1980 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd 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, DECEMBER 9, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4279 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Mineral Land Tax Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 5). Hon. Mr. McClelland.

Introduction and first reading –– 4279

Company Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 3). Hon. Mr. Nielsen.

Introduction and first reading –– 4279

Oral Questions

Getz Report on BCRIC trading. Mr. Lauk –– 4279

Mr. Macdonald –– 4279

Mr. Leggatt –– 4279

Rail service to Whistler Mountain. Mr. Hyndman –– 4280

Ku Klux Klan activities in B.C. Mr. Barnes –– 4280

Feeding of elk in east Kootenays. Mr. Segarty –– 4280

Mr. Nicolson –– 4280

Mr. King –– 4281

Speech from the Throne

On the amendment

Mr. Barnes –– 4282

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4286

Mr. Passarell –– 4291

Mr. Hyndman –– 4292

Ms. Brown –– 4295

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 4300

Ms. Sanford –– 4303

Tabling Documents

Universities Council of British Columbia annual report and budget proposals 1981.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4305

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

Introduction of Bills

MINERAL LAND TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

Hon. Mr. McClelland presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Mineral Land Tax Amendment Act, 1981.

Bill

5 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

COMPANY AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

Hon. Mr. Nielsen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Company Amendment Act, 1981.

Bill

3 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry I was a little slow at the opening this afternoon, and I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REE:

It's my pleasure this afternoon, as it has been once previously, to

introduce my eldest son, who is attending the University of Victoria

and is in the gallery this afternoon. His name is Scott. With him is a

young lady from Saltspring Island, Barbara Woodley, who is also a

student at the University of Victoria. I would ask the House to welcome

them.

Oral Questions

GETZ REPORT ON BCRIC TRADING

MR. LAUK:

I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

Section E of the Getz report states that Mr. Helliwell phoned Edgar

Kaiser Jr. on April 25 this year and expressed interest in acquiring

majority control of Kaiser Resources. The evidence discloses that

Helliwell's view of the conversation was that prospects for a deal were

good. On April 30, Kaiser Jr. purchased $160,000 Kaiser Resources

shares on the open market, for which he eventually received a clear

profit of $4.48 million. Kaiser's purchase of shares on April 30 was

taken on insider information which was not available to all

shareholders and was clearly designed to loot the BCRIC treasury. Has

this information been referred to the Attorney-General with a view that

charges should be laid?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I don't know whether the member was reading verbatim

from the Getz report or whether he added some commentary on his own. I believe

he added some commentary on his own. The Getz report has been made available

to the Attorney-General's ministry. The Attorney-General's ministry,

along with the superintendent of securities, have had the opportunity to review

that report. The Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs hired Mr. Getz to

conduct an investigation on our behalf and part of the terms of reference of

Mr. Getz's instructions would be, of course, to advise our ministry as to

any aspects of security law which may or may not have been breached in British

Columbia. The conclusion Mr. Getz presented to us was that there had been no

breach of the securities law in British Columbia. I can't really respond

to the commentary of the member, and I believe it was commentary rather than

verbatim.

MR. MACDONALD:

I have a question for the Premier. We are told that the BCRIC-Kaiser

takeover was announced on August 21, 1980, and consummated within nine

days thereafter. Was it during that period that the Premier discussed

the matter with Mr. Helliwell, the president? If so, on what date?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I was advised somewhat immediately prior — a day or two,

to my recollection, of the proposal to acquire Kaiser. I did not get

into elaborate discussion — but the advice was within a day or two. I

might take this opportunity to answe r— I was going to wait until

outside question period, but the question was asked by the second

member for Vancouver East yesterday — as to whether the Premier of the

province had ever ridden in an airplane owned by Mr. Kaiser. The answer

is no.

MR. MACDONALD: Maybe the Premier will tell us

some other time about what leased jet planes he rides on and who

supplies them; that is not relevant here. Surely the Premier knows when

he was.... This is a big transaction in the history of the province. On

what date did you meet with Mr. Helliwell? You've had ample time to

look up your diary and tell us.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the decision was advanced to me by telephone.

MR. MACDONALD: On what date, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) is

trying to aid his seatmate by shouting other questions across the

floor. Anything that is relevant to this I will take as notice. I'll

bring back any times I have met or spoken to or with Mr. Helliwell,

except those of a social nature.

MR. LEGGATT: My

question is also to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The

Getz report did indicate certain possibilities of violations of the

law. The Getz report states that the exercise of stock options by seven

senior Kaiser executives on September 2, 1980, may be considered a

violation of B.C. law. Those officers used insider knowledge because

they knew that the deal was completed. That information was not

available to other shareholders. Has the government decided to

prosecute those Kaiser executives under the present B.C. statutes?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

The Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, through the office of

the superintendent of brokers, has not decided to prosecute under any

statute in

[ Page 4280 ]

British

Columbia. Whether the Attorney-General's ministry, upon reviewing the

documents, will make any other decisions, I don't know at this time.

But the report from Mr. Getz, reviewed by Mr. Bullock, our

superintendent of securities, reached the conclusion that no

prosecutions should be undertaken.

RAIL SERVICE TO WHISTLER MOUNTAIN

MR. HYNDMAN:

I have a question for the minister responsible for B.C. Rail, with

regard to the very fast growing Whistler Mountain area — the opening

this fall of the new Blackcomb ski portion and the resulting increased

automobile traffic to Whistler. The opening of the Whistler ski season

being virtually at hand, I wonder if the minister would be prepared to

investigate on a priority basis, and right away, the possibility of

putting into service this season, as soon as possible, the Royal Hudson as a special train from Vancouver to serve the burgeoning Whistler ski area.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Thank you very much for that question, Mr. Member. I realize that we

have a problem at Whistler, because it is becoming one of the greatest

ski areas anywhere in the world because of the policies of this great

government. Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, they will be able to accommodate

some half-million skiers this year — about 17,000 a day.

Now, we have alternatives. I would be quite happy to discuss with the railway the possibility of putting the Royal Hudson

on. I think we may have some problems getting it on, and I don't think

it would solve the problem. We have another way, Mr. Speaker. I might

advise that I've discussed with the concerned people that we might be

able to provide a shuttle bus service from Squamish. I'm sure we would

have the cooperation of the British Columbia Railway to provide a huge

parking lot, and then we could just go from Squamish to Whistler. But

I'm certainly very pleased that people from all over the great world

are coming to Whistler to ski. The government's policy of making this a

12-month recreational province is well underway.

KU KLUX KLAN

ACTIVITIES IN B.C.

MR. BARNES: My question is to the

Attorney-General. On October 31 of this year a request was made by the

National Black Coalition for consent to proceed with charges against

the Ku Klux Klan, which is a requirement of the hate propagation

section of the Criminal Code. Would the Attorney-General advise the

House why no consent has yet been granted to prosecute members of this

most dangerous organization.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I

wish to thank the member for raising the question; it's a very topical

one. At the outset, may I say that neither I nor any member of this

government in any way accept as appropriate the attitudes and the

philosophies of the Ku Klux Klan. However, they are, as far as we are

aware, citizens of Canada, and therefore they are entitled to the same

protection of the laws of this country as anybody else.

The

material which was submitted to regional Crown counsel by the coalition

has been examined. In relation to the specific provisions of the

Criminal Code and to those very few decided cases which have dealt with

this matter, reluctantly I must say at this time that the material

which has been provided to us and other material which we have, through

the criminal justice division, had the opportunity of reviewing do not

establish a case of the nature which is required in order for a

prosecution of this kind to be undertaken,

MR. BARNES:

My question is to the Minister of Education. Ku Klux Klan members have

been engaged in distributing Klan material at the B.C. Institute of

Technology and at public schools. What steps has the minister taken to

prevent the propagation of hate-literature propaganda in institutions

under his jurisdiction?

HON. MR. SMITH: Both school

boards and colleges have ample authority to repel distribution and

intrusions of a non-educational nature, and indeed are doing so. I have

asked that any materials of this kind that are distributed should be

forwarded to me and to the Attorney-General for examination. I also

announced at the conclusion of my tour last Tuesday that I was going to

institute some new regulations which would assist with the problem in

the public schools by strengthening the hands of principals in

repelling intrusions of a non-educational nature on school grounds.

FEEDING OF ELK

IN EAST KOOTENAYS

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I've got

a question for the Minister of Environment. Over the past week or so

there's been an extremely heavy snowfall in the Kootenay region, 1.5 to

3.5 metres in some cases. This has caused a severe problem for elk

trying to get to their traditional winter range. In some cases elk have

broken into farmers' haystacks and have already depleted their winter

hay supply. Industries in the Kootenays have volunteered their

equipment to drop hay to the stranded elk. My question is: will the

ministry consider matching dollars raised by the East Kootenay Wildlife

Association to feed the stranded elk, or has the ministry got any

contingency plans to feed the elk or help the farmers replenish their

stock?

MR. SPEAKER: Only the second part of the question is in order.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the member for the question. My

ministry has been aware of this problem for the last five or six days

especially. The fish and wildlife branch feel very strongly that

feeding of elk is not the correct thing to do in terms of nature.

However, I have asked them to review this policy in case the snow gets

any thicker. I've also asked them to consider whether or not we would

allow shooting of the animals out of season — or out of the extended

season now — from a humane point of view, to provide the game to

various needy groups throughout the province. I appreciate it's a

severe problem, but biologically the best thing to do is to let nature

take its course.

MR. NICOLSON: I have a supplementary

question for the Minister of Environment on the same subject. It is

reported that this morning the minister said it might seem cruel that

some elk should have to starve. I understand the request is for about

$20,000 to $40,000, and what is at stake is the base of the resource of

a $3 million industry in the East

[ Page

4281 ]

Kootenays. I ask the minister if, in making his

decision, he has considered the effect on this industry, and secondly,

the fact that thousands of these animals will die, not ultimately of

starvation, but by being attacked in their weakened condition by

predators — being hamstrung and disembowelled alive.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Yes to the first question and no to the second one.

MR. KING:

I have a supplementary on the same topic. Is the minister not aware

that one of the basic problems with the lack of winter feed for the elk

population is due to the settlement of the lower reaches where they

have traditionally grazed in the winter period? It's all settled with a

human population and forecloses that source of winter range. Is the

minister suggesting that in light of destruction of their natural food

supply, they should be abandoned to starvation?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

No, Mr. Speaker, I'm not suggesting that. However, the member opposite

knows full well that under the coordinated resource management of this

particular area the wildlife habitat has been reinstated to a very

large extent, and....

MR. KING: At high levels, at high elevations.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's hear the answer.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Well, the difficulty in handling this range habitat has been that

situation since the turn of the century, and it's not an occurrence

that's taken place in the last day.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. For the guidance of members, may I just refer to this

nice, new edition of Beauchesne's parliamentary rules — it's the fifth

edition. On page 129 it says: "The purpose of a question is to obtain

information and not to supply it to the House." Those are good words.

