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)

TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 1979

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 61 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Logging on Queen Charlotte Islands. Mr. King — 61

BCRIC shares. Mr. Stephens — 61

Funding of drug and alcohol abuse programs. Mr. Cocke — 62

BCRIC shares. Mr. Barber — 63

Throne speech debate.

On the amendment.

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 64

Mr. Macdonald — 67

Mr. Smith — 72

Division — 74

Throne speech debate.

Mr. Stephens — 74

Statement

Queen Charlotte Islands logging dispute. Hon. Mr. Waterland — 83

Mr. King — 83

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate.

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 84

Mr. Lauk — 89

Presenting reports

Assessment Appeal Board annual report as at December 31,1978.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 93

B.C. Steamships Co.

(1975) Ltd. financial statements report as at December 31,1978.

Hon. MR. Veitch — 93

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KING: We have in the members' gallery today a visiting

family who are very old friends of mine: Bud and Claire Robinson and

their three children — Joan, Bonnie and Cliff. I would ask the House to

extend a warm welcome to them.

MR. COCKE: Also in the gallery today, we have from the Royal

City 30 Douglas College students and their instructor, Ms. Lorna

Kirkham. I would like everyone to acknowledge them.

Also, from that marvellous Okanagan Valley, we are visited today by

Mr. and Mrs. Jim Rheaume, who is very active in that community.

MR. HADDAD: I am honoured today to have three visiting

gentlemen from the Interior. I have in the Speaker's gallery Mayor Rick

Grieve of the village of Elkford, the coal capital of British Columbia.

Accompanying him is Mr. Ray Miles, his clerk administrator, and Mr.

Paul Crawford, planner for the East Kootenay Regional District. Would

the House please make them all welcome.

MR. STEPHENS: I had lunch today with Mr. Dan Wilson, a

childhood friend I knew before I went to school. We grew up together in

Calgary. Throughout our lives we caused much trouble wherever we went.

I was pleased to learn over lunchtime that we're still both doing the

same thing. I'd like the House to welcome him.

MR. SPEAKER: It reminds me of the days when I listened to confessions.

Oral questions.

LOGGING ON QUEEN

CHARLOTTE ISLANDS

MR. KING: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. Can

the minister give the House a report on any progress respecting QC

Timber logging on the Queen Charlottes flowing from meetings between

his ministry and the federal Minister of Fisheries today in Vancouver?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Meetings are continuing at this hour. I have nothing

to report at this time. I understand the meetings are going very well. If the

member wishes, I will report later this afternoon when I have something more

definite to say.

MR. KING: I appreciate the minister's cooperation in that

respect. I do hope that he will report to the House at the earliest

opportunity. I do hope also that he knows what is being discussed at

that meeting.

My supplementary question: has the minister agreed to bury the

cutting permit to comply with federal fishery closure orders on the

particular area involved?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I haven't agreed to anything. The

negotiations are continuing. I'll be very happy to report to the House

when I have something definite to say.

MR. KING: Can the minister explain why his officials failed

to answer calls from Hon. Romeo LeBlanc for six days regarding

discussions on this dispute?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: My officials and myself have been very

anxious to communicate with the federal government, and have not

refused to take any calls from anyone.

BCRIC SHARES

MR. STEPHENS: My question is for the Minister of Finance. On March 9 they made a statement to the press. I'm quoting from the Express:

"Finance Minister Evan Wolfe said Thursday nobody knows

how much it will cost to distribute free shares in B.C. Resources Investment

Corporation, but he scoffed at the estimates made by the plan's critics."

The figures I'm now reading about in the newspapers sort of make me

laugh, because nobody has a close handle on the exact cost. Now

approximately three weeks later, Id like to ask the minister whether he

has a handle on the cost of distributing these shares.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the member is alluding to a

newspaper

article allegedly referring to statements which I made. I

think I explained yesterday, for the benefit of the members, that there

will be a full explanation of the estimates of this proposal in due

course, in the budget speech.

MR. STEPHENS: Surely the Minister of Finance, who is

responsible for this cost, could at least tell us whether he has a

handle on it, and give us some kind of an estimate of where he is

going. Surely the public is entitled to know that. You don't have to sit

[ Page 62 ]

around and wait; just confirm you know what you are doing.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I guess the member doesn't hear

too well. I wouldn't want to pre-empt the material in that speech. For

the benefit of other members, there will be full details on the matter

at that time.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, they are as contemptuous of the

question as they are of the House. I notice the cabinet benches are

empty again today.

FUNDING OF DRUG AND

ALCOHOL ABUSE PROGRAMS

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of

Health. In view of the fact that one of his colleagues spent an

estimated million dollars on an ad program for moderation in alcohol,

can the minister explain why local alcohol abuse programs are getting

short shrift on their requests for funding when these programs are the

logical backup for that magnificent ad program that's being done by

another minister?

The Minister of Health probably needed to be woken up, but now that he is, Mr. Speaker, I have a question.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Ask the question.

MR. COCKE: Can the minister explain why the local drug and alcohol abuse programs are getting short shrift from you and your office?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, if the member for New

Westminster has a question, I don't know where it is. If perhaps he

could sit down and explain what he means sometime, and send it over to

me, I'll be happy to answer his question. If he would like to ask about

a specific program, I'd be happy to try and answer his question, but

there's no question there.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, it's a general problem and I've heard

about a number of them. I'll ask you a specific question about the

Richmond alcohol and drug abuse team. They cannot continue a children's

program in an area where 54 per cent of the population is under the age

of 17 and where alcohol abuse is widespread. This program is very, very

important to that area and, Mr. Speaker, talk about a short shrift,

this is precisely what they are getting. Will the minister take this

program and others seriously? It seems to me that he is spending an

infinite amount of money on a wasteful heroin program and ignoring a

very serious drug problem in the schools.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the

question is yet. Nevertheless I would like to respond to the member for

New Westminster that in the past three years the Alcohol and Drug

Commission in British Columbia has steadily increased its services to

all parts of this province to the point where we now have, for the

first time in the history of British Columbia, a major treatment centre

in every region of British Columbia. A new one will open within the

next month or six weeks at Round Lake near Vernon, the first in the

history of this province dealing specifically with native Indians.

In addition to that there have been community counsellors, Outreach

workers and detoxification centres opened on a steady basis for the

past three years; and we brought all of those funded agencies into a

system of care which is now both consistent and cost accountable to the

province.

The member for New Westminster referred, I think, to one specific

funded agency, although I don't recall him mentioning the name. I

assume he's talking about the one in Richmond which is known as Radet.

At a time when government funds are under demand from all kinds of

areas at an unprecedented level and at a time when governments are

attempting to restrain their spending in every way possible, the

funding from the British Columbia Alcohol and Drug Commission for the

agency in question is being increased well above the levels to which

other agencies have access. As a matter of fact, that agency will have

an increase in its budget from about $70,000 to over $82,000 for the

coming fiscal year. That's an increase of almost 20 percent at a time

when most government-funded agencies are being asked to keep within the

general government spending restraints of about 5 percent.

Incidentally, that agency's first funding ever from government came

after this government took office and was able to rearrange its

priorities.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I regret that when questions take

on a general nature, the answers to those questions are sometimes

lengthy. Perhaps we could be more precise in our questions.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have had a good deal of experience

with this minister and his ability to become precise. As a matter of

fact, he is so imprecise that he talked about the first ever native

Indian situation. What

[ Page 63 ]

about the Sugar Cane reserve at Burns lake? That

was set up under our government long before he was even dreamed of as

minister of anything.

What the minister is talking about is a program that has been

community funded largely because he has ignored this particular program

— and he talks about an increase. Actually it's a great reduction,

because the moneys have come from other sources. But they have millions

in this government, and I want to know if the minister is going to take

the children's problem seriously. Otherwise it is going down the tube

and the minister knows it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I understand now why the

previous government was in so much trouble with its financing. It's

because they have people like that last speaker doing the addition for

them.

But, Mr. Speaker, Round Lake in Vernon will be the first residential

treatment centre for native Indians in this province. That's an

achievement of which I am very proud.

Secondly, the organization in question in Richmond to get back to

the specifics of his question was not funded by the previous

government. It begged at the door for funding until this government

took office and we made that funding available.

Mr. Speaker, I don't care how that eminent economist from New

Westminster adds up his figures, but an increase of government funding

from $70,000 to $82,000 works out to 20 percent, no matter how you

slice it.

MR. COCKE: I just would like to correct the minister when he

says 70. He doesn't even know his own budget. It was 73-something. He's

making up his figures as he goes along.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: How much will it be next year?

MR. COCKE: It's going to 83 and it's totally inadequate.

He hasn't answered the question. What is he going to do with those 54,000 children in Richmond?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask that

member from New Westminster: "when are you going to stop beating your

wife?" That's the same kind of question.

BCRIC SHARES

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

of Finance, who tells us he doesn't know how much it's going to cost

the taxpayer to give away the five free shares. We know on this side of

the House it's going to cost millions — millions more if you get away

with it.

I am informed that your administration, through the British Columbia

Systems Corporation, has very recently approved the hiring of some 50

students under a summer works program. I am informed that the Systems

Corporation is assigning these students to flog shares in the B.C.

Resources Investment Corporation.

HON. MR. WOLFE: What's that word?

MR. BARBER: Flog. Push. Promote. Tout.

I wouldn't think they would be selling then because they're not

licensed to do so. If they are selling them we should know about that

too. However, I presume that they are observing the law and not

directly selling the shares themselves, as they do not appear to be

licensed to do so.

My first question is: can the minister confirm the accuracy of this

report that some 50 students are being hired under a summer works

program? If he can, could he tell us precisely how many students have

been hired to do this job for the purposes of the Resources Investment

Corporation, for what duration they are being hired, and at what total

expense to the taxpayer they will be hired?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I should remind the member that

the designated minister for the Resources Investment Corporation is the

Premier of this province; but I'm quite prepared to respond to the

question on his behalf.

You have asked whether there were some 50 students for this project.

I'll take the question, in terms of the detail of it, on notice. I can

only say that in a distribution project of this size, where there are

some 2 1/2 million people involved, I think you would appreciate, as

everyone else in this House would, the size of this undertaking and the

need to have necessary staff there to accommodate the people of this

province, to facilitate their eligibility and their access to these

shares. So I think we should all agree there is a need for a sizeable

structure to take care of this. The members across are bandying around

figures. They're obviously inflating their idea of what this project

may account for, trying to mislead the people of this province. As I've

indicated previously, in the interests of providing access to these

shares for all of the people of this province, there is a need to have

a well-organized structure to make these shares available.

[ Page 64 ]

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. MR. MCGEER: Last evening, when we were so rudely

interrupted by the clock just as I was getting warmed up a little bit

on accuracy of statements, and the seriousness with which this

Legislature and the people of British Columbia might be prepared to

take a non-confidence motion from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barrett), it was only with the view in mind that elaboration should

take place with respect to the appropriateness of such a motion and the

accuracy of the facts and opinions brought forward by the Leader of the

Opposition.

He would have led you to believe that the province of British

Columbia and its economy were suffering woefully under this government.

