1979 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 1979

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 117 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Kickbacks in agricultural industry. Mr. Levi — 117

Logging dispute on Queen Charlotte Islands. Mr. King — 117

BCRIC shares. Mr. Stephens — 118

Funding of fire prevention. Mrs. Dailly — 118

The budget. Mr. Cocke — 119

Inquiry into conduct of former Chief Justice. Mr. Macdonald — 119

Cowichan estuary task force report. Mrs. Wallace — 119

J. Henry Schroeder report. Mr. Levi — 120

Presenting reports.

Legislative Library. Hon. Mr. Schroeder — 120

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Transfer of B.C. Telephone Co. shares. Mr. Lauk — 120

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate.

Mr. Levi — 121

Hon. Mr. Hewitt — 122

Mr. King — 128

Mr. Strongman — 134

Mr. Haddad — 138

Mr. Nicolson — 141

Hon. Mr. Veitch — 147

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Before we proceed, perhaps you would permit

me to inform the House that the government has been notified that Mr.

Robert Strachan, the former leader of the official opposition and

former Agent-General, has undergone surgery in Nanaimo Regional

Hospital. Certainly, on behalf of the government and all members of

this House, we would express our hopes through you, sir, for a very

speedy recovery to Mr. Strachan.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, would it be in order for the Speaker to send the appropriate message on all of your behalfs?

MR. MACDONALD: Your very proper request is unanimous in the

House. The opposition, of course, supports it fully. We're very

concerned, and we hope for a speedy recovery.

MR. SPEAKER: I will carry out your request faithfully.

MR., KEMPF: Somewhere in the gallery with us this afternoon

are three gentlemen I would ask the House to make very welcome: Mr. Joe

Kline, who resides in that great riding of Saanich and the Islands on

North Pender Island; and Messrs. Tony and Lloyd Schmidt from the

province of Saskatchewan. I would ask the House to make them very

welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would like to ask all members to bid a

very, very warm welcome to Sister Connolly and 35 grade 11 students

visiting Victoria from the Convent of the Sacred Heart in Vancouver.

Nice to have you aboard.

MR. COCKE: I would like the House to recognize a person who

has had a great deal of touch with this House in the past, who moved

from here to Ottawa, and then to Washington, and now has graced this

House with her presence again. She is Marjorie Nichols, the syndicated

colonist and great reporter. Nice to have her back.

MRS. JORDAN: I had a surprise and very pleasant visit in my office this

morning from three teachers from W.L. Seaton Junior Secondary School in Vernon.

Mr. John Fraher, Mr. Gregg Fraser and Mr. Grant Nelson. They're in the gallery

somewhere this afternoon. I would ask the House to bid them a very warm welcome.

MR. BARNES: Unfortunately the people I'm about to introduce

were unable to be in attendance personally due to the demands on the

seats. However, I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming

Mr. Greg Canton, his friend Nancy, and her children, Edmond, Ernest and

Eugene.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Seated in the Speaker's gallery today are

Mrs. Arman Morton and her daughters, Celeste and Chantelle, of

Victoria. I might say here they are related to a very august member of

the Fourth Estate, Mr. Charles La Vertu. Would you make them welcome.

Oral questions.

KICKBACKS IN AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

MR. LEVI: I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs. Last May 18 and 24, I asked the minister's

predecessor a question regarding the evidence of kickbacks that was in

the hands of the staff of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture.

On May 24 the then minister replied that he had written to the Ministry

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs federally, because there was some

discussion about the Combines Investigation Act. I wonder if the

minister could tell us the results of that correspondence. What was the

position of the federal ministry and what was done in respect to the

evidence available?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to take the

question into consideration, investigate that specific reference and

respond to the member at a later date.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is taken as notice.

LOGGING DISPUTE ON

QUEEN CHARLOTTE ISLANDS

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of

Environment. Has the minister transmitted any communication — either a

letter or telegram — to the federal Minister of Fisheries and the

Environment, the Hon. Romeo LeBlanc, with respect to the logging

dispute on the Queen Charlotte Islands?

HON. MR. MAIR: I hope the member will understand when I say

that to the best of my knowledge, I haven't personally. Now it may be

that somebody from my staff has. I'll investi-

[ Page

118 ]

gate the matter and get back to the member.

MR. SPEAKER: This question is taken on notice, I think.

MR. KING: On a supplementary, I just wanted to ask briefly if

the minister would be kind enough to advise the House whether or not

his office or any of the staff of the ministry have corresponded in

that way.

HON. MR. MAIR: I presume that you're referring, Mr. Member,

to the Queen Charlotte situation, which is presently causing some

problems. Yes, I will undertake that.

BCRIC SHARES

MR STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

In August 1977, when he was debating the bill which became the B.C. Resources

Investment Corporation Act, he quoted

section 3(6) of that Act as follows:

"The corporation will not extend its services to the industrial or commercial

component of the private sector." Would the minister please tell us how

he can now justify what appears to be a deliberate breach of that

section by

allowing the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation to use the computer services

of the Systems Corporation?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I don't follow the member's line of

questioning in terms of using the services of the computer services of

Systems Corporation, in terms of the private sector. However, I think

he referred to a clause in the Act. There's no such clause in the Act

that I'm aware of.

MR STEPHENS: On a supplementary, I may have misled the minister. I was

referring to the Systems Act, and

section 3(6) of the System

Act says: "The corporation shall not offer or agree to provide

data-processing services to the industrial or commercial component of

the private sector." Now the B.C. Resources In vestment Corporation is

an industrial and commercial component of the private sector. How can

you justify that corporation using the Systems Corporation's computers

to sell its undistributed shares? That's a total breach of the Act. How

do you justify that?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I would suggest that the member perhaps puts

this in writing to me. He's asking me for some kind of a legal opinion

as to whether or not it contravenes the Act. I cannot follow that.

Would he supply that in writing?

MR. STEPHENS: I appreciate the fact that the minister may

need time to answer the question. However, it will be in writing in the

Blues tomorrow. Would you please read it and then give me your answer?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the purpose of question period is to ask questions, not to make statements.

FUNDING OF FIRE PREVENTION

AND FIREFIGHTING PROGRAMS

MRS. DAILLY: My question is addressed to the

Attorney-General. In your ministry, vote 31 — the fire marshal vote —

is for $1.4 million. Fire prevention and firefighting are two items

that come under this vote. Last year you announced two grants from the

lottery fund: $200,000 for smoke detectors in profit-making nursing

homes, and $500,000 for training firemen. Was the lottery fund used to

hide the fact that your fire marshal vote was to have a $700,000

overrun this year?

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Is that an answer?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I'd like to hear the question to its conclusion. Please proceed.

MRS. DAILLY: Can the Attorney-General explain to this House

why the public of British Columbia should pay for smoke detectors in

profit-making businesses?

HON. MR. GARDOM: In answer to the hon. member's first

question, the answer is no. In answer to the hon. member's second

question, our desire, Madam Member, was to save lives, and I think

that's a very good use to put the lottery funds to.

MRS. DAILLY: On a supplementary, we all share that desire,

Mr. Attorney-General, but there is a question here of political ethics

also. I want to ask the minister again if he thinks that the lottery

fund should rightfully be used to subsidize nursing homes which are

private, profit-making institutions.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Madam Member, we consider — and it was a

government decision — that this is a most appropriate use of funds for

the specific purposes that I've indicated. For far too long there have

not been adequate methods of fire prevention in a number of nursing

homes in the province. We wish to provide some

[ Page 119 ]

degree of stimulus to get this underway. It was

totally approved by the fire authorities in the province, and I

honestly would not think there is a single person in the province of

British Columbia who would differ with the stand that we took. I

consider it to be completely correct.

MR. MACDONALD: Enforce your standards.

HON. MR. GARDOM: If I enforced my standards, you wouldn't be in here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. This time is being utilized and it is part of question period.

MRS. DAILLY: A final supplementary. Why does the

Attorney-General not enforce fire prevention in private nursing homes

instead of taking public money to increase their profits?

HON. MR. GARDOM: It is being enforced, Madam Member, and you

will also remember the great amendment that was proposed by the hon.

member for Vancouver South last year — which I do recall you voting for

— to amend the Act to provide this kind of assistance. I do hope, Madam

Member, you are going to be as much in support of Arson Alert in the

province of British Columbia as you are of putting out fires in nursing

homes.

THE BUDGET

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, since the great Prime Minister in the

east did something unexpected, I would like to ask a question of the

Minister of Finance. What will it cost the people of British Columbia

to reprint the budget?

MR. SPEAKER: I think there is an inherent assumption in the question.

MR. LAUK: Is the budget described as a dynamite budget now to be described as the firecracker budget?

HON. MR. WOLFE: This budget is going to be the best budget British Columbia has ever seen in its entire lifetime. I will see you get a copy.

INQUIRY INTO CONDUCT OF

FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE

MR MACDONALD: Without quoting from a newspaper, the Colonist, because

that would be contrary to the rules — it is a paper that tries very hard to

follow the fine line between partiality on the one hand and impartiality on

the other in its political reporting — I want to ask the Attorney-General, who

has more inquiries underway than "Sixty Minutes, " whether it is true

that, following a TV program, he is investigating the conduct of the former

Mr. Justice Branca.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I will be making a complete statement concerning the program tomorrow, not today.

MR. MACDONALD: The statement has been made that you are so doing; I want to know now whether you are or are not making that inquiry.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You have my response.

MR. LAUK: To leave a cloud over the head of a former judge of

the court of appeal for one day is totally irresponsible. You ought to

be ashamed of yourself.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the purpose of question period is

to ask questions and not to make statements. To gain the floor under

the pretence of asking a question when the intent is to make a

statement is clearly abusing the forms of the House. I must warn

against it.

MR. LAUK: I apologize to the Speaker for that indiscretion. I meant to ask if he will now change his answer to the previous question.

COWICHAN ESTUARY

TASK FORCE REPORT

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of

Environment and it is one that deals with a subject that his

predecessor became very familiar with, due to my questions. I would

like to ask him about the Cowichan estuary.

As I'm sure the minister is aware, the task force has been meeting

for over a year now. We expected something in May. We expected

something in August. We still do not have a report. Can he assure me

and other members of the House that this task force will be reporting

and, if possible, tell us when we can expect that report?

HON. MR. MAIR: Like the member, I have a great many concerns

about that problem, and I've expressed them publicly in the past. I can

assure the member that the report will be handed down and that the

meeting of the En-

[ Page 120 ]

vironment and Land Use Committee for the purpose of

examining that report in its entirety is scheduled for the first part

of April. I'm sorry that I don't have the precise date.

I would lake to say that it could have happened earlier; however

there have been some technical reasons and some practical reasons why

it couldn't. I don't want to have a meeting of the Environment and Land

Use Committee that does not have the widest possible representation, so

I've given it as much forward scheduling as I thought was appropriate

in order to ensure full representation by all people who are

interested. The meeting will take place then, and, I would assume,

without making a commitment — because I can't commit my colleagues in

advance — that the report would come down shortly thereafter.

MRS. WALLACE: On a supplementary, I understand from what the

minister has said that the task force report is complete and that ELUC

is going to be considering it. Is that correct? Can he tell me whether

or not that task force report has been reviewed and has the approval of

all members of the task force?