MR. MACDONALD:

I'm rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On page 36-1 of yesterday

afternoon's Blues, I have been wiped clean for half a page in

responding to the barb that the Premier threw at me about Columbia

Cellulose. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that Hansard

must be a verbatim report of what occurs in this House. I don't know

what czar or censor is about to amend the proceedings, but somebody has

— with a pencil — and I believe these words should be restored. I dare

say that we were both out of order — certainly the Premier was in

introducing it, and I was just being responsive to him. But even if we

were out of order, let Hansard show what happened.

MR. SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. Hon. members, I think

that we should all be aware of the procedures. When a member stands in his place

to be recognized to speak, he must first be recognized by the Chair and determined

to be in order. I think we must preserve that procedure. The member having been

recognized, the staff at Hansard control then turns on the member's microphone,

and it is only then that orderly debate — and yes, debate worthy to be recorded

in Hansard — actually takes place. If the member would like to have those procedures

changed, I think that perhaps a recommendation to the House might be considered.

I don't know. But the Speaker is tied to the present procedures.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, everything I said was clearly on mike, because it is

faithfully reported. Notwithstanding the bit of heat that I employed at

the time — and had to employ in view of what was said — it seems to me,

including your calls to order, that what happens in this House must be

reported so that the people know what happens. That includes the

rulings of Your Honour, as Speaker. If you say that somebody's out of

order and ask them to sit down, that should be reported too. Clearly

the mike must have been on, because it's faithfully transcribed, every

word of it, but stricken from the record. I object to that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same point, the member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, inadvertently I'm sure, said something a little alarming

when addressing the second member for Vancouver East's point of order.

You said that only those remarks "worthy" of record should be recorded.

I'm sure that Mr. Speaker said that inadvertently, that Mr. Speaker or Hansard

are not entitled to make that judgment, as Mr. Speaker well knows. The

verbatim record of the House must be recorded without judgment as to

its content. Otherwise, indeed, Hansard for an entire session may only be three pages long.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The word "worthy" was used, of course, in a matter of qualification, not in a matter of value.

On the same point of order, I will accept one more opinion.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do recall yesterday that the

second member for Vancouver East was expounding quite loudly and waving

his arms around. He was not recognized. He was out of order, and the

only reason his words are recorded by Hansard is because he has the convenience of sitting next to two mikes which are open pretty well at all times.

MR. SPEAKER:

I think I have sufficient opinion to make this recommendation to the

members. The recommendation is this: we have a standing committee of

this House which concerns itself with procedure, and indeed the

standing orders. I would recommend that this matter be taken up in that

committee, and that committee return to this House with a

recommendation which can be implemented here. As it is, I would be tied

to the procedures as we know them.

MR. BARRETT: On a

point of order, Mr. Speaker, we're not asking on the question of

policy, we're asking for a ruling on a specific incident. The Speaker

called the Premier, recognized him as having the floor. The Premier

then made certain statements. Those statements have been expunged from

the record; those statements made by the Premier have been deleted. The

question of whether or not the member was in order in responding to

those deleted remarks was first raised by my colleague, but there is no

method whereby, once a member is recognized, remarks are automatically

[ Page 4282 ]

expunged

from the record simply because somebody may or may not have been out of

order later on in response to them. So it is this specific item, Mr.

Speaker, that we draw to your attention, and we ask you to restore

those words, which were in order, to the official record of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I will review the tapes, and I will bring a decision to the House.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I've had to publicly wish

you well and congratulate you on your return to the assembly after your

illness.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment to the Speech from the

Throne, expressing the lack of public confidence in this

administration. I would, unfortunately, have to query the sincerity of

the government in calling this session, especially when it failed to

address a number of the issues that have been of serious concern to

those of us in the community. Strangely, there was no mention about the

presence of an organization calling itself the Knights of the Ku Klux

Klan in this province. It is to this deletion, and the lack of

government attention to this matter, that I wish to address my reasons

for supporting the amendment, which suggest that the public no longer

has confidence in the administration.

Mr. Speaker, there was

a meeting held in Vancouver some two months ago by an organization

calling itself the Ku Klux Klan, which is apparently an organization

imported from the southern United States. Although it is being

presented as a new movement in Canada, it does have a history in this

province dating back to the 1920s. In fact, I understand that at one

time there was a member of this assembly who was a member of the Ku

Klux Klan, and who I believe held a cabinet position. I find this

rather revealing in terms of the atmosphere in this province, and in

terms of the way things have generally been dealt with as far as human

rights are concerned.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Speaker, if you would attempt to maintain some decorum in the House

I would appreciate it. This is not a matter of the usual venue, where

we have fun and crack jokes, such as those coming from that Minister of

Housing over there.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You should stop blanket smearing too.

MR. BARNES:

I don't recall that member ever standing up in this House and

indicating his interest in human rights. But now he wants to defend

some spectre. It's not every day that I find myself personally feeling

such irritation about the attitude of an administration as I do today.

want to read some remarks that were made by the national leader in

Canada, at this meeting some two months ago that I was referring to.

This man, whom I shall keep anonymous because I don't think he needs

the benefit of having his name in Hansard , as far as I'm

concerned.... Nonetheless, the remarks that I'm about to read can be

verified; they were made at a meeting at which he was soliciting new

members. This happened at the Coach House Inn in North Vancouver. He

said to those people in attendance:

"Don't let the past of the Ku Klux Klan bother you.

It shocks people. It's better than other names, such as Nazi or White Citizens'

Organization. When the time comes we'll change the name to something else."

He went on to suggest that.

"The

silent majority of whites in this province really want us here. We are

a secret organization of responsible and important community people.

Some are legislators, some are in charge of hospital boards and in

other high places. White people are different because of their

creations — architecture, science, art and so forth.

system that allows blacks and other nonwhites into the country must be

changed. Whites are the backbone of this country. They have done the

most and they are the best. Politicians who let nonwhites into the

country are stooges and creeps who are undermining white people.

Negroes and Pakistanis don't have to be destroyed, as long as they go

back to where they belong. "

He admonishes the people he's speaking to. He suggests that they should "wake up, and let's take our country back."

Recently the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) made some disparaging remarks about immigration minorities. In the Chinatown News Magazine for November 3 of this year they editorialized a response to those comments.

"He

is of the opinion that unless there is some management and direction,

B.C. could have racial problems much like those that exist in the

United States and Britain, What Mr. Davis meant was that British

Columbians should be worried about the effect on Canadian society of

large numbers of visible minorities being admitted into the country in

general and to British Columbia in particular."

On July 21 of this year I sought approval from this government to move the following motion:

"That this assembly declare its affirmation that Canada

is a multicultural and multiracial society, founded on respect for the person

regardless of race, religion, color, sex, ancestry, place of origin, marital

status or any other class; and that this assembly record its opposition to

the Ku Klux Klan, an organization which is subversive to these Canadian traditions;

and that this assembly call upon all levels of government to ensure that all

Canadians are protected from racial attacks, harassment and intimidation wherever

they occur, and to prosecute the perpetrators of these attacks with the full

force of the law."

Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, I had no opportunity to speak to that motion,

because I was denied leave even to raise it on the floor of this House. However,

as the Klan organizing escalated with each passing day, in desperation I

[ Page 4283 ]

drafted

letters to be mailed to some 50 ethnic and multicultural organizations,

in an attempt to elicit information that might be of use in trying to

make a representation on their behalf — something, incidentally, the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr. Heinrich) should have taken the initiative to do. The letter, dated

November 6, 1980, which I wrote to these 50 organizations, chosen at

random from some 200 such groups, is as follows:

"Much

public concern has developed over the recent re-emergence of the Ku

Klux Klan in British Columbia. To date I have made a number of public

representations on this subject, bringing many queries to my office.

Clearly there is a need for a sharing of views and opinions from among

the various ethnic and multicultural organizations. To a degree this is

taking place, but as one holding public office I am concerned about

Klan activities.

"I seek the benefit of your

input. To achieve this, I propose a meeting for Wednesday, November 26,

1980, at 7:30 p.m. at the Carnegie Community Centre, Hastings and Main

in Vancouver. There will be many topics raised, I am sure, but I would

specifically request that everyone come prepared to discuss the

following: effectiveness of present laws; public information and

education; and, finally, recommendations for action by governments,

organizations, institutions and individuals."

I had

considerable response. I sent letters as well to the Attorney-General

and to the director of the Human Rights Commission soon after. On

November 14 I said to the Attorney-General:

understand you are reviewing the prospects for the successful

prosecution of the Ku Klux Klan under the hate literature provisions of

section 281 (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada. It is my understanding

that the specific complaint under review concerns statements made over

public media by the Ku Klux Klan organizers. While I appreciate that

there is some complexity and perhaps some difficulty involved with

prosecuting under this section, I would urge that this matter be

pursued with some vigour to arrive at an early conclusion on whether or

not to prosecute.

"I am sure you are aware

that the Klan is actively distributing racist literature in British

Columbia. The lack of clarity in the position of the Attorney-General's

ministry makes the victims of such literature unclear of their position

and uncertain as to the correct response. In the course of making such

a determination, your officials will obviously come to some conclusions

about the adequacy of existing laws to control the spread of hate

literature.

"The Ku Klux Klan has produced

literature which promotes unwarranted racial attacks upon specific

identified minorities who are a part of the cultural mosaic in British

Columbia. Part of my purpose in writing is to encourage that such a

review is expeditiously carried out. If it is not already doing so, I

would like to request that the Attorney-General's ministry place the Ku

Klux Klan under active and close surveillance. This is important if

children in the public school system are to be protected from Klan

intrusions.

"I look forward to your early response on these matters."

This letter, signed by me, was dated November 14, 1980. I am still waiting for a response.

I wrote a letter to the director of the Human Rights Commission, stating:

"We

are aware of the significant organizational efforts by the Ku Klux Klan

in the province over the past few months. Doubtless your office is

cooperating with the government to monitor this organization, but in

the meantime, vexing questions go unaddressed that need clarification

if responsible leadership and guidance is to take the forefront instead

of allowing a less desirable trend to emerge that could upset public

stability.

"On November 26 I meet with leaders

of some 50 ethnic organizations from the lower mainland to share

responses to the Klan and to obtain recommendations for action. The

Klan clearly aims to subvert this country. It is starting by attacking

the delicate and sensitive nature of a system that relies on all races,

colours and classes of citizens, respecting each other~'s right to full

and equal status as citizens and as persons.

"Material

currently being distributed by the Ku Klux Klan is racist and to my

mind qualifies as hate literature. A primary target for circulation is

our public school system where they hope to corrupt vulnerable young

minds, I shall be thankful to have your early response to the

following:

(1) Do Klan activities in any way offend the Human Rights

Code of British Columbia?

(2) In the opinion of the commission, what

recommendations would it submit to bring about effective machinery to

combat situations such as created by recent Klan activities?

"Trusting

you appreciate the public's urgent need for responsible guidance from

your department, the government and other concerned public officials, I

took forward to hearing from you soon."

I signed that letter, which I have not had a reply to either.

Mr. Speaker, needless to say, when you're really offended in the

way in which this government is offending not only this member but the

public, it leaves you rather dumbfounded as to what to do next. One has

to sit back and take cognizance of their emotions and try to remain

calm. But I can tell you this is gross indecency, to say the least, on

the part of the government.

