[ Page 5 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Availability of Crown land to real estate agents. Mr. Lea –– 5

Race horse transport licence. Mrs. Dailly –– 5

Kitimat ferry terminal. Mr. Howard –– 6

Funding of hospitals. Mr. Hanson –– 6

Telegrams

To Rt. Hon. Joe Clark re west coast ports dispute. Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 7

To Rt. Hon. Joe Clark re west coast ports dispute. Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 7

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate

Mr. Heinrich –– 7

Mr. Brummet –– 9

Mr. Hanson –– 12

Mr. Strachan –– 13

Mr. Mitchell –– 13

Mr. Davis –– 14

Mr. Hall –– 16

Mr. Rogers –– 19

Division on the motion –– 20

Presenting reports.

Liquor control and licensing branch annual report as at March 31, 1978.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 21

Rent Review Commission 1978 annual report. Hon. Mr. Nielsen 21

Privacy Act report for 1974 and amendments for 1975, 1976 and 1977.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 21

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, it's good to be back. [Laughter.] I can see that the members of the opposition don't think so.

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery with us this afternoon are five individuals from the great constituency of Omineca, who saw very fit to return me to this House. I would like to introduce these individuals to the House, and ask it to make them very welcome here this afternoon.

With us in the gallery are Mr. and Mrs. Bud Nielsen from Fort St. James, Mr. and Mrs. Harvey Milne from Vanderhoof and my good wife Shirley. I would ask this House to make them very welcome.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, seated in the members' gallery today is a graduate of that fine institution which lives on in spirit, Notre Dame University.

He's gone on to become a teacher and principal, and is now the MLA-elect for the Atlin constituency, Al Passarell.

MRS. JORDAN: I have no further comments to add to my friend's from Omineca. But I would ask the House to welcome some visitors from the North Okanagan: Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Mitchell; Mr. Jim Yount and Mr. and Mrs. Walter Atkinson. All are here this afternoon for the first time to not only witness democracy in action, but to appreciate the enthusiasm of the House.

MR. SMITH: I would like to welcome here today my two constituency office coordinators, Mrs. Betty Green and Mrs. Ginny Marshall Lang.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I ask you to welcome 52 students from the Hatzic Junior High School under the direction of their teacher, Mr. Weber.

Oral Questions

AVAILABILITY OF CROWN LAND
TO REAL ESTATE AGENTS

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Lands. In April of this year, the minister said that the government does not intend to make Crown land available to real estate agents. Have the minister or members of his ministry had discussions with the real estate association in regard to making Crown land available to members of the real estate association for speculative purposes or for sale on a commission basis?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I would have to take that question as notice because I'm not aware for a couple or three weeks of any negotiations that might have taken place. I'll take that question as notice and bring an answer back as quickly as possible.

MR. LEA: I understand that the minister has taken as notice whether members of his staff had meetings with the real estate association. Has the minister had discussions with the real estate association in this regard?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, I've met with the real estate industry association — I forget whether it was February or March — and the subject matter you raise was not a matter of discussion.

MR. LEA: On a supplementary question, was there a deal struck where members of the real estate association would handle Crown land either for speculative purposes or selling that Crown land on a commission basis, on a multiple listing basis?

HON. MR. CHABOT: There was never any question or any discussion regarding the speculative turning over of Crown land to the real estate industry. There was discussion of the most cost-effective way of making land available to the people of this province.

MR. LEA: On a further supplementary, is it not true that members of the real estate association and their agents are at this moment selling Crown land on a commission basis for speculative purposes?

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, in response to your suggestion, there was no deal struck and that question which you raise appears to be a matter of speculation on the part of the member for Prince Rupert, which I'm not aware of; but I'd be glad to take the question as notice and report back to the House at the appropriate time.

MR. LEA: On a new question, there is a mobile home, strata titles Crown subdivision named Hayesville in the city of Prince Rupert. There have been two lots, I believe, sold to a real estate firm for speculative purposes. When the minister is checking out the other details, that he seems to have a hazy memory for, would he also check that out and see whether that isn't true? And while he's at it, would he check to see whether the name of that real estate firm is not Atlin Rentals? Would he also check to see whether one of the main principals of that firm is a person by the name of Roy Webber? Would he also check to see whether the same Mr. Roy Webber is one of the principals of Webber Realty in Prince Rupert, and would he at the same time check to see whether Mr. Roy Webber is the past president of the Social Credit Party in Prince Rupert?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, it's apparent that at last the member has gone back to Prince Rupert. I'll take the question as notice.

RACE HORSE TRANSPORT LICENCE

MRS. DAILLY: A question to the Minister of Transportation, Communications and Highways. In August 1977, the Motor Carrier Commission rejected the application of a company called Giddyup Go for a license to transport race horses. In December 1977 the Commission reversed its decision and granted the license to Giddyup. In May 1978, five months later, the commission cancelled the Giddyup license, after protest from a horse transport company called Thompson Van Lines. The cancellation left the field clear for Thompson. Giddyup appealed and the cabinet, prior to the election, sent the whole thing back to the commission instead of making a ruling. The question is now coming for the hon. minister concerned. Can the minister tell the House what decision has been made in this case?

[ Page 6 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: To the member for Burnaby-North: I am not aware of any of the details that you have given, I'll certainly find out. I might say that if you are referring to cabinet appeals, I don't sit on those regarding Motor Carrier Commission appeals. I'll find out.

KITIMAT FERRY TERMINAL

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to also direct a question to the Minister of Transportation in his capacity as the person handling or dealing with the B.C. Ferries. I ask him if he can now tell the House when he will be in a position to put into effect the commitment his government made during the election campaign to place a ferry terminal in Kitimat, so that the north coast can now be served by B.C. Ferries.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of that commitment, as that's a matter of policy and it will come in due course.

MR. HOWARD: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, if I could. If that is the case as he's just answered now, then why has he agreed with the suggestion by the Premier that the Queen of Surrey be taken out of mothballs and be used for that specific purpose'?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena is a bit mixed up. We certainly agreed to take the Queen of Surrey out of mothballs, and replace the Queen of Prince Rupert with the run to Prince Rupert, but not to Kitimat.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, then I'll so advise the newspapers up north that they got the wrong impression from the Premier. But that's understandable.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed with question period — and perhaps this time should not be taken out of the allotted time — the purpose of the question period is to ask questions and not to make statements. It is not in order to gain the floor under the pretence of asking a question when, indeed, the intent is to make a statement. Shall we proceed?

FUNDING OF HOSPITALS

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Minister of Health. In view of the almost daily protestations during the election campaign regarding the sufficient and adequate funding that would be provided for hospitals, I would like to ask him to explain why within one week of the election the renovation budget for the Royal Jubilee Hospital was cut by 50 percent.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The members will have the opportunity to deal with hospital financing during my estimates. Mr. Speaker, the member has the wrong information; that's not correct. This ministry has taken no action such as he suggests.

MR. HANSON: A supplementary question. Would he please check with Murray Halkett, hospital planner, and see if, in fact, these funds were allocated for safety equipment and wiring?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Perhaps the member would understand that it's up to the hospital to check with Mr. Halkett, who works neither for my department nor the hospital. Mr. Halkett works for the Capital Regional District, and it's their responsibility to carry that forward, not that of the Ministry of Health.

MR. COCKE: On a supplementary to the Minister of Health, the minister who promised us when we left here that there were no cuts being made in the hospital, he's treating a new member to his usual tricks, and indicating that the minister is not complicit. Is it not the minister's own decision that's putting the hospitals in this whole province in an impossible position in terms not only of their renovations, but in terms of their staffing? Is the minister ready now to confess to the House that what he told us before we left this place — that the whole thing is not in chaos but that he has everything in hand...? Let him tell us that everything's okay.

HON. MR. MAIR: Okay, everything's okay. Next question.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. Can the minister comment then on a report on May 17 in the Colonist newspaper that his ministry had cut back previously approved funds for equipment and minor renovations by almost half? Is the newspaper story in error, and would the minister so inform this House?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is not the purpose of question period to check the veracity of newspaper articles.

MR. BARRETT: A further supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: Another question, perhaps.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, it's to the Minister of Health.

I don't want to question the veracity of the Colonist, since they wrote an editorial about me this morning that may endanger my career. [Laughter.]

MR. SPEAKER: The question, please.

MR. BARRETT: I want to ask the minister if he can assure the members of this House, who have been receiving questions from their constituents about hospital care, that under his ministry and under his budget there have not and there will not be any cuts of staff in any hospital in this province because of his budget.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's an impossible question to answer. In the first place, the Leader of the Opposition doesn't need any help from the newspapers to endanger his career. He does all right on his own. The hospitals of this province are run as independent societies, funded for the most part by the Ministry of Health. It's their decision to make whether or not they need to adjust their staff positions up, down or sideways, not the Minister of Health's. The Leader of the Opposition would be the first person to protest in the most vigorous terms if this ministry interfered with that opportunity for local control of provincial hospitals. I don't intend to get into that situation.

There are many hospitals in this province which are having decreasing utilization rates to a very heavy degree.

[ Page 7 ]

For those hospitals I would expect that they may need to make some adjustments to their staffing. Some staff would not be laid off, perhaps, but not returned as they leave on retirement and things like that. The hospital must have that opportunity.

