1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd 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)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3287 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Land-use regulations. Mr. Blencoe –– 3287

Commodity trading. Mr. Howard –– 3287

Taxation measures. Mr. Stupich –– 3288

Hospital staff terminations. Mrs. Dailly –– 3288

Closure of ambulance dispatch centres. Mr. Lockstead –– 3289

University and college financing. Mr. Nicolson –– 3289

Tabling Documents –– 3289

Speech from the Throne

On the amendment

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 3289

Division –– 3290

Ms. Brown –– 3291

Mr. Michael –– 3294

Mr. Blencoe –– 3297

Mr. Reynolds –– 3300

Mr. Nicolson –– 3305

Mrs. Wallace –– 3309

Shoal Island log scaling-statement

Mr. Skelly –– 3311

Tabling Documents –– 3311

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1984

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, we have in the members' gallery

today, Mr. Bimal Mitra, consul-general of India in Vancouver, who is

returning to India on retirement, and Mrs. Mitra. I would like the

House to join me in welcoming them here today.

MR. MACDONALD: The opposition joins in regretting the

retirement of somebody who has served his country in British Columbia

intelligently and affably. He will be sorely missed.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, Consul-General Mitra has of

course had a very close personal relationship with me, as the

representative for Vancouver South, since his time of coming to

Vancouver. He and his wife have graced me with invitations to their

home on several occasions and I have reciprocated, and together we have

attended many events. He has been a true servant of his country. Just a

private word from me to him — I don't know if the others can understand

it: Sat siri akal.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to join me in

welcoming a group of grade 11 students who are in the gallery today,

from Burnaby North Senior Secondary School, with their teacher, Mr.

Cooper.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today

are three gentlemen from the Tokyu Corporation of Japan. Tokyu, as you

probably know, are building a $150 million hotel in Vancouver's inner

harbour. I'd like you to welcome Mr. Toshito Shiota, the president of

the corporation, Mr. Tatsuo Kanazashi, the treasurer and secretary of

the corporation, Mr. Herb Grueter, one of their directors, and Mr. Ken

Woodward, director of marketing for Tourism British Columbia.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you to join me

in welcoming Mrs. Sharon Wilkinson and her ten-year-old son, Carl. Mrs.

Wilkinson is the president of the Sooke Parents' Education Advisory

Council, commonly known in the district as SPEAC. Last year they put on

an excellent program within the area for Vancouver Island on the

educational problems of B.C., and they came down here to see the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) because he couldn't make the

conference.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon are

two of my constituents who reside in one of the older communities in

the district of Maple Ridge, Webster Corners. I would ask the House to

welcome Mike and Hazel Foster.

MR. MOWAT: In the House today we have a very personal friend of mine,

Mr. Norman Young. Mr. Young is the chairman of the Vancouver civic theatres

board and a member of the Canada Council, and he was the organizer and general

manager for the first British Columbia Festival of the Arts in Kamloops. I would

ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. STRACHAN: Visiting Victoria today is Mr. Jack Evans. Mr. Evans is the former publisher of the Prince George Citizen ,

and while publisher of that paper Mr. Evans was the founding father of

the very successful "Take the Car out of Carnage" campaign. I would ask

all members to bid him welcome.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I notice in your gallery today there is a

very hard-working, beautiful young lady from Kamloops. She is the

regional director of the Social Credit Party up there, and I would like

everyone to welcome Mrs. Jacee Schaefer.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In the galleries this afternoon we have

several of our regional directors of the Social Credit Party. I would

ask the house to please welcome each and every one of them.

MR. NICOLSON: I too would like to introduce a hardworking

member of the Social Credit Party, and a regional director, also a

regional director of the regional district of Central Kootenay, Wally

Penner,

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair is pleased to announce

that this House, by agreement, will be adjourned on Friday at the usual

hour, and by agreement will be meeting Monday after question period for

the introduction of the budget. I would like to take this opportunity

to thank both House leaders for the courtesies they have shown toward

the Chair in making the necessary arrangements possible in advance. It

is indeed appreciated.

Oral Questions

LAND-USE REGULATIONS

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal

Affairs. The throne speech has indicated government plans to amend the

land-use provisions of the Municipal Act. Will the minister advise

whether he has decided to include in these amendments a provision to

prevent government MLAs from bringing the influence of provincial

office to bear on zoning decisions in which they have a personal

interest?

MR. SPEAKER: The question, unfortunately, hon. member, is out of order.

COMMODITY TRADING

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to

that custodian of corporate rights and protector of consumer affairs.

the minister of that department, and ask the minister if he is aware

and can confirm that the only thing which is required to open a

commodity trading firm in British Columbia is the acquisition of a

municipal business licence.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I'd have to take that question

as notice to see whether that is the only thing that is required. The

member is probably referring to the fact that there is not in place a

commodity trading act or piece of legislation in British Columbia, and

maybe wants to expand on that. I may be able to help him out with an

answer to this question.

[ Page 3288 ]

MR. HOWARD: The minister undoubtedly is aware, though, of the

sorry state of commodity trading activities in British Columbia and the

losses of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of dollars through

the closure of King Lung Commodities Limited. Can the minister tell us

what he has decided to do with respect to the losses incurred by

British Columbians trading through that firm who appear to have no

legislative protection whatever?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I have not made a decision on what to do. If

there was anything to be done it would, of course, be government

policy. I can tell the member that those traders who are with security

firms and dealing in commodities, of course, are licensed. The firm

that he mentions does not fall under that particular type of trading

company; therefore they were not inspected, et cetera. However, we are

in discussion with the investment community at the present time.

MR. HOWARD: They're not licensed under the Securities Act, and didn't want to be. They were not amenable to the provisions of that act.

I wonder if the minister can advise the House why he and his

government have failed miserably or neglected to proclaim a piece of

legislation that is on the statute books, passed by this Legislature in

1978, called the Commodity Contract Act, a piece of legislation that,

if it had been proclaimed and were in force, would have protected the

investments of those who have lost money through King Lung Commodities

Ltd.

Why did this government neglect or fail or refuse to proclaim the Commodity Contract Act?

[2:15]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in regard to why it was not

proclaimed, I can advise the member that since my coming into this

office as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs there have been

discussions concerning the need for various amendments to that

unproclaimed act prior to its proclamation. We are in discussions and

negotiations, and have been for some time.

MR. HOWARD: Will the minister be able to confirm that the

lack of any determinate action with respect to the protective

legislation necessary — protection that is contained within the act to

which we referred — is based solely on the financial support and

accompanying political endorsement of people who engage in such

activities on the stock exchange, like the Pezims and the Browns?

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order. The second part, hon. member, is grossly out of order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: To answer the first part of his question,

which is somewhat in order, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. I apologize

to the House for the second part of his question.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the Chair may or

may not have heard a remark that was attributed from a member. If

that's the case the Chair would have to ask for an apology for that

remark or a withdrawal of that remark. I'm sure it wasn't meant

intentionally to be unparliamentary.

MR. HOWARD: It was not my intention to be unparliamentary or to cast any aspersions — just a straight declaration of opinion.

TAXATION MEASURES

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Finance. On Tuesday, February 14, the minister refused to reaffirm his

commitment to provide for municipal taxation on unfinished commercial

projects. On December 22, 1983 the minister issued a news release

stating: "The new legislation will allow the value of incomplete

machinery and buildings to be added to the assessment roll in time for

inclusion on 1984 tax rolls. The legislation will validate the

assessment of such properties in past years." Does the minister stand

by his statement of December 22, 1983?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, if I refused to answer the hon.

member for Nanaimo earlier this week, on Tuesday, it was only because I

think I prefaced one answer with the remark that it might impinge on

future government policy. Nonetheless, I trust I can assist the member

by pointing out today that the decision, which was announced some time

ago, is a decision that was reached by the executive council. As events

occur over the next few days or weeks, I think the member and others

who are interested will see that the appropriate action is being taken.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, part of my question on Tuesday was

with respect to what I understand is intense lobbying against this

action. Would the minister confirm that there has been intense lobbying

to try to get him to change his position in this respect?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think the member alluded to

intense lobbying to members on both sides of the House. I am aware that

some individuals have expressed their views with respect to the

government's announced intention and I think that's about all I can

say. I don't know if it's "intense." But the member alluded to it and

yes, I have received some letters. I have responded to those letters as

time permits.

