[ Page 211 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Presenting petitions.

Public inquiry into fishery management. Mr. Skelly — 211

Throne speech debate

Hon. Mi. Waterland — 211

Mr. D'Arcy — 216

Mr. Macdonald — 222

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 228

Division — 237

Presenting reports.

Annual report of the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission. Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 237

Financial statements of the British Columbia Railway Company. Hon. Mr. Phillips — 237

FRIDAY, MARCH 30, 1979.

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. KAHL: I would like to welcome to the chamber today Pastor D.L. McMillan. He's from the Colwood Pentecostal Church in my constituency. I'd like the House to bid him a special welcome.

Presenting petitions.

MR. SKELLY: I have a petition to present on behalf of fishermen on the coast of Vancouver Island.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed, it's a procedure that at this point requires leave.

Leave granted.

MR. SKELLY: The petition reads:

"To the hon. Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in the Legislature assembled:

"The petition of the undersigned humbly showeth that whereas the salmon and herring resource of the Pacific coast may be endangered because of the incompetent management by the federal Department of Fisheries; and whereas preferential treatment has been given to a select few in the allocation of rights to harvest the salmon and herring resource; and whereas independent fishermen and support industries and the economies of a number of coastal communities are threatened by present and proposed fisheries policy, which will have the effect of concentrating harvesting capacity in a few hands; and whereas present fisheries legislation is unduly harsh and discretionary, wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House may be pleased to appoint a full public inquiry into all aspects of the management of the Pacific coast fishery before any changes to present regulations are implemented. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray."

It is dated March 30, 1979.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in standing to speak in this throne speech debate. I think that those who have taken the time to read the throne speech will know that the main thrust of it is the individual in this province, not collectiveness, as would be advocated by those members opposite.

I was quite amused at some of the remarks made. It made me very happy that a particular member of the opposition who is the forest critic is the forest critic, because his speech in this House demonstrated that he doesn't really understand what is going on. He doesn't read the legislation; he doesn't know what programs for people exist in this province.

I would just like to read a very brief passage from Hansard of Monday, March 26, in which the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) was speaking. He is referring to the SAFER program — SAFER, as we know, is shelter aid for elderly renters — and he said:

"I thought that was a bit ironic and a bit too much, because this is an excellent program. But the only problem with it, and perhaps the reason why this government could afford it, is that no one can qualify. They have set the level so high that, under the program, I have no less than 15 young married couples in my riding who can't qualify for SAFER." Then somebody tugged on his coat and said: "No, no, no, that's not SAFER; that's another program." It's SAFER — Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters — my friend.

That member for Revelstoke-Slocan goes on and says:

"And they came out with a whole variety of social program which in themselves sound very good, but in terms of the rules for qualifying they're unrealistic and beyond the reach of the average British Columbian."

This government believes that the average British Columbian is proud and can and does look after himself. The aid programs which this government brings forth are to assist those people who need help and who have difficulty in looking after themselves. It's not for the average British Columbian. The average British Columbian is proud to look after himself, and that's the basic difference between your social programs and ours.

That member then went on and tried to get into forestry somewhat, because, I guess, if he has any expertise, that's where he thinks it lies, but I really doubt that. He started talking about the Weyerhaeuser Canada Northwood exchange that took place last year. He went at great length, saying that this consortium of small sawmills who wish to buy

[ Page 212 ]

Northwood instead of Weyerhaeuser couldn't do it; they needed the wood. Northwood's sawmills don't need the wood. That consortium consisted of a number of smaller sawmills who have, themselves, expanded their productive capacity over the last few years in the face of a tightening timber supply.

How did they want to solve their problem? They wanted the government to intercede and stop this transaction which had been negotiated in the private sector between two companies. They wanted the government to say: "No, you can't do that. We as a consortium want to buy Northwood properties. We want to shut down one or two of their sawmills and divide the wood up among ourselves and, in effect, we want to lay off those employees in Okanagan Falls and in Princeton who have secure employment so we can divvy up the spoils of their timber supply." Not only do they want to do that, but they came to the government asking the government to finance it for them.

That member, I am sure, is familiar with some people in Princeton and the Princeton area. I'm sure he knows Richard O'Grady, who is the chairman of the local NDP group there and also happens to be the plant chairman of the local IWA in Princeton. I would like to read you a letter which was sent to the Foreign Investment Review Agency, and which was copied to me. I don' t know if it was copied to that member or not. Mr. O'Grady sent this letter to me, together with a petition containing 182 signatures. It says:

"The enclosed petition was distributed, and signed by 182 employees of Northwood Mills, Princeton Division, in support of the proposed purchase of this operation by Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd.

"We feel very strongly about the present situation involving this consortium which is looking to make a proposal of their own. We feel our jobs lie in economic growth, and that the future of Princeton is dependent upon the outcome of this sale. We believe Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd. could maintain the operation and the economy required in our town, and that the consortium would jeopardize all of this, as well as the hundreds of jobs which are related to and dependent upon this operation."

This local NDP president is going to be very happy to hear what the member for Revelstoke-Slocan said. I'm sure Gerry Anderson, who, I understand, will be parachuting into Yale-Lillooet, will be very interested to hear that too. I'm sure it's going to enhance his chances of getting three or four votes in Princeton.

I have another letter from one of the people very heavily involved with the NDP. I won't read the whole letter, but it says:

"This letter will confirm our support for the acquisition of Northwood Mills at Princeton and Okanagan Falls by Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd.

"I would like to emphasize that this letter does not indicate that I have any special consideration for Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd, but we're looking at what is best for the present employees, future employees, the communities and the province. We support the proposal."

I think that member has got his wires crossed somewhere. First of all, the province does not approve sales; these are approved by the Foreign Investment Review Agency, not by the provincial government. We, of course, assess what impact they will have, and we assess them in terms of what they mean to the economy of British Columbia and to the jobs and security of employment of the people of British Columbia. We don't dislike any company because it is foreign — American, Japanese, German, or whatever. We assess it on the basis of what good it will do for British Columbia.

Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd., since acquiring that property in Princeton, has increased recovery from their logs by 25 percent. They are recovering 25 percent more manufactured lumber, and have placed themselves in a much more competitive position than the company was before. That will secure the employment of those hundreds of people who depend upon these operations in my constituency and in the Okanagan. What we have to look at is what is good for the province, and not what is politically popular.

Weyerhaeuser has spent $5.9 million in up grading those two sawmills since their acquisition. Rather than having those mills shut down a shift in the future when lumber markets get tight, they will carry right on employing people in this province — IWA members throughout the Okanagan and Similkameen.

That member was passing headlines around. He failed to show this recent one from the Similkameen Spotlight: "Weyerhaeuser to Spend $5.9 Million" — in securing the employment for those people in that area.

At the same time, other things are happening in that town in Yale-Lillooet. The Similkameen Mine, for example, has just committed $25 million to put a new ore body in on the other side of the Similkameen River. I know and have been advised that if the disastrous mineral

[ Page 213 ]

royalties — which that party put in when they were the government — had been in place, those jobs would have been down the tube. Those people who now work at the Similkameen Mine can be assured of at least 20 years of continuous, productive employment, rather than having to go on welfare rolls, as would have been the case if that government had still been in office.

The first member for Vancouver Centre, little Lord Fauntleroy — he isn't here right now — was saying that nothing's happening in the forest industry in British Columbia. All he has to do is get out into this province and look and he could see what's happening. There are tremendous things going on in this province.

I'd like to point out one small error in the throne speech. It pointed out that during this year there's a commitment of $1.2 billion for capital expansion in that industry, while in fact the figure is $1.6 billion because of recent undertakings that have come forth in this province — $1.6 billion of capital investment in the forest industry in this current year. What does that mean? Everybody over there will think that's just big industry and big multinational companies trying to grab up the resources of British Columbia. That means $1.6 billion of additional investment is working to create jobs in this province and make our economy the most prosperous in this country. Right now MacMillan Bloedel has $450 million of investment committed; Can-Cel, $352 million; Doman Industries, over $110 million investment; B.C. Forest Products, $36 million; Prince George Pulp and Paper, $40 million. On and on and on it goes. All of this investment secures our future and secures the future of working people in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing is happening.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Nothing is happening, he says. Perhaps nothing is happening as far as he can see. But if he goes out into this tremendous province he will see what's happening. Things are happening that will benefit the people of British Columbia. The throne speech, on page 4, states that at the First Ministers' Conference on the economy, all Premiers — and I emphasize all Premiers — endorsed the concept that the private sector is the engine which drives our economy. And it is. All Premiers, of all provinces, agreed to that. If that funny little fellow who's not here today had been the Premier, he wouldn't have agreed to that. He thinks that government should control all means of production. The private sector is really the engine that drives the economy of, British Columbia.

While that party was in government they were doing their utmost to dismantle that engine and to distribute the parts among the passengers. That member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King), who is, I understand, a railroader, knows what happens when you dismantle your engine. You stop moving, and that's exactly what happened in the province of British Columbia during the years 1972-1973. But I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the members of this House and the people of British Columbia, that that engine has now been reassembled. It's moving. An investment climate has been restored in this province and personal initiative is the engine which will help our economy move. There are tremendous things ready to burst forward right now in addition to this $1.6 billion of investment.

The investing world became very, very nervous when they saw the moves toward nationalization taking place in this province. Much of this capital should have been spent. It should have been in the works in British Columbia five years ago, but it was not. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), the one who sits in the House — not this fellow Kinnaird, who is vying for the leadership — says: "Last chance to control B.C. resources." The resources of British Columbia always have been, and always will be, controlled by the province. But controlling them is not enough. We must put them to work for the benefit of the people of this province. The Leader of the Opposition, when he was the Premier, said: "The oil should be left in the ground. Don't cut down the trees, because you might have to allow somebody to make a buck." And as that somebody makes a buck, of course, he employs a lot of people in so doing.

We do control our resources. We own them, but we welcome investment in this province. We're not going to control our resources by turning off investment from wherever it comes. We also welcome the investment of the people of British Columbia. That is why the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation's share distribution is taking place: to give people what was already purchased on their behalf by that government. We're giving it back to them as individuals. We're offering them a chance to invest in our economy rather than socking their money away in bank accounts. British Columbians and Canadians are the greatest savers in the world. But we also have the least personal control over our resource, because we aren't willing to take a chance in our own economy. The B.C. Resources Investment Corporation will give the people of B.C. a chance for firsthand — not secondhand — owner-

[ Page 214 ]

ship of a tremendous resource company in a tremendous province.

In British Columbia we have probably the most wealthy political jurisdiction anywhere in the world. We have in British Columbia half of the forest crops, the forest inventory, of Canada. Our forests are greater than the total forests of most forestry-related companies.

We have a mineral industry in this province which is just beginning to be scratched. The mineral potential in this province is literally unlimited. All that is required is a climate and personal initiative whereby people will go out and find the mines and put them into production.

We have the most scenic province of Canada. The aesthetic beauty of this province contributes so much to our economy through our tourist industry. Our former Minister of Tourism and our present Minister of Tourism have done tremendous things to increase that tourist industry.

These resources — forest, mineral, energy and tourist — make British Columbia the wealthiest place in the world. By our location on the Pacific Rim — where the future is directed — we have 365,000 square miles of opportunity looking us right in the face. All we have to do is have the right climate so that people will go out there and take advantage of it. We have to take a second seat to no one in the world. We're not going to get control of our resources in British Columbia by discouraging others. The only way we're going to get it is by encouraging our own people to take part.

