[ Page 4225 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Speech from the Throne

Mr. Mussallem –– 4226

Mr. Brummet –– 4229

Tabling documents

Science Council of British Columbia annual report, March 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4233

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would like to introduce two sets of people to the House and ask the House to extend the very warmest of welcomes to them: firstly, Mr. Alec Hart, who will take up duties as agent-general for British Columbia in London on January 1, 1981. Mr. Alec Hart is a great Canadian.

Also seated on the floor of the House is a gentleman, Mr. Cyril Day, who has served for 26 years with the staff of B.C. House in London. This is his first trip to British Columbia on his retirement. Twenty-six years of service, Mr. Speaker, is a great accomplishment. Mr. Day is accompanied by Mr. Eric Wadey, a long-time member of the staff of B.C. House in London, England.

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House Mrs. Ann Van Hoffen from Salisbury, Zimbabwe. Today will, I think, be the first day that this House has had a visitor from the newest nation. Would the House please welcome her.

HON. MR. FRASER: This morning I would like to introduce to the House residents of my riding of Cariboo, Mr. and Mrs. Gordon Hames. Gordon works for the Forest Service and is down to receive his 25-year service award.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you'll be interested to know that we have some distinguished visitors from that magnificent riding of Okanagan North. In the gallery today are Mr. Bill Lahowy and Mrs. Sharon Lahowy, Mr. Jack Simpson and Mrs. Jean Elliot, and I'd ask the House to give them a very warm welcome.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provision of standing order 35 to request leave for the adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you briefly state the matter?

MR. PASSARELL: In January 1979 the government of British Columbia issued pollution control permit no. 4335, which will allow Amax of Canada Ltd. to dump 100 million tons of toxic waste, including arsenic, lead, radium 226 and other substances, many of those also poisonous, into Alice Arm, which is a traditional fishing ground of the Nishga people. The decision affects the livelihood and the possible health and safety of my constituents.

Mr. Speaker, if you refer to the "six basic aims of British Columbians" you will see that every one of them is threatened for the Nishga by pollution control permit no. 4335. Construction of the Amax Kitsault mine has reached a critical stage. The government should have realized the strong outcry that the dumping of tailings into the open water would cause.

I'm sure all hon. members of the House have seen the statement of the primate of the Anglican Church of Canada and will have reflected upon it by now. With every day that passes the decision becomes more and more difficult to reverse. This is why the assembly should set aside other business for today, namely the throne speech debate, to debate this urgent matter. An early resolution of this matter would allow for construction of tailing ponds and other methods of pollution control.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to move should the urgency of this matter be recognized by the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there a copy of the motion that I might consider?

I would remind hon. members, while I am waiting for the motion, that in making motions such as these it is desirable that the subject of the motion be stated quite briefly, only sufficiently so that the Chair can determine whether or not it is in order. After it has been determined to be in order, it is then that the debate really takes place, and I would like hon. members to keep that in mind.

Hon. members, at question is not whether the motion is important; not even at question is whether or not the motion is urgent. What is at question is whether the motion is urgent enough to set aside the regular business of the day, I'll just remind the mover that an opportunity is at hand, during the throne speech debate, during which matters of this nature could very easily be debated. As such the motion does not qualify.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's not debatable issue, hon. member.

Is the member seeking the floor on a point of order?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Are you saying that your ruling is not challengeable?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is not a debatable issue at all.

MR. BARRETT: I don't wish to debate the issue. I'm asking your ruling....

MR. SPEAKER: The motion simply does not qualify, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Is that your ruling?

MR. SPEAKER: That's the ruling.

MR. BARRETT: I challenge your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS –– 28

[ Page 4226 ]

NAYS — 23

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

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to stand before you today and move this very important motion in response to the address of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. Again, true to his way, we saw not the letter of the speech but the direction pointing to a greater and finer British Columbia than ever before. The purpose of the throne speech is sometimes lost due to the fact that we are prone to expect details of what the government will do. But when we begin to understand the process, we see here that it is the intention and the direction moving forward into a greater and a more positive area, building on the foundation before into the future. I think that can truly be said for this government over the last five years — each day building on the substance of the past into the future.

This throne speech was one of those that pointed out that intention again: health care; education to the disadvantaged, the needy; to the lower mainland, transit; and for all of British Columbia, B.C. Place and a trade centre.

It was surprising for me to hear some criticism from some members in this House — not from this side, from the other side — in which it was criticized that money from government funds would be spent in this amount when there was so much need, so much poverty, so much requirement. I want to say that what we lose sight of is that B.C. Place and the trade centre are businesses in themselves generating funds for the people of British Columbia, creating employment, self-liquidating. That is what this government has stood for. Yes, we could be called the bottom line. But everything we do is built on a structure that will create for the future a better British Columbia. That's the theme.

If you'll pardon my personal note here, Prince Rupert is my home town, and I remember full well my father's stories of that city: how he came here as an immigrant boy, not able to speak the language, but how he loved this country and this land; how he came here on the promise — he was a watchmaker on the Grand Trunk Pacific — and how with almost no English at all he was able to garner a living for his infant son, which was me. We lived in Prince Rupert. But there was no railway then. It was before the railway came; it was being built into Prince Rupert. Do you know that he told me very often of how great Prince Rupert would be, how Sir Wilfrid Laurier had promised that this great city would be the greatest city in all of Canada, how it would be the port to the Pacific Rim nations, how all the industry of Ontario and Quebec would flow through this port with the grain to feed the starving people of the Asian countries. It was the great dream of my father and the people of that day from Prince Rupert. They flocked there; property skyrocketed.

