[ Page 1341 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Administration of justice. Hon. Mr. Williams replies –– 1342

Speech from the Throne.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 1344

Mr. King –– 1348

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1350

Division –– 1363

Ministerial statement

Revised Statutes of British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1363

Mr. Howard –– 1364

MONDAY, MARCH 10, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed, hon. members, it is my pleasure to draw to your attention that today is Commonwealth Day. It is on this day that we have chosen to put on your desks a recent publication regarding the parliament buildings — of which we almost feel we are a part, don't we?

We also have a message from the chairman of the association's executive committee, Hon. Ripton MacPherson, who is the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Jamaica. With your indulgence, I would like to read that message to you.

"It seems appropriate that a Commonwealth Day message has afforded me the first opportunity of communicating with all the branches of the association since my election in New Zealand as chairman of the executive committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. It is an honour to be able to serve in this capacity, and I look forward to working constructively with all branches throughout the Commonwealth.

"Over the years the Commonwealth has evolved into a major international organization, with a membership of 42 sovereign states. Not surprisingly, therefore, its functions and activities have increased significantly, and its role in international affairs has received great recognition.

"The relationship which has developed among its members is of inestimable value, not only because of the shared experience and the consultative nature of the relationship but also because of the practical nature of Commonwealth cooperation and its concern for matters with which we can all closely identify.

"Within the Commonwealth there is continuous wide-ranging intergovernmental cooperation in such areas as education, health, youth, law, and various forms of technical assistance. It is, however, the special responsibility of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to actively encourage the growth and the development of appropriate parliamentary systems within the member states of the Commonwealth. The association, therefore, warmly welcomes Norfolk Island, and the return of Bangladesh, Ghana and Swaziland to its membership and hopes that in the very near future it will have the pleasure of receiving delegates from Nigeria and Zimbabwe-Rhodesia at its conferences.

"As we observe the occasion of Commonwealth Day, it is my deep belief that this group of nations, with its time-honoured traditions, its rich diversities and strong sense of community, will continue through its parliamentarians to inspire and provide leadership in the pursuit of new, cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships among states of the international community."

The Provincial Secretary has some guests.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure ….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: They are guests in connection with Commonwealth Day.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I had the pleasure of representing the provincial government yesterday at the church service in honour of Commonwealth Day at Christ Church Cathedral in Vancouver. On the floor of the Legislature today we have representatives of their lower mainland and Victoria society. I have the pleasure to introduce Mr. George Kidd, president of the local society; Mr. James McPherrin, honorary secretary; Mr. Philip Kitley, chairman; and representing Vancouver and the lower mainland, Mrs. Joyce Basham. I ask the House to welcome them.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my greetings to the representatives of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and extend to you a thank-you for reading out the message. I would particularly welcome the opportunity, perhaps sometime during this session, if the House itself could respond to a motion from, perhaps, the government, and seconded by the opposition, to reach out a hand on the return of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia to the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

It is to be recognized that in a world of turmoil, under Lord Carrington's able leadership, the negotiations that led to free elections in Zimbabwe did take place without any further armed conflict. I think that those of us who are members of the Commonwealth can point with pride to the results of the manner in which the election was conducted. I extend an open-hand "welcome back" to Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and an open message to the rest of the world that, even with difficulties and differences of opinion in the Commonwealth, we have hung together for a long time. It's an example which can show the rest of the world what a Commonwealth can do.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to join me in light of this being Commonwealth Day in welcoming three people in the galleries who share something in common with the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and myself. They are members of our staff in the constituency: Mrs. Dorris Mutch, Wendy Davis and Thelma Pankiw.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, we have in the galleries today 47 students from the Golden Elementary School and their teachers, John Wirtanen and R. Brett. I would like the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Legislature to join with me this afternoon in welcoming to Mr. Speaker's gallery Maureen O'Brien, who is visiting us from San Francisco, California.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to introduce a constituent of Richmond, Mrs. Jean Nielsen, who is not only a constituent of Richmond but also the wife of our Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Hon. Jim Nielsen. I'd also like to mention, Mr. Speaker, that it happens to be the Nielsens' nineteenth wedding anniversary today, March 10, and I hope the House will give them its congratulations.

[ Page 1342 ]

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have four guests today from the constituency of Comox and I would like the House to join me in giving a warm welcome to Ruth Munn, Marge Whelon, Kay Chapman and Pepper McLeod.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members of our Legislature to welcome Mr. William Dyson, who is the executive director of the Vanier Institute of the Family. He is visiting us from Ottawa.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to welcome my first three guests this session. They are my two sons, Dan and Joe, and their friend Cindy Milner from Ottawa.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce two guests to the House today: a life-long friend of mine, my sister Freda Munch from Victoria, and my wife of thirty years, Maud Ritchie. Would you please extend a welcome.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce two guests from the far-off royal city of New Westminster. John and Hazel Wallace are visiting us today, and I'd like the House to welcome them.

MRS. WALLACE: From not-so-far-off Duncan, in the heart of Cowichan-Malahat, I would like the House to join me in welcoming two of my constituents, good friends John and Doris Starkey.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tabled the seventh annual report of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia for the 10 months ending December 31, 1979.

Oral Questions

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, on March 3, 1980, the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) posed certain questions which I took on notice. I'd like to respond now; the answers are very brief.

The first question was: "Will the Attorney-General indicate to the House the date on which he had a conversation about this matter with his Deputy Attorney-General over the allegations?" My answer is, I had several conversations with the Deputy Attorney-General: first on November 26, 1979; second on December 17, 1979; third on December 20, 1979; and for the fourth time on January 9, 1980.

Question: "Did the Attorney-General have new information at the time he made that decision?" Answer: the question is unanswerable, as I did not make the decision.

Third: "Having been advised prior to December 18, 1979, that a statement was to be made, did the Attorney General investigate as to what the statement was to be or on what grounds it was going to be made before the press statement was to be issued?" The answer is no.

Question: "On what basis did he decide that a release should be made by the Associate Deputy Attorney-General? On what grounds did he make that release? Apparently the Attorney-General approved it." The answer: it's not the policy to make news releases with respect to the decisions rising out of criminal investigations, either that charges are to be laid or are not to be laid. In light of the attention that had been given to this matter over several weeks, I concluded that the general policy should be relaxed. The timing of the release and its content were nevertheless left entirely to the discretion of Mr. McDiarmid.

Question: "Can he inform the house what additional information either he or Mr. Vogel, his Deputy Attorney General, or his Associate Deputy Attorney-General or any other member of the Attorney-General's ministry had over and above what the RCMP had and recommended, and over and above what regional counsel had and recommended, that led him to the decision that the decision not to proceed should be upheld? Was there any additional information?" Answer: the question is unanswerable because, as I said in the response to an earlier question, I did not make the decision.

There was a question by the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk): "Did the RCMP conduct an investigation into that meeting" — referring to a meeting between the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) and others — "with a view to charges being laid for obstruction of justice under the Criminal Code?" Answer: the RCMP investigation included the meeting of October 17, 1979, to which the hon. first member referred. The question of obstruction of justice was considered, and no basis for such charges was found.

MR. MACDONALD: Relating to the same matter, I ask the Attorney-General: did the RCMP report on this matter either recommend or — it's in two parts — set out grounds whereby it could be concluded there was an infraction of law that should be dealt with or proceeded with?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I've never seen the RCMP report with respect to this matter. Therefore I can't respond to the question. But I would be happy to take it as notice, make further inquiries and bring the answers back.

MR. LAUK: With respect to the investigation of the meeting on October 17, first of all, the Attorney-General indicated he hasn't seen the police report. How did he conclude, then, that the report did not indicate a charge of obstruction of justice may or may not have arisen as a result of that meeting?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I was advised by the Assistant Deputy Attorney-General, Mr. McDiarmid.

MR. LAUK: Did the Attorney-General indicate to the House whether or not that investigation included a possible charge of public mischief on the part of Henry Friesen?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The advice I have from the Assistant Deputy Attorney-General is that Mr. Friesen's conduct in the matter was considered and there was no suggestion of ill motive on his part. Therefore no such charge would lie.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also to the Attorney-General on this matter. In answer to a question last week as to whether the Attorney-General had consulted or contacted outside counsel, could the Attorney General now advise the House whether, in contacting outside counsel, the subject of who would issue the release — whether it would be himself or his deputy — was a matter that was canvassed with outside counsel?

[ Page 1343 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The answer is no.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a supplementary on the same subject, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Attorney-General whether he saw the report on this case, made by the regional Crown counsel, who I think was a Mr. Holmes, from the Fraser Valley region. Has the Attorney-General seen that at any time?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I understood the member's question was about the police report; but I haven't seen....

MR. MACDONALD: No, this is a different question; I'm asking about the regional Crown counsel's report.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The answer is no.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Attorney General, who issued a public statement that he had concluded that Mr. McDiarmid was correct in his decision, how he could possibly make such a statement without having looked at either the police report or the report from Crown counsel. How could you satisfy yourself?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not a proper question.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a further question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Attorney-General questioned as to how this particular case, which was in the Fraser Valley area and did not involve a major charge, came to be summonsed to Victoria to be laid on the desk of the associate deputy minister, and, presumably, the deputy minister, and possibly the minister? Why did it come to Victoria, and why was it not treated in the ordinary way as a prosecution to be undertaken or not undertaken by regional Crown counsel?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, may I make it abundantly clear, because the member touched upon that obliquely in his question, that the matter did not come to the desk of the Attorney-General.

In specific answer to his question as to how it came to the Assistant Deputy Attorney-General: it had been earlier referred to him during the process of the investigation.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, leaving that subject for the time being, I have a question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. I ask that hon. minister to advise the House if, in view of the serious allegations of Bruce Donald, relating to the Andrew Rigg case, which were made in a letter of November 15, 1978, he determined whether or not Richard Vogel, the deputy minister, did personally know the accused or the Riggs family.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, not being in the House on Friday, nor having an opportunity to speak to the House, I would like to inform the hon. members — as I informed the press on Friday morning — that following the receipt of the letter from Mr. Bruce Donald, I met with Mr. Neil McDiarmid, the assistant deputy minister of criminal law. I informed him of the matters that were contained in the letter from Mr. Donald. I instructed him to look into it, to take whatever action he deemed appropriate, and whatever action he deemed necessary, and to report to me.

After that, Mr. Member, I met with Mr. Donald and informed him of the course that I had taken with Mr. McDiarmid, and I requested Mr. Donald to give Mr. McDiarmid his full cooperation.

I have since determined that it is correct that Mr. Vogel knows the doctor in question.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the hon. minister that the request was that he investigate this matter, not Mr. McDiarmid. But leaving that aside, I ask you....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Hon. member, I asked Mr. McDiarmid to investigate it. Let that be abundantly clear.

MR. MACDONALD: I ask the hon. minister, in view of the fact that a charge and an appeal was abandoned on the instructions of a deputy who, he found out, either then or shortly thereafter, was a personal acquaintance of the accused, or his family, why the minister took no action at what would appear to have been a partiality creeping into the justice system, which is totally unacceptable under the British common law.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is drawing a conclusion that is not a conclusion according to the facts that I received, and it is an incorrect conclusion on the part of the hon. member.

I requested a course of action be taken. There were a number of meetings held, and following those meetings I was informed, both by Mr. Donald and by Mr. McDiarmid, that the matters had been resolved.

Insofar as the doctor situation is concerned, it was an error of judgment on the part of the Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Vogel. There was no mala fides whatsoever.

Insofar as the witness situation with Mr. Farris and Miss King is concerned, Mr. Vogel was expressing a lawyer's opinion. The attorney is looking into these matters, and no doubt you will receive a full and complete report from him.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister just to make it clear that the minister took no action whatsoever against Mr. Vogel at that time, when he found that he was intervening in this case and was acquainted with the accused.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Again to bring this very, very clearly home in point of time, these matters came to my attention as a result of the correspondence from Mr. Donald, which was November 15, 1978. The doctor's case had arisen about a year and a half ago. I received a report from Mr. McDiarmid when he had concluded his responsibilities.

It's fair to say, Mr. Minister, that I was distressed with what had happened; I was distressed with an error in judgment. And it was a mistake in judgment. I had the greatest confidence in the integrity and in the capacities of Mr. Richard Vogel; I still have that confidence.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a supplementary question to the minister. Why was Mr. Richard Vogel intervening in that one case out of the tens of thousands that take place every year in the province of British Columbia — and taking a very active interest in the Rigg case, as he clearly was? Did the minister investigate that and inquire why this intervention

[ Page 1344 ]

from Victoria should be taking place in that particular charge?

MR. SPEAKER: The member is seeking an opinion in the first part, but the second part is in order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I informed the hon. member in the House today the very same thing I informed Mr. McDiarmid. I said: "Mr. McDiarmid, will you please look into this matter? Look into it very, very carefully and take whatever action you deem to be appropriate and necessary in the circumstances." I received the report, the report was an error in judgement, and it was an unfortunate error in judgment, but I consider that at that point in time that was satisfactory. The information I received then…. Mr. Member, I'll tell you this: if I received the same information today, knowing Mr. Vogel as I know him, I would still be quite satisfied with the information that I received. There has been a scurrilous attack upon this man.

MR. MACDONALD: Did the ministry reply to the letter of Mr. Bruce Donald, the Crown counsel in Vancouver, which was dated November 15, 1978? Did you reply in writing to that letter?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No.

MR. BARRETT: A serious charge like that and you didn't respond.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Ah, the Leader of the Opposition is chirping up now. Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I acted immediately and requested that it be looked into, thank you very much.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We are in question period now, hon. members, and interruptions are not provided for.