I can tell you that there are no cuts in hospital budgets by this government. Funds are being made available so that the hospitals of British Columbia can continue to give the highest level of care in this country. I've made figures available that the Leader of the Opposition has the opportunity, if he so wishes, to study. They will show a very steady and dramatic increase in the total amounts of money available to hospitals in this province over the past four months. That will continue, as it is continuing now.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I'm assuming that this House will have the opportunity to deal, during the debates, during this session of the Legislature, with a special fund which is available, which will allow hospitals, to all intents and purposes, to pick up some of the deficits that they've built up because of the things over which they have had no control in the past.

All in all, Mr. Speaker, there have been no cuts in the amounts of money made available to hospitals, there will be no cuts, and the commitment of this government remains very strong.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I repeat my question to the minister: will the minister assure the members of this House that no hospital in the province of British Columbia will suffer staff cuts because of budgetary restrictions imposed by his ministry on those hospitals?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, rather than answer that question — because it isn't mine to answer...

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: As I've attempted to explain to the Leader of the Opposition, who doesn't understand and never has understood the way in which hospitals are funded in this province....

But perhaps I could refer to the published statements made during the election campaign by the president of the British Columbia Health Association, which represents all of the hospitals in the province, in which the president of the B.C. Health Association said that having had the opportunity to see preliminary estimates of hospitals throughout the province, it was his opinion that there would be no necessity for either staff cuts or for reduced services because of the budgeting levels made available by the provincial government.

MR. BARRETT: What's your opinion?

MR. SPEAKER: The bell concludes the question period.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to read into the record two telegrams sent by myself to Prime Minister Clark on behalf of both the government of British Columbia and the Western Premiers' Conference.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the first telegram was sent in my capacity as Premier of British Columbia to the Right Honourable Joe Clark, Prime Minister, Ottawa:

ON BEHALF OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS OUR GRAVE CONCERN AS TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE WEST COAST PORTS DISPUTE AFFECTS THE ECONOMY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AND CANADA. THE IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE PORT OF VANCOUVER AND OTHER BRITISH COLUMBIA PORTS IN CARRYING FORWARD OUR WORLDWIDE TRADING OPPORTUNITIES IS VITAL TO OUR INTERNATIONAL REPUTATION. AS WELL, THE CONTINUANCE OF THIS DISPUTE WILL HAVE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCE FOR OUR FOREST INDUSTRY AND OUR MINING INDUSTRY. I WOULD THEREFORE URGE YOUR GOVERNMENT TO TAKE IMMEDIATE STEPS TO ENSURE THAT THIS DISPUTE CAN BE RESOLVED IMMEDIATELY.

And that's signed in my capacity as Premier of British Columbia.

The second telegram deals in my capacity as chairman of the Western Premiers' Conference and therefore has the concurrence of the Premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. It reads as follows, again directed to the Right-Honourable J.C. Clark, Prime Minister, Ottawa:

AS CHAIRMAN OF THE WESTERN PREMIERS' CONFERENCE, I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS THE SENSE OF URGENCY THAT WE SHARE ON THE MATTER OF RESOLVING THE WEST COAST PORTS DISPUTE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. WE ASK THAT YOUR GOVERNMENT TAKE STEPS TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER AS IT IS CRITICAL TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THE ENTIRE WESTERN ECONOMY. AS WELL, THE COMMODITY SHIPMENTS THROUGH WESTERN PORTS REPRESENT A VITAL PART OF OUR INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMMITMENTS AS A NATION.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Prince George North. It's good to hear the welcome of the House to a new member. I would also remind all honourable members that perhaps we could extend the traditional courtesies of any member making a maiden speech. Please proceed.

MR. HEINRICH: I take pleasure in presenting the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), on behalf of the people of British Columbia and the government of our province. The motion reads:

"We, Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects of 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 this present session."

It is with a great deal of pride and honour that I, as the first elected member for the new riding of Prince George North, have been given the opportunity to move the Speech from the Throne. May I express my thanks to the citizens of Prince George North who elected me, and all of whom I represent.

I would like at this time to express my gratitude and appreciation to the former MLA for the old riding of Fort George, Mr. Howard Lloyd, who worked very hard on behalf of our riding, which is now served by two members.

[ Page 8 ]

It's a privilege to sit with all members of this House, who share a common bond in service to the people of British Columbia.

On behalf of the members of the assembly, Mr. Speaker, may I extend to you a warm welcome and congratulations upon your election to such high office. May I also offer my congratulations to the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) on his re-election as Deputy Speaker. We are fortunate to have two such dedicated and capable members in positions of authority and trust in our House.

Congratulations are in order for our Premier in leading our party to victory, to all members of our caucus, to those members of the opposition who were re-elected, and to those who are members of this House for the first time.

The speech delivered from the throne to the members of the fourth session of the thirty-first parliament, and reaffirmed yesterday in the first session of the thirty-second parliament, clearly sets forth an ambitious social program with high priority to denticare and long-term care for senior citizens, and the commitment to eliminate discrimination in setting car insurance rates. Everyone should start on an equal basis, with benefits to those with a good driving record. I'm delighted to read that age and geographic location will no longer be a factor in determining premiums. Our young people have the right to be assessed on an equal basis.

The denticare program is of critical importance. With encouragement and guidance from the dental profession, we in British Columbia continue to be pioneers in the field of health care. We're all aware of the high cost associated with denticare, and it is our collective responsibility to help those who are precluded from access to dental hygiene because they are without the financial means.

His Honour made reference to the fact that a number of collective agreements in the private and the public sectors will open for negotiation this year. He expressed optimism that all parties will find accord and satisfaction in the collective bargaining process.

His Honour made reference to the fact that a number of collective agreements in the private and private sectors will open for negotiation this year. He expressed optimism that all parties will find accord and satisfaction in the collective bargaining process, a system which in an industrialized society cannot be undermined and which is still the most effective method for arriving at fair settlements. I would ask that the members on both sides of this assembly join with the government in wishing well those who'll be employed in negotiations and in affirming the faith of this assembly in the wisdom of free collective bargaining.

What is sometimes forgotten is that the process is such that it accommodates both discord and harmony of the parties as they strive to each a fair and equitable settlement. Perhaps we sometimes tend to emphasize the discord and fail to recognize it as an essential step in the progress toward that harmony we all desire.

This government has been accused in the past — and unfairly accused, in my estimation — of impatience with collective bargaining. The comments of His Honour in the throne speech yesterday make it clear that this government carries no brief that contradicts or threatens the collective bargaining process. The policy of this government is to support that process; that is its policy and it continues to be its policy. The Essential Services Disputes Act is not an Act to suppress the labour movement in this province; if it were, industrial chaos would ensue. The trade union movement has a long and courageous history. Collective bargaining is still the most effective method for arriving at settlements between labour and management.

Mr. Speaker, there is a feeling of optimism and a climate of confidence in our province. The response from the private sector during the last year is the best indicator. Capital expansion programs announced by the forest industry now exceed $1.6 billion, and announcements in the oil, gas and mineral industries are now approaching $1 billion. The impact on our economy will be significant both in new construction and permanent employment. To those who have made such a positive commitment to British Columbia, we trust that you will continue to have confidence in our province. The government's positive record of development and accomplishment is evident everywhere and all within a balanced budget. Most important of all, services to the people of British Columbia have increased as rapidly as our resources have permitted.

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to tell you something of the new riding of Prince George North. This riding incorporates the older portion of the city of Prince George and proceeds northward to include the district municipality of Mackenzie, and further north to include Fort Ware. Prince George is the entrance to the north and a major distribution centre for all points east, west, north and south. I have the privilege of representing a riding which consists of a great cross-section of people who ask for fair representation and their right to be considered and to participate in all governmental programs. The riding of Prince George North contains a large industrial base: five pulp mills, soon to be six; ten major sawmills, soon to be twelve; and an oil refinery. Each of these industries, all of which are resource oriented, provide substantial employment. With the announcement of a major pulp mill expansion to commence this fall, a capital program in the order of $150 million, Prince George North's industrial base is enlarged and new citizens will take advantage of the special and unique amenities which our community offers. Some secondary industry will add a stabilizing influence to our economy.

A major sawmill to incorporate the latest technology has now been committed. Some of the financial help will come from the B.C. Development Corporation with the encouragement of our Minister of Economic Development, the hon. member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips), together with the joint efforts of our government, the city of Prince George and the CNR. Those plans should be a reality within one year and, I might add, with some additional help from the Minister of Environment, the hon. member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair).

It is with the help of our government and wise planning by our city that we are able to provide residential lots for our citizens at a realistic price, where everyone has the opportunity to own a home and the land on which it is built. The right of individual ownership should never be surrendered to government.

The district municipality of Mackenzie is also within the riding of Prince George North; it's 120 miles north of the city. Our government must continue to encourage industrial development there as it has in the past. A recent announcement has been made involving capital expenditures involving something in the order of $36 million,

[ Page 9 ]

which will see the construction of a major new sawmill and expansion to an existing pulp mill.

The population of the municipality is now pushing 7,000. What is important to achieve is a population approaching 10,000 people, and it's for a very important reason. We in the north with instant towns sometimes have a great deal of difficulty in providing all of the services. They cost money and the people are patient, but they do require some consideration from time to time. A town begins to reach maturity, and with that maturity and that population base comes economic stability. Residential permanence, which is critical to us, and a wide variety of social, professional and commercial services and a stronger provincial presence are going to be required — and an improved social environment so that those who provide those professional services, the doctors and the teachers, will remain as residents on a long-term basis and take an active part in the organized growth of this community. More is required than coming into areas like this to serve an apprenticeship and putting in a certain amount of time.

