[ Page 175 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Sale of B.C. companies to American companies. Mr. Barrett — 175

Funding for Lions Gate Hospital. Mr. Stephens — 176

Refitting of "Princess Marguerite". Mrs. Dailly — 177

Transfer of B.C. Tel shares. Mr. Lauk — 177

Statement

CBC'S "Connections" program. Hon. Mr. Gardom — 178

Mr. Macdonald — 182

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 183

Hon. Mr. Mair — 185

Mr. Lea — 189

Mr. Calder — 196

Mr. Kahl — 200

Mr. Barnes — 205

Presenting reports.

Ombudsman committee. Mr. Davidson — 207

Appendix — 208

THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: We have in the members' gallery today a large delegation of young people from the Pacific Region of the Boys' and Girls' Clubs of Canada. The purpose of their visit is to present the recently promulgated United Nations Children's Bill of Rights, to interpret each one of the rights and to present printed proclamations.

This morning the young people met with the caucus of the official opposition, and they met with the government caucus just about half an hour ago. This is being done at all provincial legislatures, as well as in Ottawa. The youngsters in the gallery today represent about 9,000 members in the province and 50,000 members across the country.

I know it's a long introduction, Mr. Speaker, but may I give you some names? From North Delta is Sherry Dunlop who, incidentally, is celebrating her sixteenth birthday; from Nanaimo, Donald Pugh; from North Burnaby, Paul Hendriks; from Penticton, Joe Wellington and Corina Wallner; from Vancouver-Fraserview, Brad Reanbeault and Roberta Genschorek; from Vancouver Ki-Mount, Jasbinder Hayre; from Central Saanich, Derrick Law and Tony Van Wyk; and from Victoria, Jason Merriman.

Serving as their hosts, along with officials of Boys' and Girls' Clubs today, are Youth Parliament members who are also in the gallery: Anthony Gurr, Chris McElroy, Mike Seymour, Colin Hanson, Sandra Rodger and Dan Burnett, all Vancouver Island members of the Youth Parliament.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there are representatives of the staff and the board of directors of Boys' and Girls' Clubs in British Columbia: John Ballam, the regional director; Doug Soo, director of the Ki-Mount Boys' and Girls' Clubs, Mac McGillivary, national board member; Peter Nation, program director in Central Saanich; Boeing Quan, program director in Langford; and Mirella Spinelli, program director in Victoria. I believe that those members on both sides of the House who received the presentation and heard the comments with respect to the International Year of the Child and Family were most appreciative.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, we also have a large group in the gallery today who, while not as young in body as the ones introduced by the Provincial Secretary, are still very young in mind. A group of about 40, led by Mr. P.H. Andres and Mrs. Lois Reynolds, the acting president of the MA Advisory Comcil for Retired Citizens, are here to watch government in action. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member, for introducing those people on my behalf. My note tells me that it is a group called "The Widows Helping Others." We believe in volunteering out there.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Sitting in the gallery this afternoon is my wife Sheila, my son-in-law Gordon McCallum, my daughter Barbara McCallum and my nine-year-old son, Gregory. I'd like this House to bid them welcome.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I have a very good friend who has come down to visit from Vernon. Her name is Lee Kowalski. I'd ask the House to make her as welcome as I have.

MR. SMITH: Today is one of those infrequent occasions when a group of students from North Peace River are visiting Victoria. I'd ask the members of the House to make welcome Mr. Bruce Chisholm and a group of students from Buick Creek, a school north of Fort St. John.

MR. KEMPF: In the gallery with us today are two very good friends of mine, residents of my home town of Houston, Mr. and Mrs. Rick Van Rhyn. I'd like to ask the House to make them very welcome.

Oral questions.

SALE OF B.C.

COMPANIES TO AMERICAN COMPANIES

MR. BARRETT: I address my question to the Premier. I have in my hand a document written by the federal Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The document purports to state that British Columbia strongly resisted the policy of the federal Foreign Investment Review Agency. I would ask the Premier if it is, indeed, the British Columbia government's policy to object to keeping the ownership of Canadian industry in Canada, as stated by Mr. Horner in this memorandum.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Leader of the Opposition is incorrect in his supposition, and the answer is no.

MR. BARRETT: Supplementary. I appreciate the answer from the Premier. Could the Premier then tell me why his government consented

[ Page 176 ]

without a protest to the sale of 74 British Columbia companies to foreign interests between 1976 and 1978?

HON. MR. BENNETT: As the Leader of the Opposition should know, it's not a matter of British Columbia consenting. The Foreign Investment Review Agency, as it did when British Columbia had the unfortunate experience of their being government, processes these applications, and a large number went through at that time. Nothing has changed.

MR. BARRETT: Would the Premier inform this House whether or not he has ever had conversations with Mr. Horner about the alleged complaints that Mr. Horner has made about the government's position and the fact that the government has never said in writing that they are opposed to any single one of these takeovers?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I have not had any discussions with Mr. Horner on the subject.

FUNDING FOR

LIONS GATE HOSPITAL

MR. STEPHENS: My question is for the Premier. I welcome him back and hope he did good things for the province in his absence.

In view of the fact that through a special warrant recently issued the Premier obtained $3 million, described as urgently and immediately required for the public good in the distribution of the BCRIC shares, why is he not prepared to give to the Lions Gate Hospital in North Vancouver $750,000 which it so desperately needs and urgently requires for the public good?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I an pleased that question was asked. This government is not going to withhold funds or cause any problems to the hospital. The hospitals have never been better cared for in this province.

Let me say this: we don't have the problems that you see in other provinces. In fact, we have seen an expansion of health services. I want to say it may be difficult for the leader of the Conservative Party to consider doing two things at once, but this government can do a number of things for people in many areas. They do not conflict. They do not deter one another.

There is progress on all fronts. Individual ownership is being encouraged and extended to our people. We have the best health care in Canada. I would ask that member to be in his place for the budget, Monday next. I would be prepared to listen to his comments after the budget.

MR. STEPHENS: I thank the Premier for his speech. Now, perhaps, he would like to answer the question. In case he has forgotten what it was, the Lions Gate Hospital in North Vancouver is in such desperate shape that the vice-chairman of the board resigned in frustration. This situation was presented to the government a year ago, when the hospital board required the money. Why will you not give that hospital a $750,000 contribution that it so urgently and desperately needs for the public good?

HON. MR. BENNETT: There is going to be no problem with the hospitals of this province. There has been a continued process.... I recognize that the member is new and perhaps doesn't know how government works, through the Health ministry, on budget years that are not yet completed. I have to tell him that I took the opportunity to provide representation while there have been vacancies on the two North Shore constituencies, and that matter is well in hand.

I want to tell that member, without dealing with subjects that will be more than adequately but very positively dealt with on Monday, that I am pleased you have now given the public notice of the type of positive answers they can expect from this government. Hospitals, schools and all other parts of our society are being treated not only with equity and fairness but in a positive way, so that this province can continue to flourish and grow.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary question, I feel very badly that I have to stand in this House and charge the Premier with making jokes about health care, which has been absolutely put down in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'll ask the question after I preface my remark by charging that the hospitals have over $40 million in deficits. They're paying more in interest per day than two hospitals are paying for patient care.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: This is the hospital situation. What's the Premier going to do about it on budget day? Why didn't he do it a year ago?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Before the Pre-

[ Page 177 ]

mier answers, I would like to remind the members again, as I did yesterday, that the purpose of question period, of course, is to ask questions and not to make statements. Beauchesne has some rather strong words about making statements in question period.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has made a statement on a figure that is not the information presented to me. Of course, it is not unusual for the opposition to state incorrect facts. It reminds me of the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), a member of their party, who said in this House that the NDP makes up their own facts.

REFITTING OF

"PRINCESS MARGUERITE"

MRS. DAILLY: To the Minister of Tourism. We understand that consideration is being given to scrapping the "Princess Marguerite." We've been told through the press that it may cost close to $1 million to refit it to meet certain standards. Could the minister tell us, first, if this is an annual refitting cost?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I want to tell you we have no plans of scrapping the "Marguerite" run. This is a valuable tourist tool. Last year that old vessel brought over $8 million worth of tourism to our economy. We intend to make sure that that ship sails not only on time, but 18 days before the time it would normally go out. We have no plans for scrapping the run. Unlike the previous government, we're using it as a promotional piece to bring tourism to British Columbia. We intend to do that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Premier. Pardon me, the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm glad the hon. members all understand that errors can be made. I must apologize.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, if it did, in fact, become fact, that would be an error indeed. [Laughter.]

MR. SPEAKER: I welcome the good humour. But it's not a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: I want to ask the Minister of Tourism whether or not he will dissociate himself now with the remarks made by his colleagues when they were in opposition, attacking the "Marguerite" as being a boondoggle.

MRS. DAILLY: You say you're keeping the service up. We're delighted to hear that. But is the "Marguerite" going to be scrapped, and why? The "Marguerite" has a unique quality which we believe brought thousands of tourists to Victoria. Could you tell us if you are planning to scrap it, or not?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Thank you very much again for that question. I want to tell you that ship was financed out of the back of Bob Williams' pocket with a loan from the credit union. Had that been done properly in the first place there would probably be no debt because of the good management over the last few years, as far as that vessel goes.

I want to reiterate that we intend to keep the service going between here and Seattle. We intend to improve it. That should be good enough for the hon. member.

MR. LAUK: The minister means he is not going to continue to use the vessel "Marguerite."

TRANSFER OF B.C. TEL SHARES

My question is to the Premier. On February 14 he announced that British Columbia Telephone Company had transferred, or was about to transfer, 5 percent of its shares to its parent company, General Telephone. The Premier indicated that 5 percent shareholding would go into a flow-through voting trust with the British Columbia Resources and Investment Corporation. He argued that would bring control of B.C. Tel somehow to British Columbia. He said, at the time, that was not his idea. The next day we asked Gordon MacFarlane of B.C. Tel, and Mr. MacFarlane said it wasn't his idea. On that next day the vice-chairman of General Telephone had never heard of the scheme. Now would the Premier not change his story with respect to whose idea that sham was?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member is incorrect that I made the announcement. I responded to an announcement. I said this: it is the policy of this government for utilities and business doing business in this province to make sure that the ancillary business and particularly research and technical development, which will lead to greater employment for our people, shall take place in this province. Control of that shall take place. We have created a Ministry of Education, Science and Technology to put greater emphasis on this opportunity. That will take place.

In response to the initiative to get control of the research and development facilities and

[ Page 178 ]

supply into the hands of this Canadian company, the British Columbia government said that if those financial arrangements took place and it was approved by the Federal Investment Review Agency, we would want those shares. Rather than vote an equity ownership to the parent company, those would be voted in British Columbia, and the voting rights would be handled by the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Answer the question.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That is the answer to the question.

It may be that the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) may giggle, as he does every time with a matter of importance, but I want to say that it is the policy of this government to see more manufacturing capability and more of the industry and business in this province directed in this province. That has been the policy of this government, and we have so indicated, and we have had a response from many businesses that are now moving to make this happen in British Columbia for the first time, not by a big stick but by stating government policy and having it clearly understood.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, I think it is time to review the purpose of question period. Although I will not take time out of question period to do this, this is the moment at which we need to review the purpose of question period.

The same general rules of debate apply. The person who is recognized and who has possession of the floor is not to be interrupted, either while he is asking a question or while someone else is answering that question. The purpose of question period is to seek information — not information which is public knowledge, but information which is new information. Whenever an answer is given, the answer is not to be beyond the scope of the question.

If we allow the House to exceed those limits, on either side, we have then destroyed the purpose of question period to that extent. I would ask all members on both sides to observe those simple, basic rules so that we can preserve the dignity of question period.

I am going to permit one more question, as I promised.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Premier. Could the Premier, as a result of his answer, confirm that when he stated on February 14 that the idea was that of British Columbia Telephone, he was not telling the truth?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Not at all, but I would be pleased to help this member and give him a copy of the press release which I issued at that time.

MR. LAUK: I read it. It said it was not your idea. Were you telling the truth?

MR. SPEAKER: Question period is concluded.

On a point of order, the first member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: I had an important question today, on a point of order, for the Attorney-General on British Columbia's fifth growth industry, organized crime. The Attorney-General has not been in his chair — he has been in the chambers. With respect, Mr. Speaker, you should instruct the ministers — if they're here at all — to be in their places and available to answer questions on matters of that much importance. This minister has said that it's not a serious enough matter to warrant a crime commission. I think he should be asked about that, and dared to make that statement on the floor of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. member knows that the Speaker does not require the presence of members in this House, nor can he order them to be present. Each member's attendance in this chamber is a matter of his own responsibility and will continue to be such.

HON. MR. GARDOM: With the leave of the House, I'd very much like to file a statement that I presented to the members of the media shortly before we came into session.

Leave granted.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It'll take me a long time, but I'll be happy to read it.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if it's to be read, it will need to be read with leave.

Leave granted.

CBC'S "CONNECTIONS" PROGRAM

HON. MR. GARDOM: The statement I gave earlier this afternoon dealt with the airing

[ Page 179 ]

of CBC's first "Connections" program in 1977, and also with the airing of the recent program. There is no question that it has created much public concern about the nature and extent of organized crime in Canada. Both of the programs, of course, referred to B.C.

Following the first program, I indicated to the people of this province and to the Legislature the preventive strategies that were in place in our province, those which were going to be studied and, specifically, those of a crime commission.

Promptly thereafter, a crime commission study was initiated by a team comprising the senior Crown counsel, one inspector from the Vancouver City Police, another from the RCMP, and three members from the policy analysis division of CLEU. Commission procedures in New Mexico, New Jersey and Quebec were examined very closely, because they were considered to be the most suitable models for adaptation, if necessary, for any situation in B.C. Particular note was made of these commissions' mandates, their powers and purposes, their structure, their procedures, their activities, achievements, problems and costs. The study dealt with the format, procedures, funding, composition and general modus operandi of the crime commissions in these three areas.

Based upon the information gathered, particularly with respect to the Quebec Crime Commission, a model for a crime commission has been designed for our own province if the need is clearly demonstrated at any time. Based on the costs of the commissions examined, it was estimated that a commission here would cost about $662,000 a year. But those figures exclude very, very considerable costs for additional support and investigative functions, which such a commission would obviously require from law enforcement and regulatory agencies.

The report of the B.C. team was presented to the policy board of the Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit. That policy board consists of: the Deputy Attorney-General, (R. Vogel), Deputy Commissioner Reed, the head of the RCMP in the province; Chief Constable Don Winterton of Vancouver City Police; Chief Constable Peterson of Saanich; Assistant Commissioner Jensen of the RCMP "E" division Vancouver; Deputy Chief Constable Tom Dixon of the Vancouver City Police; Mr. Neil McDiarmid, QC, the ADM of Criminal Justice; Mr. Geoffrey Mortimer, the chairman of the B.C. Police Commission; and Mr. Bob Simson, the director of CLEU.