MR. MACDONALD: The present Attorney-General has said that he has had no prior knowledge of the matters referred to, either in the CBC broadcast or the letter of Mr. Donald, until very recently. Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations explain to the House why he didn't inform his successor of this serious problem surrounding the administration of justice through his deputy minister in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. GARDOM: First of all, Mr. Speaker, it was not a problem; it had been concluded. We had general discussions.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise at this time, during this session of the Legislature, to support the speech of His Honour Henry Bell-Irving, the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia, one of the finest throne speeches that we've had before this House in all of British Columbia's history. I hope that I can bring to this chamber some of the thoughts that I have and reasons for which I bring that most enthusiatic support.

But first, any debate of a throne speech is necessarily a debate on the leadership of the government, of the way in which the government is planning the fortunes of its province over the next years and decades and into the long-term future. It's also, Mr. Speaker, necessarily, a debate about the leadership of the leader of the province, the Premier of British Columbia. I intend to speak to some degree about that as well.

It's difficult to speak about that leadership without going back in history just a bit to talk about the leadership of the past. One of the hon. members on the other side — I believe it was the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) — referred during his comments to this government as a "temporary government." Well, as a temporary government I'd just like to remind this House and yourself, Mr. Speaker, that in the last 28 years in British Columbia the people of this province have chosen Social Credit government for about 25 of those 28 years. If that's temporary government, we like it and the people of British Columbia like it.

I don't think we need to go back a long way in history to trace the pattern of leadership that we've been experiencing in British Columbia, but we could go back, I think, to those last few months of 1975. The New Democratic Party was on its final legs, close to an election, in disarray — yes, on its knees and wondering what to do next. They had one of the finest and most golden opportunities that any government had ever been given in all of the history of this province: a full purse, opportunities abounding in all of the resources that were available in British Columbia, people willing to work and willing to support them in their bold, new experiment — a golden opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to carry on with government for years and years. It's all lying in ruins because of some 39 months of improper management of the province's finances, of its social programs, and its caucus is dismayed. They are dismayed at how those people who served with it as their government took this opportunity and threw it away — cast it to the winds.

We hear lots of talk from the opposite side about some of the lively cabinet meetings and lively caucus meetings that we have on this side now. Mr. Speaker, I can can tell you, having been around in those days, that poor, dismayed and dishevelled caucus was wondering how it threw those opportunities away, and those caucus meetings, Mr. Speaker, were wild. They were noisy; they could be heard in the Sooke hills. They even kept the hon. member for Burnaby Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) awake. The fights in caucus were tremendous, and not much wonder, because they had taken this province from a shining and glorious opportunity to a province which was reeling economically and socially.

I remember some of those leaders, Mr. Speaker, in those dying months of 1975 — the Hon. Mr. Nicolson was the Minister of Housing, I believe. Do you remember the Casa Loma affair? A quarter of a million dollars of taxpayers' money was thrown away. It might be interesting, too, with the news these days about uranium moratoriums, to remember that it was that same hon. member who gave a shining speech, I believe in his own constituency, about the need for nuclear power in British Columbia. It wasn't much longer after that, Mr. Speaker, that that member was in the cabinet, and not much longer after that that the government issued an order allowing uranium exploration.

[ Page 1345 ]

How many of you remember the Meadowbrook affair in Coquitlam? The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) probably had some knowledge of it while he was a federal member. It was an example of leadership where hundreds of people saw their hopes dashed because of inaction and mismanagement by the Minister of Housing.

AN HON. MEMBER: It works good now.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Lots of things are working good now, Mr. Member. Thank God.

I remember Mr. King, the Minister of Labour in those days, being pushed around by the labour bosses while the labour people were on strike. There were pickets up all over this province. It was the most disastrous three years of labour harmony in the history of this province with that kind of leadership.

I remember Hon. Mr. Strachan, who was Minister of Transport and Communications at that time, exiled to London in shame after having completely demoralized what had been the finest B.C. Ferries fleet in the world. I remember Mr. Cocke, who was Minister of Health, almost in tears, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think I can anticipate the point of order. The member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON: Having drawn your attention to the order of not using Christian names in addressing people....

MR. SPEAKER: Any members of former administrations who are still members of the House are now referred to by their constituency.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. Thank you. I just didn't want anyone to make any mistake about whom I was speaking. I wouldn't want someone else to take the blame for some of these things.

The former Minister of Health, the present member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), was almost in tears in this House because many of the programs that he had promised, in terms of health facilities in this province, were falling down in a shambles. The British Columbia Medical Centre was losing millions per month, and Arthur Erickson was on retainer at $50,000 a month and doing nothing. A children's hospital which the member for New Westminster desperately wanted was being put forward in terms that no government could afford. There were so many programs. The ambulance service which he had so proudly introduced only a couple of years before — I'm sure that the member for New Westminster was in tears when he had to shut down the training programs because there was no money left. All of us felt bad about that, but it was because of the mismanagement and unreasonable activities of that group of leaders that those kinds of things were happening.

The member who used to be the member for Coquitlam — he was the Minister of Human Resources; I can't remember who he's the member for now — had bankrupted the Human Resources ministry. He showed no signs of understanding where he'd gone wrong. But the suffering was felt not by us in this Legislature, but by those people who weren't able to get programs because of that financial mismanagement.

The member for Vancouver Centre, who at that point at least, I believe, was Minister of Mines and perhaps Minister of Economic Development — I'm not quite sure — had put his dark business suit on and attempted to tell the mining industry: "Well, we want to help you. We'll do what we can to get you back in business," after having put them out of business, after having helped them in the Yukon, in Alberta and in other places outside of British Columbia.

The former member for Vancouver East, Mr. Williams, is no longer in this House. All of that didn't bother him much; nothing fazed him. He just went right on with his Machiavellian ways, planning and destroying. As a matter of fact, when it was all tumbling down among those other members, and those wild caucus meetings were carrying on, Mr. Williams didn't even bother to stay around British Columbia. He went down, I think it was to Minnesota or some place, and told them down there that the reason his government was in so much trouble was because the CIA had infiltrated the government and was about to take over the politics of British Columbia.

There was that famous and always-remembered minister Mr. Nunweiler from the north, who was labelled by Mr. Lester, the mayor of Prince Rupert, as "the Ann Landers of the north." As a matter of fact, when that headline in the newspaper came out about Mr. Nunweiler being the champion of the north, I took the opportunity to write a little limerick, which I would like to share with the House at this point — "When Prince Rupert Mayor Names Mr. Nunweiler Ann Landers of the North." The limerick goes like this:

There once was a minister named Annie
Who flew by the seat of his fanny
His big claim to glory
Was a pay lavatory
In Prince George, which had once been uncanny.

In all of this we also remember the first member for Vancouver East, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), who was desperately trying to find a way to get out of playing Mortimer Snerd to Mr. Williams' Edgar Bergen. One of the worst criticisms of leadership, I guess, that could be made of that group in those dying months of 1975 was that they didn't do anything.

When we came into office — I think every minister here will confirm this — there were stacks and stacks of orders-in-council, government business, which had been lying on the desks for three, four, five or six months. It had not been handled, because they were in shock, I guess — numbed by their disastrous incompetence and unable to deal with the issues of the day. Money orders, Treasury Board orders, orders-in-council leading to projects in communities all over British Columbia — none of them were dealt with, because that group was incapable of dealing with them.

During those wild and woolly caucus meetings one voice was being heard loud and clear. That was the now second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), who was then the Provincial Secretary, desperately trying to convince his colleagues to get a new pension bill through before they got defeated at the polls. I can remember the lobbies going on in this House about that. Because they saw the writing on the wall. They knew what was coming. They knew that their lack of leadership had in fact put them out of business, and they wanted a way to cushion the fall. The election came too soon.

The Premier of the day was reduced to threatening farmers, threatening sawmill owners from the north, making obscene remarks to female columnists and in general making

[ Page 1346 ]

this province the laughing-stock of Canada. We have heard a lot about dirty tricks. Those leaders in those dying months of 1975 played the dirtiest tricks of all on the people of British Columbia.

I want to make a couple of other comments about some of the things that have been said in the debate so far, because I feel a lot of them very deeply. One of them was a remark made by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) when he referred to some things that happened in this Legislature during the course of the previous government. One of them was about some cheques of the former Minister of Human Resources.

I remember those cheques. There was a lot of concern about whether or not someone had added something to those cheques. But everybody forgot the real issue. The real issue was that that member broke the law. The Attorney-General of the day just ignored it, stonewalled it and let it pass. And the press let it pass. That member broke the law, just as clearly as anything that we have ever had before us. And it passed.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), drowning in his own bitterness, said in this House some of the most despicable things I have heard since I have been in politics, clearly attempting to place some kind of guilt on a member of this House where none should have been placed. He certainly had no nerve to repeat outside this House the statements he made, which are in Hansard for all to see. It is without a doubt a despicable action, because it didn't come by accident; it was coldly and carefully calculated to do exactly what it did, cast some aspersions of a criminal nature on a member of this House where no aspersions could possibly be cast.

I have heard some people saying they were surprised that it would come from that member, who generally holds himself out as being better than that. But I am not surprised, because it is the tactic which has clearly been decided upon, again coldly, carefully and calculatingly, by the members on that side of the House, and they mean to carry it through. They will have their own consciences to deal with, but I felt it would be derelict of me not to tell this House how I felt about that statement particularly. It doesn't make me proud to be a member of this assembly.

I want to deal for a moment with the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). Again, it doesn't surprise me that those statements came from the member for Skeena, or from any member on the opposite side of the House, because the truth will always out. That member, in opening his comments about the Speech from the Throne, referred to the free enterprise system as heartless, and as being driven by money, power and greed.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Member, because each time you do that it only serves to help our cause. And I hope that you will say that in public too — that you believe that the free enterprise system is driven by money, power and greed. I hope that you will tell that to all the businessmen in the Victoria Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), because it's important that they know how you feel, if you are to continue to represent that constituency in this House. And I know you will tell them, because you're a truthful member.

I hope, too, that those members will make it very clear that they believe that the free enterprise system is driven by money, power and greed to Len Friesen, who apparently is the head of that phony NDP front called the Independent Businessmen of British Columbia. I hope they'll tell Len, so he can save his money in the next election; he won't have to spend all his money on those television ads. Speaking of dirty tricks, Mr. Speaker.... I didn't want to bring this up, but the so-called Independent Businessmen of British Columbia — I think I've got the name correct, but it's close — spent a lot of money, with Mr. Friesen telling how he voted NDP, and how many more of his members were voting NDP. Funny part of this was, no matter how hard we tried we could never find an organization which was called the Independent Businessmen of British Columbia, or whatever it was that Mr. Friesen called his association. He didn't have an association and he didn't have any members. You think that's not a dirty trick, Mr. Speaker, to go on television and promote an absolutely phony association?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Bogus.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's what it was, absolutely bogus.

I hope that in the next newsletters put out by the members opposite, they'll include a copy of the Hansard in which the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) announced that free enterprise is driven by money, power and greed, and I hope they'll send copies of those newsletters — and I know they will — to all those small businessmen that they say they represent, that they've been courting, that the members for Vancouver East will send a copy of Hansard to all of those little grocery stores and barbershops and restaurants along Commercial Drive and Hastings Street, and tell them that their free enterprise is driven by money, power and greed. I hope they'll send copies of Hansard to all of those people throughout this province who put their savings on the line, mortgage their homes, take out bank loans, to take part in the development of this province, and I hope that they'll tell them that that action means that they're driven by money, power and greed. I hope that they'll send copies of Hansard — because I think we might if they don't — to all of those people who have put their lives on the line to make a better place for their kids. Are they driven by money, power and greed? Are all those people who have put their lives, and those of their families, on the line to build this economy, to provide for the social needs of the people of this province, driven by money, power and greed? All of those people have put their lives on the line to build the wealth of this country. I hope they'll send a little note to all of them, and tell them that they're heartless, and that they're driven only by money, power and greed.

I've had an opportunity to talk about the way leadership was in this province in those dying months of 1975, and I know that the members opposite would very much like to shift the public's attention away from those dying months, and, in fact, the 39 months that preceded them — the 1,200 days. But no matter how much the Leader of the Opposition puts on his moderate suit, the truth always comes out. The truth always comes out, as it did in that marvellous speech by the member for Skeena, because those members opposite have a commitment to destroying the enterprise of individuals — not a commitment, Mr. Speaker, but an obsession. That obsession will always win; no matter how moderate they attempt to be, it always comes out.

I mentioned Mr. Williams talking down in the United States about the CIA invading the politics of British Col-

[ Page 1347 ]

umbia. And it came out there too. He told a group down there that capitalism is the root of social problems.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this the Mr. Williams who...?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's that free enterpriser who is in the pub business now, yes.

Every time the opposite side attempts to become moderate, that obsession gets hold of them and pulls it out of them, like when the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) said, "It's high time we took control of real estate in this province," and when the member for Vancouver-Burrard and the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) and the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) made the same kinds of comments, because it always comes out.

What did Mr. Barrett, the member for Vancouver East, the Leader of the Opposition, himself have to say shortly after his defeat? I always get a kick out of rereading this because it strengthens my enthusiasm to do everything I can to make sure that the people of B.C. know about members opposite. I read this quite often, Mr. Speaker. There were lots of them in all the papers, but this particular one is from an editorial in the Colonist on December 30, 1976, a very short while — about a year — after the defeat. The member for Vancouver East said at that time: "Social workers should use politics for social change. They should learn practical things like how to pack a meeting and how to subvert existing political processes. The system is wide open. You can do anything you want with it."

AN HON. MEMBER: That was down in Nova Scotia.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That was a Nova Scotia speech, yes.

Do you know what else he said, Mr. Speaker, at that time? He told the social workers to subvert the political process and "do anything you want with it." But then, what else did he say? He also said: "The Social Credit government will not spend any money to develop resources. Things are getting worse in the province and I'm loving every minute of it."

