1980 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

MONDAY, MARCH 10, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1341 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Administration of justice. Hon. Mr. Williams replies –– 1342

Speech from the Throne.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 1344

Mr. King –– 1348

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1350

Division –– 1363

Ministerial statement

Revised Statutes of British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1363

Mr. Howard –– 1364

MONDAY, MARCH 10, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed, hon. members, it is my

pleasure to draw to your attention that today is Commonwealth Day. It

is on this day that we have chosen to put on your desks a recent

publication regarding the parliament buildings — of which we almost

feel we are a part, don't we?

We also have a message from the chairman of the association's

executive committee, Hon. Ripton MacPherson, who is the Speaker of the

House of Representatives in Jamaica. With your indulgence, I would like

to read that message to you.

"It seems appropriate that a Commonwealth Day message

has afforded me the first opportunity of communicating with all the

branches of the association since my election in New Zealand as

chairman of the executive committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary

Association. It is an honour to be able to serve in this capacity, and

I look forward to working constructively with all branches throughout

the Commonwealth.

"Over the years the Commonwealth has evolved into a

major international organization, with a membership of 42 sovereign

states. Not surprisingly, therefore, its functions and activities have

increased significantly, and its role in international affairs has

received great recognition.

"The relationship which has developed among its

members is of inestimable value, not only because of the shared

experience and the consultative nature of the relationship but also

because of the practical nature of Commonwealth cooperation and its

concern for matters with which we can all closely identify.

"Within the Commonwealth there is continuous

wide-ranging intergovernmental cooperation in such areas as education,

health, youth, law, and various forms of technical assistance. It is,

however, the special responsibility of the Commonwealth Parliamentary

Association to actively encourage the growth and the development of

appropriate parliamentary systems within the member states of the

Commonwealth. The association, therefore, warmly welcomes Norfolk

Island, and the return of Bangladesh, Ghana and Swaziland to its

membership and hopes that in the very near future it will have the

pleasure of receiving delegates from Nigeria and Zimbabwe-Rhodesia at

its conferences.

"As we observe the occasion of Commonwealth Day, it is

my deep belief that this group of nations, with its time-honoured

traditions, its rich diversities and strong sense of community, will

continue through its parliamentarians to inspire and provide leadership

in the pursuit of new, cooperative and mutually beneficial

relationships among states of the international community."

The Provincial Secretary has some guests.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure ….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: They are guests in connection with Commonwealth Day.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I had the pleasure of representing the

provincial government yesterday at the church service in honour of

Commonwealth Day at Christ Church Cathedral in Vancouver. On the floor

of the Legislature today we have representatives of their lower

mainland and Victoria society. I have the pleasure to introduce Mr.

George Kidd, president of the local society; Mr. James McPherrin,

honorary secretary; Mr. Philip Kitley, chairman; and representing

Vancouver and the lower mainland, Mrs. Joyce Basham. I ask the House to

welcome them.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my greetings to

the representatives of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and

extend to you a thank-you for reading out the message. I would

particularly welcome the opportunity, perhaps sometime during this

session, if the House itself could respond to a motion from, perhaps,

the government, and seconded by the opposition, to reach out a hand on

the return of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia to the Commonwealth and the

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

It is to be recognized that in a world of turmoil, under Lord

Carrington's able leadership, the negotiations that led to free

elections in Zimbabwe did take place without any further armed

conflict. I think that those of us who are members of the Commonwealth

can point with pride to the results of the manner in which the election

was conducted. I extend an open-hand "welcome back" to

Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and an open message to the rest of the world that,

even with difficulties and differences of opinion in the Commonwealth,

we have hung together for a long time. It's an example which can show

the rest of the world what a Commonwealth can do.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to

join me in light of this being Commonwealth Day in welcoming three

people in the galleries who share something in common with the first

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and myself. They are members of

our staff in the constituency: Mrs. Dorris Mutch, Wendy Davis and

Thelma Pankiw.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, we have in the galleries today

47 students from the Golden Elementary School and their teachers, John

Wirtanen and R. Brett. I would like the House to join me in welcoming

them.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Legislature to

join with me this afternoon in welcoming to Mr. Speaker's gallery

Maureen O'Brien, who is visiting us from San Francisco, California.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to

introduce a constituent of Richmond, Mrs. Jean Nielsen, who is not only

a constituent of Richmond but also the wife of our Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs, Hon. Jim Nielsen. I'd also like to mention, Mr.

Speaker, that it happens to be the Nielsens' nineteenth wedding

anniversary today, March 10, and I hope the House will give them its

congratulations.

[ Page 1342 ]

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have four guests today from the constituency

of Comox and I would like the House to join me in giving a warm welcome to Ruth

Munn, Marge Whelon, Kay Chapman and Pepper McLeod.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members of our Legislature

to welcome Mr. William Dyson, who is the executive director of the Vanier Institute

of the Family. He is visiting us from Ottawa.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to welcome my first three

guests this session. They are my two sons, Dan and Joe, and their

friend Cindy Milner from Ottawa.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce two guests

to the House today: a life-long friend of mine, my sister Freda Munch

from Victoria, and my wife of thirty years, Maud Ritchie. Would you

please extend a welcome.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce two guests

from the far-off royal city of New Westminster. John and Hazel Wallace

are visiting us today, and I'd like the House to welcome them.

MRS. WALLACE: From not-so-far-off Duncan, in the heart of

Cowichan-Malahat, I would like the House to join me in welcoming two of

my constituents, good friends John and Doris Starkey.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tabled the seventh annual report of the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia for the 10 months ending December 31,

Oral Questions

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, on March 3, 1980, the hon.

second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) posed certain

questions which I took on notice. I'd like to respond now; the answers

are very brief.

The first question was: "Will the Attorney-General indicate to the

House the date on which he had a conversation about this matter with

his Deputy Attorney-General over the allegations?" My answer is, I had

several conversations with the Deputy Attorney-General: first on

November 26, 1979; second on December 17, 1979; third on December 20,

1979; and for the fourth time on January 9, 1980.

Question: "Did the Attorney-General have new information at the time

he made that decision?" Answer: the question is unanswerable, as I did

not make the decision.

Third: "Having been advised prior to December 18, 1979, that a

statement was to be made, did the Attorney General investigate as to

what the statement was to be or on what grounds it was going to be made

before the press statement was to be issued?" The answer is no.

Question: "On what basis did he decide that a release should be made

by the Associate Deputy Attorney-General? On what grounds did he make

that release? Apparently the Attorney-General approved it." The answer:

it's not the policy to make news releases with respect to the decisions

rising out of criminal investigations, either that charges are to be

laid or are not to be laid. In light of the attention that had been

given to this matter over several weeks, I concluded that the general

policy should be relaxed. The timing of the release and its content

were nevertheless left entirely to the discretion of Mr. McDiarmid.

Question: "Can he inform the house what additional information

either he or Mr. Vogel, his Deputy Attorney General, or his Associate

Deputy Attorney-General or any other member of the Attorney-General's

ministry had over and above what the RCMP had and recommended, and over

and above what regional counsel had and recommended, that led him to

the decision that the decision not to proceed should be upheld? Was

there any additional information?" Answer: the question is unanswerable

because, as I said in the response to an earlier question, I did not

make the decision.

There was a question by the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Lauk): "Did the RCMP conduct an investigation into that meeting" —

referring to a meeting between the hon. member for Central Fraser

Valley (Mr. Ritchie) and others — "with a view to charges being laid

for obstruction of justice under the Criminal Code?" Answer: the RCMP

investigation included the meeting of October 17, 1979, to which the

hon. first member referred. The question of obstruction of justice was

considered, and no basis for such charges was found.

MR. MACDONALD: Relating to the same matter, I ask the

Attorney-General: did the RCMP report on this matter either recommend

or — it's in two parts — set out grounds whereby it could be concluded

there was an infraction of law that should be dealt with or proceeded

with?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I've never seen the RCMP

report with respect to this matter. Therefore I can't respond to the

question. But I would be happy to take it as notice, make further

inquiries and bring the answers back.

MR. LAUK: With respect to the investigation of the meeting on

October 17, first of all, the Attorney-General indicated he hasn't seen

the police report. How did he conclude, then, that the report did not

indicate a charge of obstruction of justice may or may not have arisen

as a result of that meeting?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I was advised by the Assistant Deputy Attorney-General, Mr. McDiarmid.

MR. LAUK: Did the Attorney-General indicate to the House

whether or not that investigation included a possible charge of public

mischief on the part of Henry Friesen?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The advice I have from the Assistant

Deputy Attorney-General is that Mr. Friesen's conduct in the matter was

considered and there was no suggestion of ill motive on his part.

Therefore no such charge would lie.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also to the

Attorney-General on this matter. In answer to a question last week as

to whether the Attorney-General had consulted or contacted outside

counsel, could the Attorney General now advise the House whether, in

contacting outside counsel, the subject of who would issue the release

— whether it would be himself or his deputy — was a matter that was

canvassed with outside counsel?

[ Page 1343 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The answer is no.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a supplementary on the same subject,

Mr. Speaker. I ask the Attorney-General whether he saw the report on

this case, made by the regional Crown counsel, who I think was a Mr.

Holmes, from the Fraser Valley region. Has the Attorney-General seen

that at any time?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I understood the member's question was about the police report; but I haven't seen....

MR. MACDONALD: No, this is a different question; I'm asking about the regional Crown counsel's report.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The answer is no.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Attorney General, who

issued a public statement that he had concluded that Mr. McDiarmid was

correct in his decision, how he could possibly make such a statement

without having looked at either the police report or the report from

Crown counsel. How could you satisfy yourself?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not a proper question.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a further question, Mr. Speaker. Has

the Attorney-General questioned as to how this particular case, which

was in the Fraser Valley area and did not involve a major charge, came

to be summonsed to Victoria to be laid on the desk of the associate

deputy minister, and, presumably, the deputy minister, and possibly the

minister? Why did it come to Victoria, and why was it not treated in

the ordinary way as a prosecution to be undertaken or not undertaken by

regional Crown counsel?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, may I make it abundantly

clear, because the member touched upon that obliquely in his question,

that the matter did not come to the desk of the Attorney-General.

In specific answer to his question as to how it came to the

Assistant Deputy Attorney-General: it had been earlier referred to him

during the process of the investigation.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, leaving that subject for the time

being, I have a question to the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations. I ask that hon. minister to advise the House if, in view of

the serious allegations of Bruce Donald, relating to the Andrew Rigg

case, which were made in a letter of November 15, 1978, he determined

whether or not Richard Vogel, the deputy minister, did personally know

the accused or the Riggs family.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker,

not being in the House on Friday, nor having an opportunity to speak to

the House, I would like to inform the hon. members — as I informed the

press on Friday morning — that following the receipt of the letter from

Mr. Bruce Donald, I met with Mr. Neil McDiarmid, the assistant deputy

minister of criminal law. I informed him of the matters that were

contained in the letter from Mr. Donald. I instructed him to look into

it, to take whatever action he deemed appropriate, and whatever action

he deemed necessary, and to report to me.