I'll tell you a story that's well worth remembering — it skyrocketed and of course subsequently fell, because Wilfrid Laurier, instead of being elected, met his defeat. Prince Rupert crumbled and the dream crumbled. In the meantime, nothing happened. It was always a land of promise — the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) will know what I say — always hoping for tomorrow. But at last, this government, that Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), with his plan.... This government alone set the climate, created the influence, so that Prince Rupert has come into its own. The promise of Prince Rupert, made 70 years ago, has now been fulfilled — not by accident, not by chance, but by planning. I say to you that I take great pleasure, and I only wish my father were here to see — no longer a promise, but now a fact — this great northern country planned by direction shown by throne speeches in the last five years by this government.

The throne speech is the heart-throb of this party — that's really what it means. It tells what we hope. This party, with its total loyalty to our Premier and leader, and a fierce unyielding attachment to one another, goes forward as a united force to serve our province's people. I don't want you to think we don't kick over the traces every now and again; some of us do.

I cannot help but mention at this time an interesting little story told by you, Mr. Speaker, at an appropriate time. If you look at me a little bit with a motion I will change direction rapidly, but I'd like to tell this story.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the story relevant?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker told this story to a group of people. By the way, how we love to see him there in better health than we've seen him for many years. If I may be allowed to say, he told the story on himself at a large gathering. I can't say it as well as he did, but I'll try to put it my best way.

He said: "You know, it's a funny thing, when you're as sick as I was sometimes you think you have left the vale of tears and moved into the beyond. I did have such a dream and I arrived at the Pearly Gates. There was St. Peter, right there at the Pearly Gates, and he said to me: 'Oh, it's you, Harv. How are you? I said: 'Well, St. Peter, I'm here. I want to go up above.' St. Peter said: 'Just a minute, Harv, everybody goes the same route. There are no favours asked by anybody. Everybody goes the same route. You go upstairs, on that ladder, to the blackboard up there, and you take this piece of chalk I'll give you.' He gave me piece of chalk that I had to put up over my shoulder. I went up this ladder, and I said: 'What do I do with the chalk, St. Peter? He said: 'You write all the things you've done wrong in the world below, put down all your sins and troubles, and I'll decide where you go.' He said: 'All right, St. Peter, if those are the rules, I'll abide by them'."

He put the chalk on his shoulder and he went up the ladder. On the way up the ladder, what happened? There was another fellow coming down. He looked and, behold, it was Jack Kempf. He said: "Jack, what are you doing here?" He said: "I'm going down for another piece of chalk." [Laughter.] Mr. Speaker, thank you for your indulgence.

[ Page 4227 ]

The quality of life in British Columbia is different than anywhere else — can I say in the world? Let me say in the world. I don't know about all the world, but certainly in Canada and certainly in the United States. It's better, stronger, more vibrant. And here we have landed immigrants and migrants from the rest of Canada coming in by the thousands — 65,000 new jobs created, as the throne speech said — to take part in the prosperity of the province. My father was a landed immigrant and I could consider myself the same. I would like to say to them that we talk of a bill of rights, we talk of enshrining rights in the constitution. Fine, have a bill of rights; try anything you want. But the greatest bill of rights for the liberty of people is in the constitution of Soviet Russia. There you have the right to speak, the right to freedom, the right to access, the right to say what you please, the right to worship — and they have none of them.

I will say to the landed immigrants — I can so speak because although I was born here, my father was a landed immigrant — the important part of an immigrant who comes to this country.... Yes, bring your music, bring your culture, bring your customs, but don't bring your country. Take part in the life of British Columbia.

My father said to us as a young family — there were six of us: "You can speak the language if you want to, but as far as I am concerned, it is forgotten."

Now I don't exactly hold to that but, at the same time, he was so intensely loyal, so intensely did he love this country, that he made it his home for him and his family. He said there is no country like it in the world. He left his land of Lebanon — then Syria — in a fusillade of rifle fire. He was shot at and his two companions were shot dead in escaping, because young men were not allowed to leave the country. Those were the conditions that existed in that country in those days and still exist in most of the eastern world. Here in this province, where we live in a land of prosperity, it is unknown. I do not know why it is unknown. This is the greatest prosperity we've ever seen. The one thing that bothers me as I stand here before this microphone is why we receive so much criticism. I don't understand that. I'm being factual and honest. I do not understand it. We have such prosperity that there are practically no poor in this province.

I would say to the hon. members opposite that we hear the crying for the poor. I want to tell you that. The poor are not the same poor. I know what the poor are. There were none so desperately poor as our family when we left Prince Rupert. I was driving down Hastings Street the other day with my son Robert, and I pointed to a little stairway and said: "Robert, when your grandfather and grandmother came here, six of us lived in one room up there." I said to him: "We were very poor but, you know, it was our happiest time."