This 365,000 square miles of opportunity can be likened to the goose that lays the golden egg. That goose became very, very ill a few years ago as that fat, funny fellow over there firmly fixed his fingers around the neck of that goose and screamed at it: "Lay, damn it, lay! "

MR. KING: On a point of order, if the member cannot make a speech without constantly insulting the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), I suggest he is degrading the procedure of this House. I suggest that you instruct him accordingly.

MR. SPEAKER: That it is a point of order. Hon. members, the authorities clearly provide that the language of debate is temperate language. I would recommend the same to all hon. members. Please proceed.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Thank you. The Leader of the Opposition is certainly not slim. He tries to be funny.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, may I take advantage of the break that has occurred? May I even have the attention of the Whips? The noise level is exceedingly high, and I have a couple of recommendations which would assist me greatly. Perhaps if visitations are necessary inside the chamber, the whisper would be the best mode to use for that communication. If extended conventions or conferences are necessary, perhaps they should be carried on in the hallway.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Thank you. I appreciate your assistance in restoring order to this chamber.

I was speaking of the golden goose of British Columbia that does provide these golden eggs for the benefit of all of us. The former Premier did his best to do in that goose. But the goose is alive and well now. All we had to do was to feed the golden goose of British Columbia a diet of investment climate and personal initiative. It's well, and it's moving ahead and providing employment opportunities for the people of British Columbia.

The members opposite, as they're speaking, say that there is nothing that this government has done for small business in this province. They debated in this House last year three pieces of legislation which do a great deal for the small businessman in British Columbia. That was our forestry and range legislation.

We have small business set-aside programs; we have the contractor clauses which now apply not only to TFLs but also to forest licences; we have a woodlot licensing program, and we meet constantly with the small business sector to try to help them to have their place secured in this tremendous forest industry in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, there has been criticism lately that we don't seem to be moving fast enough to take advantage of some of the DREE agreements available for forest management in British Columbia. I'll have you know that we have been negotiating intensively with the federal government for over a year now. But there is always something that comes up — and this too is referred to in the throne speech. We say that the control of natural resources is the responsibility of the province. We are not going to give away our control of those natural resources for the sake of a few million dollars from Ottawa. We are negotiating out any control mechanism which that government puts in. We will have the control of the resources; we will not give that up to Ottawa, unlike that other party when they were the government. They would be willing to turn

[ Page 215 ]

over the control of resources for certain other things from the federal government. Well, we will not have to go hat in hand to Ottawa for permission to harvest trees in this province.

Mr. Speaker, the former member for Prince Rupert — I understand he spends most of his time in Victoria now — went on yesterday to make some very serious charges about me, as the Minister of Forests, and officials in my ministry counselling people to break a federal law. Let me demonstrate how much that member knows, first of all, about his constituency and about the subject matter he was talking about.

I'll read one of the opening comments he made when he spoke yesterday. He was referring to cutting permit 144. He says:

"The fruition of these 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.... "

Well, the Queen Charlottes are within that member's constituency, and I brought with me today a map of the Queen Charlotte Islands.

Cutting permit 144 had a very high profile in the papers these last few days, and this is the Queen Charlotte Islands on two map sheets. The southern island of the Queen Charlotte Islands is Moresby Island; the northern island — that member's name, I believe, is Graham — is called Graham Island. Rennell Sound is on Graham Island, not on Moresby Island. That member doesn't even know his own constituency.

A thing of this importance has been going on for the last three or four weeks and he doesn't even know what island it is on, and it's in his constituency. Have you ever been there, Mr. Member? Have you ever been to Graham Island? Are you named after it? I think a memory trick could have been developed so you would remember what island it was. It has the same name as your first name, my friend.

MR. SPEAKER: Please address the Chair.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the accuracy of that statement is about equal to the accuracy of everything that member said about this recent dispute with the fisheries on Graham Island.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not that bad.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It's worse.

Mr. Speaker, we do not have to trade one resource off against another in British Columbia. The Ministry of Forests Act requires that we consult with other resource agencies, other government agencies and the private sector in planning the use of our forest resource in this province. That is exactly what happened in the development of the approval for cutting permit 144 on Rennell Sound on Graham Island.

This dialogue took place over a period of a year and a half. All agencies agreed that there was no problem on cutting permit 144. That member then said: "Well, the big rains of last fall changed it all. Tremendous slides took place." That's absolute garbage. Nothing changed because of the rains. It always rains on the Queen Charlottes. If you would go there once in a while you might learn that, my friend.

A federal fisheries officer had second thoughts, and he went into this cutting permit and said: "I think perhaps there's a chance of a slide taking place." He issued a stop-work permit that was complied with. Our staff went back to cutting permit 144, looked at it, and reassessed it. The federal fisheries people said: "We don't think you should go right up to the top of the hill but we don't know where to stop, so you reassess it and you, Mr. Regional Manager of the Forest Service, decide how much of it you're going to harvest."

We did go back. We assessed all the data we had. We had the advantage at that time of independent consultants' reports, and they said there was no danger to the fisheries through harvesting CP144.

So, Mr. Speaker, our regional manager said: "Nothing is changed. I have no new information from the fisheries people. It's back where it was. The entire cutting permit is hereby approved." We did not tell anyone to go in and harvest. They had a stop-work permit. That decision was strictly made by the licensee. There are not penalties against individual cutting permits for undercutting. Penalties apply to the total forest harvesting licence, not to independent cutting permits. That member over there, that hog-head from Revelstoke, should know that. He's the forestry critic. I don't think he even has read the Forest Art or the forest regulations. That's a shame.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan, speaking about the same thing several times, took cheap shots by trying to drive a wedge between the Forest Service and the federal Ministry of Fisheries. We cooperate with those people. We are in constant communication with them. You said that the federal fisheries people had been trying for six days to contact my deputy minister and me. I've spoken to them, Mr. Member, and they weren't trying for six days — anytime they tried to get hold of us they got hold of us immediately. That member is

[ Page 216 ]

deliberately misleading this House, or having wrong information fed to him, and if he gets wrong information, I think it's up to him to check it out.

MR. SPEAKER: We cannot attribute that kind of action to any member of this House.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Well, then he's getting bad information and he's not taking the time to check out his facts.

MR. KING: A point of order. I would ask the minister to withdraw the statement that I was deliberately misleading the House.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. member to withdraw any imputation of wrongdoing against the member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I never intended any imputation of wrongdoing. I simply said that perhaps he was receiving wrong information. I withdraw any imputation that the member is deliberately misleading this House. I think he does it inadvertently.

The members opposite are constantly saying that we're giving away the resources of British Columbia and that the people are not realizing any benefit from these resources. The people of British Columbia will never realize any benefit unless the resources are put to use. The revenue which the government of British Columbia receives from its resources is growing by leaps and bounds as they're being used more and more.

In 1973 the total revenue from our petroleum, natural gas, mining and forest industries — I am quoting direct revenue — amounted to $354 million. That government was very proudly saying, "Look what we're getting from our resources," when, at the same time, they were slaughtering the resource industries. In the fiscal year 1978-79 we received $727 million in direct revenue from our natural resources, which is more than twice the amount received when that government was attempting to torpedo all of these resource industries.

The future development and expansion of our forest industry in British Columbia is not going to be carried out by constant expansion, because we've almost reached the limit of our allowable cut. We must maintain a sustained-yield concept. The future lies in research and development of new products, and the use of new species. That is why, a very short time ago, I was very proud and happy to be able to present a cheque to the Western Forests Products Laboratory in Vancouver for $1.5 million, to assure that this very important facility carries on in spite of the fact that the federal government is attempting to bail out of it. We believe we need more research in British Columbia, not less. If those members would have read the legislation they debated so furiously last year, they would know we are required to establish a research council on forestry in British Columbia. That is underway now; it is being established. A task force has determined the terms of reference and it's off and running.

The engine that drives our economy is, indeed, the private sector. We have reassembled that engine and it's running. I would advise the socialists to get off the tracks, because never again are the people in British Columbia going to give them the opportunity of derailing that industrial locomotive that means so much to all of us.

MR. D'ARCY: Before going into the details of my remarks on the throne speech, I would like to give my respects and regards to the former Premier of this province, W.A.C. Bennett. I would also like to recognize the absence of the Fourth and the Second Estates. They evidently must have had a very good party last night.

I'm going to attempt to keep my remarks on a positive note. I have long felt that there's rather too much negative criticism of personalities engaged in in this House. It's not that I don't criticize government policy, but it's general criticism rather than criticism specifically directed at individuals.

Adding to a statement we've just had from the Minister of Forests, I'd like to show — perhaps graphically if I could — not only a distinct difference in the kinds of thrust and policy between the group on this side of the House and the group he represents, but also, I think, a similarity that we in the New Democratic Party shared with the former government before 1972. We and that government initiated things; we dealt with things; we addressed ourselves to problems as they arose. That has been the great failure of the present government in B.C. — not an ideological difference, but the fact that they simply address themselves to the past and not to the present or the future.

Mr. Speaker, I'll give you a bit of an example of what I mean, and it relates directly to the forest industry. I think it's significant that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) did not mention this major problem today in the forest industry in British Columbia, a problem which particularly affects the forest industry in the interior of the province, which is the area that I come from and

[ Page 217 ]

also, Significantly, the area that the minister comes from. A report in the Financial Post — as I've said several times in the past, hardly a socialist publication — notes:

"This spring some British Columbia sawmills have been receiving as little as 19 percent of their railcar needs. However, more commonly, mills have been reported as getting as much as 35 to 50 percent of their requirements."

AN HON. MEMBER: What a way to run a railroad.

MR. DARCY: What a way to run a province and its major industry.

We talk about thousands of railcars, and the average railcar loading in B.C. for lumber is now in the neighbourhood of 50 tons per car. Canadian National Railways, which normally has 11,000 to 12,000 units in transit in the United States and in Canada, now has 21,000 units of rolling stock tied up below the border. CP Rail, which affects my area and the minister's area, instead of its usual 13,000 units now needs 18,000 units.

We'll talk about the mills themselves — just two mills, not major mills. Takla Forest Products have a mill at Fort St. James which is serviced by the British Columbia Railway; they have another mill at Isle Pierre which, I believe, is serviced by the CNR. Those mills report that they have 18 million board feet of lumber on the ground waiting for shipment. At today's average selling price, that represents $5 million tied up. That's not in transit; that's not in dry-log storage; that's not in logs brought out of the woods in the winter in anticipation of the break-up period when you can't log. That's 18 million board feet of lumber sitting on the ground waiting for shipment because there are no cars.

Forest industry spokesmen go on to maintain that this is worse than the car shortage that existed in 1973. Little Dumpy Dave was Premier then, the chap who the Minister of Forests said didn't deal with anything and slowed down the industry. I know what the then member for Coquitlam's attitude was to that problem. He said: "No way are we going to hurt our industry. In no way are we going to see forces beyond our control hurt our economy, our workers, our owners, our productive facilities. " He said: "We're going to start a railcar plant." And he did.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that, faced with that situation, there's a strong possibility that that's the way the former Social Credit Premier would have dealt with a situation like that as well. He perhaps wouldn't have acted as fast, as decisively as the New Democratic Premier did, but he certainly would have acted. But this government does nothing. It doesn't even recognize the problem. In the debate on the Speech from the Throne, the minister in charge of forests does not recognize the problem. They have no thoughts, no ideas, no suggestions — not even going into an election. You'd think that going into an election would be the time a government would exercise a bit of imagination, a bit of ingenuity, a bit of initiative. But not so from this group; they're not even providing us with any empty promises in regard to that particular industry.