The facts, and I'm going to present them, are that the most fortunate

thing that ever happened to British Columbia in its history was the

removal of that opposition from office in 1975. Since then British

Columbia has became the bright spot economically in Canada. Here we

have that opposition not only putting non-confidence forward in this

government, when it has out-performed every other government in Canada,

but is asking once more to have leadership in this province to repeat

the ruination they brought to British Columbia from 1972 to 1975.

I want to read some economic facts. The opposition should become

aware of them. The gross domestic product, real product, in this past

year for Canada was 3.4 percent, for British Columbia, 4.4 percent;

increase in public investment in Canada was 7.7 percent, in British

Columbia, 11.1 percent; retail trade, Canada 11.7 percent, British

Columbia, 13.4 percent; manufacturing shipments; Canada 18.8 percent,

British Columbia 21.5 percent; employed labour force — the NDP said how

badly Social Credit was doing — Canada 3.4 percent, British Columbia

4.4 percent.

There is one item where British Columbia did lag behind the rest of

Canada. I'll read it to you: "consumer price index: Canada 8.9 percent,

Vancouver only 7.7 percent." That's where we weren't leaders in Canada

in the increase in prices. In every one of these major economic

indexes, British Columbia is outperforming the nation, it's holding

inflation better than the rest of Canada, and yet the Leader of the

Opposition and his government — that performed so dismally during their

three years of office — is placing non-confidence before the people of

British Columbia. What nonsense!

Now I want to continue with this little economic lesson for my

friends opposite, because it describes — and I put this on a large

enough sheet of cardboard so that everybody can see — how the NDP

performed during their years in office. Look at it, Mr. Speaker. These

are statistics from the Ministry of Economic Development, the gross

provincial product changes in real dollars since 1971. These are the

percentages you see during 1972 — the last year we had a free

enterprise government before the holocaust in British Columbia — which

show an increase of 10.4 percent. Then, mind you, during the first year

of the NDP government, the percentage went up 11.9 percent as the

upward momentum continued.

Now, Mr. Speaker, look that happened the next year. It went down to

4.3 percent. Then, the year the NDP ware defeated, when the Liberals

got together with the Conservatives and the Social Credit to produce

unity in this province for the purpose of getting rid of a government

that was an economic disaster, the real provincial product went down

1.3 percent in that year. Look at the trend. That's this magnificent

economic machine of British Columbia heading into the ditch.

Well, what's happened since then, Mr. Speaker? The following year,

they complained about all the harsh and terrible things that were done,

and how the Premier and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) shook

down the people of British Columbia to try and pull this economic

vehicle out of the ditch, there was a real increase of 5.1 percent. The

next year, still struggling in British Columbia, it was 4.1 percent,

but it's now on the rise. It was 4.4 percent last year, and I tell you

things are just beginning to take off. The machine is now out of the

ditch, the dents have been knocked out of it, the mud has been shaken

off and we've got that fine economic engine in British Columbia ready

to move ahead again. The only thing we don't need is to have the NDP

get control of the wheel again and drive it into the ditch.

I want to remind you of what the NDP did in its years of office. The Leader

of the Opposition mentioned the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, a

company that I had the dubious good fortune to take over the day it ran out

of money after having lost in less than two years $187 million — a record

for public and private corporations in the province. We're not subsidizing

automobiles in British Columbia any longer. We do have the lowest insurance

rates, non-subsidized, in all of Canada. The waste and the mess have been cleared

off and still the NDP isn't satisfied.

[ Page 65 ]

We had similar problems with B.C. Hydro when the NDP were in charge.

For the first time ever that corporation lost money. We had trouble

with the ferries. We had trouble with the railway. We had trouble with

every single organization that ums catered to by the NDP form of

management.

We had three big industries in British Columbia: mining, forestry

and tourism. I want to tell you what happened to those three industries

under the NDP. What they managed to do was something that the

alchemists of old couldn't possible have achieved.

They turned ore into rock. They managed to create despair in the

mining industry at a time of record world mineral prices. They

demolished the mining exploration industry in British Columbia. It

dispersed and moved throughout the world.

Now I want to talk about forestry. That's an industry that was in

trouble too. Fortunately, under Social Credit, it's regained its health

and its optimism. Capital investment in the forest industry since the

new government took over — and it's mentioned in the throne speech —

$720 million spent in 1976, $850 million in '77, $934 million in 1978.

There'll be more and more and more as long as this government is in

power.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

The philosophy of the government deserves mentioning at that time

because it underlies the performance of the economy. The hard

statistics which we can present to you today are not just hopes and

theories that we put forward when we took office. It's three years

later and we now have the facts, the figures and the statistics to back

up that performance and to show that the thinking wasn't wrong on this

side of the House despite what the NDP said during those years. The

thinking wasn't wrong. It was correct, and the figures are here to

prove it.

It's well to recall that people from the treasury benches and the

rest of the Social Credit members stood up and said certain things

needed to be done to provide confidence and to provide progress. They

weren't talking through their hats. They were talking common sense. So

perhaps when we start to enunciate the philosophy that underlies these

government policies, people can recognize that the relationship between

this and the performance of British Columbia is not an abstract one,

but very real.

The Premier of the province want to the national government and to

the other premiers in Canada and said that if this country was to

regain its promise, if we were to became the wealthy and prosperous

country that seemed so certain and logical to us given our resources

and our fortunate circumstances in the world, then we had to have

better management of our economy at the government level. We couldn't

go spending willy-nilly, year after year, more and more and more,

taking ever more of the private sector and diverting it into the public

sector. If we did that sort of thing, British Columbia and Canada would

no longer be competitive. After all, we're working in Canada now with

an 83-cent or an 84-cent dollar. We do that at a time — when there

never has been greater demand for our resources, when the opportunities

for Canadians free from hostile external forces have never been better,

when we've got skilled and able people. No country on earth spends more

of its gross provincial and national product on universities and an

educational system than does Canada.

We do have the skilled people, we have the resources, and we have

the will. How is it then that we're so non-competitive that our dollar

drops to 84 cents? There is only one answer that makes any sense and

that's logical, and that is the management that comes particularly at

the government level. Recognizing this, the leader of this government

and the Premier of British Columbia went to the national government and

to the other governments of Canada and said: "We have got to restrain

spending in the public sector. That's the only way the private sector

can expand. That's the only way that we can become competitive on world

markets. It's the only way to the kind of economic progress that will

allow more generous social services."

There was lip service paid to the theories of the Premier of British

Columbia. Only one government in the nation has followed that advice,

and that has been the government of British Columbia. We have said

spending in the public sector must be restrained. There must not be the

27 1/2 per cent per year that characterized the NDP in office, when

they had this tremendous desire to spend other people's money in the

hope that they would get votes. It didn't succeed. It put the economy

in the ditch. What we've said is that we've got to restrain ambitions

in the public sector for the health of the economy, for the future of

our children and for our own prosperity in the future. Yet that's being

attacked by the opposition over there as being irresponsible.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, you've got their performance to look at

— it's right there on the chart — and you've got our performance to

look at, because it's right there in the hard

[ Page 66 ]

statistics from the nation and from the province.

MR. LAUK: Can you tell us where you got the figures?

HON. MR. McGEER: Certainly. I got them from Economic Development, but they are available to you.

I want to tell you one thing. I've got in my hand a publication

called "Straight Talk" about what's happening in British Columbia. Here

we go to economic growth: "Under Social Credit the growth rate dropped

to 3.5 percent." There it is under the NDP. Do you see that long bar?

The tremendous economic development under the NDP, and the little wee,

poor economic development under Social Credit. Who would believe that

kind of thing? It's utter rubbish.

I recall, when I was in opposition and some of these figures graced

the treasury benches, bringing forth a complaint under the Trade

Practices Act about false advertisement by the person who is the Leader

of the Opposition now and was then the Premier. It was a protest

because the same kind of garbled statistics were being presented to the

public of British Columbia. Incidentally, in those days it was paid for

by public advertising and commissioned by Manny Dunsky. Do you remember

Manny Dunsky? He could have designed this brochure. I want to tell you,

Mr. Speaker, it's filled with false advertising. I'm going to pass this

piece of advertising, as I did with their advertising before, to the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) for his

investigation.

One of the important routes to prosperity in British Columbia is

individual investment, individual commitment to progress in the

economy, and individual effort. This contrasts, I know, with the

philosophy and the approach of my friends opposite. You know, in

socialist countries in Europe they say: "Everything is ours, but

nothing is mine." We don't agree with that philosophy. We think we are

going to make better progress if people in this province own a piece of

the action and take pride in seeing it develop and improve.

I tell you, the members of the opposition are pretty confused about

all this. The former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) said that he

would paper his walls with the shares because, presumably, they would

be worthless. The fastest way to make those shares worthless, so

everybody could paper the wall with them, would be to return the NDP to

power. This is the party that puts failure on a pedestal, criticizes

success, hates progress. While the ones who held office before were

saying that they wanted to paper the wall with their shares, others in

the party who maybe are looking beyond the current representative in

the front benches of the NDP, perhaps to others who might just be able

to do a responsible job — heaven help us if they ever got to government

— were taking a different view. What they were suggesting was that the

NDP members should turn their shares over to the party, and they used

that to fight the election campaign. I guess they needed a little help

from the capitalists to finance their election campaign because the

labour unions weren't doing it well enough.

MR. BARRETT: Attaboy, Pat! Sock it to us.

HON. MR. McGEER: I don't think it's going to be Social Credit

that socks it to the Leader of the Opposition; it'll be the people of British

Columbia. They socked it to him once, and they'll sock it to him again.

The reason is because of the kind of nonsense-talk that we get in the Legislature,

the kinds of irresponsible motions of non-confidence that fly in the face of

experience and statistics.

MR. LAUK: If I can prove your statistics wrong, will you resign?

HON. MR. McGEER: My friend, you just go ahead and do your

very best in the Legislature, as you always do. I want to say, the

Premier of the province has stated that there's a 90 percent chance

that there will be an election sometime this year. He's gone on record

as saying that. The public of British Columbia will have an opportunity

to choose between the record of the NDP, heading downward into the

ditch, or the record of Social Credit, heading upward into the future.

I'm sure the public of British Columbia can choose wisely between

socialism and free enterprise. I just hope they can choose wisely when

it canes to deciding that there's only one free enterprise party in

British Columbia that may be supported. When the NDP were put in office

in 1972 it was because the vote was split among the Liberals, the

Conservatives and Social Credit. That's an obvious fact. I think it's

one the member who represents the Conservative Party should keep in

mind: that the surest way to return the NDP is to forget that free

enterprise is more important than any one political party, that if

we're to have progress in British Columbia we're going to have to have

stability and confidence in government. I think we do, which is more

than we can say for the Leader of the Opposition

[ Page 67 ]

when he puts forward the kind of nonsense

nonconfidence motion that's gracing the floor of the House today. I

think, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, if you want to go to the public of

British Columbia with any kind of credibility at all, you'd better do

more thorough research, and you'd better have a better platform. The

kind of the thing we've had from you so far this session makes you

unworthy to be the leader and to ask for the reins of government again.