There was an order-in-council recently designating December 10

as Human Rights Day in cooperation with the universal declaration of

human rights, which is a resolution passed by the United Nations some

30-odd years ago.

Here is the press release of November 21 issued by the B.C. Human Rights Commission:

"The

universal declaration of human rights was proclaimed by the United

Nations on December 10, 1948. To commemorate the thirty-second

anniversary of this proclamation, the B.C. Human Rights Commission will

present a special evening program on December 10, 1980, at 7 p.m. In

the theatre of the Robson Square Media Centre, Vancouver.

"In

September the Human Rights Commission sponsored an art poster contest

on human rights topics for elementary school children in this province.

The 50 best posters, as judged by art specialists, are to be

[ Page 4284 ]

exhibited in the foyer of the media centre from the 5th to the

10th of December. The winner will be presented to the community and the media

at 7 p.m. at the December 10 meeting.

"The

commission will also make a public testimonial dedication to Terry Fox,

who has shown clearly what a single human being is capable of doing,

given the will to help.

"Next there will be

the presentation of a special issue of the commission newsletter

devoted to questions effecting the disabled. This issue will anticipate

other government initiatives planned for International Year of the

Disabled.

"The keynote speaker of this very

special evening will be Mr. George McCurdy, executive director of the

Human Rights Commission of Nova Scotia since 1971. Mr. McCurdy, a

sixth-generation black Canadian, has had a vast experience in human

rights. His address will occur at 8 p.m. and will focus on racism as a

human rights issue.

"At 9 p.m. you are

cordially invited to join guests and members of the commission in

exchanging views over coffee. Human Rights Day will be an important

event in British Columbia only if the community participates. "

you see, Mr. Speaker, there is cause for cynicism in light of what I've

just read and in light of the obvious lack of direction, leadership,

sincerity and demonstration, or any real concern about what is

happening in this province. Here they're having a Human Rights Day

filled with important events, no doubt, but hardly addressing the very

serious crisis that this province is facing today.

Mr.

Speaker, as a member of the United Nations General Assembly we — that

is, British Columbians and Canadians — are committed to this body's

resolutions. They had a ten-year war on racism, in which they made

certain pronouncements and recommendations. One of them was to declare

that:

"Discrimination between human beings on

the grounds of race, colour or ethnic origin is an affront to humanity

and shall be condemned as a violation of the principles of the Charter

of the United Nations and of the human rights and fundamental freedoms

proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as an obstacle

to friendly and peaceful relations between nations and as a factor

capable of disturbing peace and security among peoples.

"...the

vigour with which action is taken by individual governments and the

degree of cooperation between them, inside and outside the United

Nations, to fulfill the purposes and principles of the charter and to

implement the resolutions relating to the eradication of racist

policies and practices, as well as colonialism; the full utilization of

the desire and readiness of men and women to devote their energies,

talents and abilities to the benefit of society, and more particularly

to combat racism and racial discrimination.

"The

ultimate goals of the Decade are to promote human rights and

fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind on

grounds of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin,

especially by eradicating racial prejudice, racism and racial

discrimination; to arrest any expansion of racist policies, to

eliminate the persistence of racist policies and to counteract the

emergence of alliances based on mutual espousal of racism and racial

discrimination; to resist any policy and practices which lead to the

strengthening of the racist regimes and contribute to the sustainment

of racism and racial discrimination; to identify, isolate and dispel

the fallacious and mythical beliefs, policies and practices that

contribute to racism and racial discrimination; and to put an end to

racist regimes."

Mr. Speaker, the public seeks guidance and

it has a right to seek guidance. I'm standing here before this

assembly, hoping to appeal to a sense of real understanding of the

democratic process, the delicate principles that we all take too

casually, and I think the number one principle that we're all concerned

about is that of free speech. But free speech has its limitations. I

suppose, to those of you who are on the so-called free enterprise side,

there is nothing freer than free. But I can tell you, there is nothing

free, period — nothing, certainly not these principles. I didn't bring

along a lot of the testimonial letters that I've received from people

who lived under the regimes in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s and at

the beginning of the 1940s, people who personally experienced the

consequences of the head-in-the-sand approach to dealing with problems.

But I think this is a time when we have to question principles, when

those principles are clearly being misused. I'm not suggesting that

they have no merit or any value, or that they have not in the past

served us well; but there is nothing that's etched in stone, not even

stone itself — nothing. And it's a cop-out on the part of the

government and any other civil libertarian, or individuals who claim to

be concerned about principles that are going to benefit humanity in

general but benefit no one specifically.

In the meantime we

talk about peace; we talk about striving for justice — and I believe

some of those expressions were used in the Speech from the Throne with

relation to the conflict between Iran and Iraq. We hope that that

matter can be abated to avoid further disturbing the world peace. But,

Mr. Speaker, peace is achieved by individuals like you and me, people

who have confidence in the concept of peace — which, incidentally, is

an expression that was coined by individuals like you and me. So peace

means nothing unless it means something to me, you and everybody else.

It doesn't mean anything because some intellectual came out with a

phrase and said peace is something to achieve. It doesn't mean a thing

if I don't buy it. Neither does free speech. I could tell you, Mr.

Speaker, without being out of order, that I'll be damned if I'm going

to let someone have free speech if it's going to bludgeon me and my

family to death.

Having made that expression, it wouldn't be

responsible for me, as a publicly elected official, to stand here and

say that I have no respect for guidelines, for law and order, for the

legislative process, or for the commitment on the part of all of us to

abide by certain rules for the common good even though we may dissent

or disagree at any point in time. What I'm suggesting is that it's my

duty to point out the inequities and obvious difficulties that exist

from time to time that may not have been seen previously but become

more and more evident and obvious with each passing day. Not being a

lawyer is perhaps the best thing that ever happened to me, although I

sometimes have a lot of trouble trying to figure out what's going on.

It doesn't take much imagination for me to realize how difficult it is

for the public who perhaps have even less experience than I in dealing

with these problems.

[ Page 4285 ]

There

is a need for leadership and direction. There is a need for a heck of a

lot more than we're getting from this administration, who are posturing

in the comfort of their chambers and suggesting that there's nothing we

can do, no laws are being broken, when people are quivering in their

boots on the streets, especially the new Canadians, those who can

every day in this country. They are coming and they are being shocked

because we're saying there's nothing we can do because there are

certain principles at play that we don't want to violate.

I've

been looking for a quote, but I don't have it. I've read it enough that

perhaps the best way to tell it is the way I perceived it when I read

it. It had to do with a former chief justice of Canada, Sir Lyman Duff,

who suggested that free speech is something that we should all cherish

and recognize as the right of everyone in a free and democratic

society. However, when it fails to respect the right of a person to

live in dignity, when it fails to appreciate the delicate balance we

have in a culture mosaic such as this, where cooperation, confidence

and a will to show compassion for one another is of the essence, then

one has to question the value of that free speech. In other words,

there are parameters, even on free speech.

Again, I don't

have the quote, but in 1965 there was an all-party committee in the

House of Commons addressing the question of hate propagation, They

deliberated for many months before they came down with their

recommendations. They suggested, even in those days, that the problem

was serious, that one of the greatest menaces facing a free and

democratic society was the inability of the society to recognize the

limitations of its principles with respect to intruders and

infiltrators who would undermine that system. They recommended 15 years

ago that something be done about making the courts more accessible to

the individual. They recommended that every person should have his day

in court. We shouldn't have to go to the Attorney-General for a fiat in

order to have him decide what values I place on whether I'm being

intimidated or threatened or not. If someone criminally assaults you,

you should have the right to take action, and not have to go and ask

the Attorney-General, "What do you think?" and have him deliberate over

the matter and say: "Well, I don't think the law has been broken." You

say: "Well, what about my head?" He says: "Well, it's probably just one

of those things that happen from time to time."

It's a

serious problem. It's one in which we need inventive minds and

imaginative people. We need people who are prepared not to relax on

their laurels or degrees they've achieved in the past, because the

future requires action, persons with commitment and a sense of vision

who are sensitive to the reality of daily living, not just something in

the abstract past. We're talking about today.

There are

people on the streets who are upset today. The group of people that

attended that meeting I held on the 26th consisted of people from every

imaginable description and from all over the world — people from the

east, the west, the north and the south. They were not all people of

so-called "colour." They were people of Nordic, Scandinavian and

European descent. They were people who care about the concept of

freedom and democracy. They recognized the dangers that are lurking out

there, that have in fact become pretty well rooted in this society and

that are being propagated by the Ku Klux Klan. So this is not a

conspiracy of the left or a conspiracy of anything; these are Canadian

people who are concerned. There's no need to contrive something like

this. This is real, not imaginary. This isn't a kind of situation where

you have someone say: "Well, there can't be that many of them out

there. There're only a couple. What difference does it make? You're

just making a mountain out of a molehill. Just disappear and they'll

disappear. Don't give them any publicity. Be quiet." That's fine as

long as you've never experienced the debilitating experience of racism.

If you've never experienced it, you don't know what it is. You've got

to go out there and try to find out.

I can tell you, Mr.

Speaker, one good thing you can say about me is that I learned my

lesson well, and I've learned self-control. But I can tell you that

there was a time when I'd have been out on the streets fighting. It's

only by the grace of some people who just kept telling me to hang in

there that war is not where it's at. You've got to have confidence;

you've got to have patience. But I can tell you, patience runs thin

when you come to the senior lawmaking officers of your province, to the

people who are charged with administering justice in this province, to

the people who are supposed, be informed and who care, and they tell

you there is nothing they can do. Well, you know the law of the jungle:

go for yourself.

Don't think that it can't happen in British

Columbia. It's happened all over the world, and it can happen here. I

don't mean to alarm anyone. We don't exactly have a peaceful

environment in the first place. We don't exactly have everything our

way in the first place. There are still many aggrieved people of all

walks of life in this province who are very concerned about the

indifference, the attitudes of this government with respect to human

dignity and justice. It's not just the Klan. The Klan are a group who

are exploiting a situation that happens to exist. They've recognized

the weaknesses, and we're too cozy to face it ourselves. That's all

they are doing. There are principles involved here. No, the Klan is not

the issue. We are the issue. Indifference is just a state of mind that

we seem to have allowed ourselves to fall into, which is as lethal as

sitting on a keg of dynamite. It can blow up in our faces and we can be

hurt.

The government may have a problem indeed in terms of

the legislation that exists being faulty. But, you know, there's no

excuse for the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) to stonewall the

rights of those people who have come to him legitimately with a

complaint and asked him to refer it to the Solicitor-General or

whatever procedures are necessary in order to give them their day in

court. That's the very least he could do. Why should he have to sit on

his judgment? No, it doesn't require any genius to do that. It doesn't

even matter if the minister happens to be wrong. No one is suggesting

that they will win their case, but they should have an opportunity to

try to win. That's the fault. That's the serious error that this

government is making. You can believe me that it's unforgivable. In

fact, it's contemptible against the Canadian people. You don't even

appear to be concerned. You're not even trying to do anything. You have

no suggestions, no recommendations. You just think there's nothing we

can do, the law isn't being broken. Well, hogwash! The law is being

broken when people are being hurt.