The policy board had an in--depth review of this report of the B.C. team concerning the commissions in other areas. Then it recommended to me that a crime commission should not be established at the present time in our province, but that a careful watch continue to be kept on the situation so that if the need does arise at any time in the future, it would be possible to fully and promptly implement the work that's already been done.

The usefulness of and the need for a crime commission is therefore under — and will continue to be under — serious and continuous review. I'd like to emphasize that our authorities are on the alert. The issues are not going to slip by. The crime commission may be recommended and implemented at any time, if necessary. The reasons for the recommendation I received from the policy board of the Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit are these: organized criminal activity in B.C. was of a different character than elsewhere. While there's no question that some similar problems are present, there was neither the same degree of entrenchment of organized crime nor the type of corruption here in B.C. as in other areas that made the establishment of crime commissions in those areas necessary from their point of view.

There is also in existence in B.C. a wide variety of mechanisms for combatting organized crime that those jurisdictions with crime commissions did not have, and I would like to spend some time on that, Mr. Speaker. In addition to the policy analysis division and the Joint Forces Operations of CLEU — and that's permanent, not an ad hoc joint forces operation — we have here in our province an integrated intelligence service, plus large drug squads that are maintained by the police, an efficient RCMP commercial crime section, and provincial regulatory agencies which are cooperating in the control of crime and/or organized crime.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the changes that were brought about in the total criminal justice system over the past five years have increased the efficiency of the province in dealing with this type of malaise. I refer specifically to the regulatory agencies such as the superintendent of brokers, the registrar of companies, the fire marshal, liquor distribution and the superintendent of insurance and real estate. Then, of course, there are the federal regulatory agencies, which include immigration, port authorities and customs.

When I talked about the changes in the total criminal justice system over the five years, this would include such things as the development of permanent prosecutorial systems, a release of police manpower by virtue of the sheriff services, improved police training via the justice institute, the functions of the

[ Page 180 ]

B.C. Police Commission, and a considerably increased emphasis on intelligence and analysis training. Also, B.C. police strength is up about 25 percent in the five-year span, from some 4,076 in 1973 to 5,198 in 1978. The RCMP also expanded their communications network.

Now it is felt, Mr. Speaker, that a sizeable allocation of funds would be required also to set up and maintain a commission, and its support services could be usefully spent in traditional law enforcement. So it goes without saying that the requirement for a crime commission has to clearly outweigh — and I think this is the viewpoint that is being expressed in other areas in our country and in other areas in the United States — the problems inherent in establishing such a process which it does not do today in B.C. But as I've said, it does require ongoing attention and consideration, which it will receive.

I think the cautions of Judge Jutile, who was an original member of the Quebec Crime Commission, should be heeded before considering any final decision. I think he stated it very succinctly when he said:

"Before setting up a permanent commission it is essential that the existing system will be well tried and proven, and that there will be every possible guarantee that it will succeed. Many permanent institutions have not achieved the anticipated results, because they've been too hastily formed and have not been provided with sufficient guarantees of success. "We" — that is the Jutile commission — "do not want to repeat these mistakes. It would be useless to establish a permanent commission on organized crime that would simply have a traditional institution yielding no concrete results."

So it's clear, Mr. Speaker, that there is also the need for an abundance of coordination and cooperation between the government of Canada and all of the provinces to ensure that this type of malaise is not just taken care of in one area and then inherited in another. That is, of course, another dimension deserving very careful attention when one might be talking about just a provincial crime commission, because crime doesn't recognize any borders. If a provincial step was taken, it would obviously be most helpful if there was some parallel procedure in other provinces, or powers to subpoena and effectively enforce subpoenas beyond provincial borders for crime commissions. Or perhaps they have a national vehicle that could be empowered to do the job if it was called up provincially. And I think that's an option that is deserving of consideration as well.

Concerning the CBC program, the officials further inform.... I think it is significant to note, Mr. Speaker, that the reputed head of organized crime, as identified in a first CBC production, one Joe Gentile, fled the country to Italy in the early fall of 1976 as a result of law enforcement pressure and has not returned to Canada.

As well, another reputed organized crime figure, Carlo Gallo, has been convicted in B.C. of conspiracy to utter and possess counterfeit money and was sentenced to four years in prison. A co-accused, Frank Magasano, was sentenced to seven years. Other individuals identified by the CBC are awaiting trial on June 4 of this year on the same charges.

Further, as was indicated by the CBC on Monday night, none of the five Hong Kong policemen who were identified in the 1977 program as significant criminal figures has returned to Canada. One of them, Hon Sum, fled the country while awaiting a Crown appeal dealing with his return to Hong Kong.

Because it is before the court, it's not appropriate for me to comment on the CBC's portrayal of Joe Romano. It is on court record, though, that he's charged with conspiracy to defraud with respect to Seneca Developments in 1977, and extortion with respect to an incident in late 1978.

The program also made reference to Mr. Angelo Branca, who's a senior British Columbia lawyer, and now retired justice from the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

With reference to the content of the program, and/or otherwise, I asked law enforcement officials if there was any evidence or allegations of criminality against Mr. Branca. I've been informed there is none. As the people of B.C. know, Mr. Branca has had a lifetime career as a highly competent lawyer and as counsel both for people accused and as prosecutor for the Crown, and lastly as a jurist in the appellate court.

Subsequent to the 1977 program, the intelligence contained in the program was reviewed and correlated with law enforcement material, I'm advised. It appeared there was little that our law enforcement agencies were not aware of at that time. Again, as I did in 1977, I have requested that law enforcement authorities consider the material contained in the present CBC programs and interrelate it with their present intelligence. That will be part of the various matters they will be considering. If any evidence concerning any matter is of assistance, it will be dealt with. If any charges should be required from that, those charges shall be laid.

As my colleague the Attorney-General for

[ Page 181 ]

Ontario, the Hon. Roy McMurtry, said, there's really considerable difference between showing someone involved with criminals, and proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. The CBC material indicates associations with reputed criminals. Such an association does not necessarily or conclusively mean criminal involvement. It could also mean that a person has not resisted being imposed upon, or that he or she has been indiscreet.

The program also makes the point that the criminal can gain protection from the object of his criminal act by way of fear of reprisal. I'd say if more people would come forward, the criminal element would conclude that their protection by way of fear of reprisal was becoming denied to them.

I think it would be unjustified to suggest that the kind of criminal element referred to in the program has been totally dealt with in B.C. or totally dealt with anywhere else in the country for that matter, or on this continent. Substantial progress has been made in the identification of major British Columbia figures and their subsequent prosecution. The development of the Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit with its permanent joint forces police operations in both Victoria and Vancouver has been a very successful vehicle in this regard.

In 1974, the combined intelligence units of the RCMP, Vancouver, and other municipal forces identified some 400 individuals as significant criminal figures. Of this number half were associated solely with drugs, and the other half were engaged in crimes such as organized prostitution, bookmaking, loan sharking, major thefts, counterfeiting and robberies. To date, about 90 per cent of the total identified have been targeted and investigated. This has resulted in charges being laid, or sufficient pressure being brought to bear on them so that they have become inactive, or have left the country.

Further, in many cases conspiracy charges have been laid prior to a crime being committed, which is being consistent with a proactive rather than a reactive approach. In relation to the cases I've been speaking about, until the end of 1978 there have been about 636 arrests.

In the interests of promoting improved communication, coordination and cooperation, the ministry has regularly met with the B.C. regulatory agencies concerned with the problem. They have studied their functions. Their powers, resources and investigatory information have been a very beneficial liaison, with the exchange of information, the pooling of resources, and the various talents and expertise. You can see from the list I've given that there are many talents and a great deal of expertise within the competence of these people. This has been very good. It has helped to develop their potential for better assistance in the control and suppression of organized crime in our province. Also, the very fact of that exercise has created a greater awareness of the problem within the agencies themselves.

Administrative and legislative measures have been implemented with respect to the Vancouver Stock Exchange, together with increased market monitoring by the exchange. The superintendent of brokers office and the law enforcement community have made it more difficult to use the exchange for questionable, unethical or illegal transactions. There have been increases in the resources for the compliance department. That has been expanded to security and intelligence. There's more information re corporate charges and exploratory discoveries.

The superintendent of brokers is now vetting statements of material fact, as well as the stock exchange. There is an anti-market manipulation unit of the RCMP, which has an increase in numbers and is spending more time in that area. Some considerable progress has been made in the region of drug trafficking and abuse, with some very large arrests. The members have been reading about those in the newspapers over the last year. There are proposals, of course, within the Heroin Treatment Act. Further within the federal-provincial drug strategy committee, which was initiated by this province, there is active consideration of new strategies and programs to contend with this continuing serious problem. There is no question that organized crime does feed on this.

It must be borne in mind that organized crime is much like the large enterprise. Because a manager or supervisor is removed it doesn't necessarily mean that the business would collapse. Regretfully, there are probably many waiting in line to assume more responsibility. So there is a requirement for constant vigilance, and a requirement to keep up the pressure, both at the law enforcement level and the citizen level. I stress the citizen level. New strategies will have to continue to be developed to meet the complex and flexible character of organized criminal activity. That is the continuing mandate given to ministerial officials, police, CLEU, and to all the related agencies.

Finally, I wish to advise that I will very shortly have available from CLEU the Third Findings Report on organized crime in our province. This report, which is undergoing printing, will describe in greater detail the

[ Page 182 ]

improvement made within the criminal justice system in B.C. within the last four years; also the activities of the Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit, and a more particularized overview of the state of organized crime in B.C. I thank the hon. members for granting me leave to make this statement, and for their attention.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we listen to a reply, I think the best advice the Chair could give to the House is that when you have statements of this duration, it would be far better that these statements be filed with the House, particularly when we are in the middle of a debate, such as the reply to the Speech from the Throne, when we have certain time limitations. Perhaps we could abide by that wisdom in the future.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, as to your request to the House, would it not be just as important to advise cabinet members that if they are going to make statements that affect a very serious matter like this, the House be informed, as a courtesy, that such a statement is indeed going to be made, rather than give a statement to the press and then file it with the House? If it's so important to file with the House, then it's very important that the House hear it first.

MR SPEAKER: I don't know of any authority by which I could require that.

MR. BARRETT: No, I understand.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Just on a point of order, I don't want to belabour the point. We want to get along with the business. That's specifically the reason I requested to file it. It's a lengthy statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. Whenever there is a ministerial statement, which is the category under which this statement was made, the only way we could interrupt the business in order to do it is if there is a reply.

MR. MACDONALD: I must say, with regret, that the Attorney-General's statement is not acceptable....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'd like to ask if there is leave for the member to respond.

MR. SPEAKER: There was a Speaker's ruling regarding this very matter. Whenever a ministerial statement is made, whether by leave or whether by right, a reply is the procedure of our House. The reply does not require leave, once leave is given for the statement.

MR. MACDONALD: As I say, with regret, the opposition cannot accept the statement. The Attorney-General has said, and I took down his words: "If the need does arise in the future, with respect to organized crime in the province of British Columbia, then a crime commission may be established." I want to say emphatically that we believe the need is here now. We have what amounts to the fifth growth industry in the province of British Columbia, which is organized crime. We have the situation where white-collar crime is largely uncontained and substantially unprosecuted. We have a traffic in heroin amounting to $250 million in the province of British Columbia. We have people hiding behind phony companies and....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if there are to be other statements, it will require leave.

MR. MACDONALD: We have people hiding behind phony company fronts and laundering organized crime returns with impunity. We have people who have been, as the Attorney-General said, identified as participating in this kind of traffic in the province of British Columbia and who have been required to answer to the community for their conduct in no forum and under no technique. We have had an amendment to the Criminal Code, which dates back to the days of Justice Minister Ronald Basford, which permits a crime inquiry in this province in cases where the criminal elements go undetected and do not have to give an explanation for their conduct or their ill-gotten gains. We have the technique under the Criminal Code whereby they can be required to answer for their conduct. It isn't good enough that they should simply be identified, nor is it good enough that this important question of law enforcement — as we are told by the Attorney-General — should for the next while be treated as business as usual.

We are told in one part of the Attorney-General's statement that organized crime knows no boundaries, and that is perfectly true. In another part he says that this area is relatively free from organized crime. We simply cannot agree with that. There are no boundaries to organized crime and Vancouver and the Lower Mainland in particular, and other parts of the province of British Columbia, are in

[ Page 183 ]

the network and being subjected to the loss of millions of dollars to the coffers of organized crime.

I conclude, without debating the matter, by simply saying this: the idea of CLEU, the organized law enforcement unit, was a two-phased attack upon organized crime. The first phase, in terms of identification, has been accomplished. The second phase has been under review for the past three years and that is not acceptable to the people of this province.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Not true. I was expecting a political statement and that's what I got.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, we cannot accept further statements. We would be entering into a debate.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yesterday I expressed my sympathy for the pro tem NDP Leader of the Opposition, who just now left the House. I want to again express that sympathy to him, in that I think all of us are well aware that his security is threatened and being chipped away by the B.C. Federation of Labour leader, Mr. Jim Kinnaird.

He is the man who will use any issue for a platform in order to gain complete control of that party over there, a man who goes as far as to suggest bloodshed. I know that when he speaks like that he certainly doesn't speak for the labour movement. But he has attracted substantial NDP crowds and effectively made a mark in Esquimalt with a nomination there which beat out the Barrett man.

I spoke yesterday about the enormous NDP waste, the huge spending increases, the growth of bureaucracy, the near destruction of our economy. I mentioned in a lighter vein the millions of trees that we inherited and which I was personally assigned to try and dispose of. The former government had purchased from abroad millions of trees that they had anticipated planting in False Creek. This list, as I said then, read: Salix alfina, Betula papyrifera, Alnus and Populus nigra — which, en Anglais, interprets into willow, swamp birch, alder and cottonwood.

In answer to the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), who spoke about the wonders of the NDP in Ottawa, I mentioned the hypocrisy of those NDP members led by Mr. Leggatt, a would-be candidate in, I understand, Coquitlam. On the one hand, he voted one way in favour of legalizing marijuana and, on the other hand, voted against prostitution control for Vancouver and other cities, as proposed by the Liberal government.

Now I would like, for a moment, to speak as well on the hypocrisy of the B.C. NDP. These members — and we've listened to them for a number of days now — say they are concerned about drug abuse, but they voted against the Heroin Treatment Act, a bold and courageous approach by our Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), who is fed up talking about it and wants action.