MR. MACDONALD: I kept wondering as I listened to the hon.

minister, who has just taken his seat, what his uncle Gerry McGeer

would have said about that speech, and about that hon. member talking

of joining the gerrymander party. He says that we must trust the

people, and the people will give their answer, and then he takes his

little riding of Point Grey and he shrinks that small, with two

members, and he eliminates two down here, and he puts a nose into Point

Grey, and he makes Richard Nixon look like a political saint.

I watched that hon. minister on television only a week ago espousing

the great fusion project for the province of British Columbia. He knew

a lot and he was just telling you a little bit. Quebec and B.C. were

neck and neck. B.C. had a little bit of a go in terms of getting that

fusion project for British Columbia. Then, in the House yesterday, he

said: "I explained at the time the chance of something this fortunate

happening for B.C. or any other part of the world" — he didn't say that

on TV — "was extremely unlikely." Now that minister has climbed away

down. He hasn't pointed out that that project is just in the early

stages of discussion. There have been no negotiations with the Russians

as yet. The technology is not perfected. The idea that British Columbia

should have a huge military, as well as civilian, nuclear fusion

project which would make us the first candidate for the first atomic

attack if World War III ever comes is something that hasn't been

discussed in this chamber. It is something'for which the minister was

spanked — since his TV interview — by the Premier. That' s why he's

been backpedalling, back-pedalling, back-pedalling. I ask any of the

ministers over there who have made public statements and have been

spanked privately by the Premier and then have drawn back to raise

their hands. I can name four or five of them aver there.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps for the benefit of all

members, I could remind them that we are actually discussing an

amendment to the motion. It reads as follows:

"That the motion in reply to the opening speech of His

Honour the Lieutenant Governor be amended by adding the words: 'that

this House regrets that the speech of His Honour fails to show any

economic planning directed to solving unemployment, and fails to

indicate policies to reduce increasing, cost of living and municipal

tax burdens."'

Now members on both sides of the House have strayed somewhat from this amendment....

MR. BARRETT: Why didn't you tell him that?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

I would prefer if the members could keep within the bounds of the discussion that has already manifested itself.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly content myself

with answering some of the statements that were made yesterday, and

then voting on this amendment, which is a very important one. I don't

want to seem to be attacking the Minister of Science and Technology too

much. He is an eminent brain researcher and surgeon, and he has a fine

brain, but why does he keep it in a jar when we need it, when your

party needs it, when your province and your country need it? Why does

he keep it in a jar?

Oh, I did say something about putting those shares on the wall, and

I went on to say I wanted to put those free shares on the wall to

remind myself of the marvellous assets that were built up during the

NDP administration, all of them in the black, all of them returning a

dividend of about $18 million a year to the people of the province of

B.C. Yes, that's something that the hon. minister who just took his

seat never mentioned. He never mentions that when he says that the NDP

led the province down the road to ruin. Did you mention, Mr. Minister,

that those assets that you are peddling are the heritage of the people

of B.C.? If the people of B.C. can get anything whatsoever in free

shares or in any other way out of this government, they ought to thank

their lucky stars.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: What are you rising on?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 68 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: I would be happy, Mr. Speaker, to discourse on Swan Valley....

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Regardless of whether it is the wish of the

House, one speaks only once on an amendment, and the indications of the

table are that you have already spoken.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, you dismissed the minister's

request. I'm sure, after the speech we've just heard, anybody would

have second thoughts about it. If he wishes to get up and change it,

that's fine with us.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: However, that's not in order.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm the member who has the honour of holding

the floor, and if the minister intervenes and says he's going out to

tell the people of Point Grey about the success we made of Can-Cel and

Plateau Mills and Ocean Falls and Kootenay Forest Products and the

Westcoast Transmission shares....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Swan Valley.

MR. MACDONALD: You garroted that one before it had a chance.

Yes, you did. And the B.C. Housing Corporation — you're going to

garrote that one too. You're going to sell it off to international

capital. You've been throwing this province away, throwing the money at

the international companies, and pretending that's for the good of the

people of British Columbia.

Now I don't know where that hon. minister got his statistics, Mr.

Speaker. I think he uses statistics like a drunken man uses a lamppost

— more for support than illumination. I just want to take a minute or

two to quote the record on capital investment in the province of

British Columbia under the NDP years and under the "gerrymander party"

years. The source which I give.... The hon. minister with that crazy

chart of his! You didn't say that you would resign your seat if it's

wrong, did you? You were asked by this hon. member right across the

House. Will you?

HON. MR. McGEER: I wonder if I might table that chart.

MR. MACDONALD: No, let's not table it.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. It is not an appropriate time to table documents or charts of any sort.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Whether or not it is the wish of the opposition, it is not the wish of the Chair, so would you please take your seat.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the minister misunderstood my

question. It is very simple. All I asked you was: will you resign if

that table is shown to be wrong? It's a simple answer.

HON. MR. McGEER: By what? Surely not the NDP.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, waffle, waffle! Who's the waffle party here anyway?

I'm quoting fran the B.C. Ministry cf Finance, from the "Financial

and Economic Review", which appears every spring in the province of

B.C. I'm quoting figures adjusted for inflation, and those figures show

that under the NDP the level of investment in our economy grew at 5.5

percent per year — that's real growth. If you look at the figures on

capital investment, of course, the actual dollar figures are much

higher than that. For the Social Credit years, that level of capital

investment in the province had shrunken to 3.6 percent.

Now the minister says that he doesn't agree with that. I'd like to

debate that with him on any corner or in any hall in the province of

British Columbia, because I think that never in the history of this

province have we had such a mass of misinformation deliberately peddled

by this government. And that minister leads the whole thing. He is the

original fountain of misinformation in this province. They say he is a

recruit that has just joined.... What do you call that party? I call it

the Gerrymander Party. People have got various names.

I would like to debate those figures with the minister and quote the

sources and show what really has happened to this province in the last

three years compared with the NDP years. You've been telling them; but

the people are beginning to realize the true state of affairs.

Now let me take one or two points in more detail, because I think it should be put on

[ Page 69 ]

the record — boring as it may be to you, Mr.

Speaker. This document was not prepared by Manny Dunsky. I want to

assure you of that. This is the government report on mining.

The minister who has just taken his seat and that minister who is

chattering away there in the corner both said the NDP had ruined the

mining industry.

This document was tabled in the House. It is a report of the Ministry of Mines and Petroleum Resources, page 91.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Never mind the mining industry. Let's take the

government figures. These are the actual figures and I think there is a

fair mode of comparison in these figures, because our Speech from the

Throne boasts that the total value of mineral production in the

province of B.C. has risen to $1.9 billion. Now when the NDP came into

office the 1972 figure was $600 million — and I'm rounding them to the

nearest hundred thousand. In 1973 that had grown to $1.1 billion; it

went up again in 1974 to $1.2 billion; it went up in 1975 — still an

NDP year — to $1.3 billion. I stop at that point to point out to hon.

members that during the NDP years the total value of mineral production

in the province, which includes metals, petroleum products, structural

and other materials, had more than doubled. I'm quoting the government

report. And yet that minister has the audacity to get up and try to

bamboozle the people of this province and say we led the province down

the road to ruin.

Now in the Social Credit years it has continued to increase, but at

a much lower rate. It has barely kept up with inflation, which has been

running at around 8 percent, 9 percent or 10 percent per year.

In terms of real growth, it isn't doubling within the three-year

period but it is barely keeping up, if at all, with inflation, which is

stagnation. I quote the figures in these years: 1976 — $1.5 billion;

1977 — $1.8 billion. Last year — and this is the figure they boast

about in the Speech from the Throne — it went up to $1.9 billion. That

last increase, about which this government boasts in the Speech from

the Throne, is much less than the ordinary inflation of prices in that

period of time. It is really a retardation of the growth in mining

during the Social Credit years.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Nonsense!

MR. MACDONALD: I'm sure we should talk to all industries, Mr.

Minister, and we should also consider the public welfare of the

province of B.C. We should consider the consumers of the province of

B.C. We should consider our international payments, and that's what we

do.

I just want to add some other figures, because yesterday, speaker

after speaker, and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) in particular, spoke about how we have

destroyed oil production and gas production in the province of B.C.

Would you just nod your head? Do you say that it declined during the

NDP years? You talked also about petroleum products. Will you agree

that during the NDP years the record was good?

Here are the actual figures. Let me just put the actual figures on

the record, because you have been going around this province with

misinformation for the people. I'm quoting from the 1977 Department of

Mines report tabled two days ago. In terms of production — I'm not

talking about dollar values now — in 1974 it was 19 million barrels, in

1975 it was 14 million barrels, in 1976 it was 15 million barrels, and

in 1977 it was 14 million barrels. This shows that you're well below

the best of the NDP years in production. In 1977 you had come up to the

lowest level of oil production of the NDP years.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: The former Minister of Mines says: "What's that

got to do with anything?" I'll tell you What the relevance of that

is, Mr. Speaker. It is not only that oil production was better under the NDP

years. It is also that this Socred coalition government policy of throwing money

in hundreds of millions of dollars at those oil companies has not even led to

the production levels of the NDP years. I've given the figures before, and

I'm going to bring them up to date before the end of this session, because

I think if there was ever a giveaway of resource revenues, it's taken place

in oil and natural gas and coal on an unprecedented scale. It hasn't worked,

because the money that you have flung at these international oil companies

has gone out of British Columbia, never to be reinvested in this province. It

is not producing more oil.

Now look at the actual figures for natural gas. Another of the

fairy-tales this government talks about throughout British Columbia is

how we destroyed the production of the natural gas and how they had to

throw a lot of money at the companies by increasing the field prices to

maintain production when they came

[ Page 70 ]

in office. I know figures are boring, but I'm going to place them on the record.

Gas production in the province of British Columbia — and again this

is from the official department report — was as follows, in billions of

cubic feet: 1973, 475; 1974, 410; 1975, 400; 1976— the first of the

Socred years — 380, a drop of 20 billion cubic feet in actual

production; 1977, 390, a drop from the NDP years of ten billion cubic

feet of natural gas. Notwithstanding those figures, you go out — and as

I say, it's the same in natural gas as it is in oil — and you fling

money at these international companies expecting that you'll do

something for the people of British Columbia. You've increased the

prices, of course, to the domestic users of those fuels.

AN HON. MEMBER: We've doubled it in one year.

MR. MACDONALD: Production? You've reduced the royalties and

reduced the return to the public treasury. You know the extent and

dimensions of this kind of a giveaway of a resource that disappears —

natural gas and oil do not last forever. When you have giveaways,

whether in massive millions of dollars to international companies or in

profligate conservation of those resources, then you've done

irreparable and irremediable harm to the province of British Columbia

in your three years of office.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Ha!