Whether the law is clear

or not, the point is that when you ask people how they feel about this,

I can tell you there's a great voice out there saying: "What is the

government doing. What can we do?" I get calls every day: "What can we

do? How can we help? This is a serious problem." It doesn't matter

really about numbers. If people want to be involved in

[ Page 4286 ]

protecting

their environment and their society, they should have a right to do

that. You should be concerned about trying to help them do it. This is

why I've said it's best perhaps not to be a lawyer, because you're

closer to reality. In other words, I have to get out and scratch for

everything every day. I don't have time to do that much

intellectualizing about the complexities of how to make something stick

in the courtroom. All I know is that you better find some answers. Do

that or resign. If you can't find the answers, then admit it, but don't

hold the people up who are asking, especially in a multicultural,

multiracial society where we brag and boast about our mosaic and how

well we are doing. To tell those people that they should accept the

effrontery of the Ku Klux Klan, when they suggest that their

citizenship is not valid — imagine the gall! Even an attack on Her

Majesty the Queen wouldn't be any worse of an offence.

Even

though you may not understand it, what you are saying is that it's okay

to come in and insult the subjects of the Crown — a subject of this

society, the people. The main number one resource in this society are

all of us individuals. No other resource, in my view, takes precedence

over myself — or over you, in fact, because we are, and we should have

the confidence and the security to know that at least our citizenship

is not up for debate.

We may debate our behaviour, we may

talk about a violation with respect to our activities — and that's all

fair comment. But, Mr. Speaker, it's not fair comment to have someone

suggest that all the blacks, all the Pakistanis, all of the Chinese,

and various other people, and perhaps those who are not quite White

Anglo-Saxon Protestants — and perhaps even them later — must leave, and

go somewhere else. I think that's an offence under the Criminal Code.

It certainly disturbs the peace. You may say that it's not of the usual

nature with respect to the Criminal Code — it has nothing to do with

material things, it has nothing to do with physical violence or those

things — but I can tell you the emotional and psychological violence is

even more hurting sometimes than the physical, because it goes on

generation after generation. I mean, you just take the case of the

Irish fighting each other. It's been going on for hundreds of years.

But

the point is that once hate is embedded and once people make their mind

up that they are better than the other guy, they're going to fight.

We're aiding and abetting that right now. We're supporting it right now

by doing nothing. I think that the government should reconsider its

position and come out front and perhaps start making some

recommendations, if the Criminal Code is not adequate as it is, and

saying that maybe there is some measure, some degree, of fault with

words — maybe there is something about these words that is more lethal

— and maybe we'd better start restricting freedom of speech when it

starts to hurt our country, because that's exactly what it's doing.

don't like being called names, I don't like being singled out, I don't

like being offended, and I think that that's the very least I could ask

of the government. Even if I'm starving to death and can't get a job, I

want at least to be able to suffer in dignity. But these are the kinds

of insults, Mr. Speaker, that go far beyond someone attacking you on

the streets because there's a difference of opinion. When they start

suggesting that they should dismantle this country one by one — person

by person — and fire them out of here, and saying that we're going to

have it just for a certain class, that's a declaration of war, an

absolute declaration of war.

So I would like to see the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr. Heinrich), who is responsible for the Human Rights Code, take the

leadership and show some initiative, show some indignation, and not

just say that they think that the Klan is, as the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Wolfe) suggested, just repugnant. Well, great! They're

repugnant. So let's forget it. They're just repugnant. No, we want more

than that. We want you to do more than hold conferences for ethnic

communities, when you're getting ready for an election, to talk about

policies, and then as soon as the election is over forget it, or make

promises which you don't keep, like appointing the cultural heritage

adviser without consultation with the community and these kinds of

things. Stop playing games with the ethnic communities and get on with

doing something which shows that you have a real commitment to the

mosaic in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I'll just close my

remarks by suggesting as well that if nothing else, this government

should recognize the need to make the Human Rights Code arm's length

from politicians, the same as the auditor-general and the ombudsman's

office. In other words, get out of the ballgame if you can't play it

fairly. Leave the people to do their job. We don't need to get

politicians involved in human rights. Let's set that commission up so

it can do the job it has to do. This is one of the other faults. Let's

begin to recognize that citizenship is not the core curriculum only; it

involves recognizing the delicate nature of the democratic society so

that people understand when they are in trouble. Let's start doing

something about that in the school system.

In the meantime,

Mr. Speaker, I think that we could do with a few impassioned speeches

from that side of the House. So far we've heard nothing. I don't think

they really understand. It's difficult to draw the analogy between the

kind of mentality it takes to sell cars, perhaps, and the kind it takes

to look after human rights, but I think that that government has an

obligation to at least try.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr.

Speaker, number one, I would like to again reiterate my good wishes to

you upon your return, sir, your cheery disposition and, indeed, your

most healthful presence in our House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, sir.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm delighted to have you back.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I'm

not going to comment upon the very thoughtful speech of the last

speaker, except to make one observation about what he said about core

curricula. I think, really and truly, that this is an area that we

should be giving a great deal of additional consideration to. I do know

that my colleague, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), is

responding to requests that have been developed over the past months

concerning the introduction into core curricula of something about our

democratic institutions, our democratic goals and our democratic way of

life. I think that the sooner we have that within our schools in a

better fashion than it is today, the better, and to be included in that

should be an expansion of legal education. It is my general

understanding that today there is only one elective course in legal

education — I think it's a very good course, which, I believe, is in

grade 11 or

[ Page 4287 ]

grade

12. But, you know, we all live under a democratic society, we all have

to subscribe to the rule of law, and precious little is ever taught

about it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few moments to talk

to you and to my colleagues in the Legislature about our view of the

constitutional turmoil that currently besets our country. I'd say there

is no question that because of it and because of the economic dilemma,

we're now facing some very critical times in Canada at this point in

our history.

I will not be transgressing upon the motion, Mr. Speaker, you may rest assured of that.

This

September we were as close as we have ever been to substantial

constitutional reform. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the capacity to fully and to

fairly recognize that opportunity became lost. It was lost because of

an unrealistic and an unworkable timetable; it was lost because of the

lack of success at the first ministers' meetings in September; and it

was indeed lost because of a process that did not adapt itself to the

possibilities of reasonable compromise and accommodation. We have to

look at what is the present result in the country. I'd say it's

regrettable feelings, exacerbated rhetoric, separatist sentiments and a

federal activity that is proposing unilateral, self-defined solutions —

with all the discordant emphasis and the discordant result from that —

instead of everyone better utilizing our collective Canadian energies

to address the more serious and, indeed, the ever-increasing problems

of the day: the wildly mounting deficits in our national economy; the

double-digit inflation — most of the members have made some reference

to that already during the throne speech debate; burgeoning national

unemployment — it's pretty good in B.C., but in the rest of the country

it's on its way up; staggering bureaucracies across our land; a

spreading housing crisis — members on both sides of the House have

talked about that; interest rates — well, I guess you could say they

are blowing the Richter scale, and they used to be called usury at the

rate they're at now.

MR. MACDONALD: They're still going up.

HON. MR. GARDOM: And they're still going up. It's dreadful. And a letter takes about two weeks to cross town.

But,

Mr. Speaker, you can remember that it was only about six months ago

that all Canadians, and both sides of this House, urged Quebeckers to

stay with us at the table of Confederation, and in turn, all other

provinces, led by the federal government, promised Quebec substantial

constitutional reform. I have to put the question to you, Mr. Speaker,

as to whether the federal package will produce that, and I'd say the

answer purely, simply and unequivocally has to be no. There is no

question that we are very proud of our country. We want to make it

work, and that's very much the commitment of the government of which I

am part.

We are completely opposed to separation, as I said

in a talk in Toronto, "be it east, west, central or centrifugal

separation." The government of the province of British Columbia is

today, was yesterday, and will be tomorrow for one strong and united

Canada. And all of us should be, for the country has got to stay

together.

But you have to take a look at where Canada is six

months after the Quebec referendum, We have discontent throughout

Canada in varying but in increasing degree, and it exists right across

the whole of our nation. It's sad and it's indeed unnecessary, but it's

nonetheless a fact. I think we can all agree, there is more than one

cause for that: the quavering economic performance, the elective

imbalance on the national scale, and the constitutional issue — and,

I'd say, the amazing amount of federal emphasis that has been placed

upon the constitutional issue.

Mr. Speaker, we've existed

for 113 years under our present constitution — I think it's of good

stuff — and I'd say that with an effective amount of cooperation and

flexibility we could probably go on for another 113 years. But if we're

going to change it, then we've got to do it the right way and it's got

to be the Canadian way, and we have to do it properly.

I'd

like to address to all members of the House what has happened since

June 8. Here is a quick rundown, On June 8 the Prime Minister and the

Premiers requested consideration of 12 items of constitutional reform.

It wasn't 1, 17 or 6; it was 12. Extensive meetings were held right

across the country, and it was a very, very intensive process. I say,

without qualification, that a lot of consensus and agreement was

arrived at on all matters. I think more could have been developed had

the timetable been extended even by a month, but that was denied. I

say, Mr. Speaker, that the will was there for agreement, Even a formula

for amendment was developed subject to rounding off some rough edges,

and that became known as the Vancouver consensus or the Vancouver

accord. But that accord that was developed in the city of Vancouver by

all of the provinces was not heeded by the federal administration, and

I say that heretofore accepted Canadian conventions, Canadian customs

and practices — and, indeed, appropriate legal routes — were abandoned.

This culminated in the federal government introducing its own material

into the House of Commons.

MR. HALL: On a point of

order, I'm somewhat loath to interrupt the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations. It's a good speech, I wish he'd give it

more often, but I'm wondering whether or not in view of the resolution

on the order paper.... The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations is

indeed the House Leader, and it's his timetable; he gave notice of the

motion. Is this particular part of his contribution today in order?

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I don't have any difficulty whatsoever in responding to that point. The

motion deals particularly with patriation of the constitution and a

formula for amendment of the constitution. That was referred to during

the throne speech. I do not intend to get into particularity during

this talk but to inform all hon. members how the process developed to

this point in time. I can assure the hon. member that I'm most

delighted to speak during the motion when it's called and develop some

particular aspects of it. This is a general talk informing you of what

is happening in the country at the present time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

While the point raised by the second member for Surrey is a fair point

to raise, I must say that the motion is very clearly set out. While

there is a very thin line here, I believe the minister presently

addressing us is keeping to the appropriate side of that line.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, you should be aware that there is an amendment to the

motion, and it is the amendment which is under debate at this

particular time. That amendment is regretting that His Honour failed to

comment on the lack of leadership of this government.

[ Page 4288 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Thank you, hon. member. Notwithstanding the point, the debate on the

throne speech or amendments to the throne speech has never

traditionally restrained to that degree discussion by any members.

Otherwise, hon. member, it would be difficult for the Chair to rule

many of the addresses in order on that point.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I certainly will be indicating to all of the hon. members.... I'm sure

if they will give me their attention they will receive from my remarks

very, very clearly the distinct impression that there's been excellent

leadership in the province of British Columbia vis-à-vis constitutional

reform since 1976, but rather a void prior to that.