After that, Mr. Member, I met with Mr. Donald and informed him of

the course that I had taken with Mr. McDiarmid, and I requested Mr.

Donald to give Mr. McDiarmid his full cooperation.

I have since determined that it is correct that Mr. Vogel knows the doctor in question.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the hon. minister

that the request was that he investigate this matter, not Mr.

McDiarmid. But leaving that aside, I ask you....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Hon. member, I asked Mr. McDiarmid to investigate it. Let that be abundantly clear.

MR. MACDONALD: I ask the hon. minister, in view of the fact

that a charge and an appeal was abandoned on the instructions of a

deputy who, he found out, either then or shortly thereafter, was a

personal acquaintance of the accused, or his family, why the minister

took no action at what would appear to have been a partiality creeping

into the justice system, which is totally unacceptable under the

British common law.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is drawing a

conclusion that is not a conclusion according to the facts that I

received, and it is an incorrect conclusion on the part of the hon.

member.

I requested a course of action be taken. There were a number of

meetings held, and following those meetings I was informed, both by Mr.

Donald and by Mr. McDiarmid, that the matters had been resolved.

Insofar as the doctor situation is concerned, it was an error of

judgment on the part of the Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Vogel. There

was no mala fides whatsoever.

Insofar as the witness situation with Mr. Farris and Miss King is

concerned, Mr. Vogel was expressing a lawyer's opinion. The attorney is

looking into these matters, and no doubt you will receive a full and

complete report from him.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister just to make

it clear that the minister took no action whatsoever against Mr. Vogel

at that time, when he found that he was intervening in this case and

was acquainted with the accused.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Again to bring this very, very clearly home

in point of time, these matters came to my attention as a result of the

correspondence from Mr. Donald, which was November 15, 1978. The

doctor's case had arisen about a year and a half ago. I received a

report from Mr. McDiarmid when he had concluded his responsibilities.

It's fair to say, Mr. Minister, that I was distressed with what had

happened; I was distressed with an error in judgment. And it was a

mistake in judgment. I had the greatest confidence in the integrity and

in the capacities of Mr. Richard Vogel; I still have that confidence.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a supplementary question to the

minister. Why was Mr. Richard Vogel intervening in that one case out of

the tens of thousands that take place every year in the province of

British Columbia — and taking a very active interest in the Rigg case,

as he clearly was? Did the minister investigate that and inquire why

this intervention

[ Page 1344 ]

from Victoria should be taking place in that particular charge?

MR. SPEAKER: The member is seeking an opinion in the first part, but the second

part is in order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I informed the hon. member in the House

today the very same thing I informed Mr. McDiarmid. I said: "Mr.

McDiarmid, will you please look into this matter? Look into it very,

very carefully and take whatever action you deem to be appropriate and

necessary in the circumstances." I received the report, the report was

an error in judgement, and it was an unfortunate error in judgment, but

I consider that at that point in time that was satisfactory. The

information I received then…. Mr. Member, I'll tell you this: if I

received the same information today, knowing Mr. Vogel as I know him, I

would still be quite satisfied with the information that I received.

There has been a scurrilous attack upon this man.

MR. MACDONALD: Did the ministry reply to the letter of Mr.

Bruce Donald, the Crown counsel in Vancouver, which was dated November

15, 1978? Did you reply in writing to that letter?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No.

MR. BARRETT: A serious charge like that and you didn't respond.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Ah, the Leader of the Opposition is chirping

up now. Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I acted immediately and

requested that it be looked into, thank you very much.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We are in question period now, hon. members, and interruptions are not provided for.

MR. MACDONALD: The present Attorney-General has said that he

has had no prior knowledge of the matters referred to, either in the

CBC broadcast or the letter of Mr. Donald, until very recently. Can the

Minister of Intergovernmental Relations explain to the House why he

didn't inform his successor of this serious problem surrounding the

administration of justice through his deputy minister in the province

of British Columbia?

HON. MR. GARDOM: First of all, Mr. Speaker, it was not a problem; it had been concluded. We had general discussions.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of

pleasure to rise at this time, during this session of the Legislature,

to support the speech of His Honour Henry Bell-Irving, the

Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia, one of the finest throne

speeches that we've had before this House in all of British Columbia's

history. I hope that I can bring to this chamber some of the thoughts

that I have and reasons for which I bring that most enthusiatic support.

But first, any debate of a throne speech is necessarily a debate on

the leadership of the government, of the way in which the government is

planning the fortunes of its province over the next years and decades

and into the long-term future. It's also, Mr. Speaker, necessarily, a

debate about the leadership of the leader of the province, the Premier

of British Columbia. I intend to speak to some degree about that as

well.

It's difficult to speak about that leadership without going back in

history just a bit to talk about the leadership of the past. One of the

hon. members on the other side — I believe it was the member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) — referred during his comments to this

government as a "temporary government." Well, as a temporary government

I'd just like to remind this House and yourself, Mr. Speaker, that in

the last 28 years in British Columbia the people of this province have

chosen Social Credit government for about 25 of those 28 years. If

that's temporary government, we like it and the people of British

Columbia like it.

I don't think we need to go back a long way in history to trace the

pattern of leadership that we've been experiencing in British Columbia,

but we could go back, I think, to those last few months of 1975. The

New Democratic Party was on its final legs, close to an election, in

disarray — yes, on its knees and wondering what to do next. They had

one of the finest and most golden opportunities that any government had

ever been given in all of the history of this province: a full purse,

opportunities abounding in all of the resources that were available in

British Columbia, people willing to work and willing to support them in

their bold, new experiment — a golden opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to

carry on with government for years and years. It's all lying in ruins

because of some 39 months of improper management of the province's

finances, of its social programs, and its caucus is dismayed. They are

dismayed at how those people who served with it as their government

took this opportunity and threw it away — cast it to the winds.

We hear lots of talk from the opposite side about some of the lively

cabinet meetings and lively caucus meetings that we have on this side

now. Mr. Speaker, I can can tell you, having been around in those days,

that poor, dismayed and dishevelled caucus was wondering how it threw

those opportunities away, and those caucus meetings, Mr. Speaker, were

wild. They were noisy; they could be heard in the Sooke hills. They

even kept the hon. member for Burnaby Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) awake.

The fights in caucus were tremendous, and not much wonder, because they

had taken this province from a shining and glorious opportunity to a

province which was reeling economically and socially.

I remember some of those leaders, Mr. Speaker, in those dying months

of 1975 — the Hon. Mr. Nicolson was the Minister of Housing, I believe.

Do you remember the Casa Loma affair? A quarter of a million dollars of

taxpayers' money was thrown away. It might be interesting, too, with

the news these days about uranium moratoriums, to remember that it was

that same hon. member who gave a shining speech, I believe in his own

constituency, about the need for nuclear power in British Columbia. It

wasn't much longer after that, Mr. Speaker, that that member was in the

cabinet, and not much longer after that that the government issued an

order allowing uranium exploration.

[ Page 1345 ]

How many of you remember the Meadowbrook affair in Coquitlam? The

member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) probably had some knowledge of

it while he was a federal member. It was an example of leadership where

hundreds of people saw their hopes dashed because of inaction and

mismanagement by the Minister of Housing.

AN HON. MEMBER: It works good now.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Lots of things are working good now, Mr. Member. Thank God.

I remember Mr. King, the Minister of Labour in those days, being

pushed around by the labour bosses while the labour people were on

strike. There were pickets up all over this province. It was the most

disastrous three years of labour harmony in the history of this

province with that kind of leadership.

I remember Hon. Mr. Strachan, who was Minister of Transport and

Communications at that time, exiled to London in shame after having

completely demoralized what had been the finest B.C. Ferries fleet in

the world. I remember Mr. Cocke, who was Minister of Health, almost in

tears, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think I can anticipate the point of order. The member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON: Having drawn your attention to the order of not using Christian names in addressing people....

MR. SPEAKER: Any members of former administrations who are still members of the House are now referred to by their constituency.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. Thank

you. I just didn't want anyone to make any mistake about whom I was

speaking. I wouldn't want someone else to take the blame for some of

these things.

The former Minister of Health, the present member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke), was almost in tears in this House because many

of the programs that he had promised, in terms of health facilities in

this province, were falling down in a shambles. The British Columbia

Medical Centre was losing millions per month, and Arthur Erickson was

on retainer at $50,000 a month and doing nothing. A children's hospital

which the member for New Westminster desperately wanted was being put

forward in terms that no government could afford. There were so many

programs. The ambulance service which he had so proudly introduced only

a couple of years before — I'm sure that the member for New Westminster

was in tears when he had to shut down the training programs because

there was no money left. All of us felt bad about that, but it was

because of the mismanagement and unreasonable activities of that group

of leaders that those kinds of things were happening.

The member who used to be the member for Coquitlam — he was the

Minister of Human Resources; I can't remember who he's the member for

now — had bankrupted the Human Resources ministry. He showed no signs

of understanding where he'd gone wrong. But the suffering was felt not

by us in this Legislature, but by those people who weren't able to get

programs because of that financial mismanagement.

The member for Vancouver Centre, who at that point at least, I

believe, was Minister of Mines and perhaps Minister of Economic

Development — I'm not quite sure — had put his dark business suit on

and attempted to tell the mining industry: "Well, we want to help you.

We'll do what we can to get you back in business," after having put

them out of business, after having helped them in the Yukon, in Alberta

and in other places outside of British Columbia.

The former member for Vancouver East, Mr. Williams, is no longer in

this House. All of that didn't bother him much; nothing fazed him. He

just went right on with his Machiavellian ways, planning and

destroying. As a matter of fact, when it was all tumbling down among

those other members, and those wild caucus meetings were carrying on,

Mr. Williams didn't even bother to stay around British Columbia. He

went down, I think it was to Minnesota or some place, and told them

down there that the reason his government was in so much trouble was

because the CIA had infiltrated the government and was about to take

over the politics of British Columbia.

There was that famous and always-remembered minister Mr. Nunweiler from the

north, who was labelled by Mr. Lester, the mayor of Prince Rupert, as "the

Ann Landers of the north." As a matter of fact, when that headline in the

newspaper came out about Mr. Nunweiler being the champion of the north, I took

the opportunity to write a little limerick, which I would like to share with

the House at this point — "When Prince Rupert Mayor Names Mr. Nunweiler

Ann Landers of the North." The limerick goes like this:

There once was a minister named Annie

Who flew by the seat of his fanny

His big claim to glory

Was a pay lavatory

In Prince George, which had once been uncanny.

In all of this we also remember the first member for Vancouver East,

the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), who was desperately trying

to find a way to get out of playing Mortimer Snerd to Mr. Williams'

Edgar Bergen. One of the worst criticisms of leadership, I guess, that

could be made of that group in those dying months of 1975 was that they

didn't do anything.