They claim to be against rising local taxes. I want to quote some figures now, and I want all to listen carefully. I'd like to have it on record. The real property tax, business and special assessments, rose an average for all municipalities by 13.6 percent in 1971-72; in 1972-73 the rise again was 13.6 percent; in 1973-74 — and just pay attention to that year, '73, which was when we were unfortunately saddled with the NDP — the increase went to 20.9 percent; in 1974-75 the increase was 18.7 percent; in 1975-76 it dropped to 13.8 percent; in 1976-77 — a new progressive government for British Columbia — it dropped to 8.0 percent; in 1977-78 the real property tax showed a 9.91 percent average increase for the province. While they claim to be against rising local taxes, many of their members spoke out openly against our tax control measures as introduced earlier this year.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

They want public ownership of B.C. resources and companies because they claim it provides the province with more income. Yet income from our natural resources is now at an all-time high. They want public ownership of B.C. resources, but they don't trust the individual with that ownership. They, as government or even as a party, want guardianship and control — government and party before people. They have made it very clear to all British Columbians that should we provide every British Columbia citizen with his own holding of a piece of B.C. resources by the provision of five shares, they will take them back. They will do what they can to take those shares back. That was repeated on television and on radio by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) . Certainly they'll now try to squirm out of that and say that they didn't really mean that or that they charged their minds. I don't trust them. They'll take it away from the people.

Let's look at the record.

Hospital construction right now is the

[ Page 184 ]

highest ever in the history of British Columbia.

Income assistance for our seniors is second only to Alberta, and, as a matter of fact, I'm not sure that we haven't already caught up.

Handicapped and families receive the best benefits in all of Canada. Universal Pharmacare is a first in North America and provides a level of protection to people who need this insurance, particularly those with chronically ill children.

New long-term care is being watched, not only by every province in Canada and every state in the Union but by other countries as well, as the most progressive and forward program anywhere in the world.

Funding for independent schools was brought into being by this government. Now, for the first time, we'll be able to compare; we'll have a means of looking at one system as opposed to another, to assure the citizens of British Columbia that we're getting fair value for our tax dollars in the educational field.

Revenue-sharing in British Columbia was a first in Canada, introduced by this government in the last three years — a tremendous help to municipalities, who now know that as the province prospers and grows, their revenues increase accordingly.

Community project programs have provided more help to all municipalities throughout this province than in any other time in history, and now municipalities are able to tax provincial buildings, which they weren't able to do before.

We removed succession duties and the gift tax to stall the outflow of capital to other provinces of Canada. All parties in all provinces agreed that this was retrogressive, that it should have been removed. Only the NDP in B.C. said, "Let's tax them whatever way we can, " and understandably, too, because no matter how much money you gave them, they'd blow it anyway.

Last year we had a total tax cut of $250 million in British Columbia, yet government spending over the last three years has been brought down from an NDP average of a 27 percent per year increase to 8.4 percent in British Columbia, and there are brighter things to come.

Let's look at some other revealing figures. Capital expenditures in the forest industry in British Columbia, our number one industry, rose by 50 percent in the last three years. The value of mineral production, our number two industry, rose by over 25 percent. The value of petroleum production has nearly doubled. The value of tourism has almost doubled. And let's compare B.C.'s performance within Canada again. Our gross product increase for all of Canada last year was 3.4 percent. The gross product increase for British Columbia was 4.4 percent. We led the way.

For Canada as a country, the total increase in investment was 7.7 percent. For British Columbia it was 11.1 percent. In retail trade, the increase for all of Canada was 11.7 percent; the increase for British Columbia was 13.4 percent. In manufactured goods shipments, the increase for Canada was 18.8 percent; the increase for British Columbia was 21.5 percent. In the employed labour force, the increase for Canada was 3.4 percent; the increase for British Columbia was 4.4 percent.

One figure which dropped — and I think we can be proud of that too — was the consumer price index. We're all concerned about it being far too high and the increase being much too great, no matter where — in this country or on the continent. But again, the cost-of-living increase for Canada was 8.9 percent, and for British Columbia it was 7.7 percent.

We have a tremendous province with a tremendous record, and we're going to make it greater still, Mr. Speaker.

Let's consider the credibility of our railwayman, the member from the opposition, the House Leader (Mr. King) who yesterday stood up in the House and said he had a way of selling a piece of the BCR to the Americans. My response to that was: "I hope he's never the one to negotiate such a sale to the Americans, or we'll be sold out and down the tube." That's what he said, however.

Now just let's look at his credibility as a railwayman, because the BCR is extremely important to the whole of British Columbia and to all of its citizens. In 1973 the operating profit for the BCR was $275,000. In 1974, the first full year of NDP operation, there was not a $275,000 profit, but a $13,818,000 loss. In 1975, that other NDP year, the loss rose from $13 million to $22,306,000. In 1976, when we first came to office, the loss dropped to $21,056,000.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What happened the next year?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: In 1977, hon. member, it dropped to $8,452,000, and in 1978 we made a profit. Hey, fantastic! I think that certainly blows the credibility of that railwayman.

Let us now again look at the items in this throne speech. Denticare is a comprehensive program to give the people of British Columbia a measure of protection from the high costs

[ Page 185 ]

associated with basic dental care. They talked about it; we perform.

We've brought in a bill of rights to enshrine the rights and freedoms of the individual. "Individual" is a word that doesn't mean much to the opposition.

As to discriminatory auto insurance rates, people will no longer be penalized because of age, sex, marital status or geographic location. It's too bad the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who was so much a part of that disastrous ICBC kefuffle, isn't in his seat. I think he would probably crawl under the table now if he compared our ICBC record with their disastrous ICBC record. We've made it into a credible organization which provides the lowest unsubsidized rates anywhere in Canada. Oh, it's disastrous.

There is an increase in home purchase grants...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Three minutes, hon. member.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: ...and a just and fair deal for those lands that are expropriated. I have a whole lot more that I wanted to speak about so I'll move very quickly now. Perhaps while the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) is in his seat, I'll pick on him for a moment. I think we can clearly demonstrate that, as a government, we have not discriminated against those constituencies they represent. No way. As a matter of fact, Nanaimo has never had better treatment in the history of that great city. We are providing Duke Point, which will give them 1,000 extra jobs. When he was the member, the minister forced amalgamation in Nanaimo, gave them $4 million and said: "Now go away. Take care of all your problems." Only a few weeks ago we bailed out Nanaimo by giving them an additional $6.4 million. We bailed out Kelowna, because of a forced amalgamation, with practically $50 million. We had to give Kamloops a large sum of money because of the raw deal they got from the NDP.

I would like to speak about my constituency and all the wonderful things that have happened there. Let me just mention a few figures concerning the grants in Surrey. Look at these revenue sharing programs and compare then to the program that was in effect. I'll just compare '75 to '78 without going into all of the details. In 1975 the provincial government provided Surrey with $4,705, 308. In 1978, after only three years of Social Credit government, that had risen to $8,257, 325. As to other grants, for sewers and water in 1975 during the NDP government, my constituency received $1,442, 623. In 1978 under Social Credit, that had increased from $1,400,000 to $3,241, 776. In my constituency in 1975, the total value of homeowner grants in 1975 was $5,136, 311. In 1978 it was $8,984, 002. I could go on and on, but I appreciate my time's running out. Let me simply say that this province is bubbling with activity and the potential is tremendous. There are greater things to come. The only thing that bothers us is the ghost of the NDP that still lingers on, and we'll soon demolish that as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps, hon. members, if we could turn up with the Whips, we would have a gentleman's agreement here. Thank you very much, hon. members. The Chair does appreciate this rare piece of cooperation.

HON. MR. MAIR: First of all, I would like very much at this point to congratulate His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor on his elevation to that high and dignified post. I had the opportunity of knowing His Honour before he took over his new tasks. He was held in the very highest esteem in the community before and, of course, will be held in even higher esteem now by reason of the dignity he brings to the job. I think it would be wrong if I did not at this time pay tribute to the former Lieutenant-Governor, His Honour Mr. Owen, who, in addition to being an old family friend, has distinguished himself greatly in the service of his country and his province.

I would like to congratulate those who have been elevated since the last parliament. I didn't have the opportunity at Christmastime to congratulate you, sir, nor to congratulate my colleagues the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch) and the member for Skeena (Hon. Mr. Shelford) on joining me in the cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, I would like at the outset, if I may, to share with the House some of the concerns that my constituents in the great constituency of Kamloops would like me to bring to your attention. May I say that over the past years, during election time, the constituency of Kamloops has been a pretty accurate bell wether of what has happened around the rest of the province — it's been a microcosm. In 1975 the popular vote very accurately reflected the popular vote around the province; it did in '72 and it did in '69, and so far back as I think we'd care to go. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, if the same rules follow now as followed then, the people on the other side are in a heck of a lot of trouble.

I want you to know that they have great confidence in what's been done by this government, great faith in the government, and they're pleased. They have one or two local

[ Page 186 ]

problems which remain to be solved. One is a second crossing at the Thompson River. The only reason that that has not been completely solved to the satisfaction of all is that we don't treat Indian bands in this government as the former government did. We have asked the Indian band in Kamloops to have a study of the impact that a bridge would have on their community, prior to the bridge being built ; and I am confident that that impact study will be favourable to the building of the bridge and that, with their consent and with their blessing, we will build it. I suppose that the only other local concern that they have is the question of a new courthouse — long in the planning. I have every confidence and every reason to believe that it will not be long before that becomes a reality.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents, like constituents all around the province, are concerned about several matters in the public eye today, not the least of which is the question of labour-management relations. And I'd like to dwell on them, if I may, for a moment. First of all, let me make it clear that I enthusiastically support the Essential Services Disputes Act. I support, without question and with the greatest enthusiasm, my colleague the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams). I support the position taken by the Social Credit Party convention — and a great many of us individually — against so-called right-to-work legislation. But we have, in the face of all of this, a campaign by the British Columbia Federation of Labour around the province, a campaign of half-truths and scare tactics. More seriously and more importantly, I think we have the symptoms of what has commonly been called the British disease.

Let me say at the outset that I support and believe very strongly in the right of new Canadians, from all parts of the world, to participate in our democracy, in our way of life, and to play a full role, and to play a full role immediately. I believe that as strongly as I believe anything — make no mistake about that. There are many people in this House who have their origins in other lands, and they've made their contribution, and a full contribution. I know that there are two or three on the other side of the House, and there are certainly one or two on our side of the House who were born elsewhere and came here and made themselves welcome by their contributions. As a matter of fact, I even welcome American citizens who come to help us out of our problems with ICBC — they're more than welcome.

But I want to say that when labour leaders preach class warfare and call for blood in the streets, they're not talking the language of British Columbians. I want to say quite clearly that the people of British Columbia are sick to death of hearing British slogans and British solutions being spouted from labour's pulpit. The working people of British Columbia are not being fooled by this. They've seen what's happened in Great Britain; I've seen what's happened in Great Britain. They know that the social structures of Great Britain are such that the accent you speak with may very well brand you for life into a certain position. We don't need the problems of class, privilege by birth, or disadvantage because of hardened social structures in this country. We don't have them, we don't need them, and we don't want them. Mostly we do not need the rhetoric of those who are too stupid to see — or perhaps they're too clever to see — that British Columbia is different and wants to stay different.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: You think they want you in power, Madam Member? Let me tell you, you're being a fool. You're going to be the vehicle of their power. You are the vehicle through which Kinnaird and Fryer seek power — make no mistake about it — not for your leader, not for you, but for themselves.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. minister. Perhaps we'd have a better tone in the House if you'd address the Chair.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite will, I think soon, I hope soon, have the opportunity to fully regret their special relationship with certain labour leaders — a regret, incidentally, that Mr. Callaghan in Great Britain is going to feel very soon.

We'll see, and I hope soon, who speaks for all of the people in this province and who speaks for a few rabble-rousers who wear union labels but don't represent union people. The time will come, and when it comes it will not just be the business people or the professionals or the retired or the people who may have money or the people who may be poor; it will be the working man who rises up and puts those people in their place. Mark my words! It will be the working men and women in the constituency of Kamloops, I'm confident, who will return their member, and the working men and women all around this province will return free-enterprise government.

Mr. Speaker, let me turn from that for a moment to another subject of importance which is touched upon in His Honour's speech, but to

[ Page 187 ]

my knowledge has not been touched upon — at least in any great detail — in this chamber since. I would like to talk about the relations between the province of British Columbia and other governments in Canada, including the federal government. In February of 1976 I first had the opportunity of representing this province in a federal-provincial conference. And I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I was told in no uncertain terms that for three years British Columbia had been the laughing stock of federal-provincial conferences. They had became used to buffoonery and cheap theatrics. They had been used to a Premier going back to Ottawa, calling a press conference on the steps of the parliament buildings, slamming the federal government and playing the fool.

MR. MACDONALD: That's a cheap personal attack.

HON. MR. MAIR: Oh, you're an expert. The parlour pinko from Point Grey comes in here, of all people, and talks about invective and personal attack. Shame on you, sir.

MR. MACDONALD: Get off it!

HON. MR. MAIR: I have more reason than most in the House to know about your cheap tactics.

I have more reason than most, Mr. Member, to know of the way you react. If you would say outside the House what you said inside the House, but for your poverty, I'd be rich.

MR. MACDONALD: Get off personalities.

HON. MR. MAIR: When you get off personalities, Mr. Member, you'll have the right to come in this House and complain.

Mr. Speaker, let me just, if I may, bring the hon. members opposite, whom I seem to have disturbed somewhat, back to the tenor of my remarks. The performance of British Columbia delegations to Ottawa from the years 1972 to 1975 was, by common consent of all, appalling.

MR. LEA: Name names.

HON. MR. MAIR: The Premier of the province.

MR. LEA: Who told you that?

HON. MR. MAIR: I'll tell you who told me that: every civil servant whom I talked to back there and every politician who had to listen to him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, perhaps we can find another time for this type of argument. We're involved in the throne speech. Would the minister kindly address the Chair, please.

HON. MR. MAIR: I certainly seem to have touched a nerve, Mr. Speaker. And I don't think I have to name names, because anybody who switched the tomfoolery on television during those years would have no doubt of the truth of what I've just said.

But I want to contrast the performance of those days with that which we have seen since 1975. And I would just ask fair-minded people in this chamber and around the province to remember the economic discussions and economic conferences we had, the federal-provincial conferences, the First Ministers Conferences, where British Columbia was not only better prepared than any other province, but better prepared than any other government, not excluding the federal government. For the first time in three or four years, the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the Premier of this province suddenly showed the rest of Canada that British Columbia was prepared to play a full role in Canada's destiny and was not back there just to pick up same cheap ink. I think that tribute should be paid not only to the fine public servants who assisted the Premier and the Minister of Economic Development in those economic development conferences, but also to the individuals themselves for bringing dignity to the conferences and thereby bringing dignity to the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about something that's even more serious. Our country is in trouble. The country of Canada, the country that we all love, that we all support, is in trouble. One province — the second largest in population, largest in area — has a government which is, for the most part, dedicated to pulling that province out of the nation. We in British Columbia want to keep the country together. Make no mistake about that.