I was

mentioning that the accord that was developed in Vancouver was not

heeded by the federal administration. I drew to your attention that the

conventions, customs and usages in our country, and indeed the

appropriate legal route, were effectively abandoned by the federal

administration introducing its own material into the House of Commons,

which clearly incorporates intrusions into the historic and, indeed,

accepted divisions of powers between the federal government and the

provinces of our country. We are objecting to that, and we are showing

leadership in this regard.

The activity that has been

undertaken by the federal government is unilateral as opposed to

cooperative. It was, and it is, increasingly discordant. What is

happening, as you will see from my remarks, is completely contrary to

the accepted concepts of Canadian federalism, and this is coming from

the one agency that all Canadians should be able to look toward and

count upon as the wellspring of unity in our country.

The

concerns that I am expressing are just not the concerns of this British

Columbian, nor the concerns of just one government in our country. They

are very legitimate concerns; they have been expressed right across the

whole of our nation. I'd say let's not try to get caught up in the

parlance that is so often used these days that this is just Ottawa

bashing. These people expressed those kinds of observations. The kind

that I'm expressing are just as Canadian and just as much a part of

Canada, and they have just as much right and responsibility to express

their points of views as do those who differ with them. What we've

constantly said in B.C. Is to return to the table and try to agree; and

I say that we have to do that.

In 1978 the Premier of the

province, at the first ministers' conference on the economy, called for

a more businesslike, planned approach to resolving Canadian issues.

Last month, November of this year, he called for a cooling-off period

and a return to the economic and constitutional table to resolve our

constitutional difficulties and then get to the real problems, which

I've been talking about.

In 1978, as the second member for

Vancouver East knows, if he's yet read them.... I do hope you have at

least read them by now; you've had two years of them hanging around.

You have an opportunity to break open that book jacket, sir, and read

the comprehensive set of constitutional proposals that were prepared by

this administration. The aim of this administration then was to enhance

Canada and to make it a better place for all Canadians. We believe very

strongly — and this is the philosophy of this government — that strong

provinces make a strong Canada, and that the main part of Canada's

strength is in its being a true federation, where that which can best

be done locally is done locally, and that which can best be done

federally is done federally. That is cooperative federalism; that is

what this country has lived under and indeed has prospered under. But

the country today is not experiencing a program of cooperative

federalism but confrontative federalism. I say that this is very

contrary to the concepts and the spirit of Canadian federalism and the

BNA Act, and those thoughts and sentiments are shared by provinces

right across this country; those thoughts and sentiments are also

shared by citizens right across this country. We believe Canada is more

than just the sum of its parts; that is by far the most shared view of

the country. Then surely this nation is more than just the sum of one

perspective or of just one government timetable.

Federalism

is fragile. Its very strength is also where it is most vulnerable. A

belief in federalism implies a belief in diversity, which in turn

reflects the source of its richness. It implies the acknowledgement of

its separate parts, and it requires that each respect the unique

desires and needs of the others. Is that being done today in our

country? I have to put that question to you. I submit that it is not.

When this respect suffers, the trust is broken and the entire federal

fabric suffers. This brings us back to an amending formula, which is

indeed an issue which is too fundamental to short-circuit.

I said, this is a view that is shared by many across the whole of our

country and by the majority of our provincial governments. Since this

proposed federal alternative is without provincial agreement, it is

contrary to Canadian practice and custom. It is contrary to Canadian

convention and contrary to Canadian law. This is the main theme which I

want to develop in this talk: the common thread throughout our history

is that where both federal and provincial responsibilities are

involved, the consent of all of the constituent parts must be required

to validate any kind of request for an amendment.

I'm going

to talk to you a little bit about Prime Minister Pearson. I'm going to

read you some of the words that were expressed by Arthur Meighan when

he was the Leader of the Opposition; Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Borden, Prime

Minister St. Laurent and some others. These sentiments certainly come

from very well known and historical figures in our country. I don't

think they can be lightly disregarded, but I suggest to you that they

are being lightly disregarded in today the national context. I say

that's very, very bad and improper.

Prime Minister Pearson

when he was talking about unanimity said this — I'm going to

paraphrase: "The facts of national life have imposed the unanimity

requirement, and experience since Confederation has established it as a

convention that a government or parliament would disregard it at its

peril."

Arthur Meighan, when he was the Leader of the

Opposition, said: "The common thread running through the

federal-provincial conferences has been that Canada should have a

method of procedure to amend its own constitution without resource to

the United Kingdom, provided that method was satisfactory to the

Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures."

Sir

Wilfrid Laurier said: "Confederation is a compact. It should be altered

only for an adequate cause and after the provinces themselves have had

an opportunity to pass judgment on the same."

This House ought to hesitate in passing judgment until it has before it the views of all the provinces affected.

Prime Minister Borden was again talking about the federal compact: "It is only right that each province should be

[ Page 4289 ]

consulted and its decision given in the right of its separate entity."

Prime

Minister St. Laurent said: "It is and has always been the view of the

federal government that the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces

which gives a federal character to the constitution of Canada must be

respected. " Is that being respected today in this process? I submit to

you that it isn't.

Mr. St. Laurent made an earlier comment when he was then the Minister of Justice

for Canada: "It has always been my view that any procedure for amendment

of the joint portion of the constitution must make proper provision for participation

by both the federal and the provincial authorities."

Mr.

Speaker, I think this is perhaps best summed up by a short statement in

1965 in the federal government's own White Paper on the constitution:

"The Canadian parliament will not request an amendment directly

affecting federal/provincial relations without prior consultation and

agreement with the provinces."

So, Mr. Speaker, what do you

really see from all of that? I put to you that it is abundantly clear

that there is an inviolate requirement on the part of the government of

Canada to receive provincial consent before there are any steps along

the line it's proposing to take, because that is the clear and dominant

theme. Sovereignty under our federal democratic system is not the

private preserve of just a federal government, but is divided between

the two levels of government.

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I'm going to refer to that in just a moment. As a matter of fact, that

point was taken into consideration during the debates in Ottawa and

they have had a ruling that it is not sub judice.

The member

for Surrey is talking about the proceedings that are in front of the

Manitoba court of appeal. Proceedings are also going to be taken in

front of the Court of Appeal of Quebec and the Court of Appeal of

Newfoundland. In all of these cases, at least six provinces are going

to be addressing the issue that the legality and legitimacy of the

federal position is in very serious question.

I think we

should not leave this point without making some reference to the Senate

of Canada and what its responsibility will be concerning these matters.

I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is indeed a very commanding

responsibility upon the Senate of Canada within its role of having to

provide sober second thought to the House of Commons legislation and,

secondly, within its historically conceived responsibility to represent

regional or provincial interests. The Senate will have to take a very

careful look at this type of legislation, because what is being

proposed by the federal government will certainly shape the future of

our country.

The Senate will have to give very highly

detailed and exceptionally careful consideration to the process as well

as to the substance of the Commons proposal. In the absence of

provincial consent, in the face of opposition from the majority of the

provinces of our country, and in the face of what appears to be clear

intervention into existing provincial legislative domain, the Senate

will have to determine whether that which is being proposed is

inappropriate and is not the Canadian way of doing things.

MR. LEGGATT: They haven't got the guts. They'll never change.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The former member for Ottawa, the

member for Coquitlam-Moody, says the Senate haven't got the guts and

they'll never change. I don't know. Maybe you're right, but I hope that

won't be the case.

I have before me the report on certain

aspects of the Canadian constitution which was chaired by Senator

Goldenberg, and it's dated November 1980. I'll be darned if this

material was not apparently produced — and I quote from the first

page.... "This report was approved in substance by the committee before

the beginning of the first ministers' conference on September 8.'' It

was too bad it wasn't released at that time. It goes on with a final

revision given at a meeting on October 30.

This is what this

committee of the Senate of Canada said in their report. I'd like to

read it to you, because I think they should have to live by their words

on this issue. I say the Senate of Canada has a commanding requirement

to live by their words in this issue. This is on page 7. I'll read it

to you. "It is genuinely accepted today that Canada should have a

genuine federation in which each order of government would be sovereign

within its own areas of jurisdiction." Now, senators, please don't

change your minds over the Christmas holidays.

I will carry

on. "This basic principle has been recognized by all the documents that

have dealt with constitutional reform in recent years." So they have

accepted the concept; they have accepted the wisdom of the direction of

the Meighans, the Bordens and the St. Laurents of this world, and I say

thank God for that and I do hope that they will have the courage to

stick to it.

They refer to the Pépin-Robarts report. It said

that since we view the provincial governments as equal in stature and

maturity to the central government, we have no difficulty in stating

that in a restructured, genuinely federal union the provinces should be

recognized as having a constitutional status equal with that of toe

central government. That is the quotation of the senators of

Pépin-Robarts. They refer to the Beige Paper of the Quebec Liberal

Party. "Quebec wishes to belong to a federation in which all of the

provinces will be sovereign and autonomous in their fields of

jurisdiction."

In the 1978 White Paper of the federal

government — they refer to that too. "The federal government set as its

first condition for the renewal of the constitution of Canada that it

should be a genuine federation, that is a state in which the

constitution establishes a federal parliament with real powers which

apply to all parts of the country, and provincial legislatures with

equally real powers within their respective territories."

I like the way they sum up, and I do hope that we are going to have your support during this amendment or during this debate.

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

My goodness, time for repentance, my friend. But I would like to read

this to you. I am returning to the senators: — Other documents as well

have expressed their support for a genuine federation. There seems to

exist, therefore, a general consensus on the principle of sovereignty

or nonsubordination of the two orders of government." Senators, please

read your own words and don't forget them, and if the senators read

their own words

[ Page 4290 ]

and

if they live by them, the present constitutional proposals will not

pass through the Senate of Canada, and I say that they should not.

have to conclude from that, Mr. Speaker, without question, that the

House of Commons is moving too far and it is moving too fast; it is

moving clearly without the kind of consent and the kind of Canadian

accord that is required for the Senate's approval of a measure that

would be as difficult and as dramatic to reverse as this one.

I'm

going to talk to you now a little bit about London. As you know — and

these were filed with the Clerk's office, and copies were sent to your

caucus, to your leader, sir.... This deals with the B.C. brief that was

filed to the Select Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs of the

British Parliament, which is receiving evidence on the legal and

constitutional responsibilities of that parliament, its duties,

procedures and juridical position. I would say that it is very

regrettable that the Mother of Parliaments has to be drawn into a

process which can be, and should be, resolved here in our country. And

I say, without being presumptuous, as to the conclusion that will be

reached by the House of Commons, surely it will be bound to recognize

that for years Canada has been a free and independent and sovereign

nation, and surely the United Kingdom parliament, which is the trustee

of our constitutional heritage, is being put into....

MR. LEGGATT:

I just wanted to raise the question of relevance around the debate. The

motion that is before the House deals with the question of leadership.

I haven't heard the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations refer in

any way, so far that I have been able to detect, to the motion on the

Coor. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you give consideration to the

relevancy of his remarks.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would

indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, since we got the attentive ear of the

member, it is very clear that British Columbia has taken great

leadership in the development of the best set of constitutional

proposals put forth by any province in our country by opposing this

unilateral activity on the part of the federal administration, and we

are not rolling over like you are, sir.