But we don't have the poor anymore. One thing about our province is that no one need be poor. The poor today are the well-off tomorrow. Education and planning, which this government has made possible for everyone...the possibility of a great future. We're not looking after everybody and telling them what they must do, as the socialist system required. We're saying to people: "Do your thing. We are the people that stand for you to help yourself." That's what this party stands for that's different — to give encouragement to the people and tell them what we want from them.

I have, if I can find it.... I don't have it with me.

The last sounding board of the Vancouver Board of Trade said: "We are sorry that we misinterpreted the economy of British Columbia for the year 1980. In the year 1979 we stated that the economy would go downhill, but we regret that we did not see factors that changed the position of British Columbia until it is now the most prosperous of provinces in Canada." The Board of Trade said that in the last sounding board.

I've found it. I'll just quote the very words now, if I may. I was just guessing at them. "While the secretarial perception was in part accurate of the downward trend of the British Columbia economy, insufficient attention was paid to the growth in capital spending, the level of immigration and the increased diversification of the provincial economy." I think when so prestigious an organization as the Vancouver Board of Trade says something like that, it speaks great things for our party and our government.

The plans that are now before us.... Waste management, for example, was suggested in the throne speech. I want to tell you here that I think one of the first plants of this kind that will be applied for will be in the municipality of Maple Ridge. We have a bright young man there who has been planning for the last two years to develop such a plan, not knowing it was going to be in the throne speech or that waste management is a big problem. It is a very big problem, especially in Maple Ridge. It is everywhere, but there especially. We're going to have a plant there which will consume all the garbage and make steam and electricity. And with the assistance he'll get from the throne speech — from the plan of this government — I think this fellow will be away.

One thing that I can say with the greatest pleasure — and I'm sure everybody noticed — is that we have never seen five years of better labour peace. I have never known it like this, especially after a time when, five years ago, the country and this province came to a grinding halt and this House was called back to start up again. This is one of the great things of today.... Talk about socialism. Don't get me wrong. I'm not comparing it with Russia or Poland, but I'm saying that here unionism thrives under our government and our policy. We help and assist. But there, the Russian troops are on the border of Poland, ready to walk in. Why? Because the trade unions are asking for an extra crust of bread. That's all. I'm telling you we should hang on tightly to our freedoms. How easily they are lost. How easy it is to take a step backwards in the wrong direction.

The throne speech directs us in free enterprise and private enterprise, but the other system tells us what to do. That's the difference between private enterprise and socialism. There is the extension of socialism, and I look with great fear and dread on the future of this country should we ever take a step backwards.

Education is so vast. I would have said a short while ago that everybody was covered; but lo and behold, there are more scientific ways: education through TV, basic TV, keeping pace with science and technology, satellite, news and education, knowledge network of the north. There was a time when a person living in many isolated places in the north of the country just got the education that the mother and father could give. Now they're going to get it all. Imagine getting a degree in the university without ever entering the gates of a university. Imagine that! The possibility is here.

The throne speech calls for energy, energy, energy — more energy from coal liquefaction. I think that's a great plan — tremendous.

Our strength is in the free enterprise of people. The throne speech showed us direction, and that is the direction we're going. The next five years will show what this government has done. Each throne speech in its several ways points to the continued direction of prosperity.

[ Page 4228 ]

I come from the constituency of Dewdney. We have concerns in Dewdney, but I believe they will all be met.

There's a ferry at Albion called the Albion-Langley ferry. Do you know, honourable friends, those two little boats carry more cars than the combined ships of the B.C. Ferries fleet from Tsawwassen to Swartz Bay? Would you believe it? More cars per year than the combined ships across the Strait of Georgia. I say it is high time that the government will consider the necessity of building a bridge at this point. These are be two large industrial areas. I do believe a bridge is called for in due course. I think the planning should start now. I address the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), and say to him that we should be looking strongly at a bridge at Langley.

AN HON. MEMBER: Instead of Annacis.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Not instead of Annacis. No, that is foregone; it's positive and it's necessary. But next we need a bridge at Albion.

In Maple Ridge we want to thank the government for encouraging us — not helping us yet, but encouraging us — in building our industrial areas. In Maple Ridge now, we have an industrial park of 370 acres; in Mission we have a similar park, with a gigantic Fiberglas operation that is in operation today. The idea of the industrial park.... Today we have highways blocked, and the commuters are in trouble. What we have to aim for in British Columbia is employment in the area where the people live. It is possible and it is coming.

I would like to add also and thank the government for the legislation in respect to the town centre development — the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). That's a great idea. The municipalities of Maple Ridge, Mission and Pitt Meadows are taking advantage of this. We'll see one of the most beautiful town centres in British Columbia in those areas, particularly Maple Ridge. I want to congratulate the minister for that very bright idea, which is going to elevate the level of our town in this province of British Columbia. That is indeed a major move. Then again, as I'm saying, if we'll just look again at the throne speech, it points direction, generally flowing to a conclusion, to greater things to come.

I believe that a town centre, when it brings the people together and people are able to commune with one another in their own community, instead of rushing off to shopping centres five or ten miles away, is really a great breakthrough. Do you know, the greatest things sometimes don't seem so great at the moment. But when you look at this in the future, you'll see it as a move that we will live with and say, what a wonderful thing happened that many years ago.

