[ Page 2031 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Declare the Rights of Children in British Columbia (Bill M206). Mr.

Lauk.

Introduction and first reading –– 2031

An Act to Amend the Capital Commission Act (Bill M207). Mr. Barber.

Introduction and first reading –– 2031

Oral Questions.

Alleged asbestos contamination of Queen of Prince Rupert. Mr. Mitchell –– 2032

Pollution of Penticton Beach. Hon. Mr. Rogers replies –– 2032

Environmental studies of Gambier Island. Hon. Mr. Rogers replies –– 2032

Penticton sewage system. Mr. Skelly –– 2032

Environmental studies of Gambier Island. Mr. Lockstead –– 2032

Information files on teachers. Mr. Lauk –– 2033

Files on public service employees. Mr. Hanson –– 2033

Committee of Supply: Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9.

Mrs. Wallace –– 2034

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2035

Division on the motion that the committee rise –– 2039

Division that the member for Cowichan-Malahat now be heard –– 2039

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 2040

Mr. Howard –– 2041

Mr. Davis –– 2044

Mr. Lea –– 2047

Mr. Brummet –– 2049

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2050

Mr. King –– 2053

THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, we in British Columbia can be justly proud of a very fine Dutch-Canadian community, and the Dutch-Canadian community is well represented here today through a group which carries forth a very important tradition throughout Holland, namely carnival. We have in our members' gallery the council of 11 for the Dutch-Canadian community. They are Mr. Arnold Mauriks, the grandmaster, and his wife Willie; Mr. John Roescher and his wife Els; Hennie Bouwhuis and his wife Hennie; Mr. Bert Konings and his wife Yvonne; Mr. Theo Rathonyi-Reuss and his wife Wilhelmina; Mr. Hans Konings and his wife Jooke; Mr. Tom Vermeulen and his wife Millie; Mr. Ad Van Haaften and his wife Carla; Mr. Bill Kok and his wife Ria; and Mr. Case Laan and his wife Lucy. I would ask the House to bid them a great welcome.

MR. MACDONALD: I just want to briefly join in the welcome to the Hollanders that has been expressed, because actually the Scots got the Protestant work ethic years ago from Holland.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: The hon. member didn't say where they got their Scotch from, though.

This humble member has been very much honoured this week. First of all she was asked some questions in question period for the first time; secondly, the member had 48 cheering senior citizens in the gallery yesterday. Today it is an equal pleasure to have the president of the Okanagan North Constituency Association of Social Credit, Mr. Russell Shortt, in Victoria and in your gallery, Mr. Speaker. It is one of the first times that he's been in our Legislature, and I would ask the House to give him a very warm welcome.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We have in the gallery today a trustee from School District 47 in Powell River, Mrs. Ruth Miller, and I ask the House to join me in welcoming her.

MR. GABELMANN: Today in the gallery is a young fellow from Campbell River who was very helpful to me in the past election campaign. I'd like the House to welcome Alec Connelly.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I just could not avoid an opportunity to mention that the people whom the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has just introduced are certainly a people apart. They had a party in Maple Ridge at which the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs was a prince thereof. I'm telling you, there was never such a party and there was never such a prince. I can assure you he was much different from the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

However, Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place to introduce the largest group of high-school students that has every graced these magnificent halls: 182 students. Young men and women from the Maple Ridge Senior Secondary School are here in force — well-behaved, honourable young men and women. We can be proud of every one of them. When we speak of young men and women with any concern it certainly is not these; they are the best. They're here today taking their places 50 at a time to hear your excellent and considered deliberations. They're there and they're listening to you.

I want to tell you who are in charge of this group: Mr. G. Fry; Mr. K. Williams; Mr. H. Bugler; Mr. R. Withers; Mrs. S. MacDonald; Mr. M. Embrey; Mr. M. Munroe; and the whole group is under the direction of the trip coordinator, Mr. Gordon Edmonds. I ask you to make them welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the House welcome a good friend from Vancouver, Miss Jean Wright. She is here with her mother, Mrs. Beth Wright.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I know that all members of the House will agree that to a large extent we are successful and competent MLAs because of the very great efforts made on our part by our constituency secretaries. I have allowed my constituency secretary out for one day to visit this House. I would like us all to say hello to Diana Matheson.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO DECLARE THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN
IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

On a motion by Mr. Lauk, Bill M206, An Act to Declare the Rights of Children in British Columbia, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, under standing orders it is required that every member attend the service of the House. I wonder whether we can know when the inner cabinet meeting will be over. You see, the next order of business is question period. When the Premier and his front bench are not here, the opposition has a very difficult time in asking questions. So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the House adjourn or recess, Would the Speaker agree to recess until the Premier returns?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, question period has yet to be called. We are still at the introduction of bills. I believe there is another bill to be presented.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE CAPITAL COMMISSION
ACT

MR. BARBER: I ask leave to introduce an act intituled An Act to Amend the Capital Commission Act, which I know the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) will support.

Leave granted.

On a motion by Mr. Barber, Bill M207, An Act to Amend the Capital Commission Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

[ Page 2032 ]

MR. LAUK: Well, not on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, but I....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: For what purpose does the member rise?

MR. LAUK: To move a motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. LAUK: I move that the House do now adjourn.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion is not in order unless the member has proper possession of the floor. The member does not, at this time, have proper possession of the floor.

Oral Questions

ALLEGED ASBESTOS CONTAMINATION OF
QUEEN OF PRINCE RUPERT

MR. MITCHELL: My question is to the Minister of Labour. There have been a lot of unnecessary and extensive renovations to the Queen of Prince Rupert for service on the Victoria-Seattle run, and this renovation has caused extensive asbestos dust throughout the ship. There is also a report that the contamination of the air circulation system has caused great alarm among the workers concerning their health. I am asking the Minister of Labour: has the minister initiated an investigation to ensure that these workers are working in safe conditions?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I was advised of the problem to which the hon. member refers the day before yesterday. I understand the problem has also been inspected by the Workers' Compensation Board, and I am presently awaiting a report. I can give no further information at this time. However, I will take the question as notice and provide further details to the member as soon as further information arrives.

MR. MITCHELL: Will the minister refer this serious matter to the committee which he has set up lately on asbestos in public places, under his ministry, to ensure that the public health will be assured when the Rupert resumes operation?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I will take that particular matter as notice, as well, and have it incorporated into any reply which I bring to the House.

MR. MITCHELL: Have you investigated the Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards in the U.S. for ocean tour ships operating in U.S. waters?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer is no, I have not.

MR. MITCHELL: Will you when you bring in your report?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I will take that matter under consideration.

MR. BARRETT: The Minister of Health is aware that there may indeed be a health problem caused by asbestos dust on the vessel the Queen of Prince Rupert. Will he undertake action to assure us that before the vessel is put in service his department has cleared it for health safety factors before tourists are allowed on the ship?

HON. MR. MAIR: I will take the concerns of the member opposite under advisement and I will take his question as notice.

POLLUTION OF PENTICTON BEACH

HON. MR. ROGERS: Yesterday I was asked a question by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly). "What action has been taken by the ministry to locate the source of pollution in order to correct the situation and remedy the appalling and dangerous development?" This is to do with Penticton. The source of pollution, hon. member, is ducks and to a lesser extent geese. That is to do with the fecal coliform count in the lake and also some drain-pipes which are not of the sewage variety but of storm-sewer variety. I'm informed that Dr. Clark and his staff are carrying out daily tests and will continue to have these tests done until the beaches are declared to be safe and open in June. In conjunction with the health board, my ministry and the chamber of commerce they are examining the source of the bacteria.

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES OF GAMBIER ISLAND

HON. MR. ROGERS: The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) asked me a question, and the answer is yes.

PENTICTON SEWAGE SYSTEM

MR. SKELLY: Thank you for the answer.

I have another supplementary question. Two ministers ago the government vetoed the city of Penticton's proposals to increase their sewage effluent discharge into the Okanagan River channel in Skaha Lake. I think they were increasing it from 1.8 million gallons to 5 million gallons per day. The ministry offered assistance to look into a land disposal system. I also understand that some weeks ago the city of Penticton presented a number of alternatives to the ministry for land disposal of sewage. What decision has been made by your ministry with respect to land disposal of sewage in the Penticton area?

HON. MR. ROGERS: We met with the people from the city of Penticton and there were four alternatives put forward; one of them was not acceptable to the ministry and the other three, I think, were. There were some technical questions which have yet to be resolved. One involves pumping the effluent some 17 miles for disposal, and another involves using Indian lands for aeration of dry bench lands now. That's subject to agreement with the local Indian band. So that's where the subject is at the present time.

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES OF GAMBIER ISLAND

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for answering my question of yesterday. I have a short supplementary, which is: has the minister decided to table those studies in this House?

HON. MR. ROGERS: They've been public information for over a month, Mr. Speaker. I can make a copy available to the member, if he would like it.

[ Page 2033 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I've had it for two months, Mr. Speaker.

INFORMATION FILES ON TEACHERS

MR. LAUK: I have a question to the Minister of Education. Can the minister assure the House and members of the teaching profession that information of a personal and confidential nature that is not relevant to certification procedures for teachers will be taken out of the records and destroyed?

HON. MR. SMITH: The simple answer to the question is yes, and I have done so. I might tell the House that, being concerned about this matter and the exact state of these files, I went into the records of my ministry today and pulled the file of my father, who is now deceased; it contains no odious information. I also pulled about ten other files at random without examining the names and looked through the material in these files — some of them are on microfiche, and the more recent ones, the last two years, are still in paper form — and I found no information of any disparaging kind kept in those files regarding teachers. Of course, that doesn't mean to say that there aren't files there that contain it. So I'm aware of the teachers' concern, and we will implement very strict guidelines to ensure that this kind of material that they're complaining about is removed from files.

I might say that my predecessor, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), when she was minister tried to bring about the same thing. I don't think that her wishes were always carried out in this regard. I want to ensure that mine are carried out. So I will be ensuring that there is a policy not to keep credit inquiries, anonymous letters or anything else in teachers' files, which have no business being collected by government, in my view.

MR. LAUK: The letter was sent to the minister from Mr. Pat Barron, a school trustee. The outline of the conversation he had with a ministry official gave the clear indication that the practice of keeping material on file was still going on. On the other hand, yesterday the minister gave the impression that it had not been going on. Could the minister clarify?

HON. MR. SMITH: I thought I had clarified it. I was concerned enough, hon. member, to go and look at the files today and to make direct inquiries. While I said that I didn't find any files with such material, I'm still concerned enough about it to ensure that this material, if it does exist, is removed from files so that there can be no doubt.

MR. LAUK: Can the minister guarantee that teachers will have freedom of access to their own individual files in the ministry?

HON. MR. SMITH: The policy is that, in general terms, they do. If teachers wish to see their files, that will provide a chance for a further review of that file. If, of course, there is material that shouldn't be in there, it will be removed immediately and destroyed. I see absolutely no reason why the file containing only teaching information, credentials, evaluations — which the teachers have seen; the only sort of thing that should be in there — shouldn't be available to them as well.

MR. LAUK: With respect, can the minister guarantee that all teachers, if they so wish, will have access to their files not just to specific information in the file but the total file?

HON. MR. SMITH: Let's assume for a moment that his fears and mine might be correct for a particular file, that there might be a file in there with some credit information that shouldn't be there; let's suppose that teacher appears and wants to inspect his file, Then it's my view that that material which shouldn't be in the file should be removed and destroyed; and the teacher should be able to inspect it because it will be the file without that material in it then or ever. In other words, when these files are purged of any material that shouldn't be in there, they, will be open to inspection by teachers, yes.

MR. LAUK: How can the minister assure teachers that although on a request by a teacher to see his file the information is then purged, ministry actions have not been taken against that teacher as a result of the purged information, unless the teacher sees the purged information in the file that he requests?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, Mr. Speaker, we could carry on this debate forever. If there is material in files which shouldn't be there, it's not going to improve the situation to give that material to the teacher to take action against some third party who wrote many years ago. What we want to ensure is that the material isn't being kept and used in any way against a teacher, and I will certainly give that assurance. In the future. we will embark, I hope, on a policy of gradually checking and pruning all these files on our own initiative.

MR. LAUK: Can the minister assure the House and all teachers that no action has been taken with respect to so called purged or purgeable material?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I certainly can during my own term as minister. In response to question 7(c) the answer is, as far as I'm concerned. yes.

FILES ON PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. As the minister responsible for the public service in British Columbia, would the minister advise the House if there are in existence any official or unofficial files, other than the ministry personnel file in the Public Service Commission file, on any employee working for the public service which may contain confidential information, Do you understand my question? Are there any files in existence — official or unofficial — which may contain confidential information on any public employee?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I presume the member is referring to files on employees, their applications for employment. and the considerations that are given to reviews of employment. Yes, those files are in existence. But if you are referring to the same matter raised by the earlier question relating to teachers, I'm not aware of derogatory information of that nature held in files.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to request that

[ Page 2034 ]

the Provincial Secretary take this question on notice and come back to the House with information, after reviewing each ministry, on the range of the kinds of files which are kept on provincial government employees. I'd be happy to have you take that on notice.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think, rather than my taking the question on notice — it's a very comprehensive question which asks for substantial information — I would respectfully suggest that he place it on the order paper. I'd be happy to oblige.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

On vote 9: Premier's office, $551,612.

MRS. WALLACE: I have sat quietly for some days now in this debate, Mr. Chairman, and I have been listening with a great deal of interest to what has been happening in the House. I spoke earlier and expressed my concern at the credibility gap that had occurred in relation to the questions related to uranium. As I have sat through the continuing days of debate I have become more and more amazed at what is happening in this Legislature. I have become more and more amazed that the man who has been elected to lead this province in government has so little respect for legislative procedures that he has refused to answer any of the questions put to him. Well, he has answered one or two.