When we came into office — I think every minister here will confirm

this — there were stacks and stacks of orders-in-council, government

business, which had been lying on the desks for three, four, five or

six months. It had not been handled, because they were in shock, I

guess — numbed by their disastrous incompetence and unable to deal with

the issues of the day. Money orders, Treasury Board orders,

orders-in-council leading to projects in communities all over British

Columbia — none of them were dealt with, because that group was

incapable of dealing with them.

During those wild and woolly caucus meetings one voice was being

heard loud and clear. That was the now second member for Surrey (Mr.

Hall), who was then the Provincial Secretary, desperately trying to

convince his colleagues to get a new pension bill through before they

got defeated at the polls. I can remember the lobbies going on in this

House about that. Because they saw the writing on the wall. They knew

what was coming. They knew that their lack of leadership had in fact

put them out of business, and they wanted a way to cushion the fall.

The election came too soon.

The Premier of the day was reduced to threatening farmers,

threatening sawmill owners from the north, making obscene remarks to

female columnists and in general making

[ Page 1346 ]

this province the laughing-stock of Canada. We have

heard a lot about dirty tricks. Those leaders in those dying months of

1975 played the dirtiest tricks of all on the people of British

Columbia.

I want to make a couple of other comments about some of the things

that have been said in the debate so far, because I feel a lot of them

very deeply. One of them was a remark made by the member for Prince

Rupert (Mr. Lea) when he referred to some things that happened in this

Legislature during the course of the previous government. One of them

was about some cheques of the former Minister of Human Resources.

I remember those cheques. There was a lot of concern about whether

or not someone had added something to those cheques. But everybody

forgot the real issue. The real issue was that that member broke the

law. The Attorney-General of the day just ignored it, stonewalled it

and let it pass. And the press let it pass. That member broke the law,

just as clearly as anything that we have ever had before us. And it

passed.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), drowning in his own

bitterness, said in this House some of the most despicable things I

have heard since I have been in politics, clearly attempting to place

some kind of guilt on a member of this House where none should have

been placed. He certainly had no nerve to repeat outside this House the

statements he made, which are in Hansard

for all to see. It is without a doubt a despicable action, because it

didn't come by accident; it was coldly and carefully calculated to do

exactly what it did, cast some aspersions of a criminal nature on a

member of this House where no aspersions could possibly be cast.

I have heard some people saying they were surprised that it would

come from that member, who generally holds himself out as being better

than that. But I am not surprised, because it is the tactic which has

clearly been decided upon, again coldly, carefully and calculatingly,

by the members on that side of the House, and they mean to carry it

through. They will have their own consciences to deal with, but I felt

it would be derelict of me not to tell this House how I felt about that

statement particularly. It doesn't make me proud to be a member of this

assembly.

I want to deal for a moment with the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).

Again, it doesn't surprise me that those statements came from the

member for Skeena, or from any member on the opposite side of the

House, because the truth will always out. That member, in opening his

comments about the Speech from the Throne, referred to the free

enterprise system as heartless, and as being driven by money, power and

greed.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Member, because each time

you do that it only serves to help our cause. And I hope that you will

say that in public too — that you believe that the free enterprise

system is driven by money, power and greed. I hope that you will tell

that to all the businessmen in the Victoria Chamber of Commerce, Mr.

Second Member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), because it's important that

they know how you feel, if you are to continue to represent that

constituency in this House. And I know you will tell them, because

you're a truthful member.

I hope, too, that those members will make it very clear that they

believe that the free enterprise system is driven by money, power and

greed to Len Friesen, who apparently is the head of that phony NDP

front called the Independent Businessmen of British Columbia. I hope

they'll tell Len, so he can save his money in the next election; he

won't have to spend all his money on those television ads. Speaking of

dirty tricks, Mr. Speaker.... I didn't want to bring this up, but the

so-called Independent Businessmen of British Columbia — I think I've

got the name correct, but it's close — spent a lot of money, with Mr.

Friesen telling how he voted NDP, and how many more of his members were

voting NDP. Funny part of this was, no matter how hard we tried we

could never find an organization which was called the Independent

Businessmen of British Columbia, or whatever it was that Mr. Friesen

called his association. He didn't have an association and he didn't

have any members. You think that's not a dirty trick, Mr. Speaker, to

go on television and promote an absolutely phony association?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Bogus.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's what it was, absolutely bogus.

I hope that in the next newsletters put out by the members opposite, they'll include a copy of the Hansard

in which the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) announced that free

enterprise is driven by money, power and greed, and I hope they'll send

copies of those newsletters — and I know they will — to all those small

businessmen that they say they represent, that they've been courting,

that the members for Vancouver East will send a copy of Hansard

to all of those little grocery stores and barbershops and restaurants

along Commercial Drive and Hastings Street, and tell them that their

free enterprise is driven by money, power and greed. I hope they'll

send copies of Hansard to all

of those people throughout this province who put their savings on the

line, mortgage their homes, take out bank loans, to take

part in the

development of this province, and I hope that they'll tell them that

that action means that they're driven by money, power and greed. I hope

that they'll send copies of Hansard

— because I think we might if they don't — to all of those people who

have put their lives on the line to make a better place for their kids.

Are they driven by money, power and greed? Are all those people who

have put their lives, and those of their families, on the line to build

this economy, to provide for the social needs of the people of this

province, driven by money, power and greed? All of those people have

put their lives on the line to build the wealth of this country. I hope

they'll send a little note to all of them, and tell them that they're

heartless, and that they're driven only by money, power and greed.

I've had an opportunity to talk about the way leadership was in this

province in those dying months of 1975, and I know that the members

opposite would very much like to shift the public's attention away from

those dying months, and, in fact, the 39 months that preceded them —

the 1,200 days. But no matter how much the Leader of the Opposition

puts on his moderate suit, the truth always comes out. The truth always

comes out, as it did in that marvellous speech by the member for

Skeena, because those members opposite have a commitment to destroying

the enterprise of individuals — not a commitment, Mr. Speaker, but an

obsession. That obsession will always win; no matter how moderate they

attempt to be, it always comes out.

I mentioned Mr. Williams talking down in the United States about the CIA invading the politics of British Col-

[ Page 1347 ]

umbia. And it came out there too. He told a group down there that capitalism is the root of social problems.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this the Mr. Williams who...?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's that free enterpriser who is in the pub business now, yes.

Every time the opposite side attempts to become moderate, that

obsession gets hold of them and pulls it out of them, like when the

member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) said, "It's high time we took

control of real estate in this province," and when the member for

Vancouver-Burrard and the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) and

the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) made the same kinds of comments,

because it always comes out.

What did Mr. Barrett, the member for Vancouver East, the Leader of

the Opposition, himself have to say shortly after his defeat? I always

get a kick out of rereading this because it strengthens my enthusiasm

to do everything I can to make sure that the people of B.C. know about

members opposite. I read this quite often, Mr. Speaker. There were lots

of them in all the papers, but this particular one is from an editorial

in the Colonist on December

30, 1976, a very short while — about a year — after the defeat. The

member for Vancouver East said at that time: "Social workers should use

politics for social change. They should learn practical things like how

to pack a meeting and how to subvert existing political processes. The

system is wide open. You can do anything you want with it."

AN HON. MEMBER: That was down in Nova Scotia.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That was a Nova Scotia speech, yes.

Do you know what else he said, Mr. Speaker, at that time? He told

the social workers to subvert the political process and "do anything

you want with it." But then, what else did he say? He also said: "The

Social Credit government will not spend any money to develop resources.

Things are getting worse in the province and I'm loving every minute of

it."

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, he said that the United Way should

be done away with, as well as the Boy Scouts, and the Easter Seals and

all volunteer groups.

Mr. Speaker, I read that comment again only to remind this House

that regardless of what kind of pin-striped suits and moderate tones

that Leader of the Opposition takes on, no matter how often he says,

"Sorry, fellows; I know we were bad guys, but we'll reform, we'll be

fiscally responsible and we'll never do it again, trust us," we know

that that obsession will drag the truth out. The people of B.C.

remember the theme song of that former government and that former

Premier, that great country music song: "If I Had to Do It All Over

Again, I'd Do It All Over You." It's not much wonder that this group on

that side of the House has embarked on what I consider to be an

exercise in hallucination, because they don't have a hope of either

defending their own inadequacies or seriously criticizing the

achievements of this government.

Other members have dealt more than adequately with the comments that

were made about our so-called lack of input at the federal scene. I

don't need to go on on that, because it's been well put forward in this

House, except to say that it might do the opposition members some good

to read what British Columbia has done, to read what British Columbia

put forward as our constitutional proposals, leading Canada in putting

forward those proposals delivered to the first ministers' conference in

1978. I would commend that as mandatory reading for all members in this

House and, certainly, for those members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have much more time, and I wanted to go on

about a lot of things that deal with the way in which this government's

leadership has put this province into a position of envy, not only in

Canada but all over North America.

We know what happened to the mining industry in this province during

the term of the NDP government. We know now, Mr. Speaker, that mining

exploration and opportunities are at an all-time high in British

Columbia, rivalling those exploration booms of the 1960s. We know that

from a time when oil and gas exploration and development in this

province's northeast were shut down — and I mean literally shut down —

we now have oil and gas development in this province, and it is one of

our major cornerstones for the future of the development of British

Columbia.

I deliberately didn't want to use a lot of figures in this speech,

but there are two or three which might be of interest. They have to do

with the total number of wells drilled in 1975 — 82, Mr. Speaker; in

1978 — 408; in 1979, the last figures we have — 400 and growing.

Exploration dollars. In 1975, oil and gas brought in about $180

million to this province; in 1978, $628 million. Money earned on cash

for Crown oil and gas leases. In 1975 it had fallen to a pitiful $12

million, because, as I said, the business was shut off; in 1978, $177

million; in 1979, just under $200 million.

Mr. Speaker, l could go on and on. I'd love to talk about the way in

which this government turned around health programs in the development

of new and improved hospital services, how we took the $200 million

debt for ICBC and turned it around, how we took a $261 million general

debt of this province and have turned it into balanced budgets and

surpluses every year we've been government. But time doesn't allow me

to.

But I will, Mr. Speaker, say a couple more words. I had the honour

to be asked, at the convention of the Social Credit Party, to introduce

our leader at one of the major sessions. I don't want to embarrass our

leader, so I would just like to bring a few words before the House,

because I wanted the opportunity to get this on the record. I've wanted

the opportunity to tell this House how much I appreciate the leadership

that has been shown to British Columbia by Hon. W.R. Bennett. I want to

say that I am proud to be associated with the Premier's record of

leadership, and I want to stand up here in front of as many people as I

can — and I always will — to put that pride on the record.

