only out of sheer vengeance. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) referred to the vengeful policies of the Social Credit government. It wasn't only being vengeful towards the NDP; it was also being absolutely stupid fiscally. They have shown they are incapable of managing the economy of this province.

I know that when we get on to the budget debate we will be going into more detail about the economy of this province and the financial policies of the Social Credit government.

In my own community of Burnaby you can see every day how the people have had to suffer from the increased taxation imposed upon them by the Social Credit government. At a time when the cost of living is the highest it's ever been in our history, this government has imposed further costs on the taxpayers of British Columbia. As the member for Nanaimo said, it has been estimated that the taxation policies of that government have taken out an average of $1,500 from the pockets of the average person in British Columbia. Yet they are now going to give out five free shares. I don't think the people of British Columbia are going to be fooled by the fact that no matter what is now given to them three years later, what has happened to them under this government for the past three years can never be repaired. The tragedy is that some of these effects are going to be very long lasting.

Back to my own community of Burnaby. As far as taxation goes, I'll go into this in more detail in estimates and during the budget. On top of the high cost of living the people of Burnaby, because of this government, have had, when it comes to school costs, imposed upon them now a situation where they are paying 75 percent — and I believe perhaps slightly more than that — of all school costs. That means they are paying over three-quarters of the cost of education in Burnaby, and the provincial government is paying a quarter. This government talks about providing economic security to the people of this province. It is quite interesting to hear them keep talk about the individual and individual freedoms. It is pretty hard to feel absolutely free when every day you find yourself economically becoming more depressed.

If I may digress for just a moment from what's happening in my own area of Burnaby, I do want to comment on the economic security of the child. After all, this is declared by the United Nations the international Year of the Child. It is all right for this government to talk about handing out medals and medallions to children, having them out in the front lawn for a big parade. But if a family is not economically secure, the child is going to suffer. I really was shocked, and nobody else has brought this up, and I'll be interested in hearing a response, maybe from our next speaker, the former Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) . All across the world they are celebrating the International Year of the Child. This isn't a very deep, preponderous statement or thing to be puzzled over, but I am rather interested in your reaction. All over the world this has been declared the International Year of the Child. Yet for some strange reason, in British Columbia alone, we have had the arrogance to change it to the International Year of the Child and the Family. The new Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) simply announced this to the public. She was the only minister in North America — in the world for that matter — who decided to change it.

I consider it arrogant. I consider it superficial. I consider it sheer nonsense. You know why? It shows a lack of understanding of what this whole International Year of the Child is about. I don't expect the member for Omineca to understand this. Maybe his constituents will. It was selected after many, many years of discussion in the United Nations years ago to make this International Year of the Child. Not the family. Everything is to focus in this

[ Page 168 ]

year on the child and its problems. This new Minister of Human Resources has to make a unilateral decision without any explanation or discussion with anyone in this province, and change the whole title. The only place in the world.

I'm sure we are considered and looked at as being rather an object of ridicule in other parts of the province. I don't expect the former minister to have to defend that. I'm sure, however, that the new Minister of Human Resources will finally tell us why she has been arrogant enough to feel that she knows better than all the hundreds of people, thousands of them, who worked for years preparing for the International Year of the Child.

Speaking of Burnaby and the taxation that's been imposed upon them, which creates economic insecurity for the citizens of Burnaby which I represent, no wonder the Burnaby municipality joined with the Greater Vancouver Regional District. I know how fond Mr. Speaker is of the regional districts. No wonder they joined — Burnaby council did — to refuse to participate in the urban transit policy as announced by this provincial government. I know there is going to be a lot of discussion on this later, so I'm not going to go into details. The point I'm making here is: they didn't participate, because they could foresee once again that the Social Credit government policy on urban transit was simply going to mean increased taxation on the local taxpayer in Burnaby. It's bad enough having bus services cut back in Burnaby, but when they hear they're also going to add increased taxation on them for an inadequate service, no wonder the Burnaby council opted out along with the other members.

Those are only two examples of what's happened in my own municipality. There are many others which we'll be discussing in the budget debate of increased taxation by the Social Credit government. The people of Burnaby face a problem that every citizen faces, not only in British Columbia but right across Canada, of course, and the world today. It's the problem of the high cost of living, and particularly food.