HON. MR. MAIR: I will have to take that question as notice.

MRS. WALLACE: Aha!

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, I'll have to take it as notice simply

because it is loaded. If some person on the task force has expressed

some minority view somewhere down the line, I'm certainly not going to

fall into that trap, Madam Member. I'll come back to you tomorrow with

a complete answer.

MR. SPEAKER: It is always in order to take a question as notice.

J. HENRY SCHROEDER REPORT

MR. LEVI: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs. Can the minister give us some indication of when he

intends to table the J. Henry Schroeder report on the capital market

study, which I understand has been in the ministry since last August

and cost the taxpayers $125,000?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The answer to your question is no.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder presented the annual report of the Legislative Library.

MR. LAUK: Under standing orders I ask leave to move adjournment of the

House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.

The matter is the fact that the British Columbia Telephone Go. has made an application

currently to the Canadian Radio television and Communications Commission to allow

the transfer of a certain number of shares in British Columbia Telephone to

General Telephone and Electronics of Connecticut in the United States, thereby

increasing foreign control in ownership of British Columbia Telephone and allowing

more of the profits of B.C. Telephone to flow to the United States.

As a decision on this matter, I am informed by the CRTC, is

imminent, it is of vital importance that the House debate both the

proposed share transfer and the Premier's complicity in this share

manipulation, which is a matter of public record, although the extent

of his involvement is still a secret.

MR SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I must first look at the motion

to see whether or not it is in order.

MR. LAUK: To assist you in that regard, I file correspondence

with the table: my letter to the CRTC; my letter to Hon. Jack Horner

and to Mr. Couture, acting chairman of the Restrictive Trade Practices

Commission, a reply from Hon. Jack Horner; and a reply from Pierre

Couture.

MR. SPEAKER: To the motion, hon. members. First of all, I

wish to thank the member for the courtesy that he has extended to the

Chair of giving at least a few minutes' notice of the motion so that we

could be prepared for this decision.

As all hon. members will know, it's the responsibility of the Chair

in these matters not so much to assess the urgency of the matter in

question but rather to determine the question of urgency of debate

which warrants all other business of the House to be set aside for the

time being. There have been numerous rulings from this Chair and other

Chairs in the dominion in which the ruling clearly states that if there

is an opportunity when the subject could be embarked upon, and that

opportunity exists in the immediate future, then the motion is not

allowed. That would have to be the ruling again in this case, in order

to be consistent. If members wish to have a reference, perhaps you

would like to refer to May's sixteenth edition, at page 369, or May's

seventeenth edition, at page 364. I would have to rule the motion out

of order.

[ Page 121 ]

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, yesterday during the debate I

was not aware that an application had actually been been made by B.C.

Telephone to the CRTC. I have been made aware of that fact. It now

becomes imminent. There are people who have spoken already in the

debate who are now precluded from speaking on this important matter.

Would that have any influence on Mr. Speaker's decision?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The point is well received but

not too well taken. The matter in question is surely wanting to be

debated by the member making the motion. As far as I know, the

opportunity still exists for him, and will exist within a very few

moments, to take the matter in hand.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. LEVI: One of the things that concerns me particularly

about law enforcement in this province is that what we have is a

knee-jerk reaction from the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) every

time he looks at the TV set when there is a program called

"Connections" on. In 1977, when "Connections" came on, he made some

rumblings about possibly looking at a crime commission. As a result of

that film, the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Mair), who had had the advantage, I understand, of a pre-screening

of the show, set into motion a study I've referred to in question

period. The capital market study was to deal, among other things, with

some aspects of the operations of the stock market. We don't have that

report. The minister of the day, the present minister, refused to table

it.

In respect to the Attorney-General, he's not come out of his slit

trench. He puts his head up and he says that we're probably going to

have a crime commission. We've been attempting for three years to get

that minister to develop some kind of policy which is consistent and a

continuation of the policy that was brought in by the former

Attorney-General, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald),

when he organized, set up and put into operation CLEU. We have had no

such backing from this minister in respect to CLEU; we have yet to

receive an annual report from CLEU. We have not received in your tenure

of office an annual report.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: "It is coming," he says. It's been three years and

he hasn't even produced one report. I asked last year if some of the

members of this House could be brief ed on what CLEU is doing. The sum

total of his response to my request is that I'm now on the mailing list

for the CLEU newspaper clipping monthly files. What I would like is

that some of us could sit down with the Attorney-General and the people

in CLEU and get some idea of exactly what they are doing. We don't have

any idea.

That minister is also responsible for sitting on a number of cases

which involve serious white-collar crimes. He has 23 cases in the

ministry which the RCMP are still waiting for him to make decisions on,

which involve bank transactions and receivership. He shakes his head. I

got a letter from your deputy minister. He's going to look into it for

the second time. When I asked last year I got no satisfaction about it.

The minister is indicating to us there are no problems. There are no

cases waiting to be approved — none at all. There are no problems with

the banks. They've looked into the Greek connection with the Bank of

Montreal and everything is fine. I'm telling the minister everything is

not fine.

One of the things he was cautioned about last year and the year

before is not to fall into the trap of going the route of the Quebec

Crime Commission. That's not the route to go. The suggestion made to

him last year was to give the initial problem of how the commission

would operate to the justice and legal committee so that you could get

people in — people from all around North America — to make

recommendations. Last year he indicated CLEU had gone around North

America and had prepared a report. Has he got the report? If he has,

would he be good enough to table it so that we know just what kind of

policy he is making? We have no indication whatsoever from that

minister about any kind of policy against organized crime. Every time

the CBC puts on a film, he knee-jerks. He gets up and he says: "Oh,

we've got to do something about it." That's the way he's operated that

ministry since he's been the minister. Of course, one can ask how such

a disorganized minister can do anything about organized crime. It's

just incredible.

The main thing is that last year he was asked a serious question in

relation to the behaviour of some of the banks. We have heard from the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) that the fifth largest

industry is the heroin trade, something like $250 million. I asked him

last year if does he not have some concern. Are they not prepared to

look into where that money goes? Where does the money

[ Page 122 ]

go? Which banks are handling it? We know from the

report in Quebec that some of the banks are implicated: the Bank of

Nova Scotia, the Bank of Montreal, the provincial bank. Has the

minister done anything about that? No. The only thing is that he

behaves a little bit like a scared rabbit every time he sees a TV show.

And he tells us — according to the press — that he wants to wait until

he has seen the third program before he makes some kind of decision.

What I suggest he should do is go talk to the RCMP. Go talk to CLEU.

They'll tell you about organized crime. You don't need the CBC or to

watch a film to find out what the problems of organized crime or

white-collar crime are.

The only suggestion I have for you, Mr. Minister, is that you are

highly incompetent and in no way can you handle the ministry that

you've got. You made a complete shambles of what was a first-class

attempt to attack organized crime by the former minister. You've done

nothing.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place to speak on

the throne speech, and I welcome that opportunity. Before I proceed, I

would like to compliment the mover of throne speech, the member for

North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), and the seconder, the member for

Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster), on the excellent speeches they made in this

House.

I would also like to compliment the member for North Okanagan, Mr.

Speaker, who, I think, paid a tribute, to the former Premier of this

province, W.A.C. Bennett, that I couldn't elaborate on. She did an

excellent job, and I think she spoke for all British Columbians in

regard to our appreciation of the man's dedication over the past number

of years.

A sound economy, in my opinion, is what provides the people's

services for a province or for a country. I think we can indicate to

the people of this province that over the past three years we have

developed, once again, a sound economy for British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the NDP, the opposition party, often talk in the

negative. The one item they keep bringing up time and time and again is

the number of bankruptcies which have occurred in this province in the

past three years. Well, I'd like to talk in a positive vein regarding

to the number of incorporations that have taken place since this party

came into office, as opposed to what was happening prior to 1975.

In 1973 there were 9,402 B.C. companies incorporated; in 1974, 9,766; in 1975, 10,267. There ended the regime of the NDP.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I would think the member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Stephens), that great private enterpriser, would certainly not heckle

these comments, because it would indicate to him, I think, that private

enterprise is going ahead in the province of British Columbia. He was

talking about the socialists to the right and the socialists to the

left when he got up and spoke, and I've got to tell you, I think he's

one of the most left-wing conservatives I've ever seen.

MR. KAHL: Sasquatch power.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, he relies on Sasquatch for research, I think it is. Is that right?

In 1976 the rate of incorporations of B.C. companies went up to

12,355; in 1977 to 13,209; in 1978, 15,215 B.C. companies were

incorporated. There was a tremendous increase in those three years

compared to the three years of the NDP. The registration of

extraprovincial companies, Mr. Speaker.... Extraprovincial companies

are, of course, those companies that are from outside of the province

and are going to be doing business within the province. We see a growth

there as well, because in 1973 to 1975 there were approximately 1,650

extra-provincial companies incorporated in British Columbia and

registered in British Columbia. From 1976 to 1978 that number increased

to 2,470.

Mr., Speaker, other members on this side of the House have raised

other indicators as to how this economy has improved since 1976, but

I'd like to repeat them. In the B.C. gross provincial product, the

percent changed in 1978 — 4.4 percent. That's the real growth in

British Columbia. In the gross national product, the real growth was

3.4 percent. We outstripped the growth in the national product.

Public and private investment increased by 11.1 percent compared to

7.7 percent. Retail trade in British Columbia had a 13.4 percent

increase; for Canada it was 11.7 percent. Manufacturing shipments out

of British Columbia increased by 21.5 percent; for Canada it was 18.8

percent. The labour force available in British Columbia grew by 4.2

percent in 1978, and for Canada it grew 3.7 percent, which would

indicate, I think, to you that we are getting a considerable amount of

immigration into British Columbia, whether it be from other parts of

Canada or other parts of the world.

The employed labour force, Mr. Speaker, grew by 4.4 percent. The number of people employed

[ Page 123 ]

in British Columbia increased by 4.4 percent, out

of a total labour force increase of 4.2 percent. So I think that's an

indication that a greater percentage of people are working in the

province. But Canada's Employed workforce only increased by 3.4

percent. That's another indication that this province is moving again.

I'd like to deal with some comments in the throne speech regarding

the mining industry, Mr. Speaker, because that party from 1973 to

1975.... If they did nothing else, they did one thing well: they drove

the mining industry out of this province. That's the one thing they did

real well. But since that time, although there is a little bit of

concern by the mining industry over just what's going to happen if an

election comes, and so some of them are waiting, there is an indication

from the mining industry that there is more activity, and I can give

you some of those figures.

In the throne speech it speaks about mining for molybdenum in the

Atlin area. This is a proposal, and should this come about, the

proposed workforce will be about 300 people, to be housed in or near

the Atlin area, and an estimated mine payroll of approximately $6

million. Other locations are Ericksen Creek, by Cassiar; Alice Arm;

Babine Lake; the Sam Goosley property, on which the announcement has

been made. On the Sam Goosley property it will, I believe, take

something like $60 million to start that project up, and a workforce of

400. When the mine is complete you will be looking at 200 people and a

$4 million payroll. The ownership of that is by Placer Development of

Canada, a Canadian company, reinvesting their profits in the economy of

British Columbia. And that's the way we want to see it.

This is an indication to the members of this House that the mining

industry has finally recognized that that party over there is not going

to be in power, and that we are back in power for some time to come.