I've reminded you, Mr. Speaker, and members of this House what it

was like around here in 1975. A lot of us were here and know what it

was like: our economy was weak, industry was leaving, capital was

leaving, people were leaving. We need only look at British Columbia

after four years of sound leadership by Bill Bennett. Our province is

strong. By every indicator British Columbia is one of the few economic

bright spots on the continent, under Bill Bennett's

[ Page 1348 ]

leadership. We've enjoyed a period of labour

stability unequalled in the history of this province, under Bill

Bennett's leadership. I have said that we have had four balanced

budgets and are on our way to a fifth at a time when every other

government in the country, except for Alberta, is racking up massive

deficits, and we've even managed to put away a few surpluses.

At a time when every other government in Canada has been forced to

cut back, British Columbia has been able to introduce major new social

programs. Mr. Speaker, we are the only government in Canada that has

introduced major social programs in the last five years: Pharmacare,

long-term care, SAFER, soon — in this fiscal year, next fiscal year —

denticare, and the largest hospital construction program this province

has ever known.

Mr. Speaker, our stature in Confederation, as I've mentioned, has

never been higher; it's certainly higher than when we had not an empty

chair but a full chair that was being laughed at from the period from

1972 to 1975. Today, the country understands that British Columbia will

demand and will be able to have, because of Bill Bennett's leadership,

a dominant role in the development of the constitutional nature of our

great country.

Mr. Speaker, the birth of BCRIC has been described as one of the few

truly innovative financial ideas to come forward in this country for

years. It was conceived and developed under Bill Bennett's leadership.

So, Mr. Speaker, if the issue is leadership, then that issue has

been not only challenged but has been won in British Columbia. If the

strength of our province is in the strength of leadership, then our

foundation is extremely solid in this province. If our future lies in

leadership that displays courage, dedication, imagination and vision,

then I'm proud, Mr. Speaker, that you and I are going to be able to

reach into the 1980s, reach into the twenty-first century, hand-in-hand

with the finest leader this province has ever had, Bill Bennett.

MR. KING: I'd like to thank the minister for his comments

this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, and agree with him on one or two points. I

would certainly agree that the national stature of the Social Credit

Party is at an all-time high. After all, we've just had a federal

election, and that party received almost as many votes as the

Rhinocerous Party. So I certainly don't blame the minister for

revelling in his popularity.

The minister said that truth will out. Mr. Speaker, just one more time, for the record, I want to refer to Hansard ,

because remarks have been improperly attributed to me with respect to a

previous speech I made in the House. I would like to read Hansard to clarify those allegations that were improperly made to me.

I made this comment. Perhaps my choice of words was not the best;

however, I did withdraw upon the direction of the Speaker. I said this:

"From the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Nielsen), problems with the law to the extent where they have found it

necessary to bug his office."

Now I stated twice after that that I did not mean to imply any

criminal wrongdoing, or anything else, to the minister. In fact, on

page 94-1 of Hansard for

Tuesday night's sitting, I made this observation: "system...where a

minister and his conduct in office is called to question in any way

without presuming guilt."

Certainly I was implying no guilt, but if the members on the other

side wish to ignore that for their own reasons, they are free to do so.

Fortunately, Hansard is a verbatim record of debate in this House, and anyone who wishes to find the truth can find it therein.

Now the minister also said that B.C. is not a laughing-stock today,

and I agree with the minister on that also. B.C. is not a

laughing-stock, because the matters before this province and before

this Legislature today are certainly nothing to laugh about, Mr.

Speaker. However, the reputation of our province, the reputation of the

very justice system in this province, is certainly called into question

by allegations that have been made very recently on the CBC television

station — allegations, I would observe, that are unproven but certainly

serious enough to raise questions in the public mind with respect to

the impartiality of the criminal justice system in this province, and a

whole variety of other questions to which I am sure the public are

awaiting answers.

Now I think everyone in the Legislature and the public know that

justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done, particularly

with the administration of justice in the highest offices of the

province. The highest office of the province is, of course, the

Attorney-General's office. Allegations have been made that the Deputy

Attorney General intervened in at least three cases in such a way as to

to cast some doubt, at the very least, on the impartiality of the

justice system with respect to those three cases.

A deputy minister operates under the direction, the scrutiny and the

control of his minister. That is true in each and every department of

government. It is also true in the British parliamentary system that a

minister must accept full responsibility for the decisions made by his

departmental staff, without question senior departmental staff. In many

cases that can be referred to, down through the ages, ministers have

stepped aside from office when there was a question or an allegation

regarding the propriety of the conduct not only of themselves but

certainly of senior officers of their ministry.

I am not seeking a resignation from the current Attorney General

(Hon. Mr. Williams) nor from the previous one (Hon. Mr. Gardom). I am

simply asking that the British parliamentary tradition be recognized,

respected and complied with. That means that the minister simply steps

down from his cabinet position until such time as the nature of the

allegations can be fully investigated, the evidence gathered and

weighed, and the truth of the matter determined. Of course, if it is

found that there is no foundation to those allegations, then the

minister should be free, along with his deputy, to resume his role.

If, on the other hand, there is merit to be found in the allegations

which have been made — and, indeed, there has been some impropriety

with respect to the impartial administration of justice in this

province — then, of course, the minister who has stepped down should

indeed be required to resign that portfolio. We on this side of the

House seek to make no judgments in that respect; we simply seek to

ensure that the proper practice is followed in terms of recognition and

respect for proper parliamentary traditions in this province. That's

the issue here.

Now a whole variety of questions come to the mind of the public with

respect to the allegations that have been made, and these questions

will remain until such time as a proper and impartial investigation has

been conducted. I am not satisfied at all with an investigation which

provides for a junior staff member to investigate his own boss, as we

are led to believe was the case when the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

[ Page 1349 ]

Williams) asked Mr. McDiarmid to investigate Mr.

Vogel previously. I suggest that that kind of investigation is

ludicrous. How can an associate deputy, a junior officer to the deputy,

investigate his superior, the deputy, and hope to arrive at any

impartial conclusion that will be seen to have any merit and any

substance in the public mind? Mr. Speaker, that's absolute nonsense.

And certainly one doesn't have to be a lawyer to recognize that that is

not an impartial inquiry; that is not one that would be acceptable to

the public, much less to the opposition.

We are now treated to the spectacle of yet another allegation being

made of interference by the Deputy Attorney General into other criminal

cases. Hard on the heels of the previous investigation, where the

associate deputy investigated his boss, now would you believe, Mr.

Speaker, that the Attorney-General's view of how to approach this new

crisis is, apparently, for he himself to investigate his senior

underling? Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough. We cannot have the

Attorney-General conducting a quiet, internal investigation of the

serious allegations that have been raised by the CBC television program

— the serious allegations that have been put down in a letter from Mr.

Donald, Crown counsel, to the former Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Gardom), specified in writing and of such grave consequence as to

demand the highest and the most impartial inquiry. We cannot have a

little, quiet, internal investigation by the Attorney-General, who,

indeed, is responsible if his deputy was indiscreet in any way in

intervening in a criminal case.

The old doctrine of ministerial responsibility is something that the

current Social Credit government has chosen to totally disregard in a

whole variety of cases. They know as well as we do that that is the

core of the issue. They seek to divert the argument by going back to

speeches of what happened in this province five years ago — in their

view, from their jaundiced eye. They cannot stand to deal with the

reality of here and now, Mr. Speaker. They don't want to involve

themselves in a debate on these questions that affect the very, very

important matter of the justice system.

The Attorney-General and the previous Attorney-General have scarcely

been in this Legislature since that program was revealed. The

Attorney-General, after being absent from the House all day Friday,

finally dragged himself back into the House, just before adjournment,

to make a very pallid statement that there would be some kind of

internal investigation. Well, the criminal justice system in the

province of British Columbia hangs in the balance while the minister

fiddles.

People out there who have been convicted of violations of the Liquor

Control and Licensing Act, people out there who have been convicted of

drunk driving charges, are going to be asking the question today:

"Would I have been treated differently had I known the Deputy

Attorney-General?" And under the circumstances they have the right to

ask that question.

Mr. Speaker, there is another very serious side to this matter, in

my view. It's bad enough when we're accused of playing political

favourites within the criminal justice system; but I suggest that if

favouritism can be played, then we have to assume that enemies or

perceived enemies of that office of the Attorney-General could also

conceivably be treated differently than the average citizen.

We heard a minister of the Crown in this House get up and identify a

member of the judiciary as being a lifelong enemy of the Bennett

family. I suggest that that's a dangerous concept. I wonder how many

other enemies of Social Credit are perceived to be out there. And I

wonder whether or not those cases, when they came before the courts,

have been treated in exactly the same way as the average citizen. It's

a valid question that the public has a right to ask. If there's a

charge of favouritism, then presumably there could be charges of

discrimination in a harsh way too. This is a very, very serious matter.

I hope the charges are absolutely untrue — I certainly do — because it

doesn't do any good for the system of justice. It doesn't do any good

for the political structure in this province to have that kind of thing

going on.

But the question at this point is not whether they are true or

false; the question at this point is not whether those charges are

ultimately found to be valid; the question is that there should be no

hesitation in getting to the root of the matter with a full and

impartial investigation. That is not being done. We find the

Attorney-General stonewalling in terms of coming to grips with these

serious allegations in a proper and expeditious way; that is the danger.

Certainly I'm not a lawyer, but lawyers in this institution and, I

think, most of the public for that matter.... You don't have to be a

lawyer to recognize the importance of the separation between the

executive branch of government and the judiciary — and, of course, the

church. No one is suggestion any tampering with the church to date. But

the proper separation of all of these estates in a democratic system

are fundamental to preserving democracy, and when they are called into

question in any way whatsoever, then the reaction of government should

be immediate and it should be decisive. It should demand that all of

those touched by the allegations step down, and it should conduct a

full and private investigation by someone who is completely at arm's

length from the political interests of the government. Then let the

chips fall where they may. That is what's required in this case. I, for

the life of me, cannot understand why the government hesitates, why

they appear to be stonewalling on this issue, why they appear to be

here in this House willing to debate anything but that crisis which is

before the people of British Columbia today.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I think about certain pieces of legislation that have been brought

in by this government. In the last couple of years certain bills have

generated a great deal of heat in debate in this institution. I think

about the compulsory drug treatment program, that facility which the

Minister of Health devised to capture all of those accused of drug

abuse on the streets of Vancouver and throughout the length and breadth

of this province and to compel them to be institutionalized in a

facility for the alleged treatment, although the treatment was never

specified. My colleagues on this side of the House said that was a

dangerous intrusion into the free and legal rights of individuals in

the province. The courts ultimately decided that we were correct and

that the government had been hasty. It was found to be

unconstitutional, at least in part.

Yet here we have the same government today that will stand silently

and blithely by and let the most serious allegations be raised with

respect to partiality in the administration of justice. To be

charitable, all I can say is that they are extremely slow in

responding. And when they have responded it's been in such a pallid

way, as I suggested earlier, as to give no credibility to the kind of

investigation that we have been promised by the Attorney-General.