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, he said that the United Way should be done away with, as well as the Boy Scouts, and the Easter Seals and all volunteer groups.

Mr. Speaker, I read that comment again only to remind this House that regardless of what kind of pin-striped suits and moderate tones that Leader of the Opposition takes on, no matter how often he says, "Sorry, fellows; I know we were bad guys, but we'll reform, we'll be fiscally responsible and we'll never do it again, trust us," we know that that obsession will drag the truth out. The people of B.C. remember the theme song of that former government and that former Premier, that great country music song: "If I Had to Do It All Over Again, I'd Do It All Over You." It's not much wonder that this group on that side of the House has embarked on what I consider to be an exercise in hallucination, because they don't have a hope of either defending their own inadequacies or seriously criticizing the achievements of this government.

Other members have dealt more than adequately with the comments that were made about our so-called lack of input at the federal scene. I don't need to go on on that, because it's been well put forward in this House, except to say that it might do the opposition members some good to read what British Columbia has done, to read what British Columbia put forward as our constitutional proposals, leading Canada in putting forward those proposals delivered to the first ministers' conference in 1978. I would commend that as mandatory reading for all members in this House and, certainly, for those members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have much more time, and I wanted to go on about a lot of things that deal with the way in which this government's leadership has put this province into a position of envy, not only in Canada but all over North America.

We know what happened to the mining industry in this province during the term of the NDP government. We know now, Mr. Speaker, that mining exploration and opportunities are at an all-time high in British Columbia, rivalling those exploration booms of the 1960s. We know that from a time when oil and gas exploration and development in this province's northeast were shut down — and I mean literally shut down — we now have oil and gas development in this province, and it is one of our major cornerstones for the future of the development of British Columbia.

I deliberately didn't want to use a lot of figures in this speech, but there are two or three which might be of interest. They have to do with the total number of wells drilled in 1975 — 82, Mr. Speaker; in 1978 — 408; in 1979, the last figures we have — 400 and growing.

Exploration dollars. In 1975, oil and gas brought in about $180 million to this province; in 1978, $628 million. Money earned on cash for Crown oil and gas leases. In 1975 it had fallen to a pitiful $12 million, because, as I said, the business was shut off; in 1978, $177 million; in 1979, just under $200 million.

Mr. Speaker, l could go on and on. I'd love to talk about the way in which this government turned around health programs in the development of new and improved hospital services, how we took the $200 million debt for ICBC and turned it around, how we took a $261 million general debt of this province and have turned it into balanced budgets and surpluses every year we've been government. But time doesn't allow me to.

But I will, Mr. Speaker, say a couple more words. I had the honour to be asked, at the convention of the Social Credit Party, to introduce our leader at one of the major sessions. I don't want to embarrass our leader, so I would just like to bring a few words before the House, because I wanted the opportunity to get this on the record. I've wanted the opportunity to tell this House how much I appreciate the leadership that has been shown to British Columbia by Hon. W.R. Bennett. I want to say that I am proud to be associated with the Premier's record of leadership, and I want to stand up here in front of as many people as I can — and I always will — to put that pride on the record.

I've reminded you, Mr. Speaker, and members of this House what it was like around here in 1975. A lot of us were here and know what it was like: our economy was weak, industry was leaving, capital was leaving, people were leaving. We need only look at British Columbia after four years of sound leadership by Bill Bennett. Our province is strong. By every indicator British Columbia is one of the few economic bright spots on the continent, under Bill Bennett's

[ Page 1348 ]

leadership. We've enjoyed a period of labour stability unequalled in the history of this province, under Bill Bennett's leadership. I have said that we have had four balanced budgets and are on our way to a fifth at a time when every other government in the country, except for Alberta, is racking up massive deficits, and we've even managed to put away a few surpluses.

At a time when every other government in Canada has been forced to cut back, British Columbia has been able to introduce major new social programs. Mr. Speaker, we are the only government in Canada that has introduced major social programs in the last five years: Pharmacare, long-term care, SAFER, soon — in this fiscal year, next fiscal year — denticare, and the largest hospital construction program this province has ever known.

Mr. Speaker, our stature in Confederation, as I've mentioned, has never been higher; it's certainly higher than when we had not an empty chair but a full chair that was being laughed at from the period from 1972 to 1975. Today, the country understands that British Columbia will demand and will be able to have, because of Bill Bennett's leadership, a dominant role in the development of the constitutional nature of our great country.

Mr. Speaker, the birth of BCRIC has been described as one of the few truly innovative financial ideas to come forward in this country for years. It was conceived and developed under Bill Bennett's leadership.

So, Mr. Speaker, if the issue is leadership, then that issue has been not only challenged but has been won in British Columbia. If the strength of our province is in the strength of leadership, then our foundation is extremely solid in this province. If our future lies in leadership that displays courage, dedication, imagination and vision, then I'm proud, Mr. Speaker, that you and I are going to be able to reach into the 1980s, reach into the twenty-first century, hand-in-hand with the finest leader this province has ever had, Bill Bennett.

MR. KING: I'd like to thank the minister for his comments this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, and agree with him on one or two points. I would certainly agree that the national stature of the Social Credit Party is at an all-time high. After all, we've just had a federal election, and that party received almost as many votes as the Rhinocerous Party. So I certainly don't blame the minister for revelling in his popularity.

The minister said that truth will out. Mr. Speaker, just one more time, for the record, I want to refer to Hansard, because remarks have been improperly attributed to me with respect to a previous speech I made in the House. I would like to read Hansard to clarify those allegations that were improperly made to me.

I made this comment. Perhaps my choice of words was not the best; however, I did withdraw upon the direction of the Speaker. I said this: "From the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), problems with the law to the extent where they have found it necessary to bug his office."

Now I stated twice after that that I did not mean to imply any criminal wrongdoing, or anything else, to the minister. In fact, on page 94-1 of Hansard for Tuesday night's sitting, I made this observation: "system...where a minister and his conduct in office is called to question in any way without presuming guilt."

Certainly I was implying no guilt, but if the members on the other side wish to ignore that for their own reasons, they are free to do so. Fortunately, Hansard is a verbatim record of debate in this House, and anyone who wishes to find the truth can find it therein.

Now the minister also said that B.C. is not a laughing-stock today, and I agree with the minister on that also. B.C. is not a laughing-stock, because the matters before this province and before this Legislature today are certainly nothing to laugh about, Mr. Speaker. However, the reputation of our province, the reputation of the very justice system in this province, is certainly called into question by allegations that have been made very recently on the CBC television station — allegations, I would observe, that are unproven but certainly serious enough to raise questions in the public mind with respect to the impartiality of the criminal justice system in this province, and a whole variety of other questions to which I am sure the public are awaiting answers.

Now I think everyone in the Legislature and the public know that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done, particularly with the administration of justice in the highest offices of the province. The highest office of the province is, of course, the Attorney-General's office. Allegations have been made that the Deputy Attorney General intervened in at least three cases in such a way as to to cast some doubt, at the very least, on the impartiality of the justice system with respect to those three cases.

A deputy minister operates under the direction, the scrutiny and the control of his minister. That is true in each and every department of government. It is also true in the British parliamentary system that a minister must accept full responsibility for the decisions made by his departmental staff, without question senior departmental staff. In many cases that can be referred to, down through the ages, ministers have stepped aside from office when there was a question or an allegation regarding the propriety of the conduct not only of themselves but certainly of senior officers of their ministry.

I am not seeking a resignation from the current Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Williams) nor from the previous one (Hon. Mr. Gardom). I am simply asking that the British parliamentary tradition be recognized, respected and complied with. That means that the minister simply steps down from his cabinet position until such time as the nature of the allegations can be fully investigated, the evidence gathered and weighed, and the truth of the matter determined. Of course, if it is found that there is no foundation to those allegations, then the minister should be free, along with his deputy, to resume his role.

If, on the other hand, there is merit to be found in the allegations which have been made — and, indeed, there has been some impropriety with respect to the impartial administration of justice in this province — then, of course, the minister who has stepped down should indeed be required to resign that portfolio. We on this side of the House seek to make no judgments in that respect; we simply seek to ensure that the proper practice is followed in terms of recognition and respect for proper parliamentary traditions in this province. That's the issue here.

Now a whole variety of questions come to the mind of the public with respect to the allegations that have been made, and these questions will remain until such time as a proper and impartial investigation has been conducted. I am not satisfied at all with an investigation which provides for a junior staff member to investigate his own boss, as we are led to believe was the case when the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

[ Page 1349 ]

Williams) asked Mr. McDiarmid to investigate Mr. Vogel previously. I suggest that that kind of investigation is ludicrous. How can an associate deputy, a junior officer to the deputy, investigate his superior, the deputy, and hope to arrive at any impartial conclusion that will be seen to have any merit and any substance in the public mind? Mr. Speaker, that's absolute nonsense. And certainly one doesn't have to be a lawyer to recognize that that is not an impartial inquiry; that is not one that would be acceptable to the public, much less to the opposition.

We are now treated to the spectacle of yet another allegation being made of interference by the Deputy Attorney General into other criminal cases. Hard on the heels of the previous investigation, where the associate deputy investigated his boss, now would you believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney-General's view of how to approach this new crisis is, apparently, for he himself to investigate his senior underling? Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough. We cannot have the Attorney-General conducting a quiet, internal investigation of the serious allegations that have been raised by the CBC television program — the serious allegations that have been put down in a letter from Mr. Donald, Crown counsel, to the former Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), specified in writing and of such grave consequence as to demand the highest and the most impartial inquiry. We cannot have a little, quiet, internal investigation by the Attorney-General, who, indeed, is responsible if his deputy was indiscreet in any way in intervening in a criminal case.

The old doctrine of ministerial responsibility is something that the current Social Credit government has chosen to totally disregard in a whole variety of cases. They know as well as we do that that is the core of the issue. They seek to divert the argument by going back to speeches of what happened in this province five years ago — in their view, from their jaundiced eye. They cannot stand to deal with the reality of here and now, Mr. Speaker. They don't want to involve themselves in a debate on these questions that affect the very, very important matter of the justice system.

The Attorney-General and the previous Attorney-General have scarcely been in this Legislature since that program was revealed. The Attorney-General, after being absent from the House all day Friday, finally dragged himself back into the House, just before adjournment, to make a very pallid statement that there would be some kind of internal investigation. Well, the criminal justice system in the province of British Columbia hangs in the balance while the minister fiddles.

People out there who have been convicted of violations of the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, people out there who have been convicted of drunk driving charges, are going to be asking the question today: "Would I have been treated differently had I known the Deputy Attorney-General?" And under the circumstances they have the right to ask that question.

Mr. Speaker, there is another very serious side to this matter, in my view. It's bad enough when we're accused of playing political favourites within the criminal justice system; but I suggest that if favouritism can be played, then we have to assume that enemies or perceived enemies of that office of the Attorney-General could also conceivably be treated differently than the average citizen.

We heard a minister of the Crown in this House get up and identify a member of the judiciary as being a lifelong enemy of the Bennett family. I suggest that that's a dangerous concept. I wonder how many other enemies of Social Credit are perceived to be out there. And I wonder whether or not those cases, when they came before the courts, have been treated in exactly the same way as the average citizen. It's a valid question that the public has a right to ask. If there's a charge of favouritism, then presumably there could be charges of discrimination in a harsh way too. This is a very, very serious matter. I hope the charges are absolutely untrue — I certainly do — because it doesn't do any good for the system of justice. It doesn't do any good for the political structure in this province to have that kind of thing going on.

But the question at this point is not whether they are true or false; the question at this point is not whether those charges are ultimately found to be valid; the question is that there should be no hesitation in getting to the root of the matter with a full and impartial investigation. That is not being done. We find the Attorney-General stonewalling in terms of coming to grips with these serious allegations in a proper and expeditious way; that is the danger.

Certainly I'm not a lawyer, but lawyers in this institution and, I think, most of the public for that matter.... You don't have to be a lawyer to recognize the importance of the separation between the executive branch of government and the judiciary — and, of course, the church. No one is suggestion any tampering with the church to date. But the proper separation of all of these estates in a democratic system are fundamental to preserving democracy, and when they are called into question in any way whatsoever, then the reaction of government should be immediate and it should be decisive. It should demand that all of those touched by the allegations step down, and it should conduct a full and private investigation by someone who is completely at arm's length from the political interests of the government. Then let the chips fall where they may. That is what's required in this case. I, for the life of me, cannot understand why the government hesitates, why they appear to be stonewalling on this issue, why they appear to be here in this House willing to debate anything but that crisis which is before the people of British Columbia today.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I think about certain pieces of legislation that have been brought in by this government. In the last couple of years certain bills have generated a great deal of heat in debate in this institution. I think about the compulsory drug treatment program, that facility which the Minister of Health devised to capture all of those accused of drug abuse on the streets of Vancouver and throughout the length and breadth of this province and to compel them to be institutionalized in a facility for the alleged treatment, although the treatment was never specified. My colleagues on this side of the House said that was a dangerous intrusion into the free and legal rights of individuals in the province. The courts ultimately decided that we were correct and that the government had been hasty. It was found to be unconstitutional, at least in part.

Yet here we have the same government today that will stand silently and blithely by and let the most serious allegations be raised with respect to partiality in the administration of justice. To be charitable, all I can say is that they are extremely slow in responding. And when they have responded it's been in such a pallid way, as I suggested earlier, as to give no credibility to the kind of investigation that we have been promised by the Attorney-General.

[ Page 1350 ]

The Attorneys-General, both of them, past and present, have already stated that they have full confidence in the deputy. That's fair enough, I guess. But surely it might have been more prudent, in light of the new allegation, to learn the truth of the matter, to view the evidence, before they came out with a judgment on the deputy's conduct.