Granduc Mines is reopening in Stewart.

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

HON. MR. HEWITT: In 1980, Mr. Member.

MR. LAUK: You closed it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, Mr. Member. Even you know better than that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Please proceed.

HON. MR. HEWITT: When it comes back into production there will be 330

people working in that mine, another indication that the province is on a sound

financial basis at the present time.

Let me give you another announcement. I don't go back to 1974

newspapers, 1976 newspapers, 1942 newspapers or whatever; that's what

the opposition does. I like to get things that are fairly current. What

I find out from the speeches that are made by the opposition is that

most of them are the same ones I heard last year and the year before. I

like to try and bring something new, because I feel that they should

learn something. Here's a release from Cominco dated March 12, 1979.

The news release says that the company's modernization and expansion

program, a multiphased series of projects at Comincols Trail and

Kimberley operations, will cost more than $425 million when completed

in the mid-1980s. This is another indication of the confidence that the

mining industry has in this government.

We talked about other activities in oil and natural gas. Let me give

you an indication of the drilling that's going on in this province. In

1973 the number of wells drilled in this province was 177; in 1974, 148

— going downhill or, as the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

said, "going down into the ditch." Well, it got to the bottom of the

ditch in 1975, because in that year only 82 wells were drilled in this

province. In 1975 all the well drillers had gone to the Yukon.

HON. MR. GARDOM: They ran on strong leadership.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, not strong leadership, Mr. Minister.

But let's see the turnaround. We reached the bottom of the ditch and

now we're coming up, as the Minister of Education said the other night.

In 1976, 189 wells were drilled in this province. In 1977, 328 wells

were drilled. In 1978, 408 wells were drilled. 'that's an indication,

again, that in the oil and natural gas sector of my ministry, the

industry is now recognizing and assured that there is a good future for

that part of the industry in British Columbia.

The member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) made some comments the

other day regarding natural gas. He made a speech asking us to raise

the price of natural gas — and so did the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barrett) — to $3.20, I think the figure was. But after all that great

debate we had, and listening to him, the member for North Peace River

(Mr.

Smith) got up and commented on the number of wells that are being

drilled in the north. The response from the former Attorney-General,

the member for Vancouver East, was: "What's the

[ Page 124 ]

good of it? You can't sell the gas." He was responding to the exploration activity in the north.

One minute they're asking, "Why don't you raise the price? Why don't

you get more? Why can't you compete with Mexico?" — and stating all the

wrong figures for Mexican gas. In the next breath, they turn around and

say you can't sell it. If we can't sell it, what's the sense in raising

the price? I wish they would get their act together. They're all mixed

up.

In regard to raising the price of natural gas, I just want to read

this article, which was in a recent paper, concerning the marketing

problems and the concern there is in the industry.

"The marketing problems continue to pose the greatest

threat to western Canada's booming oil and gas exploration play, says

the spokesman for the Canadian Petroleum Association. 'Oil companies

have shifted from development drilling to exploration drilling, because

they believe there is little point in drilling known gas reserves to

establish high levels of production when markets are unavailable.

Companies are sufficiently encouraged by the prospect of natural gas

exports to continue a high level of exploration programs."'

The

article is saying that we can discover gas; we can determine

reserves; but we have to be competitive in the marketplace. We have to

be competitive with those other sources of energy. When the Leader of

the Opposition says we should compete with Mexico and raise the price

of our gas to the Mexican level, he is just sort of touching on the

subject. Unfortunately it gets in the record, and members such as

myself on this side of the House have to get up and correct him.

I can tell him, the discussions have only just resumed between

Mexico and the United States, and the price being discussed is $2.80

U.S. — not $3.20 or $3.50, as he said in the city of Penticton last

week, but $2.80. He would lead you to believe that we should raise the

price to $3.20. But the U.S. Energy Secretary, James Schlesinger,

stated that one of his major concerns about paying higher prices for

natural gas to Mexico was that Canada will undoubtedly expect

equivalent prices for its gas. So if Mexico makes a deal with the

United States at a high price, we would automatically be in a position

to be competitive and raise the price as well. Or, conversely, they

wouldn't buy from Mexico because they can get it from us cheaper.

The concern of our mining industry — our drilling industry — is that there's

no sense drilling and finding the reserves if you cannot find a market for

them. If we were to raise our gas prices to the above-mentioned extent, we could

seriously damage the U.S. Pacific Northwest market for Canadian gas at this

time. In effect, the market is as soft as a gas bubble, and if we raise our

price too high, we lose the existing markets we possibly have at the present

time.

With the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, of course, we're on a "take or

pay." We have to buy the gas from the producers — as the members know

in the opposition — then turn around and sell it. But we have a

commitment to buy it. As a result, we could find our Petroleum

Corporation caught in a position where they are buying the gas and

don't have a market for it.

Mr. Speaker, the key to the matter is that we live in a world

marketplace. Now if we can identify sufficient natural gas reserves to

ensure our domestic use for numbers of years to come — so we don't fall

short — then we would have gas supplies available for export. We should

be able to get a good return. The return we get allows for additional

exploration and, of course, keeps the cost to our domestic consumers at

a lower level, because the return we make on export sales helps offset

some of our costs of production.

Again, the Leader of the Opposition is just touching on a subject,

but it was his throne speech and did stand up and do it well. But he

just touches on the surface and we have to correct him for the record.

I think one of the problems is, again, that we hear the speech

annually. He keeps getting concerned; he's looking over his shoulder

most of the time. He hasn't got time enough to write a proper speech,

get all the facts down on paper and tell the people of the province the

total story — not just one or two small parts of it.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Alaska oil railway. The concept, as I understand it, was for the

movement by rail to a point in the north of British Columbia, where it

will be transferred to a pipeline and then moved onward to Edmonton.

One of the concerns that the federal government had was the roadbed

costs in providing that railway. Also, there is the environmental

problem. As the members in the opposition well know, every time you

attempt to do something in the north, whether it be the building of a

pipeline or a railway, you have considerable environmental impact.

They were also concerned about the transfer problems between the

pipeline and the railway. The other fact was that it could take con-

[ Page 125 ]

siderable time to determine just how severe the

environmental impact would be. Of course, the construction would follow

after that. It would take much longer than any pipeline proposals that

were currently being floated at that time.

The other important item is that the rail line project could not be

privately financed, as opposed to the pipeline project. There's a lot

of discussion going on about that.

The pipeline projects are financed by a consortium, as opposed to

having a railway which would have to be funded partially, at least, by

the provincial as well as the federal government.

The comments of the Leader of the Opposition dealt with large

figures, indicating to this House there were great dollar values to be

lost because we didn't take any action. I'm just saying that all the

story should be told. I think any government has to look at all

factors: the economic impacts, the returns, the cost, the benefits, the

environmental impacts, et cetera. For him to stand up for about half an

hour and say, "This should be done, and it's as simple as that," is

misleading the public.

AN HON. MEMBER: If it's that simple, why didn't he do it?

HON. MR. HEWITT: He wouldn't know how to do it, Mr. Minister.

Turning from the oil and natural gas and mining activity, I'd just

like to say that it seems to me that it's an indication to the people

of the province of British Columbia that in the last three years,

regardless of all the political rhetoric, this government has brought

in balanced budgets. We've determined our revenues. In the first year

it was pretty tough. The people of the province had a tough time. We

determined our revenues, and we determined the services we could

provide for the people. We've met those commitments of services to

people. We've met our forecasted revenues.

The people services that are provided by government are not provided

by a money tree in the back yard of the parliament buildings, but by a

stable economy that is supported by government. It supports the

industries of this province, it supports the commercial operations of

the province; it supports the small businessmen of this province. If

the government can give that support, the private sector can generate

those revenues.

Let's look at the people services. We've increased the homeowner

grant to seniors to $480. We brought in a SAFER program — shelter aid

for elderly renters — to help offset some of the effects of inflation,

to assist those senior citizens in enjoying their own apartment

dwelling, their own rented accommodation, in their later years. It's an

excellent program.

We brought in universal Pharmacare. We expanded the old Pharmacare

program and brought in universal Pharmacare so that all members of

society would have some protection.

The Minister of Health brought in the longterm care program, where

people who were confined to nursing homes, et cetera, did not have to

worry about the heavy cost — sometimes upward, possibly, of $1,000 a

month. The government picked up the tab over, I believe, the $6.50 a

day.

The hospital construction program in this province is greater than

it ever has been before, an indication again of the people services.

In 1979 the throne speech talks about the denticare program. It 1979

it talks about the expansion of the home-purchase assistance program.

The thread of my whole speech is trying to get the point across, on

the record — unfortunately, I can't get 2.4 million people in this

hall, or I'd tell them all — that the economy must be stable and the

economy must be prospering before you can provide the people services

that are needed in this province. We've done it.

I want to relate to another comment in the throne speech regarding

my ministry. The throne speech talks about a comprehensive energy

policy. I would like to deal a bit with it.

These are some of my thoughts. In my ministry we are developing an

energy policy for presentation. I would like to indicate to the House

what I see in that energy policy.

First of all, that policy must determine the security of supply of

energy in years to come for the province of British Columbia. We must

determine the adequacy of supply. It must be a fairly long-reaching

policy, one that's flexible, that can change with development and

improvements in technology. At the same time, we must always keep in

the forefront of our mind that we have a responsibility to supply

energy to the province and to the people of British Columbia.

The Middle East crisis that we went through in 1973, and that we're

going through right now, is an indication to all governments that they

must have a plan and they must have a plan that is flexible enough that

it can deal with those types of situations. The policy must identify

provincial sources of supply.

[ Page 126 ]

What are our alternatives?

Oil. What is our demand now for the use of oil and what is our

adequacy of supply? At the present time we supply about 25 percent of

the oil we consume in British Columbia — 25 percent and going down, Mr.

Speaker.

Gas. We have a tremendous amount of activity in the north and a considerable amount of new known gas reserves.

Electricity. What are our alternatives for the production of electricity?

Coal. I believe we have one-third of the coal reserves of Canada in British Columbia.

Wood waste. There is a tremendous potential for the generation of energy from wood waste.

Mr. Speaker, those are basically the guidelines related to those sources of

energy. They are basically this: the availability and the economic viability.

You can have supplies in the ground, but if the cost is too great, compared

to an alternative, you must be able to recognize that.

There is no sense in us giving direction to industry or to commerce

or to residential development to use a certain source of energy when we

don't have the reserve capacity. We must recognize the cost to the

consumer, because although those people over there keep calling us a

millionaire cabinet and keep talking about all the millionaires, we're

looking at all consumers: the senior citizens, the families, the

apartment dwellers, the homeowners, industry. We've got to recognize

the cost to them.

The key elements of this proposed energy policy, Mr. Speaker, would

go something like this: the security of the oil supply — how do we

determine that? Because we don't produce enough.

There are our relationships with other parts of Canada and the world

— the encouragement of the development of our own resources. We've got

lots of resources out there. We've got wood waste; we've got coal;

we've got gas. Because we have known gas reserves, we should possibly

encourage the greater use of natural gas in place of such sources of

energy as oil.