But we have problems. We still are living under an economic policy pronounced a hundred years ago. We can't amend our own Constitution; we don't even own our own Constitution. We have political problems, linguistic problems, cultural problems and economic problems, but wr recognize this in British Columbia and intend, so long as we're the government — and that will be a long time — to make every effort and to spare no effort to keep this country together.

Let me say this, Mr. Speaker: we must have a strong Canada, and we will have a strong Canada, but it will not be at the expense of weakening the regions. We do not in this prov-

[ Page 188 ]

ince believe that Ottawa necessarily knows best. At least, in my years on this planet I've seen very little evidence of the truth of that. This country cannot be restructured in ignorance of or indifference to the needs and aspirations of this province and other regions.

We are being heard in Ottawa now, Mr. Speaker, and we're being listened to. I want you to know that while there are some — and some in this chamber — who don't take the matter seriously, a great many others do. Political leaders all around this country are trying to find solutions to the very serious questions and problems that beset our nation. The former Liberal leader in this chamber, to his great credit, recognized this and worked very hard toward achieving these solutions. He spoke well on them; he thought well on them; he wrote well on them. And I think I can say in a non-partisan sense that for that reason, if no other, we will miss him.

The former Conservative leader, while he did not, perhaps, take the same academic approach that the former Liberal leader did, to his great credit was extremely concerned and showed his concern — something different than the false prophet who now leads them.

But from the NDP, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing. There are one-liners from my friend the parlour pink over there from time to time about the Senate and about how euthanasia would take care of the Senate. There has not been a word of constructive criticism since I've been involved in the portfolio that has the responsibility for constitutional concerns. Oh, I've heard, "cure the economy and all the problems will go away, " but that's not so, Mr. Speaker. We had problems when the economy was great. We had them when the economy was bad, and we've had them when the economy was mediocre. The structural problems and the cultural problems in Canada will not go away simply through the message of one-liners.

MR. MACDONALD: Did you read my brief to the Unity...?

HON. MR. MAIR: I laughed all the way through it, Mr. Member. I chuckled all the way through it. It's the only thing that you did and even that was a joke, which is what you seem to be in a never-ending way.

Mr. Speaker, there seem to be only two possible answers to the absolute indifference of the NDP to the question of national unity.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: I repeat to you, sir — the absolute indifference. The first solution I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, is that perhaps they feel there is no problem. Everything's rosy; Mr. Levesque will go.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: At least I've gathered a crowd here. I didn't have anybody here when I started.

I suppose, Mr. Speaker, it's all going to go away. The western alienation is a myth. Mr. Levesque is going to go away and not be a separatist anymore. The central Canadian domination is somehow acceptable.

And to say that all of the efforts of so many Canadians towards a solution to this problem is because of an illusion — perhaps that is their suggestion. Mr. Pepin, Mr. Robarts, Mr. Clark, Mr. Trudeau, Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Blakeney, Mr. Davis, Mr. Moores and our own Premier are chasing rainbows; there's no problem at all there. Perhaps Mr. Claude Ryan is just another ordinary, everyday, garden-variety politician who happens across the scene. Perhaps it is their view that there is no problem and that all of these businessmen, labour people, academics, politicians and ordinary men and women are wasting their time.

There is another solution, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the NDP have nothing to contribute, or don't care to, or both. All I can say, Mr. Speaker, to the members opposite is: "Where have you been?" Oh yes, we saw your comedy act, Mr. Member for Vancouver East. Where are your position papers? Where were you when the joint Senate-House of Commons committee held their hearings? Where were you then? Where were you when the Senate held their hearings? What conferences have you attended? What contribution have you made?

MR. MACDONALD: Sit down and I'll answer.

HON. MR. MAIR: Never mind the shrill rhetoric and the chest beating. Never mind your one-liners, Mr. Parlour Pink from Point Grey. What's your policy? Have you got one? Have you even read the position papers of British Columbia? I challenge you to say now that you have read them, because you haven't and you know you haven't. You couldn't even tell me how many there are.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please address the Chair.

HON. MR. MAIR: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I should be more charitable and assume that the New Democratic Party agrees with the sensible

[ Page 189 ]

position that British Columbia has taken. Perhaps that's it. Perhaps they agree. Perhaps they support us. If they do, Mr. Speaker, why don't they say so? Because there's no shame in it. It's a good policy. It's a Canadian policy. It's a policy they should be proud to associate themselves with. By all means, Mr. Speaker, let the NDP today come forward and say: "Look, we agree with you. You're on the right track. We'd like to participate. We'd like to help. We'd like to keep this country together and we'll all speak with one voice." You'll get no criticism from this side of the House if you're prepared to do that. But you have not done a thing. You've sat on your hands, taken the cheap shot issues, played politics and forgotten your province and forgotten your country.

MR. COCKE: What are you doing right now, Rafe?

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm trying to give you a little lesson in civics. If you'd spent less time reading the Webbs' and George Bernard Shaw's political treatises, you might have learned a little about civics and about your country.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, perhaps we could get back to a more normal debate if the minister would kindly address the Chair.

MR. KING: It has been pretty abnormal.

HON. MR. MAIR: I suppose it has been abnormal, as the member says. It's not often that they get a chance to debate the future of their country and the future of their province. Obviously it troubles them a little bit, because their ignorance takes the place of any knowledgeable debate. That is to be expected, because they have done nothing.

MR. MACDONALD: This is your contribution?

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes, it is.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, it's a pretty poor one.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'll tell you something: my people ran from the same thing yours did, and for the same reasons. We went straight.

The people opposite who would oppose this great Speech from the Throne have, in my submission to you, been a disgrace to the province on the issue of national unity.

Having done perhaps nothing more than prick their consciences and perhaps made them think a little bit....

HON. MR. GARDOM: They haven't got a conscience.

HON. MR. MAIR: You're right Mr. Attorney-General. I think I could do no better than to hope that they have some shame, and to invite them to debate the issues with us as soon as the Premier calls an election, which, as I said, can't come soon enough.

MR. KING: Call it now. Don't be timid.

HON. MR. MAIR: It can't come soon enough for me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: You don't like the English; you don't like the French. Who do you like?

HON. MR. MAIR: Oh, Rosemary, you can't say unkind things like that about me. I like your wardrobe, all 365 editions of it. That's the third one today, isn't it? You had two yesterday.

Madame Runge rides again. Gee, it must be tough to go to your home in Point Grey every night and then come down here in your big car and your new dress and cluck your tongue about the poor. It must be tough. Are you all in the same neighbourhood over there, where you have your little cell meetings every night to cluck your tongue in Point Grey?

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't meet with her.

HON. MR. MAIR: No, but you don't live there, do you?

Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud to associate myself with His Honour's speech, and I'm very proud to associate myself with this government. In support of the catcalls that I've heard from the opposite benches, I would be pleased to meet any one of them in the upcoming election in my constituency. You must be able to do better.

I'm proud to support the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure, when the moment comes, that all members will support it with me.

MR. LEA: How fitting it is that we have just been chastised by the hon. member for Kamloops for not being concerned about the relationship between the provinces and the central government, for not being good Canadians, for not being frightened to death of Rene Levesque,

[ Page 190 ]

and a host of other things that he spewed out in the last while.

How fitting it is, because I have something I would like to bring up concerning my riding on the Queen Charlotte Islands and the relationship between the provincial government and the federal government concerning forestry and fisheries. I intend to prove over the next few minutes that the provincial government counselled citizens of this province to break the law. How did they go about it? How did this government over here that feels so pious today go about counselling citizens of this province to break the law? Why did this government and the Liberal government in Ottawa use workers and management people alike in this province as cannon-fodder to have a political fight between themselves?

Let's go back a little way to 1977. A cutting permit on Queen Charlotte Islands, cutting permit 144, was being discussed in 1977 between the provincial government, through the Forests ministry, and the federal government, through the Fisheries ministry. The fruition of those discussions took place in 1978 when it was agreed by the federal Fisheries ministry and the provincial Forests ministry that cutting permit 144 on Moresby Island in the Queen Charlottes would be allowed. In 1978 the papers were drawn up, along with cutting permit 144.

Then, last fall, there was a storm. You will remember the storm, Mr. Speaker, because it swept through the northwestern part of the province, causing damage to the Queen Charlotte Islands, straight through into the riding of Skeena. It caused considerable damage to property, both public and private. We all remember that.

But at the same time that that storm swept through the Queen Charlotte Islands, it did damage to 40 acres of cutting permit 144. Now the Fisheries ministry took a look at the situation and said that there had been a change in the situation since giving permission to go in there and cut CP 144. The storm had made the difference. There was damage in there caused by the storm, and they were going to go in and apply the regulations of the federal Fisheries ministry.

We are not here to argue whether those regulations are correct or not correct. What we do know, though, is that they are regulations under federal law. And we had a federal civil servant working for the Fisheries ministry go in and say: "As I see it, the regulations and the law of Canada are not being adhered to." And he sent the company a letter telling them to stop their logging.

At that time, of course, the provincial Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) was concerned. He sent a telegram to the federal minister, Romeo LeBlanc. A telegram came back from Romeo LeBlanc, and meetings were held. Meetings were held in Prince Rupert between the federal Fisheries ministry and the provincial Forests ministry. A further meeting was held at the site itself, where the citizenry and the company also took part. It was then decided that there would be designated areas logged.

What was the next move by the provincial government? They were looking for a fight with Ottawa, because the provincial government was considering going to an election. They saw it work quite successfully in Alberta with Premier Lougheed. "Fight Ottawa!" It's a good election issue. So what did they do? They ordered the company and the employees of that company to go in and defy the federal law. And they put it in writing. They did it in a letter of March 5, 1979, a letter sent to QC Timber Limited of Vancouver, the company which is doing the logging.

Now I want you to quickly review what happened. A federal order, under the law, said: "Stop logging."

But first of all I would like to point out what would happen if a citizen had defied the law of the province, specifically a law pertaining to the Forests ministry of the province. If any citizen of this province went out into Crown-owned forest land and started cutting down trees, and the Forests ministry said it was illegal  to cut those trees because they had reasons they did not want those trees cut, and the citizen turned to the provincial government and said he didn't agree with those reasons and was going to go ahead and do it anyway, the question is: would the provincial government, through the Forests ministry, lay charges? I suggest to you that they would. And they should, because the place to decide whether or not the law is being broken is in the courts of our land. The Forests ministry would lay charges, you can rest assured of that.

What if I, Mr. Speaker, were to advise the person who happened to be cutting down the trees to ignore the order from the provincial government? What would happen then?  I'm afraid there's a section in the Criminal Code that would apply to me for counselling someone to commit an offence. Now the provincial government has advised a British Columbia company, and the citizens of British Columbia working for that company, to break the federal law.

That's what they've done.

What was the next step once they got into this dilemma ? And it is a dilemma. If those

[ Page 191 ]

loggers had gone to court, and had been found guilty, there is no doubt in my mind that the provincial government would have been found guilty under the Criminal Code of counselling those people to break the law.

So the Premier had no choice but to say: "I'm going to fight for the loggers." If he didn't, his cabinet could possibly be facing charges under the law for counselling to break the law. He had to do it.

Do we have proof? We do have proof that the provincial government advised citizens of this province to break the law. A federal order had gone to the company, Queen Charlotte Timber, to stop logging. Meetings were held, as I said. It was agreed that if the logging were to go ahead in the same manner on that 40 acres on CP144, as it had been, the federal government would not go along with it and would lay more charges.

On March 5 the letter went out from the regional manager of the Minister of Forests of Prince Rupert division to Queen Charlotte Timber, attention John Sexton. It says:

"Dear Sir:

"Reference is made to your operation of cutting permit 144 of the tree farm licence A00892, cutting permit 144, Rennell Sound, Queen Charlotte Islands. As a result of ongoing discussions with your company and the resource agencies and the interagency joint field examination of CP144 on February 27,1979, we hereby reconfirm our cutting plans approval, letters of August 1, 1978, and October 2, 1978.

"This letter has integral part of the cutting permit 144 document and should be attached thereto.

Yours truly,

Regional manager of the Forestry department."

This letter is telling Queen Charlotte Timber to go ahead and to cut CP144 as per the agreement of 1978, even though the federal government said that under their law and regulations, they must stop logging 40 acres in that CP144. The 1978 agreement said they could.

Clearly we have evidence that what was happening with this letter was nothing more than advising citizens of this province to break the law so that the provincial government could get into a fight with Ottawa over jurisdiction of resources in this province and have themselves an election issue. That's exactly what they were doing.

They didn't care whether people went to jail. They didn't care whether the creeks were ruined. They didn't care about anything as long as they had themselves an issue to take to an election. That's all they cared about, and that's what they did. There is no other answer.

If that were not the reason that the provincial government advised citizens of this province to break the law, then let them stand up and tell us why they advised citizens of this province to break the law. Why?

What kind of a bind was the timber company in? They've got the federal government saying: "Don't log this." They've got the provincial government coming along, saying: "Log it. If you don't, we will penalize you." What was the company supposed to do?

They were in a bind, but they knew one thing. Their livelihood depends on the logging industry, the provincial government, the Minister of Forests, and the Premier. What were they supposed to do with the provincial government telling them to go and break the law? They had no choice. Their whole future as a company and the employees of that company depended on a good relationship with the provincial government. They had to make a choice. Do we break the federal law or do we break the provincial law? Why could the meeting that settled this dispute not have been held before? Why could the conclusions of that meeting not have been held prior? Why did the provincial government insist on, before going in there and solving the problem, that they made sure that they ordered citizens to break the law? Politics. Nothing more than politics. They wanted a fight with Ottawa because they were going to go to a provincial election. They didn't care whether they used the people as cannon fodder as long as they could get the issue out there.

We're going to have more to say on the duplicity behind this order of March 5 and the provincial government itching and pushing for a fight with Ottawa to take to the election. But, my God, to go as far as to counsel citizens to break the law for politics I think is an all-time low for any political party or for any government. There's absolute proof that that's what they did.

Is the Minister of Forests going to get up at any time and say: "We're sorry we counselled people to break the law through my department for political gains"?

What's he going to do? He's going to sit quietly and hope the issue goes away, because now they can't go to an election and use it to try to suck people into voting for a corrupt government that would go that far. That's that they've done.

What else have they done? In the same area, in their hysteria to pay back the election

[ Page 192 ]

campaign money they got from the forest industry during the last election — just across the road almost — they're not going to hold a tree farm licence hearing to see whether or not there should be certain areas of the Queen Charlottes set aside for other uses.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

They're not going to hold a hearing because the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) says he doesn't like public hearings, because they're too "emotional." I'll say it's emotional when the future of those people there, having to live with the aftermath of whatever happens, depends on the terms of the new agreement with the forest company. The fishing industry; the logging industry; people who want to use that land for recreational purposes — you can bet your life that it would be emotional for them. But it doesn't mean that it has to be some kind of wild, unstructured emotion. I think it's perfectly possible for people to become emotional about an issue and at the same time put forward their views in a calm, factual manner — but not wildly. I would hope that our citizens would be a little bit emotional about the fact that this government is planning not to hold public hearings into the renewal of tree farm licences — licences that will go on in perpetuity with no more say by the public as to what's going to happen. From there on out, decisions about the forest industry are made behind closed doors, affecting the lives of British Columbians and the lifeblood of our economic stability. This is a government that is wild with emotion to pay off its political debts to the people who put them in power, and will do anything to remain in power. They will not hold public hearings into the forest industry and the renewal of those tree farm licences. They go so far as to counsel the citizens of this province to break the law.