We heard the Attorney-General earlier today, in response to questions from my colleague the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett), indicate that he had accepted a previous investigation regarding his deputy without ever viewing the evidence, simply on the basis of a report delivered to his desk by a junior staff person. I would think that matters of this import would command the personal attention of the Attorney-General. I would think that these matters get to the very heart of the justice system in this province, and nothing less than the personal scrutiny of the Attorney-General and his satisfaction as to the evidence in the matter should be expected of a senior political officer of that government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Mair would have handled it better.

MR. KING: I'm sure that he probably would have, Mr. Member. I'm sure that the Minister of Health would have handled it better. He may have lost his temper in the process, and he may have wanted to punch someone in the nose. I don't know, but I'm sure he would have handled it better.

While we're on that subject, I read a little article in the Colonist the other day about that minister saying that he and I had almost got involved in an altercation. He observed that if that happened I would beat his brains out. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say he's wrong on two counts. First, I have no intention of becoming involved in a physical conflict with him or any other member of this House. Second, I think it would be a great challenge to beat that member's brains out. So, be that as it may, those things, I think, are a bit of an exaggeration.

But I do think the Minister of Health is a pretty capable lawyer, and I think he understands the law. I think he understands the need for even-handed administration of law, and I think that he would have moved expeditiously to ensure that the public interest was protected, that the people of British Columbia could be satisfied that the law was being applied fairly and that justice was not only being done but would be seen to be done fairly and equitably without the benefit of any kind of tampering with the system for the alleged friends of the government or anyone else. That's the issue here today, and it's very, very important. Personally, I don't know how opposition members can really address themselves to any other issue until the government is prepared to come up with a straightforward decision on what they are going to do to preserve and protect the impartiality of our very basic criminal justice system in the province of British Columbia.

I would think that the Premier of the province would be giving some very pertinent and decisive direction to his Attorney-General at this particular point. I think, personally, that this is the most serious and grave allegation that I can ever recall being made in the province of British Columbia. I think it strikes at the very underpinning of our system, it is such that it should not be held in abeyance in any way and left to dangle while the minister fiddles around with an internal investigation of his own staff. They are too close — not only in working relationship, but in terms of the chain of command through that ministry — for it to be adequate or for it to be impartial to have the Attorney-General investigating his own deputy. Mr. Premier, I call for something better than that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the throne debate, let me congratulate you on the most onerous and difficult job your fellow legislators have asked you to carry out. Let me say that all of us look forward to your fair but firm hand helping to maintain the level of dignity and decorum in this assembly. And, Mr. Speaker, let me say that, for our part, we will attempt to give you every help in achieving that type of standard in our Legislature, all of us recognizing that the eyes of British Columbians are upon us and that we are their representatives and they wish to act as such.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I stand to support the Speech from the Throne. I do not support the Speech from the Throne because it is our legislative program; I support it because the things which are outlined in this Speech from the Throne have not been arrived at or achieved easily. It has taken some years of preparation by our government to bring us to a point in time when the programs that are outlined, promised and indicated in that speech could be carried out.

I intend, in winding up the throne debate today, to deal with the preparation that has taken place, and how we've arrived at this point in time in our province, so that we have been able to offer such programs and such an economic strategy that British Columbians can look forward with confidence to the future of this province.

First, without commenting on a vote in this House, but commenting on the charges that have been a part of the amendment proposed by the opposition, let me say this: I have no intention of responding to some of the convoluted charges made by that opposition. The innuendo — some of the facts clearly untrue, many of the statements a rehash of newspaper articles over the past six months — obviously is not the type of detailed research or the type of debate on how this province can be better administered that the people expect from us in this assembly.

There have been cries, shouts and requests that the assembly meet much earlier than we have been called because there were important things to be discussed, important programs that must be undertaken to lead this province into the 1980s. Let me suggest that the opposition, during the first four days of the throne speech debate, in not dealing with any issue in a positive way — any concrete proposal — has not given any indication that they can be a part of any administration or any leadership. In fact, they have come ill-prepared to this Legislature, prepared only to deal in that which they consider to be good political points, well-discussed and canvassed in the newspapers, but not prepared, as is called for in this assembly, to deal with the programs, the economic development, the industrial development, the programs for people and the budgeting of expenditures that will help to create a climate to lead this province.

Not one word have they uttered in order to offer an alternative to the programs of this government. Nowhere have they shown the direction in which they would like to lead British Columbia. Nowhere have they come out and said they are against many of the proposals, which I will deal with in a moment, which are sketched and fleshed out in that throne speech which has been termed by many to be the most detailed and significant throne speech in some time.

[ Page 1351 ]

Those are not my comments, Mr. Speaker, because obviously I would not pretend to give a critique of the speeches of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. To me, all of the speeches that have been presented by Lieutenant-Governors since I entered this House as the government leader have been exceptional and worthy documents for the direction in which British Columbia is going.

I don't intend, in summing up this debate and in supporting the Speech from the Throne as a positive document, to deal in the type of negative discussion that has been a part of some of the speeches in this chamber, speeches which have drawn responses and which have led to incidents of which no one in this House can feel proud. But we can understand the climate that was created and the public can understand that such allegations as were made would draw such responses. For our part it is sometimes difficult, but that is not this government's way and it is not the way in which we are going to lead this province in the 1980s.

Nor would I suggest that the main topic of conversation or those things which are put forward in this debate should be the idle speculation in which the gossip and rumour surrounding politics plays a major part. You would think by some of the things that have been put forward that we were in another election campaign. The speculation is that somehow an election campaign is imminent. Let me say to those who only wish to fight the last election because they didn't like the result that the voters have spoken: let me say to them that this government has prepared for a time of leading this province into the eighties. That isn't just a catchword or phrase to be said on New Year's Eve, 1979 — "We are launching ourselves into a new decade" — because we started launching ourselves into the eighties in 1976. And let me say that the throne speech and the budget of 1976 and the following throne speeches and budgets of 1977, 1978 and 1979 have all been a part of bringing us to a point in time when British Columbians can look with optimism to the future. People want leadership. They have had leadership — exciting leadership, tough leadership, strong programs, strong action — that has brought us to this point in time, and an outline and a blueprint for stronger action to come.

This government has made some difficult decisions and at times we have erred. We apologize for when we err, because we want, more than anyone else, to be a perfect government. But perfect governments would only be made of perfect people, and we must admit that, as a populist party, representing the average people of British Columbia, we don't come as perfect people. But we come with a perfect commitment — a commitment to perfection.

Now when I say, Mr. Speaker, in summing up for the government our support of the throne speech, that these things that are outlined didn't just happen, let me review for you some of the thoughts and actions that went into four years of preparation. Let me talk about 1976 and a new government having to develop an industrial strategy for British Columbia where no such strategy existed, a government prepared to lead and help provide the climate to make things happen, rather than trying to deter, even penalize, those who were successful in the province but who somehow didn't deserve their share of the wealth. Rather than discourage or penalize, our government set out to encourage and provide opportunity for those people in British Columbia who would take the initiative, risk their capital, build some prosperity, create employment and be proud to be in British Columbia, knowing that their investment, under fair laws, not laws of privilege, would be protected; that they would be dealt with fairly and could look to the future; that the things they built through their own effort would depend on their own success; that government would not be in the position to penalize them, but would be there to provide the opportunities. The people have responded, and that's why I wish to outline some of these things as I wind up the throne speech debate as the designated speaker for the government — and for the party, and for the people of this province.

Let me say that the industrial strategy demanded that British Columbia not isolate itself from the rest of Canada. It demanded that we look to the government of Canada, our government in Canada, no matter which political party was in power. Perhaps that statement is easier for a party such as ours to make — for a leader with no federal party. We are a strictly provincial party, in which I think there are advantages, because we can go to the government of Canada, willing, as the government of British Columbia, not to threaten them or to be partisan or to embarrass them. But we also don't go down as their junior partners, somehow in a junior role, so that we are not able to achieve the results that the people of British Columbia expect. And I say that perhaps that has been a large reason why we have been so successful.

We found that British Columbia had not always been considered to be interested in participating with the rest of Canada. Whether the impression was correct or not, we felt that many felt that somehow the Rocky Mountains were a dividing line between British Columbia and the rest of Canada, and that somehow we didn't care. But we do care, and we did care. Above all, we cared for the people we represented as government, because we felt that if there had been neglect, it had been to the detriment of British Columbia. Many federal programs of industrial development, opportunities to participate with tax dollars we'd already sent through the federal system, lay unused because no agreement had been achieved — the type of agreements that would give us our fair share to try and develop industry in a sophisticated and real way. We were able to sign a number of agreements, and we didn't sign them easily; they took a lot of negotiation. I think of the General Development Agreement, DREE, TIDSA, agreements in education and health, and a host of programs that have benefited the people of this province — forestry and others.

Mr. Speaker, these agreements were not easily arrived at. They took hard negotiation. I can remember when the minister, then known as the greatest Minister of Economic Development that British Columbia had ever had, went to the government of Canada in Ottawa to talk to his counterparts. During the first two visits, he had to get over the fact that they were shocked to see a real live member of the government of British Columbia willing to talk and willing to try to get some action for our province. Talk he did, but he did more than talk. That minister entered negotiations. He upgraded the ministry, he brought in strong people and advisers, and British Columbia is the winner today. The signing of the General Development Agreement and the subsequent agreements attached to it is responsible for many of the jobs that British Columbians have today.

The increase in the number of British Columbians working — I will deal with that later in this opportunity to deal with the growth that we find to be very, very positive in this province, and growth we wish to accelerate. Because we're not yet satisfied; we want even more opportunity for our people. These agreements have created employment; but

[ Page 1352 ]

what they've also done is created opportunities for many, many small businesses in this province. Those agreements created a climate, along with the climate of optimism and opportunity that was created politically by a number of other moves relating to specific areas which I will discuss in a moment, moves that led people to start their small companies and get out and compete in the marketplace knowing full well that the market system does not allow everyone to succeed. If it did, the consumer would be the loser. A genuine marketplace guarantees that the consumer is getting the best possible price, service and quality. No single supplier such as a government monopoly, or a system that guaranteed that everybody could make a profit, could provide that guarantee to the people.

The market system is there for people to succeed. It allows them the opportunity to fail, but it also gives them the chance to try again and again. Many of the successes in the history of this province have been people who've tried again and again. Bitterness over a single failure has never been part of the British Columbia dream, nor has it been part of the character of the people who have built this province. It has been the opportunity to strive that has driven them on.

What have been the results? Well, we've seen an exciting and dramatic increase in British Columbians setting up small limited companies, small businesses, in response to these opportunities. In 1975, 10,267 companies incorporated in British Columbia. You realize though, Mr. Speaker, that through the years 1972 to 1975 the number of new companies was practically constant — no increase. Listen to these figures. In 1972 there were 9,024 companies; 1973, 9,412; 1974, 9,766;1975, 10,267 — a difference over four years of just 1,000 additional companies, or about 10 percent. In 1976, a new year, a new opportunity, there was a jump to 12,355; 1977, a jump to 13,209; 1978, a jump to 15,215; and 1979, a jump to 17,611. Let me say also that the same sorts of results were also felt in what are called extraprovincial companies.

At that point in time our own people and other Canadians found a new confidence in this province, a confidence gained from the fact that they had a government that would deal with them fairly and that provided opportunity. The people responded. You can find dramatic increases in partnerships, over and above the small, limited-liability companies. You can also find dramatic increases in single proprietorships where, with no association with others, British Columbians set out to provide their own small service independently. These are the people who have helped to build the tremendous growth that has taken place in British Columbia these last four years, a prosperity and growth that, perhaps, many now take for granted. Perhaps the very success that we have had is now considered the norm. Perhaps British Columbia's difficulty, then, is competing with our own success, because if you go to any other part of Canada, they look at British Columbia with wonderment, amazement and envy. That is why that very disturbing trend had started in the early 1970s just prior to us being government, that interprovincial migration — that is, that movement of Canadians back and forth within their own country — with more Canadians leaving British Columbia than were coming to it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It is the only time, I am advised by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), in the history of British Columbia that that happened. I wonder if the people of British Columbia can measure that significant event by the fact that it was after three years of the only time in our history when we had a socialist government. I wonder if the two events are related. No, I don't wonder, Mr. Speaker. I know they are, because I remember those days.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) remembers those days. Those are the days he preferred to be in Ottawa. But he knew when there was an opportunity in British Columbia, and after we were elected he left his seat in Parliament and came back to British Columbia. He knows that his primary concern is to develop a lucrative law practice. I won't comment on that.

Mr. Speaker, those are the things that happened. The development of these agreements and new cooperation with the government of Canada were a milestone for British Columbia.

What about the mining sector? What about that industry — British Columbia's number two industry? What did this government face in 1976 when we were attempting to develop an economic strategy where none had been? One was to look at the mining industry and the great opportunities that were here in British Columbia — opportunities that didn't require government going out and looking for mines, didn't require government developing the mines, didn't require government to take over the mines, but required fair taxation. This would offer a just opportunity for the people of British Columbia who had traditionally worked in this area, those who went out and sought new minerals, economically developable minerals — the prospectors.

What we had seen by the type of unfair and ridiculous legislation.... More than that, the implied intent of the government of that day created a climate that made not only prospectors and capital flee this province, but a technology that had been built up because of the optimism.... It was the fleeing of a technology considered at that time to be the best in the world. People of skills — professionals, people who could make a contribution to British Columbia — fled to various parts of the world where there was some opportunity. What had taken years of hard work, confidence and opportunity to build up was lost almost overnight by an unfeeling and uncaring government who didn't understand that they were there to govern for the people. Some of those people were the little people who worked in mining. It was easy to stand up and rail against multinational corporations or mining companies, forgetting at the same time that many of these companies were owned by little people — individuals who, through their pension funds or through their individual purchase, had bought the shares. They were looking for their company to have a fair opportunity for return — nothing special, just an opportunity — and not only those who work but those who'd put up their capital were hurt. We looked at it. We changed the legislation. It's tough legislation but it's fair. It's a tax on profits, Mr. Speaker, to make sure there are no undue profits, but above all it's not providing the taxation level that was there before that went over 100 percent.