Efficiency in the use of energy — let me give you an instance. We

need coordinated forecasting. We've had great discussions over the

years about the forecasting of energy demands by the B.C. Energy

Commission and by B.C. Hydro. We have great debates because one is so

high and the other is so low. In my policy, Mr. Speaker, we've got to

bring together the thinking so we start on a common basis. We use the

right input, as opposed to one group using one set of figures and

another group using another. Because what does industry think when they

see two different reports with different end results? They are a little

concerned. So we have to have a coordinated energy forecasting system.

The managing of our energy surplus is in the best interests of the

province, and I say export falls into that category. I think the

national NDP leader usually gets up and says: "We've got to use our own

resources. Don't ship anything out. We've got to use it." He says that

on one hand. "Keep it for us." That's what he says: "Don't share with

anybody; keep it for us." But that just doesn't work, Mr. Speaker. We

are in a world market situation. Because if you say that on one hand,

then you better start saying: "Don't ship our offshore oil to us. We

can't import oil if we can't export what we have a surplus of." The

point I'm making is that we can and should export where possible

because the dollars we receive from export sales, of course, will

assist us in further development and will keep the price to the local

consumer lower.

Conservation, I think, is one of the keys to this energy policy. If

we can save a barrel of oil, 1,000 cubic feet of gas, that's the

cheapest source of energy we have. For every one we save, we have one

left in reserve. It's the cheapest source of energy.

Co-generation. Industry or municipalities, if they can, burn up

industrial wastes and hog fuel, create energy and co-generate that with

our utility companies. That offsets other sources of energy such as oil

and makes better use of our energy reserves in this province.

Surplus energy producers. Those industries that have their own

energy sources could be developing their own electricity, say, on their

own property. If they have the capacity that is idle, why not make use

of it? We should develop policies and legislation that allow them to

assist in meeting the energy demands of the province.

Research and development. We must always look to the future. I think

the Minister of Education, Science and Technology (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

touched on it very well, but this policy has to identify the need for

constant research and development of alternative energy sources such as

solar energy. A lot of work has been done on solar energy and it will

probably take a lot more work to make it completely economically

viable, but we have to keep looking down the road and working towards

that goal.

Wind power. Tidal power. Geothermal energy, Mr. Speaker, is where

you drill like you would drill for an oil well or a gas well down into

the mantle of the earth and tap a source of steam. That steam, of

course, can be captured,

[ Page 127 ]

can be cleaned and can be used to turn a steam

turbine and generate electricity. Outside of the city of San Francisco,

at a place called the Geysers, they have 16, I think, of these wells

that are on stream and supplying power to the city of San Francisco. We

have the opportunity and we are doing studies into that at the present

time.

So, Mr. Speaker, those are basic outlines of what I think an energy

policy should be about. It's a major task. It's not a simple task to

say: "Oh, we're going to design an energy policy." We have to, you

might say, put some meat on the bones. But it's a timely task. We know

that the federal government is looking at an energy policy. We know

that the United States government is looking at an energy policy.

Everybody is aware of the vulnerability of the economy and of society

if you can't throw a light switch and turn on lights, or you can't plug

in a milking machine on a farm, or you can't turn the wheels of

industry. So up front in every government is the need for an energy

policy, and this government is going to bring one in this year.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on a few other items, but the main

one is.... I'm not sure whether the gentleman is here; no, he's gone.

The throne speech says basically this: "Governments are elected to

govern; governments are not elected to compete in the private sector."

That is why that this government has brought in the B.C. Resources

Investment Corporation, moving those Crown-owned corporations back to

individual ownership in this province. It's a great move.

Let's talk about other things regarding companies owned by the

government: an outfit called Panco Poultry, the chicken-plucking plant.

You people know about that. We heard all about that last night from the

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), I believe.

It's interesting, I think, that in doing a little research late last

night.... You know, the opposition members here really struggle for

material to use, and I think they are a little worried. There's a guy

in Ottawa by the name of Stu Leggatt who is coming to town, you know.

He's coming to town, and they're a little worried. Either they've got

to get on the right side of the new leader, or they want....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: How could you get on the right side of that leader? On the left side of that leader — that's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Jim Kinnaird? I thought he was the leader.

HON. MR. HEWITT: We'll get to him. There are a lot of them over there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps, hon. member, if you would address the Chair, then we would have a little less of this unofficial banter.

HON. MR. HEWITT: It's a case, Mr. Speaker, of using half the facts; I won't say half truths, because I would probably get an objection.

I wanted to touch on the statements that were made in the House of

Commons on December 14 by Mr. Leggatt, who was talking about Panco

Poultry in British Columbia recently being purchased by Cargill Grain

Co., one of the largest multinational grain firms in the world.

"I wonder if the minister can advise us whether good

corporate citizenship is one of the criteria of the Foreign Investment

Review Agency and, if such is the case, whether the agency will take

into account the fact that Cargill Grain Co. has committed at least 105

violations of the Wheat Board regulations and is not a particularly

good corporate citizen in this company. Will that matter be considered

by the agency?"

Now he said 105, but the member for Vancouver Centre only said 100, so he couldn't get the facts right in the first place.

Mr. Horner responded, and I thought this was rather cute, because

they were talking about the Canadian Wheat Board, and Mr. Horner is a

farmer, right? He comes from Alberta.

"Hundreds of thousands of farmers have violated one

regulation or another of the Canadian Wheat Board at one time or the

other, but in my opinion they are still good Canadian citizens."

The minister went on to say:

"In assuring the hon. member, let me point out to him

that what the Foreign Investment Review Agency looks at is significant

benefit to Canada. I'm sure in this case, as in many others, the agency

will try to ascertain how much benefit Canada can derive from this

proposal."

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that's exactly the same

approach that this government took in determining the bids for Panco

Poultry: the benefits for the people of British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well then, we'll carry on, Mr. Member. I'm glad you said that. I could

[ Page 128 ]

comment about Panco Poultry, that it was purchased,

and on the fact that it was used as a political tool during the

election in 1975. Do you remember the letter that Ernie Hall put out?

He used the employees of Panco Poultry for his own good; it didn't do

him any good because he got beaten anyway. It was purchased in 1974; it

suffered a loss in 1975; it wasn't until we came to power, that it

turned around and made a prof it — just like the rest of the province.

There is a conflict of interest between government and the chicken

industry. Government regulates the broiler industry by marketing board

legislation. Panco Poultry bad four broiler farms and seven turkey

farms, which was over and above the quota they were allow-ed. It was a

vertically integrated company which that party over there usually

speaks against — hatchery farms, feed mill, processing plant, et

cetera. In the sale of Panco we took into consideration the future of

the company, the security of employment and the return to the taxpayer.

I can tell them that the farm community wanted those farms back into

the farm community, not held by the big company. I can also tell those

members over there that the Broiler Marketing Board, made up of

farmers, agreed to and endorsed the sale of Panco Poultry. There were

bids on the feed mill, one from Cargill Grain, a high bid; the second

one was from Hepple Brothers in Langley. And that sale went to a local

firm, Mr. Speaker. The sale of Panco gave us the highest return, gave

us a five-year forward planning program, and $4 million expansion to

take place upgrading and further processing of turkey with the benefits

to the turkey producer.

The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) said that it could

mean a shutdown of the company for Cargill's benefit. He doesn't

recognize or say anything about the fact that the turkey industry is

under national supply management, which controls imports and protects

the local farm community.

Mr. Speaker, I've got a number of other things, but I just want to

quickly touch on something else. I ran too long on my debate. I am very

pleased that the throne speech recognized the need for the protection

of the Okanagan lakes in this province. The program will be brought

forward and will ensure the high quality of the Okanagan lakes for the

benefit of the orchardists in that area and for the tourist industry in

that area. That is something that this government has recognized, and

I'm looking forward to seeing the program of the Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair), because those lakes are the life blood of

the Okanagan Valley. It is, to my way of thinking, an excellent

indication of how this government is looking at the environment in this

province and attempting to protect it.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to give you titles of the throne speeches over the past number of years:

1976-77: "Time to Tighten our Belts, Ladies and Gentlemen, Because the NDP Drove this Province into the Ground."

1977-78: "Cautious Optimism."

1978-79: "A Foundation to Build On."

1979-80: "A Plan for the Future."

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to support the throne speech,

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity during

the current session to really take

part in the official debate, and I

would like to add my voice to that of the many of the members in the

House who have expressed regret at the passing of the former Premier of

this province, the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett — and to his family. I think

it's been noted publicly, by all legislators, that he made a

significant contribution to the public life of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to comment very briefly on some of the points

made by the previous speaker, and I trust that he'll stick around to

hear what I have to say. He made much of being in conflict with

chickens, and the only observation I have in that regard is that it

would appear to be an even match. I did appreciate his discussion of

energy policy, and I commend him for entering the throne speech with

something positive to talk about, rather than a constant attack on the

opposition for alleged misdeeds of the past. I hope that, perhaps,

other ministers will understand that they did win the election in 1975.

They have a mandate and a responsibility which goes with it to govern

in this province and to bring forward policy for debate in this

illustrious chamber, policy which everyone can debate.

The majority of the discussion so far, particularly from the cabinet

benches, has been digging into the past in an effort — somewhat

panic-stricken, Mr. Speaker — to try to discredit the former

government. Let the people decide. The people have seen the NDP in

office, and the NDP made their mistakes, and certainly this government

has made their mistakes. I think one of the things this government has

yet to learn is that, you know, one shouldn't have too much pride or be

too stubborn to admit that you have made mistakes and to attempt to

learn from them. There's a touch of arrogance that characterizes this

particu-

[ Page 129 ]

lar government at the present time.

The minister made some comment about getting the mining industry

going again. He talked about Cominco and the major capital investment

that that particular company has undertaken. Mr. Speaker, surely the

minister knows that that modernization program was started during the

NDP term of office, mainly in response to the fact that the Cominco

firm was being fined $30,000 a day by the Workers Compensation Board in

this province for failure to comply with health standards and to

adequately protect the workforce in that plant. That was one of the

major reasons that they embarked on the expansion program, and the

minister tries to take in some credit to his government for this

expansion program. Come on, don't be ridiculous. I think Cominco was

rather embarrassed that they bad to be subjected to major fines on a

daily basis, and the only way they gained relief from those levies by

the Workers Compensation Board was to sit down and lay out a plan for

modernization and better safety standards that would protect the

workers from noxious gases and from hazardous materials. That's a

matter of record.

I know the president of Cominco in Trail very well, and he is a

reasonable man. They were stuck with an old plant; previous

administrations of that company had let it run down. They have done the

positive thing now, but for this government to take credit for the

nebulous case of a company finally updating a plant that was a threat

to the health and safety of workers is just a bit much.

He talked about Granduc. I will deal with that a little later.

Granduc closed down during their tenure. It is supposed to open up

again. I hope it creates some jobs. I hope there is a net gain of jobs

rather than a net loss, because this government is basically a net

loss, Mr. Speaker.

The minister finally went into the Mexican gas caper again. They

seem to have a design over there to try to zero in and attack our

leader over here, who is doing something positive for the province of

British Columbia. He is going around this province offering some

leadership, offering some positive development programs, and

interesting people from all parties, people from corporations and

people from trade unions in pulling together and getting the economy

going again, not in two-bit, carping, political partisanship. They seem

concerned and upset by that, Mr. Speaker.