I always find it very interesting that the Social Credit members very seldom take on this subject. Yes, they had an agricultural committee and my colleague for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) has expressed very clearly and very well our feelings about that committee. Three million dollars went down the drain, with no easement at all or even a recommendation of an easement of the cost of food for the people of British Columbia.

Naturally, I cannot in all fairness give the Social Credit government of British Columbia the complete responsibility for increased food prices. But is there anything they could be doing? They're not doing anything. I remember the minister we haven't heard from yet, who has just returned to the House, who was the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair). Whenever our critic last year would bring up to him his concern over increased food prices, he usually said: "Well, that doesn't come under my jurisdiction. I will get in touch with Ottawa." That is not good enough. The people of British Columbia are not satisfied with that, because we know that Ottawa just raises its hands and says: "We can't tell the corporations that they're making too much money." So all we can assume is that the Social Credit government of British Columbia is exactly the same as the present government that has just been dissolved in Ottawa. You don't care how much profit is made by the large companies in Canada and in British Columbia. You have never made a statement protesting them, to my knowledge.

My solution, Mr. Speaker, would be this: expose them to the public eye. Why not have a committee meeting right now where you bring those people right in front of you? Why not demand explanations for the rip-off prices in this province? If you put the public gaze on these large companies, these corporations and these monopolies, I think you'll find that they're going to have to sit up and make some changes in their prices. But right now there's nobody bothering; and you're the government. You have the power to do something about it, and you've done absolutely nothing. As a matter of fact, what's even worse, you've added to the cost of food in this province. The former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stupich) is very aware of this.

Whoever was responsible for the selling out of Panco to that large monopoly, Cargill, has ensured that the prices of food in that sector involved in the Panco area are going to go up, because they're a well-known company that doesn't believe in competition. They're one of the largest, apparently, in North America — maybe even further afield — and yet this government sold out to them. They're selling out not only our resources, but they're selling out the people cf British Columbia to these large companies.

Never once have I heard one of those members get up and say what they would do about the high rise in food prices. They spent three million dollars for an agricultural committee that just produced volumes and volumes of research reports, and even tried to apologize for the big profits that are being made by the

[ Page 169 ]

big companies in British Columbia. The situation with the cost of living is serious for the people of Canada and British Columbia. We all know it. I think they've estimated that food prices are going to spiral. I believe it's estimated that they could be going up another 13 percent. And isn't it interesting? While they're going up 13 percent we find that everyone is suggesting that wages must be kept down, including this government. Yet I never hear them saying: "What about the profits?" Never a word from Social Credit.

Last year there was a 70 percent increase in the price of lumber and plywood. The department stores had prices set which resulted in profit increases of 89 percent. Can you imagine if any of our workers asked for 89 percent? And there was a 19 percent increase in food prices for 1978. There's a major rip-off in beef and bread prices right across Canada. There isn't one government or one political party, exclusive of the New Democratic Party, that has come out with any concrete policies in the area of stopping the rip-off in food prices.

It's interesting to note that the Toronto-Dominion Bank had announced before Christmas its intention of raising interest rates on unpaid Chargex balances from 18 percent to 21 percent, effective April 1. It wasn't until the NDP leader in the House of Commons pointed out the Toronto-Dominion's 29.2 percent profit rise in the past year that the bank backed down. Now there is an example. The bank backed down when a political party had the courage to focus publicly on the rip-off they were planning to make on the people. And that is what we're asking this government to do. For the short time that you have left in office, at least try to do something for the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to finish off on a subject which really concerns me and all our caucus members. When you have a government which has created a very bad economic climate, the first group that seems to suffer is youth and women. I spoke on this in the House last year and I think it is terribly important to reiterate this — as I know that other members on this side of the House will be doing in later speeches — because there is a great deal of discrimination out there against women today in the workforce.

Many studies have shown that women are definitely the hardest hit by unemployment. They tend to be employed in the lower-paid occupations in the services sector of the economy, and they are often not represented by trade unions. In the minds of some people the notion still persists that for most women working today a job is a luxury, not a necessity, that women by and large work because they want to, not because they have to.

But studies have clearly shown us — and I think I put this on the record last year, and I would like to bring it up to date again this year — that this is not the case. A Labour Canada study done in 1975 showed that 31 percent of women in the workforce were single and needed a job to support themselves. Over 9 percent of women in the workforce were widowed, divorced or separated and almost 21 percent of women in the workforce were married to spouses earning less than $10,000 and had to work in order to support their families. Now there are the facts. It is simply a myth that most women working today are doing it for luxuries. This study also showed that almost half the Canadian families in which both spouses work still earned incomes below the national median income for 1975. It is quite clear that women are working to support themselves and their families, not because they are bored or because they want to earn extra money.