On Tuesday, when we came back after the long weekend, it looked like we were going to start off with a fresh start. The Premier gave us a couple of comments. There was a little bit of give and take and flow back and forth of information. But unfortunately that ceased. I have lost track of the number of questions that have been asked. They have gone on and on. There have been questions that concern me very gravely about election procedures, about things that happened within that minister's office relative to the financing of election campaigns.

I have been even more concerned recently about questions that have been placed about a meeting that that minister arranged with certain business people. The minister has not denied — so I can only assume that it is correct — that this government has advanced, to an American company, something like $3.5 million to provide a jetfoil service between here and Seattle. He hasn't denied that accusation, so I can only assume that that is correct. An American company with American employees, flying an American flag, is eligible for $3.5 million of taxpayers' money. Yet, Mr. Chairman, we are today in this province faced with a situation where 135 British Columbian citizens are going to be out of work as of tomorrow, because this government cannot make up its mind whether or not that particular Canadian company is eligible for some assistance.

The Premier looks puzzled. I sometimes wonder if the members of that cabinet ever talk to each other. I wonder if the Premier is aware that his cabinet took a stand relative to the purchase of Maplewood Poultry Processors by Cargill. I'm wondering whether the Chairman is aware whether or not the government took such a stand. It was a cabinet decision, I am sure, and the Premier, as a member of the cabinet, must be aware....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, again, while wide latitude is always allowed under vote 9, we are now really canvassing specific agricultural estimates. I must ask the member to more closely relate to vote 9 in her debate. By extending the argument that it was a cabinet decision, we could canvass the entire cabinet. I appreciate the member's concern; nonetheless I must ask that we return to vote 9, the Premier's specific strict estimates.

MRS. WALLACE: Vote 9 gives the Premier his salary, Mr. Chairman, and in order to earn that salary he must be responsible for certain actions that the government takes. There is no such thing as having authority and no responsibility. Any minister who has the authority to announce the building of B.C. Place or the building of a bridge, or any other such items, has to take responsibility as well for those items.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that perhaps the Premier is not as well informed as he should be about some of the things that are going on in his cabinet. As Premier he has a right to know those things, and I intend to bring them to his attention, because I do not think he can do a job and earn his salary if he doesn't know some of those things I wish to bring to his attention. In that way I am relating these items to vote 9.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I regret that the member has taken the tack that has been taken. The Chairman's advice to the member is that under vote 9 we cannot discuss matters that are equally capable of being discussed under, for example, a separate vote — much more appropriate under a separate vote.

MRS. WALLACE: I believe the Premier has to take some action, and I believe the Premier has to take action today. That is why I believe these items must be brought before the Premier in his estimates. Because how can he act, how can he take any part in what's going on in that government, if he doesn't know what's going on? He has to be aware, Mr. Chairman. I realize that I must relate these things to his participation in government, and that's exactly what I intend to do. I intend to ask the minister whether or not he is prepared to provide the same kind of audience to the people who are interested in purchasing the Maplewood Poultry plant as he was to provide to the people who wanted to start the jetfoil system. Surely, Mr. Chairman, those items are related. Surely, Mr. Chairman, if there is $3.5 million available for a jetfoil, and if, in fact, we are in a position where jobs are going to be lost, where plants are going to be closing.... It's even worse than just 135 people....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Again, I must caution the member that, with all due respect, you must return to vote 9. What you are doing at this point is, in fact, arguing with the Chair. If we are to retain any semblance of order.... I appreciate the member's concern, but nonetheless the subject matter currently being discussed by the member is, unfortunately, not in order under this specific vote.

[ Page 2035 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Well, can I then, Mr. Chairman, ask the Premier whether or not he is prepared to meet with representatives of the Pacific Poultry Producers' Cooperative Association to discuss financing with them for the purchase of the Maplewood Poultry processing plant? Is he prepared to meet with those people? I'm not asking anything about any other estimate. I'm asking the Premier if he, as Premier of this province, is prepared to meet with those people. Because there is a very grave concern within this province that there is an industry in this province that is going to be completely decimated if the Premier does not meet with this group.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member defer to the Premier?

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I have more questions, but if he's prepared to answer that one, yes.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Anyone can arrange a meeting with the Premier of the province. They don't have to wait to have a member raise it in estimates. All they have to do is make an appointment through my office. I would certainly be glad to see anyone — including those mentioned.

MRS. WALLACE: I am very pleased to hear that the Premier is prepared to meet with this group of people to discuss financing. I'm sure that they will be made aware of this. I would certainly hope that that meeting can be arranged in very short order. I would hope that what happens at that meeting would be public information, and that it happens very soon. Because, Mr. Chairman, there is more than just Maplewood involved here. This government's decision to sell Panco Poultry....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I regret again having to interrupt the member. I appreciate the member's concern. Nonetheless, hon. member, I have mentioned two or three or four times that continued debate on the particular issue the member is now canvassing is not in order under vote 9. I must ask the member to move to a different area or to narrow the discussion.

MR. COCKE: I rise on a point of order. The member was just getting into a decision obviously made by the Premier of this province. That was the decision by which Panco Poultry, which was held by the government of British Columbia, was sold to Cargill. That's the point she's making now. She's off the other point. This, certainly, was a decision made at the top end of the cabinet. It certainly wasn't made by that lacklustre Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt).

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. As of the other day, during estimates, each minister has an opportunity to deal with questions related to their ministry.

MR. COCKE: You sold to Cargill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: People will think you have bad manners, Mr. Member — through you, Mr. Chairman.

The point is that it is presumed all ministers, in making decisions for their ministries for which they are accountable, are also expressing government policy. That has been the history of estimates in this House. If it is their choice, as members of the opposition have indicated by exhausting — at least before they got to the House — legitimate questions under this vote, to debate all the estimates of government, I wouldn't mind if we put all the votes on the table under my estimates and I dealt with them in blanket form for all the ministers. But I would think it more appropriate to get into detail in each ministry, and give each minister an opportunity not only to respond but to talk about initiatives that are coming.

MR. LEA: On the same point of order, it seems that the Premier wants to do a little double-talk.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: The point of order is — and I'd like to have some clarification from the Chair — that the Premier got up and said: "Where is the opposition? Why don't you talk to me about the economy?"

HON. MR. WATERLAND: What's your point of order?

MR. LEA: Listen for a minute and you'll get it.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: You wouldn't understand it if it were out in anything, including....

Interjections.

MR. LEA: I cannot make my point of order with the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) yapping like a banshee.

I'd like to know the ruling from the Chair. We've asked the Premier specific questions which he has refused to answer. Instead he has asked us to ask him questions about the economy — interest rates, unemployment and all these other areas. He has asked us to do that, but at the same time he says he won't talk about the other ministers' estimates. He can't have it both ways. I'd like to ask right now: is it permissible, under the Premier's estimates, to ask him about the economy, unemployment and interest rates, which he has asked us to do?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. As hon. members can appreciate, it is virtually impossible for the Chair to give that kind of advice on a question, although I do appreciate the member's concern and inquiries. It would place the Chair in a very awkward position, as the hon. member knows.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the Premier has indicated that he would be willing to meet with a group which is very concerned about the future of an industry in this province. It will have a very drastic effect on the economy if this industry goes under. I believe that falls within the purview of the Premier of this province. He has asked for questions about the economy. He has asked us to express concerns. He has asked for some constructive criticism. That is what I would like to give him today; I would like to give him some

[ Page 2036 ]

constructive suggestions as to what can be done to aid a sector of the economy of British Columbia.

We have a poultry processing plant that is closing its doors on Friday.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, again, as all members know, we cannot do by one means what we cannot do by another. The member is now attempting to canvass one area that has already been deemed to be uncanvassable under this particular vote. Again, while I appreciate the member's very real concern, I must advise that those discussions have another vote under which they would be more appropriate. The Chair is very reluctant to make a ruling on the issue. I hope the member will return to vote 9.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I am trying very hard to deal with vote 9. I am trying to deal with some of the questions the Premier has indicated he would like to have discussed on the floor of this Legislature. I am trying to deal with a problem that is going to put 135 people out of work immediately, another 125 people within three months, and close down a whole industry within this province. That's the economy, and that's what the Premier wants us to talk about, and that certainly is the Premier's responsibility.

The minister has agreed that he is sufficiently interested to meet with a group in an effort to avert this kind of disaster happening in one sector of our economy. I think that in order to intelligently carry out such a meeting, he should be privy to some of the information relative to this. That is what I would like to discuss with the Premier today.

I would like to discuss with the Premier some of his government policies that have been carried out during the past year. I would like to discuss with the Premier the pros and cons of giving $3.5 million to an American company to provide a jetfoil service. Does the Premier feel that that is more important than keeping a local agricultural industry going in the province of British Columbia? If there is money like that available for that kind of a concern, why then, Mr. Chairman, is there not money available to keep a local industry operative, and to ensure that not just the 125 jobs that are going down the tube today or tomorrow are protected, but also that the 125 jobs that will be phased out within the next three months are protected? Is that Premier not concerned with the possibility of one industry in our province having no processing facility whatsoever, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think that you have indicated to this member that she's out of order, and that there is a proper vote for her to discuss the issue which she is raising now under the Premier's vote. She's been abusing the rules of this House. If there is some anxiety on the part of the opposition, which has been dragging its feet here for the last three or four weeks, then they can pass this vote, vote 9, and go on to the Minister of Agriculture and discuss this issue where it's more appropriately discussed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. On the same point of order, the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member for Cowichan-Malahat is talking about the economy, about employment, about jobs — a subject matter which the Premier wanted to talk about and talked about on a number of occasions when he has risen to debate these particular estimates himself, saying that's the subject matter of his interest. The member for Cowichan-Malahat is taking a specific aspect of that, a specific aspect that is crucial. The Premier knew a week ago that this was going to close down, and no action whatever was taken.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, we must not use points of order for extended debate.

MR. HOWARD: I'm not extending the debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate your concern, but can we just...?

MR. HOWARD: I certainly would not extend the debate. I'm talking on the point of order about a procedural matter. The Premier himself said a moment ago that, yes, he will meet with anybody. All they have to do is come into his office, phone up and make an appointment. If they do that, then the subject matter of that meeting becomes in order, but if they don't do that it's not in order.

Mr. Chairman, I want to advance another thought to you, that the difficulty the committee is getting into this afternoon is because at the commencement of the discussion of the Premier's estimates the Premier didn't think it was worthwhile to talk about it and kept talking to you about "order," silently from his seat, creating an area of intimidation upon the Chair because he didn't want the subject talked about. I think if the Chair had not listened to that across-the-floor chatter from the Premier and told the Premier that if he had a point of order he should stand up as a member should, and outline the reasons for his point of order, we wouldn't have gotten into the difficulty that we got into today so far.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you again, hon. member. If any intimidation has been forthcoming in the last while, it has just been forthcoming, with all due respect, from the member for Skeena with those remarks. I really must caution against that kind of reference to the Chair.

The Chair is at all times bound to enforce the rules of this House, notwithstanding the desire of members and the urgency which they may or may not feel to discuss a certain subject. Again, hon. member, I must state that the discussion presently being pursued and the arguments being advanced are, with all due respect — and I'm sure the hon. member can see this — much more appropriate under another vote than currently under vote 9, notwithstanding the arguments that have been advanced. We cannot do by one means what we cannot do by another. I must ask the hon. member at this time to get on the subject matter of vote 9 and, with all due respect, to discontinue the present argument that he is pursuing on that particular subject. The member for Cowichan-Malahat continues.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to ask the Premier whether or not he is aware that Mr. David Radler and Mr. Herb Doman are both directors of the B.C. Development Corporation. I'm also wondering if the Premier is aware that Mr. Radler is the president of a corporation which owns the Slumber Lodge development. Is the Premier also aware that the Slumber Lodge in Terrace last year received a grant — no, it was a non-interest-bearing forgivable loan — of $50,000, plus a $200,000 loan at half the prime interest rate?

[ Page 2037 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is Slumber Lodge owned by?

MRS. WALLACE: Well, it seems to be owned by a company whose president is Mr. David Radler, who sits on the board of directors of B.C. Development Corporation. It seems to me the company is named Argus.

I would like to ask the Premier whether or not he is aware that the Duke Point development near Nanaimo, according to the report of the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development, awarded contracts of over $10 million for the clearing and site development of 350 acres near Nanaimo. In their report are some other things they did. They carried out the preparation of a 90-acre site for a sawmill and a proposed thermal mechanical pulp mill. It was begun and the site preparation and clearing was undertaken by the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development. I'm wondering if the Premier is aware of this.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, I'm trying to wait and catch the thread of what the member was talking about. It appears to relate to a transaction carried out by the B.C. Development Corporation, which is under the direction of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). Certainly those questions can be posed to the minister when his estimates come up.

Again, it might be useful for the opposition members to be issued with not only a list of ministers and their ministries but also those Crown agencies which come under their purview, in helping them to ask questions at the appropriate time.