The Granduc thing is a bit of a bogeyman. It closed under their tenure and

I hope it opens again. That's a promise and I hope it comes about. But on

the Mexican gas thing, the minister is wrong. An

article in the Toronto Globe

and Mail dated March 22 talks about the National Energy Board authorizing an

increase in the export of natural gas from Canada. It notes that the new Canadian

gas export price will still be far below the price being demanded by the Mexican

government — currently about $3.20 with provision for automatic escalation —

for new gas being offered for sale to the United States. Now doesn't the

minister know what is going on? He has petroleum resources in his charge and

he doesn't even know. He's not abreast with current developments in

the export price of that commodity right here on this hemisphere. What's

the matter with the man?

In terms of mining, what's happened? Sure, some mines closed down

during the NDP term of office. I can tell you that the world price of

minerals at that time was not good and it hasn't been good since. But

for the record here's what the mining people of British Columbia say.

The B.C. mining association notes only two mines opened since 1975:

Afton copper mine, which was negotiated and started under the NDP — and

that's a matter of public record — and a small gold mine, Northair. The

mines that have closed since 1975 are quite numerous; there's been a

net loss of 233 jobs in the mining industry since 1975.

Now I'm not blaming the government for that. It's a matter of world

prices. But for them to run around saying, "Look how great we are;

we've instilled new confidence and mining is booming," is just not in

accordance with the facts, Mr. Speaker. It may make for filler for a

speech if you're not particularly concerned and if you don't have any

particular regard for the facts, but surely a minister of the Crown

should be a bit more concerned than that.

Mr. Speaker, so much for the minister's presentation. I once again

do congratulate him on at least five minutes of his speech, when he

discussed energy policy. That should be a matter of record in this

Legislature by all parties, because energy policy is a pressing and

urgent matter, not only in British Columbia but throughout the length

and breadth of Canada.

Coming to the throne speech, my main criticism is that it has no

strategy for stimulating the economy or for creating employment. That

has to be a priority in this day and age when we have 112,000 British

Columbians out of work.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Yes, officially — probably many more. It has to be a priority when the cost of

[ Page 130 ]

living is increasing almost to the double digit

level annually. It has to be a concern when, hand-in-hand, inflation

and the cost of living are eroding the disposable income of people

throughout the length and breadth of this province. I find nothing in

the throne speech that comes to grips with that particu-lar issue

which, in my view, should be a priority.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), in his dissertation to

this House, outlined a plan for creating employment and tremendous

investment capital in the economy of British Columbia, through the

extension of the British Columbia Railway to the state of Alaska.

People may debate the wisdom of that move, but certainly there is great

interest. Certainly there is technical data to support that extension

as a viable enterprise. The Leader of the Opposition, regardless of his

political persuasion, is trying to do a selling job on behalf of

British Columbia in terms of creating jobs and investment. I commend

him for that. I'm proud that the leader of our party, rather than being

just a negative critic like so many on that side, is taking positive

steps and giving positive leadership. Let's contrast that with what is

happening on the government benches and in the text of the throne

speech.

Interjection.

MR. KING: No, there are not many left there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Only 2 1/2.

MR. KING: No, the large minister of small .business is still in attendance. [Laughter.]

I want to tell you that there is no initiative and very little

vision in this government. They certainly do not have the stature and

the vision of the previous Social Credit government who, although I

disagreed with them strongly, had some imagination and some verve in

them.

One of the greatest areas and opportunities where this government

could provide a stimulus to creating employment, investment and job

creation, is the forest industry. It is our primary resource. It is our

major resource. Rather than seizing this opportunity when the economy

needs a stimulus — mainly because of the gouging that this government

has inflicted on people and used to slow down the economy in the

previous years — they have not only failed to offer any provincial

initiative, but, lamentably, they have failed to take advantage of

dollars that were available from the federal government for investment

in the province of British Columbia. I say that it's totally

irresponsible and scandalous.

Here is a headline in the Colonist. I think it's March 23,1979:

"Forest Millions Untapped. The provincial government

has failed to take advantage of millions of dollars in federal grants

toward forest management projects. Forests minister Tom Waterland

conceded this Thursday during questioning at a news conference called

by the B.C. Association of Professional Foresters. But he hoped

negotiations with the federal representatives would lead to agreement

for use of the funds."

Now, Mr. Speaker, this government is telling us how great they are,

while ignoring the 112,000 unemployed. To blandly admit that he had

failed to capitalize on millions of dollars that were available from

the federal government for investments in our forest industry is almost

criminally irresponsible at a time like this. We have 112,000 people

who could be employed in regeneration projects in the forest industry.

Lord knows, we're millions and millions of acres behind in terms of

tree planting, and that alone is a worthwhile function in terms of job

creation.

We are certainly in bad shape, in terms of the inventory of the

forest resource in this province, and people could be put to work not

only in the regeneration process, but in an up-to-date, proper

appraisal and inventory of the resource that we have in this province.

Yet there are millions of dollars going by the board, simply because

the Minister of Forests was not on his toes protecting British

Columbia's interest.

At the same time we have a headline from the Fort Nelson News

indicating that the forest industry is in serious trouble in the north

because of a major error in inventory. "Forestry Bugged by Spruce-Goof"

is the headline. It goes on to outline a horrendous story of the danger

of eliminating our supply of timber in that area, or at least

jeopardizing it, to the extent that we can't maintain existing cutting

and employment levels. This is going on while the minister sits idly by

and allows federal dollars to go by the board, simply because he hasn't

been on his toes and been responsible enough to demand those dollars,

and to create programs to employ people, to put those dollars to work

here in the B.C. economy.

Mr. Minister of Small Business, where were you? If the Forests

minister hasn't got the acumen to take advantage of this, surely the

portfolio of small business implies that you should have some incentive

and some initiative in this regard? Get on your toes and do some-

[ Page 131 ]

thing for the people of British Columbia. We've not

only lost federal dollars in terms of an opportunity to create

employment in British Columbia, but I want to outline to the House

today how the government — the Minister of Forests particularly — have

failed to support and encourage small businesses who depend on the

fibre of our forests for their enterprise and for their workers.

In the first place, we have a major new tree-farm licence being

renewed, the first one under the new Forest Act. We had the call for

public hearings on the renewal of that treefarm licence so that the

public and small entrepreneurs could make a representation and find out

whether or not the current licence holder had done an adequate job as

custodian of that public timber, whether or not he had fulfilled all

the obligations imposed upon him through his cutting permits, and so

on. The minister refused to call a public hearing. He decided that it

wasn't necessary for the public to know the basis and the criteria upon

which that licence was rolled over and renewed.

Even the Victoria Colonist, which I think my colleague said resides

somewhere between partiality and impartiality, commented on the

minister's position and criticized it. The comment was:

"Mr. Waterland won't even listen. Over the next two

years about 26 tree-farm licences in British Columbia's giant industry

will come up for renewal. The fate of vast timber tracts owned by us

all, and worth billions, will be settled. As matters stand, these

renewals will all be settled by the provincial government behind closed

doors."

This is the government that brags, even in this throne speech, about

regard for the public and protection of individual rights. Has no one

ever told this government that the public owns that timber? The public

owns that timber, and they have a right to have a say in the proper

harvesting and the proper management of that resource. It's sheer

arrogance for the minister to conduct those hearings in the privacy of

his office.

I have a copy of a letter that I received from a private citizen

that she had written to the minister indicating that she was interested

in sitting in on an open hearing respecting the first tree-farm licence

renewal application in this province. I'm going to read the copy of the

letter the minister re turned to her. It's dated February 28, 1979, and

it's directed to Mrs. Victoria Inskip, Fremlin Street, Vancouver:

"I am replying to your recent letter in which you ask

that we hold public hearings when replacing existing tree-farm

licences, and you expressed concern about the destruction of virgin

forests. This will also reply further to your letter of February 6,

addressed to the Hon. Premier Bennett on the same subject. I am

following the procedures determined in the Forest Act when replacing

tree-farm licences, and perhaps you know that the Act does not provide

for public hearings when an existing tree-farm licence is replaced."

Did everyone hear that clearly? "The Act does not provide for public hearings when a treefarm licence is replaced."

I recall the debate on the new Forest Act. I recall questioning the

minister. In the June 29, 1978, Hansard I asked the Chairman with

respect to subsection 27(10):

"This

section does not apply to a treefarm licence entered into under

section 29, which is the public hearing aspect of it. "

And the minister replied as follows:

"Mr. Chairman, I realize that there have been a number

of individuals and interest groups lobbying for public hearings on the

roll-over of tree-farm licences. We cannot do it, for several reasons.

The most important reason is that it is going to be administratively

impossible, really, in the time-frame within which the TFLs are rolled

over. I would rather that the decisions on roll-overs be made on the

basis of what is really best for the industry and not through perhaps

heated public debates. We are, however, requiring that advertisements

of the facts of roll-over be published, and anybody who wishes to raise

an objection or have input into the roll-overs is more than free to do

so. I don't think anything in the Act precludes us from having public

hearings if we feel it is necessary."

That was the minister's answer.

What happened to the cabinet anyway? Are they afraid that their

words are going to come back to haunt them? There's one cabinet

minister in the House right now. I say that is absolutely shocking. The

small minister of big business is sitting in his place, and he's the

only one here. Some throne speech!

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: What about us guys over here?

MR. KING: You can't get in the cabinet; you

[ Page 132 ]

didn't join the Liberal Party first. You have no hope.

I want to draw your attention to these two statements by the

minister. On the one hand, he responds to the lady asking for the

public hearing by saying: "Perhaps you know that the Act does not

provide for public hearings when an an existing tree-farm licence is

replaced." InHansard, in response to a question from the opposition, he

said: "I don't think anything in the Act precludes us from having

public hearings if we feel it necessary." Those two statements are

obviously in conflict.

I have a question for the minister. I want to ask when he was

telling the truth. Was he telling the truth when he responded to this

lady, or was he telling the truth in the House? Obviously, he wasn't

telling the truth on both occasions. I'm mystified as to which

statement is accurate, because they are diametrically opposed. This is

the man who is charged with the custody of the forest industry in

British Columbia.

They haven't done very much for small business. They may brag about

everything going great. I don't know who they are talking to. Perhaps

they are talking to themselves and perhaps drinking their own bath

water, as politicians.

I read Beale's Letter. It's an industry newsletter which reports on

the health of the forest industry. I'm not getting the same impression

from Beale's Letter that I'm getting from the cabinet. Their letter of

March 31,1978, just a year ago, had some of these observations by the

editor:

"We asked forest managers — and replies come from

every sector — how they feel about: (1) the Bennett government;

(2) Forest minister Waterland; (3) the B.C. Forest Service. Some replies."

Here's a sampling:

"For the first time in 24 years I will vote against

the Socreds in the next election, and I'll vote against Waterland. We

are a small company and unimportant to the Forest Service. Anyway, I

don't expect to be around. We'll be closed for lack of raw material. Is

that helping small business? The Bennett government has shown itself to

be an anti-integrated company. They've perpetuated discriminatory

minimum stumpage on the coast."

Another respondent says:

"Government's intent is to correct, but drastic cuts

in public spending are required. Waterland has no record of

accomplishment. Forest Service must realize that the present stumpage

formula is punitive."

The next respondent says:

"I'm disappointed in the Bennett government. Due to

their reluctance to display leadership in the public and in the

economy, they are puppets of the corporations."