I'd like to impress on the government another thing that is close to me. I think we're missing a great bet here. I know that Transpo '86 is on the tracks. I know B.C. Place is on the way. I know that they're great things. I know they're self-liquidating. I know they're expensive now, but they'll pay their own costs. I know all that. But I think we're missing a very great bet today, that we do not employ the tracks of the CPR. You'd almost think those tracks were put in for commuter purposes.

I want to explain to this House that in the municipalities of Pitt Meadows, Coquitlam, Maple Ridge, Mission and then Burnaby, that whole area — Burnaby is the large part at the east end — but right up to Mission all the population lives within three miles, most of them within a mile, of those tracks. I address the Minister of Transportation and Highways and say that Highway 7 at Maple Ridge carries more traffic than the freeway, No. 1. The traffic is far too heavy. I think that new roads are too expensive. I know the minister is planning for another throughway on that side of the river. I know that's been in the planning. It has been for some years. I would say to the minister that with very little cost indeed he could establish a small number of commuter trains along the CPR tracks running at appropriate times. I think if you do that we'll save $500 million and not build our freeway. The cars you use could be used somewhere else if it wasn't successful, but it would be successful. It just can't fail.

The trouble with buses, if I may say, Mr. Speaker, is that every 40 people need a driver and another bus. It becomes a part of the traffic jam, but the railway does not. It's timed. When the railway says it leaves the place at such a time and arrives at such a time, it does. It will take hundreds, if I may say thousands, of cars off Highway 7 and cancel the necessity of another freeway. We don't want another road, but if we must have it, we must have it. I realize that buses are not the answer.

Mr. Speaker, I did not bring the material with me, but with proper material I could prove that a bus costs more in fuel energy to move one passenger than an automobile does. It's cheaper to go by car, as far as energy is concerned, than use the bus. But I say, let's get rid of both on the north side of the river. Let's put cars on the CPR tracks, double-tracked all the way. It would be an ideal situation. I appeal to the Minister of Transportation and Highways to give this consideration before Transpo '86.

The Mission bridge. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, if I may continue regarding my constituency, the Mission bridge is now at last being completed. My compliments to you, Mr. Minister of Transportation and Highways. I want to say that that bridge was built by us before, opened by the Leader of the Opposition. It was just the time they were returned to office. I will say that by policy and planned forethought they said at that time that there would be no more additions to the bridge. They said it wasn't necessary and highways were not necessary and people could walk wherever they needed to go. I remember those speeches very well. I remember being called up to the platform. I was sitting in the audience, I remember, and he said: "Call George Mussallem up here." I was the defeated candidate. I walked humbly up to the platform and sat down and, lo and behold, they asked me to speak. I implored at that time the then Premier. I said: "Mr. Premier, I hope that this bridge is built. The plan for the completion of it is in your hands and it would cost so little now to complete the job. It would be a credit to you." The Minister of Highways stood up and said: "We're not building any highways; we're not developing anything like this.

British Columbia from that day on....

Interjection.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. MUSSALLEM: I'm not saying anything against these people. They're great thinkers. They have great ideas, don't misunderstand them — but doing things creative, nothing, and that's the problem. It's far easier to say we're not doing anything than we're going to do something. Maybe

[ Page 4229 ]

that's why we're getting into trouble so much, because we are so full of ideas, so full of creative things to do. What happens? We make the odd mistake, and so we land on both feet. But it doesn't matter about the mistakes. It's the good things that count. Through it all British Columbia is prospering as it never prospered before. It was no accident; it happened by planning. And the planning is going on, only faster, almost by geometric progression. I say you look forward to a future of a greater British Columbia, and it's happening right now.

I want to say to you that Mission has a fine industrial park through the efforts and cooperation of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). We've got a factory there covering five acres of land. Imagine, up there in Mission — Fiberglas, five acres of land; 250 people employed and more coming. That is what this government creates. That is the direction the throne speech shows. People seize this direction and become part of it.

One thing I'd like to speak to the hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways, the hon. Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) about — all three of them — is the Mission raceway. I'd like to say this: I think that we have let down the Mission raceway. I say this sincerely, the Mission raceway did not need to leave the area they left. If they had not left that area, we wouldn't have had the Fiberglas plant in Mission. It could not have come. But they were convinced to get out of there and they were sold out for $1 million. It was a bad deal for them. They were given new land, but even filling the land, I say to the three ministers, was not enough to put that back in place, The people sitting there spent their money on pumping sand and trying to complete the job without any funds. They couldn't complete that job, and they moved out to create this industry. I know that the municipality of Mission is partly responsible, because they pushed them hard. I know I pushed them hard. We needed that industry. But what's happening today? I think we should help them. I appeal to the government at this time. I know we have a consensus, but we haven't got the money yet, and I think they should be helped.

I'll tell you what's happening. I'll tell you why this is so important. This is the reason. Young people that like to race their cars — drag-stripping — have no place to go on the lower mainland. The area they've got is way off by the river. Every Sunday these boys and girls go up there racing their hot-rods. It was a great outlet for them, and it worked very well. You never heard of drag-racing on the highways, but in the last two years drag-racing on the highways has become epidemic. Boys and girls will go to a stoplight — both cars together — and zoom off with the light. That's happening almost everywhere they think there are no police. That's a thing that we could overcome if we reinstated that raceway. All right, you can blame the raceway — they should have asked for more money. If they had asked for more money they wouldn't have got it, and we wouldn't have the Fiberglas plant. So I think it's the responsibility of this government to see them through this tough spot.