MR. MACDONALD: The hon. minister who is interrupting me, who

is now the Minister of Mines, began, as the others have begun —

including the minister who just took his seat — with a personal attack

on the Leader of the Opposition. I want to say that none of them laid a

glove on the arguments he advanced in a careful, informed and new

presentation of the economic situation in the province of British

Columbia. A great deal of his speech was given over to the

possibilities of thousands of jobs and the extension of the railway to

Alaska, a project which is devoutly sought south of the border, a

project which is devoutly sought in Alaska, and a project in which the

Premier of the province of British Columbia has been totally asleep at

the switch. There is simply no economic leadership whatsoever. I have

not heard a word of rebuttal of the Leader of the Opposition's remarks

about the railway.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Ask them what they said down in Ottawa about the railway cars!

MR. MACDONALD: I have not heard a word of rebuttal except the

chattering of that Minister of Mines who got up in his place. He had

something to say about the destruction of the Railwest industry, which,

I think, he is referring to, and the loss of those jobs. How many as

it? It was about 400 at Squamish, at a time when the orders were there

for the railcars that were needed by BCR. They had to lease them

because they couldn't produce them with B.C. jobs. They had to lease

them from eastern Canada, and the need in the grain trade is for

additional jobs. If that minister is ready to rebut that with a

reasoned argument, why didn't he do it? He'll have a chance on the main

motion. We don't mind a full and searching and fair debate in this

House. When that minister gets up and makes an implication, he

carefully treads the laws of this Legislature. He didn't say the Leader

of the Opposition was a liar — I've got the Blues here — but he

suggested it. The innuendo was there, and I say that kind of personal

attack and aspersion shows a bankrupt minister that ought to be taken

out of office.

Don't worry about the credibility of the Leader of the Opposition.

The minister is leaving the chamber at this time. It is certainly

better than the credibility of those ministers on the bench opposite.

As I say, none of you have laid a glove upon the main points and very

important points that were made in the speech of the Leader of the

Opposition.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Hear, hear!

MR. MACDONALD: Before I sit down I just want to say two or

three things about the remarks of the Minister of Mines in respect of

natural gas. His first point was the picky and silly point that I

referred to yesterday — that we said the price was 32 cents per 1,000

cubic feet and you said it was 31 cents. That's good debating. My

recollection is that under the long-term agreement it was a little

shade under 32 cents. The hon. Leader of the Opposition was being fair

in terms of what we raised it from. I think it was 31.6 cents under a

long-term agreement that lasted till 1989 that was entered into by the

previous, Social Credit administration between Westcoast Transmission

and El Paso, the purchaser in the United States, which provided for

delivery of British Columbia gas till 1989. When you talk about a

sellout, just think back to those years. Think back to what is

happening today. What a giveaway that was! What a giveaway that was by

the Social Credit Party in terms of our natural gas! At 32 cents there

was no provision of an

[ Page 71 ]

escalation clause. The delivery across the border

of 809 million cubic feet per day to 1989.... And, when — contrary to

what this minister said yesterday — the hon. Leader of the Opposition

became Premier of this province, his first act was to break that

contract. I use those words deliberately. It had nothing to do with the

NEB.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, that's right, not in 1973 or 1974.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, you said it did.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Not in 1973-74.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. MACDONALD: All right. I'll tell you how that was done.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I know how it was done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: The minister is showing utter ignorance of his

portfolio. When he made his speech there he said that we raised the

price to the people of the province. That's not true. We did break that

contract, and I don't mind using those words — the contract as a

terrible sellout for the people of B.C. — by setting up the new public

corporation, the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation. It was by that

device, if you want to call it, whereby it became the owner of the gas,

that we were able to get out of that Socred contract.

The other thing the minister said was that we increased the prices

to the people of the province. I want to say that one of the things we

did was increase the wholesale price from British Columbia Petroleum

Corporation to B.C. Hydro, which distributes gas, to Inland, which

distributes gas, and to Pacific Northern, which distributes gas.

That did not necessarily mean that the residential and industrial

consumers of the province of British Columbia were bearing that

increased cost, because we deliberately had a two-price system. We

thought that the people of the province of British Columbia should have

a break in terms of the industrial and residential costs of their own

resource, compared to the international price. And that's what we did.

I'm not going to go word for word through all of the things that

minister said. He made a great point that the $1.96 was not an NDP

thing, and he said it was under the National Energy Board. Nod your

head if I've got you right — that it was the National Energy Board, not

the NDP, and it was in 1976.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that again is showing complete ignorance of what

happened in the province of British Columbia, in the department which

he heads. That last price increase from, I think, an initial $1.60 to

$1.96 — I'm not going to get into one cent here or there with this;

that's petty debating, which is just ridiculous — which that minister

said was not brought into effect by the NDP government, was worked out

at a federal-provincial conference which I had the honour to attend,

along with the Premier, in 1975. There w got the federal government to

agree to a phased-in increase, which was first in the $1.60 range and

then went to $1.96 in the second stage, which we arranged and which

happened in 1976. Now when you say that was under the NDP, Mr.

Minister, you simply do not know what you are speaking about in terms

of your own ministry.

Finally the minister criticized the leader of the Opposition in

terms of us asking for the same price that Mexico is obtaining for its

diminishing resource of natural gas. What the minister does not know,

in terms of the increase allowed by the NEB — now up to $2.16 (U.S.

funds) — and the new increase that is sought, which was agreed to

between Trudeau and Donald MacDonald, who was then the Minister of

Energy, and Premier Barrett, as he then, and myself....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, perhaps, in order that we can

ensure orderly debate, if the member who is speaking would continue to

address the Chair, and the members would not all interrupt him, it

would assist me a great deal. Please proceed.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the latest report from the Globe and Mail on the Mexican negotiations says this:

"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 in the United States."

So while Mexico — and some of that gas is flowing now — is asking

for $3.20, this government in terns of its policy, which is to give a

free hand to the international companies in terms of their escalating

profits — and, believe me, they have been escalating — is content to

make pussycat purrings and be very content that the National Energy

Board might raise the price to $2.16.

[ Page 72 ]

What I say in relation to those figures is that hundreds of millions

of dollars are being lost to the province of British Columbia from this

diminishing and non-renewable natural resource, because of the fact

that you have put the international companies first. You have never

gone down to Ottawa, like a tiger, to fight for the proper increase. We

are not going to get, as far as you're concerned, the price for our gas

that Mexico will get for their same gas; and that is costing hundreds

of millions of dollars in this province of British Columbia. When the

people in this province see the returns to themselves from the

resources they own going down like that, when they see the profits of

the international companies going up like that, they should know who

they have to thank.

The very first thing that Premier Bennett did in terms of energy when

he came into office — and you all ought to remember it — was in January 1976

when he packed his bags and hustled down to Ottawa and said that the oil companies

should have the Arab price for a barrel of oil. He said that was then $13. As

a result of that kind of policy, which is to throw money at the international

companies and hope that something may come back to the ordinary people of this

province, which it hasn't.... It is that kind of policy — total damnation

by big business, by special privilege — that has marked these three years of

Social Credit administration.

To that I would add, because fact after fact in the speech of that

Minister of Mines was wrong, that he simply does not understand his

portfolio. And I say that that points up the other factor that we are

talking about, which is business mismanagement of the economy of B.C.

and incompetence in relation to our affairs — particularly our

resources — in the last three years of that gerrymandered party.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to take my place in

debating the amendment that's before the House. It's particularly a

pleasure to speak following the dissertation we've just heard fran the

hon. first member for Vancouver East, who has a very selective memory

and really is no better at dealing with facts and figures now than he

was when he occupied the position of Attorney-General, with the

responsibility for energy in the province of British Columbia. He still

hasn't learned anything. He still has not learned any of the actual

facts about what is going on in the field of energy and resources in

the province of British Columbia. All he can talk about is great

giveaways and sellouts to international cartels and corporations, which

is not a fact.

First of all, if he's really interested in what's happening,

particularly in the field of petroleum and natural gas exploration, he

should have referred to the one accurate barometer which indicates

activity in drilling for gas and oil in the province of British

Columbia. He conveniently forgot to read any of those statistics, even

though he had in front of him the same report that I have in front of

me. The accurate indicator or barometer is how much work goes on in the

field of gas and oil exploration in any given year. Let me read into

the record what happened during the years of the NDP administration as

compared to what has happened in years since then.

In terns of total drilling activity in the province of British

Columbia, the record was one of improving conditions from 1966. through

to 1972. In 1972 the total number of wells completed.... This is

exploratory wells, some of which hit gas and oil. Not all of them did,

but in relation to other parts of Canada, a high percentage of

completed wells had the capability of producing either gas or oil. We

peaked that year with a drilling program of 224 wells completed; in

1973, 177 wells were completed; in 1974, 148; in 1975, 82. In other

words, the picture was very, very plain. It was pointed out to the then

Attorney-General many, many times that under the NDP administration the

oil and gas industry and the exploration for oil and gas had all but

deserted the province of British Columbia. We had many, many arguments

on this particular point, Mr. Former Minister.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Okay, let me read the figures to you again. In

1972, 224 wells were drilled in British Columbia; in 1973, 177; in

1974, 148; and in 1975, the last year of your administration, 82. It

was downhill all the way. In 1976 we were back up because the oil and

gas exploration activity moved back to the province of British Columbia

within 60 days after the election. The total for 1976 was 189

exploratory wells, up from 82; in 1977, 328; in 1978, 408 exploratory

wells were drilled in British Columbia.

Let me relate that in terms of employment, Mr. Speaker, which they

say we're not creating in the province of British Columbia. In the year

just completed....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where'd he go?

MR. SMITH: He's left the chamber. He doesn't want to hear the

truth.

In the last year, over 90 drilling rigs were

[ Page 73 ]

employed in the province of British Columbia,

compared to a low of less than 20 in the last year of the

administration of the NDP government. Ninety rigs require approximately

40 people — those that are actually employed on the rigs and those that

service the rig. Forty is a low estimate of the number of jobs created

by one drilling rig. With 90 rigs drilling continuously in the province

of British Columbia, multiply it by 40 — that's 3,600 jobs at least. I

would say that it's closer to 4,500 or 5,000 jobs directly attributable

to the increased oil and gas exploration in the province of British

Columbia. So don't let anyone ever tell you that the exploration

business was a great success under the NDP and a disaster under the

present administration.

As a matter of fact, the direct opposite is true, and I presume that

is why the member for Vancouver East has left the chamber. He doesn't

want to hear facts. He never wanted to hear facts when he was a member

of government, and as a member of the opposition he still does not like

to listen to facts.

The production of gas and oil in the province of British Columbia

was never healthier. There's no question that we would like to find

more producing gas and oil wells in the province, but you do not always

have the success ratio that you would like to achieve. When a drilling

company goes into a program, believe me, they would dearly love to find

more producing oil wells. From the standpoint of what has happened,

most of the production in recent years has cane from the production and

the finding of new natural gas discoveries. But we do have a new

producing oil field just now coming into operation a few miles north of

Fort St. John. It's a field which at the present time is producing a

fair volume of oil and has great expectations for increased production

in the future. Hopefully, if we can find more fields of a similar

nature in northeastern British Columbia, we will be able to reduce our

reliance on crude imported from the province of Alberta. That is what

we are trying to achieve in the province of British Columbia, and we

have great hopes for success.