[ Page 1350 ]

The Attorneys-General, both of them, past and present, have already

stated that they have full confidence in the deputy. That's fair

enough, I guess. But surely it might have been more prudent, in light

of the new allegation, to learn the truth of the matter, to view the

evidence, before they came out with a judgment on the deputy's conduct.

We heard the Attorney-General earlier today, in response to

questions from my colleague the first member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Barrett), indicate that he had accepted a previous investigation

regarding his deputy without ever viewing the evidence, simply on the

basis of a report delivered to his desk by a junior staff person. I

would think that matters of this import would command the personal

attention of the Attorney-General. I would think that these matters get

to the very heart of the justice system in this province, and nothing

less than the personal scrutiny of the Attorney-General and his

satisfaction as to the evidence in the matter should be expected of a

senior political officer of that government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Mair would have handled it better.

MR. KING: I'm sure that he probably would have, Mr. Member.

I'm sure that the Minister of Health would have handled it better. He

may have lost his temper in the process, and he may have wanted to

punch someone in the nose. I don't know, but I'm sure he would have

handled it better.

While we're on that subject, I read a little

article in the Colonist

the other day about that minister saying that he and I had almost got

involved in an altercation. He observed that if that happened I would

beat his brains out. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say he's wrong on two

counts. First, I have no intention of becoming involved in a physical

conflict with him or any other member of this House. Second, I think it

would be a great challenge to beat that member's brains out. So, be

that as it may, those things, I think, are a bit of an exaggeration.

But I do think the Minister of Health is a pretty capable lawyer,

and I think he understands the law. I think he understands the need for

even-handed administration of law, and I think that he would have moved

expeditiously to ensure that the public interest was protected, that

the people of British Columbia could be satisfied that the law was

being applied fairly and that justice was not only being done but would

be seen to be done fairly and equitably without the benefit of any kind

of tampering with the system for the alleged friends of the government

or anyone else. That's the issue here today, and it's very, very

important. Personally, I don't know how opposition members can really

address themselves to any other issue until the government is prepared

to come up with a straightforward decision on what they are going to do

to preserve and protect the impartiality of our very basic criminal

justice system in the province of British Columbia.

I would think that the Premier of the province would be giving some

very pertinent and decisive direction to his Attorney-General at this

particular point. I think, personally, that this is the most serious

and grave allegation that I can ever recall being made in the province

of British Columbia. I think it strikes at the very underpinning of our

system, it is such that it should not be held in abeyance in any way

and left to dangle while the minister fiddles around with an internal

investigation of his own staff. They are too close — not only in

working relationship, but in terms of the chain of command through that

ministry — for it to be adequate or for it to be impartial to have the

Attorney-General investigating his own deputy. Mr. Premier, I call for

something better than that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the throne

debate, let me congratulate you on the most onerous and difficult job

your fellow legislators have asked you to carry out. Let me say that

all of us look forward to your fair but firm hand helping to maintain

the level of dignity and decorum in this assembly. And, Mr. Speaker,

let me say that, for our part, we will attempt to give you every help

in achieving that type of standard in our Legislature, all of us

recognizing that the eyes of British Columbians are upon us and that we

are their representatives and they wish to act as such.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I stand to support the Speech from the Throne. I

do not support the Speech from the Throne because it is our legislative

program; I support it because the things which are outlined in this

Speech from the Throne have not been arrived at or achieved easily. It

has taken some years of preparation by our government to bring us to a

point in time when the programs that are outlined, promised and

indicated in that speech could be carried out.

I intend, in winding up the throne debate today, to deal with the

preparation that has taken place, and how we've arrived at this point

in time in our province, so that we have been able to offer such

programs and such an economic strategy that British Columbians can look

forward with confidence to the future of this province.

First, without commenting on a vote in this House, but commenting on

the charges that have been a part of the amendment proposed by the

opposition, let me say this: I have no intention of responding to some

of the convoluted charges made by that opposition. The innuendo — some

of the facts clearly untrue, many of the statements a rehash of

newspaper articles over the past six months — obviously is not the type

of detailed research or the type of debate on how this province can be

better administered that the people expect from us in this assembly.

There have been cries, shouts and requests that the assembly meet

much earlier than we have been called because there were important

things to be discussed, important programs that must be undertaken to

lead this province into the 1980s. Let me suggest that the opposition,

during the first four days of the throne speech debate, in not dealing

with any issue in a positive way — any concrete proposal — has not

given any indication that they can be a part of any administration or

any leadership. In fact, they have come ill-prepared to this

Legislature, prepared only to deal in that which they consider to be

good political points, well-discussed and canvassed in the newspapers,

but not prepared, as is called for in this assembly, to deal with the

programs, the economic development, the industrial development, the

programs for people and the budgeting of expenditures that will help to

create a climate to lead this province.

Not one word have they uttered in order to offer an alternative to

the programs of this government. Nowhere have they shown the direction

in which they would like to lead British Columbia. Nowhere have they

come out and said they are against many of the proposals, which I will

deal with in a moment, which are sketched and fleshed out in that

throne speech which has been termed by many to be the most detailed and

significant throne speech in some time.

[ Page 1351 ]

Those are not my comments, Mr. Speaker, because obviously I would

not pretend to give a critique of the speeches of His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor. To me, all of the speeches that have been

presented by Lieutenant-Governors since I entered this House as the

government leader have been exceptional and worthy documents for the

direction in which British Columbia is going.

I don't intend, in summing up this debate and in supporting the

Speech from the Throne as a positive document, to deal in the type of

negative discussion that has been a part of some of the speeches in

this chamber, speeches which have drawn responses and which have led to

incidents of which no one in this House can feel proud. But we can

understand the climate that was created and the public can understand

that such allegations as were made would draw such responses. For our

part it is sometimes difficult, but that is not this government's way

and it is not the way in which we are going to lead this province in

the 1980s.

Nor would I suggest that the main topic of conversation or those

things which are put forward in this debate should be the idle

speculation in which the gossip and rumour surrounding politics plays a

major part. You would think by some of the things that have been put

forward that we were in another election campaign. The speculation is

that somehow an election campaign is imminent. Let me say to those who

only wish to fight the last election because they didn't like the

result that the voters have spoken: let me say to them that this

government has prepared for a time of leading this province into the

eighties. That isn't just a catchword or phrase to be said on New

Year's Eve, 1979 — "We are launching ourselves into a new decade" —

because we started launching ourselves into the eighties in 1976. And

let me say that the throne speech and the budget of 1976 and the

following throne speeches and budgets of 1977, 1978 and 1979 have all

been a part of bringing us to a point in time when British Columbians

can look with optimism to the future. People want leadership. They have

had leadership — exciting leadership, tough leadership, strong

programs, strong action — that has brought us to this point in time,

and an outline and a blueprint for stronger action to come.

This government has made some difficult decisions and at times we

have erred. We apologize for when we err, because we want, more than

anyone else, to be a perfect government. But perfect governments would

only be made of perfect people, and we must admit that, as a populist

party, representing the average people of British Columbia, we don't

come as perfect people. But we come with a perfect commitment — a

commitment to perfection.

Now when I say, Mr. Speaker, in summing up for the government our

support of the throne speech, that these things that are outlined

didn't just happen, let me review for you some of the thoughts and

actions that went into four years of preparation. Let me talk about

1976 and a new government having to develop an industrial strategy for

British Columbia where no such strategy existed, a government prepared

to lead and help provide the climate to make things happen, rather than

trying to deter, even penalize, those who were successful in the

province but who somehow didn't deserve their share of the wealth.

Rather than discourage or penalize, our government set out to encourage

and provide opportunity for those people in British Columbia who would

take the initiative, risk their capital, build some prosperity, create

employment and be proud to be in British Columbia, knowing that their

investment, under fair laws, not laws of privilege, would be protected;

that they would be dealt with fairly and could look to the future; that

the things they built through their own effort would depend on their

own success; that government would not be in the position to penalize

them, but would be there to provide the opportunities. The people have

responded, and that's why I wish to outline some of these things as I

wind up the throne speech debate as the designated speaker for the

government — and for the party, and for the people of this province.

Let me say that the industrial strategy demanded that British

Columbia not isolate itself from the rest of Canada. It demanded that

matter which political party was in power. Perhaps that statement is

easier for a party such as ours to make — for a leader with no federal

party. We are a strictly provincial party, in which I think there are

the government of British Columbia, not to threaten them or to be

partisan or to embarrass them. But we also don't go down as their

junior partners, somehow in a junior role, so that we are not able to

achieve the results that the people of British Columbia expect. And I

say that perhaps that has been a large reason why we have been so

successful.

We found that British Columbia had not always been considered to be

interested in participating with the rest of Canada. Whether the

impression was correct or not, we felt that many felt that somehow the

Rocky Mountains were a dividing line between British Columbia and the

rest of Canada, and that somehow we didn't care. But we do care, and we

did care. Above all, we cared for the people we represented as

government, because we felt that if there had been neglect, it had been

to the detriment of British Columbia. Many federal programs of

industrial development, opportunities to participate with tax dollars

we'd already sent through the federal system, lay unused because no

agreement had been achieved — the type of agreements that would give us

our fair share to try and develop industry in a sophisticated and real

way. We were able to sign a number of agreements, and we didn't sign

them easily; they took a lot of negotiation. I think of the General

Development Agreement, DREE, TIDSA, agreements in education and health,

and a host of programs that have benefited the people of this province

— forestry and others.

Mr. Speaker, these agreements were not easily arrived at. They took

hard negotiation. I can remember when the minister, then known as the

greatest Minister of Economic Development that British Columbia had

counterparts. During the first two visits, he had to get over the fact

that they were shocked to see a real live member of the government of

British Columbia willing to talk and willing to try to get some action

for our province. Talk he did, but he did more than talk. That minister

entered negotiations. He upgraded the ministry, he brought in strong

people and advisers, and British Columbia is the winner today. The

signing of the General Development Agreement and the subsequent

agreements attached to it is responsible for many of the jobs that

British Columbians have today.

The increase in the number of British Columbians working — I will

deal with that later in this opportunity to deal with the growth that

we find to be very, very positive in this province, and growth we wish

to accelerate. Because we're not yet satisfied; we want even more

opportunity for our people. These agreements have created employment;

but

[ Page 1352 ]

what they've also done is created opportunities for

many, many small businesses in this province. Those agreements created

a climate, along with the climate of optimism and opportunity that was

created politically by a number of other moves relating to specific

areas which I will discuss in a moment, moves that led people to start

their small companies and get out and compete in the marketplace

knowing full well that the market system does not allow everyone to

succeed. If it did, the consumer would be the loser. A genuine

marketplace guarantees that the consumer is getting the best possible

price, service and quality. No single supplier such as a government

monopoly, or a system that guaranteed that everybody could make a

profit, could provide that guarantee to the people.