MR. LEA: I suppose the Premier is right, because he wanted to talk about interest rates, and Slumber Lodge isn't being charged an interest rate — that's just a little gift. Speaking on this point of order, the Premier cannot have it both ways. He can't ask us to talk about the economy and interest rates, and every time we do jump to his feet and say: "I object, I don't want to talk about that." Madam Member, let's get back to his office and who's getting paid in there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, clearly it is an abuse of the rules of the House if we use points of order for the purpose of making speeches, however brief they may be, and in fact relate....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On both sides of the House, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is as follows. The president of the executive council is the presiding officer of cabinet. He signs orders-in-council appointing people like Herb Doman to BCDC and people like the others mentioned to these development corporations. When certain things look out of order then it would strike me that the president of the council should answer questions, because he's taken responsibility for their appointment. That's purely it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: If that point of order is taken to its logical conclusion, I'd appoint the cabinet too, and then there would be no need to have their estimates....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: They're named by order-in-council — for the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who may have been there such a long time ago and been so excited by the heady heights he'd reached that he wasn't aware of how he got there. Many people feel the same way; many people are wondering the same thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, it is incumbent upon all members to try whenever possible to observe our standing orders and the rules that govern the actions of all of us in this Legislature. On that, I would ask the member for Cowichan-Malahat, who still has the floor, to continue, bearing in mind that we're on vote 9.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, your ruling makes me very limited. Obviously the Premier is not obliged to answer questions relative to what could be conflict of interest as a result of appointments which he has approved. The Premier is not obliged, according to your ruling, to answer questions relative to grants which are made to companies which are owned by directors which he has appointed to the B.C. Development Corporation. Is the Premier not responsible for those? I am told that I cannot discuss matters relative to agriculture, and I suppose that's because I'm the agricultural critic and it's assumed that anything I might have to do with agriculture can only be dealt with during the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture — a minister who has been changing his mind. According to Cargill he's changed it three times in the last three months, relative to whether or not FIRA should allow or disallow Cargill's takeover of Maplewood.

Mr. Chairman. are we not allowed to discuss in this Legislature, under the Premier's estimates, the question of whether or not 125 workers will be out of work during the next three months at Panco Poultry? Are we not allowed to discuss whether 135 workers working at Maplewood will be laid off on Friday? Are those not matters of economic concern in this province'?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Again, hon. member, while the Chair appreciates your very real concern, your Chair has an obligation to uphold the rules of this House. The Chair is bound to enforce those rules. I must, I hope for the last time, caution the hon. member that the debate on which she is currently embarked is not in order under vote 9.

The first point of order was the Minister of Health, followed by.... On a point of order, the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: I'll accommodate you, Mr. Chairman, if you like. Do I understand your ruling, as you have just made it — it seems to be fairly clear, but I want to have my own impression of it — to be that we are not entitled at this moment to inquire of the Premier what he and his government are going to do about the fact that tomorrow Maplewood Poultry Processors Ltd. will close down and 135 workers will lose their jobs unless some action is taken by the government? Is it your ruling that we cannot examine that question or ask the Premier those questions?

[ Page 2038 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, there may be — in fact, there likely are — more appropriate forms. But as I have already outlined, your Chair is bound to enforce the rules of this House. As has been pointed out many times in the course of debate, particularly over these last few days, by extending the Premier's estimates to cover the various items, we would in fact be covering the entire executive council. We are therefore restricted to some degree in our discussion under the present vote before us, vote 9. While casual reference is never that much out of order, specific and continued reference is very much out of order. The Chair has not made a ruling at this point in time and is reluctant to make rulings at any time, because the Chair believes in the discretion of members to follow the rules of this House. And I so ask again, in reference to the member for Cowichan-Malahat, who is currently the member recognized by the Chair.

On a point of order, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the member for Cowichan-Malahat has expressed some anxiety and some concern about the loss of jobs associated with agriculture. All I say to her, if she's as genuinely concerned as she indicates she is, is that she pass vote 9. The very next vote is vote 10, where she would be in order if she was debating this issue, which is agriculturally oriented.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, hon. member, it is always difficult for the Chair to identify points of order when in fact they're at best skimpy. The member for Skeena on a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: If it is your ruling that we cannot inquire of the Premier about the shutdown tomorrow of Maplewood Poultry Processors Ltd., and the loss of 135 jobs, plus other things that flow from that, I wonder if I could pose a question, through you, to the government, which I know is anxious to deal with this particular question in public. Would the Premier and the government grant leave to suspend the rules for this particular subject matter in order that we may debate it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it is very difficult to recognize that as a point of order at this stage, but there would certainly be nothing wrong with recognizing the member taking his place in debate and making that.... But I could not recognize the member for that undertaking on a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: Posing that particular question seems to have got a negative response from government — that we cannot discuss it, that they are not interested in discussing it. We have no alternative, this being the case, Mr. Chairman, but to appeal your ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For the past little time I have avoided making a hard and fast rule. I find that if the member is asking the Chair to make a ruling which can be challenged, the rules exist. But I have not, to my knowledge, made a fixed rule. I have only advised the member repeatedly on his course of action. To the best of my knowledge, hon. member, I have not made a hard and fast ruling. It will, I hope, be our intention to carry on this way.

MR. HOWARD: I take your advice properly; but I asked a specific question as to what you were ruling. I took it from what you were saying that you were ruling we could not discuss this particular matter. But you have not done that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have advised hon. members of the rules of the House, and I can only ask hon. members to give these rules the consideration they certainly deserve from all members.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. MAIR: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member for Cowichan-Malahat yielded the floor.

MRS. WALLACE: On points of order, yes, only on points of order.

HON. MR. MAIR: Certainly she yielded the floor.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: Please hear me out. She yielded the floor. I was recognized, and then a point of order was recognized in advance of me, which was perfectly correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To clear up the confusion — and possibly it is the Chair's fault that some confusion did arise — there was no question in the Chair's mind that the member for Cowichan-Malahat retained the floor, and it was my understanding that the member was about to rise on a point of order, as several other members had. I apologize for that confusion, but at no time did I formally relinquish the member's position in debate.

HON. MR. MAIR: I cheerfully accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's refreshing.

MRS. WALLACE: I was interested in the Premier's remarks, during the back-and-forth discussion, that he was responsible.... He "was the one" — I think his words were — who appointed the cabinet.

It would seem that the Premier is going to leave us; we have a new Premier. That was a quick promotion. It's rather interesting that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) should be sitting in the Premier's chair at this particular point in time.

The Premier indicated that he was the man who was responsible, that he was the man who appointed the members of the cabinet — I think those were his words. When we have a situation in which members of that cabinet are carrying out their responsibilities in such a way as to bring nothing but discord and even chaos into an economic situation within this province, then surely the Premier should be advised that such is the case. That is what I am attempting to do, Mr. Chairman.

I think that the Premier has to be made aware of the sort of Family Compact mentality that is occurring relative to grants of taxpayers' money for so-called economic reasons in this province. It would seem that if you are a member of the board of directors of the B.C. Development Corporation, and if you

[ Page 2039 ]

are a president of a company doing business with that corporation or with other sectors of the government loan program, you are eligible for grants, loans and reduced interest rates. These things affect the economy and employment.

The Duke Point development at Nanaimo, which received $$30 million from Small Business Development, created 100 short-term jobs. I am trying to bring to the Premier's attention the 135 jobs which are going to disappear because, once more, the Minister of Agriculture can't make up his mind.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: No, I'm not changing my tune, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Cowichan-Malahat has the floor. The interjections in no way help to carry on the debate presently before us, particularly when the member is very diligently trying to stay within the bounds of vote 9.

MRS. WALLACE: I am having some difficulty dealing with the Premier's estimates. I am speaking to two ministers, one of whom is sitting in the Premier's chair while he isn't here.

I have no choice but to move that the committee rise....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we usually allow a period of about five or six minutes........

MRS. WALLACE: Well, you can rule me out of order if you like, Mr. Chairman, but I'm going to move that the committee report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 24

NAYS 29

Mr. Lea requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Cowichan-Malahat. On a point of order, the Minister of Health.

HON. MR. MAIR: On a point of order, the member yields when she asks for the committee to rise and report progress and asks leave to sit again. Surely she can't want to say anything more.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Health makes a good and an accurate point — customarily we alternate. I now recognize the Minister of Health, and I thank him for that observation.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, we are now in committee, and the Chair recognizes the person first on his or her feet, and clearly recognized the member for Cowichan-Malahat. There has been an intervening vote, but it's not a matter where a member has moved adjournment of a debate in second reading, in which case, if the vote is lost, the member loses his or her seat.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The Minister of Health on the same point of order.

HON. MR. MAIR: I think, in all fairness, the Chair recognized or realized that I wished to speak in the debate before the motion was made. I knew, of course, that the member for Cowichan-Malahat had lost her position in debate, so I was in no great hurry to rise. I certainly rose about the same time she did and it seems only fair that I now should be recognized.

MR. LAUK: In accordance with our standing orders, Mr. Chairman, I move that the member for Cowichan-Malahat be now heard,

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no debate on the motion.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

NAYS — 29

[ Page 2040 ]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that when the Chair reports the committee's activities to the Speaker he notify the Speaker that a division took place and request that it be recorded that the vote this afternoon was against the ERA.

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of order, I wonder if I could have the Premier's assurance that when next I have the floor he will be in the Legislature?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order, hon. member.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm always, of course, gratified by the great enthusiasm by which my speeches are greeted in this House and the readiness with which people yield the floor to me, and I am indeed grateful to the member for Cowichan-Malahat, who took less time than the Leader of the Opposition did last time in letting me say one or two words.

Just before I get involved in my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I must say that I'm appreciative of the protection that you're giving all members of this House, because I'm constantly being challenged to physical combat by, of course, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). They know full well from challenging me in the past that I'm scared stiff to fight with them. However, that is not going to prevent me from saying what I feel is necessary to be said in here. I look forward to the next combat with the member for Skeena, because next time, rather than take a chance, I think I'll just run right from the beginning.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I listened yesterday, Mr. Chairman, with some interest to the debate, and I saw the difficulty which you and your Deputy Chairman had in keeping the House in order while talking about something called the Waffle Manifesto. I know that that is out of order, Mr. Chairman, because that's something that's on the order paper and it must be discussed later and I'm not going to anticipate it.

I listened to — and what I didn't hear I read in the Blues — the speeches of some of the members opposite, and I'm afraid, Mr. Premier and members of this chamber — and I know that you'll read this in the Blues later — that some very questionable advice was offered yesterday. I would like to talk to the Premier, in his capacity as head of government — not head of state, as has been quite property pointed out, but head of government — under the British North America Act, about the obligations he has thereunder. One of the duties devolving upon the Premier of this province under the constitution of this country is, of course, to see that the British North America Act is upheld and that the contract that we all entered into at one time or another is maintained; and that means, of course, that the country is kept whole. That being the case, I am very much afraid that the Premier might infer from some of the remarks of members opposite yesterday that he should call upon his colleagues — some of us, in any event — to cause some motion to be placed before the convention of our party, which, if passed, might call for the breakup of the country. I want to tell the Premier that if he were, along with, say, myself and perhaps the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), to sign such a motion calling for division of this country, calling for a resolution to allow one or other part to break away, that that would not only be unfortunate; it would be an abdication of all of olur responsibilities.

Yet we have offered yesterday to the Premier of this province in his estimates under vote 9, as the head of our government, that very suggestion by the members opposite. At least I think that is a reasonable inference to be drawn from the words that were used. This is how the members opposite conduct themselves, and I assume that they would wish us to follow their example. They get prominent members of their party, including somebody who was later to become Premier, four members who were later to become cabinet ministers, and one who was later to become the Speaker of this House, to put a resolution before the floor of their convention, which, if passed, would have called for the breaking up of the country.

Now we know from past debates in here and from things that have been said outside this chamber that the NDP is one great big happy family and that what happens at their national conventions and what happens at their provincial conventions is all happening to the New Democratic Party in the interests of socialism. So we know that when these prominent members, who are either now or certainly were members of this chamber, called upon their national convention to hear a resolution which if passed would allow for the breakup of the country, they must have been speaking for the New Democratic Party. We also know that in debating this freely yesterday — the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) debated it; I think the member for Skeena debated it, but I'm not certain; certainly the Leader of the Opposition debated it — they must have been offering that to us as an example of how we can enhance national unity through our party and through its convention.

I want to say to them that I know there isn't a single solitary member on this side of the House or of our political party that would tolerate such a resolution being put before our convention. I know, as was pointed out yesterday by one or two of the members opposite, that from time to time some unusual resolutions appear before party conventions; there's no question about that. I guess it's sort of like beauty: it's in the eye of the beholder as to whether or not a resolution is peculiar or odd, or whether it's one that runs against what most people are thinking — perhaps we could use the phrase, what "right-thinking people" are thinking. I'm sure that the, members opposite have had some rather peculiar resolutions at their conventions; and I'm prepared to admit that we've had the odd funny one at ours. But I can tell you, Mr. Chairman and anyone else who cares to hear, never has our party debated a motion which if passed would allow for the breakup of our country; nor indeed can I foresee the day that such a resolution would be tolerated.

What if we did follow the example of the members opposite, and placed before our convention such a motion? What if the Premier, myself and the rest of my colleagues were to be signatories to that motion? I wonder what questions we would hear then from the members opposite about our signing such a motion. Would we then be able to say: "Oh, well, we only signed that so we could get it on the table.

[ Page 2041 ]

and have it debated."? Sure, I can hear it now from the members opposite. I can see the Leader of the Opposition looking up at the gallery and saying: "Would you believe that?" I'm going to tell you, I wouldn't believe it either; and I don't believe it when they say it. You know, it's so silly, because if you want to debate a motion such as national unity, you don't go to the people in a convention and put forward a motion that would break up the country; you put your good name to a motion that will keep the country together, and you let those who would tear it apart stand up and identify themselves in debate. You would not tear yourselves apart by identifying yourselves as putting the motion forward.

I think that the advice I see inferred from the argument yesterday.... There's no argument more calculated to tear this country down than to follow that advice. If we were to follow the example of the NDP at their convention in 1969 and put forward a resolution carrying the apparent approbation of senior members of this party, then we would be doing a great disservice to our country, and we would be open to the most severe criticism, and that criticism would be amply justified. So I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I'm not prepared to accept any advice which would call upon our party to debate a motion which would allow the country to be broken up.