MR. HALL: Mr.

Speaker, I want to raise the question of the relevance of the debate,

when one considers the presence of the motion on the order paper

dealing with the constitution, and ask you if you would consider for

one second whether any of the remarks that the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations has just been making over the last 20

minutes would have been declared out of order had he been speaking on

Resolution 1.

Secondly, all the leaders he spoke about in these last 20 minutes are dead.

Thirdly,

I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, that you're allowing the Minister

of Intergovernmental Relations to deliberately abuse the rules of the

House as he just did in his rejoinder to the member for Coquitlam-Moody

(Mr. Leggatt) when he said that this government is providing leadership

in opposing the unilateral actions taken by the federal government,

which specifically refers to parts of Resolution I on the order paper.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

To the minister, I must confess that the Chair is having some

difficulty in making all the remarks by the minister relevant to the

amendment presently before us. Nevertheless, in the throne speech

amendment we have traditionally allowed great latitude. But I must

remind the minister that there is a motion on the order paper, and he

must bear that in mind when continuing with his remarks.

HON. MR. GARDOM: An excellent caveat, Mr. Speaker, and I shall certainly endeavour to do so.

think the hon. members would certainly appreciate receiving first-hand

some particulars of the leadership that this government has shown by

filing its brief in London. That is just collateral to the resolution,

as you will see once I've summed up the remarks of the brief in London.

If you'll just bear with me for a moment, it's not reflecting upon....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order....

HON. MR. GARDOM: I have the floor, Mr. Speaker, if you don't mind. I'm responding to their point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, I thought the point of order had been resolved and you

were continuing your address. I did recognize the second member for

Surrey (Mr. Hall). If the member was continuing on a point of order

then obviously he will retain the floor.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I was.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You will continue on that point of order, and then I will recognize the second member for Surrey.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I've just informed the hon. members of the kind of leadership that this

province is demonstrating and the initiative that it has taken in

London. I think that these hon. members would like to receive specifics

of it. I can give them every assurance that I'll be speaking in the

next debate, and we will be dealing with many, many specifics and

particulars which I am not dealing with now. I'm informing them of the

position that is taken in London. This is, I would say, a most

unprecedented time in the history of our country,

MR. HALL:

On a point of order, the entreaty by the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations is in contrast to the lecture that he gave us half an hour

ago. The point of order that I wish to raise is that it's only some

three and a half hours ago since conclusions were reached to see the

debate that the member talks about take place on Thursday. I don't make

the rules around here, and neither does the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations. He's the leader of the government in this

House. He's the one who saw fit to put the motion on the order paper.

He's the one in charge of the timetable of the government, not 1, and

not you, sir. It's up to him to arrange the government's business in

such an order that he can tell us those things in a proper way, and not

seek to bend the rules to his advantage when it suits him. I suggest to

you that he's been out of order for the last 20 minutes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Again, I must remind all hon. members that, traditionally, on the

throne speech reply, whether it be in the main motion or amendment to

the motion, great latitude has always been allowed. Nevertheless, I

must bring to the minister's attention the fact that there is very

clearly a motion on the order paper, and that the

[ Page 4291 ]

member

must relate his remarks more specifically to the amendment which is

presently before us. I find it difficult to rule specifically on the

points of order raised by the second member for Surrey, but I would ask

hon. members to bear in mind, when addressing their remarks, the long

standing traditions of this House.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Insofar as the London process is concerned I just want to repeat that

the U.K. Parliament is the trustee of the constitutional heritage of

our country, and it's been put into an invidious position by the

actions of the federal government. As such a trustee I say that the

U.K. Parliament can well ask if that which the federal government

proposes effects existing provincial powers under the BNA Act. I say it

should put that question. If the answer is that it does, then the

trustee Parliament ought to ask the additional question: is there

provincial consensus? I'd say in the absence of such consent, an

unprecedented abuse of power would be worked upon the U.K. Parliament

by the federal administration. I don't think it should respond to that

kind of practice.

Since the legality of the federally

intended procedure is being considered by the Canadian courts this

would create an additional dilemma for the United Kingdom Parliament.

If it happened to take any action on just one request, it could end up

developing new laws that would govern all of Canadians. Depending upon

the outcome of decisions before the courts, those laws in themselves

could well be subject to later constitutional and legal challenge in

our own country. And this is why, Mr. Speaker, this province is showing

leadership. This is why other provinces in our country are showing

leadership. This is why I say they are responding to the defense of

Canadian traditions. This is why the British Parliament has been

entreated to do nothing until the matters are resolved in Canada

through the legal process or political process to the satisfaction of

the federal and the provincial governments.

Mr. Speaker, I

have some specifies now which would infringe upon the motion. I do not

propose to discuss them. But I'd like to say that I think the time has

come for some up-front, straightforward, no-frills, Canadian-type

negotiations, and a return to Canadian common sense. Let's get this

constitutional thing properly back on track. I'd say that the time has

come for the Prime Minister of our country to state that he will return

to the table with all of our Canadian Premiers to develop an early

return of our constitution and to develop an amending formula. By

taking this kind of route — to the member for Vancouver East — at least

we'd be able to get the constitution home and the capacity to reach

accord would be within the Canadian family, where it should be. Our

current disagreements may be dealt with within the Canadian family,

where they also belong. What we want is a "made in Canada" constitution.

MR. PASSARELL: At the outset, I welcome you back to the hotseat. I hope you can enjoy the next week or two.

was unbelievable that the previous government speaker stated at the

onset of his speech that he wouldn't comment on the second member for

Vancouver Centre's (Mr. Barnes'

s) speech concerning the Ku Klux Klan.

What he did was he lambasted the federal politicians in Ottawa again —

a continuing saga of this government on its Ottawa-bashing routine.

It's a shame that this government can't show the type of leadership it

should be showing when we have a problem such as the Ku Klux Klan.

Mr.

Speaker, in the throne speech the present coalition government spoke on

the individual British Columbian as having six basic aims in life. They

are six basic aims in which northern residents have once again been

ignored. For instance, the first basic aim that shows the lack of

leadership in this party is that every British Columbian should enjoy

the best possible health. It makes it very difficult to enjoy the best

possible health when for the last two years we've been talking about

the need of a health facility in Dease Lake. Two previous Health

ministers have had this fact drawn to their attention, that there's

nothing in place in Dease Lake for a community of 300. There is no type

of trailer, no type of medical facility. Everything is done out of the

nurse's kitchen, and I think it's time that this government, if it's

going to put down aims, start putting in some type of facilities more

than having a nurse operate out of her kitchen.

The

provincial medical facilities in many communities in the north are

non-existent, For instance, Cassiar is a private hospital. It's about

time the provincial government showed some type of leadership in taking

over the Cassiar first-aid station and making provincial medical

stations throughout the north to benefit residents,

Secondly, Hydro was in the Speech from the Throne. There was an interesting

article in the May 26, 1980, Citizen :

"Bennett's Answer Shocks Kemano Opponents." I'll just read a little

bit, Mr. Speaker, from this article: "The Kemano hydroelectric project

can go ahead any time the Aluminum Company of Canada wants, according

to what Premier Bill Bennett told a group of protesters on Saturday."

Skipping down to the end of the article: "One of the demonstrators

said: 'We were shocked when we saw this. This is directly contrary to

what the Energy minister, Bob McClelland, told us when we were in

Victoria. We have it in writing. I think one of them is speaking with a

forked tongue.'" It's about time this government showed a type of moral

leadership in this province, instead of running around and stabbing

each one of the ministers in the back. There should be a direct and

concentrated effort to benefit residents in this province.

agree with this morning's statement by the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), concerning Hydro and its policy of

overbuilding. When a policy statement comes out on new construction, on

massive dam complexes such as the Stikine-Iskut and the Laird complex,

compared to building small hydro dams on rivers for local

consumption.... This would be greeted much more by residents in the

north than building some massive dam on a river that affects not only

the environment and the livelihood of people, but the wildlife in the

area also. Once again the residents of the north must sacrifice their

environment to keep swimming pools warm in California, if projects such

as the Stikine-Iskut-Laird go ahead.

The Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) has once again displayed a non-caring

attitude by not holding a public inquiry into this aspect. But they say

it's just a feasibility study at this stage. Well, presently there's a

40-man camp at Site Z, drilling a 2,000-foot diversion tunnel. This is

much more than a feasibility study. Hydro yesterday applied to the

lands branch to have a Cat trail built — they call it a Cat trail

because they originally asked for a road, which was turned down, to

bring in a Becker drill and some other heavy equipment for the

2,000-foot diversion tunnel. Then the government still has the audacity

— it's leadership — to say that it's only a feasibility study. Knowing

that a road would cause considerable protest from the local residents,

Hydro

[ Page 4292 ]

attempts

to sidestep the environmental impact assessment study by calling their

road a Cat trail, to be used only for a one-shot effort to bring in the

Becker drill. This is nonsense and a travesty in terms of money and

use. Once again I reiterate that I agree with the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour that Hydro should be looking towards local

consumption — small dams on streams and rivers instead of building

massive dams.

A company up in the Atlin constituency has

gone ahead, and they're using a program of this nature for the benefit

of the local residents. That's Cassiar Asbestos, which is constructing

a small dam on the Cottonwood River for local consumption and

industrial use. Small rivers can be harnessed for local consumption and

development, without the massive environmental damage that dams such as

the Stikine-Iskut and Laird will cause.

The fourth thing

mentioned in the Speech from the Throne was a healthy environment. I

wonder how northern residents can achieve a healthy environment when

the present government, through its lack of leadership, allows 100

million tons of toxic waste to be dumped into Alice Ann — an area the

Nishga nation uses for its food source. Never once have they been

directly involved in the decision-making process. We have heard the

Minister of Environment — he's not in the House at this time — state

publicly that there's nothing he can do concerning the Amax dumping

permit. At the same time, we're selling the livelihoods of the native

people — the Nishga — to the interests of a multinational company

that's known in many other countries across the world as a poor

corporate citizen in its dealings concerning environmental issues. This

is an Environment minister who allows a pollution permit to be granted

three months prior to a federal government order-in-council, and then

turns around and tells a group such as Project North that it's too late

to do anything. While he was meeting with Project North — the church

organization made up of seven different churches — the minister had to

be corrected by his deputy, that he couldn't do anything concerning the

pollution-control permit. If one reads the statute books —

chapter 110,

the Environment and Land Use Act — it spells it out in three different

places exactly what the Minister of Environment can do, if he's willing

to take the time to read the act, concerning the pollution permit in

Alice Arm.

Point five is equality of treatment and

opportunity. A campaign promise by the Premier, back in 1975, to the

Nishga people has still never been addressed by the Premier, as well as

the present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). When this government

attacks Ottawa over the constitution, it's ironic that this present

coalition government has failed to address the problem of aboriginal

rights for the first citizens of this province. It seems that they're

simply ignoring the native issues in their Ottawa-bashing routine.

Also

included in equality of treatment and opportunity as an aim is the fact

that northern residents, to a certain extent, pay higher taxes because

of the increased wages that they get, but receive few social services

in return. I think it's time that this government granted some type of

tax incentive for northern residents. Hopefully, the member for Omineca

(Mr. Kempf) and the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) will

support me in a resolution — if the three of us can get together

sometime — that the MP for the area, Frank Oberle, presented in the

House concerning northern taxation benefits for northern residents.