The market system is there for people to succeed. It allows them the

opportunity to fail, but it also gives them the chance to try again and

again. Many of the successes in the history of this province have been

people who've tried again and again. Bitterness over a single failure

has never been part of the British Columbia dream, nor has it been part

of the character of the people who have built this province. It has

been the opportunity to strive that has driven them on.

What have been the results? Well, we've seen an exciting and

dramatic increase in British Columbians setting up small limited

companies, small businesses, in response to these opportunities. In

1975, 10,267 companies incorporated in British Columbia. You realize

though, Mr. Speaker, that through the years 1972 to 1975 the number of

new companies was practically constant — no increase. Listen to these

figures. In 1972 there were 9,024 companies; 1973, 9,412; 1974,

9,766;1975, 10,267 — a difference over four years of just 1,000

additional companies, or about 10 percent. In 1976, a new year, a new

opportunity, there was a jump to 12,355; 1977, a jump to 13,209; 1978,

a jump to 15,215; and 1979, a jump to 17,611. Let me say also that the

same sorts of results were also felt in what are called extraprovincial

companies.

At that point in time our own people and other Canadians found a new

confidence in this province, a confidence gained from the fact that

they had a government that would deal with them fairly and that

provided opportunity. The people responded. You can find dramatic

increases in partnerships, over and above the small, limited-liability

companies. You can also find dramatic increases in single

proprietorships where, with no association with others, British

Columbians set out to provide their own small service independently.

These are the people who have helped to build the tremendous growth

that has taken place in British Columbia these last four years, a

prosperity and growth that, perhaps, many now take for granted. Perhaps

the very success that we have had is now considered the norm. Perhaps

British Columbia's difficulty, then, is competing with our own success,

because if you go to any other part of Canada, they look at British

Columbia with wonderment, amazement and envy. That is why that very

disturbing trend had started in the early 1970s just prior to us being

government, that interprovincial migration — that is, that movement of

Canadians back and forth within their own country — with more Canadians

leaving British Columbia than were coming to it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It is the only time, I am advised by the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), in the history of British

Columbia that that happened. I wonder if the people of British Columbia

can measure that significant event by the fact that it was after three

years of the only time in our history when we had a socialist

government. I wonder if the two events are related. No, I don't wonder,

Mr. Speaker. I know they are, because I remember those days.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) remembers those days.

Those are the days he preferred to be in Ottawa. But he knew when there

was an opportunity in British Columbia, and after we were elected he

left his seat in Parliament and came back to British Columbia. He knows

that his primary concern is to develop a lucrative law practice. I

won't comment on that.

Mr. Speaker, those are the things that happened. The development of

a milestone for British Columbia.

What about the mining sector? What about that industry — British

Columbia's number two industry? What did this government face in 1976

when we were attempting to develop an economic strategy where none had

been? One was to look at the mining industry and the great

opportunities that were here in British Columbia — opportunities that

didn't require government going out and looking for mines, didn't

require government developing the mines, didn't require government to

take over the mines, but required fair taxation. This would offer a

just opportunity for the people of British Columbia who had

traditionally worked in this area, those who went out and sought new

minerals, economically developable minerals — the prospectors.

What we had seen by the type of unfair and ridiculous

legislation.... More than that, the implied intent of the government of

that day created a climate that made not only prospectors and capital

flee this province, but a technology that had been built up because of

the optimism.... It was the fleeing of a technology considered at that

time to be the best in the world. People of skills — professionals,

people who could make a contribution to British Columbia — fled to

various parts of the world where there was some opportunity. What had

taken years of hard work, confidence and opportunity to build up was

lost almost overnight by an unfeeling and uncaring government who

didn't understand that they were there to govern for the people. Some

of those people were the little people who worked in mining. It was

easy to stand up and rail against multinational corporations or mining

companies, forgetting at the same time that many of these companies

were owned by little people — individuals who, through their pension

funds or through their individual purchase, had bought the shares. They

were looking for their company to have a fair opportunity for return —

nothing special, just an opportunity — and not only those who work but

those who'd put up their capital were hurt. We looked at it. We changed

the legislation. It's tough legislation but it's fair. It's a tax on

profits, Mr. Speaker, to make sure there are no undue profits, but

above all it's not providing the taxation level that was there before

that went over 100 percent.

Never let that party over there run the banks, because you've heard

of usury; you wouldn't know what they could do when they had taxation

over 100 percent. What would they ever do with the interest rates in

this country, given the responsibility of power or the opportunity of

power?

Mr. Speaker, this government had a strategy to encourage mining, but

it was not just to encourage the prospectors and the people to harness

their capital, or to invite back the

[ Page 1353 ]

technical skills, the technicians, the technology

that had been built up in order to provide greater economic opportunity

for this province, which was reflected not only in the wages in the

pockets of the people. Some of it, Mr. Speaker — a lot of it — is

finding its way into the government coffers and is returned to the

people in general benefits.

When there is no industry, there can be no money to government, and

so not only have people lost their jobs and companies failed and

investors lost their money and technicians left, but there is no money

for government either. That's the day a government that would be so

irresponsible — and they would have had they had a chance to have more

than a single term — would have to look at the people and say: "We've

run out of money, so we're going to borrow more and go into more debt.

We're going to put more charges on you, the people. At the same time,

I'm sorry, but we can't continue the social benefits that have been

built up by the people of this province in the past because we've got

no money. Those horrible companies left us." Oh, yes, they'd blame it

on them, but we know, Mr. Speaker. And that was the strategy for mining.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we sought to improve the trading relations with

other countries in the world for British Columbia products. We sought

to open up new trading opportunities with Pacific Rim countries. We

sought to open up not only trading opportunities in the Pacific Rim,

because it was a new and opportunistic market, but we looked at some

parts of our industries — and I'll deal with forestry — when we saw

that the dependency that had been built up on U.S. markets, say, for

our lumber products, left British Columbia and British Columbians

vulnerable to another economy. We said: "That's not good enough. The

sort of taking it for granted that the Americans will always build

houses and always be prosperous is not enough. We want to spread our

risk." Not that we don't like them, not that we're not confident in the

Americans or their economy, but we did it to say British Columbians

have greater opportunity. And today we have developed additional

markets, encouraging the private sector and companies — and I'll deal

with it in a moment — so that, in a significant way, we have lessened

our dependency, provided greater confidence or greater opportunity to

the people who work in the industry, so when the U.S. catches a cold we

won't catch pneumonia. We'll no longer be the tail of the dog.

You'd think, Mr. Speaker, that would have been done, but that was

done by this government, by that minister. The Minister of Economic

Development then, the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development now (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources at that time, the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources now (Hon. Mr. McClelland), and the Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) have all played a major part, and I'll

deal with that in just a moment.

We've sought and are sending a signal that we want to do more

processing, more smelting and refining, in our province. And, Mr.

Speaker, that is part of the new additional policy that I will be

speaking to in just a few moments.

What about forests? As I say, we had a dependence on U.S. markets,

and what did we do? We encouraged trips, not only of industry but

industry and labour, to Japan and other countries. The standards then

which frame construction techniques, using British Columbia

techniques.... There were no housing starts there in North American

techniques, and British Columbia and the United States now are both

prospering in the amount of housing that is being built using our

techniques, using British Columbia forest products. Mr. Speaker, 10,000

homes a year are being constructed now, and it will be just a short

time before 100,000 homes are being built.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The chirpers opposite are chirping, Mr.

Speaker, but I talked to the president of Mitsui Homes. He knows who

encouraged his company to use these types of standards.

Mr. Speaker, we're also working with the industry to get additional

British Columbia forest products into the Japanese market. Beyond the

opportunities for plywood, we now are working to get the glue-line

standards and the standards of British Columbia softwood plywoods

accepted to help our interior plywood industry have access to that

market. None of that work was done before we became government. Our

British Columbia success is that we don't do these things for

ourselves, it is to help provide a growing and stable forest industry

in British Columbia.

What are the results of some of this? Just recently I had the

opportunity, at Nanaimo, to participate in the opening of the Mayo

sawmill. You might be interested to know that this is the first sawmill

geared to Japanese sizes and dimensions, for their housing market,

geared solely to take advantage of that growing market. It's an example

to other mills which will be taking the same opportunity. After four

years of this government we will see a growing number of this type of

mill, which will spread the market and open the market and end the sort

of single dependency we had before. You've seen the changes, Mr.

Speaker. I will deal with the figures, which are dramatic, that show

the type of dependency we had on the U.S. market. That was part of the

economic strategy on forestry.

We looked at other major economic areas, areas that British Columbia

had traditionally felt would grow, yet something had happened. One of

them was tourism. We looked at tourism, and we recognized it as a great

opportunity for the service industries of this province — many

individual people working in small businesses, many people wanting to

develop small restaurants, wishing to develop service stations or

laundry services or coin washes, wishing to work in those industries,

the workers in the restaurants and dining rooms of this province,

thousands and thousands of people whose livelihood depends not on just

British Columbians, but on others who come to share our province and

leave behind their dollars and jobs for our people and who take away

nothing more than pleasant memories of a province that's worth visiting

and worth living in as well.

We well remember that not all governments have been sensitive to

tourism as a worthwhile industry. I remember very well sitting in this

Legislature, being a part of the people of B.C. and hearing the

shocking statement from the former Minister of Highways (Mr. Lea), who

said he didn't want tourists because all they brought was garbage. That

isn't the philosophy of our government. When we became government we

had to do a lot to repair the damage to B.C.'s reputation by that

member, the member for Prince Rupert now, who they felt was speaking

for the government, and whose statements went unchecked and were,

because of the silence of his colleagues, supported by that government.

We had to go down and win the confidence of, and deal with, the

[ Page 1354 ]

travel industry. We had to help our people learn

how not to reflect the attitudes of that former minister and that

former government. We had to tell them that that isn't the way British

Columbians win tourists. They had been told to frown and scowl and that

tourists weren't wanted. We had to teach them to smile. That was the

way to win tourists: not to go around with a scowl.

The Minister of Highways in that former government told them he

didn't want tourists and that tourists brought garbage. We said:

"Nonsense! Let us help you with hospitality courses for small

businesses who don't have the sophisticated training programs of Hilton

Hotels and others." These training programs helped many a small

businessman, but more than them, the people who work in the industry.

It was an extension of their education and a way in which they could

improve their skills, with just a little help from government in

providing a better service. You know, that brought tourists, and it

helped them not only to hold a job but to secure an industry in which

their jobs would be more secure in the future. That's people working

together. That was giving the people an opportunity to develop the

tourist business.

It wasn't government running around with tax dollars, spending and

saying: "This is the way we'll play in the tourist industry, after

we've told them we don't want them." It was saying: "Look, tourism is

one of the key areas in which there is an opportunity for the average

guy with limited capital to develop a small service or small business

and get out and do something for himself, and not be dependent on

government or be threatened by government wanting to be in the tourist

business." This is where the opportunities lie. More small businesses

start in that area than in almost any other.