This is what people in the business sector are saying. Another one says:

"I'm apprehensive about the Bennett administration.

After two years of inaction respecting our industry, they are unaware

of the problems."

And on and on it goes. That was last year. There was concern and it was expressed in the industry newsletter.

I've been in touch with a mill at Enderby — I think the member for

Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) has too. The manager is Bob Mee; the mill is the

company of Morrill and Sturgeon. They've had some financial problems,

but they managed to keep working. They had a workforce of 55 people.

But they've had to close down because of lack of supply. They could not

obtain through the Ministry of Forests a firm supply of fibre. So

they've closed down, losing 55 jobs in the riding of the member for

Shuswap. Now he seems to be trying to justify it from a position in the

Legislature which he does not occupy and probably never will.

Mr. Speaker, that's just one of them. In the Premier's own riding we

have the reports on the layoffs at Gorman's mill, a long-range

possibility. This is January 23, 1979:

"'Employee layoffs due to a timber shortage is a

long-range possibility but not an immediate one,' says John Gorman,

president of Gorman Brothers Lumber and Box Ltd. at Westbank. Mr.

Gorman told the Westbank and district chamber of commerce Thursday that

layoffs could result unless his company gets a more secure timber

supply allocated to it by the provincial government."

Another report tells how the takeover of a firm, Northwoods Co., in

the Interior of British Columbia by a major multinational corporation

threatens the independent mills in the Okanagan and the interior part

of the province. Concern is expressed over the closure of many mills

such as the one at Enderby, the one at Westbank and another one in the

Grand Forks area.

All of these things indicate to me that the government's bragging

about how well they have the economy moving may be fine in terms of

rhetoric to convince themselves, but it seems to be doing little to

keep the economy going and to protect jobs. Mills are closing,

businesses are folding up but the government keeps telling themselves:

"Don't worry. Things

[ Page 133 ]

are better now than they were last year." I say

that is pretty shoddy stewardship, Mr. Speaker, and nothing to be proud

of at all. No wonder there is disappointment expressed in industry

newsletters. No wonder the strident cries for help in many of these

small mills are coming to the opposition.

I think the most significant one and the most poignant statement

made by any of the small entrepreneurs is contained in a submission

which the Minister of Forests received from Sultana Corp. It's a cedar

products mill at Yahk in the East Kootenay. They've submitted a major

brief along with maps and documentation to show that while at least

eight small mills in the East Kootenay are faced with closure or

cutback because they cannot obtain a supply of timber, much timber is

being cut and burned on a Hydro, slash line, many of the larger licence

holders are not cutting their annual allowable cut, and that timber

should be reallocated. They've done an excellent job of documenting

their allegations.

Let me read you the paragraph with which they conclude their

dissertation. This is a group of people representing the Kootenay

Secondary Mills Association. This is what they say:

"The large foreign monopolistic companies, with the aid

of government, have placed a legal curtain around Crown timber, prohibiting

access to small business operators. This action makes the small businessman

a foreigner in his own country."

What a terrible indictment of this government's

performance! And they have the gall to suggest to this House that they have

the economy moving. Well, I suppose they do but it is moving the wrong way,

Mr. Speaker. It's a terrible indictment and I have not heard the Minister

of Forests or the Minister of Small Business (Hon. Mr. Veitch) give any response

to this kind of plea that is coming in from all over the province from small

entrepreneurs.

The only thing they do, Mr. Speaker, is set up a Ministry of Deregulation.

It sounds like a laxative. But in terms of cutting the red tape and providing

programs to help people, there's nothing positive whatsoever, not a thing.

Their main thrust, despite this sorry record; despite the fact that while firms

are closing down because they are not capitalizing on federal dollars; despite

the fact that the forest industry is lagging behind in terms of regeneration

because they are not capitalizing on federal dollars; despite the fact that

this Minister of Forests has shown no sensitivity to or understanding of the

needs of small independent people in the forest sector is to come in with a

throne speech which talks about how great they are and says they're going

to bring in some rights for individuals.

I want to tell them, Mr. Speaker, that would be a lot more

meaningful if they would create some employment for individuals in this

province. If people are economically secure, they are much stronger in

terms of protecting their own interests. That should be the first

priority of this government. We warned them three years ago, Mr.

Speaker, when they doubled ferry rates, when they doubled and tripled

car insurance rates, when they jacked up the price of home heating

fuels, Hydro, rates and so on, that they were taking more out of the

economy than the economy could stand and that it would slow down and

stagnate, and that's precisely what has happened.

Now they come in with pathetic little offerings, hoping that the

public will be so forgetful that they will now reach out thankful hands

to this government for the small blessings that they receive and return

them to office in the next election. I say that's a cynical approach

and they should be ashamed.

They offer nothing positive in the throne speech. As I said earlier,

they seem to have a new strategy, and I think it's a political

strategy, rather than anything else, and that is to attack the Leader

of the Opposition for offering positive programs in this House. Perhaps

they feel that if they vilify our leader enough it will take the focus

of attention off this government's responsibility to govern and to

offer programs to get the economy moving, to create jobs. Perhaps they

feel that it's a good political strategy to try to tear down the one

political leader in this province who is offering positive and exciting

solutions and programs for the economy of B.C. Perhaps they think it's

neat to try and sidestep their responsibility.

Interjection.

MR. KING: It's quite true, my friend. I want to say that I'm

very proud of our leader and the job that he has done in terms of

promoting British Columbia. He has many people in this province

interested — not just politicians on all sides of the House, but people

from industry as well, people who are more interested in getting the

economy of B.C. going than playing partisan politics. He has a

sensitivity and a humanity; he feels and understands for all those

112,000 unemployed workers out there; and he feels that it's incumbent

upon him, and upon our party, to try to not only criticize this

government in terms of their short-

[ Page 134 ]

comings, but to offer positive programs too. I

think that all of British Columbia will thank him for that. He has

worked for the betterment of all British Columbians, and I think the

people will, in fact, remember that when this government musters the

courage to go to the polls once again.

MR. KEMPF: They remembered in 1975.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and

many of the cabinet ministers spend hours in this House condemning the

NDP. I suppose that's all right, if they can't stand the heat of

focusing in on their responsibility to govern. You're the ones who are

introducing policy; you have that mandate.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the NDP made some mistakes. But we

brought in a lot of wonderful programs too. But I want to tell you that

our government never had to go to court to gain a court ruling proving

that we didn't torture insects. This is the first government in the

history of Canada that ever had to go to court to get a ruling

demonstrating that they don't pull the wings off flies. A sad

commentary. The only question left to be litigated with respect to this

government's performance is the kind of torture that they've inflicted

upon hundreds of thousands of people in British Columbia, and that

decision will be in with the next election. It's a charade and it's a

bit of an irony that they bring in a throne speech talking about people

programs, but totally ignoring the need to get the economy moving again

and put people to work and return investment confidence.

They zero in, these people of all people, on human rights and

protecting individual rights. When a minister of the Crown, the former

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), goes around this

province singing songs casting slurs and aspersions on racial

minorities in this country, I think that's scandalous. I think it takes

a particular kind of brass and gall for a government of that ilk — when

the First Minister never repudiated the statement, never demanded a

retraction, never sanctioned or censured that minister — to come in

with a throne speech presuming to be the defender of civil rights and

human rights in British Columbia. What a sham! If he believes in the

issues which are contained in the throne speech, then he should have

risen to the occasion, when his minister offended decency and offended

minority groups, and publicly demanded an apology from that minister or

removed him from the cabinet. It's a terrible performance.

I hope that other ministers, as we go on in this debate, will tell

us something of plans in their own ministries — for bringing some

positive programs to British Columbia, for getting down to the bread

and butter issues, for dealing with the people that can't afford

ever-escalating baskets of groceries in this province.

It's fine for the fat cats and millionaires to talk about civil

liberties and all that but there are 112,000 suffering unemployed out

there that don't need that kind of shrift from this government. They

need something positive and they need jobs, Mr. Speaker.

MR. STRONGMAN: I rise in my place to add support to last

Thursday's Speech from the Throne. It was a wide-sweeping speech, one

that covered many facets of our society, and will have an effect on

almost every man, woman and child in British Columbia.

I'd like to preface my remarks today by recognizing the passing of

the former Premier of our province, the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett. He was a

man of vision, a man of the twentieth century, and far ahead of his

time in his thinking and his actions. He shaped the province through

the immense growth of the fifties and sixties. While not everyone in

this room could agree with him politically, we'd do well to emulate his

total commitment to British Columbia. In summation, he was a man of

tremendous capacity and accomplishment — a man who will be sorely

missed. Life must go on, but we are forever richer for his presence,

and forever in his debt.

Last Thursday was my fourth Speech from the Throne as a member of

this House. And as in each previous speech, it reinforced my belief and

commitment to a free enterprise system and to a Social Credit

government in British Columbia.

The keynote of the speech is summed up on page 2. It really restates

the Social Credit philosophy and the things that we are striving for as

a government and as a political party in this province. I quote:

"A basic principle which my government will place

before this Legislature involves the rights which the individual

ownership of the business and industry in British Columbia can give our

people. Members of this assembly will be asked to confirm through

legislation this principle, that this principle endures under the

British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation. For some time now,

my government has been expressing concern that the ownership and

management of the rich resource potential of this nation has been

falling into fewer and fewer hands. My

[ Page 135 ]

government believes that there are many who have talked about

the ownership of our resource corporation falling into fewer and fewer hands,

but have done little or nothing about it.

"Recognizing that there are those who'd resolve this

problem through government ownership, my government affirms that

secondhand ownership does not permit individuals to have any of the

options, privileges and responsibilities which individual ownership

gives."

That's the NDP solution. Big government ownership

of all resources. Take them out of the hands of the people of the

province and put them into the hands of the few who seek power in this

province.

"My government believes that the ultimate freedom and

security of Canadians rests on the rights and responsibility of

individuals to guide their own destiny. The right of individual

ownership should never be surrendered to government."

I stand for that. The people of my party stand for it. I think most

thinking people in British Columbia would agree. Every B.C. resident

will become an owner of our valuable resources in the British Columbia

Resources Investment Corporation. Individuals will be allowed to own

only up to 1 percent. A few societies will be allowed to own up to 3

percent, namely those holding pension funds. One of the outstanding

attributes of the plan, in my mind, is that it gives every person in

this province a better understanding of the free market system. That's

the system that built this country. It's the one that I support. It's

the one most people in this province support.

The capitalistic system may be far from perfect. Compared to the

socialist system espoused by — and I use the words of the member for

Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) — this rag-tag bunch of socialists sitting over

here who are in favour of big government, big unions and, through big

government, big business, a capitalistic free enterprise

individualistic system that we favour sparkles like a diamond in a

field of wet socialist clay.

We have proved through actions as government over the last three

years that this Social Credit government is against big government,

against big unions, and against big business. What we are for is the

right of the individual in all aspects of life. That will be enshrined

in a bill of rights guaranteeing fundamental freedoms to all our

citizens. That is a bill I'm sure everyone in this House will support.

Throughout the Speech from the Throne there are many suggestions

that will affect the family, that will put in tune many of the existing

bills and existing legislation with the Family Relations Act that we

passed last session. We're also going to repeal obsolete statutes by

putting legislation forward that will be an Obsolete Statutes Act.