I'm suggesting — through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Finance minister — that what we need is at least some initiatives from the government directed toward the railways and the people whom they are shipping to, as well as to that potentially operational facility in Squamish. Then perhaps could move to alleviate the situation.

We know now, if we didn't always know, that one of the major problems with a secondary manufacturing plant such as we are talking about — Railwest in Squamish or wherever it might be — is supplying specific parts. Indeed, in its particular situation, I believe there was a running-gear problem. I would suggest, in getting back to constructive ideas, that one of the major things we have to look at in future — and this chamber has to and the government of B.C. has to — is making sure that there are long-term contracts for vital parts so that nobody is going to hold us up for ransom in terms of setting up a manufacturing facility and operating it in a competitive way in the North American market.

It's interesting that the government of the day, which says it is wrong for government agencies to enter into or affect the marketplace, has done just exactly that in a major way in the lumber industry in British Columbia by shutting down that railcar plant. In fact, the action of the former government in setting it up allowed an open market situation to exist in our basic industry. It may not square with the government's — or even the press' — ideological view of the New Democratic Party, but in fact it is the historical truth.

I want to talk briefly about B.C. Resources Corporation shares. When I mentioned that, I left out the term "investment," because my fundamental disagreement, Mr. Speaker, with the share issue is not that I have a philosophical objection, per se, to the issuing of shares to the public in corporations owned by the government. I might point out that under the former government, when those corporations

[ Page 218 ]

were acquired, or parts of them were acquired, for an investment that did not exceed $30 million, most of those companies did have, and still do have....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Totally wrong. Completely wrong.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, could we have some order in the House, please?

What I was attempting to say, if the member for Surrey — at least he is temporarily the member for Surrey — will allow me to continue, is that B.C. Resources Investment Corporation shares.... While I said that I have no philosophical objection to these being made available to the public of B.C., what I would like to point out is that the public always could, and still can, buy through any investment agency shares of Canadian Cellulose, Westcoast Transmission, B.C. Tel or the Bank of B.C. I would suggest to this House that I think investments in those companies at any time through a regular investment house, having viewed the prospectus of these various companies, is a far better investment than investment in the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation at this time.

I object to the term "investment" being in the name of BCRIC, because I believe the share purchases being offered to the people of B.C. are in fact a voluntary taxation scam. Because B.C. Resources Investment Corporation is not going to invest the first $150 million it receives; it's going to turn that money over to the government to go into general tax revenue. That's why I call it a voluntary taxation scheme. I believe that this share issue has been misrepresented totally to the province of B.C., because it is not an investment scheme at all, it's a voluntary tax scheme.

The former Premier of B.C., when he wished people to invest in B.C., was up front about it: he issued parity development bonds. They had a fixed price, a fixed rate of return and a fixed redeemable value. You knew exactly where you stood all the time. We know, from the government's own prospectus, that nobody knows where anybody stands with B.C. Resources Investment Corporation shares. As Mr. Bill Stow has said, it's an attempt by the government to generate supermoney. It's funnier money than Major Douglas ever imagined.

I want to talk about energy supplies in British Columbia. I see my good friend from Penticton, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), is in the House. I think we have a major problem in B.C. in that we are vulnerable in our petroleum supplies — not that I impute any nasty motives to the government of the great province of Alberta, but we do depend entirely on the province of Alberta for our excess petroleum supplies. We are not now and are highly unlikely in the future to be able to supply our own petroleum needs. It's oil I'm talking about, Mr. Speaker, not natural gas, of which we have excessive supplies. I believe we need, as soon as possible, a second source of crude oil from the North American continent, not a source of crude oil that comes in by tankers.

I therefore believe that it is imperative that we support the government of Canada and those elements in the United States who wish to see an all-North American pipeline built to transport Alaskan oil along a corridor or along the Alaskan Highway into northern B.C. and Alberta, and eventually into continental United States. It's absolutely essential, Mr. Speaker. We must have that second source of crude oil. While I don't see a nod, I think the minister agrees. If the minister is supporting a proposal on that intention, I wish him well in his dealings with the federal government, with the industry, and in any dealings he may have with our friends in the United States. Not only would it guarantee our supply of crude, but it would certainly greatly improve our bargaining position when we're dealing with the province of Alberta in this regard.

I'm sorry the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) has left. I had a few remarks relating to the National Energy Board and an intervention his ministry took on behalf of the province of B.C. Last fall the Westcoast Transmission Co. wanted to complete the looping of their main trunk line from Peace River, B.C., where it comes down through Coquihalla Canyon to the Fraser Valley and supplies B.C. Hydro on the lower mainland, and affects the crossing in the Huntington area near Abbotsford. They wanted to complete that looping, not only to guarantee their own supply to B.C. customers, but to allow them to meet their contractual commitments to the United States. That application was denied by the National Energy Board primarily, we were told, because of objections received from the province of B.C. and the Attorney-General.

I would hope that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, in cabinet discussions with the Attorney-General, in the event that a further application is made by Westcoast Transmission, will not only withdraw that objection, but offer the government support. Not only did we deliver, and therefore sell, considerably less natural gas to the United States — natural gas which was available several times over in British Colum-

[ Page 219 ]

bia — not only did we fail to deliver it to our customers and meet our contracts, but that loss resulted in a shortfall of revenue to the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, a shortfall of revenue to Westcoast Transmission, and a shortfall of economic activity in British Columbia because of excess costs in maximizing pumping facilities on the existing line. If more capacity bad been there, considerably less energy would have been consumed. There would have been less cost to the company involved in getting it to its markets.

I wish to make some remarks about job creation and investment levels. Many speakers on the government side have pointed with tremendous pride to the fact that while they have been in office there have been 98,000 new jobs in British Columbia. What they haven't mentioned, of course, is that during the three years prior to that there were 130,000 new jobs in the private sector in British Columbia, not 98,000. There were 130,000 new jobs in the private sector during the three previous years. Even if we go back to 1969-1972 we see there were 99,000 new jobs in the private sector — once again, a better performance than the present government.

When one puts it into percentage terms, one sees an even greater shortfall on the part of the people sitting opposite me. The former Social Credit government had a real growth rate of around 3.7 percent. While the real growth rate in the private sector had jumped to nearly 5 percent under the New Democratic Party, it has now dropped to 3.2 percent under the present government. If I were a member on the other side of the House, real economic growth rate and job creation in the private sector is something that I definitely would not be talking about.

Several members across the floor have talked about investment growth rate. One member said: "Investment left the province like we've never seen it before during the three years the New Democratic Party was in office." Somebody in Statistics Canada must not have heard that. Statistics Canada reports that during the three years the New Democratic Party was in office real investment in the private sector grew by 16 percent a year, and that since the present government has been in office that same private sector investment has sunk to 12 percent. Again, if I were on the other side of the House, investment growth rate in the private sector is not something I would be talking about at all.

One of the excuses we hear from across the floor regarding high unemployment in B.C. is that because British Columbia is a very lovely place to live people move here from the rest of Canada, and that's why we have this tremendously high demand on our economy, resulting in over 100,000 people unemployed.

Immigration from the rest of Canada is perhaps the one problem that has been solved by the present government. Immigration that has taken place constantly ever since B.C. entered Confederation ended as of 1976. We have an out-migration of Canadians from British Columbia to the rest of Canada. Whether I'm on this side of the House or the other side of the House, I'm ashamed that has happened in the last three years. Certainly I wouldn't talk about that either, if I were on the government side. I wouldn't claim that as being an excuse, because it simply doesn't wash.

I don't want to get into the debate between members on our side of the House and on the government side about the effectiveness of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture's food cost inquiry committee. However, I would like to say that I do not think it bodes well for the credibility of this House, or its select standing committee, or any political party in this House, that having spent that kind of time and money, having received so many well-intentioned submissions and even demanded so many submissions, as you know, Mr. Speaker, from so many elements in the food industry in British Columbia, we still — not still, but once again — see prices rising at the rate of 24 percent a year in the province of British Columbia. I do not think that bodes well for public credibility in the effectiveness of government in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk in rather general terms about the mining industry in B.C. The former Minister of Mines, who has now left the House, and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) talked about the key to success being finding mines and putting them into production. I think what he meant to say was finding mineral deposits and getting them into production. I think this attitude is indicative of where this House and former governments have, perhaps, fallen down in viewing the value of the mining industry in British Columbia, or viewing the value of our minerals, whether they be fossil-fuel minerals or metallurgical.

Rather, I think what we have to be looking at is a total picture of how any individual potential or any deposit actually being developed relates to the potential for smelting and refining that product within British Columbia. The equation I like to use is that prior to Afton Mines going into operation outside Kamloops, there was only one company in B.C. that was engaged in smelting and refining in B.C., and that was Cominco Ltd. at its

[ Page 220 ]

operations in Trail and Kimberley.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is perhaps significant that that one company had more people engaged in smelting and refining in British Columbia than the rest of the mining industry, including Cominco, put together. So unless we in this House, and particularly the government, wish to address ourselves to how any mineral development, potential or actual, relates to smelting and refining in B.C., I would suggest that we are going to continue to go on missing the boat economically in the mining and mineral industry in British Columbia for a long period of time.

This brings me back to a theme which I was on earlier, Mr. Speaker, and that is that the Afton development outside Kamloops.... I don't want to get into the debate of who started that or put it on stream. The fact is it was an initiative originally taken by the New Democratic government, but it was one of the few initiatives originated by the New Democratic government that was picked up by the present government and continued and fostered and husbanded until it became a reality. I give the government credit for that. At least they didn't discourage that development.

The point is, Mr. Speaker, that that smelting and refining operation is there — not who started it or completed it — and I would ask the government, perhaps when they get into their budget debate, if we are going to have a budget debate, or perhaps when we get into estimates, if we are going to debate estimates.... The government can tell us what sort of initiatives they have taken in the mining industry in B.C. in the last three years, as far as it relates to smelting and refining, because I have not heard of one initiative in the three years and three months that they have been in office. The best they can say is that they continued with an initiative which had been born under the previous administration.

Certainly the government, with the accelerated mineral development program which the Finance minister announced in the budget speech of last year, has provided some assistance for raw material and basic industry development. It's unknown, as yet, what the particular value is going to be to the province of B.C., but certainly there was some assistance given to individual prospectors, small mining companies and even some major mining companies. As poor and struggling a company as Noranda Mines, with its placer development subsidiary, was given a substantial amount of assistance to complete a mine road in the Houston area of northern B.C.

Mr. Speaker, I am not getting into the debate of whether that was right or wrong. What I am suggesting is that if there is that kind of subsidy and that kind of assistance and initiative by government, surely it would be better placed in assisting these companies or, perhaps, coercing them gently into getting involved in the smelting and refining of their products, where the jobs and economic benefit really are, rather than encouraging them or subsidizing them to expand their basic operations. I hope the Finance minister considers that a positive suggestion.

I would like to return to the forest industry if I could, because I think the same philosophies I just mentioned regarding the mining industry apply equally to the forest industry. We have traditionally looked at the forest industry as a logging, sawmilling and pulp milling industry. We have not looked at the forest industry as a total package and asked: "how do we create a climate in which the forest industry companies will either wish to on their own initiative or find it in their interests to develop major secondary and tertiary industries surrounding the raw materials of B.C.? How can we do that?