Not all the people of this province have a chance to be wealthy

lawyers like the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt). For them

it's difficult; sometimes the opportunities were not there for that

type of preparation and skill. Perhaps then they need that opportunity

later in life, or encouragement in an industry they're already involved

in but haven't been given any help in.

I know people from Atlin have been concerned that even now members

of that party are hurting their tourist industry. I've had letters of

complaint from Atlin about their own member, who they feel has

threatened their tourist industry. I have had letters from the people

of that area asking me to refute the remarks attributed to that member,

because it has hurt their industry. Mr. Speaker, that wasn't just

something they practised as government. Apparently it's still there: a

sort of insensitive, unfeeling attitude for the little people who work

in the industry, the small businesses, that somehow it doesn't matter,

it's not important. Well, it was important to this government.

Mr. Speaker, you being impartial, can see the results in British Columbia today.

You've seen the change, the growth, the smiles upon the faces of the people

who work in those businesses. That smile doesn't reflect a campaign to make

them smile; that smile reflects the satisfaction they have in knowing that they

have a growing industry which offers them security and opportunity. That's why

they're smiling. It's not a forced smile; it's a smile of confidence. It's a

smile at the successes they're having because they have responded to the opportunities

government has encouraged — that they themselves have a more secure future,

not dependent on government handout or welfare but dependent on government giving

them a chance. That's all British Columbians want in the future. They don't

want a big government that says, "We will look after you, and you, and

you," so everybody becomes a ward of the government — and when that

happens I wonder who, as a taxpayer, is going to send the money to government

to pay for it. What they want is a chance. Nobody wants to be beholden to or

dependent on government. As many as can be will be given — and during these

last four years have been given — a chance in the various economic sectors,

because this government recognizes that. Tourism, forestry, mining: tremendous

changes have been undertaken in these industries that are one, two and three

in British Columbia; tremendous changes and opportunities, and the people have

responded.

What else has helped in that industrial policy over the last four

years that has brought British Columbia to this point of prosperity?

The boo birds on the other side would try to talk about scandal and

innuendo, because they don't want to talk about the real prosperity

that is in this province. It doesn't make exciting reading in the

gossip columns in Hush , Scandal ,

or whatever magazines print those sorts of gossipy rumours, that this

thing or that thing is going to happen or has happened. Success is now

taken for granted in this province, that's the problem; it's not news

anymore. Just a few short years ago success would have been news, but

not now, because it's happening and is taken for granted.

Today when you go out and talk to the small businessmen they say:

"Oh, we've got worries." I said: "What are your worries?" They said:

"Things are just tough for us small businessmen." "What is it?" "How

will we ever make next year as good as this year? How will we ever have

the type of success we've got this year, which is the best year in our

history? How can we repeat it?" Well, if that's a problem, that's the

type of problem we want in British Columbia. A few years ago they just

wanted to hang on, or they'd given up and were leaving and going to

Alberta and elsewhere, because they felt there was no opportunity here.

Besides these major sectors, how did government play a role —

besides fair taxation, removing taxation that was unfair and

prohibitive to the industry? Well, of course, you know that we brought

in a major new Forest Act. Since that time we have been updating the

act through the type of fair regulation that provides a place for the

small, the large, the sophisticated and the value added that's needed

in the forest industry, which is mostly allocated and now needs the

guarantee of continuing forest cut that can guarantee the workforce in

the markets we've established, that needs the type of innovative look

beyond the inventory of the forest base to see if there are areas in

which, as part of our reforestation and good forest practice, we could

look at the type of timber that could be utilized to help small

business today and the type of project which I believe is being

undertaken now at Ocean Falls, according to the announcement the other

day. That could dramatically change the forest industry on the coast

for small business, as it changed for the interior forest industry in

the sixties.

A man named Williston was hooted at and disagreed with, told that

his policies wouldn't work, and yet they developed the largest part of

the forest economic strength. They brought an opening up of the

interior, opportunities for workers, the IWA members, the people in the

pulp and paper industry and others. They gave the people of the

interior a chance, and that very same vision and determination and

stubbornness to do it again is going to mean major economic growth that

can be good forest practice as well. Because, Mr.

[ Page 1355 ]

Speaker, areas of timber that are considered

decadent and not now part of the forestry reserve will be harvested.

When this is successful — I was going to say "if" but I say "when,"

because I'm positive about it — they can provide opportunities for

small mills up the coast and even into Stewart, which has wanted to

have some forestry and some forest facility for so long. Even in that

community we can develop those types of new, small facilities using the

decadent and unharvested timber that has been not regarded as

merchantable up until now. There's a secondary benefit besides the

economy and the jobs and the new businesses, because it will make a

place for new growth, proper silviculture, reforestation, and as well

it will mean a new and renewed forest rather than a forest not having

the opportunity to attain its potential because nobody has looked in an

innovative way at those decadent stands.

This is a government that's looking for new ways and new

opportunities to help the people. But as well as those industries, what

about the areas of transportation? Important transportation links in

this province — rail, ferry, highways, and an area that up until now

has not been considered in the provincial jurisdiction and so has been

neglected, air facilities.... We've had governments before who were

great at talk but poor at action, who have always just said: "This

belongs to the federal government." We look around B.C., and we see a

vast province, one of tremendous area and a growing population of about

2.5 million now. That's not many people in a large area, many of them

in remote communities. Their access is by air. Distance now is measured

in time although our province is 950,000 square kilometres. For those

opposite who can't convert, that's 366,000 square miles. But it's large

by any measurement, and those people's access depends on air facilities.

Our government, with the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr.

Davis), broke new ground by setting up the airport facilities fund,

scoffed at by that party over there. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the citizens and

the communities received upgraded airports, additional navigational

aids, lighting, because this government said: "We're not going to wait

large city like Nanaimo which needed lighting, whether it's the

development of a strip or the paving and construction of facilities —

because the weather's not always the best there at Bella Coola, Stewart

and other towns — this government provided facilities so that not only

could small aircraft get in but the provincial government's air

ambulance service could extend very necessary life-saving aid to the

people of those communities.

It won't be lost on those people that during my discussion of this

members opposite have hooted. They're against it. It can be considered

then that they don't care, in hooting during my remarks, to help the

people of those areas with transportation, to provide ambulance

services and, what's more, to be an encouragement not only to the

private planes but planes that carry some services — the mail and

others, ambulance planes — so hopefully we could encourage the

third-level air carriers to provide some sort of scheduled service.

That's the type of innovative transportation policy this government has

had.

I could go through just a single constituency, the constituency of Omineca,

in which three airports have been substantially upgraded — those people

are appreciative. They'll be interested to know that the New Democratic Party

laughed at the program and still laughs at it. But they do know this: they've

got a service that's quick, they've got an opportunity that can provide even

better service in the future.

Small business, in the third-level air carrier business in this

province, has an opportunity to do what British Columbia has done

before, and we have been the one province that has developed a major

successful airline — not a government airline, but CP Air was first

coming out as a third-level air carrier in British Columbia. It now

stretches coast to coast. The second was PWA, successful in extending

now to the middle of the country. We now have an opportunity for that

success out of innovative and opportunistic British Columbia to be

repeated. The answer isn't in nationalized airlines or in taking them

over after they're successful, but in allowing the initiative of the

people and giving them those areas where government should be involved:

proper and safe landing strips, safe navigational aids and lighting to

increase not only day service but night service. Mr. Speaker, the

people of those areas know that this government was first.

And what about highways? When we came to government there was no

real highway program in existence. The highways of the province, once

the main connectors that linked together the people of this province by

truck and by car and that helped to open up communities, not for the

sake of blacktop, as some will say, because highways are there for the

people.... But talk again to the people in the remote communities who,

for a large part of their life.... Maybe some members are too young to

remember what it was like in the interior of British Columbia before

1952, when we were substantially landlocked, cut off from access to the

rest of the province or from British Columbia's large metropolitan

centres — Vancouver and Vancouver Island. We had no connection, and yet

we had a potential in the interior of this province second to none.

This province extended more than just a couple of miles beyond

Chilliwack.

But there was a big province waiting out there, and there was a

dream of a government elected in 1952, a government that has the name

of the party that is the government of today, which said: "British

Columbia, if it's to be anything for all people, must indeed provide

services to all the people, connect communities...." They built

highways, and because the highways of this province met a very basic

and fundamental need of the people, that party over there called them a

blacktop government and said they were buying votes because they were

doing the right thing.

Well, I've got to tell you, if that's buying votes, then the right

thing that this government intends to do will pay off in a lot of votes

in the next election, because we intend to continue to do the right

thing by those people and communities. Rather than neglect the

highways, as was done prior to our government, we intend to continue

not only to maintain those highways we have, but to open up new areas

to provide new access. That means, as well as highways and as well as

dramatic new roads into the interior, that bridges will have to be

built to service the people of this province. I'm amused — maybe even

distressed — to hear the specious arguments that somehow this

government, in trying to meet the needs of the people of Delta, Surrey,

Richmond and those areas, is hurting the opportunities for transit by

building and constructing the Annacis Island crossing.

Let me tell you that the two are not competitive; they must move

together hand in hand. And the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville (Mr.

Levi), who stood up and stated that he was against the Annacis Island

crossing.... Because no member of his party over there has dissociated

himself or herself

[ Page 1356 ]

from his remarks, I presume now that he has spoken

for that party and that they will tell the people of Surrey and

Richmond that they're against it. Let me tell you that they're not

competitive, Mr. Speaker.

We recognize it is not government's right, through the taxation and

spending powers we have, to dictate the way people move in this

province. There are some who say we should force people to travel in a

certain manner. Obviously that is not the type of democratic government

people want to see in this province. They must be given choices, and

they will have those choices. Because of solid management of the

financial affairs of this government and this province, we can proceed

in both ways at once. Those people will have the opportunity to travel

over the Annacis Island crossing, and I look forward to opening day and

helping to cut the ribbon as the first car crosses — just as I look

forward, Mr. Speaker, to cutting the first ribbon on an LRT and a

transit system that serves the people of greater Vancouver as well. And

we will, because for the first time we've brought in

an act and a

rationalization of transit so that you don't have one part of the

province and the major cities of the interior operating with government

and the others run by an energy distributing and production company. It

will be equitable under a single authority that calls for local

representation.

Local representation. Do you know how long the local people have

been asking for local representation in transit, in UTA and transit

authorities? Do you know how long? They've been waiting a long time. I

can remember that party. They got a few people to make a lot of

independent moves into transportation, like SeaBus, and move this way

and order buses for a Hydro system without them knowing. I remember

that. I remember that, Mr. Speaker, and that didn't rationalize it.

What the people of greater Vancouver wanted.... I was a member of the

opposition and leader of this party then, and the mayor of Vancouver

came to me and said: "Give us a fair formula in which you participate

in the losses and give us representation. Help us to let us develop our

own system and we'll share the losses fifty-fifty."