In the last ten years women have increasingly begun to enter the workforce in search of employment. This is something of a phenomenon, because they hadn't expected quite so many women seeking employment in this decade.

In 1968, for example, the B.C. female labour force participation rate was about 37 percent. Last year it was over 48 percent. Since 1966 an average increase of 2.8 percent in the British Columbia female participation rate has occurred each year. This increase has caught governments by surprise. They were wrong in their earlier predictions about this situation, and therefore governments were not prepared and discrimination has come about because of ignorance. Therefore new policies are needed desperately at both the federal and the provincial levels to assist women to find jobs, for many of them absolutely have to have them, as I said earlier.

I think one of the most appalling things about this government, Mr. Speaker, in the last three years has been their attitude to day care. As I've pointed out, these women have to work, but they have to have the security of knowing that their children are being cared for, particularly those who are single parents. And every time I turn around I see some complaint from some group in this province that they cannot keep up their day-care centres; because of lack of money they may have to fold.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 170 ]

I accuse this government of being very negligent. To talk about the International Year of the Child in the face of closing day-care centres is absolutely hypocritical. Mr. Speaker, I think again the member for Nanaimo explained very well the comparison of records. I think it would be wise if you looked up the number of day-care centres opened under the NDP and the former Minister of Human Resources (Mr. Levi), compared to what you've done as a government for day-care centres in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the new Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is anxious to get on his feet, and I know we'll all have an opportunity to speak again in this session. I simply want to say that this throne speech which we are debating now is a vacuous speech. It's what we can pretty well expect from a government that is bereft of ideas economically and fiscally. I could not support it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to respond to a Speech from the Throne which offers further opportunity to British Columbia and gives promise of a great future for a great province.

But I must, for a moment, answer some of those questions which were raised by the member for Burnaby North, and then I would like to answer some of the questions and items mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition as well.

The member for Burnaby North takes great exception to the fact that we have declared 1979 as the Year of the Child and the Family. She says it is arrogant and stupid for us to be so different from all other provinces in this great dominion. Mr. Speaker, not only is it great to be different and to include the family with the child, but I know that throughout Canada they are following our lead. Those provinces which did not initially pick up on this are now envious and certainly looking in that direction. They recognize the value of it, because when you recognize the child, you must equally recognize the family. I think certainly, especially in times like this, all of us should be reminded time and time again that the family is the most important unit in our society.

We in British Columbia, certainly through our government — and I had the fortune as Minister of Human Resources to be a part of that — have done a tremendous amount in promoting the importance of the family and providing whatever assistance we could to strengthen the family. I think perhaps this is where we differ from the opposition in many respects, because we have continually stressed the importance of the family. We have recognized this by providing assistance and assuring that the policies which were developed throughout government indicated very clearly the importance of this.

I can recall that a few years back when I first became the Minister of Human Resources there was certainly a feeling throughout the ministry then — and it had certainly been promoted by the government which preceeded us — that somehow it didn't matter much, and families, while important, didn't require all the attention, and children definitely could decide to leave on their own if they so wished. It didn't matter all that much. We saw then lineups at the welfare counters of 14-year olds and 15-year-olds and 16-year-olds, and they were given assistance because it was supposedly their democratic right.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing that did more harm than that in that it led further to breaking up the family unit. People could leave and family maintenance was something that wasn't thought of, or certainly wasn't encouraged in any way. Support payments? No way. If there is a split, by all means provide them with welfare. Support isn't necessary. It shouldn't be encouraged; it wasn't encouraged. This is where we differ. We do recognize the all-importance of the family as the number one unit in our society in British Columbia and throughout the country.

Mention was made of day care and the fact that if you want to help those women particularly who require employment, then you must provide a good day-care program. Well, day care didn't happen only a few years ago. The program certainly has been in existence for some time. But if, in fact, as the member mentioned, the all-important thing is the rates we pay to assure that those day-care units can operate effectively and remain open as often and as regularly as required, I think our record is good, because in a matter of three years, those rates were increased from 40 to 50 percent. That certainly is a far greater increase than at any other three-year period during the history of this province.