In 1975 we inherited as government an insurance company, ICBC, a

classic case of mismanagement, a case study in government interference,

ineptness and gross stupidity. In less than 18 months of operation, it

lost over $150 million and in a very conservative estimate — if they

had remained in government — the NDP government would have lost another

$150 million in the second year of operation. Your Social Credit

government has turned the corporation around — we no longer have a loss

but a very slight profit from a well-run company serving all B.C.

citizens.

Now the final basic flaw has been cleared away in the Speech from

the Throne. I think it bears repeating, so I will read the upper half

of page 3, paragraph 4, into Hansard:

"To ensure that the auto insurance industry in this

province cannot discriminate with respect to rates on the basis of age,

sex, marital status or geographic location, this Legislature will be

asked to consider rights for the motoring public of British Columbia.

My government believes that youth should carry no penalty, and that all

drivers in British Columbia should have their individual rights

protected by applying the principle that good drivers should not be

penalized because of age, sex, marital status or geographic location."

From now on, drivers will pay premiums based on their driving skill,

not their age, arbitrary geographical location, sex or marital status.

The ones who will be affected the most greatly by this change will be

those teenagers and young people who are responsible drivers and who do

not have accidents. They'll be paying the same rates as you and me.

I'm pleased to see our government showing confidence in the youth of

our province. They're the next leaders and I think with the new

philosophy at ICBC we've given them some respect. At a time in their

life when money is a very difficult problem, they'll be able to afford

insurance. I hope they will show the responsibility we believe they

have.

In keeping with our commitment to the individual's basic rights, an

ombudsman will be appointed this year. It has taken a long time to

select a candidate, but I am sure we will have his name before us in

the very near future.

This year, as you well know, is the Year of

[ Page 136 ]

the Child. I continue to quote from page 3 of the throne speech:

"'The Year of the Child and the Family' in British

Columbia. My government will announce new programs for children and families

to be introduced by my social service ministries of Health; Education, Science

and Technology; Human Resources; and Attorney-General. My Minister of Human

Resources will greatly expand services to handicapped children. The family services

aspect of that ministry will also be strengthened."

I think this is one of the most important things we can do in our

society. We're very successful, we have great amounts of money, and yet

some people still seem to be disfranchised, not always having the same

opportunities that most of us have enjoyed.

We have improved educational opportunities and better job training.

We're going to double the number of scholarships in grade 12, so that

those academic students can move on to post-secondary education.

We have new programs for gifted children; new programs for those

children with learning disabilities; and a method to recognize their

problems early enough for them to move on into adult life, trained and

able to contribute to our society.

Sports scholarships. These, in my mind, should be tied not only to a

man or woman's capability in athletic endeavours, but to their

capabilities in the academic sense.

One of the things that our Minister of Education accomplished during

his three years in that office was to change the direction of

post-secondary education. We now have regional colleges, industrial

arts schools and technical colleges. No longer are we moving children

from the secondary school level through to a university training,

preparing them for jobs that don't exist. We're finally training people

in disciplines that provide jobs.

During the Speech from the Throne, I was pleased to see a government

commitment to a multiculturalism policy. As we well know, this province

and this country are made up of every ethnic group. The fabric of

Canada — the strength of Canada — is made up of these people and yet,

for the last seven or eight years, we have had a biculturalism policy

foisted on us by a federal government. It is about time that people in

Canada started to realize that this is a multicultural society, not a

bicultural society. I would hope that if there is a change in our

federal government, the new government will see multiculturism as one

of the strengths of our country and no longer try to foist a philosophy

on people who really don't believe in it.

In my mind one of the shining aspects of the Speech from the Throne

is the commitment of our government to place denticare in the hands of

every person in British Columbia. I support that concept. I believe

that dental care should be available to everyone. There I s no question

of its worth, and I'm sure each member will support whatever

legislation is put forward by our government.

However, I do have some concerns. I'm afraid of the cost, because I

believe that the cost could be astronomical, especially if dental care

is to be free to everyone. It's my firm belief that nothing is for

free; somewhere, some way, people have to pay for it. I believe that

there must be a cost attached to every benefit that people get, because

as soon as cost is taken out of the benefit, people lose sight of its

real worth. I think this can be explained and illustrated with our

present medicare system. Doctors and hospitals are now virtually free

to us. I venture to say there are very few people in this province that

know what a doctor charges when they visit his office. I would say

there are very few people in this province who know what is paid to the

hospital for one day while you're there. Once something is for free it

ceases to have any value. Doctors now in our medical system spend much

of their time treating ailments that a few years ago would have been

treated in the home. Now 30 or 40 percent of the time is wasted on

ailments that should be looked after by the individual himself. We must

not let that happen to dental care. I suggest that we have a program of

dental care similar to our Pharmacare plan, deductible on a family

basis.

A second concern: if we go into a provincewide dental care plan is

it going to be a government-administered plan, and funded by the

government? I hope not. There are many private firms in the market

right now. They're selling and carrying dental coverage. They should be

allowed to stay, and they should be allowed to expand. I would hope

that we will get a commitment from the minister early on in the debate,

after the budget speech, that private insurance companies will be

allowed to stay in the dental care field. I'm sure that dental care

will come to us at a lower price. Certainly any time a government takes

over that type of insurance policy, the costs skyrocket.

One of the items that I did miss in the throne speech, and one that

I had hoped would be reinforced — although I know that it's something

that's not going to happen overnight — is a continuing government

commitment for negative income tax or guaranteed annual wage.

[ Page 137 ]

I happen to be a supporter of this concept. I

believe most people in the House are. Yet it seems that without federal

support or provincial support elsewhere, it's a pie-in-the-sky dream

that we won't see. I believe the only way it will happen is if

governments — our government, other provincial governments and the

federal government — begin studies to see if it can't be used in this

country. Negative income tax to me, guaranteed annual wage, is one of

the most important things that we can do for people as we move into the

twentieth century.

On the economic level in the Speech from the Throne it was

interesting to me to note that we had created, since we became

government, 98,000 new jobs. We're going to be giving low--interest

loans for small business under the new Ministry of Tourism and Small

Business Development. Finally, we're going to consolidate all economic

programs under one umbrella — again, the Ministry of Small Business

Development. As a businessman myself in private life, one of the most

difficult things that I could ever imagine was to try to determine what

programs may or may not be available to me, to help build my business.

Most often, I gave up. I think that I'm indicative of other businessmen

in the community. By the time you find out there is a program

available, it's too late to use it; the business has passed you by.

Under the Ministry of Small Business Development I'm sure the minister

will have that cleared up as quickly as possible. I happen to think

it's a priority.

I was pleased to see that the government has a continuing commitment

for a trade and convention centre in Vancouver. I note with pleasure

that BCDC gave $4 million in loans last year and created 1,200 jobs. An

example: the Duke Point project in Nanaimo will create another 1,100

jobs.

The Economic Development ministry in trade missions in 1978 created

$45 million in sales and 1,500 resulting jobs. It goes on and on.

I quote from page 7 of the throne speech:

"My Ministry of Environment will also open up new opportunities

for business initiatives designed to improve the recovery of materials from

waste."

As a few of you will remember, I have spoken on a

number of occasions on the need for an industrial liquid waste disposal

system in the lower mainland. All of us are aware of the great tragedy

we experienced in Delta, where liquid wastes were allowed to sit in a

yard and eventually leach out into the surrounding area. To me, Delta,

and that particular situation in Delta, is merely the tip of an

iceberg, an iceberg that is going to turn over on us and really cause a

great deal of difficulty. All we need is some government help. I'm

pleased to see it outlined in the Speech from the Throne. If we could

have that type of support, industries would move into this market. They

would have their consciences clear, because most people who are dealing

with industrial liquid wastes are disposing of them in an incorrect

manner.

If we are to develop secondary industry in isolated areas like

British Columbia, the government must also support us in other ways. I

think it is interesting to note some of the statistics that were given

in this speech, that, from 1961 to 1971, 51 percent of the jobs created

in the private sector came from small business and, from 1971 to 1978,

67 percent of the jobs created have come from the small business

sector, the private sector.

If we're going to develop that type of industry, we have to give it

support. One of the major problems facing small businessmen in British

Columbia is that we have the skills, we have the raw materials, we have

the people, but we are in an isolated market. We have to ship products

long distances. To me, the government has to start looking at our

transportation costs, fuel costs in getting the product to market,

truck loading rates for moving the product into other parts of Canada,

and tax incentives on out-of-province shipments. As I said earlier, we

have the skills and expertise, but an isolated market has economic

factors that must be dealt with. I would hope that the Ministry of

Economic Development and the Ministry of Small Business Development

will address themselves to them.

B.C.'s economy is healthy. The government's role is to remove red

tape, give expertise and advice to small entrepreneurs and economic

support to struggling business. All these have been recognized in the

throne speech and I am proud to support it.

Finally, I cannot sit down before making some comment on the remarks

of the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) as he addressed the House

yesterday afternoon. I have been a Tory supporter, a supporter of the

Progressive Conservative Party all my adult life. I happen to be a

Socred provincially, a Progressive Conservative federally.

Yesterday the provincial leader of that great party gave an address

to this House that, to me, drove the last nail into the coffin that was

once the provincial Progressive Conservative Party. His evaluation of

BCRIC shares would boggle the mind of even the most astute economist.

We have heard stockbrokers interviewed time after time on television

and they say, to a man, that the net worth of one

[ Page 138 ]

of these shares is approximately $12. The B.C.

Resources Investment Corporation is going to sell them to the people of

British Columbia for $6. The Progressive Conservative leader tells us

that's a bad deal. Because we're selling them for $6, that's all

they're worth. To me that is just gross stupidity.

To be as simplistic as I possibly can and not insult the

intelligence of most members of this House...but, for the benefit of

the member for Oak Bay, I will be simplistic. I have a seven-year-old

child. Suppose I had 12 pennies in my band and said to her: "Will you

get me six? I'll trade you." What would her reaction be? Well, I can

tell you, she wouldn't say a word. She would go to her piggybank and

get the six pennies and I would give her the 12 and I would have a deal

and she would have one. For some reason, if you move the decimal points

over a few figures, the member for Oak Bay can't figure out the

arithmetic. We have a fantastic proposition for the people of British

Columbia. It's revolutionary. For the life of me, I can't understand

why the member for Oak Bay can't understand two-digit arithmetic. Work

it out. It's $12 in assets for $6 in cash — a good deal.

Later in his address yesterday he said:

"You're on your way out. Mr. Speaker, they're going. They're going. They're going down.

"This government was put together for one reason and one reason only. That was to defeat this ragtag bunch on my right.

"They ran around saying: 'You'd better vote for us because if you don't, you're going to get those other terrible people.'

"You're going to be saying the same thing for your

tactic. You're going to be screaming and hollering: Don't vote for the

Conservatives. It splits the vote. In 1972, if you think the vote was

split, if that scared you, then you'd better tremble and crawl under

your bed. This time we're going to tear it apart."

You're right, Mr. Member for Oak Bay, that does frighten me. To me,

there would be nothing more disastrous than a fragmentation of the

right-of-centre vote in this province. You wish to tear us apart. I

hope you take that address, that message to every person in this

province so that they can recognize you for what you are. You wish to

feed your ego, and there's nothing more disastrous than a leader with

an ego far greater than his intellect and his ability to reason. If you

do succeed, your ego will be satisfied and we will have, in your words,

"this ragtag bunch of socialists" as our government.