I'll tell you what we did, Mr. Speaker. We brought in

an act that

gives them that participation. Do you know what we're sharing the

deficits at? It's 75 percent, because we know that the user cannot pay

the total cost. It's better than requested by the mayor of Vancouver.

We set up the system they asked for. We made it richer than they asked

for, and when you see the legislation unfold this year, you'll see that

this government is prepared not only to give them that invitation, but

there will be further invitations to respond and get on with the job in

transit in this province.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It won't be the just the "we would have done it," because the ''we

would have done it boys" couldn't have done it because they had no

money, Mr. Speaker. They spent it all, or, if I could be excused,

spilled it all. They spilled it all.

Mr. Speaker, the communities of the interior and now the greater

Vancouver area and greater Victoria area can all operate in the same

equitable manner with a provincial government that's given them local

participation, direction, and is picking up the lion's share of any

deficit.

Let those on local government remember this: when we're setting up

that opportunity and when we're paying the lion's share, we won't let

them — whether it's a negotiation tactic or whether it's their

philosophy — take away the benefits of the seniors and their bus passes

in this province. I say to those local representatives: "You have been

given a challenge and a responsibility that you've asked for for a long

time; don't now frivolously, for a negotiation stance or whatever your

motive, make pawns of the people in this province whom we have seen fit

to help through social benefit — because of special rates, special

fares and sometimes no fares for our seniors. Don't make them the pawns

of any negotiation games. This government wants to assure those people

that they will not be pawns in any negotiation, that we will look after

them....

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you threatening them?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Vancouver Centre has said:

"Are you threatening them?" No, I'm saying I'm not letting them

threaten anybody in this province. That's what I'm saying. I'm not

letting the people of this province be threatened. And I won't let you

threaten them either with the type of jackboot government you used to

be a part of.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What about ferries?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Back to orderly debate. The Premier has the floor.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Thank you for your timely admonition and

reminder to those members, Mr. Speaker. What about that other part of

transportation? Yes, our government has taken some criticism earlier

over the subsidies to our ferry system. Prior to our government the

ferry system in this province, as an extension of the highways, had

been expected to stand on its own feet. For most of the years, right up

till '72, it had done so.

There developed then — in a period of inflation, with escalating

labour costs, and, later, escalating fuel costs because of the change

in energy values and the actions of the OPEC nations — the inability of

government to finance the operating costs through a user-pay policy.

That situation was not made apparent to the people by the government we

replaced, although those losses were starting to mount. Those losses

started during their administration — and they started to mount.

The public was not given any transportation policy or philosophy in

which, somehow, government would share. In fact it fell upon our

government to look at what was happening. And, yes, the messenger

brought some bad news: that that service was in a major loss position

and the losses were growing worse. We had to rationalize the cost of

fares, as had other transportation systems, not only in Canada and

North America but throughout the world. But we were going to bring

about a policy that brought in, for the first time, an identifiable

subsidy — a subsidy that could be rationalized, a subsidy that would

pay the major share of the operating costs of those ferries. And we did.

Today the ferry system can continue to expand and to develop its

service. It doesn't have to come, cap in hand, to government every

year, because within that subsidy it has a built-in cost escalator that

relates directly to the cost-price increase in this province. It means

that it is responsible for

[ Page 1357 ]

maintaining the balance of user-pay with a formula

already set up by government — a formula that is generous. Within that

formula, I must say, we have for the first time received — and it was

in the early part of our first term — a commitment in principle from

the federal government, which they said they would never give. They

told the former Social Credit Premier of this province, who set up B.C.

Ferries and provided that transportation system and presided over it

during its finest years, that they would never provide federal funds

for the west coast ferry system, although at that time they provided

major sums not only to the CNR ferry on the east coast but also to the

ferry systems that serve the Atlantic provinces. They said that in

principle they would never provide federal funds to British Columbia.

If the question was asked — and I don't know if it was — by the

government that preceded us, they were either ignored or turned down.

But we were not prepared to have British Columbians, in principle,

considered second-rate or second-class Canadians. We said that when it

came to a matter of principle the federal government had a

responsibility.

MR. LEGGATT: You let it get so bad that they had to bail you out.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, we negotiated that agreement

right after this government took over from the then operators of the

system. If the member for Coquitlam-Moody, who was in Ottawa at the

time, says that the system was bad, it is a condemnation of the way it

was operated by his party's government. I would think that that member,

who so far in this session and in the last session has been wrong so

consistently, would learn — as an old-time politician, but as a new

member of this House — to be a little more sure of what has gone on and

what is going on in British Columbia before he blunders into traps of

his own setting. Your words are recorded, my friend, and I am going to

mail them out to Coquitlam-Moody so that the people will know the type

of representation....

Let me get back to what has happened. We got the first agreement

from the federal government in principle. I said at the time that the

amount was not enough as it related to the type of subsidy — and it has

grown to well over $100 million — that the east coast was getting. But

the commitment in principle and the precedent it sets for future

governments — on the efforts of this government to negotiate fair

amounts — is priceless, because we convinced them that we were a part

of Canada and that that needed to be recognized in principle.

What about rail? There has been a lot of discussion on rail. Yes, we

had a royal commission on the British Columbia Railway, and we looked

at its recommendations. This government agreed with some and disagreed

with some of the recommendations.

When you consider the direction that railway was going, and that

during the years 1972 through to December 1975 it accumulated the

largest losses it had ever seen, it deserved some kind of attention

from the government — attention in which the public could focus its

attention on the people of those communities. From that we made a

commitment to those northern communities of Fort Nelson and elsewhere,

not only that the service that was so essential to their communities

would be maintained but also that the line would be upgraded to

standards that guaranteed safety and continuity of service. We said to

them that we would try to do as we had already done, but we would bring

in something that we did before the royal commission, and that is the

independent board of directors. Previous Premiers have been president

of the railway. I never sought that role, nor wanted it, nor took that

role. The president of the railway is a professional; the directors are

people who have some expertise in transport. Their responsibility is to

try and bring harmony to a railway in which harmony has not been the

case over a large number of years — too many years.

Railway is a pro.... This year, besides doing those things and

guaranteeing the service, in the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, we take a

further step and suggest that we will rationalize further the debt

burden, most of which was imposed between 1972 and December 1975, upon

that railway. And that will be consistent with the philosophy of our

government.

When we came to government and found a ferry system losing money, we

said, "Users shall not pay the total cost," and we provided money from

government. We provide highways at no user pay, bridges at no user pay,

and while the railway provides a freight service in which rates must be

competitive.... A large part of it is pioneering and opening up an

area, and part of it can never be measured — the economic contribution

it has made — because it opened up a province. We're going to give it

the same consideration.

But we also looked at this industrial strategy, besides all of the

transportation infrastructure, and we recognized, as I said earlier,

that new markets of expanding opportunity lay out there to the Pacific

Rim-emerging countries, countries with increasing industrial capacity,

the new growth, the new producers of the world — creating new consumers

and new markets for B.C. products.

That meant we could not be dependent on a single port system, Mr.

Speaker. We wanted to develop additional port capacity for the products

of British Columbia, but not only for British Columbians; for

Canadians. Canadian goods will move to the Pacific Rim countries

through our ports. The intense discussion we had with the government of

Canada then has got us commitments to improve port facilities at Prince

Rupert, but not just a port that will service grain, a port facility

that will be a bulk-commodity and resource port that will handle not

only grain from the Prairies and perhaps the potash from Saskatchewan —

I'm not sure whether it will handle the uranium from Saskatchewan that

Mr. Broadbent and Mr. Blakeney advocate the mining of; I'm not sure if

it will handle that — but also products from British Columbia. It will

be a part of giving the security of supply to our customers that they

must have in order to consider British Columbia a reliable supplier.

A single port that could be tied up by rail, could be tied up at

port, could be tied up by accidents, cannot be considered a reliable

supplier, and those who would trade with us, besides price and quality,

must have security of supply. It's not enough that we've improved the

industrial climate in British Columbia so that we have less man-days

lost due to strikes and lockouts each and every year we've been

government than took place under the previous government. That sort of

reliability of supply they can see. It's not just the double-tracking

of the CPR and Roberts Bank on the south. They need additional port

capacity from our province, and Prince Rupert will be built. It will be

developed and, Mr. Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips), I look forward to cutting the ribbon at that port

and that rail system, and watching new products from British Columbia

go out through that port.

Duke Point at Nanaimo, additional berths at Roberts

[ Page 1358 ]

Bank — no single area is receiving all the

attention. It's a multifaceted and multifaced industrial and port

expansion that will bring prosperity to all parts of British Columbia.

And then we look further at our industrial strategy, because there

was no energy policy in British Columbia. We were still living in the

smug satisfaction and confidence that we had a secure and large energy

supply, because of the far-sightedness of government in bringing in the

Two River policy and developing the hydro capacity in advance for the

people of British Columbia. That means we have no brownouts, it means

we have no blackouts, but that false sense of security apparently was

prevalent in the administration that preceded us, and no energy policy

was developed, no energy policy was enunciated. In fact, the only

statement we had to go on was that the very success of British

Columbia's security of supply, the two-river policy, would not have

taken place if they had been government. I remember their speeches and

their statements. It was a former Speaker of this House, Mr. Dowding,

who said that if they were doing the two-river policy, they wouldn't

develop them both at once, that British Columbia couldn't use all that

energy and they wouldn't be developing the second river until 1984, a

date that is significant in their party's consciousness. If we had

listened to them and they'd been government there'd be brownouts and

blackouts in British Columbia today.

We have a policy and that policy extends beyond hydro. I don't

agree, and this government does not agree, with the member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), a minister in that former government,

who said that there would be and should be no more hydroelectric

development in this province. That type of statement cannot be made.

British Columbia cannot be bound by that type of stupid statement.

Hydroelectric power is a part of British Columbia's future, if it is

developed conscientiously and with proper care. It is clean and safe.

For that member for Nelson-Creston, on behalf of that government, when

they were government — and who perhaps became a cabinet minister

because of it; he was made a cabinet minister right after it — to make

the statement, that he wanted nuclear power in B.C., is not acceptable.

We believe that responsible development of hydroelectric power provides

a clean and safe energy source for British Columbians.

But more than that, one of our more precious commodities in this

province is our water — clean water, fresh water — that right now runs

into the ocean unharnessed, unsaved, unused by the people of this

province. I believe that our most precious commodity will be fresh

water...

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...and that it can be developed with the

assurance that the fish stocks will not be harmed. We can look at hydro

development, but to reject it as totally as that member did....

I come from the Okanagan, and I recognize that the Okanagan would be

nothing without the storage of fresh water that has brought prosperity

to that area. That land would be considered useless; it would be

desert; it would be rattlesnake and sagebrush country, if it were not

the most highly dev