I would say that anybody, whether it be the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer), the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), the Leader of the Opposition, the former Speaker of the House, or the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi).... I don't accept their suggestion, advice or excuse that it's okay to be signatory to a resolution calling for the breakup of the country because all you're trying to do is get it before a convention. That is hollow. It calls for a better explanation before we start debating the issue of national unity in this country. It calls for a better explanation than simply: "We did it to get it before the convention." If they thought it was a good idea at that time — 1969 was a long time ago — I think we'd be prepared to hear from them now that they've changed their minds and that they're prepared to engage in this debate, on the side of unity. But if they're prepared to continue with what can only be considered the weak excuse — made only because they've been called to account — that they signed it to get it before the convention, I would say it requires a complete turnaround before the people of British Columbia will accept anything they have to say on the issues of national unity.

MR. HOWARD: I can certainly see why the gentleman from Kamloops, the Minister of Health, is not very affectionately known in his home town as the "split-tongue smoothie, " because that's precisely what we heard.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) and all hon. members remember that courtesy in debate is always appreciated in the House. The member for Skeena continues.

MR. HOWARD: I think I enjoy and appreciate your protection even more now than I did earlier. There are two people I need to be protected from. One is the wild man from Kamloops, and now I see the Minister of Tourism as well.

Mr. Chairman, Maplewood Poultry Processors Ltd. — from advice given a week ago when there was a desire expressed to have an emergency debate in this House, which didn't succeed — are going to close down tomorrow. Notices of layoffs have been given and 135 employees in that operation will be out of work. That's a subject matter close to home and close to the hearts of an awful lot of people in this province. The government and the president of the executive council, who is not here at the moment.... Hansard can't see that in pictorial form so we have to put it on the record that he is absent again during debate of his estimates and during a period of time when he is required by our constitution, by the British North America Act, which, as the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) pointed out, the president of the executive council has the obligation to enforce. One of the unwritten portions in our constitution is responsible government. The president of the executive council, because we are debating his estimates and examining his conduct as the president, is absent. He is abdicating, therefore, that prime aspect of responsible government and responsibility to the Legislature.

He knew two things a week ago. Firstly, he knew that Maplewood Poultry Processors Ltd. was going to close effectively tomorrow. Secondly, he knew that there was a 90 percent or more chance that the Foreign Investment Review Agency of the federal government would turn down the application by Cargill Grain to buy Maplewood. He knew that. The government knew that and, in fact, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) expressed that by saying that historically when a provincial government has registered a negative position in matters like this, the federal authorities have not permitted it to proceed. Well, the Minister of Agriculture and the government knew at the time they made the representations — and I think proper ones — to the Foreign Investment Review Agency that those representations would be listened to and Cargill would be stopped in its bid to acquire Maplewood Poultry Processors Ltd. They knew sometime before that, that being the case and there being no local British Columbia-based company able to finance the acquisition of Maplewood Poultry Processors Ltd., that it would close. One would have expected that something would have been laid on as a contingency plan from a government that prides itself on being able to project its thoughts into the future about what will happen, plan for them and protect injury to people.

Knowing nearly 100 percent or being fairly sure that the Foreign Investment Review Agency would agree with the position of the provincial government — namely that Cargill not be allowed this takeover — and knowing also that there would be no other firm locally which would be able to acquire the operation.... As they knew these things and as they did not make any contingency plans to preserve Maplewood Poultry Processors Ltd., its operations and 135 jobs, I think the government and the president of the executive council stand only to be condemned for that lack of activity and lack of action with respect to this subject matter.

Maybe they don't think 135 jobs are very important in the total scheme of things when they talk about employment, the economy and jobs in the totality of our province. Maybe, from that point of view of government, it isn't very important, as a percentage of the total. But it is very, very important to 135 people who, effective tomorrow, are going to be out of work. The government knew they would be out of work. The fact that the government took no steps to obviate that possibility — knowing that it was going to occur —

[ Page 2042 ]

leaves it open, I think, to the accusation of a careless, callous, very unkind approach to a group of people who tomorrow will be out of jobs.

The government has said, through the Minister of Agriculture, that it hasn't ruled out the possibility of providing some financial assistance to another company in B.C., perhaps to acquire the assets of Maplewood. That contingency plan, I submit — even though I know the government's reluctance to involve itself in these matters — should have been laid out and developed before. The workers got the notice of layoff a week ago. Knowing a week ago that it was going out of business tomorrow, the company should have been approached on a contingency plan basis by government, which should have said: "We don't want to see this happen. We fully expect that FIRA is going to turn Cargill's bid down. That means you go under. We want to prevent that. Let's sit down and examine the ways and means of doing that." There was no hesitation on the Premier's part to take that course of action with respect to supporting Boeing and the jetfoil; no hesitation to advance the idea that taxpayers' money should be provided to employ American sailors to operate an American jetfoil between Seattle and here; no hesitation to use Canadian taxpayers' money to protect jobs in the United States. Why then the hesitation to use provincial government moneys — taxpayers' moneys — to protect jobs for British Columbians in the poultry industry? It doesn't stack up as being a respectful approach for the Premier — the president of the executive council — to take to workers in this province.

That's only part of the story. Going back a while ago, as we know history tells us, the government moved to get rid of Panco Poultry — a viable operation, a money-maker. It didn't want to have its purity as a government tainted with the idea of being associated with anything that the NDP conceived as worthwhile. So they sold it to an American firm. In three months that foreign corporation will shut down, I am advised, a portion of Panco Poultry, which the government sold to them, and another 125 jobs in the poultry processing industry in British Columbia will be lost. The result, again I am advised, is that there will be no turkey processing operations in B.C. Where will they go — out of the country?

Is that what this government is all about — prepared to put up the taxpayers' dough to support jobs in the United States or wherever else in the world, and to deny British Columbians the same protection, the same consideration and the same concern? On the face of it, that's what it looks like. And on the face of it, that's disgraceful. It's injurious. It's government thumbing its nose in the face of the workers and in their families' faces. It's government saying, "We don't care about you," just as the Premier has said to this House that it's none of the public's business about the particular questions being asked during his estimates. It's the same sort of narrow stubbornness, the same sort of arrogance that one would expect under an authoritarian dictatorship government, but not under a democracy. Yet we have it. It is an insult to the whole provincial structure and what we hope to see developed in this province.

We move to a question that I raised yesterday. Having wondered about it since raising it, I think I would like to have the Premier give the House some information with respect to the agreement he signed on the 18th day of April in 1977 with the federal government regarding coastal transportation and so on. I also ask the Premier whether he has taken any steps recently, or since the signing of that agreement, to approach the federal government and ask the federal government if they will review that agreement earlier than its fifth anniversary date — whether the Premier has communicated to the federal government his desire or the desire of the government of British Columbia to review that particular agreement earlier. I leave that specific question and, of course, the question about Maplewood Poultry as to what action the government has decided to take with respect to Maplewood Poultry Processors and the loss of 135 jobs from workers in that particular plant.

Much has been said about the involvement of the Premier's office and the B.C. Development Corporation and the jetfoil service. There were no answers from the president of the executive council that he did anything or met with anybody. In effect he said to the general public: what happened in his office with respect to that particular deal is none of their business.

I'm prompted to ask something else, again with respect to the activities of the president of the executive council. In order to do this I need to make some reference in a preliminary way, Mr. Chairman, without, running afoul of what the rules might or might not be — and I gather they're very flexible — to the fifth annual report of the B.C. Development Corporation. Its 1979 report talks about, among other things, Duke Point Development Ltd. in the Nanaimo area having contracts of over $10 million for clearing and site development, etc., of some 350 acres in the Nanaimo area. Specifically it says this in the B.C. Development Corporation annual report, without identifying who it is that's involved: "Preparation of 90 acres for a sawmill and proposed thermo-mechanical pulp mill was begun, as were clearing and site preparation of a back-up 120-acre industrial park. Sales are being negotiated on all portions. "

Now I don't know about the particular land in question; I know that the relationship between government and the B.C. Development Corporation is for the government from time to time to provide Crown grants in fee simple to the B.C. Development Corporation — in other words, to give B.C. Development Corporation Crown land and say to B.C. Development Corporation: "Here is the land. We give it to you for nothing. The people own it, but we'll give it to you, B.C. Development Corporation, for you to go ahead and do with it whatever you desire to do with it."

I don't know if that 90 acres for a sawmill and a proposed thermo-mechanical pulpmill at Duke Point and the back-up 120-acre industrial park was acquired in that fashion, but we do know that B.C. Development Corporation is using public funds to prepare that 90 acres for a sawmill and a proposed thermo-mechanical pulpmill — and I might say that's fine. That advances industry; that provides jobs. If B.C. Development Corporation or the president of the executive council had a similar kind of interest with respect to Maplewood Poultry Processors, things would be just beautiful. But they appear to want to ignore the agricultural segment of our economy, see it gobbled up by foreign corporations or go out of business, and deal with other industrial activities in a much more friendly way. So they're spending public money, Mr. Chairman, preparing this 90 acres for this proposed thermo-mechanical pulpmill.

I have also here the annual report of a private corporation called Doman Industries Ltd. This is the annual report for 1979. It's the same year as the B.C. Development Corporation annual report. Whether the precise fiscal year ends are the same, I'm not sure, but it is for the 1979 period.

[ Page 2043 ]

In the president's report to the shareholders — the president of Doman Industries — he says this: "In sawmilling, a major step was taken on July 26, 1979, when the first concrete footings were poured at the Nanaimo, B.C., sawmill development." That is the same 90 acres, I would think — the president of the executive council can clear this up very easily if it isn't the same — that B.C. Development Corporation was preparing for a sawmill site. And Doman Industries say they acquired it and poured the footings for it on July 26, 1979.

Further in the president's report to the shareholders, Doman Industries says this: "We have secured a site at Nanaimo for our proposed thermo-mechanical pulpmill. B.C. Development Corporation is preparing 90 acres, presumably, of initially public land, Crown land, for a thermo mechanical pulpmill. Then Doman Industries tells us they have acquired that. That is nothing more than a straight, outright gift to Doman Industries by the people of B.C. — through the B.C. Development Corporation. It was a secondary step towards it, kind of hidden from public view, but it's there.

Here is the annual report, Mr. Chairman, as you can see. Here is a picture of the president of Doman Industries. Maybe if the Premier looked at the picture he would recognize the gentleman who is the president of Doman Industries. No, the Premier doesn't want to took at that. That's in the annual report of B.C. Development.... Did I say B.C. Development Corporation? I mean Doman Industries, I'm sorry. I get the two mixed up. I get them mixed up because I take the annual report of the B.C. Development Corporation and show Mr. Premier that the same guy whose picture is shown as the president of Doman Industries is shown in the annual report of the B.C. Development Corporation. He's sitting there with a big, toothsome smile and is identified as a director. His name: Harbans S. Doman, president, Doman Industries Ltd. That's a pretty cosy arrangement, Mr. Chairman, wouldn't you think?

I am sure that Mr. Doman, a gentleman respectful of conflicts of interest, absented himself from that particular meeting of B.C. Development Corporation that voted to give him the land site at Duke Point so he could build a thermo-mechanical pulpmill. I'm sure he absented himself from the vote in BCDC that transferred the 90 acres for the sawmill and the thermo-mechanical pulpmill. I'm sure Mr. Doman would do that. But that does not hide the fact that this president of this executive council put Mr. Doman on the board of directors of B.C. Development Corporation knowing that he was also the president of Doman Industries.

I am sure that Mr. Doman, sitting as the president of one and the director of the other, knew what was going on, was fully cognizant of what was taking place, was fully supportive of what was taking place in the B.C. Development Corporation, and was rubbing his hands with glee at being able to get his hands in the public till in the form of land and in the form of public money to develop a sawmill and thermo-mechanical site for him. I am sure he knew and enjoyed the fact that it was happening. Whether he was absent from the particular vote or excused himself from the vote on that board really is beside the point.

MR. LEA: Does the Premier own any of Doman?

MR. HOWARD: I don't know who has shares in Doman Industries.

MR. LEA: Maybe we could ask him.

MR. HOWARD: No. I wouldn't want to ask the Premier whether he has shares in Doman Industries. He, an hon. member as all of us are hon. members, is required by law to file a statement — I understand it is semi-annually — disclosing to the public what shareholdings we have, what debts we have, what land we own and all these sorts of things. The Premier will have done that. If that information is there on record, that is public information, the same as what shares I may hold is a matter for public view. If anybody is interested in examining who owns Doman Industries shares, so far as this House is concerned, all he has to do is go down to the Clerks' office and leaf through the reports that we filed. He will find out who owns it and whether it's in trust or what.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, he said the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) owned shares.

MR. HOWARD: Oh, maybe; I don't know. But if the member for Nanaimo has shares in Doman Industries, the one thing I do know is that the member for Nanaimo never appointed Harbans Doman to the board of directors of the B.C. Development Corporation. That was a cozy deal between the president of the executive council and Doman Industries. Who owns shares in it is immaterial. The fact is there was a deal made. The fact is the president of the executive council was involved in the deal, or knew it might transpire. I'm sure he didn't sit in on the meeting — as he did with a group of businessmen from Victoria — and make a deal with them. I'm sure he didn't sit in on the board of directors' meeting, nor did he go to the annual meeting of the board of directors of Doman Industries or the B.C. Development Corporation meetings and say: "Look, I'd like you to do this." No. he doesn't need to do that. Just set the machinery up by appointing the guy — the president of Doman Industries — to the B.C. Development Corporation, and let nature take its course. Mr. Chairman, that's the way the free enterprise system works. You appoint your friends to public boards and to Crown corporations, and let nature take its course.