I would like to hear suggestions from the government. We haven't heard of initiatives from the government in the past three years, unlike the former government from whom there were several major initiatives in regard to the forest industry. As as long as we treat the forest industry or the mining industry on the basis of how much the government will get out of the production of these raw materials, cutting things down and digging them out of the ground and getting them out of the province as soon as possible, as long as we have that approach of "you took too much in resource revenue, or you took too little", we are going to constantly be a branch plant economy and a raw-material banana republic. We are constantly going to have 120,000 or more unemployed in this province and we are constantly going to be faced with having to tax ordinary people of this province in an excessive way to provide the basic services which a mature, western democratic society has come to expect.

So let's see some initiatives, even if they are only empty election promises; let's see some initiatives after three years and three months of this government; let's see them really take hold of some of the economic problems in British Columbia. Only if we take hold of the economic problems and work together towards a better economic performance are we going to be able to provide ourselves with the kind of society which I think everyone in this House feels that we can afford and should have

[ Page 221 ]

for ourselves and for future generations.

One final remark on the forest industry. One of the uncertainties facing the province of British Columbia in 1979 is the fact that some of the major forest licences are up for renewal. I notice the minister didn't mention that either.

Canadian Cellulose is one of the companies involved. I mention that not because it's a majority shareholder of B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, but because it is a major corporate citizen in my riding. But there is no way that that company and its directors can make firm decisions on expansion — or even major renovations — in the province of B.C. until they have some kind of firm word on what is likely to happen with TFL 23, until they have some kind of firm word as to whether their pulp licences are going to be renewed, essentially the same as they were, and whether their sawlog cutting area — and they have an acute shortage of saw logs — is going to be maintained or, hopefully, expanded, or whether there is the resource to allow it to expand. It's very important to know that. The uncertainty facing that company and many other major companies in British Columbia over the renewal of these licences is something on which, I believe, the government, whether there is an election this year, should move very quickly.

I'm not suggesting the government give away the family tree farm which belongs to all people of B.C. I am suggesting that the government remove the uncertainty because, as that party across the way has said many times — and we have agreed — one of the major problems in B.C. in the last few years has been concern that there will be, at a moment's notice, a substantial change in the ground rules affecting major industries. Major industries have to be able to plan, they have to be able to have some idea of where they're going and where the government which controls the resources is going to be going.

I would make a personal statement that I don't believe there should be any sudden changes in any way, shape or form in the ground rules affecting the major corporate citizens of British Columbia. I'm not suggesting there shouldn't be changes. What I am suggesting is that there should not be any sudden changes in corporate planning, which takes years to be allowed to proceed. Certainly, as has been stated in this House by previous speakers, the kind of major renovation which has taken place in the forest industry in B.C. is essentially the result of having plant facilities which were superannuated and placing those companies in a position in which they could not be competitive internationally with other countries and other companies.

Mr. Speaker, the major reconstruction and expansion going on with Cominco in Trail is similarly based on the fact that that company's basic plant facility is completely obsolescent and superannuated; and I welcome the decision made by Cominco and their parent company, the CPR, to invest in refurbishing that operation.

Certainly those discussions and plans and designs, and the purchase of new processes — or the rights to new processes — started under the former government, and they have certainly continued under the present government. As I said in relation to the Afton mine, these decisions don't just suddenly happen because there's a Social Credit government in office or a New Democratic government in office. They happen because companies have to recognize changes in their ability to compete and changes in processes in the world market.

I realize that you're allowing me and everyone else in this speech a great deal of latitude, but, perhaps to your surprise, I'm going to deal briefly with a couple of things that were in the actual throne speech. I'm certainly hoping that the government intends to table some legislation in this session. Otherwise I presume they're going to be open to the charge from the press and others that the throne speech and possibly the budget speech as well, when it comes down, will contain primarily empty promises which the government has no intention of delivering.

However, one thing I would like to raise is the reference in the throne speech to a new, fair expropriation Act or a fair compensation Act. We want to talk about compensation for expropriation in British Columbia. I'd like to make it clear that most expropriations which have taken place in B.C. are by the Crown or Crown agencies, but the compensation ultimately has been decided by the courts. It frightens me a bit that the government may think they, through a board appointed by them or some decision made by them, are likely to be more capable than the courts in deciding what is fair value for expropriated property.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Nonsense!

MR. D'ARCY: Well, the Premier says "nonsense." I hope that he has a better way of doing it, but as far as I'm concerned, the courts are the best way to go. I would hope that the government may be interested in providing legal aid. Because of the cost involved, not everyone can fight in an expropriation case, so perhaps the government is con-

[ Page 222 ]

sidering....

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: I've obviously touched a nerve. What concerns me — and I would say this whether it was a New Democratic or a Social Credit government — is that since the government is almost invariably the people who do the expropriating, it seems like a serious conflict of interest to have the government or government agencies also, perhaps, deciding at some future time what their compensation may be.

If I was in that situation, I would far rather throw myself on the mercy of the provincial courts. I would certainly hope that the government's intention is to consider legal aid for people who cannot afford the high court cost of fighting an expropriation case.

I would like to make some mention of where we are going in this session of the House if, in the event this session continues — and I'm going to assume it is for the moment....

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: We perhaps are, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker. If we are to have a full session this spring, then the government must come through with legislation and this House must deal with it in a prompt and responsible way. I firmly believe if poll after poll shows that the public of Canada and the public of B.C. do not have a great deal of confidence in political parties and in politicians and in the veracity of things that politicians say, then it's based on a lot of the carping, the cattiness and the rather pointless discussion which, I feel, often goes on. I hope that this spring the House deals in a positive, competent way with issues that come before it.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, first I want to compliment the member for Rossland-Trail on a very thoughtful, positive and constructive address this morning.

Secondly, a word or two about the late W.A.C. Bennett. He was a man of strong feelings, and I appreciate that in a human being. Maybe he was impulsive at times, but he was full of sentiment, as well as whatever abilities that he brought to his job. He was a very real human being.

I want to say a word or two about another departed member. Mrs. Gretchen Steeves was the little girl who came from Holland. She didn't have the language when she came out as a new Canadian to this country, but she was a bonnie fighter all her life and became a very learned and able writer of books as well as articles. She was a fighter for social justice such as we've seldom seen in this province — such as few parts of the world have seen.

We miss those people.

I'm going to refer to some of the speeches that have been made in this debate, because I'm intrigued by some of the things that have been said. For instance, the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), who is sitting down there, added an aside to her speech.

She said, when some people were referring to the leader of the Conservative Party: "Don't insult Joe Clark now." What does that mean? Does it mean that maybe they're going to have an election and she thinks that a possibility, and you have got to be very good to those federal Conservatives for a while, but once you get re-elected, if the people should do that, then it will be open season on Joe Clark? He can say anything then. But don't insult Joe now. What does that mean? Why didn't we hear from the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) in this debate? Low profile. He has the biggest overrun in his ministry of any ministry of government. They used to talk about the NDP overruns. They were nothing like that minister has been able to accumulate. last year we voted for his personal travel expenses $18,000 which is way above the ministerial level. He's travelling around a little bit. He overran that. He spent, according to the public accounts, $27,460 — on personal travel! On all those junkets he's made around the world there wasn't one concrete benefit to the people of the province of British Columbia. That's an overrun of 52 to 53 percent.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

It is the best money the people of British Columbia ever spent. Things go better when that minister is out of the province.

I am sorry the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair) is not in his place. I think he gave a diatribe yesterday. I got a little hot under the collar listening to it. Some of the statements that he made.... He's part of the inner circle, and he knows the party line of the gerrymander party — the Social Credit coalition — whatever you want to call it, and that is to invoke personal invective and insult against the Leader of the Opposition. We heard lots of that this morning. Oh, here is the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Which one?

[ Page 223 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, that's part of your party line — which one, and so forth. The other thing — and the Minister of Environment touched this, too — is that it's all been carefully thought out by your PR people: personal attacks upon the Leader of the Opposition. That's number one. Number two is attacks on the labour movement of the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. MAIR: I never said it. I did not.

MR. MACDONALD: Of course you did. I listened to your speech. You talked about the labour situation in Britain, and so forth. I know the line. I want to say that on both of those accounts I deplore them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Point Grey socialists at it again.

MR. MACDONALD: Point Grey? I live beside English Bay. Why don't you drop in? Go down twice and come up once.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, perhaps you would address the Chair.

MR. MACDONALD: I deplore both these campaign themes, particularly on the labour matter. It is doing a grave injustice to the economy of British Columbia, this kind of attack for political purposes, this attempted confrontation with organized labour. I hope we will not hear the kind of deliberate attempt to pick a confrontation.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You had better tell the labour leaders that.

MR. MACDONALD: The Minister of Labour is listening. I'm glad he is. I believe, and let's put it on the record, that this government has deliberately tried to pick a confrontation with the labour movement of British Columbia. I say that you're doing your province a grave injustice.

The second matter is the cheap attacks of the Minister of Environment on the Leader of the Opposition. One of his remarks I took down was this: "Barrett went down to Ottawa just to pick up some cheap ink." That was one of your statements yesterday, Mr. Minister. Among the things that the Leader of the Opposition achieved on his trips to Ottawa in negotiations with the federal government, and action here, was the receipt by the people of British Columbia, and I have it exactly, from the year 1973-1974 to 1977-1978, a total of $591.3 million from natural gas revenues that would otherwise have drained out of the borders of the province of British Columbia. That's not cheap. And it's not ink. Those are dollars flowing into the public treasury for the benefit of all our people. Those cheap political personal attacks should cease.

The Premier has called this session very late. I think we all regret that. This is what you said, Mr. Premier, in 1975, when the session started on February 18: "The Premier," referring to the now Leader of the Opposition, "is showing a continuous disregard for the problems of unemployment and the destruction of the B.C. economy." In 1975 we started the session on February 18. But we had had a fall session. We'd been in session in November of  '74. And we'd bad two other sessions in 1974. I'm afraid we're coming to the point of too much one-man rule by political gimmickry in this province of British Columbia.

I don't think that Premier trusts the Legislature. He calls us back late in March when the budget has been locked up. If a minister speaks out of line, he gets quickly shunted. You've all noticed that. All of the ministers are on pretty good behaviour as a result of the 20-minute interviews the Premier gave them in his office when he made their shuffles and told them for the first time where they were going to go.

I'm worried about the kind of one-man rule by public relations that we are entering into in this province. I regret that the Legislature, called into session so late, should have to be adjourned again April 4 and 5 for a mini political convention of the Social Credit Party. I would hope all members who are here in this chamber will oppose that adjournment, because the business of the people and the unemployment that is mounting, the prices that people are paying and the taxes and imposts that are being made upon our people are such that they demand that this Legislature sit and do the people's business.

There has been too much gimmickry on the part of the Premier. He comes back from Kelowna and says that the CPR is bidding to take over M&B. Poor Ian Sinclair of CPI is dumbfounded because be already controls M&B; GPI have 16 percent of the shares. The Premier's message is, in effect, that no Canadians need apply. At the same time, in the last three years we have seen a selloff of industries and an outflow of profits from our natural resources in this province on a scale never before seen in this province. It should stop.

I'm just going to say one or two words about the free shares. Mr. Premier, the cost of what you are doing to the people of this province.... Do you know what you're giving the

[ Page 224 ]

banks?