But everything is going well, and I would like to suggest also, to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot), that the lands to be used for housing are not in the lower part of this valley, not in Richmond — it doesn't matter if they are — not in Coquitlam necessarily, but on the land north — Maple Ridge and the Crown land. There's an enormous amount of Crown land there that could be created into a new town centre, to make housing for people through the private enterprise system. Make it available to people to build their homes, because we have the facilities, we have the area, and it would cool the cost of property. I make this suggestion.

I thank the government for the help they've given our communities in the constituency of Dewdney, as they do in all the constituencies — not one is forgotten. But as I'm moving the reply to the Speech from the Throne, I want to speak of mine. Any of you could say the same.

I have great pleasure in saying how much I appreciate the consideration I've always been given by every minister, by every member — the friendship, the total appreciation one of the other. I have never been in a caucus where there has been more fun and pleasure, and more getting together, than this one in the last two sessions. It seems to be that when we're under attack we're closer together. I say this for anyone who wants to hear. I say, as the Whip — and I know them all, every one who's sitting there — there never was a better feeling of friendship. Not one single one, not one — show me one — not one.... I saw a headline in the Toronto Star, of all places: "The Beleaguered Socreds." Beleaguered for what? I have never heard such nonsense. We're riding high. We're all together. We've got the legislation. We've shown the direction.

This session, I predict, will be one of the great sessions in this country. I believe that as we go on we will say it has been so, when we look back in retrospect, I do one little thing quietly. I call on the opposition to forget the past years. See the greater vision. Join with us in making a greater British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I now have the honour to move, seconded by the hon. member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), that we, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I rise to second the Speech from the Throne. I was going to say that I am impressed by the eloquent terms and the inimitable style of the member for Dewdney, but probably in simpler terms I should say: "How do you follow that act?"

I certainly appreciate this opportunity, once again, to be able to second the Speech from the Throne. I feel pleased and honoured.

I concur with a great deal of what the member for Dewdney has said, so I will not repeat what he has said about various parts of the throne speech. I would like to refer to some parts of the throne speech and perhaps make a few personal observations.

First of all, though, I would like to congratulate Mr. Speaker, who has now left the chair, and welcome him back, somewhat more hirsute but perhaps still of sound mind and good humour. We certainly look forward to his special touch in controlling the occasional lapse from the rational and reasoned debate that goes on in this House.

I would also like to congratulate, the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) on his reappointment as Deputy Speaker, and I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the admirable way in which he took over and handled a fairly difficult session earlier this year. I know the Speaker is proud of his protege.

[ Page 4230 ]

The Speech from the Throne yesterday paid a well deserved tribute to the achievement of Terry Fox. I think we all owe a sincere vote of thanks to this young man, who was able to tear us away from our apathy and our cynicism and allow us to share a little of the glory and enable us to express our hero worship in a tangible way for a worthy cause. He has done us a great favour because we are rather reluctant, as Canadians, to show signs of any hero worship, and here was a man who very unselfishly provided us the opportunity to feel good about what someone does and a very worthy cause. I think it might be appropriate that we can go into 1981 with this in our memory, because the United Nations is now focusing on the handicapped.

Here I might get into a bit of personal observation. I think it is too easy to fall into the trap of trying to find ways to help the handicapped or the disabled when really we can do the most good by providing them with the opportunity to help themselves. This may sound like semantics, but based on past personal experience it is a very real difference to me.

To make my point, let me just perhaps illustrate with a couple of experiences that I had. I had a baseball manager years ago who was confined to a wheelchair. I learned a lot of baseball from that man and a lot about courage.

Many years ago I took a blind girl into grade 8 in the school of which I was principal, and this was before it was considered possible or could be done, and against a lot of good advice. I must say that in the two years that that girl stayed with us she earned good marks in grade 8 and grade 9, and she contributed a great deal to the school music program, as she played the piano very well. I should say that she taught us all a great deal, both the students and the teachers.

During my many years in education I was in contact with many people that we would consider as handicapped, either physically, mentally or whatever. They did not always see themselves that way, and when we sort of overlooked the handicapped and treated them as real people, they blossomed. The last thing that was of any use to them was pity or our self-righteous help. I say self-righteous when it did more good for our ego than it did for them.

I think we should temper our good intentions, as we go into 1981, with a degree of caution and wisdom when we set out to help the handicapped. We might do well to remember that Terry Fox helped a lot of other people.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about my constituency of North Peace River. It is a large area, it is a great distance from Victoria geographically, and we are trying to close the distance in terms of communication. We have made some gains in terms of gaining recognition and promoting understanding. Because of our riches in gas and oil now, a great deal of the rest of the province and the rest of the world know that we exist, but there is still a great deal left to learn about our area and about the people in our area.

Just briefly I could describe North Peace River. From the Peace River to the southern boundary it is farmland, very rich farmland and probably some of the most undeveloped Crown land that can be used for farming in the province, if not in Canada. As you travel north along the highway you get into the mountains. The scenery is some of the finest in the world, really, as we see the Rocky Mountains. Then, north of Fort Nelson, you have the mountains again, beautiful, rugged, majestic scenery.