Also, the Queen Charlotte Islands has really had it up to here with this government. Since this government has been in power, the price of groceries has doubled and tripled on the Queen Charlotte Islands. The main reason we've all had over a 20 percent increase in our groceries in this last year — and the Queen Charlotte Islands had something like 45 percent on top of that — is because this government has not met its obligation under a federal-provincial agreement to supply the transportation needs in an adequate and reasonable way, as the contract called for, for freight and services to get into the Queen Charlotte Islands. Everyone including the member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) would have to agree with me that the only reasonable way the northern and central coast can be serviced is by self-propelled vessels that have lift-on, lift-off freight capacity and which have the capacity not only to take freight from Vancouver to the end destination, but also to supply a service between the communities. That's missing.

What did the provincial government do? They took $8 million from the federal government to supply services to the coastal communities. They haven't supplied those coastal communities with the service; I think that the federal government should sue them for not meeting the terms of that contract. That's what should be done, because this government has not met its responsibility to service those communities even though they've taken the money from Ottawa. What did they do with the money? They put it where they feel the votes are. There's not as many people in the north, so where can they put the money best for their political purposes? They can put the money into offsetting the costs of transportation between the lower mainland and Vancouver Island. They've actually stolen money from the northern runs to bring down here. That's what they've done. That's what the Minister for Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair) says. They want us to vote them back in for that? Do they honestly want to go to an election on their record of taking money away from people and giving even more wealth to the wealthy? Is that what they really want to do?

Each successive budget they've brought into this House has shifted the burden of taxation onto the working people, the small business community, the municipalities and the school boards and given money to the rich — every budget they've brought in. And they want to go to an election on their record.

Tax increases? Now they want to give the people something. I saw Mr. Helliwell, the Chairman of BCRIC, being interviewed by Mr. Fotheringham on channel 21. Mr. Fotheringham said: "Mr. Helliwell, who came up with this scheme of the free shares? How did it come about?" Mr. Helliwell said: "Well, how it happened is that last November the Premier came to me and said: 'I want to give the people something for free. Would you work out a scheme?"'

There's evidence to support that. On his return from Palm Springs or Hawaii, wherever he was, not long ago, the Premier was asked how much it was going to cost to get these shares out to the people. The Premier said: "I have no idea. But they're priceless." The scheme was costing upwards of over $20 million, and the Premier ordered the scheme to be put in

[ Page 193 ]

place, not knowing how much it was going to cost. Is that the kind of fiscal leadership the people of this province should have? That he doesn't know how much it's going to cost? That it's priceless? That the scheme came into being in the first place by the Premier going to the company, saying: "I want to give the people something for free. Would you work out a scheme?" Does that sound like politics, do you think? Is there the slightest chance that it may be politics? I think we're going to have to leave that decision up to the people of this province when election day comes along. I believe that the people of this province are a little too smart to be taken in by this kind of scheme.

The Premier's going around the province telling us that we should actually take our money out of the bank and buy the other 95 shares. The other 95 shares would cost about $570, close to $600. He's saying: "Take your money out of the bank. Buy these shares. Oh, by the way, there are no dividends for five years." No dividends for five years! If you leave your $600 in the bank, how much compound interest would you make over the five years? You'd end up at the end of five years with approximately $1,000. Leave it in there and you make money. Take it out and you lose money.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You don't know what you're talking about.

MR. LEA: Oh, don't worry. I won't buy any of the shares. I've always made it a rule never to buy anything I already own. I've always made that a rule. The real reason for this share scheme is very simple. Is there anybody in this House or in the gallery who doesn't believe that if you take everything, and equally distribute it out there, it won't be long before it gets into the hands of a few? Everybody knows that's true. That's the idea behind the whole scheme. What we will do is put these shares away from public ownership, put them out into theirs so that over a period of a few short years they can go into the hands of a few. What a nifty way of taking something that every citizen in this province owns an equal share of, and making sure that those shares get into the hands of a few people who already own the wealth. That's what's going to happen.

The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), when he was asked how many shares he's going to buy, said he can't afford very many, maybe a hundred shares — and he makes 50 grand a year. If the Minister of Forests, making 50 grand a year, can afford only to buy another 95 shares, where does that leave the rest of the people in the province? Does the minister believe that at 50 grand a year he can afford only 95 more shares? Everybody else in the province can afford their 5,000. Who can afford the hundred, if at 50 grand a year he can afford only 95? Who can afford it? Only the Minister of Forests, I suppose. And maybe not for long.

What have we seen? We've seen a government that is unfeeling. We've seen a government that is politically dishonest. They have been politically dishonest from the day they brought in the first budget of 1976. They were politically dishonest with the Clarkson Gordon report. They were politically dishonest every step of the way. That's the credo of that crew over there. For 2 1/2 years I went around this province, and I had people telling me: "Social Credit are going to win the next government." I said: "Why do you say that?" They said: "Because, when the time comes, they're going to give us back everything they've taken from us, and everything we already own." That government, that political party, in their naivety, met the very thing that those people out there were waiting for — a sign that this government is politically corrupt.

If they hadn't been politically corrupt they could possibly have been the next government of this province. People will put up with a lot of things. They won't put up with political dishonesty. They won't put up with political corruptness. They're not going to put up with this government, come the next election.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Yes, we'll see, Mr. Member for Omineca. We will see.

Mr. Speaker, even though we are ready and willing to go to the polls and to fight what we see as political dishonesty and political corruption, they are not. Why don't they go if they're so sure that they're going to win? They have sure used enough of the taxpayers' money to set the scene. They've sure used enough of the taxpayers' money to try and bribe the citizens of this province. They've sure used a lot of money to do that. They've spent millions of dollars on Smile campaigns; they've used millions of dollars to advertise. You can go down and get something you already own. They've used millions of dollars to get the shares out there and, you know, that is what the people of this province were waiting for. They were waiting to see whether the campaign promises cf Social Credit were really true, because of what this group over here said in 1975: "Don't pay any attention to the

[ Page 194 ]

old Social Credit. We're different. We're a new breed. Boy, we're coming along here and it's a new style and we're as clean as a whistle and we're not going to do all of those other things that the old people did in the old days."

You know, Mr. Speaker, I was just informed a few minutes ago that Phil Gaglardi is waiting in the Minister of Environment's (Hon. Mr. Mair) office to speak to him. He's here in the buildings, watching you people to make sure that you live up to the old days. You're living up to them in every way, and the Minister of Transportation knows that. Take the money in year one; take the money in year two; take the money in year three; and give it back at election time.

Mr. Speaker, they went around saying there's no such thing as a free lunch. They campaigned on it: there's no such thing as a free lunch. I know someone who has been following the East Indian religions and the gurus for some time. He's been looking for a guru who would actually give him everything and a guru who would be honest and a guru who wouldn't take him for some money. You know, he finally ran across one from California; his name is Bubba Free John. He lives just outside of San Francisco and he's got one of those little cult communes out there. As my friend was listening and getting tapes from Bubba Free John, and as he was getting letters from Bubba Free John, he thought: "Finally I've hit the honest guru. He's not going to ask me for toasters and shiny cars and part of my wages." But the inevitable letter came, and he wanted 10 percent of my friend's wages to contribute to the movement of Bubba Free John.

The Bubba Free John scenario reminds me of the scenario of the Premier and his government. They give free shares, after saying "no free lunch." He wrote to Bubba Free John after he got the letter wanting 10 percent of his wages and he said: "Dear Bubba Free John, Dear Bubba Not-so-Free John, Dear Bubba Expensive John." You know, that's exactly what these free shares are all about. They are going to be the costliest thing that anybody was ever given in their whole life, because they're going to cost us our heritage. They're going to take away from us the right to keep things in British Columbia owned by the people of British Columbia and turn it over to those few people who already have the wealth.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you take then away from the people?

MR. LEA: How can we take them away from the people once you've given them to them? How can we do that, Mr. Speaker? Our leader has said over and over again that it has gone too far.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is your leader?

MR. LEA: They want to know where our leader is, Mr. Speaker. I'll tell you where our leader is. Our leader is out trying to bring this province together. He's trying to bring labour, management and industry together.

Mr. Speaker, as our leader is travelling around looking for investment in this province that will create jobs and bring down the cost of living, where is their leader? Their leader is trying to give the people of this province a free lunch that he said nobody could have. Nobody can get a free lunch, he said, not until he's the person in charge of the kitchen.

Now that he's in charge of the kitchen, free lunches are all right, as long as the free lunch that you get is one that you already own in the first place. It's enough to make you throw up, that kind of a free lunch.

MR. KING: It's $26 million to give you a lunch.

MR. LEA: Twenty-six million dollars will probably be an underestimation of the cost of giving out these shares.

Mr. Speaker, I would doubt very much whether anybody in their right mind would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition, when he becomes Premier — and Premier he will become — will take something away from somebody that they already own. We're not going to do that.

Mr. Speaker, what we have seen over three years is a government that is callous, a government that is preoccupied with political nuances that do nothing to enhance the image of government and politicians anywhere. They have brought politicians down in the estimation of people in this province and in this country considerably, and I think that's the biggest crime of all. It's hard enough to try and convince young people to have faith in politicians; it's hard enough to go to any segment of this society and say: "Please, have some faith in the honesty and the integrity of politics generally and politicians next." It's hard, because there is cynicism, and that cynicism has been increased by a government that is petty, a government that is mean, a government that is dishonest, and a government that is politically corrupt. It drags us all down — anybody who is in politics now or anybody who plans on going into politics in the future. It drags us down because of that government, that political party and their preoccupation with protecting the wealthy and

[ Page 195 ]

taking money away from the poor. That's all they've done for three years.

I say that if those people have got the intestinal fortitude, if they put their money where their mouth is, they will go to the Lieutenant-Governor and say: "Would you sign this writ so that the people of this province can get back a government that they deserve?" — people's government, a government that's concerned about the poor; a government that's concerned about working people; a government that's concerned about small business; a government that's concerned about big business; a government that's concerned about every segment of our society and not just preoccupied with slamming certain segments.

Every speech that they've made since this throne speech opened has been aimed against labour. Is that any way to get labour and management industrial relations on a good footing? All they have done is attack labour. They hate labour; they hate working people. They hate them because they see them as a threat to their political future. You know, Mr. Speaker, I don't think they should hate them, but I think they should really fear what those people are going to do to them, because as I said at the outset — and I repeat in conclusion — the people of this province will put up with honest mistakes. They'll put up with well-meaning mistakes, but they will not put up with the style of government that they've had in the past three years — a government of deceit, a government of dishonesty and a government of political corruption. That's what they've had. They've had it from the Clarkson report on day one to the free shares on day three. They've had that ever since this government took office.

Mr. Speaker, let them call the election; let them put their reputations on the line and go back to the people and ask them what they think of them. The answer will be that that government will go forever, because the next election is going to do away with Social Credit; it's going to do away with it. And in the years to come, what we're going to have is sane politics in this province, We're going to have the NDP on one side and the Conservatives on the other — good, honest political parties. That's what we're going to have; we're not going to have this group whose only reason for being, their only raison d'etre, is to keep the NDP out of power. They have no philosophical base, they have no ideological base. They have no base except to keep the NDP out; that's why they exist.

Can anybody tell me any other reason why the Social Credit Party exists in British Columbia, except to keep the NDP out? That's the only reason. Nobody in this province, Mr. Speaker, can name one reason why that party exists, except to keep the NDP out. They've got no policy; they're bankrupt in policy. All we have to do is to take a look over there at the ex-Conservative who is now the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Curtis) ; at the ex-Liberal, who is now the Minister of Education, Science and Technology (Hon. Mr. McGeer) ; at the ex--Liberal who is the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) ; at the ex-Liberal who is now the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) ; at the Environment minister (Hon. Mr. Mair), an ex-Liberal. There they are, all over there — the opportunists from all political parties, in power for one reason: they're against something, not for anything. They're not for anything; they're just against. They're against government, not for anything.

I defy the next speaker in this debate from that side of the House to get up and give me any other reason for your existence except to be against the NDP. There is no other reason. I defy you to stand up and try to explain yourselves, tell us what you're about. Tell us about your philosophy. You've denied Social Credit philosophy. You've denied Conservative philosophy. You've denied Liberal philosophy — even though I admit that's hard to find. You've denied every kind of philosophy in your bid for power and your desire to stay in power. You are a bankrupt group who are against and for nothing, and the people of this province, when you finally get the guts, will throw you out.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the rather hysterical rantings of the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), he made some rather serious accusations. He has accused officials of the Ministry of Forests of committing a criminal offence. That member knows that in this House he has certain immunity, certain privilege, and he has abused them. I demand that that member either apologize to the officials of the Ministry of Forests, who he has accused of committing a criminal offence, or else make those accusations outside this chamber.

MR. LEA: I did not accuse the civil service of committing a criminal offence. I accused that government of doing it. And for the minister's information, I have made the statement outside the House, and I'll make it outside the House again, because you're guilty as charged — counselling to break the law.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You're a wild man.

[ Page 196 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please withdraw any unparliamentary imputations, as referred to by the minister in his point of order?

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I've accused the minister and his government of counselling citizens of this province to break the law for political gain. I will not take it back; it's absolutely true.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, during that member's rantings he brought forward as proof of committing a criminal offence a letter written by my regional manager for Prince Rupert. That is, in my opinion, in effect accusing that man of committing a criminal offence. He offered that as proof of the fact the offence was committed — it was signed by an individual in my ministry. He has therefore accused that man of committing a criminal offence.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the member wish to withdraw any imputation towards the civil service in his address?

MR. LEA: I sure will. It has nothing to do with the civil service. I would imagine that civil servants do nothing more than carry out what the government wants them to do. It's their duty to do so. I have said nothing against the civil service; it's against that minister and that government. That's who has committed the offence.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member has just again accused this minister, personally, of committing a criminal offence. I demand an apology.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, parliamentary language is very carefully spelled out. Would the member for Prince Rupert withdraw any improper imputation towards the minister?