I wish to recognize the efforts of the hon. member for Cariboo, the Minister for Transportation, Communications and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who over the past two and one half years has directed our government on a highways improvement program between the cities of Prince George and Mackenzie on the John Hart Highway. Transportation is critical to all of us in the north. I repeat: transportation is critical to all of us in the north. More must be done and I'm sure that it will be.

Our government has made a commitment for construction on the new Foothills Bridge in the city of Prince George to span the Nechako River, as well as an overpass at each end of the old Fraser Bridge. It is my duty as a member to remind the government of this commitment.

While we realize the importance of transportation and industrial development — it is essential to the growth and progress of our riding, everyone acknowledges that — let us not forget that social services are the most important function of government. In our riding the programs initiated by the Minister of Health, the hon. member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland), relating to health services in the city of Prince George have been most encouraging. Our hospital serves as a regional referral centre. A capital program for health services has blossomed in the last two years. Last month a modern extended care unit was opened attached to the hospital. A health unit clinic is now under construction and should be completed this fall, and the construction of new surgical facilities commenced last month. This is a program which will probably embark on a two-year construction time-frame — $24 million when all phases are completed.

There is one item which must be addressed. There is an operating deficit problem. But this can be resolved, and the government's making provisions for this. It is not hiding from that responsibility; it acknowledges it and says we're going to do something.

We do have excellent health care facilities, our government responds to the needs of our community, and we did need some help. And it will respond to the need for a new senior citizens' home, presently in the initial planning stages, which hopefully will be financed under the new federal-provincial housing agreement announced by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, the hon. member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot).

A major thrust must be made to expand and improve the College of New Caledonia. This is a regional college serving a very large area: Vanderhoof, Fraser Lake, Burns Lake, Houston to the west; Quesnel and Williams Lake to the south; Mackenzie to the north; and the greater Prince George area including all of the small towns and villages between the centres mentioned — and let us remember we must provide services and regional centres for those people. A students' residence must be made a top priority, together with funds to provide leasehold improvements on the top level of the college building. We can and must provide accommodation for those who wish to work and live in the central Interior and the north, and we must recognize the major contribution young people with vocational and technical skills make in our community. We need and depend on those skills.

Mr. Speaker, our government has a fine record of providing social services and stimulating our economy. The throne speech deals with those principles and objectives; it contains a real balance.

We refer to social programs: the assistance to our senior citizens; assistance to the handicapped and the disadvantaged; and a proposed denticare program, which is going to be an expensive item, but we have a commitment to that program.

There are a number of financial concerns: the introduction of a fair compensation statute — this is long, long overdue; the elimination of discrimination in car insurance rates; and the accountability of the government to all the people of British Columbia, through quarterly financial statements and the appointment of an Auditor-General. I want you to know that I was pleased to see on my desk, when I arrived, a copy of that report. It was done.

On the subject of red tape and deregulation, with the introduction of the repeal of obsolete statutes Act, and a concern about the impact of excessive red tape and removal of barriers to individual freedom and individual initiative....

I'm delighted with the policy on natural resources, a policy to retain management and control of natural resources owned by the province of British Columbia.

Under energy, there are plans to develop hydroelectric power and wood waste as an energy source in the forest industry. We do not have to consider nuclear power to meet our energy requirements.

Under the economy, Mr. Speaker, our government has confidence in the job the private sector can do by encouraging initiative and providing opportunity. Our government acknowledges the private sector and the tremendous contribution it makes to the prosperity of British Columbia. Our government has placed the rights and responsibilities of the individual and the opportunity to grow right up front. Let the private sector grow. We will regulate when necessary so it is fair to all. It is the private sector that creates the wealth of the nation, and it is with that wealth we will successfully implement the social programs we all want.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, if I could, perhaps I will just take a moment to introduce my wife Audrey and my daughter Susan, who are in the gallery today.

It is indeed an honour to be granted the opportunity to second this Speech from the Throne. Like the hon. member for Prince George North, I am very pleased and proud to be here, and proud to become a part of this great tradition. I

[ Page 10 ]

would like to support very strongly the congratulations that were extended to yourself and to the Deputy Speaker. This House is indeed fortunate that you are willing to continue serving in this important capacity.

May I also, through you, Mr. Speaker, extend congratulations to our Premier for his most important victory in this election, both personal and party. I say "very important victory" because it does allow the province to move ahead in the positive direction which has been established. My congratulations go also to all hon. members who were elected to this thirty-second parliament, both those in the government caucus and those members of the opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to, on behalf of the members here assembled, extend recognition to all the candidates who were not elected at this time. They too are a very important part of our democratic process, and it behooves us to acknowledge their significant contributions and their personal sacrifices, particularly since they were not rewarded as we are here.

To those who were previously members of this House, I feel certain that their services to the people of this province are recognized and appreciated, and, of course, I refer to the members who were not re-elected. Here I would like to include Mr. Ed Smith, who is known to some of you as the member who for many years represented his constituency and the people of this province. I wish him well.

It may seem presumptuous for a new member like myself to be addressing comments, and congratulations to members who were in this House before, but I do feel reasonably comfortable in saying to those newly elected like myself that I hope you share with me the excitement and the genuine pride in having been given this opportunity to become a part of this Legislative Assembly. Like myself, you are probably quite awed by the majestic surroundings, as well as by the great responsibility which is suddenly ours. If I may again risk being presumptuous, I sincerely hope that those members who are returning here have rekindled their original aspirations and hopes and that they too are excited and will share with us newcomers the enthusiasm which comes from faith and idealism.

Despite our divergent views regarding policies and methods, we have nevertheless been charged by the people of British Columbia with the responsibility of managing their affairs to their greatest advantage. I hope the political campaigning can be set aside for a while so that we can, as stated by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, get on with our legislative duties on behalf of the people of British Columbia with good will and diligence.

His Honour has given us in clear and concise terms the directions which we are to take. I took forward to the task ahead of us. I feel eager, enthused and excited, for we are living in exciting times.

Never has opportunity been greater for those of us who are in this position. Practically at the touch of a button, we have access to the wisdom of the ages as well as to modern science and technology. This gives us a research capability which I hope we can couple with common sense and good intent in order to provide for the greatest good of our present and future generations.

I trust that all members of this assembly share my optimism for the future. Really, mankind has the means to do what is beneficial and good. We need only the faith, the intent and the willingness to work together in that cause.

I am pleased to be a member of the team that forms this government. It is a good feeling to be a member of a party that stands by its principles and has the courage to stay with policies which are best in the long run, even if it means living with moves that are somewhat unpopular in the short term.

In 1975 our Premier and his colleagues recognized the need to establish financial stability and good economic management if ever we hope to realize the benefits and advantages that this wonderful province has the potential to provide.

We are blessed with a land rich in many resources, with a people who are imaginative and basically industrious, surrounded by a country and a world that is hungry for our products.

This government chose to restore opportunities and initiative to people, to the individuals in our society, in the firm belief that through private enterprise all our people would in the long run derive the greatest benefit. It took some time, but as confidence was restored development began to accelerate. We were just beginning to reap the benefits this past year or so.

When good management is in operation, when money is being generated by industry, when government revenues are increasing as a result of genuine productivity and when government can add facilities and programs from cash on hand instead of by using extensive borrowed money, then and only then can services to people be dramatically increased without saddling our next generation with massive debts.

Many services have been added in the past few years and many more are in the planning stage now. The hon. member for Prince George North (Mr. Heinrich) has already referred to a number of the proposed government programs, so I will not take your time by reiterating them. There is reference to them also in the throne speech. I feel certain that you will soon be hearing a great deal more about these programs when the budget is presented. But I think it must be pointed out at this time that extensive services to people are being added, while at the same time taxes are being reduced. This approach has to stand as a dynamic testimonial to the advantages of sound financial management and good government.

The policy of this government has been to provide the proper climate for industry and incentives for individuals with initiative. Industry and small business have responded by creating the greatest development that this province has ever seen. And the benefits have only begun to accrue to all the people of this province and will increasingly continue to accrue. Admittedly, not everyone has yet realized this. There still are and probably always will be some detractors who believe that big government can run our lives better than we can ourselves. We must keep in mind that every time people ask government to look after some part of their lives, they in effect surrender a little more of their personal freedom to that government.

We do need opportunities that can only be created by government. There are services that are best provided by government. We need a stable climate so that we can plan ahead in the full knowledge that we will at least have the opportunity to realize our plans, our dreams and our ambitions, but we must retain control over our own lives.

This thought was so ably expressed by His Honour in the throne speech of March 22 of this year when he said:

[ Page 11 ]

"The ultimate freedom and security of Canadians rests on the right and responsibility of individuals to guide their own destiny." I am so pleased that this is an avowed and steadfast principle of this government.

I would like to refer briefly to the one area which has been of vital concern to me for most of my life: that is the field of education. Because education is paid for entirely by the public, in one way or another it is of direct concern to everybody. Because everybody has been directly involved in education, everyone can claim to be a critic on the basis of that experience. Add to that the fact that education is so complex that even the highly trained experts tend to operate more on the basis of personal bias than they would like anyone to believe. Finally, education does require a massive system to deliver it to the public. There is always a danger that a large system can become self-serving.