I do wish that the Premier, the president of the executive council, would have as much appreciation and concern for the 135 workers at Maplewood Poultry as he does for Herb Doman. I do wish he would treat the workers there and their families with the same kind of kindness that he gives his buddies. But that's the mark of this government's activities, Mr. Chairman. Be cozy to your friends, pay off your friends — whether they're American or whatever they are in terms of ownership of corporations — and never mind the workers and the average people in B.C. Because the workers and the average people in B.C. are required, under the philosophy of the president of the executive council, this Premier, which he's enunciated dozens of different times, to pay the taxes so the deals can be made with big-business friends. That's why. That's why he pays no attention to working class people. That's why he's not really interested in 135 workers being laid off. Mr. Chairman, they are just suffering as a result of the normal course of events in the free enterprise system.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

In the Premier's philosophy, what he is really saying is

[ Page 2044 ]

free enterprise for the poor and socialism for the rich — government handouts to his buddies. Who knows? Maybe he even sleeps in the condominiums of one of his buddies in some far-off land when he goes there — as I gather other members of cabinet are wont to do. Very cozy relationships. Maybe he does. I don't know; I really don't care, because that's his business. But it's the public's business, Mr. Premier, when you sit there signing letters, ignoring the plight of 135 people who are going to be out of work tomorrow. That's the public's business.

The deals you make with your friends are also the public's business, whether it's in the closet of your office — away from public view, so that you can refuse to answer questions about it in this House and tell the public it's none of their business — or whether it's open and above board as it is in the two annual reports that I just quoted from. They also need some explanation, because the B.C. Development Corporation report doesn't identify Doman Industries as the recipient of this government's generosity. But Herb Doman is a straight-up man, and he tells the board of directors: "Oh, yes, we acquired it." He doesn't say where he acquired it from, just that he acquired it. You put those two together. That's public knowledge. You've got to do some ferreting to find it out, but the president of the executive council, otherwise called the Premier, has to respond to the general public about his management — or perhaps I should say mismanagement, in these circumstances — of certain aspects of our economy.

MR. DAVIS: Yesterday the Premier said that this House should pass a resolution confirming our faith in Canada as a nation. I agree with him; I'm sure all members of the House agree with him. We should do it this week. We should do it tomorrow at the latest.

I agree also with the hon. Leader of the Opposition when he says that this resolution should make reference to the diversity of our nation, saying that the provinces too have an important role to play in Confederation. However, he added a phrase that I don't like. He used the words, as I recall them, "and in particular the province of Quebec." Quebec may be special. Indeed it is special in many ways; so is each of the other nine provinces. But when it comes to federal-provincial relations, in my view they should all be treated the same; they should all be seen the same in the eyes of our constitution. In other words, I'm against special status for Quebec. Our federation may change and certain powers may shift from the centre to the provinces, but those powers must move to all ten provinces simultaneously. They mustn't be given to one province, for example Quebec, and denied to the rest.

I know that the NDP has had a problem with the special status issue. Special status for Quebec was an integral part of the federal NDP's platform for a number of years, but this stand hurt the NDP nationally — it certainly hurt them outside Quebec — so we've not heard a great deal about special status for Quebec recently. We've heard little if anything from federal NDP candidates on this issue in the last two federal elections, and in my view they're right to play it down. It isn't on, insofar as the great majority of Canadians are concerned, either inside or outside Quebec. That's really why I was surprised to hear the Leader of the Opposition use the words "and particularly in Quebec" in his suggested text for a unanimous resolution for this House.

We all know that the western Premiers will be meeting in Lethbridge, Alberta, next week. They'll undoubtedly be discussing federal-provincial relations. I know western alienation concerns them all, and nothing could be more damaging to the cause of national unity than the extension of the federal export tax to western-produced commodities like natural gas and hydroelectric power. We already have a federal export tax on western oil. It's highly discriminatory; it penalizes the producer, the producing area, the producing province. It doesn't apply in all parts of the country, so it can truly be said to be a tax aimed exclusively at western Canada, since only western provinces produce oil.

If Ottawa is serious about its efforts to restructure Confederation, this is the first tax to go. An export tax is the worst kind of tax, because it comes right off the top. It comes ahead of salaries and wages, materials costs and capital costs. It's the cream, not the skimmed milk. It's a sales tax with a vengeance. In the case of prairie oil it's now a 100 percent sales tax, imposed by the federal government on a non-renewable resource which is the property of the source provinces in the first place.

Yes, we all know that Ottawa is in difficulties on the financial front; it's running a large budget deficit now. In order to close this yawning 20 percent gap it needs more revenue. I am told studies are now underway with a view to diverting at least some of the revenue which our western provincial governments and their provincially owned government utilities now receive from natural gas and electricity to the federal treasury by extending an export tax to those commodities — to natural gas and to hydro power. Ottawa could pick up another half a billion dollars a year by doing this, but it would be half a billion dollars a year diverted from western Canada — dollars which we could be spending on people programs like education, health and human resources.

I'm against a tax of this type also because it's a tax on resources. Natural resources belong to the provinces under our constitution, the British North America Act, so the revenue obtained from their sales should accrue to the province or provinces of origin. An export tax cuts directly into this revenue, revenue which should and must belong to the provinces. It reduces the value of the resource. It discourages exploration and development. It will also lead, inevitably and in the long run, to the high grading of these resources as well.

I'm certainly against two-price systems. I'm against an internal price and a higher world price, with the export tax making up the difference. I'm opposed to outlying areas of the country subsidizing our larger centres of population and industry in Canada. Many of those industries are already protected from foreign competition by import tariffs. Now, with the advent of a federal export tax, they're being subsidized. Those manufacturing industries are being subsidized by our resource-producing provinces as well. Western Canada's traditional beef has been that it pays higher than world prices for manufactured goods originating mainly in southern Ontario and Quebec. Now it's got a second beef as far as energy is concerned. It's being forced to sell a non-renewable resource like oil at less than world prices in order to give the same manufacturing industries in central Canada a further cost advantage over their competitors in other parts of the world.

Let us focus particularly on oil for a moment. We have an export tax on western Canadian crude, and the result is that the Alberta wellhead price is half the world price for the same quality of oil. In other words, Canadians pay our foreign

[ Page 2045 ]

suppliers in the Middle East twice as much as we pay our own producers in western Canada. Less money flows back to Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia and less money is invested in finding and producing new Canadian supplies. Therefore Canadian reserves are falling and imports, necessarily, are on the increase. This doesn't make sense at all, either in western Canada or in eastern Canada.

The rot really set in in the fall of 1973, when the OPEC countries, the Middle Eastern countries, formed a cartel and held the importing nations up to ransom. Canada then was self-sufficient in oil, so we decided — rightly or wrongly — to go our own way. We cut ourselves off from world oil prices and pandered to the so-called needs of Canadian consumers. We gave them low-priced gasoline when the rest of the civilized world was paying prices often several times those we paid at home. As Canadian reserves declined, we bought more and more foreign oil using taxpayers' money. That's a subsidy which has been hidden from our people for far too long.

I noticed today, Mr. Chairman, that the Hon. Marc Lalonde, Energy minister in the federal government at Ottawa, came out with a figure. He said, were Quebec to separate, would Quebecers pay the world price for oil? Were they no longer to be subdisized, directly and indirectly, by the western provinces and through income tax, they would pay $1,250 more per family for oil. That's the kind of subsidy which has been developing in this country. It's the kind of subsidy which is being paid across the nation, but exclusively by westerners when it comes to the export tax.

There has to be an end to this nonsense. No other country on the face of the earth subsidizes oil consumption as we do. Most of them charged world oil prices all along. The United States, which for some years had a protected internal price for oil, is now taking off all controls. Within the next few months it will be paying the world oil price. More than that, President Carter has stated that he will shortly introduce an import duty on foreign oil. We're charging an export duty. Clearly, our policies and those of the other western countries, including the United States, now have departed markedly from one another.

Ottawa's oil export tax has been bad news particularly for Alberta and Saskatchewan. It's cost those two provinces some $20 billion in lost revenue — that's both government and industry — since 1973. That's an amount which is four times our present provincial government budget. It's a loss which is comparable to the total provincial budget of our largest province, Ontario. That's a lot of money, especially when you remember that the western oil which has been produced in the intervening years is gone forever. Natural gas may be next. Again, a federal export tax, a two-price system, a draining off of non-renewable resources with the benefits going, in large part at least, to the consuming provinces, Ontario and Quebec, is wrong. Again we will be selling this energy at twice the price to our neighbours in the U.S.A., and again we'll be giving up something which is limited in amount. It's being badly underpriced here at home already, and once it is gone we'll have to pay much higher prices for the energy which will take its place.

So much for oil and natural gas, but the list doesn't necessarily end there. The Department of Finance in Ottawa is looking at electricity. It's thinking of an export tax on water power. Not only will this produce more revenue for the federal treasury, but it will also establish a regime in which power, like the liquid petroleum fuels, will be cheaper in Canada than it is elsewhere. This may appeal to the protectionist element in our nation, but it will be bad news for the source provinces, British Columbia included. If Ottawa imposes an export tax on B.C. hydro, we'll have less revenue with which to pay wages and build new plants in this province.

Faced with rising costs, the utility will have to raise its rates prematurely. So ultimately we as consumers will really have to pay the bill. We'll pay it in increased rates, and those increased payments will go to Ottawa in the form of an export tax. Again, this is a transfer of wealth to the consuming provinces. We've had enough experience of this kind of thing already.

Manitoba now exports large blocks of power to the U.S. midwest. It would lose out. Plans to export thermal power based on Alberta coal would also be affected. Any ideas we may have in British Columbia which include the utilization of coal wastes for the production of power and its sale in the U.S. Pacific Northwest would also be abandoned, certainly jeopardized. So export taxes can hurt in several ways. Not only will they result in lower prices for our raw materials, but they can also prevent us from doing more processing in this country. Not only would the original value of our main products decline, but the value added by their further manufacture would also be jeopardized. This doesn't make sense from anyone's point of view, central Canada included. This is why I believe that our western Premiers should come out categorically against export taxes. They should insist that the export tax on oil be lifted as soon as possible. And they should say that export taxes on natural gas and electricity are not only discriminatory insofar as western Canada's concerned, but also offend the basic tenets of free enterprise and freer trade.

There is an important constitutional point to be made here. Our resources are provincial. They're described as provincial in clause 109 of the original British North America Act. Those in British Columbia remained with the province when it entered Confederation in 1871. Those on the prairies were transferred explicitly to Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba in the early 1930s. They're ours, in other words, constitutionally, to do with as we will. We can develop them or we can set them aside for posterity. We can say when they are developed, how they are developed, and who shall develop them. That's a provincial responsibility and one that bears repeating in an age when national government — at least in this country — are interfering increasingly in provincial affairs.

I agree that trade, once a commodity moves across a boundary — be it interprovincial or international — is a federal matter. So export taxes are federal; they're not provincial. My only point here is that they are wasteful, they're divisive, they're anti-developmental, and they can hurt national unity. By adding to costs they can result in the high-grading of our resources. Economically, therefore, export taxes are counter-productive. They certainly are in the long run. We have to hammer these points continuously in Ottawa; otherwise we're going to have two price systems in one resource category after another. Heaven help us if it reaches also to forest products — lumber, pulp and paper. Western Canada, as the nation's most important raw- and semi-manufactured-material-producing region, can't stand for that.

Mr. Chairman, there are two other topics which I want to touch on briefly before sitting down. One has to do with

[ Page 2046 ]

transportation charges; the other is the new Trudeau government's so-called made-in-Canada oil-pricing proposal. Both are arbitrary. Neither one makes sense from a long-term, resource development point of view.

First, as to transportation, some federal systems are user pay. Certainly the pipelines are, and long-distance airlines tend to operate on a user-pay basis. Others are subsidized heavily by the Canadian taxpayer through the federal treasury. Those that are required to pay for themselves — user pay — generally speaking are in western Canada. Those which get a lot of financial help from the federal government are, with a few exceptions, in Quebec and the other Atlantic provinces. So we tend to lose out in two ways: we don't always get the full market price for our product, and we pay more to move our goods to market. This has to stop. Either Canada's resource industries should pay compensatory — that is, user-pay — rates in all ten provinces, or they should be subsidized to the same extent regardless of their province of origin.

Mr. Chairman, I'll give you two examples to prove my point. Recently the federal Minister of Transport, the Hon. Jean-Luc Pépin, said the new multipurpose, bulk, offloading terminal at Ridley Island near Prince Rupert would have to be self-liquidating — at least over the life of the project. That's apparently the policy for western Canada. It's the policy relative, in this case, to a $50 million terminal which falls within the ambit of the National Habours Board out here on the west coast.

But what do I read in our eastern Canadian papers? I see that a new $300 million iron-ore and grain terminal is to be built, largely with federal funds, at Gros Cacouna on the Gaspé coast, about 100 miles downstream from Quebec City. We see outright grants for an eastern Canadian province which is talking, perhaps seriously, about separatism, and no grants at all for a grain- and coal-handling port in northwestern British Columbia. There can be no other name for it: it's rank discrimination. Not only does it reduce the value of our raw materials at their source, but it gets a lot of people upset. It's another reason why many westerners are hoping that Quebec will secede from Canada. It's another reason why many of us are convinced that we really have two Canadas today: one in the east, that is on the inside track as far as Ottawa is concerned, and the other out west that has to pay its own way and then some.