Never let that party over there run the banks, because you've heard of usury; you wouldn't know what they could do when they had taxation over 100 percent. What would they ever do with the interest rates in this country, given the responsibility of power or the opportunity of power?

Mr. Speaker, this government had a strategy to encourage mining, but it was not just to encourage the prospectors and the people to harness their capital, or to invite back the

[ Page 1353 ]

technical skills, the technicians, the technology that had been built up in order to provide greater economic opportunity for this province, which was reflected not only in the wages in the pockets of the people. Some of it, Mr. Speaker — a lot of it — is finding its way into the government coffers and is returned to the people in general benefits.

When there is no industry, there can be no money to government, and so not only have people lost their jobs and companies failed and investors lost their money and technicians left, but there is no money for government either. That's the day a government that would be so irresponsible — and they would have had they had a chance to have more than a single term — would have to look at the people and say: "We've run out of money, so we're going to borrow more and go into more debt. We're going to put more charges on you, the people. At the same time, I'm sorry, but we can't continue the social benefits that have been built up by the people of this province in the past because we've got no money. Those horrible companies left us." Oh, yes, they'd blame it on them, but we know, Mr. Speaker. And that was the strategy for mining.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we sought to improve the trading relations with other countries in the world for British Columbia products. We sought to open up new trading opportunities with Pacific Rim countries. We sought to open up not only trading opportunities in the Pacific Rim, because it was a new and opportunistic market, but we looked at some parts of our industries — and I'll deal with forestry — when we saw that the dependency that had been built up on U.S. markets, say, for our lumber products, left British Columbia and British Columbians vulnerable to another economy. We said: "That's not good enough. The sort of taking it for granted that the Americans will always build houses and always be prosperous is not enough. We want to spread our risk." Not that we don't like them, not that we're not confident in the Americans or their economy, but we did it to say British Columbians have greater opportunity. And today we have developed additional markets, encouraging the private sector and companies — and I'll deal with it in a moment — so that, in a significant way, we have lessened our dependency, provided greater confidence or greater opportunity to the people who work in the industry, so when the U.S. catches a cold we won't catch pneumonia. We'll no longer be the tail of the dog.

You'd think, Mr. Speaker, that would have been done, but that was done by this government, by that minister. The Minister of Economic Development then, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development now (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources at that time, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources now (Hon. Mr. McClelland), and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) have all played a major part, and I'll deal with that in just a moment.

We've sought and are sending a signal that we want to do more processing, more smelting and refining, in our province. And, Mr. Speaker, that is part of the new additional policy that I will be speaking to in just a few moments.

What about forests? As I say, we had a dependence on U.S. markets, and what did we do? We encouraged trips, not only of industry but industry and labour, to Japan and other countries. The standards then which frame construction techniques, using British Columbia techniques.... There were no housing starts there in North American techniques, and British Columbia and the United States now are both prospering in the amount of housing that is being built using our techniques, using British Columbia forest products. Mr. Speaker, 10,000 homes a year are being constructed now, and it will be just a short time before 100,000 homes are being built.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The chirpers opposite are chirping, Mr. Speaker, but I talked to the president of Mitsui Homes. He knows who encouraged his company to use these types of standards.

Mr. Speaker, we're also working with the industry to get additional British Columbia forest products into the Japanese market. Beyond the opportunities for plywood, we now are working to get the glue-line standards and the standards of British Columbia softwood plywoods accepted to help our interior plywood industry have access to that market. None of that work was done before we became government. Our British Columbia success is that we don't do these things for ourselves, it is to help provide a growing and stable forest industry in British Columbia.

What are the results of some of this? Just recently I had the opportunity, at Nanaimo, to participate in the opening of the Mayo sawmill. You might be interested to know that this is the first sawmill geared to Japanese sizes and dimensions, for their housing market, geared solely to take advantage of that growing market. It's an example to other mills which will be taking the same opportunity. After four years of this government we will see a growing number of this type of mill, which will spread the market and open the market and end the sort of single dependency we had before. You've seen the changes, Mr. Speaker. I will deal with the figures, which are dramatic, that show the type of dependency we had on the U.S. market. That was part of the economic strategy on forestry.

We looked at other major economic areas, areas that British Columbia had traditionally felt would grow, yet something had happened. One of them was tourism. We looked at tourism, and we recognized it as a great opportunity for the service industries of this province — many individual people working in small businesses, many people wanting to develop small restaurants, wishing to develop service stations or laundry services or coin washes, wishing to work in those industries, the workers in the restaurants and dining rooms of this province, thousands and thousands of people whose livelihood depends not on just British Columbians, but on others who come to share our province and leave behind their dollars and jobs for our people and who take away nothing more than pleasant memories of a province that's worth visiting and worth living in as well.

We well remember that not all governments have been sensitive to tourism as a worthwhile industry. I remember very well sitting in this Legislature, being a part of the people of B.C. and hearing the shocking statement from the former Minister of Highways (Mr. Lea), who said he didn't want tourists because all they brought was garbage. That isn't the philosophy of our government. When we became government we had to do a lot to repair the damage to B.C.'s reputation by that member, the member for Prince Rupert now, who they felt was speaking for the government, and whose statements went unchecked and were, because of the silence of his colleagues, supported by that government. We had to go down and win the confidence of, and deal with, the

[ Page 1354 ]

travel industry. We had to help our people learn how not to reflect the attitudes of that former minister and that former government. We had to tell them that that isn't the way British Columbians win tourists. They had been told to frown and scowl and that tourists weren't wanted. We had to teach them to smile. That was the way to win tourists: not to go around with a scowl.

The Minister of Highways in that former government told them he didn't want tourists and that tourists brought garbage. We said: "Nonsense! Let us help you with hospitality courses for small businesses who don't have the sophisticated training programs of Hilton Hotels and others." These training programs helped many a small businessman, but more than them, the people who work in the industry. It was an extension of their education and a way in which they could improve their skills, with just a little help from government in providing a better service. You know, that brought tourists, and it helped them not only to hold a job but to secure an industry in which their jobs would be more secure in the future. That's people working together. That was giving the people an opportunity to develop the tourist business.

It wasn't government running around with tax dollars, spending and saying: "This is the way we'll play in the tourist industry, after we've told them we don't want them." It was saying: "Look, tourism is one of the key areas in which there is an opportunity for the average guy with limited capital to develop a small service or small business and get out and do something for himself, and not be dependent on government or be threatened by government wanting to be in the tourist business." This is where the opportunities lie. More small businesses start in that area than in almost any other.

Not all the people of this province have a chance to be wealthy lawyers like the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt). For them it's difficult; sometimes the opportunities were not there for that type of preparation and skill. Perhaps then they need that opportunity later in life, or encouragement in an industry they're already involved in but haven't been given any help in.

I know people from Atlin have been concerned that even now members of that party are hurting their tourist industry. I've had letters of complaint from Atlin about their own member, who they feel has threatened their tourist industry. I have had letters from the people of that area asking me to refute the remarks attributed to that member, because it has hurt their industry. Mr. Speaker, that wasn't just something they practised as government. Apparently it's still there: a sort of insensitive, unfeeling attitude for the little people who work in the industry, the small businesses, that somehow it doesn't matter, it's not important. Well, it was important to this government.

Mr. Speaker, you being impartial, can see the results in British Columbia today. You've seen the change, the growth, the smiles upon the faces of the people who work in those businesses. That smile doesn't reflect a campaign to make them smile; that smile reflects the satisfaction they have in knowing that they have a growing industry which offers them security and opportunity. That's why they're smiling. It's not a forced smile; it's a smile of confidence. It's a smile at the successes they're having because they have responded to the opportunities government has encouraged — that they themselves have a more secure future, not dependent on government handout or welfare but dependent on government giving them a chance. That's all British Columbians want in the future. They don't want a big government that says, "We will look after you, and you, and you," so everybody becomes a ward of the government — and when that happens I wonder who, as a taxpayer, is going to send the money to government to pay for it. What they want is a chance. Nobody wants to be beholden to or dependent on government. As many as can be will be given — and during these last four years have been given — a chance in the various economic sectors, because this government recognizes that. Tourism, forestry, mining: tremendous changes have been undertaken in these industries that are one, two and three in British Columbia; tremendous changes and opportunities, and the people have responded.

What else has helped in that industrial policy over the last four years that has brought British Columbia to this point of prosperity? The boo birds on the other side would try to talk about scandal and innuendo, because they don't want to talk about the real prosperity that is in this province. It doesn't make exciting reading in the gossip columns in Hush, Scandal, or whatever magazines print those sorts of gossipy rumours, that this thing or that thing is going to happen or has happened. Success is now taken for granted in this province, that's the problem; it's not news anymore. Just a few short years ago success would have been news, but not now, because it's happening and is taken for granted.

Today when you go out and talk to the small businessmen they say: "Oh, we've got worries." I said: "What are your worries?" They said: "Things are just tough for us small businessmen." "What is it?" "How will we ever make next year as good as this year? How will we ever have the type of success we've got this year, which is the best year in our history? How can we repeat it?" Well, if that's a problem, that's the type of problem we want in British Columbia. A few years ago they just wanted to hang on, or they'd given up and were leaving and going to Alberta and elsewhere, because they felt there was no opportunity here.

Besides these major sectors, how did government play a role — besides fair taxation, removing taxation that was unfair and prohibitive to the industry? Well, of course, you know that we brought in a major new Forest Act. Since that time we have been updating the act through the type of fair regulation that provides a place for the small, the large, the sophisticated and the value added that's needed in the forest industry, which is mostly allocated and now needs the guarantee of continuing forest cut that can guarantee the workforce in the markets we've established, that needs the type of innovative look beyond the inventory of the forest base to see if there are areas in which, as part of our reforestation and good forest practice, we could look at the type of timber that could be utilized to help small business today and the type of project which I believe is being undertaken now at Ocean Falls, according to the announcement the other day. That could dramatically change the forest industry on the coast for small business, as it changed for the interior forest industry in the sixties.

A man named Williston was hooted at and disagreed with, told that his policies wouldn't work, and yet they developed the largest part of the forest economic strength. They brought an opening up of the interior, opportunities for workers, the IWA members, the people in the pulp and paper industry and others. They gave the people of the interior a chance, and that very same vision and determination and stubbornness to do it again is going to mean major economic growth that can be good forest practice as well. Because, Mr.

[ Page 1355 ]

Speaker, areas of timber that are considered decadent and not now part of the forestry reserve will be harvested. When this is successful — I was going to say "if" but I say "when," because I'm positive about it — they can provide opportunities for small mills up the coast and even into Stewart, which has wanted to have some forestry and some forest facility for so long. Even in that community we can develop those types of new, small facilities using the decadent and unharvested timber that has been not regarded as merchantable up until now. There's a secondary benefit besides the economy and the jobs and the new businesses, because it will make a place for new growth, proper silviculture, reforestation, and as well it will mean a new and renewed forest rather than a forest not having the opportunity to attain its potential because nobody has looked in an innovative way at those decadent stands.

This is a government that's looking for new ways and new opportunities to help the people. But as well as those industries, what about the areas of transportation? Important transportation links in this province — rail, ferry, highways, and an area that up until now has not been considered in the provincial jurisdiction and so has been neglected, air facilities.... We've had governments before who were great at talk but poor at action, who have always just said: "This belongs to the federal government." We look around B.C., and we see a vast province, one of tremendous area and a growing population of about 2.5 million now. That's not many people in a large area, many of them in remote communities. Their access is by air. Distance now is measured in time although our province is 950,000 square kilometres. For those opposite who can't convert, that's 366,000 square miles. But it's large by any measurement, and those people's access depends on air facilities.

Our government, with the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), broke new ground by setting up the airport facilities fund, scoffed at by that party over there. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the citizens and the communities received upgraded airports, additional navigational aids, lighting, because this government said: "We're not going to wait for the government of Canada. We're going to help." Whether it's in a large city like Nanaimo which needed lighting, whether it's the development of a strip or the paving and construction of facilities — because the weather's not always the best there at Bella Coola, Stewart and other towns — this government provided facilities so that not only could small aircraft get in but the provincial government's air ambulance service could extend very necessary life-saving aid to the people of those communities.

It won't be lost on those people that during my discussion of this members opposite have hooted. They're against it. It can be considered then that they don't care, in hooting during my remarks, to help the people of those areas with transportation, to provide ambulance services and, what's more, to be an encouragement not only to the private planes but planes that carry some services — the mail and others, ambulance planes — so hopefully we could encourage the third-level air carriers to provide some sort of scheduled service. That's the type of innovative transportation policy this government has had.

I could go through just a single constituency, the constituency of Omineca, in which three airports have been substantially upgraded — those people are appreciative. They'll be interested to know that the New Democratic Party laughed at the program and still laughs at it. But they do know this: they've got a service that's quick, they've got an opportunity that can provide even better service in the future.

Small business, in the third-level air carrier business in this province, has an opportunity to do what British Columbia has done before, and we have been the one province that has developed a major successful airline — not a government airline, but CP Air was first coming out as a third-level air carrier in British Columbia. It now stretches coast to coast. The second was PWA, successful in extending now to the middle of the country. We now have an opportunity for that success out of innovative and opportunistic British Columbia to be repeated. The answer isn't in nationalized airlines or in taking them over after they're successful, but in allowing the initiative of the people and giving them those areas where government should be involved: proper and safe landing strips, safe navigational aids and lighting to increase not only day service but night service. Mr. Speaker, the people of those areas know that this government was first.