A good education today, in my view, as through the ages, is still dependent, in the final analysis, on what goes on between the pupil and the teacher in the classroom.

I did not want to spend time elaborating today, but I want to introduce this thought because I know that sooner or later we will be discussing the topic of education. When we do get into our profound deliberations on this topic, perhaps the honourable members will consider what the real issues are.

Also, I would like to make the point that we cannot safely always generalize when it comes to education. For instance, we do not have a declining enrolment problem in the North Peace River riding. We have a concern for adding facilities to keep up with the growing population. Of course, that growing population is based on the boom we have there.

I will resist the urge to expand any further on education, because it would come fairly easy. I would ask the indulgence of yourself and the members just to say a few words about my constituency of North Peace River.

North Peace River riding is a wonderful place to be, particularly since this election has turned out as it did. There, perhaps better than anywhere else in this province, the advantages of free enterprise are self-evident, and have been for the past three or three and a half years. We are in the midst of an unprecedented building and development boom. Just to illustrate this point, let me use one example: in Fort St. John, building permits in 1975 were approximately 4 million; in 1976 they went up to about 9 million; in 1977, up to 13 million; and in 1978, more than 35 million. It is expected to top 50 million in 1979. That pattern is indicative of what is happening in the area. It's going throughout the area, and in Fort Nelson and Hudson Hope as well. The boom has been — if I may be allowed a pun — fuelled by the gas and oil industry. It has also been supported and abetted by progress in the lumbering, agriculture, mining and tourism industries, as well as the hydro developments.

Unfortunately, even though the North Peace River riding is geographically one of the largest in the province, even though my riding produces a large share of provincial revenue, even though we supply a great deal of the electricity and most of the natural gas used in this province, it is difficult to get widespread recognition throughout British Columbia. We're too far away from the major centres to be recognized widely by the press. The Rocky Mountains seem to present a barrier. To many people we are on the other side of the mountains. You may have heard the expression "perhaps beyond Hope. " We certainly got a minimum of British Columbia news and news background. This is a very sensitive point in the riding. Something has to be done to improve communication channels between the rest of British Columbia and northeastern British Columbia.

This government has certainly recognized our area and, together with the South Peace River riding, our able Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) has helped a great deal to focus attention on northeastern British Columbia. But we have a long way to go to get recognition from the general public. This recognition is very important to us, not to flatter our egos — we do not need that. Many decisions affecting us are made by people outside our region. For that reason it is important that others become knowledgeable about the northeastern areas.

I will use just one example to illustrate this concern. If you are following the local papers, our Minister of Education, Science and Technology (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has been severely criticized in the press for his statement that we are short of skilled tradesmen. His critic, from Vancouver of course, implied that there is a surplus of unemployed skilled tradesmen. This could well be, but the minister is very correct if we judge on the basis of our experience in the northern areas. Where are these skilled people? Why are they unemployed when employers in the north are practically begging for skilled tradesmen and professional people? These people must prefer to be unemployed rather than go where the work is.

We can be thankful, Mr. Speaker, that the extension of the community colleges system to the outlying areas is making it possible to train our own people, who are likely to stay in our area and who can and do see the many advantages of living in the north. I wonder how many people here, or in this area, know that in the North Peace riding and Fort St. John at least two years out of every four we have more hours of sunshine than Victoria — and we certainly have a greater variety in our climate.

Let me continue, Mr. Speaker, with the following observation. This government has, on an increasing scale, been recognizing some of the problems unique to our area. We have been getting more help with roads, water and sewer systems, recreational facilities, hospitals and medical facilities, social services, educational services and so on. I would, however, like to remind the government — and all other members who do influence important decisions in this parliament — that, because of our accelerated growth, we do need some extra attention for a while in order to provide the facilities and the amenities we need in order to attract skilled and professional people to our area, people who will come and who will stay. This is not asking for a handout; this is an investment. The more investment that the producing areas of the north get, the greater the revenue to the government, and that in turn will benefit all people in this province.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents in the North Peace riding have given me a strong mandate to represent them here in Victoria. They have put a great deal of faith in me to present their case to this assembly. It is a grave and serious responsibility, and I know I can count on the consideration and the support of this House. In conclusion I would like to use this opportunity to sincerely thank my constituents for the opportunity they have provided to me by electing me to represent them. And, again, my thanks to this government for giving me the honour to second this Speech from the

[ Page 12 ]

Throne. I hope to serve well both my constituency and this Legislature.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour today to rise as a member of this Legislature. I have been an active follower of the proceedings of this House for some years; but it is with particular pride that I rise today as a representative of the riding of Victoria. I wish to thank Victorians for the confidence they expressed in me in the election. I will endeavour, over the next months and years, to represent these people to the best of my ability.

I would also like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of congratulating you on your appointment as Speaker, and similarly the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) as Deputy Speaker. I would also like to make a comment and pay tribute to my predecessor in the riding of Victoria, Sam Bawlf. He made a great contribution to raising the awareness of the heritage resources of this city.

As an archaeologist I intend over the next while to expand and extend the consciousness and awareness of the heritage resources of our capital city and I hope to increase the awareness of British Columbians in general about our past. It may come as a surprise to many people that Captain Cook didn't actually discover British Columbia; there have been people living here for 10,000 and probably more years, with rich cultures and rich traditions; and anyone visiting the Provincial Museum on the third floor is well aware of a hint of that richness.

As you know, I have an excellent colleague in Victoria, who was elected in 1975 and has served this riding diligently since that time.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Name names, he suggests, Mr. Speaker.

We intend to put our diverse backgrounds and experience and training together to form a team to service this riding to the best of our ability.

There are many pressing problems in British Columbia, and there are many pressing problems in this city. High unemployment — it's the highest unemployment of any western Canadian city. The cost of living is particularly high, amplified by the fact, that we live on an island. Foreign ownership is another pressing problem that has an impact on Victoria, as well as an impact on our province at large.

But the subject I would like to touch upon today.... Upon reading the throne speech, I note with pleasure, as many citizens do in this province, that the Lieutenant-Governor has reminded us that the government intends to introduce a bill of rights to ensure fundamental freedoms for all citizens in this province.

All of us are very conscious of one of the most precious fundamental freedoms: that is the individual's right to exercise his or her franchise as we have just come out of a provincial election and a federal election. I must admit to some misgivings regarding the commitment of this present government to the guarantee of the basic right of the franchise. We all know that in the last provincial election tens of thousands of British Columbians were disfranchised and were unable to vote in this last election.

In my own riding of Victoria, the very fact that we had a federal and a provincial election going on simultaneously meant that we could compare the procedures in place for the voter registration. We know that in some polls in Victoria up to 50 percent of the people registered to vote federally were not registered to vote provincially.

We have figures for Victoria on the number of unopened ballots. These are ballots cast by people who believe that they have been enumerated and have been registered to vote. The ballots left unopened due to the fact that they were not on the list, or had not completed the affidavit, moved from a figure in 1975 of 1,100 to a figure today in this last election of 2,600.

This figure does not include the thousands and thousands and thousands of people who know they were disfranchised, who know they were not on the list and did not go and swear an affidavit. My misgivings are that the tenor of the election and the election procedures are not in the spirit of democracy.

The very fact of calling an election, a provincial election, during a federal election, I believe, was to amplify confusion among the voters of British Columbia and strain an already outmoded registration system beyond its limits. The Victoria Times and the Colonist and the Vancouver Express all carried stories titled "Enumeration Horror Stories." A mailman delivered 12 cards to a woman who lives alone in a James Bay apartment, her own card and 11 others for previous tenants long departed. Cards delivered for previous tenants, disfranchisement through loss of cards, putting the registration commitment cards or confirmation cards out on the 15 cents mail instead of the 17 cents mail so that they would be delayed or they were delayed: I wouldn't be cynical enough to imply that that was done on purpose; it was obviously a mistake. The Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who unfortunately is absent, knows the magnitude of the disfranchisement of which I am speaking and has commented since the election that this must be corrected. That will be heartily endorsed by our party.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I do not want to give the House the impression that these misgivings derive from bitterness or that they derive from a conclusion that the results of the election in terms of the proportion of seats is incorrect. That is not my intention. I raise these matters, and indeed have chosen to use this subject in my first address in this House, because the democratic parliamentary process is important to me. It is important to the people of Victoria. It is important to the citizens of this province.

The mismanagement and abuse of this process, through the procedures in operation during the last election, violate the foundations of our society upon which everything else, cultural and economic, depends. The word "democracy" means that power should rest with the people, and that people therefore should rule. Democracy does not mean rule by cabinet order-in-council, which is a disturbing trend in this Legislature. Nor does it mean calling an election and having ministers proceed through this province dispatching and disbursing public funds on the proviso that they are returned to government. The first principle of democracy is that an individual is an end in himself, and that the state is to serve the well-being of the individual. I think the Premier would agree with me if that is consistent with the kinds of remarks he has made through the campaign.

[ Page 13 ]

But the Premier knows that the party I represent is founded on democratic principles, and the solutions that we seek are to be sought democratically. Why then, Mr. Speaker, would the Premier allow his party to take out advertisements during the campaign stating that "The New Democratic Party does not want you to vote" when he knows that is patently false?

You know, Mr. Speaker, that the winning of the vote for native Indians and for Asian people in this country was won through the struggle of the CCF, the precursor of the NDP. No one in this House would want to disfranchise any people now on the basis of race or religion. Why should we now disfranchise on the basis of neglect and shoddy election procedures?