The Trudeau government's new oil-pricing system is something else again. It's government interference, in my view, at its worst. It's government regulation with a vengeance. It can only be enforced by using an army of accountants and federal bureaucrats which is unprecedented in size in our history. This new oil-pricing system," and I am quoting from the recent federal Speech from the Throne: "must be based upon Canadian conditions and circumstances, and not upon the vagaries of a turbulent and unpredictable world market." Each new Canadian oil development. In other words, will be costed out. The producer in each case will be able to recover its costs, Those costs include "a reasonable profit or rate of return." No one, few if any, are going to be allowed to fail. The government will guarantee a reasonable profit, even if their costs are out of sight. Meanwhile an operation which would be seen as highly successful under present market conditions would only reap a nominal reward — a "regulated rate of return," but no more. With this "made in Canada" pricing system in place, risk-taking will disappear. Everyone in the oil industry, regardless of who owns the development in question, will survive. No one will make large windfall profits, but no one — few, in any case — will go broke either. Rewards, such as they are, will go both to the efficient and the inefficient. They will go to firms of all sizes, firms in the industry regardless of ownership. Canadian companies and foreign corporations presumably will be treated alike. Big or small, each concern will be treated like a public utility in the future. They may find more oil or they may not, but one thing we can be sure of is there will be full employment in the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in Ottawa.

There's another aspect to this "made in Canada" pricing. It bears in on the revenues to the provinces. If a development is genuinely economic — if it's a large, well-located oil pool or a substantial reserve of coal that's easily mined — it would under normal circumstances make a good profit, but it will only receive a regulated price. The profit will be the allowed profit. The price will be less than it would otherwise be if there was one market price for that product — be it oil or coal — and the revenue, the dividend, the yield to the people of the province would automatically be reduced. In other words, if we have fine deposits — if we have an abundance of oil in a particular location, or excellent reserves of coal — we will not receive the full dividend provincially from their development under this "made in Canada" pricing system.

This certainly is big government at the centre. It's leading that way. In the long term it's bound to drive up the cost of not only oil but other forms of energy, and I suggest it'll put the federal government more and more in the oil and gas producing business — perhaps even coal — as time goes by. Perhaps this is what the socialists really want. They want government — and especially the federal government — to take over the oil and gas industry in this country one way or another. This "made in Canada" oil-pricing system certainly is leading us in that direction. The socialists, I suggest, are not really concerned with the fact that the provinces own the resources now. They'll take them over by bureaucratizing the industry, and they'll use federal tax dollars, including proceeds from export taxes, to nationalize the private sector certainly to regulate the private sector — in this way.

This week's federal Speech from the Throne, in the view of many observers, marks a shift to the left. It points to more government involvement in industry — certainly not less. That's not all. It indicates that more power is being concentrated at the centre. Ottawa is looming even larger in our Canadian constitutional scheme of things. It's on the verge of declaring our best energy resource industries "work for the general advantage of Canada" — perhaps it doesn't have to do so explicitly, but it's doing so by regulation. Those federal laws and a host of federal regulations, which are contemplated in the "made in Canada" oil pricing formula, will bring about nationalization, and these industries will be nationalized, presumably for the advantages of Canadians from coast to coast, and the bulk of our population that live in Ontario and Quebec.

Now I believe this kind of thing has to stop. To begin with, no more export taxes, no more two-price systems which penalize the producing provinces and favour the consuming provinces. If transportation services must be paid for in full, then have them paid in full from one end of the country to the other. And if we're worried about foreign ownership — foreign ownership and the control of our resource industries — then let the provinces, which actually

[ Page 2047 ]

own those resources, deal with the ownership question themselves.

Some provinces, like Saskatchewan, may believe in government ownership as a matter of principle. Others, like Alberta, may welcome capital from all over the world. We in British Columbia can have a mixed system, if we wish — encourage government and industry partnerships or take out a "provincial dividend" in the form of royalty payments and other taxes. But leave it to the provinces to decide. In a free market system we will all have a better idea what is really going on. And our regional tensions, I suggest, will subside.

This is the kind of Canada, Mr. Chairman, which I believe we must work for in the future. It's a nation with certain powers at the centre. But the rest of the powers — the majority of the powers — should rest with the provinces, the producers and the people. That's the kind of democracy which I believe in. It will create the kind of unity with diversity which we need in this country, certainly which is a prerequisite to keeping the country together.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to get back to vote 9 and deal with how some of the money was spent last year in the Premier's office on, for instance, phone calls. I'd like to know whether the Premier last year ever spoke on the phone to the president of Slumber Lodge about a grant in Terrace through TIDSA — a forgivable interest-free loan. Of course, Slumber Lodge is owned by Argus. I guess what we had to do was just sort of give Conrad Black a push over the top. He and Argus were almost in the poorhouse and so this province had to pay some taxpayers' money to Slumber Lodge, owned by Argus, to make sure that they could survive in the mean, hard world of free enterprise. I'd like to know whether the Premier ever personally, on behalf of his government, talked to the president of Slumber Lodge about this particular deal, on the telephone in his office.

I'd also like to know whether the Premier ever used any of the money that has been given to him to spend in his office to discuss the tunnel that the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has put forward, or the bridge to the mainland that the same minister has put forward. Because it seems strange to me, Mr. Chairman, that this government and this Premier would have no qualms about spending taxpayers' money to help out poor Argus and Slumber Lodge in this hard, cruel world of free enterprise, but they sure seem to have some qualms about spending money to help Maplewood Poultry Processors continue in this province.

What's wrong? Doesn't anyone from the poultry industry sit on the board of BCDC? Isn't there a farmer who's a particular friend of the Premier and his government? Because if there was, he or she would be getting special favours from this government. Is there no farmer who couldn't claim somehow that he's an American, so they could go directly to the Premier's office and get some money for this turkey processing plant? Isn't there any way that these people can get some money from this Premier by dealing directly with him in his office? Can't they claim they're American? Can't they claim they're going to spend the money in America for American crews? Can't they promise that if they get the money they'll give it directly to Cargill, out of this country, so they've got some chance of getting some money from the Premier?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Maybe Boeing. Couldn't one of these farmers go and ask somebody in Boeing to come and see the Premier in his office so possibly they can get some money from the British Columbia taxpayers to help out in their free enterprise venture?

What a double standard we see coming out of that Premier’s office! At the beginning of the Premier's estimates, we said: "Here are some things we'd like to know about your office. 'We'd like to know whether or not you knew about the slush funds going through your office. Were there people on the public payroll who spent some of their time dealing with the slush fund? Who signed the cheques for the slush fund?" The Premier said: "Look, I don't want to talk about that, so I'm not going to answer." We said: "Well, what about the jetfoil? What about giving this money to BCDCT?" He said: "Look. we want to talk about that, but you've got the wrong guy. You'll have to speak to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). You people over there are being darned irresponsible, because you're not talking about unemployment, you're not talking about the economy, and you're not talking about interest rates." We said: "Do you know what we'd like to talk about? We'd like to talk about unemployment, we'd like to talk about the economy and we'd like to talk about interest rates.'' The Premier says, out of the side of his mouth: "Order, Mr. Chairman, order." He kept saying it over and over. Three or four times he said: "I'd like to speak on a point of order. I don't want to talk about the economy. I don't want to talk about unemployment. I don't want to talk about the interest rates. It has nothing to do with me: I'm only the president of the executive council. I'm the Premier. I only want to talk about those things that are under vote 9."

What he'd like to talk about. I guess, is why his office staff went from nine to 17. I guess he'd like to talk about why salaries in his office last year went from $168,813 to S411,612. That's talking about economics, that's talking about employment. not unemployment. Does he want to talk about why his travel expense allowance was $33,775 last year and $55,000 this year! Should we pay the Premier that kind of money to travel around and give our money to Americans so that they can have American jobs on American boats? Is that why he wants that additional money for his office?

But he doesn't want to talk about unemployment today he doesn't want to talk about the economy today. "Order, Mr. Speaker. order." he says out of the side of his mouth. — 'Order. I don't want to talk about that today. It was yesterday when I wanted to talk about it. It was two weeks ago when I wanted to talk about it. It was two weeks ago and yesterday when I kept asking the opposition: 'Why don't you talk about unemployment? Why don't you talk about inflation? Why don't yon talk about the economy? "Today we'd like to talk to the Premier about the economy. "Order. Mr. Chairman, order. I don't want to talk about that." But, Mr. Premier. you wanted to talk about it. Why don't you talk about it today''

Why don't you talk about what your government is going to do about the 135 jobs going down the drain tomorrow? You know. you may not realize it. but to them that is the economy — whether they can meet their home payments at the end of the month. whether they can afford to buy clothes for their children, whether they can afford a nutritional diet for their families, whether they can afford to keep their cars. To be out of work and have to face possibly higher interest

[ Page 2048 ]

rates for their mortgage — for them that is interest rates. To walk out of that plant tomorrow and not return — that is unemployment for them.

But the Premier doesn't want to talk about specifics; he wants to talk in clichés. He's the clichéd Premier. He likes to talk about big problems, problems that don't deal with individuals but with things in wholesale, cliché terms. No, he doesn't want to talk about those 125 people who won't have jobs tomorrow. If you say it's not within the rules, give us leave of the House so we can talk to the first minister about 125 people who are going to be out of work tomorrow, and who will probably be facing higher interest rates on their homes. Let's talk about their economy, their unemployment, and their problem with interest rates. But that's beneath the Premier. He wants to talk about more grandiose plans.

What does he want to talk about — his success selling uranium? Even though he now says he didn't try, we know he did try — and he failed; he couldn't even sell it. Did he come back with a contract when he was over there trying to sell uranium? He's failed at almost everything that he's attempted to do while he's been the Premier. The only thing he may manage to do is to get a tunnel with no light at either end.

It seems amazing to me. We ask questions day after day, which are in order, about the way the money in vote 9 was being spent in his office. He couldn't answer one of them — or maybe better still, wouldn't answer one of them. He wouldn't tell us who was the co-signer of those slush funds that were being gathered from Toronto, and probably the United States and other places in the world. He didn't want to talk about those big chunks of money that were coming into the Premier's office, not even going to the Social Credit Party. It was all perfectly in order, but he didn't want to talk about it.

But if we ask about the jetfoil, "You're out of order, " he says. He said: "Talk to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development about that."

AN HON. MEMBER: But he didn't call the meeting.

MR. LEA: Right, he didn't call the meeting. It was the Premier who called the meeting, but he said: "You'll have ample opportunity to talk about that in other votes." The Premier seems to have a selective desire. He wants to talk about one thing one day and not talk about it at all the next day. This is the Premier's chance, Mr. Chairman. This is the Premier's chance to get into a debate with the opposition about the economy, unemployment and interest rates.

Why don't we start off with the Maplewood Poultry plant. Let's talk about the economy there. Let's talk about unemployment. Let's talk about the individuals who are not going to be working after tomorrow, who now work at the Maplewood Poultry plant. It's not good enough to say to the federal government, through its agency, FIRA: "We don't want Cargill to come in here. " I don't think there's a person in this Legislature who wants Cargill to expand any further into our economy.

AN HON. MEMBER: We didn't want them in the first place.

MR. LEA: We don't want them; we didn't want them in the first place. We didn't want them when the government sold them Panco Poultry.

But if you're not going to allow Cargill to come in and purchase Maplewood Poultry, then what are you going to do? You can't take one step without taking the next. The government refuses to take the next step because philosophically, ideologically, they don't agree with it. First of all, it's a co-op that wants to take it over and, you know, co-ops somehow just don't smack of free enterprise. Although we put up with them and we put up with credit unions, the government says: "We don't really like them." If Boeing wanted to take over, they might get the grant; they seem to like Boeing.

AN HON. MEMBER: They'd rather have Boeing than Cargill.

MR. LEA: They'd rather have Boeing than Cargill. Boeing does nicer business; they've been over to Japan and done a little business there. Probably they've done business with this government before, but it probably came in the form of slush funds into the Premier's office.

This is the Premier's opportunity to stand in this House and to talk about economics, unemployment and high interest rates, because whoever goes out to get some money to keep Maplewood alive is going to have to pay some interest rates. Why doesn't the government offer them a little relief, as they've offered Slumber Lodge? Why not offer these people, these Canadians, who want to get in and take over Maplewood, an interest-free loan? Why not offer them an interest-free, forgivable loan? That's what they gave to Slumber Lodge, owned by Argus and Conrad Black. Why not have a special little meeting called by the Premier to give them some taxpayers' money out of BCDC — right into that co-op, so that they can afford to take over Maplewood? The Premier's not against doing that sort of thing; he's already done it for Boeing. Why not put off this silly feasibility study on the tunnel and the bridge? Why not put it off and make that money that they're thinking about making available, available, interest-free and forgivable, to the producers who want to have Maplewood continue to be a viable business in this province? Why does the Premier not at least take his place in this debate during his estimates and talk about it?

Why is the Premier afraid to talk about this? For two weeks he wanted to talk about economics, unemployment and interest rates. This is his chance, and he's afraid to. The bunker Premier is hiding again. The bunker Premier is again running away from the problems in this province, because he's afraid to take his place in this debate and talk about the problems. That's what he's afraid to do. He's so embroiled in his own mess, protecting his back against those who want to get him — inside the cabinet, outside the cabinet, in his own party and outside the party — that he can't think straight. He gets up and rambles in clichés. But boy, when it comes to specifics he hasn't got much to say about economics. When it comes to specifics he doesn't have anything to say about 125 people who are going to lose their jobs. When it comes to specifics on interest rates, he can give specific little gifts to Argus, Slumber Lodge and Boeing, but no deals for the farmers and the producers in this province who produce poultry — no relief for them.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Maybe you could pick up some spare parts for your cabinet. That's the very least you could get out of it. Mr. Chairman, if it weren't so serious it would be laughable.