If any of you ever have the opportunity to make that trip you will find that a good deal of the highway north of Fort Nelson is paved with cold-mix, and so the dust problem is no longer there. A great deal of that highway has been straightened out and paved. We are looking forward to the day when it is completed.

It is certainly a worthwhile trip. Underneath us, of course, and around us lie many of the provincial riches, the natural resources.

Mr. Speaker, we were delighted to have the economic development committee of cabinet visit us recently, and we are pleased that more cabinet ministers are visiting the Peace River area more often, along with some of their staff, because I think it is important and it does help when these people are familiar with what they are dealing with when they are making decisions that affect us.

We are also pleased that recently a few camera crews have come up and taken some documentaries of our area to tell our story to the outside world, and we are looking forward to the day, perhaps soon, when they will come back and tell the real story instead of the sensational tidbits — I might say the sensational tidbits and the untypical activities. Let me illustrate one example. It makes good news, it makes juicy film, but I wonder if these people realize what harm they are really doing. They went into a pub, found a transient and interviewed him. That transient said that in Fort St. John the police will pick you up if you are driving in a sober condition because it is so unusual. That is garbage.

The point is — and what irritates me about that — they may be having their fun and they may be looking down their noses at us rural people, or the people in the outback, as some of them would like to think, but they don't realize that we, too, need professional, highly skilled people, and when a doctor or a dentist is thinking about coming into our area and the only impression his wife or his family have of our area is what they saw in that particular fallacious TV program, that really does hurt us.

At the risk of being critical of the press, I think we have to consider that some of these people who are looking for the sensational bits are not helping themselves — either. There is a really exciting and dramatic story in our area; we don't need to resort to that.

I said earlier that I would like to express a few personal viewpoints, and I would like to take advantage of the latitude which is sometimes allowed in the throne speech debate to present these personal viewpoints.

I was certainly encouraged by the commitment in the throne speech to provide improved television services to all the people of British Columbia. It is time that the people along the Alaska Highway got at least one communication link with the rest of British Columbia and the rest of the world, and hopefully this can be provided through the satellite TV. I'm thinking of the people not only along the highway, but in many other remote parts of British Columbia, even in northwestern British Columbia. I see that member is not here, but I would like to help him. I'm not as interested in creating adversary situations as he is; rather I'm interested in trying to get some services to the people.

I know it is probably difficult for many of you to visualize no radio reception, no TV reception and a newspaper that gets there two or three weeks late. That's the news that they get. The best news they have is from the truck drivers who ply the highway. We are all aware of the steps that have been taken by members of this government to try to legalize TV reception from satellites. It might take a few million dollars to cover the whole province in all the remote areas, so that these people can get radio and TV reception. Here I'm

[ Page 4231 ]

speaking of, say, the northeast, the northwest, some of the central areas and the southwest. So I would hope that if in a special appropriation bill some money is allotted towards this program, all members of this House would support that and bring these people into the twentieth century along with the rest of us.

Another vital link which unites this province is our transportation system. We realize it is easiest to give top highway priority to the areas where the pressure is the greatest. I would like to urge this government to continue the policy of building good transportation links to all areas of the province. It was that policy which encouraged the opening up of the resource-rich areas, and thereby contributed greatly to the prosperity we enjoy in British Columbia. I think it's important that that be continued, despite the criticism that we get from some members. It's easy for the critics to say that spending money on highways is really not serving the people's needs. It should be self-evident that if we create revenue, we can serve the people better. Generally, these critics have paved roads all around them and can afford the luxury of scoffing at those people who do need roads.

People who find their roads impassable every time it rains do want them at least gravelled. People who live beside a farm road which once had little traffic but who now see a steady stream of oilfield service vehicles and logging trucks raising the dust are perhaps justified in wanting pavement. They know that these industries generate much revenue for everyone in the province, and so they resent having to suffer the extra dust. We recognize the need for the major freeways, but we want our needs not to be forgotten.

I would be remiss if I did not commend this government for the work that has been done on highways in our area. I would hope the maintenance and improvement program will be increased at the same time as more freeways are built in the southern part of the province.

One classic example is what we call the Fort Nelson–Fort Simpson road. This has now been accelerated by extra efforts from the ministry, more funding from this government, in that way encouraging the federal government to move their completion date ahead to 1982. For those of you who are not familiar with what that road might do, it opens up British Columbia to the Mackenzie Valley. It would be the only year-round, all-weather transportation link that we have with the Mackenzie Valley. The potential for commercial trade and so on is fantastic.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They closed it down.

MR. BRUMMET: Would they vote down something like that?

I know it also completes a tourist loop, because the Mackenzie Highway from Alberta comes up to Fort Simpson. With the scenery that I've been talking about, the famous Nahanni Valley being made accessible by those roads, I think the tourist potential is fantastic. We all know what tourism has done for this province under this government. Already there are mining ventures opening up that will be served by that road. They're going at their work now so that they will be in production as soon as the road opens, or even before. This Fort Nelson–Fort Simpson road will be a valuable investment many times over.