MR. LEA: Yes, I would. I don't think I've made one.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. CALDER: Once again, Mr. Speaker, we see wildness from the other side of the House. Ever since this House commenced the session, it would appear that the opposition is in disarray, disorganized. It's been very noticeable because, after all, they lost their leader not too long ago. Gordon Gibson had to return to Ottawa. So we can expect a continuation of the approach of the previous speaker. But we don't mind it; we're busy in the meantime doing the people's business.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed my pleasure to rise in my place once again to speak on behalf of the fine people in that good constituency of Atlin. In so doing, I wish first of all to congratulate His Honour, Henry Bell-Irving, on his appointment to the high office of Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia. His appointment marks the second occasion upon which the constituency of Atlin has had a basis in the early life of a Lieutenant-Governor. The Hon. Walter Owen, our previous Lieutenant-Governor, was born in the community of Atlin — we all know how well he served this province during his term in office.

Henry Bell-Irving worked for the Anglo-B.C. Packing Company at Arrandak Cannery located at the mouth of the Nass River in 1931 and 1932. At that time I was 16 years old. I was just starting to work at Nass Harbour Cannery, my first place, which was just around the corner from Arrandak. His Honour was my good neighbour in those two years. I wish His Honour good health and every success during his term in office.

I understand also that he will be visiting Kincolith and New Aiyansh in my constituency on May 25. There's no doubt in my mind that this official visit will be a memorable occasion for both His Honour and my Nishga tribe.

I would like to pay tribute to my late friend, Hon. W.A.C. Bennett. Many sincere and kind words have been directed to this great statesman since his passing. You have heard them and read them. There are several hon. members presently in this Legislature who had witnessed his most active and constructive years, and his numerous successes. I believe I remain alone in this House as one who had witnessed the beginning of his dynamic march to the top.

In my term of office, commencing in 1949, W.A.C. Bennett was the first maverick — a very constructive one at that — culminating, of course, in his famous walk across the floor in 1952. I can still recall that moment. I would say that was one of the exciting moments in my term of office. What a tense moment that was. I could never forget the expressions on the faces of such well-known politicians of that day as Boss Johnson, Herbie Anscomb, Gordon Wismer, Peterson, Carson, Straith, McDonell. I don't think they had expected that particular occasion. It was a tense moment.

Those were the days of the coalition government. Young Mr. Bennett was an hon. member of that post-war government. It was that govern-

[ Page 197 ]

ment that extended the franchise, or voting rights, to the native Indians and Japanese in 1949. As a matter of fact, the thirtieth anniversary of this voting amendment occurred only five days ago on March 24. This legislation was the first that came to my mind on hearing of the passing of W.A.C. Bennett. Of course, this amendment was long overdue. Nevertheless, I am certain that the new voters were grateful for the opportunity to participate in the political affairs and politics in this province. As one of the leading advocates for the right of native Indians to vote in this province, naturally I was grateful indeed for the avenue provided by the coalition government to enter this chamber as the first native Indian MLA.

Just in reminiscence, W.A.C. Bennett, I would say, was a bit of a prophet. He predicted my defeat in 1956. On several occasions following my re-election to the House in 1960, he predicted that one day I would join his party. So much can be said and written about our late friend. I believe that foremost in the minds of the people, not only in British Columbia but in Canada and the trading nations, is that he was a builder. Indeed he was. In his vision for the north he began a program that was so tremendous in scope that it may not be paralleled for quite a while in our history. We've been witness to many of these major projects: dams, highways, railways, accesses to industrial sites, public services, and other social and economic benefits.

I would like at this time to bring to your attention one major project that, most surprisingly, has received very little attention. I refer to the construction of the Stewart-Cassiar highway, which began in 1953. Now just about two years before that there was an announcement that asbestos had been discovered at Cassiar. Realizing the mineral potential and other natural resource potential in the B.C. northwest, the Social Credit government and the Bennett administration undertook to build a major access road to the seaport of Stewart. The road-building program at first received funds from the Mines department; they were known as departments in those days. Of course the administration was done by the Department of Highways.

In 1958 this project received funding from the Roads to Resources program. This was a Bennett-Diefenbaker initiative, which amounted to $15 million. Of course, there was quite some excitement in those days, because the completion was scheduled for 1963. But, Mr. Speaker, it was that year that the Liberals defeated the Diefenbaker government, whereupon the new Liberal regime proceeded to terminate the federal share of the Roads to Resources program.

For a while the people in my constituency had very much fear that the action of the federal government may have closed the Stewart-Cassiar Highway project for good. But I bring this particular matter to the attention of the House, because the then Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, was quick to announce that on behalf of the people of this province, he and his Social Credit government would go it alone to complete the highway to Stewart. This was a most welcome announcement and one that meant, to the concerned citizens of the north, the continuation of the road construction to its final completion in the seventies.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to know that W.A.C. Bennett lived to hear of the Cassiar Asbestos Corp. decision to export its asbestos fibre throughout the seaport of Stewart. Although this port is already in operation, the official opening ceremony has been set for May 18. After 26 years the purpose for which that highway was built is now a reality. It is there as another monument in the dynamic northern development plans of Mr. Bennett. It was truly a vision come true. Today this highway is considered, by the majority of highway users, much more economical than the Alaska Highway in terms of accessibility and its north-south geographic location. As a matter of fact, it is the final link in the Pacific coast highway from Fairbanks to Mexico. Tourism and commerce are on the increase on this highway system, and there is no doubt about its use in the transport of pipes in the event the Alaska pipeline construction proceeds.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the mover, the hon. member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), and the seconder, the hon. member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster), for their excellent deliveries and subject matter in reply to the Speech from the Throne. It's indeed a proud moment for their respective constituencies.

I want to refer briefly, Mr. Speaker, to the non-confidence motion which Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition submitted to this Legislature on Monday, March 26. I refer to it only because it marks the first time that I have witnessed an NDP opposition back off from its own non-confidence motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would just like to remind you that reflection on a vote that has already passed the House is not proper at this time. Please proceed.

MR. CALDER: I wish to continue, and if what

[ Page 198 ]

I say further is not proper, just remind me.

I would assume, Mr. Speaker, that that opposition had no faith in its own non-confidence motion. But believe it or not, I note that only five of the members of the opposition spoke to this. I've been sitting here wondering why the opposition is lacking in debate. Up to this moment, I think there are only nine who have entered into this debate, and that seems rather strange. Like I said in my opening remarks, maybe it's because they have lost their leader.

After hearing so many statements from the government side of the House proving that the economy was moving ahead in this province, the opposition decided to vacate this motion. I suppose the opposition realized that this motion was not in step with the active and progressive measures of your Social Credit government; that it was completely out of order in view of the sound economic management of this present administration; that it was archaic in terms of the efficiency and accountability of this government; and finally that it was absolutely uncalled for due to the Social Credit government's restoration of economic stability and confidence in British Columbia.

I would like to say a few words about the debt that we have been talking about since 1975, about the Social Credit surplus that is currently being discussed by many people and the benefits to people that have been programmed by this present administration. It would appear to me, Mr. Speaker, that the NDP opposition does not give a plugged nickel about the heavy debt burden it placed upon the shoulders of this government and the people of this province. It does not give a hoot either about the sincere efforts of this government and the people of this province to retire the NDP debt. Instead, as we have witnessed day after day, the members of the opposition would lean back with glee and laughter as if the debt burden was one big joke.

Mr. Speaker, in order to eliminate the embarrassing debt position, this government has had to adopt some unpopular financial policies. Do you think that the members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition would offer constructive suggestions as how to retire the debt they created? No sir. Instead, they continue to lean back, laughing up their sleeves, waving heroically to their friends in the galleries, winking at their buddies in the press gallery and introducing stupid non-confidence motions.

In the last two years, thanks to the people of this province and to sound management, your Social Credit government has accumulated some very favourable surpluses. From these surpluses we can expect fair and equal distribution of funds for the benefit of every citizen in this province. I would stress at this point in my speech that it is these surpluses and, of course, confidence in the government that are currently advancing our economy and providing employment. Again, what are we hearing from the NDP opposition? Nothing but a non-confidence motion against the government, laughter and innuendoes. What a contribution!

Mr. Speaker, time does not permit me to list the numerous programs and projects established in the last 31/2 years by this government. I will say, however, that it was sound government management and available financial surpluses that have made possible the social and economic programs and projects in the province. But let us examine only one area of our province. Let us look at the developments in the Atlin constituency and see whether or not the economy is moving favourably there.

With available surpluses and working capital, your government is now able to fund and to provide employment in the following projects — and this, of course, is during the years 1976 to 1978. Again, I don't know if I have enough time to read. I head the list with the completion of the Stewart-Cassiar road. It's not quite complete yet, because we still have to deal with the upgrading of the temporary bridges. But that is first on my list, and with the amount of money that we have allocated to this highway system, it certainly provides jobs for northern people.

The construction of the Stewart-Kitwanga highway, Highway 37 — there are projects, jobs, and a commitment to pave that highway system, and look at the expenditure. It's certainly a designated high between 1976 and 1978 — $47,651, 451.17. Of course, the major work here that has resulted in employment is the transfer of asbestos from Skagway seaport into Stewart, again providing this project with employment.

Then, of course, there's the Highways day labour program, which is a program to create employment, and this program is working very nicely in that large constituency. Then, of course, this government, it is well known, has restored confidence in the mining and other industries. With the repeal of the mineral royalties we have major companies now returning to that large constituency and doing exploratory work and hiring local people for local employment. I cannot overlook the reopening of Granduc which is certainly going to provide employment again.

Installation of B.C. Hydro units throughout the constituency has certainly provided work.

[ Page 199 ]

Some of the work is still going on, such as the extension through to Sawmill lake from Telegraph Creek, and the slashing for the extension from Greenville to the town of Kincolith, a distance of about 18 miles.

The establishment of air ambulance service in February 1975 provided employment, and airstrip improvements with provincial government grants provide employment. We have an extension and paving of the airstrip in Stewart to the tune of $320,000, which will be providing employment in a matter of weeks. The people in Telegraph Creek were very happy to be employed in the work on the 7,000-foot airstrip there. Even though this involves federal licence, the work that's been done — the telephone systems for Telegraph Creek, Dease lake and Iskut — provide work, because we in the province have also done our share in requesting that this service be established.

The housing projects in the new subdivisions in Dease Lake, Atlin and Good Hope Lake are coming along nicely. The new school that is going to be built this year in Telegraph Creek — over $1.3 million — and the school additions at Cassiar and Dease Lake are all projects which provide jobs for the local people. We have many recreational facilities resulting from provincial government grants and so on. But that is nothing.

We have several major projects still to be considered, which can only result from surpluses: the replacing of temporary bridges on Highway 37; a bridge construction to cross the Nass River north of Greenville; upgrading of the Greenville to Aiyansh road, which, of course, is in the new school district of Nass River. We're hoping that B.C. Moly in Alice Arm will reopen, and already they have been urging the government to consider building the Kitsault road to the Nass River.

Mr. Premier, I would hope that you would listen to this one: the possibility of extending the power grid from Kitsault, Alice Arm to Stewart and Granduc, so that B.C. Hydro would be available to other industries in the area.

We are asking for a health clinic at Dease Lake. We are asking for improvements in the airstrips at Dease lake and Atlin. We are requesting a government agency at Dease lake. We want additional RCMP on the Stewart-Cassiar road because of the activity on that road. We want increased budgets for the conservation offices throughout the riding, and many designated parks require facilities. We are looking forward to the establishment of a forest industry in Stewart.

Now I list all these things, all these projects, because it's surpluses that will build these projects and I am hoping that the government will consider spending additional sums of money in this area.

In connection with these projects that I have mentioned, I wish to take the time to thank the seven ministers who visited the constituency of Atlin last year. The result of their work was good in the eyes of the people in the north. I would ask the Premier of this province and his cabinet — and I'm referring to these surpluses — to be very cautious in the distribution of the people's surplus funds.

I shall tell you why. I know you won't listen. But just be cautious. First, the NDP opposition wants you to spend it all. The B.C. Federation of Labour advises you to spend it all. The media, the editorials, suggest that you spend it all. The lobbyists want you to spend it all. But, Mr. Premier, just, please, be careful. Times are tough. We need money in the kitty. We've got to have it always in the kitty so that some of these pending projects in the Atlin constituency may be realized. Still referring to the surplus, I cannot help but fear the possible return to power of the NDP government.

I have in my hands a list of names of those recently nominated as NDP candidates in the next provincial general election. It includes practically everyone who is presently sitting on that side of the House. Then on the list you see the following names also nominated, people that we know like Jim Lorimer, Ernie Hall, Gerry Anderson, Harold Steves, Carl Liden, Colin Gabelmann and the two dropouts from the federal House, Frank Howard and Stu Leggatt.

There you have it. It's the same old gang. They're the same old gang who ran this province broke, and they're all running again. If they are re-elected to office, they will be the same old gang who will again plunge British Columbia into yet another heavy debt. Yes, it's the same faces, the same old inexperienced group, the same old wild-spending gang from the old old democratic party — not New Democratic Party. This to me is sort of a false front. It's Old Democratic Party. Same old spots. Same old pinch. Indeed, if that group opposite should return to power, I have great fears about our ombudsman, about our auditor-general, the Committee on Crown Corporations and the quarterly financial reports. What would happen to these offices that now assure accountability and confidence in British Columbia?

I suppose in the final analysis it will be the people in this province who will provide the answer and the decision. By golly, I have

[ Page 200 ]

the greatest faith and confidence in the people that they, when the time comes, will return this government into office.

On behalf of my constituents, I welcome the throne speech announcements of denticare for the people of B.C. What a fantastic program. It belongs to the people just as medicare and Pharmacare belong to the people. These are fantastic services, produced by a fantastic people's government. The group opposite may term these services socialistic if it wants to. To the hon. members on this side of the House, and to the people of the province, these services are just plain good people programs. I want to remind you and the members of the House that these programs accrue from sound management of the people's financial surpluses.

One day I hope to witness this Social Credit government introduce opticare. I think that would be about the last one. I know this program is also in our books of services to the people.

Mr. Speaker, I refer to denticare because I'd like to bring up one or two problems. As this service may not be fully operative in the remote areas of the province, I bring to your attention now the need to enlarge upon the program with the introduction of a mobile dental clinic which would service the isolated communities where there are no doctors or dentists. Such communities are Atlin, Lower Post, Telegraph Creek, Dease Lake, Iskut and the communities in the Nass River Valley. Of course, in other remote areas of the province, I would welcome a mobile dental clinic. I think this is a real need. It's something that I believe the government should really look at.

One other point about denticare is that there must be a solution also in the case of the people in the Atlin community. The people there have an embarrassing problem with their B.C. medicare when they try to use it in Whitehorse — that's in the Yukon Territory. I would say that if the people there should encounter the same predicament with their denticare plan in Whitehorse, then this government should thoroughly investigate the situation in terms of resolving this border problem — hopefully in favour of the people in Atlin.