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: I said I wanted to always have that there so I could remember that the assets that were built up and were in the black by the NDP administration were now being touted around the province as the soundest investment since stereophonic by the Premier of the province of British Columbia. I always want to remember that. Never again, Mr. Premier, go around this province and say that the NDP left the province in a financial mess. That was a false statement then and it is a false statement now. You can't have it both ways. You can't dip into our special funds and sell off the greenspace land that we acquired around the cities and then sell these great assets and boast about them, and at the same time.... The NDP left this province in good financial condition. The NDP increased the assets of the ordinary people of this province to a level they had never enjoyed before. Look at the increase in the assets during those few short years. So let's have less of that.

But on the shares, let me say this. I don't know what legislative authority there is for this, because it has been done. The Legislature didn't sit, but the Premier's giving the banks and the trust companies and a few others — but basically the banks and the trust companies — $5 for each of the free share applications. Is that right?

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: It's principally the banks, principally the trust companies. Do you know what that is costing the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia? About $12 million. And one of them, Montreal Trust, is so rich that I have here in my hands this little note. "This piece of paper is worth $2 to Bastion Theatre when you present it along with your application for free B.C. Resources shares at Montreal Trust. Montreal Trust will pay Bastion $2 for every B.C. Resources order that you bring them. Support Bastion Theatre." Support for the Bastion Theatre by the Montreal Trust is good, but it's obvious that you've given the trust companies and the banks far more than they need to handle those applications, so much so that in the case of the Montreal Trust they say: "We make enough on the $3; we'll give $2 of it away." That is really profligate use of the taxpayers' dollar.

MR. COCKE: Shovelling money out of the back of the truck.

MR. MACDONALD: As the hon. member for New Westminster said, that is shovelling money out of the back of a truck without legislative authority. You've done this whole thing by the seat of the pants. There is no day-to-day planning, and it is business blunder to business blunder and a tremendous cost to the taxpayers of the province of B.C.

I regret the Minister of Forests is not in his seat, because this is a serious matter I'm bringing up. Everybody around the province is asking why the dispute between the federal government and the provincial government around Riley Creek and the Queen Charlotte Islands was not settled before the loggers were arrested. Well, it was settled on March 27; we know that. Do you know what the answer to that question is? It had been settled on February 27, well before the loggers were arrested. It was settled after all the ministers concerned knew about it.

I have in my hand the documents that make this perfectly clear. I have first — and this is addressed to the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and he has allowed me to read it this morning — a letter from Mr. MacLeod giving the sequence of events. He represents Environment Canada. The Minister of Forests stood up this morning a few minutes ago and said the storm that swept over the Charlottes and the mainland areas on October 31 to November 1 had nothing to do with it.

It had a lot to do with it and the letter confirms it, as do the meetings that were held just following that storm. That minister, in making that statement, was being totally irresponsible, making a cheap point against that member and totally wrong in his facts.

This is what Environment Canada says: "October 31 to November 1, a dramatic storm occurred in which dozens of slides occurred in the Rennell Sound area." As a result of that, there were many meetings, and I want to refer to the important ones. I hope the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair) will remain in his place because he knows much more about this than he has let on so far. You just sit quietly.

After the meetings following the storm — on January 11 — the Fisheries sent a letter to the Queen Charlottes requesting them not to fall in CP144, having regard to the sensitive 40-acre area in that cutting permit.

The letter goes on: "Since that time, there was an exchange of Telexes between the ministers concerned." And the provincial ministers were the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Forests.

[ Page 225 ]

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, you got a copy of this letter of March 1. You were part of the action all the way along and I've no reason to doubt what is stated here in this letter from the federal fisheries department.

A federal-provincial confrontation was shaping up, and if there's anything that minister is interested in — and rightly; that's part of his job — it is that kind of confrontation and what the effects of it might be and how it might affect the environment and how it might affect his portfolio. He was in with the Telexes. This is long before the loggers were arrested.

"Also, a series of meetings took place between the resource management agencies involved, to resolve problems in Rennell Sound generally."

HON. MR. MAIR: Would you care to say that outside of the House?

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, stop that nonsense and get on with your legislative duties. If you want somebody to step outside, step outside yourself. I'm getting tired of that. You make a serious point against that minister and he flares up and says: "I'm going to sue you." You haven't sued a soul in your life. You couldn't sue a fly.

The meetings took place at the departmental level. It goes on:

"On February 15 and 16 there were further meetings with the Forest Service and the wildlife branch" — that's your branch, Mr. Minister — "in Prince Rupert to identify alternate operating areas for this timber. On February 22, further meetings took place to discuss this particular cutting permit specifically."

Here's the important paragraph:

"On February 27" — long before the loggers were arrested — "there were on-site meetings at Rennell Sound to review this cutting permit 144 and identify portions of the cut block that may be harvested."

In other words, the sensitive area was being considered.

"Representatives of the B.C. Forest Service, fish and wildlife branch, Fisheries" — that's federal — "and the company, Queen Charlotte Timber, were present. At this meeting on February 27,1979 it was decided that the steep, unstable portions of CP144 would not be harvested."

There was the agreement. The Hon. Romeo LeBlanc — and I have his clipping here — says: "I wonder why, after the thing was settled, they were deliberately picking a political confrontation." They were. And they were doing it in callous disregard of the loggers who were arrested.

"On March 1 the Forest Service notified our district staff of their decision to approve the harvesting of the entire cut block."

In other words, they included the 40 acres.

Now that letter of March 1 has come into our possession; it is in my hands. And a copy was received by the Minister of Environment as well. This is the letter from the Forestry Service regional manager at Prince Rupert to the Queen Charlotte Timber Company. Don't forget, it had been settled that you would not cut until there were safety precautions taken in the 40 acres. Yet it goes ahead to this company and says this:

"Reference is made to your operation on cutting permit 144. As a result of ongoing discussions" — it didn't come out of the blue — "with your company and the resource agencies and of the joint, inter-agency field examination of this cutting permit, we hereby reconfirm our cutting-plans approval letters of August 1 and October 2, 1978, a copy to the Ministry of Environment who were part of these discussions, and, as stated by the Department of Fisheries, through the minister, subject to the Telexes that were exchanged back and forth."

So by this letter you scuttled the agreement that bad been reached on February 27. Then the arrests began. The Minister of Environment said, speaking up in Prince George, I think: "It's ridiculous that some of our citizens are being hauled off to jail when they are obeying the law." They were obeying your instructions. They were obeying the instructions that went from this government to commence logging. And this letter definitely refers to the 40 acres. Those loggers were obeying the instructions of the provincial government to go into the 40 acres in violation of the federal law. I'm not saying who's right or wrong in terms of whether that should be logged or not. That's an environmental and a resource management question. What I am saying is that this government deliberately sent those loggers into the fight. I call that counselling. I call that counselling by the Forests minister and the Minister of the Environment, who put those loggers in jeopardy of jail.

I am happy the charges against the loggers have been lifted. I think the government should be responsible for any lost time those loggers have had for being arrested. I think they should be responsible for any of their

[ Page 226 ]

court costs.

The Minister of Forests stood up in the House the other day, and here's what he told the House on that afternoon, March 27:

"Mr. Speaker, this action, the settlement, confirms that the consultative process which is, as a matter of fact, required by the Ministry of Forests Act, does, in fact, work."

The fact is that the settlement had been made before the arrests bad taken place. When the minister said his office was cooperating with the federal officials, he is denying, as he did in the House today, what was said. There is a conflict between what that minister said and what the Hon. Romeo LeBlanc said. Romeo LeBlanc said federal officials tried for six working days to reach the B.C. Deputy Forests Minister by telephone but were unsuccessful. For six days the settlement had been made. The provincial government was breaking the settlement and, for political purposes, was allowing the loggers to put their jobs and their livelihoods in jeopardy.

Premier Bennett has been quick to demand that the charges against the loggers be dropped. He should be. If the loggers were to have been found guilty, the Premier and this government would have been found guilty as well. Was it incompetence on the part of the government? Or was it political confrontation? In my opinion, the arrested loggers were cannon fodder in a Social Credit game plan.

I want to say something about what is happening in this province, and say it kind of quietly. I am concerned what's happened to the province of British Columbia in the last three years. I'm concerned about the resource revenue that the people have lost, and about the kind of charges that have been put on them instead. I'll take one example, Mr. Premier, and I appreciate that you are listening to what I am saying. I'll take the example of coal.

The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), in a very good speech the other night, pointed out when we became government the royalty was 14 cents, and that we immediately raised it to $1.44. We raised that royalty, and we had the agreement of Edgar Kaiser, representing the Kaiser Resources Corporation, that on April 1, 1976, it would go up another dollar. Do you know what that would mean in terms of the eight or nine million long tons shipped-out of B.C.? Another $8 million or $9 million dollars for the people of B.C.

You cancelled that; and I ask why. I ask why any government would give back money that had already been agreed to be paid at a time when the price of coal was rising. Look at the profits. In 1973 Kaiser Resources made $2.7 million in profits. Too low, I agree, even as a management fee for managing this resource and shipping our coal as a multinational to Japan and Korea. Too low! In 1974, $12 million. In 1978, based upon the quarterly report, Kaiser Resources Limited is making $84 million.

What have we received in the province of British Columbia from this resource that we will never see again? In 1974 we got $1.3 million as we began the royalty system. In 1975 it was up to $3.6 million. In 1976, the first year of the Social Credit government, with the prices and the profits rising so steeply you wouldn't believe it, the resource royalty revenue fell to $2.5 million. In 1977, with the price of the long ton being sold to Japan and Korea up to $59.50, the profits of Kaiser Resources Limited were up to $84 million. I say to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), because he keeps interjecting, that those were profits after all taxes. After all taxes, $84 million were going out of the province of British Columbia. And we got $3.3 million — not as much as we got back when the price was low in 1975.

I have no personal attack to make on Edgar Kaiser, but he and his country have been made so wealthy by this government. He takes this old mansion at Locarno Beach — it was four years old — which cost $300,000, and he has it demolished by these workmen who wonder what in heck they are doing with those heavy reinforced concrete bars in that house. They're told the swimming pool is too small. They're putting up a $600,000 mansion in its place and yarding out $35,000 in electrical fixtures and glazed glass.

At a time when our people are suffering hardships, the Kaiser Resources Corp. becomes so rich as a result of this government that they bid $545 million for Ashland Oil. You have made them so rich, Mr. Premier, richer than they expected to be. They expected the royalty to increase. The minister changed the royalty thing, but it's still at the same level it was in previous years, notwithstanding that amendment to the Act.

What are we doing in this country when our resources are going out in that $84 million net after all taxes? They're taking so much of our Canadian coal to Japan and Korea that they are able to buy another resource industry. An international company buys another resource industry in oil. It lays out $545 million that we've given them. Now they owe two for one. The pressure on the Canadian dollar is such that it is driven down to 84 cents because of the outflow of profits and dividends over the

[ Page 227 ]

borders of Canada into foreign international companies. Nobody has abetted that process the way this government has in the last three years. If Canada is sick, is it not time that we began to seriously think whether we are not capable as a mature and progressive people of being masters in our own house, in terms of the management of our resources, and stop these terrible giveaways?

Right after the election in 1975, Mr. Jack Poole, president of Daon Development, among his suggestions to the Premier, announced that investment capital, especially foreign capital, is welcome in this province. "We need all we can get to provide jobs."

Do you know what's happening, Mr. Premier? You're selling off the B.C. Housing Corporation. You had a great time debating that with Dunhill and so forth. We bought it for $5.8 million. Its assets are now worth about $30 million. No, not $30 million; I'm wrong. It's $15 million.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Just a little mistake.