Both of you are aware of what Mr. Oberle presented in Ottawa?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. PASSARELL:

Fine. I think it's time we sat and had a discussion about that.

Hopefully the member for Prince George will join us in that discussion,

to introduce rebates to a certain extent for rural residents of this

province, specifically in the north, in a structure of income tax and

sales taxes.

Another interesting aspect was that the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), who's in his seat at the present time, put out a flashy

brochure a few months ago concerning financial assistance for small

business individuals. But once again he ignored the concerns of the

north by putting a rider, subsection (5), on who can apply for

small-business grants. He stated that the program at this time is only

for the lower mainland, specifically the Fraser Valley, Vancouver and

Victoria. It's a shame that the minister has ignored rural businessmen

by discriminating against them with this program, by allowing

small-business men and women in the lower mainland to be the only ones

to apply for this program.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I

cannot support the throne speech, which ignores northern residents'

concerns and livelihoods. I support the amendment of the New Democratic

Party.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by

joining others in the assembly in extending words of welcome to the

member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), who is back with us in his

normal role as Speaker. He is not in the chair at present, but I would

like to associate myself with all of those who welcomed him back. At

the same time, to you, sir, the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson), at

present in the chair, I once again acknowledge the very fine work done

by you standing in for Mr. Speaker last session, and welcome you back

as Deputy Speaker this session.

In dealing with the

amendment to the throne speech motion, which is couched in terms of

confidence in the leadership of the present government, and in rising

to oppose the amendment and to support the leadership of the

government, I want to talk in terms of the leadership being provided by

this government in British Columbia Rail. I'm pleased to see that the

minister responsible for B.C. Rail, with his usual interest in these

matters, is in the House.

The record of B.C. Rail in the

last several years is a commentary on the leadership shown by this

government in turning around and improving B.C. Rail, a Crown

corporation which languished in difficult straits from 1972 to 1975.

Just last week a very independent newspaper, the Toronto Globe and Mail ,

had a feature story on B.C. Rail. The headline was this: "Projected $10

Million Profit at B.C. Rail, First in a Decade, Completes Turnaround."

In commenting on the leadership role provided by the present government

in turning around B.C. Rail, I will read several paragraphs from this

article, which begins as follows:

"The long

train of troubles that three years ago brought sell off and close-down

suggestions has finally clattered past for the British Columbia

Railway, according to company president M.C. Norris. BCR this year is

expected to have its first net profit in a decade, close to $10

million, in a not particularly favourable year for BCR operations.

"The turnaround has been achieved by support-at-a-distance

decisions by the railway's owner, the

[ Page 4293 ]

British Columbia government, and by management's own efforts.

The milestone for management was the appointment two years ago of the railway's

first business-type board of directors with a minimum of government representation

and interference. This was confirmed last year by the appointment of Mr. Norris,

a lifelong railway man and previously vice-president, as only the second non-politician

to be president."

So,

Mr. Speaker, if you want to talk leadership and look around the

province at British Columbia Rail, you see a record of success and

improvement determined by the leadership role of this government in

putting B.C. Rail at arm's length, putting in a businesslike board of

directors. And the decisions have flowed. Today, in talking about B.C.

Rail, I want to commend the Premier and the government for their

leadership role with respect to B.C. Rail and to suggest that that

leadership role can and should be maintained by moving in a further

direction with B.C. Rail. I want to spend a few minutes proposing a

major passenger division on the basis that that onward-going kind of

policy will be continued leadership, and the people of this province

not only support and recognize the leadership that's been provided to

date by B.C. Rail; they want it to continue.

In terms of

continuing leadership for B.C. Rail, may I talk about the need for the

immediate establishment on a priority basis of a passenger rail

division for B.C. Rail. Mr. Speaker, passenger service has never been

given a fair test on B.C. Rail. That's not the particular fault of

management or government; it's an accident of history. Passenger

service has been the necessarily neglected orphan of a resource railway

— a railway which in its time to date quite properly has been concerned

with resource development and resource movement. Management at B.C.

Rail has had neither the mandate nor the financial help with which to

initiate and run a proper passenger rail system. The time has come for

B.C. Rail to be given the mandate and to be provided a financial

footing for a major passenger rail service.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

May I just spend a few

moments on the history — such as it has been — of B.C. Rail passenger

service. It began in 1956 with the purchase of six of what we call Budd

cars, or Budd rail diesel cars, and the start of the North Vancouver to

Prince George run. Those same six Budd cars, Mr. Speaker, are the same

six — and the only six — passenger stock in service today, nearly 30

years later, and they're nearly worn out. They would cost about $1

million each to replace. They would cost about $700,000 each to

reconstruct. Presently about 40 percent of the total usable time of

those six passenger Budd cars is reflected in down time in the shop for

repair and problems of age and mechanics.

It's no surprise

that passenger rail service — such as it has been — has been declining,

and passenger rail losses on B.C. Rail have been mounting. But it's a

Catch-22 situation, Mr. Speaker, because the losses have been mounting

due to declining passenger volumes and increased operating and repair

costs. But the declining passenger volumes, in turn, are a consequence

of poor equipment and equipment that's often broken down. So it's a

vicious circle. As the equipment gets older, it gets less attractive,

it spends more time in the shop. As what's offered to passengers

becomes less attractive, or isn't available, or is interrupted because

of shop time, fewer passengers want to ride.

The losses in

B.C. Rail on passenger service since 1968 have increased from $184,000

per year to about $933,000 per year. The total losses in respect of

rail service now exceed about $5 million on a cumulative basis in B.C.

Rail, and passenger service is declining. Last year it fell to about

72,000 from about 76,000 the previous year.

The Victoria Times ,

in a wise editorial, commented on the difficulty of passenger service

and passenger traffic generally in this country. May I quote, Mr.

Speaker, from the June 6, 1979, editorial of the Victoria Times ,

which had this to say about passenger rail service, in particular with

respect to the E&N line here on Vancouver Island — but I want to

come back and comment about that relative to new leadership for B.C.

Rail. The editorial says:

"Ironically, rail passenger service has never been more

popular. The E&N is carrying more people than it has in years. Passenger

volume on Amtrak is up. Given the increasing price of gas for private automobile

travel, the trend is likely to continue. Railway passenger service is at a crucial

crossroads. It cannot continue much longer without new investment in more efficient

equipment and improved road beds. Without them railway passenger service will

deteriorate even further. Once abandoned, railway passenger service cannot be

replaced except at tremendous cost. "

And that's exactly where passenger service at B.C. Rail seems to be at

today, a very, very critical crossroads.

Last

summer when the Crown corporations committee sat, executives from B.C.

Rail came forward and provided some very interesting evidence about the

rail service, the passenger division, and the possible future of

passenger rail service, I want to quote from some of the testimony

given to the the Crown corporations committee of this House by those

B.C. Rail executives, because, Mr. Speaker, they underlined the fact

that the reason why passenger service on B.C. Rail has been shrinking

is because of an inability, for financial reasons, to offer better

service or better equipment, and they went on to say that if you could

improve the service and improve the equipment, passenger patronage

would increase.

Now Mr. Sturgeon, who is the vice-president

of marketing and sales for B.C. Rail, had this to say to the Crown

corporations committee just this last July about reasons for the loss

of passenger traffic on B.C. Rail: "I would assume that the basic

reason to reflect the loss in passenger traffic is basically the fact

that we haven't been able to utilize our equipment because of the

problems we have had in the mechanical end of it. " In other words, the

equipment itself accounts for the declining passenger service. It

follows, Mr. Speaker, that an improvement in the equipment would

provide an improvement in passenger volume.

Mr. Sturgeon went on, and again I quote:

"The

biggest single complaint on the railway is that we don't have good

equipment. The equipment is old, it's uncomfortable, it doesn't enhance

the railway in any sense of the word. I feel that if we had good

equipment and provided a better service to the people in the Interior

and what not, we would be able to encourage a considerable number of

passengers on the railway."

In terms of what the railway

might do to provide an ongoing leadership role for service to people in

this province, how interested is B.C. Rail management, Mr. Speaker, in

[ Page 4294 ]

getting

involved in passenger rail service? Again, the evidence of the

executives of B.C. Rail is that if they had some financial support or

capacity to get involved in passenger rail service in a meaningful way,

they would be enthused to do it. Mr. Norris, the president, had this to

say: "We are prepared to cooperate with enthusiasm, provided our

financial health is protected. We would do that enthusiastically." Mr.

Norris gave further evidence that management at B.C. Rail had the

expertise to do a first-rate job in passenger service and could do at

least as good a job as VIA Rail, and at less cost. So I am proposing,

Mr. Speaker, an ongoing leadership role for B.C. Rail. Now that as a

resource railway it is back on the rail, so to speak, the turnaround

has been accomplished — operating at arm's length a businesslike board

of directors, a leadership success story provided by this government —

the next stage of leadership, in my view, is into the passenger service

area.

My proposals are these, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the

immediate establishment, on a priority basis, of a passenger division

of B.C. Rail, and the appointment of a separate vice-president for

passenger services with a separate passenger services budget. Now why

is that important, Mr. Speaker, if B.C. Rail is to have a new

initiative for passenger service? It is important because to date, it

has been a resource railway. If you look through the annual report,

which is about 15 pages long, and full of a lot of valuable data, there

is a total of one and a half lines devoted to the figures on passenger

service, and there is no sign of a senior executive in charge of

passenger service. That, historically, is understandable, given that

the mandate has been to develop a resource railway. But here we have a

railway with an investment in it of about $700 million dollars by the

people of this province, 3,000 employees, annual revenues of about $126

million from operations, and virtually a thimbleful of financial and

human resource presently going to passenger rail service. It is no

wonder the McKenzie commission recommended that the passenger rail

service be discontinued, but only because it was operating at a loss.

And as I say, modern, proper passenger rail service has not been given

a decent chance. That chance should now be provided as a matter of

future leadership at B.C. Rail.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Now,

Mr. Speaker, it is going to take some dollars, as these things do, to

get that going. I would suggest that the provincial government provide

a special passenger service grant of $25 million to B.C. Rail towards

the establishment of the passenger rail service division. That figure

is arrived at subjectively, Mr. Speaker; it is about 10 percent of the

proposed cost in 1980 dollars of the automated light rail system that

is going to serve greater Vancouver. It seems to me if, in 1980, we can

talk about $250 million for automated light rail for greater Vancouver,

then for a passenger rail service to serve the people of the province,

10 percent of that figure is a reasonable suggestion as an initial

funding. In other words, Mr. Speaker, at the same time as we are

committing to a major lower mainland urban light rapid transit system,

let's contribute even a fraction of that capital investment requirement

to get a new passenger rail service going at B.C. Rail.

Mr.

Speaker, what should the purpose of this passenger rail service

division be? It should be to establish a modern, attractive and

efficient passenger rail service for the citizens of British Columbia

for their regular, their commuter and their recreational travel, as

well as to provide a new avenue for tourism development in the province.