I am rather disturbed by the international invitation extended by the government of Alaska to the Leader of the Opposition. Considering prior conferences the Alaskan legislators have had with the Premier of British Columbia regarding the possible extension of the BCR to Alaska, it is difficult to believe they have decided to bypass the Premier for the Leader of the Opposition. I don't know about my colleagues in this House but, personally, I find this rather insulting and disrespectful to the Premier of British Columbia. Indeed — and I say this in no uncertain terms — the politicians in Alaska have shown a complete lack of tact and diplomacy. I ask you: since when did the Leader of the Opposition become a big railroad builder? What gall he has to compare himself to his predecessor! He is quoted in the March 21 Colonist: "A dream of W.A.C. Bennett and myself." Good God!

I'll have you know that during the election of 1972 the Leader of the Opposition had promised that, if elected, he would do all kinds of things for the north, including complete the railway to Dease Lake. He had no idea that he and his party were going to be elected to govern this province. The NDP victory, in my view, came as a complete surprise to him. But then, once in office, he found that the BCR was already in deep trouble. Nevertheless, he was stuck with his promise to build the railway. As a result, by continuing its construction, he plunged the railway deeper into debt. This was his contribution as a railway builder. In my view that was his only contribution as a railroad builder.

I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition file in this House copies of his letters to the governments in Washington and in Juneau. I'll be most interested to read them — if there are such letters — because they could reveal many things. This could be a self-image promotion to stay on top of the leadership battle which, I suggest, is quietly taking place within his party.

I conclude by saying, just briefly — and I don't hesitate to say it because I've said it before on the floor of this House, even when I was sitting on the other side — that I am in favour of an international effort to continue the BCR construction to Alaska. My previous remarks in this House will bear this out. I am hopeful that the ongoing conferences between the governments of Alaska, Canada and British Columbia will continue, and I trust that in the near future a favourable conclusion may be reached.

MR. KAHL: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise in my place again to represent the people from the constituency of Esquimalt. I had the great pleasure this afternoon to be with quite a few of them in a sod-turning ceremony for a new hospital on Helmcken Road. We were told today by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) that this hospital was talked about for some 15 years and one that the New Democratic Party — the socialist party in this province with their supposed concern

[ Page 201 ]

for people — did absolutely nothing about in the three years that they were in power.

That was the second sod-turning ceremony for a hospital that I had the opportunity to attend in my constituency. Late last year, we had an opportunity to turn the sod for the Priory Hospital in my area. We were very grateful, and the people in my constituency were very pleased as well.

On behalf of the people in my constituency, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the major contribution made, and work done, by our former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett. Many people have come to me and remarked upon the great work that the late Mr. Bennett has done. I didn't know him that well. However, on a number of occasions I had brief conversations with him, and his advice was always extremely good.

I am pleased to speak today in the fourth session of the thirty-first parliament. I am pleased to see the Speech from the Throne — the blueprint to improve our quality of life and provide a sound future for the people of the province of British Columbia.

In the opening speech we were given an indication of ministerial ideals and principles that can be expected to achieve those goals. I will spend just a short time reflecting on these and talking about them as they relate to my constituency. As well, Mr. Speaker, I have a bit of advice for some concerns in my constituency.

Never have I read a speech that was more definite on the proper direction for citizens to follow in achieving those goals. The opening speech is one that gives the citizens of the province an opportunity to make a choice between state ownership and individual ownership and enterprise. If ever there was an opportunity for citizens in this province to take time to think, the opportunity is now. The Leader of the Opposition wiffled and waffled on the issue of the five shares. He waffled one time before, when he signed the Regina manifesto, and he is waffling again because he knows this is the time when the people of this province will choose individualism over socialism.

This opening speech gives us the opportunity to identify the rights, privileges and responsibilities of individual ownership. Individuals must guide their own destiny. This was proposed in some people's minds by a small example — the individuality of the ICBC rates. We will pay our premiums according to our personal driving record, not that of people in a specific age group or area. That is what individuality is all about.

The Leader of the Opposition and the socialist party are in a real quandary these days because we've come up against a basic philosophical difference that separates our party from theirs. It is simply the difference between individual ownership and state ownership. This afternoon I listened with interest to the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) talk about something he already owned. Something the government owns, Mr. Speaker, is not what I own. Let's make that very clear. Let's tell that message to the people of this province. There's a difference between big government ownership and individual ownership.

When the socialists were in power in this province, they worked on the very principle they believed in, make no mistake about it: that the state should control everything. It was not by mistake that they purchased "pinko" Panco Poultry, or that they purchased dairy farms, or that they purchased other farms and properties throughout this province. That was by design, Mr. Speaker.

It was a foothold in the door to state ownership of the primary means of production and distribution in this province. Let's not make any mistake about that. They were not interested in the individuality of people and that expression in the province of British Columbia. Even the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) doesn't agree with the line put out by the Leader of the Official Opposition. I believe he said in an interview that he would distribute the shares to BCRIC in the same way that we are doing. As a matter of fact, I believe he's even applied for his shares and made a little investment besides.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KAHL: That's what I've been told.

Interjection.

MR. KAHL: Now that's an interesting observation — an interesting comment — coming from him. They're a little mixed up over there on that side of the House.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: His leader's going to take them away.

MR. KAHL: That's right. It's been mentioned by the member for South Peace River that when and if — never, I hope — the Leader of the Opposition gets the opportunity, he'll take all those shares away, even the ones that his own party people have purchased. We've got to give this message to the people of this province. The opening speech by His Honour gives us that opportunity, the choice between in-

[ Page 202 ]

dividuality, socialism and state ownership.

While we're talking about the BCRIC shares — and I'm glad the Premier's in the House — I want to bring up something that concerns a number of people in my constituency. I'm sure it's looked after in the regulations, but I think we have to do a bit of a promotion and take it on ourselves to pass the word about these shares to service personnel on the base in my constituency, as well as on other bases across Canada and in other parts of the world. These people are British Columbians, and because of their dedication and service to our province and our country, they are not in the province at the time of this distribution, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Premier. They have been born here, they've lived here, and because of a transfer in service to another part of Canada, they don't qualify as having been here for two years. I'm sure they're looked after in the regulations, but my point is that we must make sure that those service people in other parts of Canada and the world know that they're looked after, and that they will have the opportunity to apply for those shares. Somehow we have to let them apply for those shares, whether they're stationed in Germany, France, down east or whatever. We've got to get that message to their bases, perhaps to their base commander, and let them have that opportunity.

We have the same thing with people involved in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who, because they're training in another part of the country, aren't here to make that application although they're British Columbians and many have lived here for 20 years. We must give them that opportunity. I want some assurance — through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier — that we'll undertake that program and get that message out to them.

Individual enterprise, emphasized so much in the opening speech, gives us the opportunity of choice. It gives us the opportunity to choose where we work, where we live, where we go to church, what kind of car to drive, and most important, how we will spend the money we earn. That's the choice we have in individual enterprise and individual ownership. By being individuals we can improve our own quality of life rather than have big government improve it for us. There's a basic fundamental difference there. By individual enterprise we can improve and provide for a secure future — not a big-government secure future, but an individual secure future.

I'm pleased to see major emphasis being placed on the family in this Year of the Child and the Family, because the family is the cornerstone of western civilization — the cornerstone of the individual enterprise system.

I was appalled at the gall of the second member for Vancouver Centre the other day when he spoke in this chamber about the child abuse on the front steps and on the lawn of the Legislature on opening day. I was absolutely appalled. "It was disgraceful," was his comment.

I had lunch with the council that day, and met quite a number of those students who were overwhelmed at the opportunity....

MR. BARNES: On a point of order, I have a big enough load to carry in my position as second member for Vancouver Centre. I think the member is referring to the first member (Mr. Lauk) .

MR. KAHL: Oh, I'm sorry.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. KAHL: The second member does support what went on on the front lawn on opening day, which is very noble of him. We appreciate that. I know, judging by the speeches that his colleague from Vancouver Centre makes, that he does have a big load to carry. There's no doubt about that.

The remarks were totally uncalled for. I had the opportunity to speak with some of the leaders from the group who were overwhelmed by the support given by our Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), and by how quickly she had responded and helped out on that day. They were very pleased and very grateful for that afternoon. There were children there from sports clubs and schools; there were people representing different cultural groups throughout the city, and they were all pleased to be there. Let me tell you, I in no way associate my comments with those made by the first member for Vancouver Centre.

Our new program for home ownership will give the families an opportunity to acquire their own individual piece of ground — not the apartment kind of communal living or townhouse development opportunity that were so exemplified in the years of the socialist regime in this province, but the opportunity to own their own piece of ground. It's an individual opportunity to raise their family on their own investment in this province. The release of Crown land will be welcomed by all.

Talking about children and the family, I must mention the educational system. I was very interested the other day to listen to the comments from the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) . She is not in her seat today,

[ Page 203 ]

and is here so seldom it's difficult to remember where she is from. I remember last year when I made a speech in the House and I talked about giving the opportunity to school children to understand the individual enterprise system — and other systems — and I was criticized for that.

The other day in the chamber, lo and behold, the member said that we should be teaching the political parties' political views in school. I only hope that what she meant was we would be teaching all those political parties' views in school, and not just the socialist ones. We should be teaching as well the ramifications of those political parties.

We should be teaching what individual enterprise is all about. We should be teaching what opportunity it gives children and people in our country. Be sure that they understand, when teaching that principle. Be sure that the school children understand what the Leader of the Opposition said, and how his colleagues disagreed with him on the fundamental issue of owning part of British Columbia. That's a must. Be sure, when we're teaching our children, to tell them that not every one of them can be employees, that we need some employers in the province.

You see, you believe in state ownership and the socialist philosophy. Everyone can be an employee, because we all work for the state. But if you believe in individual opportunity and enterprise, you have the opportunity to be an employer. That is why we saw such a tremendous increase in the hiring of civil servants during the time of the NDP. They would like everyone to work for the state. That's what they believe in — servants of the state and of big government.

I note that we are encouraging a program for job training. I hope that included in there as well is a program for teaching people about business and creating business, creating things through individual enterprise.

Socialism is not very creative. They talked about the health programs and the human resources programs and how they would do so much when they were government; they created not one solitary new program in health and human resources.

Only through our schools can we move from a government whose solution was more government and regulation to a government whose solution is less government and individual opportunity.

The Minister of Deregulation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) has an important task: he's charged with the responsibility of deregulating much of the government's red tape and bureaucracy. It's big job, let me tell you. He has the opportunity to deregulate, to see that individuals in this province get the opportunities in enterprise and freedom. It's a big responsibility. It's something, quite frankly, that the opposition were never interested in.

Through other ministries we also have plans for individual opportunities and individual enterprises — through Human Resources, through the Health ministry, through Municipal Affairs.

I want to concentrate for a moment on some of the programs in my constituency that we need to take a close look at. To the minister in charge of parks, I want to say that we have an opportunity to take part in the expansion and creation of a new park on Triangle Mountain. I've spoken about this before in the House, and I'm going to speak about it again and again. It's an opportunity. It's a site that's recognized across Canada as an important site, a view site, in an area in my constituency that is rapidly growing, and we should take the opportunity to acquire that piece of property for a park.

I was pleased to see that some of the sports programs will be encouraged to develop individual competition.

In that line we have another opportunity in my constituency in an area that has gathered a lot of controversy the last while: that is the development of what is traditionally known as the Highlands area, an area where big government under the socialist regime went in and purchased in the neighbourhood of 2,000 acres for a housing development. It was an absolute sham and a waste of the taxpayers' money. We have an opportunity to develop that area into a park along with many of the private landowners in the area and, at the same time, let them retain private ownership of the property. It's a practice in other parts of the world, and certainly we could use that same practice here. Tax concessions and other matters will have to be considered to achieve that goal, but it's something we must look at. We're not in the business of purchasing huge tracts of land for the development of parks when private individual owners want to take part in the same scheme.

In my constituency, as well, we have an opportunity to encourage the federal government with their salmonid enhancement programs to take part in the study of southern Vancouver Island fresh waterways. Salmon diseases that might be transported between various river systems have not been studied. We were provided with that information at a meeting here in Victoria of a lot of fisherman and conservation people and some of the federal Fisheries people. We must encourage federal Fisheries people to do that study. We must

[ Page 204 ]

take part and get actively involved in that, because the Sooke River and other rivers in my constituency that supply a lot of the salmon to the sports fishermen are in danger of being depleted of that resource.

Many of the local people have started programs on their own. They have taken the opportunity to assist in developing that. Indeed, we were pleased to be able to present money from lottery funds to people in Port Renfrew, to assist in their incubation hatchery and their restocking of that river — some dedicated local people who have done a great deal of work.

We must take that same opportunity, Mr. Speaker, in three or four other rivers on the south end of Vancouver Island. Those rivers provide not only saltwater fishing opportunities, but they also provide opportunities for the freshwater fishermen in the total greater Victoria area. That has got to be looked after, and we've got to encourage the federal government to take part in that exploratory program and restock those areas. If they don't do it, then we should take it upon ourselves to see that it's done.

Another project that I want to put forth today is a project of some concern in the Esquimalt area. It's a heritage site that was abandoned a few years ago by the Greater Victoria School Board. It's the Lampson Street School. That school dates back to the period of around the 1900s. It could provide an excellent opportunity for a cultural centre in the Esquimalt area. What I'm proposing today is that the Capital Improvement District Commission or one of our ministries which has this under its jurisdiction, whether it be Education or whatever, take this on as a project similar to the Crystal Gardens project, acquire that site, rebuild it, refurbish it for a cultural centre in the Esquimalt area — in the Esquimalt municipality — and then give it to the municipality to look after and to operate. I'd like to see that project taken on, Mr. Speaker. It's one that I've talked about with a great number of people. Many local individuals are interested in that project and we should get involved with it.

While I'm talking about that particular area, I want to move down the street a little bit and make a few comments about a colleague, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), who has done nothing, quite frankly, to encourage employment or growth in Victoria, nothing to encourage individual enterprise in Victoria. Because of the disastrous competitiveness and how he's come out on that end of the stick with the first member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Bawlf), he's decided to move some of his great thoughts into my constituency. Well, frankly, he would be better off to stay in his own area, because what he talks about he knows very little about. His proposal was to get rid of the staff and personnel at Work Point barracks and to create an industrial site. Well, as the first member for Victoria said the other night, there are ample industrial sites in Victoria without getting rid of part of the national defence system. We should be encouraging people. We should be encouraging the federal government to improve and build that facility, not abandon it.

He led us to believe as well, then he made the proposal, that he had the backing of a former member of this House, now president of the B.C. Development Corporation, and I understand that, in fact, he didn't have that backing at all. That's very interesting. I think the second member for Victoria would do well to stay in his own territory.

I spoke earlier in my comments about the Ministry of Health and the new hospital, the Priory Hospital, that's nearing completion, and the hospital on Helmcken Road that we had the sod-turning ceremony for today. I want to congratulate the Minister of Health on the proposal put forth with the denticare program. I would like him to make sure that the outlying areas are looked after and included in that particular endeavour.