I really don't care to mention this at this time, but I'm going to just remark on it. I really did not appreciate, nor did the people of my party appreciate, the comment linking our party with national socialism. What I want to see, Mr. Speaker, and what all of the people of this province want to see is an electoral system that will provide people with the right — the most basic right of all — to vote and to fashion their own destiny through choosing a government of their choice. It should be easy to vote. No one should be disfranchised because they are elderly, infirm, because they are in hospital, because they are a shut-in, because there are too few polls. We don't know what is in the Eckardt commission report. We know there are six volumes. You can understand that our party has some reservations about the initial recommendations which were acted upon which did away with the seats of three of my colleagues, who, I'm very happy to announce, are here today.

I'm looking forward to my time in this Legislature, and I am anxious to work cooperatively with all members of this House. I thank you.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, at the outset let me say that I would be remiss if I did not offer my most sincere best wishes to you, sir, and to the hon. member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder). My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that you and the hon. member for Chilliwack serve the office of Speaker in an outstanding manner, and to you and the hon. member for Chilliwack my congratulations on your election to this most high office.

I would also commend to you, Mr. Speaker, and to this assembly that His Honour's speech, a masterpiece of brevity, was most abundant in content and dealt with many superb items of legislation, items that clearly indicate a continuation of the excellent government that British Columbia has enjoyed for the past three and a half years.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to His Honour's comments concerning the high priority that will be given to programs for senior, citizens, let me say that it is with pride that I applaud such priorities. Concern for the senior citizens of our province is something that is foremost in my mind and should be foremost in the minds of all of us. Senior citizens are cherished members of our communities, and their efforts, which were on our behalf, must be rewarded. It is maybe with a bit of self-interest that we look forward to programs for senior citizens. Becoming a senior citizen is something to look forward to, especially when one considers the alternative.

Mr. Speaker, His Honour, and the member for Prince George North, spoke to a host of outstanding items. On behalf of the new constituency of Prince George South, I wish to address two of these items.

First let me say that I was most encouraged to hear His Honour's remarks indicating the confidence in fair and proper labour negotiations for this coming year. Prince George South is highly dependent on a good labour atmosphere, and I would commend to you that in the very vital woods industry we have enjoyed industrial peace since 1953. That's 26 years, Mr. Speaker, which clearly indicates the good faith that exists between labour and industry. Needless to say, I am most encouraged by His Honour's confidence in right and proper labour relations. As the member for Prince George South, I assure you that the continuation of good labour relations is an item that will be foremost in my deliberations as a member of this Legislative Assembly.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I applaud His Honour for the insight shown with respect to the use of wood waste as an energy source. I am pleased to submit, sir, that in Prince George there exist many firms who are pioneering techniques that will maximize the bio-mass potential. On behalf of these industries, I applaud the considerations that will be given by our government to the efficient use of wood waste as an energy source.

In closing I would be remiss if I did not publicly acknowledge the tremendous efforts of our former member, Howard Lloyd. Mr. Lloyd served Fort George in an exemplary manner, and it is with pride as well as humility that I accept the responsibility to carry on for Mr. Lloyd.

Peripherally to these comments, let me say on behalf of Prince George South how pleased I am with the June 1978 report by Justice Eckardt which gave the citizens of our north central Interior two members as opposed to one. I now have the privilege of representing the west part of the city of Prince George, the many vital communities east along the Fraser River from Prince George and the vibrant communities of Valemont and McBride.

Mr. Speaker, again my best wishes to you and to all members of this thirty-second parliament.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, before the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew begins, I think it would be important to point out that this is not his maiden speech. But since he has been absent for some time, perhaps we could extend him the courtesy normally extended new members.

MR. MITCHELL: I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker on their election.

I would like to reminisce a little. As the Deputy Speaker stated, it is not my first time here. In 1951 when I first arrived I was sitting down with a band of eight farther down. I was going to resent the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy), who has taken my seat and won't give it up. It's been a lot of fun watching the change. As I look around, there are not many left who were here when I was here. In fact, I'm the only one.

I must take this opportunity to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on the period when he was government, and the change that he made in this hall. I remember looking around in the old days, and it was very grubby. Since the restoration of the parliament buildings under the Leader of the Opposition there have been many changes.

[ Page 14 ]

In my first speech I remember I was talking on important things like construction and the training of tradesmen — the craft of plastering was very important to me in those days — and I very elegantly said: "Look up at the beautiful plaster." And I looked up and I saw all the young ladies up there, and I was speechless. For those who haven't looked around at our building, they are very well dressed.

Why am I here? I think it is important to this House and to the province of British Columbia why this side of the House went from 18 members to 26 members. This is an issue that must be faced by this government. We are here because you did not service my riding and many parts of British Columbia.

What was the campaign issue? The issue today is still what it was when we campaigned, and that was lack of jobs and the inflation which this government has not faced. These are the issues that we campaigned on and these are the issues that must be faced by this parliament. The second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) said that in his riding there were 11.4 percent unemployed when the campaign started. That is why we are here today.

I know that I will be bringing up many examples in estimates, but there are certain issues that I feel that this House and the government must recognize. My riding is a growing bedroom riding of the greater Victoria area. We have what is commonly called the western community of Colwood, Langford, Metchosin, Happy Valley. We have an area that is growing: houses, subdivisions, apartments, townhouses. What do we need in a growing bedroom community? We need transportation. There has not been one improvement in transportation since 1975 when the NDP first took buses out to that area. With all the modern technology that we have today in the styles of buses — dial-a-bus has been innovated in many parts of Canada — not one change has been made in the western community. I say that government must face that issue; they cannot continue to slough it off to the municipalities and add a three-cent-a-gallon tax to gasoline for something we are not getting. And I say to this government we will talk more about it in estimates, but they must face that issue.

Also in my community I have a forest company, the Sooke Forest Products Ltd. It is situated in the logging capital of Canada, and according to the Pearse royal commission on logging it is one of the most highly efficient logging mills in this area. We have the situation in this mill where they cannot get logs for that job. They are forced to import logs from Port Angeles. I say it is a disgrace that any community must be denied the actual raw materials that are part and parcel of British Columbia. The logging industry of this area must be guaranteed logs for its operation. It is not only something that is in my area. When I first announced it and complained about it in the campaign, I received phone calls from Penticton, up north and from many areas whose mills are being slowly squeezed out by the monopoly corporations that control the timber in the northern and local areas of British Columbia. I am calling on the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) to make some arrangements to negotiate with the companies who have control of the timber and who have the forest licenses so that the local mills are guaranteed a supply of logs to keep everyone working.

There's another section that I would like to bring up for the Consumer and Corporate Affairs ministry. I would like to see the minister (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) institute an inquiry into some of the shoddy practices that are taking place in the construction industry in the rural areas. We have contractors and construction companies setting up, building a lot of AHOP homes, selling them with guarantees to complete them and then the companies are going broke, and the consumer is left with a half-finished, shoddy building. Then they move on and they are setting up in another town or another area under a different name. I am asking for the Consumer and Corporate Affairs ministry to study this; to bring in some recommendations and regulations to protect the consumers of British Columbia. This is not only happening in my riding; it is happening in many ridings.

I would like to comment shortly on the throne speech. I know there are many recommendations coming up and I'll have opportunities to discuss them, but I would like to state now that in the throne speech where we have a recommendation of dental care that that dental care be all-inclusive, and it be at least the minimum of dental care that is afforded to the MLAs of the province of British Columbia.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring one more thing to the attention of this House, and that is the problem that came up during the election concerning the recommendation that the oil tank farms in Victoria be moved out to View Royal. The oil tank farms in Victoria are a danger in a built-up community and may pollute the harbour. Every one of the arguments that has been made by the provincial government — which has the control of the land — for telling the companies to move these tank farms from the Victoria harbour is just as imperative in Esquimalt. We will not sit back and have the problems of Victoria moved into the riding that I represent. And I say, Mr. Speaker, through you to the government, that if they want to move these farms they study the problems, and that they properly place the farms in an area where they will not pollute a harbour and where they will not ruin the developing industrial area, the rural area and private lands and estuaries in the lower Esquimalt harbour.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one final observation. When I first came to this House, I guess we were at the height of women's lib, because in the House at that time we had the one and only lady Speaker. When the nominations were coming forward in the beginning of this House, I was kind of hoping that maybe my return would have brought a lady — and I was suggesting the lady from North Okanagan — either as a Speaker or as the deputy. I sincerely recommend to this House that maybe — not that I have anything against the deputy — certain procedures can come back, that we can revive a little of the women's lib that we had in 1951.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate you and, of course, the member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) on your election to your eminent office. Your ability as Speakers include your happy faculty of being able to introduce humour at the right time and to resolve some of the impasses which might otherwise hold up the business of this House. I think both of you are very well suited to the Speaker's job. I'm very glad you are back here and I know that all the other members are as well, so congratulations.

I'd like also to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Speech from the Throne, the members for Prince George North (Mr. Heinrich) and North Peace River (Mr.

[ Page 15 ]

Brummet). I've been present during the reading of many Speeches from the Throne and I've heard many movers and seconders make their presentations. I think the presentations today are the best that I've heard and I do congratulate those members for their contribution here today.