MR. MACDONALD: We've had it before the committee. I'll give you the exact figure if you want it. It's $19 million.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) says that the Housing Corporation of B.C. has nearly $30.7 million of work nearing completion. Here is a corporation which is assembling and servicing land for people, trying to bring low-cost housing accommodation to people, trying to provide employment. It's doing a good job in the black. It's a sound investment on the part of the people of British Columbia. What does this government do? It's strictly for the developers and the speculators. What does it do? They sell it off, for political spite. Jack Poole has every reason to thank his stars that this government was elected. Look at the profit picture of Daon Development, who will be one of the beneficiaries of your killing off of the B.C. Housing Corporation. Look at the profits since 1973: in 1973 they were $1.6 million; in 1978, $16.7 million after all taxes. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) pounds his desk. What's that costing people for housing? What is that costing them in extra rent? What is it costing the young family who's looking for a house? You will be giving away to the developers and the speculators in this province — shovelling the taxpayers' money out of the back of a truck.

Look at this from the Globe and Mail. Do you trust that, Mr. Minister? "Daon Development Corporation of Vancouver will report record profits up about $11 million for the first quarter ended January 31, 1979." In 1973 their profits were $1.6 million. That is excessive, exorbitant profit extraction at the expense of the people of British Columbia.

I appeal to the Premier not to sell the B.C. Housing Corporation. Let it proceed to assemble land as it has done successfully, and try to bring low-cost accommodation to our people. I appeal to the Premier not to try to run this province in terms of political gimmickry. They say where there is no vision, the people perish. We are suffering from a lack of vision and leadership in this province.

I want the Premier to tell me why he has been hiding while the single most important project.... What is it, Mr. Premier, right now for B.C.? What concerns our jobs most? I'm going to answer this for you. What concerns the jobs, the future, the resources for the people of British Columbia? I'll tell you what it is; it's the B.C. Railway. I wonder why the Premier's been hiding while the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), in a responsible way.... He has been welcomed in Washington, D.C., in terms of cooperation to extend that railway; he has been welcomed in Washington state where the Senate has passed a resolution endorsing assistance for building that railway through to Alaska and through that rich resource territory. He is going to speak to the state assembly and Senate of the State of Alaska on Monday next. Where has the Premier been hiding when those jobs are at stake? Where has the Premier been hiding? Where is the leadership, Mr. Premier? There is, north of Dease Lake.... And I agree that the Dease Lake extension that was begun by W.A.C. Bennett was very poorly planned. They hadn't even spoken to the native Indian tribes. There were no proper cost estimates; the engineering was faulty; the terrain was very, very difficult. But W.A.C. Bennett had vision. He knew that if he pushed that railway north toward the Yukon border to get into Dease Lake, and then 100 miles to Watson Lake, and then through there, with the cooperation of the other governments that are concerned about the resources, a treasure house of resources such as you've never seen....

It's not just the groundfish from Alaska that may come; it's not just refined gasoline products; it's not just these vast forests of spruce in an area that is as great as the whole country of France; it isn't only the security aspects of that railway that is of interest. It's the possibility to save and expand and put our people to work. And I wish that the Premier would not hide. I wish the Premier would leave aside.... How many of the actions of this government have been for

[ Page 228 ]

political spite? The NDP suggested it; the NDP built this resource thing to a successful future for the people of B.C.; you've got to kill it.

How much have you done by way of political spite? How can you not find it in yourself — as you have not been able to for the last three years — to put aside political revenge and benefit? When something is good — the B.C. Housing Corporation is undoubtedly good; the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) practically said so — why kill it for spite? There's been too much government by gimmickry. There has been a failure of leadership. The real leadership is coming from the leader of the New Democratic Party, who as a result of the default of that Premier has had to concern himself around the whole of North America with matters that are of grave, vital and important concern to the people of British Columbia.

I have enjoyed the debate. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was up speaking in Cowichan the other day, and he said that Premier Bennett....

AN HON. MEMBER: You told this joke before.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I tried to.

What did he say? He said that back in 1977 Premier Bennett said: "We'll get this province moving." And that hon. member said: "I assumed he meant forward." Well, I want to say that I don' t agree with that hon. member at all. I never assumed any such thing. In just about every economic index, not to mention the social, you've taken us backward. If you're going to call that election, Mr. Premier, and if you....

MR. BARRETT: Let's go!

MR. MACDONALD: Let's go.

We'll put our record up against yours any old time; you've got a record of stagnation, unemployment, of high prices, high taxes and giveaway of resources such as we've never seen before. Why not get this province back? Why not come back to sound, progressive government?

People know now that they had something. We've learned from it, and they've learned from it, and we should have it again because this province is too big to be spoiled by a coalition of political tergiversates that have left their political moorings. They have no political philosophy, no faith in this province or these people. Let's get B.C. really moving!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, let me first of all offer my congratulations to the new Lieutenant-Governor, who presented what was, in my view, an outstanding throne speech to this Legislature. In congratulating him on his appointment, let me say that he has brought with him and continued the great dignity and traditions of the office, and I'm sure we all wish the Lieutenant-Governor well as he continues to serve the people of British Columbia and Canada.

Let me also congratulate the mover of the Speech from the Throne, the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), who was able to zero in on what will be the fundamental differences of how legislation is developed and how people will have an opportunity to develop a secure future for themselves in this province. One of the things the public should know — and one of the things the people of this province want to know — is not just the legislation that will be presented in this Legislature, but the philosophy of those who would draft legislation to achieve certain goals or certain aims or a certain end. Clearly she zeroed in on the fact that this government, not only in the three previous throne speeches but in this one, was concerned, number one, with something that doesn't have a value in the budget — something that's not going to be part of the numbers of programs but something that's priceless and something that is of dearest value to us all, and that is individual rights, individual opportunity and an opportunity for equity and fairness in this province. It is not equity and fairness handed down by Big Brother, but an equity and opportunity that is extended.... Because Big Brother government or large government do not guarantee you certain fundamental rights and opportunities so that individuals can develop the business of industry of this province, they can own the business and industry of this province, they can own their own home, they can own their own land and they will never be tenants of the large landlord or of the government.

Mr. Speaker, I think you can see through all of the legislation and the legislative thrust and philosophy of this party that we've introduced in this throne speech a bill of rights. A bill of rights will be presented to this House because we feel the people should, through legislation, receive a guarantee of their fundamental rights. It's not enough for those members over there to say they would have done it or might have done it, that they care about people. The fact is they bad their chance and they didn't do it, because they didn't have the will to do it, because their philosophy of big-government control felt that

[ Page 229 ]

those rights might get in their way some day when they wanted to take over a little more and a little more and a little more from the people of this province.

We even heard this morning their member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy), I can remember the studies and the statements that have gone on about the way expropriation by government has taken place, and the powers of the legislation, and the way it can be accomplished. Oh yes, they were all worried about the little person until they got into government. Did they change it? No, because they wanted those powers to take land and houses away from the people any time they desired to develop another large government project.

It was embarrassing to listen to that member stand in this House this morning and defend the existing expropriation procedures, which have been studied. The results of the studies recommend change, change to guarantee our people fair action and fair equity in compensation. Mr. Speaker, that was one of the things that tipped their hand this morning — their own member standing up defending existing expropriation legislation in a number of areas and not looking for the type of reforms mentioned in this throne debate that will give greater fairness, greater equity in compensation and, above all, will protect their rights and privileges as citizens of this province. The member for North Okanagan brought that out very clearly.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I want to congratulate the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) who, in seconding the Speech from the Throne, further developed that philosophical difference. And I can play the game of "you did, you didn't" that the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) played today in this House or that he and the present leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Barrett) have been playing outside the House, but I want to tell the people that when they are called upon to make a decision of how they want to see this province develop, it will be one of the fundamental philosophy and the right of the individual versus big government.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) keeps shouting for an election. He asks: "Are you afraid of an election?" Well, I'll tell you, recent events make me fear an election in this province, because I see the NDP had a nominating convention in Esquimalt, and one of their own members said that he voted twice. Well, if they vote twice at their own nominating conventions, what will they do when they reach the ballot box? [Laughter.] They've exposed themselves again. They vote twice, Mr. Speaker. I thought this was the country of one person, one vote. I thought that party believed in democracy. They believe in democracy for someone else, but when it's to their advantage.... And remember, that's only the person they caught.

This throne speech, which I rise to support, is part of the blueprint for B.C. This is our fourth statement, since becoming government, on the way in which we want to see this province grow. We want to see the opportunities for our people develop. And for our part as government, we want to establish those programs that bring a measure of equity and fairness and a measure of protection, as in health care, in all its facets, which have been expanded by this government as never before — the extended health care program, universal Pharmacare and now denticare. These are an unprecedented measure of protection for our people. This is not socialism, but social justice.

They try to hide the bad parts under the good parts in socialism; they try to equate only with those areas in which every single British Columbian and Canadian feels a commitment to provide his or her own opportunity and measure of protection. What about the other side? How are they going to run the country? What about the takeovers, and the government ownership, and the expropriation that they defended this morning? What about the loss of liberty?

As I said, the rights of individuals are priceless. So we brought in a document which is our fourth statement on our blueprint for B.C. When we bring in our fifth document next year, it will further expand opportunities for people. And it will protect their rights, and develop further government programs.

But the throne speech is just one part of the way we're developing the blueprint for British Columbia. Because coupled with that, there of course has to be a budget, which is the engine and the fuel that allows many of the programs and the undertakings of this government to be carried out — our initiatives, the things we can do for people. The budget can also be a major document in stating other things — how much we wish to leave in the hands of our people, to give them more discretionary income, to get them to make more choices.

Let me make it clear that those who advocate government ownership as the final answer are stating that they need additional tax revenue to be able to make the financial purchases, or support their takeovers, or their grabs, or

[ Page 230 ]

whatever, when they wish to enter the marketplace and take over business and industry. What they are really saying to the people is that you earned that money, and, normally, under a private enterprise or an individual opportunity, you could be expected to take that money and buy shares in MacMillan Bloedel or the CPR, or develop your own small business. You could go into the furniture business, you could have a single proprietorship, or you could have a partnership. But they say that our commitment is to big government, and so we're going to, through taxes, take that money away, and then we're going to invest it on your behalf, which will somehow give us great credit in the way we play businessman with your money.

They're really saying that they don't trust you to handle your own money. They're really saying that you should turn your money over to them, to that financial group with a proven record. I don't have to name them.

Mr. Speaker, there are many positive things I want to talk about. But first, I understand, there have been some statements made, both inside and outside the House, by the Leader of the Opposition. I understand he made a very fanciful presentation here the other day when he announced his version of the Joe Clark tour. He's going travelling, except his problem is that he's going to fall on his own bayonet — or maybe on the ones that are coming from behind these days. I understand that on some of his trips he's chosen some unusual travelling companions.

I don't know. Or maybe they're usual. Maybe it's usual for someone who wants to be Premier to travel with the head of a liquor company that can deal only with the government, or wants to get a racetrack and land out of the farm reserve. Or maybe he travels with the presidents of all the liquor companies. Maybe. I don't know.

But the great announcement utilizing people from other countries and his fanciful presentation remind me of 1972 revisited. Everybody with a memory can remember that in attempting to provide an air of respectability and credibility that could not be earned in the province, the former Leader of the Opposition, who later became the Premier, who is now the Leader of the Opposition again, was involving the Japanese in great announcements.