Mention was made of urban transit by the former speaker and the fact that we were imposing a tax on people for the transit system. Well, I think perhaps the hon. member loses sight of the fact that there's more to British Columbia than simply Vancouver and Victoria.

British Columbia is strong because of a progressive, hard-working, energetic people in the north, in the east, and in many other areas who have continually supported a transit system through taxation, not only in their own

[ Page 171 ]

area, but by paying, in their hydro bills, for a system in Vancouver and a system in Victoria. Those hon. members seem to forget about that part of British Columbia. Our great north, which certainly provides all of us in the south who are proud of the areas we live in with many of the benefits we enjoy, and possibly take for granted.

Is it fair that the people in Kamloops, in Prince George, in Trail, in Nelson and in all these other parts pay through their taxes for their transit system, and then pay again in their hydro bills for the transit system in the urban areas? I say it is. Not only that, I think if you want to develop a good system of transit in all areas of the province, then you must put some responsibility of cost directly with the people who make the decisions at the local level. That makes for an accountable system. That makes for a credible system. That makes for a system that can grow progressively and effectively.

I must answer some of the negativism which was expressed by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. The doom and gloom experts on the other side certainly, suddenly, seem to know all about railways. We found in our pro tem leader of the NDP a great rail expert who is suddenly prepared, or came forth with a proposal, to sell a piece of the BCR to the Americans.

I would suggest to the House, and to all British Columbians, that it would be a sad day if that member was ever the one to consummate a deal between the Americans and ourselves with respect to the BCR. I can appreciate that the pro tem leader of the NDP has some difficulties. Frankly I feel for him. He cannot be so naive as to not realize that Mr. Jim Kinnaird, the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, is chipping away constantly, waiting for the day that he might grab control and become the leader of the NDP. Those rallies around the province.... They are, of course, based on a phony issue — based on a non-issue, for that matter. I don't believe he really understands the new issue of right-to-work. His concern is not the right to work or the right not to work or the right to eat or the right to starve. His real worry, I would suggest, is the fact that among the many good union people, the many members of those various unions, there is a real movement towards bringing a greater amount of democracy into the system. They want more democracy in their system, and why shouldn't they deserve more democracy in their system?

But again, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that for Mr. Kinnaird and a few others who couldn't make it in Great Britain, that's a real worry, because more democracy within their system would weaken the powers they presently hold. He doesn't want less power; he wants more and more and more power. He can see that he and others like him could possibly take control of a vulnerable and weakly led NDP party. He wants to be the leader. He would like to be the Premier one day, with John Fryer the Minister of Labour. They don't really care about bankrupting the province in the process. After all, like the doom-and-gloom people across the way, they are more powerful when people are poor.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have been a member of this progressive government, a government which effectively turned the province from a downhill backwards slide to a forward climbing position to outshine every province in this great nation. And as was so ably stated by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), we did all of this being terribly handicapped in having followed that group of incompetents.

That government overspent at an unprecedented rate, and I think we ought to remind the people of British Columbia time and time and time again. I think it should be repeated throughout all parts of the province, not only when there is an election called but all of the time, because if we don't remind the people time and time again.... If we should ever once again be saddled by a socialistic government in British Columbia, this province may never recover. Those industries would move and the people would be without jobs and the suffering that would follow could never be turned about.

The average increase in the provincial budget while they ran the show was 27 percent per year. Finally at the very end — and I think perhaps that was a wise move, because certainly he was a far more able person, but he was too late — the member for Nanaimo had to take control of finance. It was wildly out of control. They had no idea whatsoever. That member, being an accountant — and he works at it very hard — I think might have done something to improve it. But it was too late. It couldn't be done. He knows it. He knows it well. The cost of the bureaucracy had increased in only three years from $228 million in 1972 to $550 million in 1975. Every Crown corporation was stamping the taxpayers deeper and deeper into debt. Welfare had risen by 50 to 60 percent in some areas in only one year. That's on the record. It can be checked time and time again in many communities throughout this province. If we need to be reminded of what it was like, let's look at those welfare records. I think they too tell a story.

[ Page 172 ]

Mines were closing. Forestry was down. Tourism was discouraged. Hospital construction was at an all-time low. Highway construction and maintenance — and Mr. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), you can bear this out — had virtually stopped. Highways that were leading south, north, east and west were breaking up, and nothing was being done. They were in a disastrous state. Those were tough times to inherit or to take over government.