I want to say a few words about energy during the few minutes I have here in the House today, but I would also like to be quite concrete in my recommendations in that connection. I believe that we in this province — indeed we in Canada, but particularly we in this province — have an opportunity to in a very positive way help solve the energy problems not only of our own area but of this part of North America. There are things that we can do that are safe environmentally, safe from an economic point of view and wise from a good management point of view, which will help solve the problems of shortages for our people and for our neighbours. Personally I think the biggest problem — the biggest challenge that faces us all, currently at least — is inflation, and next to that unemployment, but I would put the energy challenge as one of the first five challenges facing the people of this continent and indeed of the world. It is a problem which can be solved with good judgment and certainly good neighbourliness.

I would like to read again the two paragraphs that appeared in the Speech from the Throne. I agree with every word in them. I'd like to read them again, however, for emphasis and introduction to my brief remarks that follow:

"British Columbia is fortunate in having the traditional options of hydro, thermal coal and petroleum hydrocarbons as energy sources. To this, there can be added newer options of solar and geothermal energy in which my government is taking an active interest.

"In addition, my government, in cooperation with the forest industry, has underway major initiatives with respect to the use of wood waste as an energy source. We are fortunate that we do not have to consider nuclear power as one of the options necessary to meet our energy requirements. My government, however, shares the concern of many British Columbians at developments in the nuclear field taking place outside our borders."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Now I agree with everything that is said there. We have conventional resources, safe resources. We have a lot of hydroelectric capability that has yet to be harnessed and can be harnessed, providing, of course, we look after our environment in the process. We have an abundance of thermal coal, and using conventional means we can produce electricity and, indeed, gas in that way if we're ever short of natural gas. We have natural gas; our main problem is oil.

We have wood wastes. We've other wastes which are not being used, which are becoming an eyesore, an environmental hazard in themselves. We've coal wastes in the Kootenays currently. Those coal wastes are accumulating — unsightly mountains in the Rocky Mountain area. We should be using those wastes now. We should be using also any surplus water we have and selling those wastes in the form of electricity to our neighbours as long as we do not have a need for them.

I believe we have a great opportunity to export energy productively. It will help us in the plants to convert that energy, that raw material into electricity. It can later be used by ourselves. In the meantime we have surpluses which we can't use — surpluses which, in a number of instances, such as the waste coal in the Kootenays, constitute an environmental hazard, certainly an environmental eyesore. And we can do this.

To the south of us, particularly in the U.S. Pacific Northwest, they have developed their resources. They have harnessed virtually all their hydro power. They have little coal, and they are having to turn to nuclear energy. We can postpone this move toward nuclear energy by exporting some of our surplus power, some of our surplus electricity, in a manner that's useful to us and, indeed, helpful to them. I think that in asking them at least to postpone their plans to build nuclear plants, particularly plants close to our boundaries, that we in the long run will not only be doing ourselves a favour, but helping them as well.

We've hydro resources in abundance. The Revelstoke Canyon Dam is being built now and it will carry us for some years into the future. We've got a project possible at Murphy Creek near Trail which does not constitute an environmental hazard and which could be built economically as the next project. There are others, particularly on the Peace River, which can be developed. Site C is an example. But again, there is an environmental problem. There are the vast resources on the Liard and other northern rivers, and with modern development in long-distance transmission, they will, in their good time, come into focus and be developed. They have to be brought in in large blocks, and there will be surpluses from time to time. We can sell these surpluses conveniently. We must sell them at arm's length prices. We must be insistent that we get the true economic value for those resources. We can develop them in cooperation with our neighbours and to our own advantage. We must remember that Canada has often been a major importer. British Columbia has often been a major importer of energy. Historically, coal was exported from Vancouver Island to California for a time. We depended on oil from California from before the turn of the century till the 1950s. We imported electricity from the Bonneville Power Administration network, on and off, over many years from the 1930s onward. We've been neighbours in the sense of importers from the U.S. Pacific Northwest and California, as well as exporters to those areas. Today we export natural gas. But we bring oil into British Columbia now from Alberta. It is to be hoped we don't have to depend on other sources in the future. We cannot hope always to be totally self-sufficient at all times. But if we cooperate, and particularly work with our neighbours to the south, we can sell surpluses — indeed surpluses which are of no use to us now but which can be of use to them — and in the future count on their cooperation.

AN HON. MEMBER: And never shut it off.

MR. DAVIS: The honourable member mentions never shutting it off. We have exported electricity from Niagara Falls, for example, and shut it off. We have exported electricity from various parts of Canada — Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia — and imported at times, and increasingly as their networks grow and their

[ Page 16 ]

power developments grow, our small export contributions have amounted to as little recently as 1 or 2 percent of their total energy consumption.

This spectre of not being able to terminate an export is ridiculous. Historically, there are many examples of having done so. Clearly, we have to plan for a term. We have the provincial safeguards limiting the export to certain periods, the contracts particularly. We have the National Energy Board with its hearings granting permits. Those permits are either for a year or perhaps five years at a time. It may be necessary, in order to finance new plants, such as a thermal plant, a coal burning plant in the Kootenays, to have an export contract for 10 or 15 years. It all would be definitely scheduled in the total context of the energy networks of the Pacific northwest. It would be 1, 2 or 3 percent of their energy needs, less than a half a year's growth, for example. Neighbouring utilities have been in the practice, in the business of doing this sort of thing for many, many years, not only within the United States, not only within Canada, but internationally as well.

It is good business. A large plant is the most economic kind of plant in the long run. You build the large plant and sell your surplus during the period in which you have a limited requirement at home. Alternatively, the neighbouring utilities with whom you do business also will build large, have surpluses, and sell that surplus to you. That is the way the power systems have evolved across this continent, have evolved in Canada, and should evolve internationally.

I'm really only saying that if we are concerned about nuclear power developments just across the line in the United States, one of the ways of trying to deal with that situation is to offer to sell surplus energy, particularly waste energy — energy which is accumulating in the form of coal wastes in the Kootenays right now. Either B.C. Hydro or private enterprise should have an opportunity to convert that coal into electricity, upgrade it, in effect, upgrade it from a waste to something that is useful, sell it to our neighbours to the south for a term, repatriate it on a definite contract, a definite treaty-type schedule commitment, and have it for our own use when we need it. I mention the waste coals in the East Kootenays because there is not a water problem there. The pollution problem is minimal because those coals are very low in sulphur. There are no native land claim complications. It will also be a source of power in an area where we will have to build thermal plants for our own needs in the future. As far as local requirements are concerned, they can be met without doing additional transportation, additional transmission all the way across the province to serve that comer of the province.

I have dwelled on this subject because it is referred to specifically in the Speech from the Throne. Energy is a problem. It will be a problem. But there are great opportunities here, particularly in a province which has lake resources, and especially in a province which is generating wastes. It has flood waters. It has wood wastes from its many pulp and paper mills and sawmills. It has wastes from its metallurgical coal mining operations in the Kootenays, and perhaps elsewhere in the long run. We should convert those wastes into something useful to mankind, reduce the environmental problem locally in the process, and be good neighbours to our own advantage. In this case we might well be proposing to our neighbours in the United States that we sell them some of our waste energy — at the right price, but at less cost than they would otherwise have to encounter if they were building nuclear plants.

In closing, I would like to make reference to one line in the Speech from the Throne. It was to the effect that we don't need nuclear power now. We don't need it for several reasons, one of which is economic. Nuclear power plants cost between $1,200 and $2,000 a kilowatt to build, and their operating and fuel costs are over and above that. We can develop hydro in this province — vast amounts of hydro — from between $800 to $1,000 a kilowatt, considerably less than the capital costs of building nuclear plants, virtually all of the components of which would have to be brought in from eastern Canada and elsewhere. We can also generate electricity by burning coal in plants costing anywhere from $600 to $800 a kilowatt. They, of course, require fuelling and have labour and other operating costs.

We clearly have alternatives which are cheaper in this province. They are physically available to us. We don't need nuclear power for economic reasons. We don't need it for other reasons. I did want to underline this great opportunity which can be seized by British Columbians. I feel that in respect to energy, our affairs are in good hands. We have a great opportunity to be good neighbours as well as look after our own energy affairs in an efficient manner.

MR. HALL: It is nice to be back, and to pay my congratulations and my respects to you and to the Deputy Speaker, and to wish well to the new members, and, indeed, to add my congratulations to the government for having won the recent campaign.

I have some experience in elections, and I thought you might be interested to know that last week I was engaged in another election, more as an observer than as a participant, and I'll have a lot more to say about some of the aspects of that during the Provincial Secretary's estimates. But I was in the United Kingdom last week, engaged a little bit in the election for the Parliament of Europe. And I'm telling you, when you consider the numbers over there and the distances and all the rest of it, we've got a lot to learn — in terms of the production of a simple voters' list to begin with. I will have something to say about that to the Provincial Secretary at a later, date.

But in winding up this extended debate — it's the longest debate I've ever been in on the throne speech, I'm sure — for the opposition, I wanted to depart from any remarks by way of response or rebuttal to the government spokesmen for a few moments to adopt a perhaps more traditional role for a new member, or at least for a member for a new riding, and to say a couple of words about Surrey. I remember my maiden speech in this House some years ago, in which I spent a great deal of time talking about the then small riding of Surrey, and I would like to say a few things about the new riding.