The people who are knowledgeable in the oil and gas industry tell me

that we have only scratched the surface in the province of British

Columbia. But the area that is to be explored, in relation to that

where they have proven production, is many, many times larger than what

we already know about, in terms of our oil and gas reserves in this

province.

Who was it that said there was no gas in Grizzly Valley? It was the expert

from Vancouver Centre, the lawyer from Vancouver Centre who knows all about

oil and gas exploration, who told us the Grizzly Valley was a write-off. Believe

me, it will become one of the most important producing areas in all of the province

of British Columbia. It will help offset the production that we lost from a

field across the border and in the northeast corner of British Columbia a few

years ago. We lost most of the production from that field. At least we have

replaced that with the production that is on stream now and will come on stream

from the Grizzly Valley area. Probably some of the most prolific gas formations

in this province have been discovered in that area. It's got a great future.

Along with the coal development that will go on adjacent to that area, many,

many more jobs will be created in the province of British Columbia.

Another thing that I wish to speak about is the position taken by

the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) with respect to extending

the railway through the Yukon into Alaska. It's a worthwhile endeavour

to contemplate. I think all of us would like to see a railway extended

beyond our boundaries. But let me say this: the Leader of the

Opposition was derelict in his duty to the people of British Columbia

when he suggested that the state of Alaska and the United States should

get together with the federal government and settle the problems that

are involved in the extension of a railway. As far as the province of

British Columbia is concerned, the first and most important requirement

before that extension takes place is the protection of our own province

in relation to how we control a railway which is presently within our

own provincial boundaries.

If we cannot extract from the federal government the type of

agreement that gives us complete control over the B.C. Railway, then we

have no right extending it through the Yukon and into Alaska, because

we'd lose control to the federal government. If there's ever a battle

that we will have to be very, very efficient in defending ourselves in,

it is the battle that will go on, and is going on presently, between

the federal administration in Ottawa and our province and other

provinces with respect to who controls what, particularly in the field

of resources and in the field of transportation.

If we give away our right to control the British Columbia Railway to

the federal government, as they have control of the CNR, then Lord help

the residents of the province of British Columbia, because we will have

given away an asset which would greatly enhance the Yukon and Alaska,

and for what? For pottage. For nothing. We must retain control. Yet the

leader of the Opposition in

[ Page 74 ]

his speech said: "Let's set up a Crown corporation

jointly between Canada and the United States and the province." Do you

know who would be the ham in that sandwich? British Columbia would be

the ham in that sandwich, no one else.

So let's not take anything that was said by the Leader of the

Opposition with respect to the extension of that railway at face value.

It doesn't stack up. The Premier of this province, I am sure, along

with the ministers, is very aware of the fact that we would be giving

away a birthright, really, of the people of this province if we sell

out to either the federal or the U.S. government with respect to the

extension of the railway to the Yukon and into Alaska. We do not want

to became subject to dictation and control from Ottawa with respect to

the expansion of that railway, that transportation link, and the

exploration and control of our own resources. We have that control now,

and I say, let's keep it in British Columbia for all time.

The leader of the Opposition, in his amendment, suggested that the

burden of municipal taxation is greatly increased under the present

administration. Nothing could be further from the truth. He doesn't

know, or doesn't understand, or doesn't care to understand — I'm not

sure which, but it may be a combination of all three — the actual

amount of money that has been contributed to the municipalities in the

province of British Columbia. In my own riding, as an example, it has

more than doubled in the current year, as compared to the last year of

the NDP administration. It has more than doubled in terms of direct

grants to municipalities for water, for sewage and for resource revenue

sharing; it has more than doubled from the time that they were

government. Why has that been possible? It's because of a policy of

increasing the revenue to the Crown through the development of our

resources and industry.

We have fulfilled the commitment made by the Premier of this

province to the municipalities in British Columbia to share resource

revenue with them. That is being done on an ever-increasing basis. The

homeowner grants have been increased steadily, which has helped to

reduce the burden of municipal taxation on the people of British

Columbia. In all points, with respect to the amendment that is before

us, we have out-performed the official opposition when they were

government. It is a nothing motion produced by an opposition who seem

to be incapable of producing any new ideas, any new thoughts or any new

direction for the province of British Columbia. What they do is resort

to ridiculing the things that have happened in the last three years

under the present administration.

No thinking person in this Legislature can support this amendment.

Those people on the opposition side of the House, if they vote on the

basis of their conscience and their representation of the constituents

by poll, will reject the motion, as will the people on this side of the

House, and the member for North Peace River.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

Macdonald

Barrett

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lauk

Stephens

Wallace

Barnes

Lockstead

D'Arcy

Skelly

Sanford

Levi

NAYS — 2 4

Hewitt

McClelland

Bawlf

Vander Zalm

Veitch

Davidson

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

McCarthy

Gardom

Wolfe

McGeer

Chabot

Waterland

Calder

Jordan

Smith

Bawtree

Rogers

Mussallem

Loewen

Haddad

Strongman

Division ordered to be recorded in the of the House.

MR. STEPHENS: May I also begin by recognizing the

contribution of the former Premier W.A.C. Bennett to this province. I

was not in the House. I never had the pleasure of sitting here and

participating in his government or in opposition to his government. I

think that many good things have been said about him over the past few

weeks. I would like to just quote the words of George Bernard Shaw that

were often quoted by Senator Robert F. Kennedy. I think these words sum

up the former Premier better than anything else. Shaw said: "Some men

see things as they are, and ask why. I dream things that never were,

and ask 'why not?'"

MR. LOEWEN: Keep dreaming.

MR. STEPHENS: I can assure that member that that is precisely

what I intend to do. I intend to accept these words that Mr. Bennett

used and followed and make that my guideline so long as I am in

politics. Yes, Mr. Member,

[ Page 75 ]

you can count on me to continue to dream.

I would like, also, to recognize the efforts of the former member

for North Vancouver Capilano, Gordon Gibson, who sat beside me in my

first session in this House. I will ever be grateful to him for the

help and assistance that he gave me. He never refused to give me full

cooperation on some of the matters that arose that I was not familiar

with. I find being here now without him a little bit lonely, but I

recognize how important it is for me and my party to renew our

determination to ensure that the government of this province does not

fall into the hands of just two political parties who call themselves

by different names, who say different things, but in the end seem to do

just exactly the same.

One of the great issues in British Columbia today is the question of

honesty in government. The Premier has indicated time and again over

the last few months that if he had an issue, he would go to the people

of British Columbia. He may think that the Heroin Treatment Act was an

issue, or he may think that the giveaway shares in the Resources

Investment Corporation is an issue. The fact of the matter is that the

people of this province know that the overriding issue is whether or

not they can expect honesty in their government. When the voters of

this province look at this government they fail to find the honesty and

integrity that they are entitled to.

There has been a breach of trust, and the whole parliamentary system

functions on trust. Our system is not trapped and cornered by a

constitution written down in words as is the American form of

government. That's why it's so terribly important for members of this

House not to breach this trust. The responsibility is far greater on a

member of any parliament than it is on any representative in any House

in the United States, because we carry on our shoulders not a written

constitution that tells us how to behave, but many years of history

that guide us. And I have seen over the past year or two or three under

this present government a total disregard of this parliamentary trust

that the people are entitled to have.

Let me give you some examples. Let's talk about the B.C. Resources

Investment Corporation. This is the kind of thing that we have been

hearing. In January of this year the Premier made front-page headlines

with his announcement of his giveaway shares, and he said that the book

value of the 15 million shares in the initial offering available

through the banks and other financial institutions in early March would

be about $10 each. That was the statement of the chief spokesman for

this province. I didn't realize that he was an adviser in stock market

matters, but evidently he claims to be. On March 2 he made another

statement. He said that the underlying book value of each additional

share was $12. Those shares jumped from $10 to $12 between January and

March before they had even been distributed or sold or marketed. And

then he went on to say that British Columbians are going to have a

once-in-a--lifetime opportunity to buy them for $6.

Now, Mr. Speaker, he is going to stand before the people of this

province, as he has done, and he is going to tell them that because he

knows what he is doing — and he has had made a lot of money; I don't

know whether he has made it in the stock market or not; I understand he

made most of it by subdividing land — because he presumes that he is an

expert in the market, the shares are worth $10 or they're worth $12,

but they can buy them for $6. Now isn't that wonderful? We have five

shares given to us and we're told that they're worth $10 or $12 a

piece, and before we even get them in our hands he cuts the value in

half by selling the same shares for $6. So they're not worth $10 or

$12. He automatically and deliberately, through his political

interference with a public company operating in the private sector,

reduced the value of those shares by at least 50 percent. But that's

not the end of it.

After he makes his sales pitch on behalf of this public company

operating in the private sector, after he's done his work, they decide

after political pressure that we must have a prospectus after all. They

wanted to exempt themselves from putting out a prospectus, because, for

heaven's sake, let's not tell the public what it's really about. But

the political pressure forced him to charge his mind on that. So out

came the prospectus. And what does it say? Let me read part of it:

"The common shares are not guaranteed in any manner by the

Province of British Columbia or any other government, nor has any government

any direct or indirect obligation with respect to them. Since BCRIC has only

recently commenced operations, potential projects and investments in which BCRIC

may participate, or which may be acquired by it, are not but known."

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Marvellous! The Premier of the province tells the people that this

is the best opportunity they'll have in a lifetime, and the prospectus

says they don't even know what they're going to do with the money they

raise.

[ Page 76 ]

And the prospectus tells the people of this province that there is no way that

the Premier is going to back up his statements. It goes on to say:

"In addition, results experienced by BCRIC subsidiaries

over the past ten years are not necessarily indicative of future performance.

No representations can be made as to the future influence of these factors on

the price of BCRIC's common shares."

"No representations can be

made." Yet the Premier has been tearing around this province making

precisely those representations. I say, Mr. Speaker, that is a total abuse of

his position and of his office.

The people of British Columbia are not being fooled; they know that

what the Premier says he cannot back up. He's encouraging the people of

this province — many hard-working people, many senior citizens who have

worked very hard to save their money and put it away in case they need

it — to speculate on the stock market.

Mr. Speaker, if the Premier is so concerned about investing in the

stock market, I tell him that there are better investments on the

market than this one, and every single British Columbian, before he or

she invests in this corporation, should go and ask his or her broker or

banker or somebody who knows what they are talking about whether his or

her money can be invested better than according to the Premier's

direction. Who is the Premier to interfere in this private sector, and

spend his money and the taxpayers' money and his time and his authority

telling the people of this province that they'd better take their

hard-earned money and invest it in his pet project, when the

corporation itself says it's trying to raise $500 million and doesn't

even know what it's going to do with it.

Interjections.

MR. STEPHENS: Oh, they say "sure." You know, they're all in

support of it now, but six months ago there wasn't a member in that

government who even knew that this was going to happen. And the reason

they didn't know it was going to happen is that the Premier didn't know

what was going to happen.

What's happened with this corporation is that when it was put into

effect I, for one, thought, hey, what a tremendous opportunity, at last

the opportunity to do the Conservative thing, to take those Crown

corporations and break them up and get them back into the private

sector where they belong. What a tremendous opportunity. But he thought

he was going to find an underwriter who was going to sell the shares.