[ Page 2049 ]

You know, of those in the families represented by those 125 people who are going to be out of work tomorrow are, as Social Credit likes to say, individuals. They're not statistics. They have individual and family needs. Doesn't that strike somewhere at the hearts of those Socred benches? Isn't there one of you who will take your place, stand up and say: "For God's sake, Mr. Premier, deal with it. Talk to the opposition. Talk to the people of this province about these 125 people who are in need of help and are looking towards their government for help." No help is forthcoming.

If it were possible to wear out paper with your eyeballs, he'd have had that worn out two days ago. He's read the same pieces of paper over and over and over again. Keep the eyes turned away. Don't look at them. Pretend you're reading. Maybe they'll go away.

AN HON. MEMBER: We know when he's really reading; he moves his lips.

MR. LEA: That's right, among other things.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: You were a little better yesterday yourself, Mr. Minister. His face turned red when you told him off. You'll be moving down with Rafe — almost out. You've only just gotten in. Careful, don't get uppity.

Mr. Chairman, I know that if you could you'd tell us why all of a sudden the Premier's lost his taste for economics, why he's lost his hunger to speak about unemployment and why he somehow has lost his appetite to speak about interest rates. Because now he can't speak in clichés. He has to talk specifically about what his government is going to do about Maplewood, about the people who work there, and the kind of interest rates that are going to hurt these people out of work, more than any time they've ever hurt them while they had work. He's going to have to talk about it, if he talks at all. In fact, over these past three weeks I've contemplated whether this Legislature should have vote 9 1/2: one for a speech therapist. Maybe the Premier's forgotten how to talk. But I think that for petty politics, for the fact that he thinks he's going to show the opposition that he's mister tough guy, mister stubborn guy — not talk to them — for just a little while during his estimates he could get up, bite the bullet, and talk about what he and his government are going to do for these 125 individual people and their families and the trouble they'll be facing tomorrow because of a decision made by government.

We agree with the decision made by government that Cargill shouldn't come in. But this government made the decision; now what are they going to do? Leave them to the vagaries of the big wide terrible world of free enterprise that these people talk about? They sure didn't leave Slumber Lodge and Argus up in the air.

It would be interesting to get a financial report. I think I have a financial report, as a matter of fact. I'll bring it in next week just to show the other members that they're not really in trouble, that the money they got was a gift from the taxpayers through the Premier. It would be nice to bring in the financial report of Boeing to show that they got a gift from the Premier. They had a little gift from the Premier of our money, the taxpayers' money. If the Premier wants to talk about interest rates, economics and unemployment, now is his chance. I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut he won't talk.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, the member who just spoke has again put on a performance. He is the great pretender. It would seem the tactic is to use any problem that might surface through a newspaper article for political expediency, for their own gain. We've seen this in individual cases over the last few weeks. Any tragedy that any individual or any group might temporarily experience is fully exploited by that negative group on the other side of the House. That seems to be their main concern. They pretend real concern for these problems. I really can't accept that when you think back to what performances they have put on over a period of time.

Yes, there are solutions to these problems and these solutions are being worked on. But they certainly can't be done by simply using them as a debating exercise, which is what happens here. That member just talked about jobs. He talked about short-sighted solutions and people losing jobs. Yes, I can well remember those days when the miners were losing jobs and the oil and gas service industry people were losing jobs. Their solution was simply to tax all these industries as highly as they could to try to keep up with their spendthrift habits and drive them out of the province.

MR. BARBER: The Petroleum Corporation.

MR. BRUMMET: The Petroleum Corporation, as that member says, was their invention; I'll acknowledge that. However, I wonder where the Petroleum Corporation would be now, in terms of revenue generation, if they had remained in office, because the gas supplies would have run out. When you claim success fo the Petroleum Corporation, it might have been your idea. I tell you, you've got a lot of philosophies that might be your ideas, but you had a chance to put them into policies and make them work — and what happened? Disaster. So let's not take credit for the success of the Petroleum Corporation. You can take credit for inventing it but, for heaven's sake, let s not have you take credit for its success.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you do to change it?

MR. BRUMMET: We made it work. We got it a gas supply. We brought the gas industries back into the province to give it an assured supply of gas.

However, I just mention the constant references to a specific instance. The short-sighted planning of that group over and over again we see the evidence of that.

The first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) uses at great length the story of the Princess Marguerite. He bleeds all over the place for "that wonderful ship." I think from the performance that member has given on just about any topic.... Should it have come to light that an accident, say, could have happened with the Marguerite, that member would have been the first member to give the same great performance against it: "Why didn't this government take steps to stop it?" That member spends most of the afternoon out of the House, I suspect practising in front of the mirror for his performance, and then comes in and puts on a performance. The topic or the point of view is really quite irrelevant.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for

[ Page 2050 ]

North Peace River has the floor. All members will listen to the member for North Peace River.

MR. BRUMMET: No problem, Mr. Chairman. I am getting used to the tactics from that side of the House. It took me a little while. I still have a little bit of difficulty in reconciling being called a "lazy slob" one evening and then being asked for cooperation the next day, particularly when I can't find enough hours in the day to do my job. If that first member for Victoria tries to put in terms.... By his definition, "work" is time spent in the House. I would say then that he does very little, because that was what he was telling us the other night in his great rhetoric. So we have that member using any topic simply as a debating exercise. He creates artificial dragons and then slays them. I would suggest, Mr. Member, that if ever you slay anything, it will be with your own jaw bone, if I may use a biblical reference.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's incorrectly quoting the Bible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the member for North Peace River continues I will ask all members to remember that we are on vote 9. Perhaps we could pay some attention to relevancy, as we have allowed great latitude today. Perhaps at this point it might be a good time to get back to committee and to estimates in vote 9.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I will try and relate my remarks to vote 9. We have had many accusations levelled against the Premier. Under the guise of questions, we have had many allegations, insinuations and inferences made by members on that side of the House, but they pretend that they are questions. For instance, we have one member saying: "Did you have a meeting?" We have another member saying, "We know you had a meeting," and so on it goes. The same questions have been repeated over and over again. I would like to suggest that if you have an accusation to make.... If those members have accusations, why don't they make them? Why can't we get on with the business of this province? We certainly have not been dealing with that for the last two weeks. We've had a debating exercise. We've had all kinds of ploys used and so on, but we certainly have not been dealing with the business of running the province.

The real objectives which I detect from that side are anything at all — true or otherwise — to embarrass the government. They make an allegation, demand an investigation and then suggest that this is the most investigated government in history. They'll force an election by any means. That seems to be the tactic. I haven't had very much experience in this, but I've had a great deal of experience in sports.

MR. REE: On a point of order, I have difficulty seeing the first member for Victoria. I hear him a lot, but I can't see him in his chair. Could you possibly...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The standing orders indicate that a member must rise in his place uncovered when addressing the Chair. That's the only comment I can make about sitting where you want to sit.

Hon. members, the member for North Peace River on vote 9.

MR. BRUMMET: As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, their second objective here — and I think that the people of the province should be well aware of what's happening and what we've been dealing with for the last three weeks — is anything to embarrass the government, any personal attack, any tactic that can be used or any attempt to force an election. As I was saying, I'm very inexperienced in politics, but I've had a lot of experience in the field of sports. In the field of sports the only people who always wanted a rematch were the losers, because the winners do not keep asking for a rematch over and over again. If you flip a coin and if you lose, you want two out of three. That's been the whole tactic. So I think it should be clearly understood that because they are habitual losers they want elections every time the moon changes.

The third thing this negative opposition has been trying to do is to prevent the government from carrying on the business of running the province. They'll do anything to tie up anybody in the House whenever they suspect that perhaps some people are getting some work done on this side. Then they call a vote or something of that nature. So we have to, as far as I'm concerned, Mr. Chairman, construe that as deliberate, intentional interference in the running of the affairs of this province. That's what makes them happiest. They can make any outlandish charges often enough, they hope, and perhaps they will come true. I don't think the people of this province are that naive.

Again, Mr. Chairman, the tactic goes on to attack any individual. We had the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) stand up this afternoon and single out a Mr. Doman, whom I don't know. It was readily apparent that he then tried to attribute any kind of evil or worst motive to that person and, by implication, any person who sits on any board in this province or who has any faint connection with government. I think it would be just as unreasonable to suggest that any member who works for the negative democratic party be guilty of treason, because their whole activity seems to be to try to tear down the government. So we have these constant allegations and they wonder why.... I sometimes refer to them as ghouls, because let any little tragedy happen or any problem of that type develop, and they immediately capitalize on it. I suppose that with experience one must also develop this tactic of having a debating exercise — no real indication of whether there's any truth or substance in an allegation; simply make it and then debate it, pick at words, attack individuals and so on. I suppose that is what the democratic process is really about.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I found that very disconcerting and, as I've said before, I did find it very, very upsetting to be referred to as a lazy sloth and a person who spends his evenings in Victoria lapping it up and so on. To me, that is what goes out across this province and with absolutely no retraction. They know better. Those responsible reporters should and do know better, and yet that is the message which is going across and that is why those members are continuing this irresponsible debate. I wish we could get back to the Premier's estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that was going to be my point.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, just a brief note again on the continuing reports I'm getting on Speaker

[ Page 2051 ]

Schroeder. He will be discharged from hospital on Monday. I thought the chamber would like to know.

A number of questions were advanced today and some of them, while better canvassed in other areas, are important to the government. The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) is concerned about the agricultural industry, and I want to say that so is the government. The government is concerned about specific areas of the agricultural industry and that is why the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) has been very attentive in requests for meetings from interested parties in the agriculture industry and in the area that I think was brought up by the member today.

Our minister, while he may not advance the same type of solution as, say, the socialists, which would be government ownership, since he's been minister has been most responsive to trying to meet the needs of an industry which requires more attention because of the higher risk factor which they carry. They carry the normal business risk factor, but they also carry, of course, the risk factor of weather. So I would assure the member that while she may have brought it up in the wrong area, the government is concerned and the minister is concerned. That is the member for Boundary-Similkameen, a very strong minister who comes from an agricultural area and has been attentive to any request from any area concerning his industry. Maplewood Poultry Processors Ltd. Is just one of those areas that the minister may be involved in.

I would remind the members opposite — and this is where we may disagree — that not all the answers can be found in government ownership or in socialism. There are many other ways to encourage the private sector, and in some cases the private sector needs renewal on its own, as the private sector does.

The members mention high interest rates. and yes they are a factor. I understand — through you, Mr. Chairman, to the member — that high interest rates are now a factor in the particular situations she mentions and in the particular problems we're having in our forest industry. The high interest rates that are affecting our forest industry right now, where we're getting some layoffs, are the high interest rates that have slowed down building in the United States, our major market, and in other markets in Canada. It is evident that high interest rates are the problem where British Columbia faces the most layoffs right now, and that's in our forest industry. This government is concerned, because it all has to do with declining markets outside our province, where this government has no jurisdiction.

An indication of how that situation can be turned around is evidenced by the response that the B.C. market has had to this government's $200 million mortgage fund plan. We're the only government that has introduced such an immediate plan to give a shot in the arm. We're the only government that I can see, both in Canada and in the United States, that's made an attempt to deal with a number of factors. That plan was geared specifically to the forest industry, to what we perceived at that time was a short-term problem, although we did predict — and it's in the economic forecast of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) — that we would have a slow-down in lumber prices and markets this coming year, particularly because of the U.S. That is happening, and our forest industry cannot be sustained on British Columbia building alone. Our $200 million program meant that in the month of March British Columbia had more housing starts than Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island. Quebec. Ontario and Saskatchewan combined. You might find that hard to believe. Mr. Chairman. British Columbia had more housing starts than Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario. Quebec Nova Scotia, New Brunswick. Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland combined. That clearly indicates the immediate effect that the S200 million mortgage program had.

But we knew, and we said when the program was announced, that it alone could not sustain the B.C. forest industry. We said that there would have to be relief from high interest rates relating to mortgages so that housing and rental accommodation construction could take place, not only in our traditional Canadian markets but in our traditional large markets to the south.

We have for some years, since we've been government, tried to end our almost total reliance on U.S. markets, and there has been a broadening of access of our lumber and lumber products in Pacific Rim countries and elsewhere. But it has neither been swift enough nor to the extent that we are cushioned now from what will be a very major impact. We are starting to see some shutdowns, layoffs, or curtailment of production, meaning shortening of work opportunity for people in the lumber industry. That's of concern to this government. That's why it's heartening today to see some minor relief from interest rates, a minor shifting down: hopefully, a change of direction while not large or quick enough. Will offer some light at the end of the economic tunnel. The only thing, that can really help our forest industry to any great extent over the short term would be major construction from a dramatic policy carried out in the U.S. That would be a policy to inject affordable capital into their housing market. That would mean a return to orders from British Columbia, which traditionally supplies these markets for frame housing, in the United States. But we do have a problem and I admit it.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat mentions one part of the agricultural industry which involves Maplewood. The Minister of Agriculture is meeting with interested parties. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that our solution would not be government ownership, as it would through the New Democratic Party — the socialists. The government is interested in trying to help involved parties to resolve their problems.

We do face a greater short-term problem in our forest industry among those who work in the woods and in our traditional dimension-lumber sawmills. While the pulp and paper industry markets are holding, we will continue to have some difficult news over the next number of months. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has shown in his five-year forecast that we will have a buoyant market and a buoyant economy. It did show that there would be some softening of that market and some difficulties in this year. Hopefully the strength the industry has had over the last number of years will carry them through this period.