It's a two-member riding, Mr. Speaker, as I'm sure you know. I think most of the province knows it's a two-member riding. I think most of the province knows that it's represented on either side of the House. It could be a watershed riding, or whatever phrase turns you on, but I'll tell you one thing: it's one of the largest ridings in the province. It's 125 square miles; it's four times the size of Vancouver, and even allowing for my partner's penchant

[ Page 17 ]

for travel, and mine, we aren't going to get around it as often as we would like to, because of the kind of tasks that have been given us in the formation of that riding. There are 100,000 voters. We were first told it was 135,000 voters. It took them a week to find out what the correct figure was, and eventually I got a letter of apology from the chief electoral officer and from the registrar of voters that they couldn't count either.

I hope that when the results are in from Atlin, we can get this thing to scale a little bit. With 100,000 voters, two members, four times larger than Vancouver, it's going to take 50,000 people to elect one MLA. I don't know what Surrey has done wrong to be so unrecognized, to be so under weighted. Is it what's happened in the last three years? It wasn't under weighted when I was over there, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: We represent people more than geography, old chap over there — whichever one it was.

MR. KEMPF: Have you ever been north of Cache Creek?

MR. HALL: Frequently, yes.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, though, that the riding was gerrymandered into existence, and all my smiles won't remove that sad fact. But that's exactly what happened. It was gerrymandered into existence. It's uneven; it's irrational; it's not in line with the other decisions that were made by that commissioner, and indeed by those members, or whoever the real architects of the bill and the Act and the commission report were. It's not in keeping with the decisions that were made on the north side of the river. The whole thing was gerrymandered from start to finish. It didn't produce the results that the architects wanted, and I think, more importantly, it has placed an absolutely unreal burden on the electoral machinery in Surrey.

It is impossible to tell you in the time at my disposal today of the kinds of problems that existed in a riding that big, with that many people, with the total lack of planning and lack of foresight that took place in the electoral machinery in the new riding of Surrey. I say, Mr. Speaker, with all the power I can command, that whoever designed that riding, whoever gerrymandered that particular seat in existence, in contradistinction to the decisions that were made elsewhere in the province, they should be ashamed of themselves. And those people who supported that bill should be ashamed of themselves as well.

Mr. Speaker, what of the election? Way back last April 3, in the longest free-time speech that I've ever seen, the Premier said he wanted a mandate. He wanted a mandate in the middle of a federal election to send a message, I don't think he knew the address to which he was supposed to send the message, but nevertheless he wanted to send a message regarding the resources of the province of British Columbia. He raised a straw-man issue, stating that the New Democratic Party would turn over the resources of this province to the federal government. He knew it was nonsense at the time. It was nonsense, it is nonsense, and it was never mentioned again after April 3. He didn't get his mandate. What he did get was a short, sharp kick in the estimates, and we've never heard of those issues again.

His second reason, as far as I can discern from reading that throne speech, which is going to be recycled, hopefully.... I think it's going to be recycled; that was the message we got yesterday. I'm waiting for my copy, Mr. Speaker, if you wouldn't mind. His second reason that I can find is that he wanted to clear the air so that we could get on with the business of the province. He said that the temperature in here was too high, there was too much fighting, too much politics, too much bad temper. I thought that was what was supposed to happen in here: politics and a little bit of fighting, a little bit of debate, a little bit of discussion.

MR. BARRETT: Politics in this chamber!

MR. HALL: Political politics, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, the worst kind. Remember those? Terrible. He wanted to get on with the business of the province. I'm going to be reminding him of getting on with the business of the province in the next few weeks and months, because I don't think he's got any business ready. I don't think he's got any solutions to the business of the province. That's the trouble, and that statement was as misleading as the first one.

There is business to be done, and I'll be dealing with that shortly. But this government, in my view, doesn't have any plans for tackling that business any more than they had the solutions last April. As unemployment continues, as inflation eats away at fixed incomes and as jobs elude the grasp of the school-leavers who are now crowding the unemployment rolls — and there will be more at the end of this month as the high schools discharge another group of shiny-faced kids onto the unemployment rolls — and as cut after cut after cut is announced, there are still no solutions coming forward. And I don't think there are going to be any next week from this group over here.

But his solution on April 3 was to have an election to try and divert everybody's attention from the saddening and worsening situation, to try and catch the opposition off guard, to find the Tories unprepared, the Liberals totally out of it. Will any Liberals nod their heads over there? Were you out of it? And he was hoping to catch the New Democrats flat-footed, engaged in an expensively tough federal combat. He thought he'd catch us short of workers, short of money, short of preparation. The Premier was wrong. He was dead wrong, and but for 2,500 votes correctly distributed the kind of distribution that I was talking about earlier he would have been really dead wrong and he'd have been on this side of the House. If you want any evidence as to whether he was dead wrong, and but for 2,500 votes correctly distributed — the kind of distribution that I was talking about earlier — he would have been really dead wrong and he'd have been on this side of the House. If you want any evidence as to whether he was dead wrong, I can give you some people to ask. Ask Sam Bawlf, ask Cyril Shelford, ask Elwood Veitch, or George Kerster.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Who?

[ Page 18 ]

MR. HALL: I never met a couple of these fellows; they were one-termers. Some of them on the other side will be here again and that makes them two-termers. Two-timers, that's it. But Elwood Veitch, George Kerster, Kahl and a few others, they could give the Premier the answer that he wants as to whether he was right or wrong. And while we were all rushing around getting elected, what really was going on? Well, during the election campaign, in that rush that I referred to, there was some of the most unprincipled campaigning I've seen — and I've been campaigning in this province for a long time.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: Some of it, Mr. Member is this, in case you haven't seen it before. Are you proud of that? Are you proud of the money it took to send that out? Not on your life, you're not.

Mr. Speaker, the continuous government advertising during the campaign, the blatant giving out of taxpayers' money at every whistle stop was really something to be remarked at. And you know, the cabinet said they didn't have time to pass orders-in-council to, for instance, put into operation, onto the statute books of this province, the required amendments to the building codes for handicapped people. They didn't have time to have a cabinet meeting for that, but if you look at the orders-in-council, they had all sorts of time to authorize each other to give money out. They were appointing each other to give away grants in aid of this, and grants in aid of that all during the election campaign. They could come over here and pass orders-in-council like they were going out of style, and distribute the moneys as election bribes during April and May.

What else? We saw the cuts coming. We saw the cuts in transit, cuts in the hospitals — Royal Columbian, Riverview, Surrey Memorial — the hospital cuts that we've referred to already. And five days after the election 1I was driving along, I had the radio on and I couldn't believe my ears. First of all we heard ICBC rates were going up. Then we heard about ferry rates. Then we heard about the shortest in-depth inquiry into the fishing industry I've ever heard of. Do you remember that one? In-depth! About one fathom. I've never come across anything like it. He was going to look at that fishing industry so closely he was so concerned about it. Two days after the election: nothing, all over, forget it. And the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) will be talking about that at some length, I feel sure.

You sent memos around — the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) is not in, so I can't tease him very much. There'll be more memos around that you can shake a stick at to countermand previous memos, Mr. Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). "Ignore the previous memo. Look for recruitment savings. Don't look for recruitment savings. Look to overrun. Ignore the first one." It's been ridiculous. I will spend some time in budget going over those letters, and, Mr. Speaker, you and I will have a giggle to end all giggles about how you can confuse the public service of this province from the top. I have heard of people confused from the bottom up but never from the top, not in this way. We've seen that going on in the five days immediately following the election. Now at the start of the summer the figures are just as bad. Unemployment is just as bad. Inflation is just as bad. There are the same problems and the same pressures, the same economic forecasts and almost the same economic players; although there has been a significant improvement.

MR. BARRETT: Same old Liberals.

MR. HALL: It's the same old Liberals and Conservatives.

I think it's fair to say that in the 60 days that have passed since that long-winded speech of April 3, all that's happened is that it's gotten worse. Now we've got to get on with the work and the business of this province. I suspect....

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down.

MR. HALL: Somebody shouldn't be so cruel as to say "sit down." Really, I've not been here for a while. You should give me an opportunity. I remember that some of you stood up for 42 hours and just keep....

Interjection.

MR. HALL: Oh, it wasn't you; it was him over there. Oh, right. Okay.

Then I would say that the 60 days that have passed since that long-winded speech have only taken us further into the gloom, and the problems are still with us. Now we have to tackle the problems. I will be looking forward to the kinds of solutions that come, because they certainly aren't indicated in the Speech from the Throne, nor have they been indicated in the speeches from the members opposite.

There was a great deal of talk from one of the members who introduced the motion about the activity in the north. I have this curious feeling of deja vu. When I first came here, there was a member for North Peace River who told us about the activity in the north. The greatest activity in North Peace River, Mr. Speaker, in case you don't know, is to get the nomination. While the MLA is down here working for his constituency and serving it well, there's somebody back home. I remember in 1966 when the member Mr. Smith came. He used to be the membership secretary of the North Peace River Constituency Association. Who was the member before Mr. Smith? It was good old Jake. Good old Jake was here working. The membership secretary was working very diligently in North Peace. Then he came here and he had a good career. And I wish you well. But I'll tell you: make sure you're the recording secretary and the membership secretary and everything else in that riding.

How much further along has this 60 days taken us in terms of determining the priority that is referred to in the throne speech for our old-age pensioners? I don't think it's taken us much further along in the listing of priorities and preference if the recent outrage of seniors is any measure when they found that their cost-of-living adjustment in their cheques was somehow eaten up in the bureaucracy and the computer. Now I don't think that you stole it — I believe somebody once said that — but it was certainly eaten up in the bureaucracy and eaten up in the computer. It certainly wasn't eaten up off the tables of the old-age pensioners who could go and buy groceries.