Read the debates. Read what the Premier himself said when he set up

this corporation. He constantly referred to it as a voluntary

investment by the people of British Columbia. There was nothing about

giveaways. He never heard of that until the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) got up and put it in his ear, and then

he preferred the idea.

So what did he do? He found out that you can't sell these shares. He

found out that nobody would underwrite these shares. The investment

community said: "Look, Mr. Bennett, there are many better investments

on the market than this thing. Why should we underwrite it?" Of course,

he'd got it in place by this time. Oh, sure, he'd got it in place and

he'd had newspaper publicity and he was going to get rid of these

socialistic institutions. So he had to find another way to go about

this, Mr. Speaker. And what did he do? He decided that because his

political fortunes were in trouble, he'd give them away. Marvellous!

And what did he call them? Free. Well, they're $20 million free.

These people who sit on my right, who set up these companies, took

the money from the taxpayers and they used it to buy these assets. I

don't know what they paid. What was it? Was it $30 million or $40

million you paid for these assets? In any event, they took my money and

the taxpayers' money and they bought these assets. And then that

happened? Along came the next government and said: "Hey, these assets

that these dumb socialists bought for $30 million or $40 million are

now worth $150 million..."

Interjections.

MR. STEPHENS: "...so let' s get them back in to the private sector."

Instead of selling off the shares in those individual companies and

those assets of $150 million for what they were worth and putting that

money back into the general revenue where it came from, and then

putting it back into the taxpayers' pockets by cutting out the sales

tax, which would have given everybody a profit on their investment —

and it wouldn't have cost the government anything to do it; it would

have been based on a sound business practice — they said: "Oh, no,

we'll spend another $20 million of the taxpayers' money to buy their

votes, to bolster up our political fortunes."

And I defy the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), in two days

now, to tell us in this House what the cost of those things is. All he

[ Page 77 ]

can say is: "I don't know." He said it before and he said it today.

He doesn't know how much the people of the province are going to have

to pay for this political scheme.

MR. BARRETT: Do you believe that? He knows what it's going to cost.

MR. STEPHENS: Well, if he knows, he should have the courage to stand up and say it. His Premier is away and he doesn't know what to say.

So what have we done? The taxpayers have bought these assets with

their own money. Now their own money is being taken away from them to

put these assets back. But where are they going? "Individual

enterprise," they scream in the throne speech. "We believe in

individual enterprise." Sure, but what you've done is you've taken

those assets that have been paid for twice by the people of this

province and you have forced the owners, the people of this province,

to go and stand in a line and fill out your silly application forms

just to hang on to something they already own, something they've bought

and paid for. Boy, I'll tell you. Free enterprisers? You've got to be

kidding. You guys out-socialize the socialists.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Phone up Sinclair and see what he thinks about it.

MR. STEPHENS: Boy, you missed a great chance. You had the

chance of a lifetime to do what a Conservative would do, but you blew

it; and you blew it because you're afraid of this rag-tag bunch of

socialists sitting over here. You're scared to death of them. You

haven't got enough confidence in your own free-enterprise policy to do

what you should do.

Mr. Speaker, you know what they should have done? I've got a great

idea. Instead of using the B.C. Systems Corporation and all of the

information that they're going to extract from the medical records and

the motor-vehicle records to find out who there is in British Columbia,

there's a simple way, you know. There's a voters' list. Why didn't you

just take the voters' list, take your share certificates, stand outside

of the polling booth and hand them out to the people as they go in and

check their name off the list? That wouldn't have cost you anything and

it would accomplish the same purpose. I wouldn't be surprised if they

did it. Why didn't you sell the share certificates in a businesslike

manner?

Listen to this. This corporation is making use of the B.C. Systems

Corporation to sell its shares. Now how do you justify that, Mr.

Speaker? I understood that the B.C. Systems Corporation was not to

do anything for commercial or industrial private operations. I thought

that was the commitment we got from this government. The Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) is going to have to face that. He's going to

have to stand up and tell us how he can justify the B.C. Systems

Corporation using its services to sell shares for a public company

operating in the private sector. He told us, he promised us, there

would be no subsidizing. I want to know who's paying for that. Who's

paying for that public company in the private sector to use our

services to sell its shares? Private enterprise. That's nothing but

downright government interference in normal, everyday, private

business. You should get your nose out of it. Don't try and tell

the people of this province that you believe in private enterprise when

you did things like that. I've never seen a more gross interference

with the private sector.

MR. BARRETT: What would they have said if we'd have done it?

MR. STEPHENS: Would you have done it?

Mr. Speaker, when the present Premier as the Leader of the Official

order- in- council. Let me just read these. But before I do, let's

start with the present Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who at

that time, I think, was sitting somewhere around this position that I'm

in now. They were talking about orders-in-council, and the member said

this:

"Thousands of orders-in-council are passed, usually

about 3,000 or more a year. I haven't attended any cabinet meetings,

obviously, but I'll tell you this, Mr. Chairman. The first one I attend

will be the last one that carries out the kind of order-in-council

government that we have had in the province for years and years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Did Dr. Pat say that?

MR. STEPHENS: Yes, and further on he said this: "Mr.

Chairman, I just don't have any confidence at all in the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council system. I think it's totally wrong.

But now let's go and find out what the member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) said.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is he a Liberal or Socred?

[ Page 78 ]

MR. STEPHENS: Well, I think he's probably always had the same stripe, this fellow, but this is what he said:

"We've seen in the past 12 months not only a large

succession of orders-in-council, but orders-in-council which have

provided special warrants of substantial amounts of money for specific

purposes. For instance, I recall funding ICBC warrants in an amount of

$5,000..."

Five thousand, wow! Rough, rough.

"...and larger amounts that went through to set up the

necessary funding, things which perhaps should have rightfully been

done by statute. I don't know whether it is wilful or not,

but you seem to use orders-in-council with reckless abandon in my

opinion. Shame on you."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. STEPHENS: Oh, that was the member for North Peace River.

Then on February 4, 1974, the Leader of the Opposition (Hon. Mr.

Bennett), as he then was, rose and said:

"Five thousand orders-in-council — a new indoor

order-in-council record, Mr. Speaker. Well, many of them were, of

course, routine. Many, many more of them deserve utter and complete

condemnation because they have made a mockery of this government's

claim to be responsive to the Legislature ."

Shame on you for not being responsive to the Legislature. I agree with the Premier. Good for him. He sure told you.

Then he went on to say:

"This open government" — referring to the NDP — "this

responsive government has displayed, almost from the moment it took

office, a total lack of understanding of its role as trustee of public

funds. That may be funny to the Premier as the clown prince of British

Columbia, but it certainly isn't funny to me. It shows a total disdain

as a trustee of public funds, and a total disdain for the members of

this Legislature who have a responsibility to share that trusteeship.

They've done it by using the very weapon, by using orders-in-council.

But the entire exercise is a sham, because the document was a sham." —

He's talking about the budget — "The so-called budget was never

intended to be a guide to the government spending plans. We know that a

little more than three months after this budget was passed this

government authorized over $25 million worth of special warrants and

expenditures which weren't included in that budget.

"That figure of special warrants for expenditures not

included in the budget is now over $110 million. They did it all by the

device which horrifies the Premier, the order-in-council, the censored

order-in-council which says little and hides all...."

Well that's very interesting. I am, as I say, very delighted that

the former Leader of the Opposition, now Premier, has so much insight.

On March 1 of this year this present government issued an order-in-council, and it says:

"Whereas the sum of $3 million is required to enable

the government to distribute to members of the public determined by the

Minister of Finance to be eligible to receive free shares in the

British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation, to enable an

offering to be made of additional shares to those members of the public

who apply for and receive free shares, and to enable the minister to

enter into and implement agreements with the British Columbia

Resources Investment Corporation and financial institutions and other

persons for the purpose of distribution and offering;

whereas this

expenditure was not foreseen, or provided for by the Legislature, and

is urgently and immediately required for the public good."

He then got the special warrant for $3 million, but what's it

being used for? It's not just to fund these giveaway shares, but in the

words of the order-in-council, it's to enable an offering to be made of

additional shares to those members of the public who apply for and

receive free shares.

Now isn't that wonderful? Not only are they spending our money to

give away something we own, but they're spending our money to finance

the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, a public company operating

in the private sector; they're spending money to sell its shares.

Wonderful! I'm sure glad this is a government that doesn't interfere in

the private sector. I want to tell you, this tax money is my tax money

and it's the tax money of the people of British Columbia. And they're

angry, as I'm angry, that this government is allowed to take our

dollars to fund private enterprises; to create a corporation, nothing

but a holding company that wasn't needed in the first place; to

handpick a group of people to run it so that the Premier and his group

of people can have their own private little game of capitalism,

supported by taxpayers' dollars. They've free enterprisers? I don't

believe it, and neither do the people of this province. The people of

this province know

[ Page 79 ]

when they' re being told the truth, and they know when they're being

told something that is not true, and they have no difficulty in

recognizing that this government is not giving us the straight goods.

But what about the commissions? The Premier, not too long ago — and

again I believe it was when he was sitting in opposition — gave a

lecture to the government at that time, telling them that they should

learn a little something about the brokerage commissions. I'm referring

again to Hansard , February 4, where the present Premier stated,

referring to the Premier at the time: "Look, we made a million dollars

for the people today." Those are paper profits, because you're not

going to make any money till you go to sell those shares, and if you

did go to sell, the Premier would learn something about brokerage

commissions and how much they eat into those profits.

How much do they eat into those profits? Let's do a little

calculating. They've changed the roles. Normally when you buy shares on

the open market, in the free enterprise system as I understand it, you

pay the brokerage out of your pocket, or the seller pays the brokerage

for selling. But oh no, what have they done here? They've charged the

brokerage to the corporation. They're going to sell, they hope, 85

million shares, and they're going to pay two-bits a share. Doing a

quick calculation, that's over $21 million that that corporation is

going to deplete its assets by just to sell these shares. The Premier

should learn something about the cost of brokerage commission. This is

not free enterprise, not a bit.

Mr. Speaker, we have missed a tremendous opportunity, just the

greatest opportunity that we have ever had. Had we taken those

corporations as they were, not imposed on them another bureaucracy....

They were running well. They were doing a good job and they were making

money, so you've got to presume that at least their boards of directors

knew what they were doing. But this government was not happy with that.

This government of bureaucracy imposed a superboard on them: people who

are really not interested in those companies at all, know nothing about

them, people who are going to have to be educated, but people to whom

that original board of directors are going to have to answer.

It's a superboard, a super bureaucracy. Why do it? Why not take the

shares of these companies, as they were doing, and market them and

underwrite them in a proper fashion? While you did it, why didn't we

lead the world by putting a large portion of these shares into the

hands of the workers of those corporations, to begin to build the

finest opportunity that we will ever be faced with — the opportunity to

create a profit-sharing mechanism in industry? You'll never get that

chance again. You've blown it. It's too late.