We believe one of the areas it will pick up and has picked up — they could have been difficult areas of unemployment — has been in the large amount of construction that's taking place on either new plant facilities, refurbishing plants or parts of plants that have become obsolete. In having plants become obsolete, we were becoming non-competitive with our competitors in other countries for world markets particularly those in the U.S.

So while we see some problems, there is some success in softening that blow and the coming problems in that area by tile success of encouraging the industry to undertake massive

[ Page 2052 ]

millions of dollars in new capital or capital replacement and plant replacement programs to create more efficiency. The fact that we now have being constructed and installed in this province newsprint equipment at Powell River and in other areas and the Crown Zellerbach consideration on Vancouver Island.... These are the first newsprint additions to be made in this province in ten years. While we've gone through — in fact, during the last government — periods of shortages of newsprint, the industry did not feel confident at that time to make that type of capital investment in the future.

MR. LEGGATT: How many jobs?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The additional newsprint capacity — to the member for Coquitlam-Moody — is further processing in British Columbia. This is something that is part of this government's program. There will have to be a continual upgrading of our industry into additional processing. The member says, "How many new jobs?" as if emerging into the modern, international competitive world was somehow wrong. I take it that if he had his way, then to maintain jobs in forest industry we'd still be logging with horses and using cross-cut saws, and we'd go back to the old waste of the wood — the old bull-edgers that used to chew up about 60 percent of the log and leave most of the value of the tree on the floor of the forest. I can remember those old bushmills. That is the bright spot in our forest industry.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) is very concerned about people who ride horses. I want to say that he wouldn't put his horses next to your nuclear plant that you keep advocating, Mr. Member for Nelson-Creston. We know the speeches you've made in this House advocating nuclear power. We know that, and the people of Nelson will know. Everybody's afraid to be next to the member for Nelson-Creston.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, now that you've successfully been able to bring the opposition to order with your firm hand...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...I'd like to continue.

MR. LEA: Why don't you?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, if the member for Prince Rupert.... We sat and listened to him today, and it was the same high style of intellectual, high-minded, thoughtful and courteous representation that he always gives in this Legislature. It was up to his usual high standards and contained the usual number of inaccuracies, innuendos and outright distortions, which may lead people to come to conclusions that aren't correct. That's what it was, but it was up to his usual standard.

I would say, though, that while in this chamber it has become the practice of the opposition to use a very harsh technique in dealing with members of the government, and myself particularly, I take exception when your particular style — which, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert, does not bring dignity to this chamber — chooses to use this assembly to slur the names of those outside the assembly. I think people who may be involved in business activity in this province, who have also accepted the challenge of operating as directors, of being part of the B.C. Development Corporation or other government agencies.... It's difficult to attract people of accomplishment to these jobs because of the time required and because of their busy lives, but it will be increasingly difficult in the future if this chamber, with its privilege and the inability of people outside this chamber to deal with people who make those charges in here, allows these people to have their names dragged through the mud.

Mr. Chairman, here is just one phrase that was used by the opposition side about Mr. Doman. They said that he could hardly wait to get his hands on the public till. I have great respect for all of the people this government has appointed to the various boards and commissions, whether they be the B.C. Railway, the Development Corporation, ICBC or other government agencies.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ed Smith?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes.

Mr. Chairman, this government, in making those appointments, many times has had difficulty in attracting people to government service, or to serve their province. Now I know that it was difficult when the New Democratic Party were in government. Perhaps they had difficulty attracting people like Frank Howard when he was given that special job dealing with the problems of the native people of British Columbia. But I know they were able to convince him to take that job. I know it was important to them.

To get back to this problem at hand, I think that while there is ample opportunity to attack each other, if that is your wish, and to make allegations against each other, I don't think the chamber, with the privilege that's accorded members and their statements, should be used to make those types of charges or imputations or allegations against people who are not here to defend themselves, and who have taken on a commitment to their community in trying to help this province. They get little thanks enough. But when he utilizes this chamber for statements such as "get his hands in the public till," then I would say I don't agree with the member. I don't agree with his assessment of the gentleman in question, whom I know to be a gentleman. If there are concerns about specifics of the British Columbia Development Corporation, I'm sure the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) will be prepared to deal with them in his estimates. But to heat their attack during the Premier's estimates and to utilize the names of Mr. Doman and Mr. Radler I find offensive to this assembly and I think we should apologize to those people.

During my estimates we've dealt with a number of areas. We've dealt with a number of issues, and the opposition is not satisfied with the answers concerning those issues. Answers have been provided. We can continue with the repetition, and we can continue with the type of attack which was made today on directors of Crown corporations. If you want to get into specific areas — I know that the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) wants to — and how we can deal with the specifics of individual cases....

[ Page 2053 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's what we do, as MLAs in our constituencies. We help them. It's the type of work which, I presume, most of us do every weekend when we visit our constituencies. I know that on Saturdays I take appointments in my constituency office; any constituent can see me. I also know that every Saturday you will find the Leader of the Opposition doing the same thing in his office in Vancouver East. The way you really show whether you care about people is the attention and the time you take, in your constituency office, to deal with their individual problems. I know that the Leader of the Opposition spends a lot of time every weekend in his constituency in Vancouver East.

The personal problems which are brought in to your constituency office may not make great headlines — as they do in the Cariboo [laughter] — but they certainly are important to the individuals who want to see you, especially if you needed them to get back into the House after your other constituency had thrown you out. They might start to feel used if you were not paying any attention to them as individuals. I'm glad the member for Cowichan-Malahat brought that up, because I think it is important. I know that the member who represents the area of interest to the member for Cowichan-Malahat is involving himself with finding solutions to any problems, or perceived problems, rather than identifying them.

Mr. Chairman, that deals with most of the questions asked over the last day or two.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I want to respond a little to the previous two speakers — first of all, the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet). He said a couple of things that were somewhat disturbing — only a couple of things. He indicated that my colleague, the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), was being less than sincere in stating his concern over the removal of the Princess Marguerite. Then the member for North Peace River said if there were a fatality or an accident incident to the operation of that vessel, that member would jump in here and try to exploit that accident and that disaster.

MR. BRUMMET: Right.

MR. KING: Right, he says. I really don't think that's too fair. After all, neither the member for Victoria nor anyone else on this side has attempted to exploit the accident and the disaster that North Peace River sent down to this Legislature. I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that we would be that cruel.

The other thing the member said was that we, in seeking to restore the customary night sittings of this Legislature, didn't know how to function as MLAs and that we asserted that the only legitimate work that an MLA has to do is in this Legislature. Well, that's important. In the British parliamentary system debate is part of the process. But most of us have been around long enough to understand that there's a great deal of constituency work to do and various other things. After all, most of us have been here a little bit longer than that member.

I notice a little brochure that the member put out to his own constituents and it might be instructive to quote just briefly from it.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no, that's not fair!

MR. KING: Well, I don't like to do this.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, don't do it! Don't do it!

MR. KING: Gee whiz, Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't do it except that I think it's already public information.

MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, is the member prepared to table that document in the House?

MR. KING: Perhaps the member has never seen it before, even though it's put out under his name.

It says: "My MLA activities for North Peace River. I have basically elected to do most of my work on the inside, rather than in the glare of publicity. I believe the style I have chosen has several advantages. First, you are not as likely to publicly embarrass a minister...." [Laughter.]

AN HON. MEMBER: Read on!

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I hate to do this.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, if I may, it goes further.

Let me repeat that last sentence, because it was lost in the shuffle. "I believe the style I have chosen has several advantages. First, you are not as likely to publicly embarrass a minister or one of the minister's staff so it is easier to establish and maintain credibility."

Apparently the member agrees that it's fairly important to work in this chamber rather than out in the glare of publicity. He doesn't want to embarrass anybody. I want to assure the member for North Peace River that he hasn't embarrassed us on this side of the House. He hasn't embarrassed us. We love him and we shall always acknowledge him when we meet him, be it in his own riding or any other location in the province. If there's a question regarding the member's integrity or credibility, I want to advise him that I will always stand up for him, regardless of the fact that some of the ministers are apparently embarrassed by the member. I'll stand by him.

Mr. Chairman, I call the attendant forward to table the brochure which the member issued, which he apparently wasn't aware of. I am willing to do that, Mr. Chairman. Don't you want it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Not in committee.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman doesn't want the pamphlet. Tell me, is there anyone in the executive council over there who would like to have it?

Interjections.

MR. KING: I appreciated the member's contribution.

MR. BRUMMET: You appreciate nothing but ridicule.

MR. KING: No, I appreciated the member's contribution. I know that he was a high school teacher, so he must have credibility.

[ Page 2054 ]

I want to advise the member, too, that government is not a sporting event; government's a serious matter, and the Premier should not treat governing the province like a sporting event.

I have the impression that the member is not too happy.

I found it interesting that the Premier brought up his concern about layoffs in the forest industry. He said that it was very difficult for the government to cope with the layoffs in the forest industry, because this was all occurring due to extraneous forces; in other words, the market conditions outside the province. It is a little bit interesting, you know, that when we were in government and the Premier was sitting in the opposition, regardless of the market condition relative to minerals, petroleum or any other commodity he attributed all the fluctuations to the NDP; but now he takes refuge in the fact that the foreign market is weak.

Interjection.

MR. KING: I heard someone over there. I think that's that senior gentleman from Cariboo, whom all the constituents are looking for up there. They're looking for him.

I want to tell the Premier a few things which he might do in terms of coming to grips with the very, very serious depression that is hitting the forest industry of the province of British Columbia, creating very widespread unemployment. He drew the analogy between the forest industry and segments of the agricultural industry. One of the things that should happen is you should fire your Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). I want to tell you that Minister of Forests is incapable of making a decision affecting the economy of the operators in the forest industry. He is the most indecisive and weak minister this province has ever seen in that area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The discussion as to whether any person should or should not be a member of the executive council is not in order.

MR. KING: The Premier claimed....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate that, hon. member, but the discussion as to whether any person should or should not be a member of the executive council is not in order.

MR. KING: All right, I'll reveal these figures relative to the forest industry and it will become clear to every member of this House that the Forests minister should be terminated, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Premier, for your information I have a list here of stumpage rates applied to three companies on Vancouver Island, one of them a foreign company — this one happens to be a Japanese company — and two British Columbia small, independent operators. I want to read to you the stumpage rates that are currently applicable to the various species which those operators log. I want the House to listen very carefully.

The first company, the Japanese company — a large firm, a large licence holder — for balsam pays $2.69 per cubic metre of stumpage. Operator A, a British Columbia firm, pays the same: $2.69. Operator B, another Canadian operator, pays $11.77 stumpage.

For hemlock the Japanese firm pays $2.69 per cubic metre. Operator A, a British Columbia entrepreneur, pays $10 per cubic metre. Operator B pays $8.36 per cubic metre.

For cedar the Japanese firm pays $7 per cubic metre. Operator A, a B.C. entrepreneur, pays $17 per cubic metre — 100 percent more. Operator B pays $22.25 per cubic metre.

For spruce the Japanese large-licence holder pays $48.68. Operator A, a British Columbia entrepreneur, pays $86. Operator B does not log that particular species.

Mr. Chairman, this is precisely why there are giant layoffs in the forest industry in British Columbia today. There's discrimination in the forest industry today, discrimination propagated by this government against native British Columbian businessmen on behalf of the monopolies that control the majority of the forest industry in this province. It is interesting to note that that's not the only form of discrimination in terms of those rate structures. Those small operators with small timber sales have to go to the high expense of road construction during the winter period to get at the species for which there's a market. The large licence holders are in a position where they have large enough volumes of timber that they can pick the choice areas despite the time of the year. Therefore construction costs are down. Additionally, the Japanese firm — which I've listed — sells to an internal market. They're an integrated foreign corporation. They sell to an internal market. The poor struggling little B.C. firms have to sell on the competitive world market. These are the people.... No wonder I get choked talking about this, Mr. Chairman, because it's discrimination of the worst kind. The Premier wants to talk about economics. Have a hard look at these situations. Give some relief and equity to those local firms: That's what our economics is about, and that's where the jobs are.

This tribe that say: "Don't ask us those kinds of questions. You're always mud-slinging...." When we provide data to show that there's discrimination in the forest industry against the small independent native British Columbians, they sit there in dumb silence and allow the discrimination to continue.

Mr. Chairman, I went to the Minister of Forests. This is not the first time I've raised this matter in the House. I've called the minister and his staff; I've outlined to them what is happening in the forest industry and the layoffs that will flow from this discrepancy, disparity and discrimination in stumpage, and he promised a decision by April 1. He didn't say what the decision would be. He didn't say how he was going to change the system of stumpage appraisal. He leaves those small operators hanging right to the last moment, until finally they have to fold up and shut down. I can list the names of those companies, if the government wishes. I don't want to do it publicly in the House, but I can certainly give you the names of the corporations that have been in touch with me, Mr. Chairman. The majority of them tell me that they have appealed to the minister, and they've also appealed to the Premier for relief, some action, some decisiveness in this regard.

Now it's true that times are tough around the world; it's true that interest rates are high. But here is specific action that could be taken by the British Columbia government to relieve unemployment in the forest industry and to help the small business community of British Columbia. This group of ministers, Mr. Chairman, who call themselves free enterprisers, presides over an ever-increasing entrenchment of monopoly control of the forest industry in British Col-

[ Page 2055 ]

umbia. I charge that they are completely bogus free enterprisers; they don't believe in it.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that I have an awful lot to say about this matter, and I am not prepared to let go of my duty to raise and demand answers from the Premier and his government over these questions. I'm going to wait till next week or the week after to conclude my remarks.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress. was granted leave to sit again.

Leave granted to have divisions which took place in committee recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I seek the floor to ask permission to table a brochure issued by the hon. member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet).

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.