HOSPITAL STAFF TERMINATIONS

MRS. DAILLY: To the Minister of Health: will the minister

confirm to the House that the government, acting through its public

administrator, has fired Jim Fair, executive director of the Victoria

General Hospital, and Mike Butcher, president of the Royal Jubilee?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, it appears that the minister hasn't

read the paper. I think it's common knowledge; as the Premier just

called over to me, it's in the paper. Will the minister therefore

confirm that Grant Moreton, the public administrator, has also ordered

numerous staff layoffs at both hospitals, without seeking the approval

of anyone other than the minister?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for Burnaby North is a bit

confused. There is a board which is responsible for the administration

of the new Victoria General Hospital and the

[ Page

3289 ]

Royal Jubilee. Mr. Moreton is the public trustee at this time, but any decisions

with respect to staff or personnel are made by the authority of the people responsible

for the hospital, not by the ministry and certainly not by the minister. The

combined board of the two hospitals had sought replacements for the position

of administrator of the two hospitals. The two gentlemen whom the member mentioned

this morning were among those who made application for the position. My understanding

is that neither gentleman was successful in securing the new position which

was being offered. That position is to be filled apparently by someone other

than those two administrators. Staff changes have taken place because of the

decisions made by members of the board and the public trustee. They are not

directed from the Ministry of Health. They are efficiencies which have been

introduced into the new hospital because of the combination of the two, and

that type of efficiency is being reflected across the system in British Columbia.

MRS. DAILLY: Another supplementary. Would the minister tell

the House the makeup of the present combined board that you have seen

fit to appoint?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Certainly I'll be pleased to send a copy of

the list of all the members to the member and to anyone else who might

wish it. It's very commonly known; they were all appointed by order.

MRS. DAILLY: When the minister comes back with that answer, I

wonder if he would also inform the House when he intends to restore

local autonomy to this board.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The board is responsible for its own

actions and responsible for the administration of their own facilities.

I would consider that to be representing local autonomy.

CLOSURE OF AMBULANCE DISPATCH CENTRES

MR. LOCKSTEAD: My question is to the same minister. Would the

minister advise why the government has closed down the Powell River and

other ambulance dispatch centres, forcing my constituents and others to

telephone, in this case, Nanaimo for an ambulance.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, it would require a technical

answer as to what the central dispatch might be, and I'd be pleased to

find that out from the emergency health people.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I wonder — while the minister is, in a way,

taking that question on notice — if he is aware of the extraordinary

and completely unacceptable delays under the new system. Is he waiting

for a serious medical problem before he takes action?

I might add that a person in my riding was unable to make contact

with the Nanaimo dispatch centre because the line was continually busy.

She only obtained an ambulance by going around the dispatch system and

contacting ambulance personnel by other means, Does the minister regard

this as an acceptable standard of ambulance service?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I wish I had all the details of that

specific incident with me at this moment, but of course I don't. But I will

make inquiries. I will have the responsible people in the ministry respond to

the details in that particular incident, and get back to the member as soon

as I can.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could

also advise this House why no public announcement was made, not only in

Powell River but also in other small rural areas throughout the

province, about the change in procedures. The point I'm trying to make

here is that we've had several very close calls involving heart attack

patients unable to get an ambulance, and there was no public

announcement made about this change in procedure. I doubt that the

government is going to save any money by using this procedure anyway.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is taken on notice.

UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE FINANCING

MR. NICOLSON: The Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications has recently made some rather extravagant claims to the

effect that British Columbia has been taking all of the federal

post-secondary funds and then putting even more into university

spending. Post-secondary tax point transfers to British Columbia this

year amount to $450 million, while university spending remains at

approximately $300 million. Will the minister explain where the balance

of $150 million went?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the colleges had a budget of

$300 million this past year. Plus we receive, as do other provinces, a

consideration for the final year of high school; that was because of

the CEGEPs in Quebec. Our budget for schools this year would be $1.5

billion — something like that — so you could take one-twelfth of that.

You would be looking at another S400 to $500 million from those two

sources, and that's where the money would go.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair tables herewith the

ombudsman's "Special Report No –– 7 to the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia."

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the

purpose of this brief adjournment in my remarks was to give the members

opposite an opportunity to reflect upon how the policies commenced by

the Premier of British Columbia and our government might be translated

onto the national scene. Perhaps my suggestion that our Premier should

be the Prime Minister of Canada is one that would be difficult to

implement, for reasons of practical politics; nonetheless, the policies

would be extremely easy to translate onto the national scene. We were

suggesting that we could implement the same sorts of policies we've

started in British Columbia to generate true wealth in Canada,

remembering that while governments create jobs, they cannot create

wealth.

To start the ball rolling, you will recall that I suggested that the CRTC be abolished. There are 439 jobs there. The

[ Page 3290 ]

members opposite recommended that the Senate be

abolished, a suggestion I was quite prepared to accept. Some had

favoured reform, but I think the latest Senate appointments have tipped

the scale in the direction of abolition.

[2:30]

So the members can understand how it works, I wasn't proposing that

in eliminating all these unnecessary federal civil service jobs we

create an unemployment situation such as we witnessed in Alberta, where

the energy-producing and wealth-producing sector of our economy is

experiencing a sharp recession because of the national energy policy;

whereas Ottawa, spending our future dollars with a $31 billion deficit,

is recession-proof. In talking about laying off all these unnecessary

civil servants in Ottawa, let me start by illustrating what could be

done with the CRTC. If we were to take those 439 people and use them to

staff a factory that would build satellite home receivers, then they

would be productively employed, and the citizens of Canada would get

some benefit from the presence of these people, instead of a decrease

in their standard of living. Of course, we would then be able to sell

some of these abroad, with our advanced technology, thus earning money

for Canada. With the CRTC productively employed in this fashion, it

would not be necessary to bring in the kind of legislation changing the

Communications Act that is being debated in the House of Commons today,

thus saving us the expense of the lawyers who are involved in drafting

and bringing forward the legislation. In turn, it would be unnecessary

to hire all the police that will be involved in enforcing that

legislation for the benefit of Home Box Office in the United States.

You can see how quickly the benefits escalate when we embark upon a

program of eliminating the unnecessary jobs in Ottawa.

The members opposite were going to reflect how they could

contribute. Of course, I'm now open to further suggestions from the New

Democratic Party. We could make this a bipartisan affair, taking the

lessons of British Columbia, translating them into the national

economic scene and thus bringing the whole country out of the economic

slump that it's in, rather than just British Columbia.

I also suggested that we could eliminate the Minister of State for

Fitness and Amateur Sport. Clearly we don't need that whole ministry

and all the civil servants who go with it. We've recently got a

Minister of State for Youth, with more civil servants there who will

only duplicate the ones already present in the Manpower, who are mostly

dealing with youth, because this is where our unemployment problem is

today. We could do away with the Minister of State for Finance, because

we've got a Minister of Finance. If one looks at the situation in

Ottawa, they're not just duplicating the services of the provinces;

they're also duplicating their own services, thus creating the miracle

of staffing jobs three deep, as we did in the shipyards during the war.

It's so obvious where our basic problem is in Canada. To work our way out

of these $30 billion deficits we need to cut at least 100,000 civil servants

from Ottawa alone, and then we'll see that kind of ripple effect — not one

of unemployment, as the New Democratic Party continually suggests, but one in

the form of productive capacity. Instead of being a drag on Canada, these people

can contribute to its wealth. Instead of inhibiting those in the private sector,

they could be helping them. It's really all so simple. Mr. Speaker, I would

be the last one to blame the civil service itself. What you've got to do

is to get right down to policy and the policy-makers. After all, it's for

developing effective policy that we elect members to this Legislative Assembly

and to its counterparts all across Canada. As I see the problem nationally,

we simply don't have a choice, because all our parties are vying to spend

more public money. None of them is grasping the nettle, as the Premier and the

government of British Columbia have done. Surely it's becoming evident,

as still another federal budget has come forward and there is still this insoluble

problem of deficits of $30 billion or so annually. Surely every citizen now

realizes that this is a time-bomb ticking away, and sooner or later the accumulated

problem will explode in our economy, leaving us with an unemployment problem

and a national economic disaster on our hands that should have been foreseen.