I can remember he brought the Japanese in. And he used them. He got them to say here he was, showing a great initiative for B.C. He announced he was going to build, if he got to be Premier, with them. They stood around. They smiled for the cameras. A Toyota plant. The people believed him. They made him Premier. He got to be Premier. We never heard another thing from the Japanese. In fact, the last thing I heard he didn't even drive a Toyota anymore. He got a Volvo, or a Fiat.

They're scratching their heads, wondering what happened — the people of B.C. That was 1972. His visits to the Americans, making announcements to their Legislature. What of it in 3 1/2 years when the people believed the charade? Absolutely nothing. Today we have the same charade. There is a hope. There is positive reason why this province would continue to work on the B.C. Rail as we have done. And we have. There's got to be something funny about someone trying to talk positively about the B.C. Rail — not just the Premier. You made yourself president. You practically ruined the railway.

It's making its first operating profit now. We took that political interference away. We gave it an independent board of directors. It's running well, but when I came to government I was concerned about the rail construction, and the transportation difficulties. We did something about it. We didn't try to hide it. We said: "Let's take a look at what we've got, and what we can do. " We had my office contact the governor of Alaska, and in a number of major meetings with the commissioner of the Yukon and the Canadian representatives and American governments, we talked about a continental rail link. It was amusing when I first called the governor of Alaska. I said: "Would you show me? The files were bare in the Premier's office when I got there. Would you show me any proposals or correspondence you got from the last government on cooperation in constructing a rail link?"

Not only did he not have anything. He'd never heard of the former Premier of British Columbia.

However, I don't want to start trying to involve people from other countries in internal politics. I'll leave that for others. It worked once for them. Perhaps they're hoping lightning will strike twice for them with that type of manoeuvre.

I don't think the people will be fooled again after the experience of the non-existent Toyota plant. I don't think the people will be fooled again by those sorts of front-page manoeuvres or fanciful presentations. I think they do want to know there is a government that has moved responsibly and with consideration of where we want this province to go during the last 3 1/2 years.

I don't claim this government has been perfect. But we have moved in positive directions — at a time when we've had not cooperation from that opposition, trying to act positive

[ Page 231 ]

in their dying days here, but negative carping criticism, divisive action, going out speaking, hoping that trouble will happen. I never thought they would be joined by the new leader of the Conservative party who is the political equivalent of the Maytag repairman of B.C. politics who's lonely and keeps hoping something breaks down so he will be called in to fix it.

At least he hasn't gone to the Maritimes, as some people were reported to do in eastern papers, and said: "Things are tough in B.C. and, boy, am I laughing," like that Leader of the Opposition is saying. Things are going very well. They're getting better. They're not perfect. But they're getting better in British Columbia. It doesn't happen easily. You listen to the opposition, and to what they would suggest. They try to measure the investment of the companies that should have taken place, in their view, in the last 3 1/2 years by what government would have spent, what they would have used the taxpayers' dollars for.

The statistics are there, the fact is there that there are more companies and more people doing business and developing small businesses than all their grandiose chicken-picking plants and everything else they attempted to buy when they were government.

Incorporations of B.C. companies are up significantly. These represent the people who feel the optimism to go into business. You know, in the three years that we've been government, 35,000, 41,000 and 42,500 new companies were created in British Columbia.

MR. LEA: Holding companies. Tell us about the bankruptcies.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Are you announcing something about your business? You tell them.

Mr. Speaker, there are more people in business today, in small business and as individuals, than ever before and, yes, there will always be a renewal process. That's what guarantees to our young the opportunities to get into business. That's what guarantees to them that the old and the stale or the inefficient, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert, can't just go into business for the name of going into business and expect the public to keep them alive. We say that business must have growth and opportunity, and let people who cannot provide the service.... Let the market develop the business and the price for the benefit of the consumer. The inefficient will always be removed. There's nothing magical about the market system, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert. If you thought that in going into business you were going to be guaranteed, now that you have the label, to make a prof it and exist forever.... You've got to work at it. You've got to be better than the competition. But at least you've got the opportunity under this government. I notice that some people in this House who have gone into business since this party became government were afraid to do so when they were government.

Also, outside this House — and perhaps in — incorrect statements have been made about the price British Columbia receives for natural gas at the border. I recently witnessed a program where Laurier La Pierre interviewed the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) . On that program, the Leader of the Opposition said: "Oh, Laurier, when we came to government we found that the former government had signed a contract to provide the gas to the Americans at 23 cents."

MR. BARRETT: No, 32.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Get the tape. He said that it was 32. He stands by the rest of the statement.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that the former government preceding him had no contract with anyone. The private sector had made an agreement, yet he baldly stated on the television that there was a secret agreement with the former government. You didn't tell the truth!

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, I'd like to have the Premier withdraw the inference that I was lying. The fact is I never stated it was secret. Everybody knew what the deal was. What I stated was correct.

MR. SPEAKER: The point of order is a request for withdrawal. Will the Premier please withdraw?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The statement I made was that the Leader of the Opposition stated that the former Social Credit government had a contract, that he found the contract. I want to say emphatically they did not have a secret contract.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Mr. Premier. My responsibility....

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: During the time that the microphones have been turned off, we have had the withdrawal by the Premier. But, hon. members,

[ Page 232 ]

it's not for the Chair to decide whether or not the statements made are true or not true. It is for the Chair to protect the integrity and the honour of every member in this House. I think that we all recognize and remember that no imputation of wrongdoing can be placed at the charge of another member in this House without withdrawal. And I appreciate that withdrawal. Please proceed.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to go on, because I am concerned about the statements in that interview; and, in fact, I counteracted those statements made in the interview with Mr. La Pierre. Unfortunately, my answer was cut out of the version that was presented on the air.

Natural gas in British Columbia was brought in not by government contract but by an agreement between Westcoast Transmission and El Paso Natural Gas. This letter is from Mr. Lechner, the chairman of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation — a good public servant who is an appointment of the last government, who, on questioning him on these statements, said there was no government contract for anyone to find. There was a public, open contract between Westcoast Transmission and El Paso Gas which, in 1954, provided to the people of Vancouver and this province natural gas that could not have been economically delivered to them, as consumers, to develop industry and the economy and the jobs in this province. It used to be also the fact that we had a commodity which at that time was surplus not only in Canada but in the United States. It was a contract that helped to build British Columbia.

That line was built with great optimism. Their greatest realizations were met. The economic growth and the secondary manufacturers we talk about, and production, that have been built all through British Columbia have been because this province received gas ahead of a time in which our small market could have afforded to bring it.

In that same interview the Leader of the Opposition stated to Mr. La Pierre that when he left government they had raised the price of natural gas to $1.96 Canadian at the border. That's not true. Regarding the natural gas price at the border, in Canadian dollars, the last raise under the former government was in their dying days of office. It was November 1, 1975, when it reached $1.60 Canadian.

This government, on September 10, got the price raised to $1.80 Canadian. On January 1, 1977, through the National Energy Board.... I must point out here that raises are made by application to the National Energy Board who sets the price on Canadian export. It's not done unilaterally. It's done through the National Energy Board, and has been since 1974. In 1977 it was $1.94 Canadian, and on September 21, 1977, $2.55 Canadian, not the $2.16 that the Leader of the Opposition said we were getting for our gas now.

Those sorts of statements and the misuse of figures, the loose application of figures, is what gives the public some concern about the political life of this province. How also can you stand over there and, with that on your record, talk about getting more money for resources when you were government? In resource revenue — that's from our resources — that's the area that takes away the pressure on individuals to pick up the cost of government.

In this fiscal year the government will collect $727 million from resource revenue. In 1975-1976, the year of that last government, it was $414 million. We have a 75 percent increase which is going to allow this government to take the pressure off people. We have an expanding economy where we do have new mining development, where we have a tremendous growth in our production in our forest industries, where there are plans for major reinvestment in our forest industry of over $1 billion announced. I tell the members in this House there are going to be some very, very interesting announcements in the next little while.

We have brought this province from the depths of despair, confusion and uncertainty. That is true. I want to give one example of the despair people felt. I want to tell just one statistic, one item of despair that people felt. British Columbia, which had traditionally been the fastest-growing province in all Canada, in the final, dying year of the NDP government, instead of being the fastest growing, had more people leaving than were coming to it. The ones who came did so only because they hadn't heard.

But today British Columbia is growing again. That's a positive statistic. But it gives us some problems. Besides creating employment for our own people, we're expected to help employ Canadians from other parts of the country who now recognize that there is opportunity in British Columbia, because they have a willing government that wishes and considers it a right that they should have that opportunity.

We extended it to them, and it will be further extended as this legislative session and our next in 1980 proceed to deliver more and more of opportunities. This is the greatest thing we can give our people to get on with the job of developing this province. We've got

[ Page 233 ]

more people working than ever before.

I want to make a point, too, about industrial relations in this province because I want to make it very clear that this party represents no special interest group and is prepared to represent all British Columbians and Canadians equally. We do not have a vendetta against any group. We do not wish to see the divisiveness that took place under that party's government when they made specific continuing attacks against segments of society.

Industrial relations in this province. If you strip away the rhetoric of just a few politically motivated people, you will find that there have been fewer man days lost due to industrial disputes during this government than there were before. That head of steam was building up when they set a record number of man days lost in their final years. There was nothing to indicate to me that that unrest and uncertainty would continue and accelerate. I'm proud of the record — it's one of improvement, not perfection.

I have received many letters and calls from non-union and union members who work in British Columbia. Some are members of our party. Many are just independents who encourage us to continue to represent their interest in a fair and equitable manner. They say: "Nobody runs me when it comes to the ballot box. Nobody's going to run me when it comes to vote." They say a few of them are not going to make a private deal for power to bring us to the sorry state that Great Britain is in.

MR. STEPHENS: They're going Conservative.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I hope the member for Oak Bay gets as much support from the leader of the Conservative party across the ocean as be did from the federal financial critic, Sinclair Stevens, who supports this government's economic policies and initiatives and is busily trying to take their federal party as far away from you as they can. Perhaps the Conservative label can survive over distance, but I don't think you can.

That brings me to one of the measures we've taken because although it is not a new issue, it is something that has concerned me. I've taken it to First Ministers' conferences and I've shared it with my colleagues across Canada because I think it's a national concern. The problem I perceived in Canada is that the ownership of our business and industry was falling into fewer and fewer hands — Canadian as well as others. It means less of our people are participating — I'm talking about the average person — in ownership of the business and industry. Sure, there are opportunities for those who have single proprietorships — small businesses or partnerships. Small businesses can get in, but the only way the average working person can freely participate is by getting the opportunity and encouragement to purchase common shares — to have a piece of the action. They have not been encouraged to do so.

While we've had the slick sloganeering from the slick snake-oil salesman over there about government ownership, they've done nothing to encourage the people. Yet this government, with the most revolutionary proposal that's been brought to public life in the last 30 years, has brought in initiative through the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation to involve all our people in individual ownership where they will have a right, say, of collecting dividends and of buying more shares. I think this experience with ownership will encourage them to buy more. Not only are they getting free shares, but they're getting a distribution. They're also being encouraged for the first time, on a groundfloor basis, to invest in their own company rather than send money to buy it from the government, as the Leader of the Opposition says.