And what about highways? When we came to government there was no real highway program in existence. The highways of the province, once the main connectors that linked together the people of this province by truck and by car and that helped to open up communities, not for the sake of blacktop, as some will say, because highways are there for the people.... But talk again to the people in the remote communities who, for a large part of their life.... Maybe some members are too young to remember what it was like in the interior of British Columbia before 1952, when we were substantially landlocked, cut off from access to the rest of the province or from British Columbia's large metropolitan centres — Vancouver and Vancouver Island. We had no connection, and yet we had a potential in the interior of this province second to none. This province extended more than just a couple of miles beyond Chilliwack.

But there was a big province waiting out there, and there was a dream of a government elected in 1952, a government that has the name of the party that is the government of today, which said: "British Columbia, if it's to be anything for all people, must indeed provide services to all the people, connect communities...." They built highways, and because the highways of this province met a very basic and fundamental need of the people, that party over there called them a blacktop government and said they were buying votes because they were doing the right thing.

Well, I've got to tell you, if that's buying votes, then the right thing that this government intends to do will pay off in a lot of votes in the next election, because we intend to continue to do the right thing by those people and communities. Rather than neglect the highways, as was done prior to our government, we intend to continue not only to maintain those highways we have, but to open up new areas to provide new access. That means, as well as highways and as well as dramatic new roads into the interior, that bridges will have to be built to service the people of this province. I'm amused — maybe even distressed — to hear the specious arguments that somehow this government, in trying to meet the needs of the people of Delta, Surrey, Richmond and those areas, is hurting the opportunities for transit by building and constructing the Annacis Island crossing.

Let me tell you that the two are not competitive; they must move together hand in hand. And the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville (Mr. Levi), who stood up and stated that he was against the Annacis Island crossing.... Because no member of his party over there has dissociated himself or herself

[ Page 1356 ]

from his remarks, I presume now that he has spoken for that party and that they will tell the people of Surrey and Richmond that they're against it. Let me tell you that they're not competitive, Mr. Speaker.

We recognize it is not government's right, through the taxation and spending powers we have, to dictate the way people move in this province. There are some who say we should force people to travel in a certain manner. Obviously that is not the type of democratic government people want to see in this province. They must be given choices, and they will have those choices. Because of solid management of the financial affairs of this government and this province, we can proceed in both ways at once. Those people will have the opportunity to travel over the Annacis Island crossing, and I look forward to opening day and helping to cut the ribbon as the first car crosses — just as I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to cutting the first ribbon on an LRT and a transit system that serves the people of greater Vancouver as well. And we will, because for the first time we've brought in an act and a rationalization of transit so that you don't have one part of the province and the major cities of the interior operating with government and the others run by an energy distributing and production company. It will be equitable under a single authority that calls for local representation.

Local representation. Do you know how long the local people have been asking for local representation in transit, in UTA and transit authorities? Do you know how long? They've been waiting a long time. I can remember that party. They got a few people to make a lot of independent moves into transportation, like SeaBus, and move this way and order buses for a Hydro system without them knowing. I remember that. I remember that, Mr. Speaker, and that didn't rationalize it. What the people of greater Vancouver wanted.... I was a member of the opposition and leader of this party then, and the mayor of Vancouver came to me and said: "Give us a fair formula in which you participate in the losses and give us representation. Help us to let us develop our own system and we'll share the losses fifty-fifty."

I'll tell you what we did, Mr. Speaker. We brought in an act that gives them that participation. Do you know what we're sharing the deficits at? It's 75 percent, because we know that the user cannot pay the total cost. It's better than requested by the mayor of Vancouver. We set up the system they asked for. We made it richer than they asked for, and when you see the legislation unfold this year, you'll see that this government is prepared not only to give them that invitation, but there will be further invitations to respond and get on with the job in transit in this province.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It won't be the just the "we would have done it," because the ''we would have done it boys" couldn't have done it because they had no money, Mr. Speaker. They spent it all, or, if I could be excused, spilled it all. They spilled it all.

Mr. Speaker, the communities of the interior and now the greater Vancouver area and greater Victoria area can all operate in the same equitable manner with a provincial government that's given them local participation, direction, and is picking up the lion's share of any deficit.

Let those on local government remember this: when we're setting up that opportunity and when we're paying the lion's share, we won't let them — whether it's a negotiation tactic or whether it's their philosophy — take away the benefits of the seniors and their bus passes in this province. I say to those local representatives: "You have been given a challenge and a responsibility that you've asked for for a long time; don't now frivolously, for a negotiation stance or whatever your motive, make pawns of the people in this province whom we have seen fit to help through social benefit — because of special rates, special fares and sometimes no fares for our seniors. Don't make them the pawns of any negotiation games. This government wants to assure those people that they will not be pawns in any negotiation, that we will look after them....

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you threatening them?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Vancouver Centre has said: "Are you threatening them?" No, I'm saying I'm not letting them threaten anybody in this province. That's what I'm saying. I'm not letting the people of this province be threatened. And I won't let you threaten them either with the type of jackboot government you used to be a part of.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What about ferries?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Back to orderly debate. The Premier has the floor.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Thank you for your timely admonition and reminder to those members, Mr. Speaker. What about that other part of transportation? Yes, our government has taken some criticism earlier over the subsidies to our ferry system. Prior to our government the ferry system in this province, as an extension of the highways, had been expected to stand on its own feet. For most of the years, right up till '72, it had done so.

There developed then — in a period of inflation, with escalating labour costs, and, later, escalating fuel costs because of the change in energy values and the actions of the OPEC nations — the inability of government to finance the operating costs through a user-pay policy. That situation was not made apparent to the people by the government we replaced, although those losses were starting to mount. Those losses started during their administration — and they started to mount.

The public was not given any transportation policy or philosophy in which, somehow, government would share. In fact it fell upon our government to look at what was happening. And, yes, the messenger brought some bad news: that that service was in a major loss position and the losses were growing worse. We had to rationalize the cost of fares, as had other transportation systems, not only in Canada and North America but throughout the world. But we were going to bring about a policy that brought in, for the first time, an identifiable subsidy — a subsidy that could be rationalized, a subsidy that would pay the major share of the operating costs of those ferries. And we did.

Today the ferry system can continue to expand and to develop its service. It doesn't have to come, cap in hand, to government every year, because within that subsidy it has a built-in cost escalator that relates directly to the cost-price increase in this province. It means that it is responsible for

[ Page 1357 ]

maintaining the balance of user-pay with a formula already set up by government — a formula that is generous. Within that formula, I must say, we have for the first time received — and it was in the early part of our first term — a commitment in principle from the federal government, which they said they would never give. They told the former Social Credit Premier of this province, who set up B.C. Ferries and provided that transportation system and presided over it during its finest years, that they would never provide federal funds for the west coast ferry system, although at that time they provided major sums not only to the CNR ferry on the east coast but also to the ferry systems that serve the Atlantic provinces. They said that in principle they would never provide federal funds to British Columbia.

If the question was asked — and I don't know if it was — by the government that preceded us, they were either ignored or turned down. But we were not prepared to have British Columbians, in principle, considered second-rate or second-class Canadians. We said that when it came to a matter of principle the federal government had a responsibility.

MR. LEGGATT: You let it get so bad that they had to bail you out.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, we negotiated that agreement right after this government took over from the then operators of the system. If the member for Coquitlam-Moody, who was in Ottawa at the time, says that the system was bad, it is a condemnation of the way it was operated by his party's government. I would think that that member, who so far in this session and in the last session has been wrong so consistently, would learn — as an old-time politician, but as a new member of this House — to be a little more sure of what has gone on and what is going on in British Columbia before he blunders into traps of his own setting. Your words are recorded, my friend, and I am going to mail them out to Coquitlam-Moody so that the people will know the type of representation....

Let me get back to what has happened. We got the first agreement from the federal government in principle. I said at the time that the amount was not enough as it related to the type of subsidy — and it has grown to well over $100 million — that the east coast was getting. But the commitment in principle and the precedent it sets for future governments — on the efforts of this government to negotiate fair amounts — is priceless, because we convinced them that we were a part of Canada and that that needed to be recognized in principle.

What about rail? There has been a lot of discussion on rail. Yes, we had a royal commission on the British Columbia Railway, and we looked at its recommendations. This government agreed with some and disagreed with some of the recommendations.

When you consider the direction that railway was going, and that during the years 1972 through to December 1975 it accumulated the largest losses it had ever seen, it deserved some kind of attention from the government — attention in which the public could focus its attention on the people of those communities. From that we made a commitment to those northern communities of Fort Nelson and elsewhere, not only that the service that was so essential to their communities would be maintained but also that the line would be upgraded to standards that guaranteed safety and continuity of service. We said to them that we would try to do as we had already done, but we would bring in something that we did before the royal commission, and that is the independent board of directors. Previous Premiers have been president of the railway. I never sought that role, nor wanted it, nor took that role. The president of the railway is a professional; the directors are people who have some expertise in transport. Their responsibility is to try and bring harmony to a railway in which harmony has not been the case over a large number of years — too many years.

Railway is a pro.... This year, besides doing those things and guaranteeing the service, in the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, we take a further step and suggest that we will rationalize further the debt burden, most of which was imposed between 1972 and December 1975, upon that railway. And that will be consistent with the philosophy of our government.

When we came to government and found a ferry system losing money, we said, "Users shall not pay the total cost," and we provided money from government. We provide highways at no user pay, bridges at no user pay, and while the railway provides a freight service in which rates must be competitive.... A large part of it is pioneering and opening up an area, and part of it can never be measured — the economic contribution it has made — because it opened up a province. We're going to give it the same consideration.

But we also looked at this industrial strategy, besides all of the transportation infrastructure, and we recognized, as I said earlier, that new markets of expanding opportunity lay out there to the Pacific Rim-emerging countries, countries with increasing industrial capacity, the new growth, the new producers of the world — creating new consumers and new markets for B.C. products.

That meant we could not be dependent on a single port system, Mr. Speaker. We wanted to develop additional port capacity for the products of British Columbia, but not only for British Columbians; for Canadians. Canadian goods will move to the Pacific Rim countries through our ports. The intense discussion we had with the government of Canada then has got us commitments to improve port facilities at Prince Rupert, but not just a port that will service grain, a port facility that will be a bulk-commodity and resource port that will handle not only grain from the Prairies and perhaps the potash from Saskatchewan — I'm not sure whether it will handle the uranium from Saskatchewan that Mr. Broadbent and Mr. Blakeney advocate the mining of; I'm not sure if it will handle that — but also products from British Columbia. It will be a part of giving the security of supply to our customers that they must have in order to consider British Columbia a reliable supplier.

A single port that could be tied up by rail, could be tied up at port, could be tied up by accidents, cannot be considered a reliable supplier, and those who would trade with us, besides price and quality, must have security of supply. It's not enough that we've improved the industrial climate in British Columbia so that we have less man-days lost due to strikes and lockouts each and every year we've been government than took place under the previous government. That sort of reliability of supply they can see. It's not just the double-tracking of the CPR and Roberts Bank on the south. They need additional port capacity from our province, and Prince Rupert will be built. It will be developed and, Mr. Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), I look forward to cutting the ribbon at that port and that rail system, and watching new products from British Columbia go out through that port.

Duke Point at Nanaimo, additional berths at Roberts

[ Page 1358 ]

Bank — no single area is receiving all the attention. It's a multifaceted and multifaced industrial and port expansion that will bring prosperity to all parts of British Columbia.

And then we look further at our industrial strategy, because there was no energy policy in British Columbia. We were still living in the smug satisfaction and confidence that we had a secure and large energy supply, because of the far-sightedness of government in bringing in the Two River policy and developing the hydro capacity in advance for the people of British Columbia. That means we have no brownouts, it means we have no blackouts, but that false sense of security apparently was prevalent in the administration that preceded us, and no energy policy was developed, no energy policy was enunciated. In fact, the only statement we had to go on was that the very success of British Columbia's security of supply, the two-river policy, would not have taken place if they had been government. I remember their speeches and their statements. It was a former Speaker of this House, Mr. Dowding, who said that if they were doing the two-river policy, they wouldn't develop them both at once, that British Columbia couldn't use all that energy and they wouldn't be developing the second river until 1984, a date that is significant in their party's consciousness. If we had listened to them and they'd been government there'd be brownouts and blackouts in British Columbia today.

We have a policy and that policy extends beyond hydro. I don't agree, and this government does not agree, with the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), a minister in that former government, who said that there would be and should be no more hydroelectric development in this province. That type of statement cannot be made. British Columbia cannot be bound by that type of stupid statement. Hydroelectric power is a part of British Columbia's future, if it is developed conscientiously and with proper care. It is clean and safe. For that member for Nelson-Creston, on behalf of that government, when they were government — and who perhaps became a cabinet minister because of it; he was made a cabinet minister right after it — to make the statement, that he wanted nuclear power in B.C., is not acceptable. We believe that responsible development of hydroelectric power provides a clean and safe energy source for British Columbians.

But more than that, one of our more precious commodities in this province is our water — clean water, fresh water — that right now runs into the ocean unharnessed, unsaved, unused by the people of this province. I believe that our most precious commodity will be fresh water...

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...and that it can be developed with the assurance that the fish stocks will not be harmed. We can look at hydro development, but to reject it as totally as that member did....

I come from the Okanagan, and I recognize that the Okanagan would be nothing without the storage of fresh water that has brought prosperity to that area. That land would be considered useless; it would be desert; it would be rattlesnake and sagebrush country, if it were not the most highly developed watershed in North America in the conservation and saving of water. The people of the Okanagan know the value of conserving and saving water. They recognize that storage capacity must be made. They know that we can then have storage of fresh water and useful hydro capacity in the future. They know that it is foolish and irresponsible for any member in any party attempting to be government to make public pronouncements that they will not develop any hydroelectric power.