It will be far more difficult to deal with than the considerable problems we've

had in British Columbia adjusting our public expenditures to the level which

true wealth in our province can support.

I am disappointed that the New Democratic Party have had an

opportunity to caucus and to reflect over lunch hour, to come forward,

if not in British Columbia at least nationally, remembering that your

own party is on the way out, not just in British Columbia but right

across the country, that opportunity once more forgone, to be here

debating this particular amendment — to find that neither the mover nor

the seconder is here to listen to the remarks on their particular

amendment, indeed to have the New Democratic Party, as always, down to

a corporal's guard in the Legislative Assembly, dozing away their time.

Mr. Speaker, it's with great disappointment that I say....

AN HON. MEMBER: Dozers' guard.

HON. MR. McGEER: A dozers' guard.

It's with great disappointment that I say once more, Mr. Speaker,

that the New Democratic Party has failed in their responsibility to

their electors and to the people of British Columbia. Once more their

party has lost an opportunity to reform itself, to start on the road to

political recovery, which will parallel their ability to see the needs

of the country in recovering economically.

I'm sure my colleagues in government will be joining me in rejecting this most unworthy amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Dailly

Stupich

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Blencoe

NAYS — 29

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Bennett

Curtis

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Ree

Segarty

Veitch

Reid

Reynolds

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

[ Page

3291 ]

[2:45]

On the main motion.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak in opposition to

the throne speech, which should come as no surprise since I supported

the amendment which was also in opposition to the throne speech.

I know that traditionally what we do in throne speech debates is

talk about ways in which our constituencies benefit from the stated

plans of the government. It's not going to be possible for me to do

that, because there are no benefits for Burnaby-Edmonds in this throne

speech.

The Annacis Island crossing, which the members for Delta (Hon. Mr.

Davidson), Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), Surrey (Mrs. Johnston and Mr.

Reid) and other areas think is going to be so good for them, is going

to penalize Burnaby-Edmonds. The people of Burnaby-Edmonds do not

support the crossing. We feel that we are already being used as a giant

transportation corridor for the lower mainland, and the last thing we

need is having more traffic tunnelled either through or around. The LRT

we support — no question about it. As a matter of fact, during the

estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A.

Fraser), I told him that it better work, because if the LRT doesn't

take some of the traffic off the roads of Burnaby, we're going to

secede. We're going to close our borders and stop allowing all these

people from Surrey and other areas driving to and fro across our

municipality.

AN HON. MEMBER: Check-point Charlie.

MS. BROWN: Check-point Charlie, yes. I just wanted to state

that our opposition to the Annacis crossing continues even though we

know we've lost that battle. There is nothing in the throne speech

which addressed itself to the escalating number of bankruptcies in our

riding. Small business is still under attack, and the number of

bankruptcies is still on the increase. The same applies to the

unemployment rate. Our young people still cannot find work. There are

no jobs. So as far as the throne speech is concerned, Burnaby-Edmonds

has nothing to be grateful for.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

But what I really want to talk about today, and what really forced

me to my feet, was the statement in the throne speech on page 10

concerning human rights: "British Columbia is entering a new era in

human rights where a greater emphasis will be placed on individual

responsibility for eliminating discrimination." The individualization

of human rights is what alarms me and forces me to participate in this

debate, because it goes beyond privatization. We're now talking about

individual people taking responsibility for something that not just our

nation, but certainly our society, should have responsibility for.

Human rights, Mr. Chairman, is part of the infrastructure in a society which

protects its members. Not just its minority group members or its special-interest

groups, but every single person living in the society is protected when there

is good human rights legislation in place, and there is also a good mechanism

for dealing with perceived or real acts of discrimination against any individual

or group, That is the reason why we have human rights legislation in most countries

in the western world. If the only thing that human rights legislation did was

to protect minorities, most governments wouldn't have the incentive or the

desire to put human rights legislation into place. But they recognize that human

rights legislation gives individuals and groups in a society a sense that they

are protected, and that in any event where their rights are being infringed

or trampled on, they have an avenue of recourse — a court of appeal to which

they can take their complaint — and hopefully justice will be given.

That's what human rights is all about. Good human rights legislation

is more beneficial to the majority members of a society than it is to

the minorities, because by being in place, it says that the minority

members do not find themselves forced, nor do they feel that they have

to rise up, as we find in some of the revolutions in some of the more

oppressive regimes around the world, against their governments and

against the majority members of the society. because they have a

protective valve and an outlet. To a lesser degree, when good human

rights legislation is in place, we are protected as a society against

even the kind of uprising which we experienced in British Columbia last

summer when something like 50,000 people took to the streets of British

Columbia to say to this government that human rights was important to

them and that human rights should be protected by legislation, as well

as by a mechanism, whether it's a commission or some other form.

When we read that human rights is going to be taken away as a

responsibility of government and handed to individual initiative, it

should alarm not just members of minority groups and not just

special-interest groups, but it should alarm all of us. That's a very

important protective device which is going to be removed. That's what

happens when society and governments abandon their responsibility for

seeing to it that that protection is there for groups who cannot

protect themselves, or groups who perceive themselves as being

vulnerable in any way.

What I want to do, Mr. Speaker, is to talk on behalf of two groups

with whom I have more than a passing interest. I want to talk about

what human rights means to women. I also want to talk about what human

rights means to racial minorities, because those are the two groups

that I know a little bit about.

I'm going to use the model for human rights development that is

accepted in most parts of the world, and that is as human rights as

negative support — negative rights — and human rights as positive

rights. The negative rights in human rights are those rights which are

governed by the words "thou shalt not." Thou shalt not discriminate.

Thou shalt not refuse to hire persons because you do not like the

colour of their skin. Thou shalt not refuse accommodation to persons

because you do not like their sex or their marital status. What we had

in this province was human rights addressed primarily to the negative

rights, protecting the thou-shalt-nots in the Human Rights Code. What

we didn't have enough of — and what we should be getting more of — were

the affirmative rights, the ones saying that as a member of our society

you are entitled to an adequate income, adequate health care and

adequate education. Those kinds of basic needs come to you simply by

virtue of being a member of the society we call British Columbia.

A little bit of history. In the 1960s, as a direct result of the

tabling of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in the federal

House, women in British Columbia became more conscious of their

position as members of a minority group in

[ Page 3292 ]

society. We began to recognize that we too

experience discrimination in employment, in housing, in access to

opportunity and those kinds of things, in the same way that racial and

ethnic minority groups and disabled groups experience discrimination.

That was part of the consciousness-raising process we went through as a

direct result of the tabling of that document. What we also started to

do was look at the statistical tables for Canada as a whole and for

British Columbia in particular. What we found was that we as women made

up the largest group of the poverty component, the largest group of

low-paid workers and the largest group of unorganized workers of this

country and this province. We also found that we were the group most

penalized by not having decent pension coverage and other privileges

and rights which men not only took for granted but had simply by virtue

of the fact that most of the decision-making in this country and most

of the institutions governing our lives were almost exclusively

controlled by men, and certainly the decision-making corridors were

almost entirely empty of women.

So we started to talk to each other and to search for various tools

and means and ways of dealing with what we perceived to be not just

discrimination but discrimination which resulted in exploitation as

well as in oppression. One of the tools we recognized as being very

vital and very important to us was the tool of human rights as

legislation and certainly in terms of a structure, whether it be a

commission, a board, a council or whatever. We recognized that we

needed to have a place where we could go and file complaints and say:

"We are being discriminated against because we are women. We are not

being hired for jobs that pay decent wages, we're not being allowed to

have the kinds of pension coverage we should have, we're not permitted

to live in certain places where we want to live, and opportunities for

advancement and upgrading in terms of our jobs are not open to us,

simply on the basis of our sex and for no other reason at all."