Interjection.

MR. STRONGMAN: I hope you do take that message to the people.

I hope you take it out every day of the year. I know it will make you a

defeated candidate in the next election. You will destroy the free

enterprise system just to feed your ego. A vote for you, in my mind, is

a vote for them — this rag-tag bunch of socialists. Even the federal

Progressive Conservative Party have turned their backs on you. Sinclair

Stevens, the national leader, ignores you. The federal PC MPs have

disowned you. Provincial PC MPs write their constituents, disowning

you. To me, you are an embarrassment, and a laughing stock to most of

the Tories in this province. An enigma.

Take that message to the people: "I will be a super-hero. I'll

destroy them. Vote for me. You will get the rag-tag bunch of socialists

for government. I will have succeeded in destroying free enterprise.

Vote for me."

"Who's 'me'?"

"Vic, that's who."

"Vic who?"

MR. HADDAD: I will take this opportunity to welcome back all

the hon. members to this fourth session of the thirty-first parliament,

and again urge them to be on their best behaviour and uphold the

dignity of this House. So far that dignity has prevailed. Everybody has

been on their best behaviour. I think we will get along well.

I was very impressed with our new Lieutenant-Governor, the Hon.

Henry P. Bell-Irving, and his very capable delivery of the throne

speech. I wish him many years as the Lieutenant-Governor of British

Columbia. Good health to him and Mrs. Bell-Irving.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I am again very proud and honoured to be a member of this

Legislative Assembly, and to be representing the people of the

constituency of Kootenay. It is with pride that I stand here and

support the complete program outlined in the throne speech by His

Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

The first, second and third sessions of this thirty-first parliament

have been highly productive for the people of British Columbia. This,

our fourth session, promises to be the icing on the cake in benefits

and progress to a better life for the people of British Columbia.

I would like to speak about the British Columbia Resources

Investment Corporation that our Premier, Bill Bennett, and his

government

[ Page 139 ]

have established — a corporation that will be the

pride of every citizen for all time to come. Our children will grow up

owning a piece of this great province and its development. However, I

was watching on television the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barrett) answering questions posed to him by the news media regarding

BCRIC. The hon. second member for Vancouver East stated that it was

illegal for a member of the Legislative Assembly to take a gratuity

from the government. In reading the prospectus I find that no one can

buy BCRIC shares unless they qualify for the free ones. If this

statement is correct it should be rectified.

I must add that this is quite true. I have listened to many of the

speakers accusing the second member for Vancouver East of not being

correct in most things. I have to admit right now that he is correct in

this. It has to be rectified because I, for one, plan on putting my

entire life savings into BCRIC.

I understand that if Joe Clark is elected as the next Prime Minister

of Canada he intends to give everyone a piece of the rock. He has

stated that Premier Bennett's gift of shares to the people of British

Columbia is highly innovative and he is to be congratulated on this

progressive move. That's what Joe Clark said.

Individual ownership of the resources of our province will help make

every man, woman and child proud to know that they hold in their hands

their own little piece of our great province. Premier Bennett has made

history and will be long remembered by the people who take the time to

understand his motives for giving the five shares in BGRIC to every

eligible resident of British Columbia.

A British Columbia bill of rights will be gratefully acceptable to

our people and to our lawyers and judges and by the total judiciary

system. If my memory serves me right, the Rt. Hon. John Diefenbaker

gave to the people of Canada the Canadian Bill of Rights when he was

Prime Minister. It is very fitting, then, that British Columbians

should have their own bill of rights set down for them. This is another

first by this democratic, free-enterprise Social Credit government.

Further, our Attorney-General is adding to our rights with the

introduction of a fair compensation statute that will ensure proper

compensation to all people and businesses that are undergoing

expropriation by public or private enterprises and agencies.

Climaxing this excellent legislation will be the introduction of the

repeal of obsolete statutes, which will help provide more protection

for individual rights. I say keep up the good work, Mr.

Attorney-General; the people of our province will long remember these

much needed improvements.

Rights for the motoring public of British Columbia are long overdue.

I am sure that the application of the principle that good drivers

should not be penalized because of age, sex, marital status or

geographic location by the auto insurance industry in this province

will help provide those rights. I hope I understand correctly that this

legislation will apply to all insurance companies doing business in

British Columbia. I sincerely hope that it isn't strictly for ICBC.

I would like to recommend that this government give consideration to

changing the Act or regulations regarding driver infractions. I would

recommend that infractions not be held against the automobile and

vehicle licence, but rather that any penalties be charged against the

driver. I would add further that I have had several complaints

regarding this, and no doubt every hon. member in this house has, where

you loan your car to someone who goes out and has an accident, and the

charges then are all against your licence and your car, and you lose

your right to the reduction in insurance, and the driver has got off

scot-free.

It is gratifying to know that our Minister of Human Resources will

greatly expand services to handicapped children and family services. I

ask our Minister of Human Resources not to overlook our handicapped

adults.

British Columbians are proud of the healthcare programs that have

been put in operation by our Ministry of Health. The long-term care

program and the universal Pharmacare program, introduced and

implemented last year, have put our Ministry of Health ahead of all

other provinces in Canada. Now we have legislation coming before us, a

new comprehensive denticare program, to assist the people in our

province who do not have any dental-care insurance. This will give them

a measure of protection from the high costs associated with basic

dental care. I say nice going, Mr. Minister of Health.

While speaking about this Minister of Health, I would like to

compliment him on the wonderful work he did in my constituency — and, I

am sure, throughout the province of British Columbia — in addressing

and speaking to the high-school children and to the school children in

all classes, asking them not to smoke cigarettes or pot, and giving

them a good, sound bit of advice. It was really appreciated by my

constituents, and I'm sure they will welcome him back at any time.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that our Minis-

[ Page 140 ]

ter of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot)

will be placing before us a simplified application process for the

release of Crown land. I would like to suggest to the minister that

when issuing the new application form he give all departmental

personnel a short course in how to translate the application form into

quick action. He will also place before us a home purchase assistance

grant for first-time home buyers. The release of Crown land is urgently

needed in my constituency, and I earnestly look forward to the

minister's new legislation covering this.

I wish at this time to ask the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing

to give his attention to a much-needed camper and trailer park at Tie

Lake, near Jaffray, in my constituency. This park is at the south end

of Tie Lake, and all that is required are outdoor toilets, garbage

barrels and supervision from your park attendants. The road and parking

stalls are already built and have been in existence for many years. The

people in need of this park area are willing to pay a daily rate. Local

people from Fernie and Cranbrook, and also tourists, have been denied

the use of this campground, due to the lack of services that I have

mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the youth job program. The

youth job program last year was heavily over-committed. I have noted

that the Ministries of Tourism and Small Business Development, Forests,

Agriculture and Labour are going to jointly fund this program, a

much-needed expansion. Increased funding is required, and I sincerely

hope this is intended for this year. Our students are in need of this

work to assist them with their educational. expenses.

Mr. Speaker, our Minister of Education, Science and Technology (Hon.

Mr. McGeer) is to be commended for improving educational opportunities

for our students, for the improved job-training programs and the

increased value of grade 12 scholarships. At this time I would like to

extend the appreciation of my constituents, and myself, for the

cooperation the minister gave us in the construction of new schools and

the renovations and updating of some of our older schools. We are also

looking forward to the day that a contract is let for the building of

the new East Kootenay College in Cranbrook.

Mr. Speaker, Premier Bennett is to be congratulated for the establishment

of the Ministry of Deregulation. I am sure that all ministers will be delighted

to assist in removing conflicting and overlapping legislation from their ministries.

When this job is complete it should make obsolete the game of ring-around-the-rosy,

or a ride on the merry-go-round.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transportation, Communications and

Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has the appreciation of the people in the

constituency of Kootenay, and myself, for our improved highways, new

bridges and the soon-to-be-built new road to our airport. I read in the

throne speech where the minister will be improving the ferry service,

which, I am sure, will make everyone on Vancouver Island very happy.

The increased jobs being generated throughout our province by this

aggressive minister will soon reduce unemployment. It is gratifying to

note that 98,000 new jobs have been created in the workforce since

1975. At that time it was stated that we have approximately 100,000

people out of work. It is obvious that if we have 112,000 people out of

work today, then we have had an increase in population, and I can only

assume that the majority of these people came from other provinces in

Canada to enjoy the good life in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) has done an outstanding job in encouraging development in the

private sector and is to be commended on his success in negotiating

over $300 million in federal-provincial agreements for economic

development. The minister was successful in negotiating another $50

million for the travel industry development agreement, a first of its

type in Canada. This will surely generate private sector investment.

This Ministry of Economic Development will pursue further federal

funding which will generate more and more jobs in British Columbia. I

can't understand the hon. members of the opposition making statement

after statement that this government has done nothing in the way of job

creation. Mr. Speaker, trade missions mounted by the Ministry of

Economic Development during 1978 have resulted in firm additional

export sales of $45 million, or the equivalent of 1,500 new jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Environment has offered new

opportunities for business with initiatives designed to improve the

recovery of materials from waste. In my constituency of Kootenay we

have a small group of businessmen who are starting a wood-preserving

business that will utilize most of the waste in our wood and sawmill

operations. I had some of the principals of this new enterprise come to

Victoria to discuss their plans with the Ministers of Forests and

Economic Development. This new venture will employ 25 to 30 people;

these are new jobs. I stress this particular point because it is a fact

that over 70 percent of all new jobs created are created by small

[ Page 141 ]

businesses employing less than 25 people.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on telling you about the accomplishments of

other ministers and their ministries and the excellent contributions

they are making for British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go ahead.

MR. HADDAD: I haven't got time.

I would like to close my reply to the throne speech by saying to

Premier Bennett: Mr. Premier, you and your government are doing an

excellent job and you are to be commended for getting British Columbia

moving again and on the way to being the number one leading province in

all of Canada.

MR NICOLSON: It's a pleasure to follow the member for Kootenay.

It seems to be Kootenay Day here today in the Legislature. I enjoyed the way

in which the member delivered his speech. I don't know if I agreed with

everything that was said, although I certainly did agree with some of the points

that he made, particularly about the insuring of cars as opposed to the insuring

of individuals. I hope that there are some changes along that line.

Mr. Speaker, I think one of the things that distresses me as we

start this fourth session of the Legislative Assembly is that the

government's performance with this very strong mandate has been perhaps

not unplanned, but the basis for the planning. has been one of

political motivation toward a political goal rather than toward a goal

which would simply mean good government and fulfilling the wishes and

the ambitions of the very capable and the very deserving people of the

province of British Columbia.

I say this because the pattern of this government has been to

cancel, disrupt, delay almost everything that was in progress. And I'll

mention one or two things. It was the Minister of Deregulation (Hon.

Mr. Bawlf) who tried to paint a picture that the North Island Highway

was built under this government. It's rather interesting. That was

first promised, I understand, in this Legislature to the people of

North Island back in 1956 by the then Minister of Highways, P.A.

Gaglardi, if only they would elect Dan Campbell.

They elected Dan Campbell, and what happened? P.A. Gaglardi

amplified his remarks after the election. He said: "Well, it's a

ten-year program." In all fairne