What have we done? On speaking to brokers recently I'm told that at

the rate these shares are being applied for, it's most likely that

little more than half of British Columbians are going to get what

they've already paid for. Through its own programs, this government is

going to deny many, many British Columbians what is already theirs, and

you are going to have to accept the responsibility for that. What an

opportunity!

Let's talk a little more about the individual enterprise of the

socialists on my left. Do you remember Canadian Pacific Investments and

MacMillan Bloedel? Do you remember that? Those are two Canadian

companies operating in Canada, controlled by Canadian shareholders.

Evidently Canadian shareholders are not entitled to the rights of

individual enterprisers.

The Premier got all excited. He came down off a mountain, tripping

over his skis. He couldn't get down here fast enough to say that B.C.

is not for sale. What he should have said is that B.C. is not for sale

unless it's to Americans.

He makes his own rules. This government decides who is going to

operate in the private sector. It decides the rules that they are going

to operate by. They have no sense of justice, these socialists who sit

on my left.

MR. BARRETT: Don't give the socialists a bad name.

MR. STEPHENS: You took care of that. I'm too late for that.

NDP — what does that mean? Social Credit — can anybody read those

names and tell me what they mean? I'll defy you to tell me somebody who

doesn't know what Conservative means. That's a name that means what I

say it means. When I tell people I'm a Conservative they know what I

am. When you tell them you're a Socred, you don't know what you are.

You're mostly Liberals and you're some Conservatives; you're all mixed

up. Do you know what a Socred is? He's a man who at federal election

time — which we're going through right now — has got nothing to do. So

because he's politically active, he goes out.... Some of them work for

the Liberals and some of them work for the Conservatives, just to keep

themselves busy, but they don't know what they are.

MR. BARRETT: What's a "progressive" Conservative?

[ Page 80 ]

MR. STEPHENS: That's redundant. [Laughter.]

Ask the shareholders of Canadian Pacific Investments and MacMillan

Bloedel what they think of the individual enterprise of this

government. The trust has broken down. The people don't believe them

anymore.

Interjection.

MR. STEPHENS: Somebody has been talking about Sasquatches. I

want to tell you that my executive assistant John Green, our candidate

for Saanich and the Islands, who will be sitting here before long, has

given up his Sasquatch hunting because he found them all here in this

room. [Laughter.)

This government that says one thing and does another is not fooling

the people of British Columbia. Let's talk about the property tax.

Shall we talk about property tax for a while? First of all they brought

in this amendment to the Assessment Act, which they didn't understand.

It's only recently they've grasped the significance of what they've

done. Through their policies and their policies only, they have

increased property taxes in this province to the point where people are

simply selling their homes. They are losing their homes. Businessmen

are going out of business and are going bankrupt. What do they do?

Because they haven't got the guts to stand up and take responsibility

for what they've done, they've tried to blame the municipalities. They

tried to impose an illegal order on them, telling them that they cannot

increase their mill rates. They've tried to impose an illegal order

trying to convince the people of this province that the municipal

governments have been so dishonourable that they have simply let taxes

get out of line.

I'll tell you what you did.

Interjection.

MR. STEPHENS: Well, I'll tell you what you did. First I'll

tell you what you did because you obviously don't know. The first thing

you did is you shifted $100 million out of your budget because you're

so keen to balance your budget. You shifted it off your backs and put

it on to the school boards so that the homeowners would have to pick it

up. That's the first thing you did. The second thing that you did is

that you shifted the burden of tax on to the urban areas, simply

because that's where the inflation has struck hardest on land. So if a

man and a woman trying to raise a family in Victoria or greater

Vancouver happen to have a $50,000 house on a $50,000 lot, they're

really getting stung far more than those more fortunate people who have

a $50,000 house on a $10,000 lot. You have stung the people who live in

the urban areas. You've really hurt them.

The third thing you did is that in just three years you increased

the basic mill rate for school tax by more than 50 per cent. You

shifted that burden again onto the backs of the homeowners. That's what

caused the rise in taxes in this province and it is totally deceitful,

Mr. Speaker, for this government to try to pass that responsibility off

on the municipal governments.

The increase in provincial spending in this province in the last ten

years is 413 percent. The increase in spending at the municipal level

is just slightly more than one half of that amount. Now I ask you: who

is responsible for increasing spending and increasing taxes? But you'

re not going to get away with it. You're not going to get away with

that deceitful act, because the people of this province know. They know

who's to blame for the taxes on their homes. And if you won't admit it,

they're finding out. You can't blame the municipalities. The

municipalities are the most sensitive and the best governments in this

country, and you have no legal right to be imposing these restrictions

on them. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'd hate to have you for a lawyer, Vic.

MR. STEPHENS: That'll never happen. I have same ethics.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps, hon. member, if you addressed the Chair, the debate might proceed in a more orderly fashion.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, you know, these municipal councils

throughout this province have for a number of years been the farm team for the Social Credit Party. It's from these

governments that they have attracted many of their politicians and

their candidates. But I want to say that any politician at the

municipal level who is so lacking in self-respect to ever allow his

name to stand as a Social Credit candidate in this province will have

no credibility whatsoever. There's not a better and more responsible

group of people than the local governments, and these people have tried

to blame them for their own acts.

What is worse, the voters in municipal elections have been

disenfranchised. This government has given the voters of the province

the right to select the men and women that they want to run their

affairs at the local level,

[ Page 81 ]

and this bunch canes along and tries to tell them that you can elect

the men and women you want — sure, that's okay with us — but we're not

going to let them do what they have every right to do. Free government,

terrific. The socialists on my left....

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing free.

MR. STEPHENS: That's right, nothing free, not even five shares.

Let me give you another example of why the credibility and honesty

of this government is in doubt. The Vancouver General Hospital needs

$20 million. They have no hesitation in spending $20 million to make

their political giveaway scheme work, while the hospital is crying for

help. Just in the last few days Don McAllister, the vice chairman of

the Lions Gate Hospital, resigned. He resigned because a year ago he

told this government along with the board of that hospital that they

could not survive on the amount of money that the government was going

to give them. But they made them do it anyway and now they're in

serious trouble.

The Premier went over to North Vancouver about five or six months

after he created a vacancy over in that area and said: "I'm sorry

you've got a vacancy; I'm going to be your MLA." He suddenly got

interested in the area because he was going to call a by-election. Of

course, the hospital board met with their new MLA and said: what can

you do to help us?" His answer was: "Well, I don't know much about

this, but I'll refer it to the Minister of Health."

That MLA went away, and a few weeks later the new MLA came over, the

Minister of Health, and he said: "What can I do to help?" They said,

"Give us some money." So he gave them $432,000, only three-quarters of

a million dollars short of what they need to survive. They have no

choice. They have no choice like many of the hospitals in British

Columbia. They've got to lay off help. They've got to lay off help.

They've got to cut their staff. This government tells me that they can

justify the expenditure of taxpayers' money to give away shares to buy

votes when they can't afford to spend another paltry three-quarters of

a million dollars to help a hospital that is greatly in need. That's

why the credibility of this government is dying. That's why the people

don't believe you. That's why they're no longer listening to what you

say. They're only looking at what you do. They don't like it.

This government talks about job development. That's a joke. This

government hasn't created any jobs. I doubt very much if governments

will ever create any jobs of substance, or any lasting jobs. This free

enterprise government constantly repeats to me that they've got a

Minister of Economic Development who spends $30 million of our tax

money because he's really creating jobs. I don't see any special

qualifications in that man to be able to create jobs in this province.

I trust the private sector, and you don't, you socialists on my left.

You don't trust the private sector. You don't believe they can do the

job. You get a big surplus, and what do you say? "We're going to use it

to create jobs." I say: "Why don't you give it directly back to the

people it came from?" It's not your money. Surplus means overtaxation.

You have no right to spend it. "Get your hand out of my pocket, and

keep it out." That's what the people of British Columbia are saying.

What about the constitution? Oh, boy, there's a good one. The

Premier of this province goes down to Ottawa and meets with all the

first ministers, and he's got a grand idea. He's going to create a new

senate. He's going to have the right to appoint the senators from

British Columbia. But he thinks that he should have the right to

appoint as many senators as Mr. Lougheed and Mr. Blakeney and Mr. Lyon

all added together. Isn't that wonderful?

If this Premier is to have any credibility at all, surely he's got

to go down there with a more positive plan for creating a new senate

that he should have control over — that kind of power. Any one of

Lougheed, Blakeney and Lyon would eat this Premier for breakfast.

They're not going to sit by and let him have equal power to the three

of them. That's just absurd. It's nonsensical, and it's childish. It

has no credibility.

Interjection.

MR. STEPHENS: Do I disagree? You're getting close. No

credibility. A modern democracy demands that we elect our senators. I

do not want the Premier of this province appointing senators. I don't

like the sound of senator Dan Campbell, quite frankly.

And what about the essential service legislation? I supported it. I

supported that legislation, but I did not support the sneaky way in

which it was done. Again, the trust and the credibility of this

government is lacking. Why do you have to sneak up on people? Why do

you have to make use of a special session of the Legislature to sneak

that special amendment in at the end of

an Act? What kind of an

approach is that? And then to stand in this

[ Page 82 ]

House and promise the people of this province that they wouldn't

implement it without further discussion, and then turn their back on

that promise and go and do it anyway. That's the kind of dishonest

approach that the people of this province are beginning to recognize.

They cannot be trusted.

You're on your way out, Mr. Speaker. They're going. They're going.

They're going down. This time they're never, never, never going to cane

back. We made a mistake when we let them up last time. We let then up.

A few of them on this side of the House sneaked across there and gave

them a bit of a boost. Now they are a coalition. We know what happens

to coalitions. We know what happened to the coalition government in

this province in 1952. Just call that election and you're going to see

it happen again. You're finished. Mr. Speaker, they're done.

This government functions on fear. This government was put together

for one reason and one reason only. That was to defeat this rag-tag

bunch on my right. That's what they went there for. I must confess that

when you did it I clapped my hands and said: "Nice going. At last we're

free of those dirty socialists." Boy, at last we're delighted to be rid

of them. Then I find myself in this House, and I find there are 34

socialists on my left and only 18 on my right.

But they have accomplished their goal. Their one and only goal was

to defeat the socialists, and they did it. They have nothing else now

to hold them together. Anybody who wants to read the debates in this

House over the last session and the previous sessions will see there is

hardly a speaker who ever got up on that side of the House who hasn't

simply said: "You think we're bad? You should have you guys." That's

their argument. That's their debate. They have nothing else.

Interjection.

MR. STEPHENS: They have nothing else. It's their only common

bond. They're going to came apart. They have no underlying philosophy,

none at all. They don't believe in anything. They solve problems by

slapping a band-aid on it and hoping it will heal up and go away. You

don't know what direction you're taking, and neither do the people of

British Columbia. You're all going to go out that door. That's the

direction you're going. You are there because you frighten the people

of this province. You say these people frighten them. Well, they did a

pretty good job, on second thought. But they are there because they

frighten the people of British Columbia. They ran around saying: "You'd

better vote for us, because if you don't you're going to get those

other terrible people." Well, at last in British Columbia the voters

know it is no longer necessary to keep a bad government in to keep a

worse government out. That's going to be proved in the next election.