We worked very hard during the 1972 election with every single

candidate who ran in that election. What the Vancouver Status of Women

group did was to assign at least one person to attend every single

all-candidates meeting — we tried for the whole province — and to ask

all of the candidates who were running at that time whether they would

be willing to accept as their mandate if elected a commitment to strong

human rights legislation which would embody the protection of women

against discrimination. As you know, in 1972 not only was a new

government elected, but I was elected as part of that government, and

came into this House with that as one of my mandates: to do whatever I

could to ensure that there was human rights legislation on the books of

this province which protected women against discrimination. I also

spoke very strongly for protecting people of ethnic and racial minority

groups.

We got together, once we formed government, and a number of the back-benchers

— two members from Vancouver Centre were both back-benchers at the time — were

part of a committee that worked with our Attorney-General and a number of people

in the Attorney-General's ministry in drafting Bill 100. I am the first

person, Mr. Speaker, to say to you that it was not a perfect piece of legislation.

We were not conscious — with regret I have to admit this — of the fact that the

bill's coverage should have been extended to cover people who were discriminated

against by virtue of the fact that they had a mental or physical disability.

The bill did not extend to cover that which was an oversight on our part. There's

no question about it.

We were not courageous enough to go even further in terms of our

protection of women and include such things as equal pay for work of

equal value. The bill was not perfect, but it was stating clearly that

the government of the day, on behalf of the people of British Columbia,

recognized full responsibility for putting into place legislation and a

mechanism — some form of machinery — which would ensure that people who

were disadvantaged, vulnerable and unable to protect themselves would

have a means of being protected. They would be able to state their

complaint, their complaint would be investigated and hopefully a

decision would be made that would be of benefit to everyone, not just

to the person who was discriminated against.

That is the bill which was destroyed last summer by the introduction

of Bill 27. At the time when Bill 27 was introduced, it sent shock

waves throughout the community of women. We recognized that rather than

being able to build on the existing legislation so as to improve it by

extending its coverage to cover things like equal pay for work of equal

value.... It sent shock waves through the community of the disabled,

who recognized that rather than being able to build on the extended

legislation and to extend it to cover people who were disabled and

other groups in our society who needed the protection of such

legislation, they were in fact going to lose even that little bit of

protection which they had.

We were going to have to start, as women, from scratch. We were

going back to the pre-1972 days when human rights was left to the

voluntary sector. Dr. Katz, Emily Ostapachuck and other concerned

people in the community came together and formed a human rights council

and tried to use moral suasion to protect the rights of minorities. I

was a part of that as a member of the B.C. Association for the

Advancement of Coloured People in this province. Part of my

responsibility was to help people file complaints who found that they

could not get accommodation because of the colour of their skin and

that kind of thing.

[3:00]

That's the bill that was destroyed by Bill 27 in July. As I said earlier,

50,000 people spoke with their feet when they demonstrated and marched against

this government. As well there were petitions and letters and phone calls, all

of which stated one fact and one fact only: human rights is important. As a

society, it is a measure of our civilization, and it should not be eroded.

What this throne speech does when it talks about individualization

of human rights is to go even further back. It goes beyond community

and voluntary action and initiative for human rights to say that each

individual — you in your small corner and I in mine — now have to take

full responsibility in terms of acts of discrimination against us, or

we have to deal with being accused of acts of discrimination.

There is a philosopher by the name of Jacques Maritain who stated:

"'The dignity of the human person' means absolutely nothing if it does

not signify that by virtue of natural law the human person has the

right to be respected and is the subject of rights and possesses

rights." That is what human rights is. It is natural law, which, when

it is enshrined in legislation, makes a public statement on behalf of a

society, and also ensures that the protection which it gives is

enforceable. That's what it does. It says that if you violate another

person's rights, you are punished in one way or

[ Page

3293 ]

another, whether it is by fine or by having to

revoke the decision you made or whether it is, in fact, by some other

form of punishment.

It is almost critical that this should have happened at this time,

because as you know, we are one year away from ending the international

decade on advancement of women. The United Nations declared, nearly ten

years ago, that for ten years nations around the world were going to

make special efforts in three areas on behalf of women. Those areas

were equality, development and peace. Every nation that was a member of

the United Nations family was asked to participate in doing something

to raise the status of women in these three areas during this decade.

We are almost at the end of the decade and we're going to have to give

an accounting of ourselves as we come to the end of it. It is precisely

at the time when we should be trying to achieve the goals stated by the

United Nations that we in this province, under this government, have

chosen to do the exact opposite.

In 1948 the declaration of the United Nations made some suggestions.

It talked about guaranteeing the universal right to education, equal

pay for equal work, adequate health care, and equality in employment

and other areas. But it didn't give those as a rule; the articles of

that declaration were a goal, and that was stated in 1948. It wasn't

binding on the member nations — just a little bit of encouragement,

saying: "That's the star you should be aiming for." It took Canada

almost 20 years to get around to doing anything about it, but give us

credit; we never leap before we look. We are a very cautious nation. So

nearly 20 years later we got around to establishing at the federal

level the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. That's where this

whole thing on behalf of women started. At the beginning of the decade

on women, British Columbia started to put into place the kind of

mechanism and machinery that would maybe not help us achieve our goal,

but would at least get us more than halfway there by the time the

decade came to an end.

There is no point in talking about peace. We're experiencing at this

point a government which has given permission for the testing of

weapons of war in our nation, at a time when we are supposed to be

working and aiming for peace. It is something else that women take

credit for, because internationally it is known that we've always been

in the forefront of working for peace. That's another battle that we're

losing; but it's in a different arena so we won't deal with that now.

But equality is in this arena. This is the place where it can be

dealt with. This is where the laws that deal with equal access to

employment and opportunities, and with the positive aspects of human

rights, are brought down — right here on the floor of this Legislature.

This is where we can build and grow and achieve our goals. Instead of

that, according to the statement in the throne speech we are going in

the exact opposite direction. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that

that saddens and grieves me, because as an individual it means that my

task has to start all over again. This is one that I thought we'd won,

and now it has to start all over again. Without being selfish, it is a

task that all women and men of good will, integrity and decency see

they're going to have to fight all over again. We cannot as a nation

afford to erode, destroy or lose that protective infrastructure which

human rights is to a civilized nation.

Instead of individualizing or privatizing the Human Rights Code and human rights

legislation, we should be improving it. A number of groups have made suggestions

to the minister responsible, and I want to repeat some of those suggestions

on ways in which we could be improving rather than destroying this very fragile

protection that we enjoy in this province. We need a stronger legislation —

not just extended coverage to cover the disabled and other groups, but more

emphasis on the positive rights which we share and enjoy; legislation which

talks more about enhancing the quality of our lives, a commitment to equal access

to adequate health care, and which really addresses itself to the unrelenting

poverty in which so many women — so many people of both sexes — in this country

find themselves today.

We need the kind of protection which would make it impossible for

any group in this province to be degraded for money. I'm talking about

pornography, that multi-billion dollar business that thrives unchecked

— not just here but across Canada — on the exploitation and degrading

of the female as a person and a human being, and also the exploitation

and degrading of children of both sexes. We need strong legislation to

address itself to that kind of concern, not a wiping out or an eroding

of the very fragile legislation which we presently have.

Another suggestion made to the minister and to the government was

that the administration of such legislation should be insulated from

government interference. It should be autonomous, a board or commission

or whatever all by itself; not under the Minister of Labour, the

Minister of Health, the Attorney-General or anyone else, but a body

that is directly answerable to this Legislature and this House. Surely

human rights are as important to us as a people as the work done by the

auditor-general. We recognize the importance of having the

auditor-general insulated from government interference, and we ask no

more than that for human rights in this province.