As resource development in the north continues, which it surely will, the need for skilled labour will  increase. I would like to offer a few suggestions as to how these needs can be met. For the initial stages, which involve exploration and assessment, there is already in place a highly skilled work force which industry may not yet have recognized. I refer to the native Indian people, who know the woods, the rivers and the mountains. They know more about the wilderness than several years' study by outside experts and inventory takers will reveal. If we learned to listen to them and use their talents and skills, both we and they would benefit. Certainly I am aware that there are areas which they would not want developed, and that there are other parts of the country which they would like preserved. I'm convinced that if we can arrange to meet in a serious way with these native people, we could arrive at a satisfactory agreement regarding both development and preservation. I believe in rational settlement. I see no advantage in promoting the adversary tactics.

When and as the native people choose to become involved in that development program, they would then take advantage of training programs for trades skills. But I think we must meet them on their own ground first. We cannot expect such training programs to be successful if we ask these people to go to distant schools and, in a completely foreign environment, study theory rather than basic, practical skills. We must take the training to them.

In the same vein, Mr. Speaker, we must put a greater emphasis on putting trades training programs into the areas where the particular skills are used. How easy it is to fall into the trap of centralist thinking, which I will define as bringing the students to elaborate central institutions as the best way to accomplish training. I can easily accept that in the case of major universities, because there the research facilities and the academic programs are essential, but I cannot see it as the way to promote the best trades training.

Let me illustrate. In the Peace River area we have a great need for heavy-duty mechanics, instrument technicians, pipe-fitters and gasline-related trades. Many of our young people are working in these trade areas and they do not get trained, because they cannot afford to go to the lower mainland to take their training. It costs them not only transportation costs, their board and room, but also the cost of their trips home — because they are human beings — and the part-time wages that they could make if they were in the area. So the area resident remains untrained. If the training program is offered at BCIT, a young person from the lower mainland can afford to attend and get the training. When trained, that person often refuses to leave his familiar surroundings, and so we have an untrained person employed in the Peace River area and a highly trained person in the lower mainland who is unemployed.

I'm trying to suggest that to reverse this pattern we should take the training programs into the areas where that particular occupation is in effect. I don't think we need to build expensive labs. There are labs all around them. If we could just get out of thinking that the training has to happen inside the doors of an institution.... I think we can take that program out. I think we need a small, central facility to coordinate the training, but they can do a lot of work on the job. The labs, as I say, are real industrial facilities that are operating now.

I know this is an oversimplification, but I guess what I'm suggesting in principle is that we take the oil-  and gasfield-related industry training to where the oil and gas industries operate, take the logging training to where logging operates — I know there's one program working in Prince George that could be expanded, and I know there are others in the province — and take the mining training to where the mines are operating. I think we can accomplish a great deal.

[ Page 4232 ]

However, much of our professional advice in this respect comes from people who are either in the institutions or have been influenced heavily by institutions, so it's hard to break out of that mould. A lot of the institutionalized thinking, I feel, is, to an extent, self-serving.

There are many other areas I'd love to discuss, but perhaps I should move on. The throne speech makes reference to the great progress which has been made in providing increased services to people, these having been made possible by unprecedented economic activity. I think it is remarkable that this government can realistically commit itself to so many positive and progressive programs described in the throne speech, while other parts of the country are concerned with cutbacks and recession. This has not come about by accident. I repeat: this has not come about by accident. Our good economic position is a result of sound government policy.

I would like to offer a few of my observations on the effects of the recent federal budget and the proposed national energy policy. To many British Columbians this may appear to be an academic exercise for political discussion, but to my constituency its effects are very real. Several Canadian firms who were pursuing a very active drilling program have been forced to move their programs to the United States. That's hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Unlike the large multinational oil companies who can survive sudden variations in taxation policies the small Canadian companies need cash flow and the confidence of their investors and lenders. That is why they will be investing their money in the United States, where they are encouraged through monetary policies. Ironically our enterprising and highly skilled Canadian companies will be devoting their funds and expertise to helping make the United States self-sufficient in their energy program, thereby reducing the need for British Columbia gas and hurting our natural gas market.

Interjections.

MR. BRUMMET: I know there can be a lot of discussion, but I think that we must acknowledge that the health of our oil and gas industry, and the great deal of revenue that it has generated for this province, has depended, to a large extent, on the American market. We seem to be helping them now to destroy that. Fortunately, our own government has encouraged industries to come in here. If it weren't for the recent announcement by Dome Petroleum to create markets for our natural gas within the province and with other nations, we would probably see a very severe setback in the oil and gas industry. So the small Canadian companies were hit first and hardest.

Let me again illustrate. One company that I know of has cut back from the 28 wells they had planned to drill in northeastern British Columbia this winter to 12. That's not a great number; it's only a cutback of some 16, if my arithmetic is correct. I'd like to spend a moment to illustrate just how much effect that has. That is only one company. There are many other companies that are cutting back as well. It takes anywhere from 35 to 60 truckloads to move a rig from one location to another. So those 16 wells represent an awful lot of trucking hours to the private enterprisers, to the people who own those trucks. The reduced drilling program has a fairly extensive effect down the line — and fairly quickly.