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.

Fear, fear. The people of this province are not going to put up with

that again. They're going to realize, and they do realize, that if

we're going to make this province as great as it possibly can be, the

first thing we've got to do is to kill fear. I've never met a single

individual in my life who has ever accomplished anything worthwhile who

functions on fear, ever. That applies to political parties, and that

applies to nations. We're saying to the people of this province: "This

time, this time, stand up and fight. This time, don't let either of

them scare you. They both work this thing to the middle! " This time

there will be a political party on the scene that is prepared to

take a bold, strong step to make this government what it can be.

Interjection.

MR. STEPHENS: The member for North Peace laughs. I'd be

surprised if he even gets his party's nomination next time around.

That's how badly he scared them in North Peace.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'll tell you one thing: there won't be any candidates you run up there.

MR. STEPHENS: We have a grand opportunity before us.

I was pleased to hear the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

yesterday, in his other capacity, talking about fusion energy. What I

was disappointed at was that he's back-peddled from the greatest idea

I've heard from that government for so long. I got excited when I read

in the paper that this minister was going out to fight for British

Columbia to get this project. Yesterday he stands up in the House and

said: "I didn't say that. I just wrote a nice letter, and the Premier

wrote a letter and hoped that you consider us." Come on, Mr. Minister,

get out there and fight. What an opportunity for British Columbia Why

do you back away from the best things that you've

[ Page 83 ]

got? Go after them! That's a great thing to have.

British Columbia is a wonderful province, very strong. I'd like to finish,

by reading some lines from Tennyson. I think these apply to British Columbia.

They apply to everybody in this House, and they should apply to all voters:

The lights begin to twinkle from rocks.

The long day wanes. The slow moon climbs. The deep

Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends,

'Tis not too late to seek a newer world. Push off, and sitting well in order smite

The sounding furrows, for my purpose holds

To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths

Of all the western stars, until I die.

Thank you.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: This afternoon in question period the

member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) asked what was developing in

the meetings in Vancouver regarding the Queen Charlotte Islands cutting

permit No. 144. I would advise that the following press release is

being released, and I'll read it to you:

"The provincial Ministry of Forests and the federal

Department of Fisheries and Oceans agreed today to allow logging to

continue on a 48-acres site on Rennell Sound on the Queen Charlotte

Islands, subject to implementation of a series of measures to control

sedimentation in order to protect fish habitat in Riley Creek.

"The meeting in Vancouver was held to discuss the

logging situation which had resulted in charges being laid under the

Fisheries Act. The two departments agreed to a series of activities:

"1. QC Timber Limited would be clear to immediately continue

logging CT144, including the sensitive zone to which federal fisheries had

originally objected. The B.C. Ministry of Forests will immediately instruct

the company to implement a settling basin system and other preventive measures

to control sediment flowing into Riley Creek. The two agencies would jointly

enter into an intensified research pro-gram on soil stability measures, logging

techniques and erosion control to ensure that a similar confrontation does not

recur in the future.

"Both departments agree that the current referral

system was genuinely useful and should be strengthened. This referral

system has already led to the development of a preliminary soil

stability map for the Rennell Sound area.

"CP151, which is adjacent to CP144, had been approved

for logging, but has now been identified as unsuitable by the Ministry

of Forests, and will be subject to an intensive study by the resource

agencies concerned. Mr. Johnson, the assistant deputy minister of the

federal fisheries department, will be recommending to his minister that

all charges be dropped."

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, this action reconfirms that

the consultative process — which is, as a matter of fact, required by

the Ministry of Forests Act — does in fact work and, I think,

emphasizes the fact that unilateral action by any agency is certainly

not acceptable and does not lead to good resource management.

MR. KING: I wish to thank the minister for making his

statement to the House this afternoon. I'm sure that all members were

genuinely concerned about the serious charges which had been laid

against British Columbians as a result of the dispute. I particularly

welcome the minister's last undertaking that consultation will proceed

in the future between other departments, be they provincial or federal,

where there is a conflict of interest between the functions of those

departments. I only regret that the minister had not undertaken to

consult prior to the charges being laid against loggers and resulting

in a situation where the federal Minister of Fisheries was unable to

contact the provincial Ministry of Forests for six days. I hope now

that the minister is properly chastened and that he will undertake his

responsibilities more seriously in the future.

MR. SMITH: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, it would appear

to me as I recall from reading previous decisions that a statement by a

minister — a ministerial statement — is in order without leave at any

time during the debate in the House, or at any time that the minister

can gain the floor. I believe the minister asked leave to make the

statement, but I do not recall the member for the opposition from

Revelstoke-Slocan asking for leave

[ Page 84 ]

to reply. I think that the Chair should perhaps review the

procedure. If one side of the House is expected to conform to the rules

of the Legislature, then both sides should be.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, one moment, please. This may clear the

matter up. The asking of leave is only required because of the time in the debate.

It's not normally required during other periods of the day. However, we

are interrupting the debate at the minister's request, and leave is not

required for response from the opposition. Does this conclude the matter?

MR. SMITH: I do not wish to dispute the

interpretation of the

Chair. But I would suggest that perhaps it would be a good idea to look

at the procedure with respect to whether leave is required or not by

members of the opposition.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will take your request under advisement.

HON. MR. MCGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'm taking my place with great

pleasure in the historic throne debate, not to speak to an unworthy

motion of non-confidence in the government, but to speak positively

about the throne speech and particularly to give reports on the field

of education and on the matter of science in British Columbia.

For the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) I will, at the conclusion

of my remarks, have a good deal more to say about the International

Fusion Project and the role that I hope Canada and British Columbia

might play in that.

I did enjoy the remarks of the member for Oak Bay. Oak Bay always

sends interesting members to the Legislature. In the good old days,

they used to send Liberals. Now they send Conservatives. And nobody

enjoys the remarks of Conservative splinter groups more than the NDP.

They're your greatest friends. I can remember, Mr. Speaker, how the

NDP used to say with chuckles that if Scott Wallace hadn't existed,

they would have invented him. My, how the NDP when they were in

opposition, and particularly the former member for Cowichan, Mr.

Strachan.... How he enjoyed the speeches of Scott Wallace and how he

licked his lips at the prospect of free enterprisers following the

Conservative Party to the benefit of the NDP.

I think, Mr. Member, that you should say that that's precisely what

happened in 1972; and that's precisely what you are proposing now. That

would be the outcome of your success. If your proposal is to bring down

a free enterprise government so that the socialists may come back to

power, in hopes that after that, as your former leader had hoped, the

way could be paved not for the philosophy of free enterprise, but for

the purity of conservatism, on the assumption that former Social

Crediters and former Liberals would get a blinding flash of light about

big "C" conservatism, then that's of course what you should advocate.

But I think that perhaps the people of Oak Bay, along with others in

British Columbia who don't just fear what would happen with the

socialist government but actually have the experience, know; they have

been here when it happened. That's the kind of thinking that you have

to deal with. It isn't like it was when your former leader was making

the speeches while the NDP rubbed their hands with glee, because nobody

really knew. Lots of people used to say that if the socialists ever got

to power they would not be as bad as they seemed. There were those who

listened to their speeches and who believed that they were sincere. We

were afraid of what might happen; but I think that, even in our worst

moments, we never thought there would be clerical errors of $103

million — the former minister has just left now — we never thought that

those things would happen.

The fact is that they did happen, and it's against that experience,

that certain knowledge, not only of the history of your party — and I'm

not talking about the days when they were government from 1929-33,

because that was almost before some of us were born — but in more

recent times, when their role as a power in British Columbia led

directly to the socialists being in government and then what happened

after that, that one should temper one's approach to the future. At

least give a forthright and honest description of the consequences of

your course of action.

Mr. Speaker, I did want, particularly in the throne speech, to say a

few words about my responsibility as Minister of Education at the time

of the International Year of the Child. This is a year in which the

world is dedicating itself to the coming generation with the hope and

expectation, which can only be achieved through improved education, to

give to that generation a torch that will permit them, as they assume

leadership in the world, to make this a better place than it is today.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

In British Columbia, as you will recall, we kicked off the campaign

to recognize the International Year of the Child with the cere-

[ Page 85 ]

money on the lawn under the auspices of my colleague, the Minister

of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who will be chairman of a

committee to present to British Columbians a whole series of events

that will commemorate this historic year.

I know that when she speaks later in the debates in this House, she

will be able to give you an account of what is planned for British

Columbia. In the meantime, we particularly want to focus on the

educational system in our schools, the ways in which it can be

improved, commencing this year, that will have a lasting effect on

British Columbia and, through the influence of our people, extend

beyond our borders.

First of all, I want to talk about the education of all of our

children, because we have felt in British Columbia that we have not had

an appropriate and rational plan for handling youngsters that were

handicapped in our schools. I made a statement about the

responsibilities of the Ministry of Education in this regard, because

it is the responsibility of those who are educators to handle the

educational aspects of their problem. It is not an attempt to ply

health care, family support and other forms of social service. These

are equally important, and for many children they are even more

important than education itself. The provision of these services in

some cases will be the only means by which children may enter our

schools and in some cases, of course, the agencies and these other

supports became the primary focus for the youngster, so the education

has to be provided by the system going to them wherever they may be.

In order to see that the job is properly done, we have set up at the

provincial level an inter-ministerial committee. This committee will

coordinate the necessary services that need to be given to these

handicapped youngsters so they can have the maximum opportunity in

their lives and receive the optimal educational and other services that

they deserve.

Most of the problems will be solved at the local level by a local

inter-ministerial committee. But wherever those committees fail to

provide an adequate solution, there will be reference of that

individual case up to the provincial level, where we expect to be able

to solve it.

We've also got another group of youngsters that require special

attention in our system — the learning-disabled. About a year ago, I

appointed an advisory committee on learning disabled children. This

committee was to report to me the action we should take. It's a

complex area which has caused me a great deal of concern over the past

three years. This is because there do not seem to be clear-cut answers

for what is estimated, in medical and scientific circles, to be about 1

to 2 percent of the population who have relatively normal intelligence,

but due to cross-wiring and neurological abnormality, who underperform

substantially in our schools. If ve could find ways to properly

diagnose this group and prescribe a teaching environment, we might

tremendously improve their accomplishment and, therefore, their ability

to contribute later in life.

What t we are going to do, first of all, is provide a screening

service at kindergarten and grade 1, where youngsters who may have this

kind of problem can be discovered and then be referred to professional

committees, including medical people, who will be able to provide a

firm diagnosis if in fact a learning disability does exist, if in fact

it does.

I think we've got to distinguish those youngsters who have much

higher native intelligence than would be revealed by the rate at which

they pick up academic material presented to them in school, because a

neurological abnormality will lend itself to unusual progress if

special types of teaching, are applied. There's a difference between

these youngsters and those who are just less endowed intellectually and

are going to be slow learners. You can achieve more with the people

with genuine learning disabilities. They are a small percentage of the

total population, but if you give them special attention you can get

unusual results. That's the whole principle behind this. According to

pediatric neurologists, EEG specialists, psychologists