We also need a code which has primacy over every other statute on

our statute books. Whenever any law comes into conflict with the Human

Rights Code, the Human Rights Code should have primacy. That's the kind

of statement we should be making to other provinces across Canada, as

well as to the world in general, about our feelings and our commitment

to natural, moral and positive rights, all of which come under this one

umbrella which we refer to as human rights. A strong Human Rights Code

independently administered in a fair and even-handed manner, and with

primacy over every other statute, is the kind of thing which would

enhance the esteem in which we are already held, not just in Canada but

around the world. Instead of that, what do we have? We have in the

throne speech a statement that is contrary to the articles of the

United Nations Declaration on Human Rights, that is contrary to the ILO

Convention 100, which Canada has ratified and is a party to, and that

certainly is contrary to the recommendation given by the former

chairperson of the Human Rights Commission to the previous Minister of

Labour, who was responsible for the code. We have embodied in this

throne speech a statement which goes contrary to those three

distinguished recommendations.

As I said when I started out, I realize that one uses the throne

speech primarily to discuss things of interest to one's riding and

constituency, but I know that every person in Burnaby-Edmonds would

share with me my concern that this statement heralds absolute chaos.

What in fact does it mean? Does it mean that a person who is

discriminated against can take the law into their own hands and deal as

an individual with the person they perceive to be discriminating

against them? What protection does a person have against an accusation

that they are discriminating, that they are infringing on

[ Page 3294 ]

another person's rights? How do you protect

yourself against that when there is no board, no body to appear in

front of, no investigation, no one to clear your name? This is the

problem with human rights. It cuts both ways. In fact, in most

instances it operates more to protect the person accused than the

person who is doing the accusing. That the government should fail to

see this, that the government should fail to understand that simple

fact, is a puzzle to everyone.

[3:15]

1 know there are parts of the world where human rights are not

protected. We can name them off on the fingers of one hand simply by

listing the parts of the world where revolution is taking place. They

do not have that protective vow. The kinds of violations of people's

rights which take place in those nations shock us as Canadians. We

speak out against those violations. But we should do more than that.

We had the opportunity to set an example in this province, because

what we had in this province prior to July of last year was the best

piece of human rights legislation anywhere in Canada. Although, as I've

said before, it wasn't perfect, it was the best structure on which to

build. It was a good place from which to start. We could have expanded

and made it so perfect that it would have been our pride and joy, and —

as I've said before — the esteem in which we are held in the rest of

the world would have been enhanced even further. Instead of that we

have opted to do the very opposite. We have opted to erode, destroy and

eliminate this fragile structure which acted as a protective vow in our

society. It also said something about us as a civilization to the rest

of the world; it was a statement that we cared about protecting people

who were unable to protect themselves, either by virtue of the fact

that they were physically or mentally disabled, or they were too old or

because of their race or their religious creed or whatever. In this

province, under this government, under that legislation, everyone was

protected. We respected everybody equally. That's the opportunity we

had. Bill 100, which was introduced in 1973, could have been amended in

such a way as to enrich, enhance and strengthen it.

Instead of that, Mr. Speaker, the very opposite message goes out

across the nation about this province. The message goes out that it's

now open season on racism. Anyone who feels like it can discriminate

against anyone they feel like, and it's going to be a one-to-one thing.

We're going to slug it out, and whoever wins, wins. It's open season as

far as sexism is concerned. If you don't want to hire a woman to do a

job, you don't have to. If she doesn't like it, then you and she are

going to have to fight that out and come to some kind of resolution. If

you don't want to rent your suite to a disabled person, you don't have

to, and then you and that disabled person are going to have slug it out

and the stronger one will prevail. That's the message that we're

sending out across this province and across this land when we make a

statement saying that the elimination of discrimination is an

individual responsibility.

There are some responsibilities that can never be left to the

individual. Individuals cannot take responsibility for health care. We

recognize that society has to handle that. Individuals don't take

responsibility for meeting educational needs. We recognize that society

has to take some responsibility for that.

Developing our natural resources. In all manner of areas, Mr. Speaker, society

has to take responsibility for these things; they can't be left up to the

individual.

Why then have we decided that as a province we are now ready to

throw minority groups — the disabled, people over the age of 65, people

who are female, or because of their marital status — to the wolves, and

say: "You get on out there and take care of yourself"? Certainly it's

not because of anything we've learned in history. If there is anything

we've learned in history it's that the individual cannot take care of

herself or himself under these circumstances. That's how it all

started. In the beginning there were no human rights. For many years in

this province there were no human rights or human rights commission,

but the voluntary sector — concerned people in the community — came

together and formed a human rights council. As it became more obvious

that this was the only way in which protection for all people could be

assured, it was introduced in legislation. It was enshrined in the laws

of our land. That's what history has taught us. It's part of our

tradition and civilization. This is not a jungle; this is a province in

which people respect each other and in which governments take

responsibility for seeing that the strong don't trample the weak. At

least that's the way it used to be until July of last year. The

statement in the throne speech says to us that it's going to get worse,

not better; that the disabled are going to be thrown to the wolves;

that people who are old, or poor, or who have a different color of skin

or shape of eye, or whose marital status or sex we don't like are going

to be thrown to the wolves. That's what this statement says. If for no

other reasons, and if there were no other statement made in the throne

speech, I cannot support this throne speech and will not support this

government.

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

pleasure to rise in support of the throne speech. I have particular

emphasis and support for the tremendous job this government has done in

the area of putting Expo 86 together and the tremendous support this

government gave to the needed amendments to the Crow rate legislation.

I think the opposition will rue the day they obstructed and held up the

passage of the Crow legislation, and I can say as the MLA for the

constituency of Shuswap-Revelstoke that the people in Revelstoke are

already feeling the benefits of the Crow rate legislation. Jobs are

being created and things are happening in the Revelstoke-Golden area,

and there will be hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts let in

that area in the coming months.

I also am very proud of the resource development in the northeastern

part of this province. I feel this government had the courage, wisdom

and foresight to develop that at the proper time, and the stage is now

set for the future export of that very important and abundant resource

that we have so readily available to us in the province of British

Columbia.

I'm also very proud, as all citizens of British Columbia are proud,

of B.C. Place Stadium. Anyone who has had the opportunity and pleasure

of attending any function there, I'm sure, is very proud and pleased

with the performance and, again, the courage of this government in

putting together a stadium of that magnitude for the enjoyment of not

only the residents of British Columbia but all of the visitors to our

great province.

I'd like to talk about a few subjects today, and specifically about

items in the throne speech dealing with privatization, efficiencies,

cost-effectiveness, job creation and stimulating investment. But before

I get onto that, there's one subject we have heard a lot about in the

throne speech and from the opposition over the past number of months,

and that has to do

[ Page

3295 ]

with the question of health care in British

Columbia. I have had the pleasure in the last few months of visiting

several hospitals, not only in my constituency — not only the Shuswap

General Hospital and the Queen Victoria Hospital in Revelstoke but also

the Victoria General Hospital. I have to say that I am utterly amazed

and gratified at the excellent care this government is providing its

citizens in hospitals such as this throughout the length and breadth of

British Columbia. I think it's shameful that the opposition should

continually attack and leave the image that health care in the province

is not adequate. I would call upon any of those who are doubters about

the quality of health care to please go and visit some of these

institutions, talk to some of the patients, and see for yourselves what

a tremendous job our government and our Ministry of Health are doing

for the citizens of British Columbia.

Regarding job creation, there is one subject I would like to touch

on today having to do with forestry. I am pleased that, as the throne

speech points out, in the last fiscal year the Ministry of Forests was

successful in planting in excess of 100 million seedlings. While I'm

proud of this and proud of the growth in that particular area, I have

to say that I would like to see more, and a better job done in the

future. One of the problems we have is the question of costs: not only

efficiencies, but cost-effectiveness. When I look at the fact that we

have unemployed British Columbians sitting at home this very day

collecting $255 a week to produce absolutely nothing, it would appear

to me that in our discussions with the federal government on programs

to put people to work in the forests to do good silviculture work —

thinning, spacing, planting, replanting, clearing — we must, to make

the project cost-effective, have a very serious look at utilization of

the UIC funds as did EBAP, which has been in effect for the last couple

of years.

I think that a lot of the rules in EBAP need to be changed; they

have to be streamlined. The rules and guidelines must be more easily

applicable to the private sector in order to get the work done. But we

are paying people $255 a week to produce nothing, when they could be

out in the workforce for $300 a week and doing something. I think it is

incumbent upon our provincial government, the minister and the federal

government to sit down together and put together a program that we can

all live with to get better cost-effectiveness for the dollars that are

being spent by the federal and provincial governments.