Some members — not all of them — say they won't have nuclear power. At least our party is consistent on that: we say that this government will not need to develop nuclear power in this province. They don't tell us where the energy is going to come from. I presume that their major industrial policy both for employment and energy is the development of a candle factory in British Columbia.

What about our resource that is perhaps receiving the most attention today, our natural gas? Today the value to the British Columbia economy, the growth of government revenue, the growth of prosperity and the growth of energy in the bank is due to the policies of this government in creating the type of climate and fair taxation that accelerated the private sector to respond in its search for oil and gas. That has meant that British Columbia now has a substantially increased and increasing reserve of natural gas — in the trillions of cubic feet. It means that the policies of that last government.... While we'd already been warned of an energy crisis because the OPEC nations had spoken, in 1975 this province was the only place where drilling activity was on the wane, reserves were decreasing and, you might say, in light of what was happening elsewhere, our industry was shut down. That's not the case now. There are 100 rigs drilling right now in British Columbia, an increase in the supply of guaranteed reserves of energy in the province. This government now has the ability to say that natural gas will play an important role in the way we serve our energy needs and end our dependency on oil in the future. The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) will be making and encouraging some major steps forward with the utilization of natural gas to cut our dependency on oil, of which this province today imports 75 percent of our needs.

It is not enough to stand around and talk about alternative energy supplies. It is time we had — and we have now — a minister of energy, a minister of science, who will take the lead in encouraging the private sector in a number of ways to respond, to end our dependency, to divert to these new energy forms, natural gas as well as others. People of this province will remember that Minister of Universities, Science and Communications for the things that will unfold in the next three or four years.

Mr. Speaker, the natural gas of this province in large part is now available to our people at special prices, because it's there to serve our needs, because this government has had the reserves and the aggressive drilling program to see that those reserves are there. Since we've been government we've seen the export price, which brings prosperity to this province, rise from $1.60 to $1.80 to $2.20, and now to $5.47 per mcf, just about a tripling in the value we receive at the border. On top of that, we're no longer paid in Canadian funds; we're now paid in U.S. funds, which give us substantially more in Canadian dollars. I point out that that amount is much higher than any contract recently signed with Mexico since the election. And a pipeline is yet to be built. Because the gas is there, British Columbians have security of supply, but they know that we're selling it to ourselves for our homes and industries at less than a third of the price we get from the Americans. They're helping us, with this pricing policy, to bring industry to British Columbia. We now have the price to

[ Page 1359 ]

attract industry as a magnet, and the security of supply. We have the revenues flowing into government to help us relieve the personal tax burden on our people. That wouldn't have been there, Mr. Speaker, if it hadn't been for the dramatic turnaround that took place after we became government, because there would have been nothing to sell; it wouldn't have been there. Let that single policy change, that single decision, that single dramatic illustration indicate the difference between the type of result this government could achieve and the type of foolish headlong rush to poverty that we were in on the course charted by the NDP.

Let me mention other energy forms. Because many people don't realize that the encouragement of government in our forest industry and in the sophistication and development of the pulp mills, the kraft mills and others, has provided greater energy forms, not only from wood wastes, which have become popular to talk about now, but in the very facilities themselves. Today in British Columbia we produce more energy from our forests, from wood wastes and in our facilities, than we produce in hydroelectric power. But we are not satisfied with that. We're looking further at studies that may indicate whether we can have generating plants that go beyond industrial production of energy, that convert to electricity where it may be useful in secondary industry and into homes and to other areas getting more use and full utilization of our forests. That's the type of energy policy this government has had.

What about our coal? We've talked about metallurgical coal, but what about thermal coal, which provides some opportunity for energy in this province? Today we have a number of opportunities, not only for the accepted energy.... That perhaps would be the course that the New Democratic Party might be prepared to go. That is, to burn the coal to create energy. We have other ways in which our government will encourage a more sophisticated, useful and valuable development, and that is in liquefaction, the provision of gasoline. Mr. Speaker, we haven't ruled out the fact that thermal is a possibility. But let me say that the technology that would give us the efficiency of this non-renewable resource is not sufficient for the type of full-scale capacity that we would need, the type of facility we would need that would be the efficient use of this resource.

Mr. Speaker, I'm having difficulty because the same members you keep calling to order still seem to be muttering. Do you think once more you could...?

MR. SPEAKER: May we have uninterrupted debate, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Because that technology is not commercially applicable with the type of efficiency we have. Mr. Speaker, we know that Hydro has been negotiating and dealing with the Coal Board in Britain for technology, but did you know that before we were government the arrangements were that British Columbia money was flowing there, paying for this research and yet the technology belonged to the Coal Board in Britain, and we didn't even have title or control of the technology we were paying for? That has changed, because this government and the people of the province wouldn't want our money flowing to England. As much as we respect and love the mother country, the technology that we purchase — and yes, they can help us — now belongs to British Columbia and doesn't remain with them. It is paid for with British Columbia dollars. Those members over there were part of such a previous arrangement.

Mr. Speaker, what has this meant? These industrial policies of four years of sound management have meant that now we have the momentum. We are not starting from stop to go into the eighties. We are going into the eighties with momentum, unlike other areas who suddenly realize that it's 1980 and time to make great announcements. The momentum we are taking into the eighties is a momentum not shared in its diversification or opportunity by any other area.

Now what has this done? I'll deal with the throne speech as we see it continuing this progress into the eighties, but what has this done for the last four years? That type of development has allowed this province, first, to have a government that isn't going into debt, as was a legacy of the previous government. It has allowed an economy in which we've been able not only to pay as we go but to reduce taxation. The sales tax is now the lowest in the history of 28 years in the province of British Columbia. We have removed 16,000 small businesses from the iniquitous capital tax that was imposed on business by the New Democratic Party with the support of Mr. Friesen. We have taken off succession duties and gift tax, which had previously taxed away the earnings and wealth of the families and the people of this province and left them vulnerable to foreign ownership, external ownership and government ownership as the only alternative.

I remember the arguments in this House over the removal of that tax. I can remember the members of the New Democratic Party voting against it, then being much chagrined when the province of Saskatchewan recognized the wisdom of the British Columbia move and took off succession duties and gift taxes. There's now only one province in Canada that has succession duties and gift taxes; that is, the other "social democratic" government in Quebec. All the other provinces either were ahead of British Columbia or followed suit in removing this tax upon the wealth of our people. I wonder how governments could challenge the private sector by saying, "why aren't you building the economy, and if you won't do it the government will," when at the same time they were thwarting their attempts by taxing them excessively while they were living and, if they had any left, taking it away when they were dead.

The socialists would stand up and say the private sector has failed; they won't invest in business. What have they got left to invest in? The government has taken their money, they're spending it all, they're losing it all and the private sector is left with nothing. We took off the succession duties. Let the record show that that party voted against it and probably will impose it if they ever get a chance to be government again.

What have these four years meant? What have they meant as we launched ourselves towards the eighties? They meant that this government, at the same time that we're paying off the debt that was left.... Every year $26 million of current revenue must go to pay off that debt, that legacy. It means that we've been able to do what other governments going through this very difficult economic period.... We've been able to bring in social programs that not only are not being implemented in other areas, but cannot even be considered. We brought in the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters program. A number of my colleagues, premiers around the country, have personally congratulated the province of British Columbia and have said: "How can you do it? What are you doing that you are able to bring up these innovative

[ Page 1360 ]

new programs?" What about the fact that when other governments...? Health systems everywhere are having problems with mounting costs, and we attempt to meet the needs of people.

What about a government that was able to bring in extended health care at the time we were doing all this-paying off the debt and opening up new areas? I say that the very success of that program and the need that has proven its worth is giving us problems today because of the very fact that those people were not asking for services, or did not have them available before, and it has put a strain on our health system. Mr. Speaker, those people, who are now being helped through the extended care, were unattended to before. Today they are getting help, and today those are the people who are getting the benefits. The problem was only masked and hidden before. Today, with this extension of service to our people, we can also deal with the problems of additional demand that has been placed upon us.

We have embarked on the highest and most aggressive spending program on hospital construction in B.C.'s history. Obviously, even what we have done is not enough. This government, in the spirit of extended care and health care, will accelerate that program where it is necessary to provide the facilities to deal with the problems of capacity in this province — capacity and problems that were hidden before and had to be brought out by a major and innovative health program such as extended care that this government brought in. It made a good promise for politicians for years; it's been of life-saving nature to the people of this province who have been helped. Instead of thinking of the stresses it has brought, let's think of the people who would be suffering had we not brought it in. Yes, we'll deal with the strains it put on the health-delivery system in this province.

What about universal Pharmacare? That went beyond just targeting on one group in society, as deserving as they are, for some relief from the high cost of prescription drugs. This government made it universal, bringing a measure of protection to individuals and, yes, families, with chronically ill people and children, who did not have the type of coverage or protection this government has provided. We've done this at the same time.

What about being able to look beyond the public school system and saying: "Yes, there's a place in our society for some competitive system." For the first time, over the objections and votes of the opposition, we're providing aid to independent schools.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) is laughing, but I noticed the glint in the eye of the former Minister of Education in the New Democratic Party, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), who spoke eloquently against this. While I disagreed, I recognized that she was willing to stand up.

But I tell you, extending aid to independent schools was not a move towards elitism; it was saying that if our system is so good, it can stand a measure of comparison. If our system is so good, it can stand a system that is an alternative, that gives opportunities for parents to provide an educational atmosphere within another system, not competitive to the public education system. Perhaps its greatest guarantee of success is for the public education system, because it has something to compare itself with, and something to raise its standards to meet — should it be more innovative and responsive to the people — and something that is priceless because of all these things: an improved educational opportunity for your children and mine. They were against it.

These things were done by a government which harnessed not only the tax dollars of the people of this province but their dreams and their ideas and what they would have for a better life in British Columbia. We recognize that all the programs of this government and all the legislation we'll bring in in the future were not written in the thirties or some ancient time. Our policies will come from the wishes and desires of the people of this province. I'm not ashamed that we relate to the populist part of the people of the province. We're prepared to provide modern solutions to modern problems and not be committed to solutions devised for problems of 40 or 50 years ago. Today governments everywhere must respond to the modern fact of a growing international awareness and communication and the fact that the very prosperity which our society has developed has brought us new problems to be resolved and a difficulty in providing the type of leadership and programs to help develop them for the people. These are the sorts of things our government has done.

At the same time that we rationalized our government, we also brought in greater accountability. Again, perhaps people take it for granted now, but people waited through many governments, including the New Democratic Party government, for an ombudsman. This government introduced the legislation to provide that extra accountability to people.

Because of the shock that people received concerning the accounts of the province after December 1975, an auditor-general was appointed — to make sure that never again could the type of financial coverup, or lack of disclosure, shock the people to the extent it did at that time, and that governments must share with the people information on the finances of this province.

We look for innovative ways. This government has been looked upon as the most innovative in Canada. We brought in the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation.

I hate to correct my friends in the media, but just the other day I was reading the Colonist. It was speaking about distribution, and it said that the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation was created by the NDP. I want to say clearly to the Colonist and to others in the media who say they created it, that not only did they not create it, they voted against it when it was set up. Perhaps they've been trying to change the facts in the minds of the people who write those stories. It was even in Maclean's magazine. They voted against it. You'll all remember that.

 The B.C. Resources Investment Corporation also gave us a chance to provide ownership opportunity in an individual way in this province. It should be a lesson, by example of ownership, that our people need to reaffirm the opportunities they have to own their own piece of the action, and that second-hand ownership through government is not the answer. Do you know what that has done? Not only do British Columbians have a corporation of their own — not a government corporation or a corporation with principal assets a few remnants of acquisitions of that party when as government they attempted to embark on a path of socialism and government ownership.... The major asset was major gas and oil lands that will lead to prosperity for British Columbia citizens. It's their company, not a government company, which will be undertaking a large part of the exploration and development. That's what the principal asset was. The opportunity is everything, because it's their company. It is not government, as many feel, it is a private-sector company owned by individual people of the province and by

[ Page 1361 ]

other Canadians.

I'm proud to have other Canadians recognize the potential and future of British Columbia and to wish to be a part of' it. I'm only sorry that some British Columbians didn't have all the confidence in the world and sold a little bit of their shareholdings to these other Canadians so they could participate, because I believe the future is there in British Columbia. It's here, and it's here because of the four years of preparation. And now, Mr. Speaker, we have a throne speech that brings us into the eighties, a throne speech that takes the economic thrust and momentum and develops it further. I can say now that the work we've done with the federal government in the negotiation and the work on siting, and looking at northeast coal.... That is today a greater and much closer possibility than ever before. Let those doom-sayers on the other side, who said it would never happen and it was a pipe dream, stand up and account to the people, next time we meet the people, and say, when they see this being developed and they see the results, that they were against it and they didn't have the vision to help bring it about.

Mr. Speaker, you'll also see among the great things mentioned in this throne speech a promise of a sustained forest base, a forest base that is not being merely harvested with token reforestation and silviculture practices for today, a forest base that.... This year, in this Legislature, this government, because of its management, will have not only the funds but the commitment to say: "We're going to put the money, effort and the commitment into more than one year, to guarantee that that forest base is maintained and continued." And don't let the me-too'ers say they would have done it, because they didn't do it. It's about time that the me-too'ers on every good thing this government is doing and has done got called to be accountable. They had three and a half years, and they not only didn't do it but they almost destroyed the opportunity for any government to come in and do it.

Mr. Speaker, this throne speech offers much promise to the people of British Columbia. It gives them cause for optimism not only for the opportunities that they will have, but that they can have a secure future for themselves and their children, knowing that this throne speech not only offers an economic climate of expansion and development that means there will be jobs, but a promise from the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) that we will give our children and our young people the skills to work and help develop in this province.