Through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, I have three comments, one dealing with bus service in my constituency which needs upgrading. I have requested a meeting with the minister and local people from my community to discuss this area. In the View Royal-Colwood-Langford-Metchosin-Sooke area we do not have the bus service that we require. We have been given some lame duck excuses that the service that's there isn't utilized to capacity. So why enlarge it? When the service there, quite frankly, is already lousy, who will use it? I say that what we need to do is sit down with some local people and decide where those buses should run.

I am pleased to see the Minister of Municipal Affairs in his chair. I want to address these remarks to him because I've requested that meeting. We have areas in the greater Victoria area with a population of 15,000 people that have upwards of 45 buses going by their door in the same day. In my constituency, in the Colwood-Langford-Metchosin area, we have nine or ten buses a day. We don't have one bus on Saturday and Sunday. There is no bus service for the people in Belmont Park and the women in that part of the base at Belmont Park whose husbands are gone out to sea. There's no bus service at all in that com-

[ Page 205 ]

munity.

We have to have a bus go through that Belmont Park area. The women of those sailors and service people have small children to take with them when they go shopping, and to cone back and walk that long distance with parcels is an impossible situation, Mr. Speaker. We need something done about that — through you to the Minister of Municipal Affairs — and we need it done now.

As well the Goldstream Park area, the Phelps subdivision area — we need some bus service there. There is no bus service for any of the 25,000 people in the western community to go to the theatre uptown and arrive back home after the production in the evening; there is no bus service back to that community after 8:30 in the evening. That's a situation that we cannot and will not tolerate any longer when we're seeing buses to other parts of greater Victoria running till 1 a.m. with hardly anyone riding them at all. Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, we want that situation corrected as soon as possible.

I want to take the opportunity to thank the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) for the tremendous amount of work that's been done in my constituency on the Trans-Canada Highway and related projects. But I would like also to take this opportunity to mention that part of Highway 14 between Colwood, Langford and Sooke that is desperately in need of some passing lanes. We have many large trucks daily bringing in lumber from the mills in the Sooke area, and it's an intolerable situation for people trying to traverse that section of road each day. We have to take a very close look at that. I have mentioned that too in a speech in this chamber before, Mr. Speaker. We must address ourselves to it now and find a solution.

Also, there is a section of Trans-Canada Highway in my constituency that needs to be done, from the Thetis Lake interchange through the Goldstream Park area. I wouldn't like to see it go through the Goldstream Park area, but would rather see it take the circuitous route around behind the mountain and come out in the Mill Bay area. A lot of local residents have come to me and said: "Yes, that would be a very good idea." So I put that forth today, as well, to the Minister of Highways to take a look at.

The Speech from the Throne shows how individual enterprise will be able to create real wealth for individuals and their families. It shows how we can have private ownership as opposed to government ownership. We must support individual enterprise and not big government. We must reduce regulations and red tape. In that way individuals can invest and organize in a society that promotes and improves the quality of life for as secure a future as they can find in this great province of British Columbia.

MR. BARNES: I would suggest that the government members hold on to their seats for this vicious attack that I am about to wage. First, I would like to associate myself with the congratulations that have been presented by other members to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, Henry Bell-Irving, and in a roundabout way to congratulate those members who have been moved to new places with the same faces in the cabinet. Obviously it'll be the same old game from a new posture. However, we understand the necessity of doing that when you're running and trying to find a new way of making your point.

I see I'm not going to have very much time to really develop my points, but I would like to recall the cautions made by the last speaker when he referred to the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) as being irresponsible when he suggested that the government is guilty of manipulating young people for political purposes.

I would just like to say I hadn't been aware of those comments by the member until I checked with my colleague. I think that his point certainly was not to suggest that child abuse was the intent that he meant, as far as the kids were concerned, but that the government was guilty of something similar by misusing that scene to try to play politics. It's a very typical type of tactic by this government. I happened to witness something very similar in Penticton and in Kamloops when the summer games and the winter games were being put on. This government, again, is using what you could call a "motherhood" situation for political purposes. I don't think they are sincere. I don't think it is going to be very difficult to develop these charges and make them stick. The government's record speaks for itself.

I'm going to make reference to one part of the throne speech, not the whole one. I don't have time. But I have several other points that I want to make. The suggestion that members of this assembly will be asked to enshrine in legislation a bill of rights guaranteeing fundamental freedoms to all of our citizens has got to be a real joke, coming from this government, a government that is known for arrogance and for irresponsibility in terms of people's rights.

The former Minister of Human Resources (Hon.

[ Page 206 ]

Mr. Vander Zalm) likes to talk about frogs. The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair) has made reference to the people from the U.K., from England, today. He is suggesting that because they are now Canadian citizens they are bringing with them undesirable characteristics which we must condemn. Imagine a person taking that liberty in a leadership position in the public service, working on behalf of the people, suggesting that he has the privilege and the right to draw those conclusions because of a person's birthplace. I think that's why it is incredible that this government will be talking about human rights. I don't think they know the meaning of the word, or the concept that's involved in human rights. It further suggests the kind of sham that that throne speech contained.

They're suggesting that the right of individual ownership should never be surrendered to government. Imagine that! Never is a long time, However, it goes on in the very next paragraph, or a few paragraphs down in the throne speech, to suggest that when the government may deem it necessary to acquire an individual's property, it wants this House to ensure that the rights of the individual whose lands, home or businesses are being expropriated will receive fair compensation.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Are you opposed to that?

MR. BARNES: No, I'm not opposed to them having fair compensation, Mr. Minister. But how can you, on the one hand, say they should never give up private ownership to the government. What are you talking about? You can't have it both ways. It's like the former speaker standing up and saying it's individual free enterprise versus statism. On the other hand, we're going to have denticare. What is that, if it isn't social? What about medicare? What are you talking about? I think you're trying to confuse the public. You're trying to tell them that there's an issue out there. That is total balderdash. The point is we're here to serve the people of British Columbia in the best way we know how.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, they talk about secondhand. The Premier says: "Don't take anything secondhand; you should own it yourself." He refers to Crown corporations as secondhand. What are those five free shares? When you already own something, and someone gives it to you again, that's worse than secondhand.

You know, I don't know how you can take the throne speech seriously. I think that I would like to address one brief problem that occurred some time ago, about two years ago, because this throne speech is really not worthy of the kind of debate that it should receive. It should be a serious document indicating what the government intends to do, but it's loaded with doubletalk and double standards and insincerity.

I can't associate myself with it, although I must say the rhetoric is impressive. When you talk about human right and individual ownership and participation and so forth, certainly, we agree with those things. We agree with fair compensation. But it's rhetoric. Those individuals over there are incapable of being concerned about individuals, about people and their rights.

Mr. Speaker, the one last quote I'm going to make from the throne speech has to do with security of employment and the rights of individuals who are in families. The throne speech said:

"Because my government believes that individual security starts in the home, it is fitting that this year was proclaimed to be 'The Year of the Child and the Family' in British Columbia."

I have been informed that there are some 28 individuals who would like to know in what way that is going to be effected. Here are a list of 28 people, who I'm sure will be interested in how that's going to turn out for them: George Candlish, carpenter, 59; Barry Forester, carpenter, 24; Don Forsythe, carpenter, 50; Harold Hancock, carpenter, 63; Gordon Hill, carpenter, 27; Gordon Paddon, carpenter, 58; Dragon Pavlicic, carpenter, 50; Del Porteous, carpenter, 61; Milon Ljobojevic, carpenter, 48; Henry von Schalberg, carpenter, 56; Mike Bembe, electrician, 27; Ken Stacey, electrician, 29; Mike Gatey, labourer, 26; John McThillan, stained glass worker, 25; Ken Nord, labourer, 39; Vince Mckenzie, 60, plasterer; Dom Melizza, 58, tilesetter; Steve Rasmussen, 48, plasterer; Dave Shergold, 26, bricklayer; Geoff Snowdon, 57, bricklayer; Fred Werhun, 46, tilesetter; Frank Carson, 56, painter; Tom Henderson, 57, painter; Martin Haywood, 30, painter; Rhys Thomas, 25, plumber; Jack Long, 34, roofer; Bill Norris, sheetmetal worker, 33; Ron Zullich, 30, electrician.

These are 28 men who are officially terminated effective March 31. They have worked as auxiliary employees for the past five years. Eighty percent are married with children, several with grandchildren. A number of them fought in the Second World War. Only one man, so far, has been fortunate enough to find alternate employment. The remaining 27 men will be forced to go on unemployment insurance.

[ Page 207 ]

Over a third of that crew that I just read off to you, Mr. Speaker, are 50 years of age or older, and I would like you to suggest to me, sir, what opportunities they have for further employment under the present system.

To a man, these individuals have indicated their desire to refuse severance pay in order to continue gainful employment. I think, when you consider the unemployment situation, particularly in the construction industry, which is some 15 percent, one questions the sincerity of a government that says it is going to honour this year as the Year of the Child and the Family.

Before I ask for adjournment, I'd just like to read a statement by the Minister of Transportation, Communications and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), made May 18, 1977, almost two years ago. This, by the way, Mr. Speaker, is a statement that was made during a demonstration at the time the B.C. Buildings Corporation was being created, and the Public Works department was being eliminated, along with some 1,200 workers:

"My purpose in coming out here today is to reassure those of you on the matter of yesterday's news report, which has been misunderstood. The matter which was in my mind at the time was that a number of management jobs will be available in the corporation, which must be competed for and awarded on the basis of merit. The remaining jobs within the Buildings Corporation will be filled by present public works staff on a basis to be arrived at through negotiations with the unions.

"It is my understanding that negotiations are underway and no transfers will be made until the appropriate process has been decided as a result of these negotiations. I would further emphasize" — and I underline from here on — "no Public Works employee will be laid off as a consequence of the introduction of the Buildings Corporation."

I emphasize that this is what the Minister of Public Works and Highways said two years ago. I just read off to you a list, effective

March 31, of 28 persons who will not have jobs during the Year of the Child and the Family. Most of them have children and grandchildren. This is a very concerned, sincere government, so pay a lot of attention to what they say in the throne speech.

I want to develop some other points, but in light of an agreement made between the Whips, I would ask that this debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Presenting reports.

MR. DAVIDSON: I have the honour to present the report of the special committee appointed to select an ombudsman for the province of British Columbia. [See appendix.]

I move that the report unanimously recommending the appointment of Dr. Karl A. Friedman for the position of ombudsman be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

MR. DAVIDSON: I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Motion approved.

MR. SMITH: Just on a quick point of order, I would like to observe that because of circumstances beyond my control I was unable to participate in the debate this afternoon and you've missed the best speech of the whole throne debate.

MR. SPEAKER: I must remind all hon. members that I anticipate being back together again tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

[ Page 208 ]

APPENDIX

Pursuant to Order, Mr. Davidson presented the following report:

REPORT

LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ROOM,

March 29, 1979

MR. SPEAKER: I am pleased to present the report of the Special Committee of the Legislative Assembly setting out our recommendation to the Assembly for the Selection of an Ombudsman,

Recruitment:

The Special Committee was formed pursuant to section 2 (2) of the Ombudsman Art, 1977 (a copy of the Act is given as Appendix A of this report) . The Committee held its first meeting on October 21, 1977 to plan the method of recruiting for the position of Ombudsman.

The Committee resolved to place an advertisement in the major newspapers across Canada (a copy of the advertisement is given as Appendix B to this report) .

A total of 401 applications were received as a result of advertising. Candidates responded from every province in Canada as well as several from the United States.

The Committee agreed that every application received would be given consideration.

Preliminary Screening:

Due to the large volume of applications received, the Committee resolved to establish a Sub-committee composed of the Chairman, the Secretary and a Member of each representative Party.,

The Sub-committee's function was to thoroughly screen each application and to notate an evaluation of the qualifications. This was done prior to submitting them to the Whole Committee for further discussion, and to reach a unanimous decision on either to hold for a further review or rejection. Many applications were held over repeatedly in order that the Committee could reach a unanimous decision.

After the Committee's decision was finalized, letters were forwarded the applicants advising them accordingly.

Candidate Evaluation:

Meetings of both the Sub-committee and the Whole Committee were held in an on-going basis until all the applications had been thoroughly reviewed and evaluated.

A short list of eight finalists was reached and the Committee resolved to personally interview each one.

On November 6, 7, and 8, 1978, the candidates met with the Committee Members in Vancouver and personal interviews were conducted including prepared questions by the Members.

The Committee was sincerely impressed with the calibre and qualifications of the candidates.

On November 16, 1978 the Committee met again to review their evaluations of the candidates and after discussion, it was agreed to hold a second interview with four of the candidates.

Finalists Selection:

Second interviews were held on November 28, 1978 with the four finalists in Vancouver. After the interviews the Committee reviewed and reached further decisions on the qualifications of each finalist.

It was resolved that a consulting firm would be asked to make a background study on the Committee's choice of candidate prior to a final decision.

[ Page 209 ]

APPENDIX

The Selection:

The consulting firm of John Fleury & Associates, Vancouver was asked to provide a background report on the choice of candidate.

The Committee met again to read the report on January 29, 1979. It was resolved at the meeting that the Chairman and Members of the Committee would hold a press conference and release the name of the Special Committee's choice of candidate. The Party Leaders had previously been approached and their approval obtained to inform the public that the Committee had reached a unanimous decision for recommendation.

It is the unanimous decision of the Special Committee to the Legislative

Assembly to recommend the following name as our recommendation for the position of Ombudsman for the Province of British Columbia:

Dr. Karl A. Friedmann

20 Varscliff Place

Calgary, Alberta T3A OG4.

Dr. Friedmann is an Associate Professor at the University of Calgary, Alberta.

A Canadian citizen, Dr. Friedmann is known as one of the most knowledgable Canadians in the Ombudsman field. He is the author of numerous journal articles, has contributed to many book reviews, and has had a substantial number of conference papers submitted. He is also the author of two books and has analyzed Ombudsman legislation throughout the world.

In announcing our unanimous recommendation to the Legislative Assembly, I wish to place on record the excellent cooperation and spirit with which all the Members of the Special Committee displayed throughout the period of time it took to reach a unanimous decision.

Mr. Speaker, your Committee unanimously recommends to the Legislative Assembly that the name of Dr. Karl A. Friedmann be recommended to the Lieutenant-Governor for the position of Ombudsman to exercise the powers and perform his duties as provided by the Ombudsman Act.

Special Committee of the Legislative Assembly to Select an Ombudsman for the Province of British Columbia

WALTER DAVIDSON, Chairman

The report was taken as read and received.

By leave of the House, the Rules were suspended and the report unanimously recommending the appointment of Dr. Karl A. Friedmann as Ombudsman of the Province of British Columbia was adopted.