There were some light moments as well. I can recall the day when the then Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Lorimer) came in to cabinet one day and presented me with a list of trees. He said: "Bill, you are the tree expert. I hope you can do something about this list of trees." So he gave me this long list of millions of trees. The NDP government had gone out and bought all these trees from different places all over the world, and they had planted them out in greenhouses and in beds in Surrey and other nurseries elsewhere throughout the province. They had spent all sorts of money building beds and coldframes and hotbeds and greenhouses. We had millions of trees. What will we do with all these trees? There really wasn't any place for them. Initially we were told all those millions of trees were intended to be planted in False Creek. But then it was discovered that plan wouldn't work.

So the minister presented me with a long list of millions of trees. I looked at the list and saw salix alpina, Betula papyrifera, Alnus and Populus negra. Now I want to tell you what that means. Those are Latin names. If you don't think we had a problem with all of those millions of trees, those are Latin names for all those millions of trees that were going to be planted in False Creek. I'll translate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I'll inspect to see whether or not any of those are on the list of unparliamentary words. [Laughter.]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'll translate those Latin names. Translated, we had millions of willows, swamp birch, alders and cottonwoods. That's what we had. All of those beautiful trees had been imported and were going to be planted in False Creek. What do you do with a million cottonwoods? What do you do with a million alders? What do you do with millions of swamp birch? That was, perhaps, one of the light moments, but certainly sad too, because it cost the taxpayers of British Columbia many, many hundreds of thousands of dollars for that useless program, which obviously hadn't been thought out. It was just a wild pipe-dream of some then minister in that particular government.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Whatever happened to the train that bent in the middle? [Laughter.]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: One of the other moments was the train that wouldn't meet the ramps at the railway stations — it wouldn't fit the track. We still have the train, however. That train justified a trip to Sweden for the then Minister of Municipal Affairs in the NDP government. Frankly, I was on the regional district at that time and was asked to go along. I was a part of that trip to Europe for a part of the time. Yes, Mr. Minister. Actually, it probably was a good learning experience in what not to do, but it made me more aware, too, that government can be very wasteful. It certainly has little regard for taxpayers' money, especially when they are a bunch of socialists and don't just know exactly what money means. They simply think there's an endless supply of it.

The ferries without ramps.... I don't want to tell all of these stories. I think I should leave a few for the others. No, I just don't think it's fair that I take all of this. For that matter, I think we should save a few.

It's been suggested by some members on the opposite side that there might be an election. I want to go out there and tell all those people of the north that at one time we had millions of cottonwoods imported by the NDP. That's certainly something that would go over big in Houston, Smithers or one of those places. Perhaps the people in New Westminster would appreciate all those alders right now, although, mind you, perhaps we should keep a few of those stories for them.

The member who just spoke for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), also made mention of the NDP in Ottawa. What a wonderful bunch. What wonderful things they had done, and how the NDP in Ottawa — the socialists there — were doing such a great job. I just want to point out that there's a great deal of hypocrisy with the NDP in Ottawa too.

The member who is going to be seeking the nomination in one of the Coquitlam ridings was an MP. I believe his name is Leggatt. He led the NDP forces in Ottawa. They voted unanimously to legalize marijuana — not the grower, not the importer, not the pedlar, but the user. So for the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), just so he understands it — not to decriminalize it for the grower, the importer or the peddler, but the user. That's one standard. A few days later, in the same ses-

[ Page 173 ]

sion, that same member led those same NDP forces and voted against prostitution control measures that were being introduced by the Liberal government. They said it wasn't fair to charge the prostitute, but we should instead charge the user. Talk about hypocrisy. "Different standards, different times, different people."

Mr. Speaker, I think, possibly there are more people using marijuana than peddling marijuana, so there are more votes. Maybe there are less prostitutes than users, so there are more votes. But we have a similar situation in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: It doesn't make sense.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It does make sense. Just think about it. It's a long time getting through.

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

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I have so many more things to talk about that I would like to take the balance of the time tomorrow, and I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get up on a point to correct the minister. In his usual way he has flirted with the truth and found it hard to find, accusing the member for New Westminster of legalizing marijuana, or suggesting that it be legalized. That is totally erroneous, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, if there are to be corrections made, this is the right time. However, the corrections are only to be directed to that area of a speech made by the individual who takes objections. In other words, the correction in this instance could only have been made if someone had misquoted a portion of the speech made by the member for New Westminster. So, we cannot accept that.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:01 p.m.