Mr. Speaker, in that area, I'm not satisfied with the progress we've made. The thing that's hardest for me is to see unemployment — yes, in this country and in our province — and daily, the heavy ads, page after page after page after page, in the publications of this province looking for skilled people to fill jobs that are available in this province. Our young people haven't received or don't have the training, and we have to advertise in Great Britian for miners to fill the growing capacities of mining development in the Kootenays and the opportunities that will soon be there in other parts of the province.

That's not good enough, Mr. Speaker. Our young people deserve better than we have given them, and the answer can't just be found with government, because in this case we need cooperation. We need cooperation from the companies in the apprenticeship program; we need cooperation from the great trade unions of this province. But it's a cooperation that will help to train their children and our children, equip them with the type of skills in which we no longer have to send ads to many of the countries of the world to fill these not only rewarding and necessary jobs, but jobs that provide a standard of living that is among the finest in British Columbia — and British Columbia provides the finest standard of living and economic opportunity in this country, under a free enterprise system.

Mr. Speaker, quite often I incorrectly identify the wrong culprit in the news media. I have been advised that the shocking BCRIC error was contained in a Canadian Press story out of Vancouver, and not by the dearly beloved Colonist reporter, Jim Hume, so I wish to share this information. I also wish to state that all of those words are his and not mine. [Laughter.]

The throne speech then talks about the future of our young not only through the skills they'll receive but the opportunities they'll have to apply those skills. It talks about industrial development, it talks about the development of justice, it talks about fairer justice for people in the workforce, it talks about a labour standards act that will bring some standards and protection to the farmworkers of this province.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) is laughing, Mr. Speaker, but he didn't do it when he was Minister of Labour in this province and had the opportunity. It's not enough now for him to say: "Me too. We would have done it." He didn't do it, but the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and this government are bringing it in today. Yes, there shall be some equity and protection for the people who work in the private sector, the people who are unorganized as well as those who are organized in this province, equitable standards that say: "There is a fair opportunity for you to sell your skills in the marketplace in British Columbia." There will be no exploitation this session, and that throne speech ensures that, Mr. Speaker.

Again the development of the protection of rights but, over and above that, what about the further development of social programs? We have seen in British Columbia's history the development and delivery of perhaps the finest health-care services not only in Canada but in North America. Our health-care services, while they do not always meet the needs we would wish to fill, by comparison on any yardstick are the best. But it's not good enough for us just to be the best. I've said that where there are deficiencies we will correct them; where there are people wanting who are sick we will help them; where there is a measure of protection required we will provide it.

The one missing link in the provision of social services and protection for the people that has been lacking in this province, added to those measures such as SAFER and GAIN and Universal Pharmacare that we brought in, has been a dental-care program. Many of our citizens in this province have it now by reason of their terms of employment. Mr. Speaker, many British Columbians do not have that measure of protection; they do not have the encouragement for good preventive dental hygiene programs; they do not have the help to save them from the high costs associated with dental care. This throne speech provides for the first time this coming fiscal year a provision for that to block out and fill out the health services in British Columbia — again it's a leader, again it's setting the trend, and again it was brought in by a Social Credit government. Mr. Speaker, that in itself may not be noteworthy, but for any government to do that in the

[ Page 1362 ]

difficult economic times through which we have had the opportunity and the privilege to pilot this government and this province is a noteworthy thing.

Any government can bring in programs if somebody has left them the economy and the growing opportunity; they can bring them in holus-bolus and willy-nilly. But to build an economy and go against the national and international trend of recession and inflation, to do that within the terms of a balanced budget, to do it at the same time that you're undertaking great capital projects, to do it as you're providing employment — that is the measure and the standard by which this government wishes to be measured. Those are the measurements by which the people must take a look at this government. Yes, we have our frailties; yes, we will make errors because we are human; but I'll tell you, the record we want assessed is the record of accomplishment, of what we did, not what some people are willing to say we did, or might have done, or what some people, in their wildest imaginations, who still are concerned — not because we're doing a good or bad job but because they just don't want this government here — what they might imagine we might we doing. This government is prepared to accept those areas where we must improve, but this throne speech, and that record of preparation for this launch into the eighties is a record that we, as a government, are prepared to continue to build on, and two, three or four years hence, put before the people of this province. Not what might have been, not the me-too'ers who said, "We would have done it," but a record of accomplishment that goes beyond the spoken or written word; it is there for all to see and all to share.

We've seen a growth in the economy, we've seen a number of statistics that, while dull figures, in reality mean a better life for anyone. I want to say that this province, in each and every year of the four years, has marginally been able to reduce unemployment. Not to the levels we'd like. We would like to have even more employment and less people seeking work, and we'll continue to try to improve on that record of success. But I say it is a record of success where this province has consistently not only increased employment at rates above the Canadian average, but has been able to marginally reduce unemployment at a time when unemployment plagues not only our country but others as well. In the four years we have been government our province has turned around a sorry record where British Columbia was always the inflationary leader in price increases. Now by the cost-price measurement we have continued, each and every year, to have the lowest increases in the country.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it is not a perfect record but it is a record to which the rest of the country cannot compare. In this province we have a record of achievement of which British Columbians can be proud. And that record is the base on which we are building the future. We have a record that has led to major new investment in this province. Proposed new mines that can harness all the capital available in mining and all the people who would work in mining...without having to consider uranium mining at this time.

Mr. Speaker, another new mine was announced today and that was a $65 million mine. It will be in production in 1981 and will employ 250 people during the construction project.

I can talk of mines coming on in the Sukunka, Quintette, the Green Hills Mine, Kaiser Resources in Sparwood, Hosmer Wheeler, Blind Creek, Norco Resources. I can talk about the expansion of mines such as Fording Coal now taking place in the Kootenays, Kaiser Resources in the east Kootenay, Byron Creek. We could talk about the reactivation of mines, such as the Granduc mine at Stewart — saving a community.

We talk about mines: the Sam Goosly; Alice Arm — both underway — Granduc, as I say, underway; Carolin at Hope, underway. We talk about the Highmont Mine, Teck — underway. Similkameen Mines — a new one underway. Lornex. We talk about all of these opportunities and developments that weren't there a few years ago.

We talk about major developments in our forest industry. And this is the future, the unstated part of the throne speech that doesn't need to be stated again and again because the people know it and they feel it. Crown Zellerbach's newsprint mill at Elk Falls, expansion underway. Renovation of sawmill at Fraser Mills, underway — a type of capital investment that wasn't taking place a few years ago, when the forest industry was scared out of British Columbia. Doman mills, underway. MacMillan Bloedel's expansion of the newsprint plant at Powell River, underway — the first major newsprint machine expansion in this province in ten years.

I could go on and on, through Rayonier, through Northwood, through Finlay Forest Industries and B.C. Forest Products, West Fraser Mills, Evans Products. I could go on and on, but it is enough to see on the record that this is where the confidence lies in these large companies. And it's not just them. They're just the ones that are noticeable, the ones, because of the size and the volume and the dollars, that are more easily discernible to the people of this province. But their numbers are a thousand-fold greater among the small companies that are undertaking investment in development at the same time.

That's why we say that's the unstated promise contained in this throne speech, Mr. Speaker — the promise of a secure future for our people, the promise of a base that has been built and a momentum developed, the promise of opportunity for the young people of this province, the promise of security, and the type of income support and medical benefits and delivery systems that will be enhanced and increased this year again, as this government has done in the past.

Mr. Speaker, we've had real growth in B.C., a growth that has almost doubled that of the rest of Canada. We've had growth in the mining industry in capital expenditure. Let me say that it has been substantial, as I've said, in each and every year. We've had a decrease, from being the most inflationary part of Canada to being the area of the least inflationary, most modest increases in the CPI each and every year.

Some members, like the member for Vancouver Centre, would try to deny the record on the theory that, as they have in the past, if they say something that's incorrect often enough, somebody somewhere will believe it and repeat it. Mr. Speaker, I tell you, the people of British Columbia are too smart for that.

We've seen an increase not only in the labour force but in the number of employed in the province. We see a substantial employment growth in the province. We see the net migration coming in, but let's take a look at some of the things that have happened: the cost-price increase, from a high of 9.7 in 1975 and 1976, the last three years has been 7.2, 7.7 and 7.7, the lowest in Canada. It has gone from the highest to the lowest. That's not just a coincidence; those figures coincide with the type of government we're providing in this province. Retail sales have been increasing at a rate of 12.4 in 1976, 9.2 in 1977, 13.1 in 1978 and 11.5 in 1979. There is a promise

[ Page 1363 ]

that this will continue in the future because of the type of economic thrust and momentum we've built that's going against the national and international grain.

It means that British Columbia's economy has been able to inch — forge — ahead slowly but surely, while other economies are stagnant or declining. We know that we're ready to launch ourselves into the international marketplace. British Columbia took major economic proposals to our first ministers' and Finance ministers' conferences on an economic strategy that would help this country, but that policy of lowering protective tariffs and opening up new markets to ourselves will particularly be the very best opportunity that British Columbia will have. We cannot build a wall around ourselves, because in keeping others out we deny access for our people to a much broader market in this world, Mr. Speaker.

Those who advocate that type of protection, which is only wearing blinkers and blinders, denying yourselves from merging into the international economy, have been part of the problem in this country. Now we've got opportunity — British Columbia has pushed for that — and that will mean great markets for ourselves. It means we can develop industry of scale, small business and large business, opening new markets for our products; it means more secure and stable — and yes, sophisticated — industrial facilities across this province; it means greater opportunity for the development of technology in this province; and our province will be providing more value added, greater value from the resources, harnessing our energy, using it as a cornerstone of our industrial policy to make this happen.

Mr. Speaker, we have challenged the marketplace....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I just have one minute....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, order please. Before we continue, I must determine at this hour whether or not there is an evening sitting planned by the House, because if not, then I'm duty-bound by the standing orders to follow certain procedures at this precise time.

HON. MR. GARDOM: An evening sitting is not planned, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Then under standing order 45(a)(3), this being "the sixth of the said days at 15 minutes before the ordinary time of daily adjournment," which is right now....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a tremendous amount of confidence in this throne speech. I would tell the people about the employment opportunities, because I have not yet touched on the employment of great government vision, such as B.C. Place, but I will cover that in the budget debate so that we may proceed as planned.

MR. SPEAKER: 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 — 30

NAYS-26

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

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

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

REVISED STATUTES
OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

HON. MR. GARDOM: Before adjourning the House, I'd like to make a statement which I know will be of interest to all members of the House and to you, Mr. Speaker. Today my colleague the Attorney-General will be announcing that the Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1979, have been completed and will be available at the Queen's Printer. They've been consolidated to December 31, and it's prop-

[ Page 1364 ]

osed that they come into force by proclamation on May 1.

In order to facilitate the orderly consideration of legislative proposals that will be introduced at this session of the Legislature, bills will be introduced in style and content which conform to the new revised statutes. Copies of the consolidation will be available to members — I think they will be delivered to you tonight or first thing tomorrow — and also to you, Mr. Speaker, to the Clerks, to the caucuses and to the assembly.

The Queen's Printer has notified all members of the public who are subscribers to the statutes of B.C. of the availability of the new revision, and delivery arrangements have been made to ensure that they are available prior to May 1.

I'd like to say a couple of words about the commissioner for revision, about the statute revision committee, about the style of the material and, finally, a comment or two about the Queen's Printer. The consolidation of the statutes was authorized by the Revised Statutes Act. The Associate Deputy Attorney-General, Dr. Gilbert Kennedy QC, was appointed commissioner for that purpose. I say without question that it was a painstaking and demanding task. Dr. Kennedy has pursued the objective of simplification and uniformity of language. I think the thanks of all members of the House are owed to Dr. Kennedy for yeoman service.

You'll find, Mr. Speaker, that the new type style is much better for easy reading, and many of the titles of statutes have been adjusted to more clearly identify their specific purposes.

The first consolidation took place way back in 1871. Since that time, there have been nine revisions and consolidations.

I'd like to say in introducing the revised statutes that the special select committee of the Legislature was established to review the work, and it has completed its task and has unanimously reported approving the commissioner's work. I think great thanks are owed by all of the members to the five members of that committee who worked long and hard. It was chaired by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) and on it were my colleagues the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer). I can assure all members that they did great work for every one of us here.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that for further information to the general public — it would be appreciated if the press would pick this up — anyone can telephone the Queen's Printer at 387-6692 and also Statute Revision at 384-4434. For the interest of the members, some 5,800 pages were composed and proofread. The printing and the binding and the parcelling were all done by the Queen's Printer. Some 64 tons of paper were used to produce the statutes, and I would say, without question, that the Queen's Printer and all of the members of his staff have really done a magnificent job and our thanks are owed to them too.

MR. HOWARD: We want to associate ourselves with the government House Leader in expressing appreciation to the select committee that worked to supervise the consolidation of the statutes. Also, we welcome the revision and consolidation of the statutes themselves, which will make it tremendously easy for not only legislators but those who have to deal with the statute aspect of our law to find their way through that labyrinth which develops after you make amendments year after year to various statutes. I hope, in closing, that Seaboard Insurance is contained within the consolidated statutes, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't count on it.

MR. HOWARD: It's there. I was sure that that would be one that would never be missed again.

I would appreciate knowing when we might expect, and I would have hoped that it would have been before today, certainly before tomorrow, the tabling of Volume 2 of Public Accounts for last year. That volume is still missing and is a most important document and aspect of the public accounts necessary for us to be able, properly, completely and thoroughly, to examine the budget that will be presented tomorrow. So could we have some indication of that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is perhaps a matter to be covered in question period.

MR. BARBER: I thought that's where we were.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, I understand from my colleague....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't know under what provision we can go into a debate here. We have a statement and a reply, and I think we should....

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: They're on their way.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.