How much further along has the last 60 days taken us in the denticare plan while we've been on the hustings?

As I comment on that throne speech, I think it fitting that I thank the government on behalf of all the taxpayers of

[ Page 19 ]

B.C. for the savings of taxpayers' money that this four-page document has meant. Rather than reproduce the March 22 speech again, we've got a briefer and more succinct document, a less expensive document than what might have been. This less costly document will recoup some of the taxpayers' money that was spent on this document, this special document, this special printing, produced hours before the election call when just like that out of the blue somebody said: "Let's have an election." A special printing two months ago: that was the special issue of the British Columbia Government News which came out; $90,000 is the tab for that. There are all sorts of pictures in here. Nevertheless, we needn't get too carried away with it, because we really have to spend some time talking about it as well.

I think the public knows what's going on, as far as that's concerned. The blatantly partisan message has outraged, I think, a great number of British Columbians. We can see the headline and we know what the effect was. The four-page speech perhaps in a small way will go to assuage the anger we felt about that particular piece of election propaganda which became the major campaign document of the Social Credit Party. The throne speeches we listened to made a number of promises. Now we have to look forward to some performance. As far as carrying out those promises, vague as they may be, we have to look forward to judging the government on what they do in the next few weeks, and looking backwards as to what they've done on previous occasions when they had the opportunity.

Again, I feel we've got something to learn. We've got the ICBC rate coming again. That sounds awfully familiar. That is '76 repeated again in '79. Ferry rates: '76 repeating itself again in '79. We've got hospital cuts which kind of repeat themselves through the years. But I also sat on this side of the House. There are headlines in the paper about unrecognized deaths relayed to hospital cuts. The B.C. Medical Journal is a responsible organ of a responsible organization. Not a two penny leaflet, this. Or even a $90,000 leaflet. A journal of some reputation is seriously concerned about the cuts that are going on. "Provincial Cash Squeeze Hurts in Burnaby General." Surrey has the same position. I understand other hospitals are the same all over the place.

It is not good enough for the minister in question period today to try and just simply shuffle off that responsibility to some elected board, and say that it is their job to get on with it, when he has already made it abundantly clear that he is going to punish them — publicly if they don't tow the line. We've had minister after minister in the last three years publicly punish them over there, publicly punish duly elected members of boards and organizations and accuse them of wasting money. That's shades of Dan Campbell. He used to do that all the time. Maybe he's writing their speeches. I don't know. That is what he used to do. And I don't like it any more now than I did then. I feel that it is rather much to expect us to believe and to accept that kind of easy answer in the sense that it is somebody else's responsibility, when we all know that the prime responsibility for community health services in the hospital field lies squarely with this government.

The latest figures I have here that have been achieved in the province in terms of business performance, which may interest one or two of the new members, are to do with bankruptcies. As of April 1, I am sorry to report, in 1978-79 there were 688 bankruptcies in this province, compared to 637 the previous year; 420 the year before that; and only 197 before that. Economic industry after industry is showing us that really things are getting worse.

So it will come as no surprise to you that we cannot really support this resolution, any more than we could last April, on a much lengthier document. I feel sure you will understand that the feeling that we cannot support this motion is supported by a growing number of British Columbians. First, out in the ridings, where the public of British Columbia voted for this party in greater numbers than ever before, they share this feeling of disquiet. They share this feeling of dissatisfaction. And they share this suspicion, this lingering doubt, that we are not going to be faced with a program of action. And this throne speech does not reflect anything like a program of action. Second, as a result of that electoral activity, to which we made reference this afternoon, we are now in a position to show you that that feeling now reflected is supported by the largest number of MLAs in an opposition party for years and years — that party that I represent in a now two-party system in this House, where we call the shots. There are clear distinctions. That is, I understand, what the Premier wanted. This group which represents the party's best achievement, in terms of popular vote, feels as I do, as I've explained, in this, the most highly sophisticated — and highly sophisticated politically — electorate in the country. They will be observing our activities. They will be looking at this government very closely. They'll be expecting all of us to bend our best wit to solving the problems. I hope there will indeed be a program, one that certainly is not to be found in this throne speech that we are voting on today.

MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, my congratulations to you on your re-election as the Speaker of the House. My thanks to those members who have been so gracious in their words of support to me as your deputy.

I must say that I am very glad to be back and I'm glad, for a change, to be on this side of the House. It's a totally different perspective from sitting there with my colleague from Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) and the new member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman).

I would also like to congratulate all the members of the House, especially those members who were here yesterday for the first time, today in our first full day of chatty debate, as we shall call it.

I must say that the last election campaign was most enjoyable. I'm naturally delighted with the results from the people of Vancouver South. We had a very interesting campaign.

MR. KING: Agnes didn't think so.

MR. ROGERS: Well, maybe not, but two very worthy candidates represented the NDP. Mr. Ujjal Dosanjh and Mr. Jim Duvall. I don't know what happened in other constituencies, but we had a gentlemanly contest. I think that would be the way to put it. There were other minor parties represented by people and we never saw their signs or literature or them at all-candidates' meetings. Their names did appear on the ballot, but essentially it was a two-way fight, if you will. I would like to make a tribute to them in this House, because we had a very sporting time of it.

[ Page 20 ]

MR. BARRETT: Did Agnes feel that way?

MR. ROGERS: I can't recall the name. [Laughter.]

You know, I don't know if Vancouver South is the smallest riding in the province. We always hear about the size of other ridings in the north, and now Surrey and other places. I must report, Mr. Speaker, that it is very difficult to walk around Vancouver South in one day, but with the aid of a ten-speed bicycle, it can be accomplished in about three and a half hours. But the size of the riding isn't quite as important as the diversity of the riding. I always really enjoy the time I spend in the riding rather than the time I spend here because Vancouver South really is a tremendous mosaic of people from all parts of the world — new Canadians and people who have been here for generations and generations. It's a developed neighbourhood and it's one in which I always have great pleasure in working with my constituents and working for them.

Members will recall Gerry Strongman, who was the second member for Vancouver South. I regret to inform you that Mr. Strongman was taken extremely ill on May 11 and was in intensive care for about five days, after which time, when I went to visit him in the hospital, I received a number of questions which I will address to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) during his estimates. He has recovered now, but he is not totally recovered. Although he worked extremely hard during the campaign, he has been in a period of, shall we say, convalescence for some time. As you know, Mr. Strongman has difficulty in not working and was requesting maybe a telephone at his bedside, but that's how he was the last time I saw him, with two intravenous tubes in him. I know all members will wish him a speedy recovery.

However, in the place of the retiring member, who, by the way, gives me the assurance that, like the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, he will return to this House at some time during the indefinite future.... But in his place there is a new second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman). I thought I would say a few words about him, but then someone reminded me that he is quite capable of speaking for himself. Maybe just for that one instance, I want to tell you that I'm delighted with my new colleague for Vancouver South. I think you're going to find him to be a very interesting member in more ways than one.

In this revised and somewhat brief Speech from the Throne, there is only one area that wasn't covered earlier, and that is the emphasis on our position on nuclear power. Of course, there are two positions on nuclear power: there's before Three Mile Island and after Three Mile Island. I would like to share an experience with the members that I had in discussion of nuclear power with the Premier last year. At that time he was unalterably opposed to nuclear power, and I thought, well, is it an issue? He said: "No, it is not only an issue. We in B.C. are so very fortunate not to have it, not to have to worry about the problems of nuclear power." I was a little surprised when it came up as an election issue, knowing what his personal feelings are against nuclear power. I searched Hansard, but I could find nothing in it with reference to members on this side of the House having spoken in favour of nuclear power. Then it turned up to be a campaign issue. So maybe we don't do that much politicking in this chamber.

Perhaps I may play the devil's advocate for a while on the issue of nuclear power. One must consider that when a Scotsman by the name of James Watt first invented the steam engine, they had some difficulties with the contraption and several of the boilers blew up. All sorts of people who were not knowledgeable on the subject pontificated at great length about why we should certainly ban the use of steam, and boilers were expensive and dangerous, and people were likely to be killed, and that's very true. Now the analogy is not totally appropriate to nuclear energy, but it is somewhat appropriate. We have learned to harness steam and, Lord knows, if it wasn't for our learning to harness steam, we would be in a very sorry state indeed.

We're fortunate, but we must not be ostriches. Toronto has Pickering, a nuclear power station, right in the suburbs of the city of Toronto. In the whole of the U.K. right now a great amount of their power comes from nuclear power, and so does it in almost every major North American jurisdiction. And, yes, we can be smug because we're not going to have to face that problem. But others are going to have to face it, and it would do us well to not do the ostrich trick and to be aware of the dangers, be cognizant of the dangers, and also be aware of the progress that takes place.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to this session and the challenges. I look forward to the responsibilities placed on my shoulders as your deputy. And I must tell you that of course I will support this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the question 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 — 29

NAYS — 23

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee

[ Page 21 ]

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 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 for the liquor control and licensing branch for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1978.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen presented the annual report for the Rent Review Commission for 1978.

Hon. Mr. Gardom presented the amended report for 1974, the amendments for 1975, 1976 and 1977, and the report for the calendar year 1978 under the Privacy Act.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 4:36 p.m.