I would like to speak for just a few minutes about the question of

public debt, and say how gratified I am by the efforts of our Premier

and the cabinet in cutting down the expenditures within our provincial

government. Not many people are unaware of the fact that Canadian

interest rates have traditionally been 1 or 2 percentage points above

those of our American counterparts. It has been necessary to have

slightly higher interest rates in Canada than in the United States in

order to attract that much-needed foreign investment. I am sure that we

all realize that the tradition generally in North America, and indeed

the world, has been that interest rates have been 1 or 2 percentage

points above that of inflation. Those are the general guidelines that

have been in effect in the world money market. I'm sure we're also

aware that annual inflation in the United States is somewhere less than

2 percent; in Canada it is around 5 or 5.5 percent, and we would

therefore expect interest rates to be somewhere around 6 or 7 percent

at the prime level. The prime rates in both countries are in excess of

10 percent, and in fact Canada is now sitting at 11 percent, There is

only one reason for this, and that is the fact that the national

governments in the United States and Canada have not done a good job in

holding down the public debt and reducing the cost of government. Thus

the reason for those high interest rates. I think the opposition and

the people of British Columbia and all of Canada have got to realize

that if they expect to enjoy a prime rate at the level of 6 or 7

percent again, government leaders must bite the bullet and bring the

cost of government and the cost of debt down to a level that will make

it possible for the money market to provide us with realistic interest

rates.

[3:30]

In the area of efficiencies I would like to speak for a few minutes

on the question of the utilization of a very important resource that we

have in the province of British Columbia, that being natural gas. I

would hope, in the next year or two, to see the extension of natural

gas to many areas in British Columbia that do not now enjoy it. In my

own constituency people in a very large area, including Revelstoke,

Sicamous and Chase and all areas in between, the north shore, the

Sorrento-Blind Bay-Celista country, do not enjoy the utilization of

natural gas that many other British Columbians do. They're using a very

high-cost energy in the way of oil, a fuel which is imported from

outside British Columbia,

whereas natural gas is a very valuable

resource that we have in abundance within our boundaries,

Further to that, I look forward to and encourage and hope that we

approach in a positive and determined manner the conversion of

government fleets to compressed natural gas. The evidence is before us.

Black Top Cabs in Vancouver has 128 vehicles, and one of the sentences

from their recent document dated September 1983 reads as follows:

"Using gasoline our annual fuel cost would now be about $1.3 million.

By displacing 95 percent of the gasoline with compressed natural gas we

anticipate a cost of about $400,000." That is just one small example of

what's happened in the province of British Columbia, and this same

story could be told of many other fleet vehicles if they were to

transfer to compressed natural gas. I might just add, as a matter of

interest, Mr. Speaker, that New Zealand surpassed the 50,000 vehicle

mark in 1983, and they have a target of having 200,000 vehicles swung

over to compressed natural gas by 1990.

Regarding safety, a recent U.S. survey of the major fleet operators

using natural-gas — powered vehicles found that in approximately 1,300

collisions since 1970 there has never been a fire involving vehicles

with natural gas storage tanks. The safety record was perfect. The

survey covered more than 2,400 vehicles driven nearly 175 million miles.

I would hope that we can all pull together and give this publicity

talk to our municipalities, regional districts and school bus systems,

to see how many vehicles we can have swung over in the next 12 months

to utilize a resource that we have in abundance in British Columbia and

cut down on the amount of money that's being exported outside our

province buying other forms of energy.

I would like at this time to pass on a compliment to the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) for what I consider to be the very fine job

he has done in the expansion, general management and administration of

the Lottery Fund. I think it's been a very successful program. The only

point I would ask him to look at in the coming months is the fact that

we have cut out a lot of the service clubs, non-profit organizations

and societies from the selling of these tickets. I would

[ Page 3296 ]

ask him to give serious consideration to perhaps

finding a means.... It may mean that a new lottery would be made

available to the service clubs and non-profit organizations for

charitable purposes, to provide them with the necessary funds to do

their community betterment work.

I would also suggest to him that he give some consideration to

amending somewhat the rules on spending, to perhaps allowing a certain

amount of money to be put into recreation facilities. I think we must

understand that some of the communities away from the big centres like

Victoria, Vancouver and Nanaimo.... A lot of those smaller communities

in British Columbia do not have the tax base available to provide some

of the basic recreation facilities that are needed. On looking at the

expenditure side of the ledger in the lotteries branch data, it's my

view that it's a little bit unbalanced in the amount of money that's

going into the lower mainland, particularly to Vancouver Centre and

areas of Victoria. Perhaps he might look at some modifications there to

give the residents in the outlying areas a bit of a break in the

spending of that money.

In my speech I would not like to let the day pass without mentioning

the sorrow that I feel for this unfortunate lockout situation in the

pulp industry in British Columbia. If we look at the tremendous amount

of energy that individual, private sector, fund-raising organizations

at various levels of government, putting up money for make-work

programs.... If you look at all the money and effort that goes into all

these areas, trying to better our communities and our society, and then

you look at the other side of the ledger and see the strike lockout

situation, in which the province of British Columbia is losing $10

million a day in lost production and wages and there are 12,500 people

who are not working..... The effect of this throughout the province of

British Columbia is being felt very severely. It will become worse with

each passing day. I'm very sorry that we have three unions in the

forest industry.... They've had the same contract-expiry dates for many

years, dating back to the early 1970s. They've had the same base rate,

they've had the same trade rate, and basically they've had the same

benefit plans. The largest union, the International Woodworkers, have

settled. In excess of two-thirds voted in favour of a settlement on a

three-year contract. Yet we have a situation in which 12,500 people

rejected a contract. I would hope the parties will continue to

negotiate and that we will see an early settlement of that dispute,

because it is having a very serious economic impact in these most

difficult times throughout the length and breadth of British Columbia.

Turning to another subject, I believe that one of the things the

government must do in these times of restraint and economic recovery is

utilize to the greatest degree the multiple use concept of government

facilities. I'm speaking now of such things as schools, recreational

facilities, libraries, garages, repair facilities, gas stations —

things used by government. If you look at medium-sized communities,

they have two or three garages to service: one for highways, one for

hydro, one for school buses and one for the municipality. I would think

that with a little bit of planning and encouragement a lot of these

things should come together. It's the same with libraries. Every

school's got a library, and the community's got a library. There are

tremendous amounts of money spent in duplication of services. Perhaps

that is an area we could look at for some efficiencies and

cost-effectiveness.

Another area that, I'm sure, anyone involved in any level of development

— anyone trying to do anything in society today........ That is the tremendous

amount of red tape people are faced with. It's strange that whenever I speak

with anyone on the telephone or sit down personally and talk to them about a

problem dealing with red tape — anyone working for the government, whether it

be municipal, regional or provincial, or any of the ministers — they have very

sympathetic points of view and are very understanding; but there are still an

awful lot of frustrated people out there trying to get things done but held

up by bureaucratic red tape. I would call upon all of the ministers of government

and all of the people in positions throughout the province of British Columbia

to please do what you can to continue to cut down the red tape and the holdups

the private sector is experiencing in trying to get things underway.

In closing, I'll just touch for a minute on the question of

privatization. I think this government is on the right track. I think

there are lots of things that can be done to further privatization in

the province of B.C. Here is a simple example. People who had empty

beer bottles used to take them in to the private dealer down the

street. Many years ago the government decided to allow the empties to

come back to the liquor stores. Innocent victims, who had set up bottle

exchange companies, were caught in the squeeze, and the next thing you

know the government is taking back the empties. I think that would be a

very simple one to look at: to cut that out of the government

bureaucracy altogether, turn it back to the private sector and let them

have a go at it. I'm sure I could talk about that for two hours, and

several other subjects, but that is probably one of the more simple,

elementary ones I choose to mention at this time.