I think few people realize how many are involved in the drilling of a well, Ahead of the seismic crews there is the land clearing — the clearing of the cutlines. Then surveyors must plot these cutlines, and they also have to plot the location of the well sites. These sites are then cleared by heavy equipment operators and prepared for the drilling operation. There are roads that need to be built into the sites. Where usable timber is affected, that has to be salvaged. So that creates more employment. Then come the truckers who move the rigs. On the well itself, enough crew is required to keep the drilling going in shifts around the clock. The drilling operation must be serviced by mud-haulers, by water-haulers and by waste-removal trucks. Welders with portable units are employed. Onsite camps are required, complete with cooks and first-aid attendants. The companies that provide drilling bits, valve-servicing and chemicals, the cables and pressure testing, all come into the picture. If the well is successful, it must then be tested and prepared, hooked up and capped. The pipeline crews and the production supervisors get their turn when the well goes into production. Even this inexpert description — and I certainly can't claim to be an expert in the oil industry — of what is involved in the drilling of a well should allow us to at least visualize the number of jobs involved directly and indirectly, and I haven't even gotten into the service industries such as the restaurants, motels and so on.

Most of these jobs go to small businesses that are operated by local entrepreneurs and their employees. The average cost of a gas well in British Columbia is somewhere between $1 million and $3 million, and a high portion of that revenue remains in the area and goes into the local economy. So let us not be fooled by the fact that a considerable amount of drilling will still go on this winter; many of these programs have been committed and they must drill. The only option that they have is whether they drill the minimum number of wells to keep their program going or whether they drill as many wells as the season allows. That is what will hurt some people this drilling season this winter and on into next summer, because these people too have mortgage payments to make on their houses, and that depends on their jobs and their jobs depend on an active industry. I would hope that, since it takes about a year for the industry to gear down or to gear up into their drilling program, a change of heart — no, I perhaps change that — a change of mind by Ottawa would help to get this program back on its way.

I think it's important to note that the federal taxation scheme on natural gas and oil combined with the energy takeover policy has driven out the Canadian companies or virtually shut them down, and it has discouraged further investment by the large oil companies. The combination of the budget and the energy program has eliminated any hope of Canada reaching self-sufficiency by the 1990s unless there is a quick change in thinking by the federal government. When we realize how many billions of dollars it is costing Canada to import oil from foreign sources it is a puzzle as to why development of our own supplies is being discouraged. And this is happening as we drive away the needed investment dollars,

A very blunt summary of our situation was expressed earlier this week by Gerald Hobbs, the former chairman of Cominco Ltd. and now a business consultant. I'd like to quote a few of the things that he said because I think they very succinctly state the situation:

"We are told to conserve when encouraged by price to consume, while the Canadian government

[ Page 4233 ]

piles up debt by subsidizing the price of oil by more than half.

"The continuing subsidy on imported oil to be funded through the new petroleum compensation charge levied on the refineries does not make economic sense. Once the energy companies have been plundered, who is left to pay government debts? It is we, the citizens, who will pay.

"The loss to Canada in exploration spending will amount to billions of dollars, and because of the reduced exploration now there will be less production in the future. The energy program will cause an enormous outflow of money to the United States — some taken there by Canadian companies, yet more handed over by the government to buy up multinationals who have finally succumbed to the federal offer which they cannot refuse.

"For a country dependent on a continuing inflow of capital to finance its development, measures to buy out existing oil producers and drive Canadian capital south, where it is treated much better than at home, are as ridiculous as forcing an anemic patient to become a blood donor."

In view of the damage which has already been done to the oil and gas industry, and in turn to the revenues we derived and the jobs we need, it is astonishing to me — probably it shouldn't be surprising — that a prominent, would-be leader in this province has in effect said: "Hit them again and harder; they're still breathing." In one grand gesture he has offered 45 percent control over a major provincial resource to the federal government and, in a magnanimous gesture — at least, I imagine that in his view it is a magnanimous gesture — he has offered 10 percent of the production income to the oil companies for investing their money, taking the risks and doing the work. I wonder how many of them will stay on those terms. And if they leave, where do we get the funds to replace them? Do we borrow billions, as is being done by Ottawa, or do we squeeze it out of our own consumers? For any of you who may not be familiar with the Barrett formula for dealing with the oil companies, that was stated by him, I guess, in an address to the B.C. Federation of Labour convention.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we can benefit by encouraging investors rather than by chasing them away. I believe it is important that we control our natural resources and the revenues from them. I cannot see us being taken in by the generous offer of several million dollars to encourage development in British Columbia, when it took about three times that much money away from us in order to give us that much back. I think we can handle those decisions, and certainly a higher share of much less will not benefit the federal government or the Canadian people.

I am concerned that the grandiose taxation and nationalization scheme of the federal government will hurt Canada and Canadians everywhere in the long run. And I do get upset when, because of this concern and because I express this concern, it is implied that I am anti-Canadian. That is garbage. I think all of us are Canadians and we want to be Canadians; but I think we have to be Canadians on terms in which we can best serve this country and this province.

Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I think we will continue to prosper. I can't see British Columbians being taken in by the negativism and promises which cannot be honoured. The throne speech contains commitments to many positive and progressive programs. This province was built by optimism and by encouraging investment. I believe this will continue.

I would like to say again that I have been very pleased and honoured to second the Speech from the Throne.

Mr. King moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. McGeer tabled the second annual report of the Science Council of British Columbia, for the year ended March 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:32 a.m.