The

particulars of that new leadership role which B.C. Rail can undertake

in the passenger area would include the following, and it's no great

difficulty to negotiate the use of alternate and existing railway

roadbeds through right-of-way agreements. So utilizing, as might be

needed, right-of-way agreements to obtain the access and jurisdiction

to run BCR equipment over other rail beds, I would recommend we proceed

as follows.

First, to immediately upgrade the

Vancouver-Prince George rail service, including the immediate

acquisition of new equipment, with the following goals:

a) a regular,

modern and attractive passenger service from Vancouver to Prince

George,

b) the immediate establishment of a Whistler ski train, and I

emphasize the possible use of the Royal Hudson for that purpose this winter with the Whistler ski season almost upon us. The Royal Hudson is a piece of equipment that's available, and given it might take a year to find fresh, new equipment, why not consider the Royal Hudson now? Finally, some look at special Cariboo tourist passenger services summer and winter.

Second,

Mr. Speaker, the taking over of Vancouver Island rail operations, and

utilization of the Esquimalt and Nanaimo railway lines to provide

provision of the following:

a) regular first-rate, comfortable, modern

passenger service up and down Vancouver Island,

b) regular recreational

rail services up and down the island for recreational purposes

including Mount Washington ski trains,

c) special tourist trains and

packages up and down Vancouver Island.

Further, Mr. Speaker,

the establishment of a Fraser Valley commuter recreational GO train on

the south side of the Fraser River which would include the following

components: first a Hope-to-Vancouver and Vancouver-to-Hope commuter GO

service much like the kind of commuter GO service which moves in and

out....

My good friend the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree), I believe, has an introduction to make. I

would happily yield for that purpose.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, any time a member yields the floor of the House, he runs

the risk of losing his place in debate. Is it by leave? Shall leave be

granted?

Leave granted.

MR. REE: I would like leave to introduce some students we have in the gallery, if I may.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. REE:

It's my pleasure to introduce 55 students from Carson Graham School in

North Vancouver that arrived just a few minutes ago. They are grade

11s, and they are under the guidance of their teacher, Mr. Frank Perry.

I'd

like to point out that possibly during the last session we had more

students from Carson Graham School visit us than any other school in

British Columbia, and I think they'll keep the same record. I ask the

House to welcome them.

MR. HYNDMAN: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I certainly should have added that I'd be happy to yield on

the basis that I might be allowed to continue.

In any event, I think, Mr. Speaker, and you, sir, as the member for Chilliwack, would have some special interest in

[ Page 4295 ]

this.

I think the time has come when a commuter type of GO train running from

Hope all the way to Vancouver and back has arrived, and the B.C. Rail

passenger service division could look at that. Additionally, Mr.

Speaker, you, sir, are familiar with the recreational opportunity in

the eastern end of the Fraser Valley — the Hemlock ski area, the

Manning Park ski area, the Skagit Valley, I think the time has come

when British Columbians from the lower mainland would make good use of

a recreational commuter type of rail service where, for example, they

could take speedy rails to Chilliwack, Rosedale and Hope, disembark

there and be bused for a day's skiing, hiking or what have you. So in

addition to the commuter GO service up and down the Fraser Valley, a

recreational service could be provided for winter and summer recreation

to areas like Hemlock Valley, Manning Park and the Skagit Valley.

Then,

in terms of the ongoing leadership role of B.C. Rail and passenger

service, some future planning could include the following. First of

all, a new rail ferry from Vancouver to Nanaimo sponsored by B.C. Rail

and providing all rail connections to and from Vancouver Island on B.C.

Rail. It would be possible for people to go entirely by rail and ferry

from, for example, Chilliwack to Victoria. Additionally, I think the

time has come for a fresh look at the wisdom of a rail spur being built

from Clinton to Cache Creek to provide a passenger rail service to the

Cariboo from the CNR and CPR present mainline roadbeds. B.C. Rail could

look at improving the Vancouver-Seattle passenger service. And B.C.

Rail passenger division, in terms of forward planning, could consider,

and I think it should, providing all rail service in British Columbia

for passengers from Calgary west by taking over all services presently

offered by VIA Rail, and by providing British Columbia-based and

British Columbia managed passenger rail services for all rail travel

within British Columbia.

Within that concept, and providing

modern equipment and modern service with a British Columbia flavour,

people could travel from Calgary west on the rails, on the B.C. rails,

on a special British Columbia rail passenger service, tourist packages,

down the Columbia River Valley from Golden or you could go south from

Salmon Arm into Vernon. The possibilities, Mr. Speaker, are limitless.

With the greatest of respect to VIA Rail and efforts to manage

passenger service from eastern Canada, I think in this province, which

does so well in tourist management and promotion, if we bring the

management of passenger rail service closer to home, we'll do a better

job of that.

In

summary, Mr. Speaker, if B.C. Rail can be

allowed to take a leadership role in passenger rail service, these

kinds of benefits can accrue to all British Columbians: a vital new

transportation link in the province of B.C. for all our citizens; an

easing of road traffic and congestion; the use of an energy-conserving

form of moving people; the provision of an alternative form of

transportation within the province, given the vagaries of weather and

climatic conditions; further, a new link for tourism development

throughout the province, a new assist for recreational enjoyment,

giving access to our citizens for increased recreational opportunities.

It would be a supplement and a complement to the announced lower

mainland ALRT system. Of course, a passenger rail division, with the

requirements of new equipment and new programs, would mean the

provision of jobs, business and industry for our province.

concluding, Mr. Speaker, if we're going to talk about leadership in

this amendment, the record is that the leadership of this government,

the Premier and the minister responsible for B.C. Rail has taken B.C.

Rail as a resource railway to a new level of accomplishment and

success, I submit that it's now time to continue that fine record of

leadership with further leadership, more leadership, new leadership for

B.C. Rail into a passenger service division.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to add my voice to that of the other

members of the House in welcoming you back into the chair and to

wishing you continued very, very good health.

Before

supporting the amendment, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to express my

thanks and gratitude to my colleague, the second member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Barnes), for that very moving and articulate statement

which he made on behalf of all minority-group people in British

Columbia. I know that there is a body of opinion, Mr. Speaker, who

believe that the best way to deal with groups like the Ku Klux Klan is

in silence, but I recognize that that body doesn't take into account

the sense of isolation and loneliness and how vulnerable, really,

minority-group people feel when a group like the Klan invades their

community and such an invasion is met with silence or by silence on the

part of community leaders and inaction on the part of the government.

For that reason and certainly on behalf of all of the young people of

colour in this province, I certainly appreciate and want to thank

specifically the second member for Vancouver Centre, as I said before,

for that very moving statement.

In speaking in support of

the resolution, Mr. Speaker, maybe I should repeat it, because I think

that we may have forgotten, or certainly the Minister for

Intergovernmental Affairs, when he spoke, seemed to indicate that he

had forgotten what the amendment was all about. But in speaking in

support of the amendment, which says that we regret that the Speech

from the Throne failed to reflect the lack of public confidence in the

leadership of this government, I would like to deal certainly with a

number of groups who have come to recognize that there is no leadership

at all from the government of the day. If there is any leadership, it's

certainly not working on their behalf.

The member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), in speaking to this resolution,

mentioned that he thought that the throne speech was written by someone

with a very distorted sense of humour. I want to support that

statement, because it would take a very distorted sense of humour,

indeed, to make a statement such as: "My government believes that

individual British Columbians have six basic aims in life: to enjoy the

best possible health; to be protected by an evenhanded, fair system of

government; to attain financial security; to live in a healthy

environment'' — and specifically — "to enjoy equality of opportunity

and treatment." That's the one I want to deal with specifically,

because it's a very cruet, cruel statement to talk about full equality

of opportunity and treatment when one thinks about certain groups in

our society who, certainly under this government, have been very badly

used and have had no equality of opportunity whatsoever.

The

first group I want to deal with are the disabled, As you know, Mr.

Speaker, next year, 1981, has been designated by the United Nations as

the International Year of the Disabled, The whole reason for having an

international year is so governments around the world can involve

themselves in positive, aggressive initiatives toward improving the

lives

[ Page 4296 ]

disabled people in their communities. To this extent, some governments

have not waited. Some governments have made public announcements to

that effect. Certainly the federal government has already struck an

all-party committee to travel around the country to listen to groups

that work with disabled citizens or groups that are disabled themselves

speak and make statements about the kinds of changes that they would

like to see come about in this year which has been designated to be for

their special concern.

Certainly some other governments,

such as the governments of Saskatchewan and Ontario, have already made

concrete kinds of efforts in the direction of trying to enhance the

quality of life of the disabled people in their particular jurisdiction.

In British Columbia a group which is known as SPARC — and everyone knows about

SPARC, because certainly it's one of the community organizations which has

worked very, very hard on behalf of a number of disadvantaged groups in our

society down through the years — decided to grab the initiative and begin preparing

for the International Year of the Disabled. Recognizing that the disabled community

did not want this year to be a government year, did not want buttons, song books,

scrolls, badges and ice-cream cones on the lawn, and didn't want the year

to be treated in the way the International Year of the Child was treated or

ignored in the way the International Women's Year was ignored, SPARC appealed

to the government for funding so that they could in some way do what the federal

all-party committee is doing: canvass the disabled community and work with them

in terms of preparing for this year. This request for funding was turned down

by the government. Certainly that's a clear indication of the failure on

the part of this government to extend equality of opportunity to that particular

sector.

a matter of fact, the only comment that we've heard about it so far is

in the Speech from the Throne, which says there are going to be some

amendments to the regulations in the Human Rights Code, and I'll talk

about that to a greater extent later.

First of all, Mr.

Speaker, in case you are under the impression that there are just a

handful of people who are touched by this, in British Columbia there

are 12,935 people who are in receipt of handicapped benefits. As you

know, it's very, very difficult in this province to quality for

handicapped benefits. So if there are nearly 13,000 people who qualify,

you can be sure that the number of people who would be considered to be

disabled would certainly be closer to 15,000, 16,000 or 17,000.

This

is the group that SPARC wanted to work with. They wanted to work with

them in terms of community projects and help them to prepare for the

International Year of the Disabled. And this is the group that was

turned down by this government.

The government of

Saskatchewan has already established a committee of representatives

from governments, organizations working with the disabled, and agencies

serving disabled and handicapped people to start preparing for the

International Year of the Disabled. This government has done absolutely

nothing in that regard.

A very small group of disabled

people from Victoria demonstrated on the day the Legislature opened and

asked for a number of things. One of the basic things they asked for

was that the Human Rights Code be amended to include protection against

discrimination in either housing or employment or whatever based on the

fact that they are disabled. Instead, what they received was a

commitment in the throne speech to look at the regulations to the code

and do something with the regulations, and that's not good enough. In

fact, what has to happen is what happened in Ontario and what happened

in Saskatchewan, where the code itself was opened and amended to ensure

that discrimination against this particular group did not occur.

We have an example which was reported in the Vancouver Sun

of October 25, 1980, where a landlord refused to rent accommodation to

a man because he was in a wheelchair. This man was married and he had

children, but the landlord very clearly stated that he did not want to

rent his accommodation to someone who was in a wheelchair