Also, on the question of expenditures in the budget, if one looks

back 20 years and examines the amount of money that was spent by

various ministers 20 years ago compared to today, one sees one

department that has been severely restrained, and that is the Ministry

of Highways. Twenty years ago the expenditures of that department were

somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20 percent of the provincial budget.

Today it's down to less than 6 percent. I'm suggesting to you, Mr.

Speaker, that we cannot continue to press services such as highways and

other valuable ministries for the sake of continued high expenditures

in the social departments of this province. We must cut that off at

some point and face the fact that we must have more double-lane

highways and improved bridges, and we must do things that would lead to

maintaining the quality of our highways and bridges in the province of

British Columbia.

I am advised that we have a guest, and I will now take my seat.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: With leave, I would like to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We have two most distinguished guests on

the floor of the House this afternoon. They arrived in Victoria just a

few moments ago. May I introduce to the assembly His Excellency Paul

Robinson Jr., ambassador of the United States of America, and Mr.

George Ogg, consul general of the United States of America in Vancouver.

The ambassador has, as well as his official duties in Canada, many

connections with our country, not the least of which is ancestral. Some

of the ancestors of the ambassador's family were farming in the area

north of Kingston, Ontario,

[ Page

3297 ]

up until the mid and late 1800s, before finding

their way to the Chicago area. In addition, the ambassador served in

Korean waters with destroyer units of the Royal Canadian Navy. He is a

frequent visitor to our country on vacations and other personal

opportunities as well as on his official duties.

Mr. Speaker, in welcoming our distinguished guests to our assembly

this afternoon, I should mention another matter of some importance to

British Columbians, particularly those citizens who live in the city of

Vancouver. As a long-suffering supporter of the Chicago Cubs, the

ambassador is, I know, speaking well on behalf of the city of Vancouver

in its efforts to obtain a major-league baseball franchise in either

the National or American League, and for those efforts we appreciate

him very much.

On behalf of the government and the people of British Columbia, I

extend a most cordial welcome to our very distinguished guests in the

assembly today.

[3:45]

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal

Opposition we want to join with the Minister of Health — the government

House Leader at the moment — in welcoming His Excellency and the

consul-general of the United States to our midst. In the past I had

occasion to participate in the Parliament of Canada with what we on

this side used to call the "Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary group," and

in Washington it was called the "U.S.-Canada interparliamentary group."

During that time I had occasion to meet with many distinguished people

from the Department of State of the United States of America. We do

have a great deal in common. Because we have a great deal in common, we

also have differences of opinion from time to time about those matters

that we do hold in common. It is only because we are friends and have

an undefended, friendly border between us that we were able to discuss

and resolve those differences. It's those differences that are

discussable that lead to peaceful and contented solutions and

resolutions of those differences. We join with the government in

welcoming the two distinguished gentlemen, and we bid them a good time

while they are here representing their country.

MR. BLENCOE: First, Mr. Speaker, may I take the opportunity to congratulate you on your re-election to the post of Deputy Speaker.

I would like to take the opportunity to dwell briefly on some of the

thoughts of the member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who

had a few things to say to this House before we adjourned for lunch.

Some of those points do indeed need to be addressed and discussed. I

think they perhaps represent the perceived, philosophical gap between

the New Democratic Party and the Social Credit Party.

The member referred to a steel mill in the United States that was closed. Of

course he referred to the reasons why that mill was closed, and his words were:

"The workers were to blame because of the high wages they demanded."

It's unfortunate that the current government, and its attitude, is one of

trying to depict a particular segment that can be blamed for the economic problems

we have, not only in our province but in the western world. I think that minister

perhaps represents the black-and-white kind of rhetoric that does none of us

any good. I would remind that member, and this House, that there are steel companies

in this country — for example, Stelco — that manage to manufacture steel at a

profit. They manage to have good union people; they manage to export steel to

the United States; and they manage to have good labour relations. They are well

known for that fact in the labour field. But there are some reasons for that.

The fact that that minister decided, once again, to reflect this government's

attitude toward workers in British Columbia, that they are to blame for the

recession in this province.... It's a pity that this government doesn't

take a leaf out of the book of companies like Stelco and other progressive employers

who are trying to develop mechanisms whereby management and labour respect each

other. They try to work out their problems and concerns instead of blaming labour

all the time for the problems that we face. I'm quite serious that it's

time we look at alternative ways to resolve some of those labour-management

disputes in this province. Stop blaming one side or the other. Certainly the

government could once and for all stop blaming the workers of this province,

both union and non-union, for the economic problems of this province and say

to the workers of this province: "Look, you've got a major role to play

in the future and in the recovery of this province back to where it should be:

one of the richest, most well-developed and socially progressive areas in the

world." To do that you cannot constantly declare war on the workers of

this province, who are going to help you bring that economy back around.

We have had all sorts of mentions and rumours and references to

changes in the Labour Code. Obviously we don't know what those changes

will be or if there will be any at all. But I would like, in all

sincerity, to ask the government to really think seriously about their

actions or their potential actions in terms of the Labour Code or

labour changes. I don't think it is a matter of saying that the workers

of this province are.... On their backs we'll get recovery; therefore

we have got to cut wages and cut benefits and cut their rights and cut

their collective bargaining privileges. I'm glad the Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is here. Maybe the way to get this

province back on its feet is by saying to the workers of this province

that they are an integral part of the economic destiny of this

province. If you can try and develop mechanisms that respect those

unions and respect the traditions behind the labour movement in the

province and in this country, and see them as an equal partner in

economic recovery — rather than as a group to be declared war upon,

creating incredible confrontation and upheaval, not only in this

province but in the financial centres in North America — then maybe we

might start to get some resolution to some of the deep-seated problems

in this province.

I guess what I am saying is some moderation, some compromise, some

understanding; maybe, indeed, some concepts of industrial democracy;

maybe a willingness to work towards the fact that the workers in

companies and institutions have a right to participate in some of the

decision-making of those companies. They work for those companies all

their lives, for 20-odd years, but suddenly — like that — that company

can remove itself from a town or a city and say it is relocating in the

Philippines or somewhere else because of cheaper labour. That sounds

very well, but there has to be a responsibility in those companies to

British Columbia and to Canadians.

But to do that there has to be a willingness to recognize that the

workers, union and non-union, of this province have a role to play.

Rather than severing the relationship between management and labour,

workers and employers, it is a matter of building some links and some

bridges. The minister this morning worried me and scared me that it is

going to be a declaration of war against the workers of this province,

and

[ Page 3298 ]

that is going to be the way you are going to bring

about economic recovery. I hope that's wrong. We have seen some of the

actions of this government in the past, and we have seen the reaction,

and we have known that it has not been healthy for this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is the healthiest province in Canada.

MR. BLENCOE: The statistics don't indicate that, Mr. Member,

and you know it. The bankruptcies, the unemployment rate, the welfare

rate, your credit rating and your borrowings don't indicate that. This

province — let's face it — is in serious trouble.

The point that I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that the workers

of this province, both union and non-union, have a role to play. Rather

than blame them for companies closing down.... You know and I know that

one of the basic reasons why those companies are closing down is that

they are moving to developing countries where they have cheap pools of

labour, and leaving Canada.

What this government has to recognize is that there are some

mechanisms where we can achieve some labour dignity and labour peace,

but the current direction of this government, and some of the

reflections of the members of that government, indicate that we could

be in serious trouble. I urge the government to think long and hard

about that direction.

I want to talk about the Victoria riding and some of the things that

are happening here. As many of you are aware, Victoria now has a higher

unemployment rate than some of the cities that have traditionally

suffered some of the most horrendous unemployment rates in the country.

We are now classified as a depressed area because of 16.2 percent

unemployment. Eighteen thousand people that we know about are still

looking for work, and, of course, there are thousands who have given up

and are on welfare.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) remarked the other day

that it isn't the government's responsibility and that someone else is

to blame for this unemployment problem in Victoria. That is not a

proper way for a government to act in the face of a horrendous 16.2

percent rate of unemployment in this community. Not many Victorians

will remember it ever having been higher than that. There are some very

good reasons why that is happening. The government must ensure that the

job transfers out of Victoria are curtailed. We cannot afford to see

this community — the capital of British Columbia, the centre of

government and one of the major tourist attractions in the country —

continue to be ravaged by the effects of high unemployment.