That party over there doesn't want it to happen. I'll tell you what you said. In the first blush, you had every single one of them making statements against this corporation — against the concept. They were opposed to it. The Leader of the Opposition says if there is an election held before the shares are distributed, the NDP will not let the people have them. He says that if there is an election and the NDP are elected after they are distributed, we'll buy them back. The public relations experts — the Dunskys and the rest — have gotten together and said you made a mistake. You let the people know you were socialist and there might be an election. You know, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, that your traditional role is not to talk like Karl Marx before an election. It's to be like Groucho Marx. And you do both very well. We saw you as Groucho and we certainly saw you as the head of socialism when you were government. I tell the people of this province, you will not let them have those shares, you will take them away, and you will continue to overtax them to buy more government enterprises without letting them have the encouragement, or the opportunity to own. That's what this government is all about.

For goodness' sake, for once in your life, square with the people, say you're a socialist and then give them a list of the companies you're going to take over if you become

[ Page 234 ]

government again. But don't play this silly game.

Your party all got together after someone got some sense and they said: Look, we've been attacking a good idea under the name of socialism. The people like the idea; they want to own. They'll find out what we are. They know what you are; they know what you'll say; they know what you'll do; and they know the deals you'll make to try to achieve power for power's sake.

We are prepared to press on with legislation for a bill of rights — guaranteed rights that you'll have a tough time taking away, my friend; rights that will prevent indiscriminate expropriation for big-government ownership. We'll provide a measure of opportunity in this province and a record of performance that measured against yours will never, never — even to those who have blindly followed you in the past — encourage them to follow you again. I don't care whether you vote twice at your nominating conventions, or ten times. You can't do enough to ever get back in this province.

Play fast and loose with resource figures. Take your Joe Clark tour. Play with natural gas figures and get caught.

I want to say something about that natural gas contract we are trying to resolve. They had dollar signs in their eyes in 1974 when the OPEC countries raised the level of energy. And you know what they did? They gave it away. "Take and pay" on gas was taken out of the terms of the contract. Now those prices only reflect undervalued interruptible gas. We're trying to get that contract changed. It's a scandal. The Americans euchred you. They took you. They saw you coming. Do you want to know what the price of interruptible gas is? — $5, $6. Yet on firm-price, long-term contract gas, they took out the "take and pay" and they've made it interruptible. We've raised an objection and filed for a change with the National Energy Board of Canada.

The people were embarrassed for you when we found out. You sold us out; you sold us down the river. And you can't even get the figures right, now that you're out of office.

They talk about coal. Why, Mr. Speaker, we have a number of taxes that impact on the amount that government gets from coal: provincial capital tax, corporation tax, mining tax, profits plus royalty. Adding the taxes together gives us $7.29 a ton in British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, Alberta gets $8.13 a ton. But they would pretend that we get only $1.50 or 50 cents or something like that. They never talk about the actual number of taxation measures that provide benefits to government. They certainly don't talk about their oppressive taxation with their Mineral Royalties Act. It went up to 105 percent and drove mining away.

In their greedy thirst for money to government, they cut off employment for miners in this province and all of the other multiplying effective.... People lost their jobs as a result of their thirsty grab for the stupid tax that wouldn't work. Their thirst is for money to government and they forget about the greater opportunity to have people working, expanding employment, not only in that industry but elsewhere, because of the multiplier effect that takes place.

Let's have a little truth and honesty and correctness when we use these figures. Let's have accuracy when we use these figures. One only has to go to the B.C. Petroleum Corporation to get the accurate figures. Then one only has to assess the statements in their own light to recognize that some people have had an opportunity to say they made a mistake and they're sorry and they'll never do it again. But they didn't.

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech has provided the framework for social programs. It has provided the framework for justice and fairness and a guarantee of rights. It has provided a framework for economic expansion and job opportunity unparalleled in the history of this province. Things are moving in British Columbia. I don't have to just deal with the statistics to show we're doing better than Canada as a whole.

You only have to go out and talk to the people in the communities, get beyond the tweed curtain, and get out where the people are working. Get up in the gas fields of the north, where there were only a few holes being drilled in 1975, and see how many rigs are working this year. Eighty-eight rigs are working where there were only five working before.

MR. MACDONALD: You said two up in Nelson.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I said a few.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Why don't you listen? That record is evident, but not just in the statistics. Talk to the people who work on the rigs in the field, who were part of the welfare rolls before. They're the ones who feel the optimism and see things happening. Talk to the people who have had record farm income this last year. They feel optimistic. Talk to the

[ Page 235 ]

wage-earners, who are getting higher wages than ever before, and who see an opportunity for continuing employment — no fears of layoff. Ask them. They can feel it; they can see it; that's what counts.

Government isn't statistics; government is action. That action has got to be felt by every single individual. Yes, there is an unacceptable level of unemployment. We are working to correct that. We didn't say we were miracle workers when we came to government, but we did say we're workers; we did say we'd go to work. And we've gone to work, and the measure of our intensity and the measure of our effort is known, and that too will be compared when people have an opportunity to compare that group over there — and the way they approached government — to this government which has attempted to bring equity, fairness, but above all, opportunity. That was the missing word in British Columbia before — opportunity to all to develop, to grow, and, for some, opportunity to go broke. That's also a right in the market system.

Things are better in British Columbia today, but we will not rest until we can bring that secure future to our people, security of future employment through a better education system that will train our young in the skills needed to carry on with the building of our province. We will give them an education that will be useful in the work force; an opportunity to participate in the growth of this province and not depend on outside skilled workers to pick up that area of employment as B.C. gets moving again. Better education. Greater measures of health care. Denticare — now coming. Social progress. Progress in accountability from government. Auditor-General....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Please proceed.

HON. MR.BENNETT: But the member for New Westminster is on his feet. Go ahead. What do you want?

MR. SPEAKER: I see no other member on his feet.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the member is the same as any other member in the House. Standing orders say that at a quarter to the hour of the last day, the vote must be taken.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I think we can resolve the entire thing by asking leave.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm very pleased that those who would bring closure on the Premier have had second thoughts. [Laughter.] Once again, in a moment and a flash of anger, as in the case of the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, they expose their true feelings. Then the public relations take over and they attempt to cover up and change direction.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we have given leave to proceed. I think we should proceed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would like to talk for a moment on some of the measures that this government has taken in the area of business development, because there has been some criticism from over there on what is really happening in British Columbia.

What has happened? We have seen the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), at a tireless pace, be British Columbia's top salesman to the world. He didn't walk the Wall of China with his camera and have nothing to show but slides when he came back. In the throne speech are a number of jobs directly related to economic missions abroad. Those jobs in our industry are but the beginning. Those first contacts of exploring and developing new markets are widening out in an ever expanding growth of opportunity. That opportunity for sales and for markets not only creates employment in British Columbia; it helps Canada in its balance of payments, and it creates exports to prop up the Canadian dollar.

If it wasn't for western Canada today, the Canadian dollar would be very week indeed. We've always been prepared to continue to expand and develop those markets, because we want to see our people employed. We're not selling out our birthright of resources. We are guaranteeing the birthright of our citizens so that they can receive some measure of value and opportunity while they're here rather than, as the opposition says, leaving it in the ground so we've got a dumb policy and it's not developing. We feel that because we now have people who seek work, we must take our heritage and responsibly develop it so that they have an opportunity to work. The resultant value can provide additional benefits for all of our citizens.

The increase in resource revenue to over $700 million this year, from that bad year in

[ Page 236 ]

1975, did not just happen. That is the thing that is allowing us to say that we are going to bring in extended health-care coverage in the dental field. That is what has allowed us to bring universality to Pharmacare and to say that you only targeted before on one group of citizens. But we knew there was a large body of British Columbians who had no protection from the high cost of pharmaceutical drugs.

We put on a ceiling and a floor; we provided a measure of protection for those people so that....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, the first $100 is reasonable: they could expend that. But over that the government would pay 80 percent of the cost. Thousands and thousands of British Columbians have had the benefit of that program who never had that benefit before.

That's what the increased revenue from resources is doing for our people: extended health care and personal home care. Its something that's been talked about by individual members from, I guess, all parties. The former member for Oak Bay certainly was its advocate. But nobody brought it in until we became government. Oh, they were good talkers. They could describe how they wanted to give this if only they could. But this government brought in extended health care and home care programs and personal care, and we got the money to do it because we're getting money from the resources that we didn't get before — over $700 million, and just around $400 million when they were government. That's why we can do it.

What about aid to the independent schools? That was a debate of great consequence. I've never felt that education, which is a right, not just an opportunity but a right for our children, could fear from a measure for independent education. Isn't that what it's all about? Learning, comparing alternate systems. There's nothing to fear.

I can remember that party used to talk out of both sides of its mouth on that issue when they were government, saying: "Oh, well, we can't put it in. I'm for it personally, but my party won't let me." We all know who said that. We brought it into this House because it is a measure of fairness. We did not bring it in to the detriment of the general education of this province, but to provide additional equity to those who were outside the system, whose parents pay taxes, who pay the cost of government. What happened when we brought it in? A debate of great importance. That party was fearful to even debate it on the floor because they didn't know which side of the fence to get on. And they went. For the first time we saw an emptying of their benches and they clustered and hid in their caucus room, listening to the business of the House, fearful. They were fearful to come out and take a stand for British Columbians. It's a small segment maybe, unimportant to you if you only deal with people in large enough blocs to get votes.

But I'll tell you there's something greater than just dealing with big power blocs. You've got to bring government to react to the little people who don't have the type of political clout that you cater to. We got that measure in to help them. Don't tell me about principle. You.had a chance to argue on principle and you left the House and hid in your caucus. It was a principle that was the most basic of principles, the learning of our children.

This government has brought in many measures and we've been able to do it because we're getting more money from our resources.

Last year that also started to pay dividends. We were able to have massive tax reductions in last year's budget, which the opposition called an election budget. If it's their standard that every throne speech and every budget we present from now on, if that's their standard for calling it an election budget, then they could be called election budgets.

We're just starting to feel the benefits of responsible government, concerned government and a government that cares, fully realizing that it's easy to promise when you're in opposition, but hard to deliver with any degree of responsibility in government if you're not going to plunge the people into debt, but want to meet those social objectives that we have. We believe that this government, now with our fourth session, fourth budget, is meeting those objectives, trying to meet the needs of the people. There are many more we will be carrying out in the future. The outline for them was in this throne speech, and anyone who votes against it is voting against denticare. You're voting against the bill of rights. You'd be voting against equity in the purchase of auto insurance for anybody in British Columbia. You'd be voting against fair expropriation. You're voting against home ownership and expanded home ownership with the extended homeowner's purchase.

AN HON. MEMBER: One of these days they'll vote against motherhood.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I support the throne speech, because this throne speech will work for every British Columbian. Let everyone remember that you'll be accountable if you

[ Page 237 ]

vote against those things contained in this throne speech.

MR. MACDONALD: I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Premier, when he took his place, said that we played with figures — that included myself and the Leader of the Opposition — and that we were caught out in terms of natural gas. I just want to give a correction, which is that the increases were agreed to not by the NDP, but at the First Ministers' Conference in the year 1975. They were phased-in increases, and they were the achievement therefore of the NDP government even though they came in 1976. No false statements have been made by this side of the House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please. With great respect, whenever a correction is to be made it is to be made at the conclusion of the speech, which is the correct time, and the time chosen by the first member for Vancouver East, and I think we should preserve that right.

The motion is that we, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 14

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider the supply to be granted to Her Majesty, and that this order have precedence over all other business except interim supply and introduction of bills until disposed of.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House will at its next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion approved.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen presented the annual report and financial statement of the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission for the year ending March 31, 1978.

Hon. Mr. Phillips presented the financial statements for the year ending December 29, 1978 of the British Columbia Railway Company.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

The House adjourned at 1:08 p.m.