I believe the government does have some responsibility to try to

check that statistic. I think it's time the Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr. McClelland), for instance, reintroduced some serious apprenticeship

training programs for our young people. Day after day young people come

into my office saying that they're on welfare but that they'll take

less on an apprenticeship program. Just last week a young man came to

see me who wanted to train to be a cabinet-maker. He can't find the

support to help him do it; the programs don't exist. He admits that

he'll take less than he's getting on welfare. He has two children....

[4:00]

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Please don't always blame the unions. There you

go again. It's a fact of life; let's work on it. That's the problem we

have. It's blinkered thinking; you won't think any other way. I'm

saying to you that there's a problem and that we have the power to do

something about it. Let's try not to blame one side or the other. Let's

have the resolve to try to do something about this.

Over 25 percent of those who are unemployed in British Columbia are

in the younger age bracket. They're having to grow up with the reality

that unemployment or underemployment is going to be a fact for the rest

of their lives. What the member for Point Grey said this morning — that

government does not have a role to play in trying to ensure that

unemployment is curtailed — is wrong. If you know your history in terms

of economic development, government has always had a role to play in

achieving a sound economy. It doesn't have to be black or white; it

doesn't have to be total government involvement or total private sector

involvement. It can be a private-public link on some of these projects

in which it is absolutely essential that we become involved. However,

it would appear that any time we say the government should be a

catalyst to create jobs or set the stage for jobs, the other side of

the House reacts and says: "Leave it totally up to the private sector."

History does not show that to be a reality for a healthy economy. There

has always been government involvement and participation in the

development of an economy.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Once again, without getting into who is right and who is wrong, the

fact is that in Victoria and in British Columbia we have some serious

unemployment problems that have to be looked at and dealt with, that

cannot be shoved aside and blamed on someone else or the rest of the

world — which my colleague for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) talked about

this morning. On behalf of the constituents of Victoria, which now has

just about the highest unemployment rate in this province, I would ask

this government seriously to consider introducing some mechanisms in

the coming budget whereby we can start to have some impact on the

devastating unemployment in this community.

Let me give you an example of where you might be able to do

something. Not far from this very building is the Oaklands fish plant.

We have a report written about a year ago, commissioned by the

government, to try to indicate whether that fish plant was viable. Your

own government report indicated that that fish plant is viable, can

operate, can employ 300 or 400 people in this community — and we have a

fishing fleet down at Fishermen's Wharf. It is going to take some

involvement by the public sector, along with the private sector, to get

that fish plant going. But because the public sector is mentioned as

maybe having to be a partner in developing that fish plant initially,

this government reacts negatively.

We have become so divided on how we approach the economy — this way

or the other — that we tend to forget there are thousands of people who

are getting caught up in that philosophical division. I urge this

government to seriously consider that they can link up with the private

sector. I've got an Oaklands plant here; your report said a

private-public initiative could make that plant work. But the report

sits there, the government won't take any action and we're losing 300

to 400 jobs we desperately need in this community.

[ Page

3299 ]

I want to talk a little bit about the economic strategy of this

government. I'm obviously referring to this government's attitude

toward the economy. We have been hearing that your budget and your

deliberations over the last year or so are resolving the problems of

this province, or of this Victoria community. I would indicate once

again that the statistics quite clearly show that thus far your

policies have failed and that it's time to perhaps rethink some of

those policies. When are you going to look at the bankruptcy rate in

the province of British Columbia compared to the national average? It

was up 37 percent between January and October of last year in British

Columbia; down 11 percent ii the rest of Canada. In this community, for

instance, not a week goes by now but we see another business start to

dwindle.

I would urge this government in this session to consider some

special policies and ideas for the problems of small business — a

government that supposedly has the interests of small business at

heart. Unfortunately, it would appear that that is just rhetoric rather

than fact. I would ask the government to consider introducing a

small-business policy, for instance, that would have a guaranteed

breathing space for businesses under pressure of receivership and

bankruptcy. We've only got to look to the United States example, where

they have a bankruptcy code to provide the right of small business to

petition for a reorganization period before that receivership period

comes into effect. There has to be a serious look in this time of

recession at the problems of small business, particularly in this

community. This community is full of small family businesses, all

struggling to survive. They don't want governments to intercede and

protect them everywhere along the line, but they are saying that maybe

the development of a small business policy that really does help them

in these difficult times is needed. One of those ways, I would suggest,

is: take a look at

chapter 11 of the United States bankruptcy code —

even under Mr. Reagan they have such protection for small business.

It's a novel idea, and it's something we may want to take a look at.

During that breathing space, management consultant advice is made

available by the government to enable the small business to draw up and

implement refinancing proposals. I would suggest that the B.C.

Development Corporation could play a role in that particular kind of

discussion. I think that any small business policy should take a look

at some of the regulations you have recently introduced that are really

creating all sorts of problems for small business: the horrendous

paperwork you make them do; the restaurants now having to do this sales

tax, which, I can tell you, is a nightmare for these small restaurants.

AN HON. MEMBER: Balderdash!

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, it's not balderdash. I'll take you to meet some of the local restaurateurs. They'll tell you about it.

I make a plea on behalf of small business, particularly in this community.

It is the backbone of this community. Take a look at what's happening to

that particular segment of our economy. Your policies are not helping them at

all. Indeed, your policies in the last budget hurt them, with extra taxes and

extra paperwork and no move to try to soften this bankruptcy thing that's

happening in this province. Maybe the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt) can take a look at

chapter 11 of the United States bankruptcy

code.

It would be remiss of me not to comment about the state of tenants'

rights and the rentalsman in this province, particularly in this

community. I can assure you that there are 355,000 tenants in British

Columbia who for virtually a year have wondered what was going to

happen to them, to their rights and privileges and to their equity

under the law. Without getting into the usual political rhetoric, I

have to say that what has happened because of Bill 5, which is now

dropped, and now all the rumours of what's going to happen to the

office of the rentalsman.... Some really unfortunate implications and

perceptions were left. I know for a fact that thousands of tenants,

particularly the elderly on fixed incomes, are deeply concerned about

what is going to happen to them. Certainly they've witnessed a

government that was prepared to have things like "eviction without

cause" put into law. We now have rent control eliminated. Through the

proposed elimination of rent review, we're still going to have eviction

without cause through economic eviction: that is, landlords will be

able to put their rents up as much as they want when they want to get

rid of tenants. I would suggest that tenants in the province of British

Columbia are a very important proportion of the population. The

proposed changes that we are hearing now will be really just a mock

rentalsman's office. Any move to weaken the rights of tenants will be

fought long and hard by this side of the House, I can tell this

government right now. Those tenants have the right to fairness and

equity under the law. They have the right to know that whoever

arbitrates is protected from government abuse. It's a distinct

possibility that the new legislation will have the arbitrators — as

they may be called — being appointed by cabinet with no protection at

all, and therefore subject to political interference. If that is the

case, there's no point in having a rentalsman at all.

[4:15]

Without going into the office of the rentalsman any further, suffice

it to say that any move by this government to weaken the rights of

tenants to have a fair hearing before an objective arbitrator will be

met with deep resentment and opposition from those thousands of tenants

in the province of British Columbia. They, indeed, do have rights, and

what's concerning those tenants is that this government is swinging all

the power and decision-making over to the landlords. There has to be a

balance and equity between landlords and tenants, and the office of the

rentalsman, as it is today, maintains that power and works well. But

any mock rentalsman, which, it is rumoured, is now going to be

established with a handful of people with no protection from government

interference and no rent review or rent control, is just a front to

take away what you hope will be the opposition to your rental

legislation.

We have a high proportion of tenants in Victoria, many of them

elderly and on fixed incomes. The uncertainty of this governmentos

actions over the last few months, and the fact that they could even

consider eviction without cause, and, of course, economic eviction

through huge rent increases, has created a nightmare for many of those

tenants. I would urge this government, rather than introducing some

weak excuse for a rentalsman, to reinstate and keep the rentalsman as

is, and improve it and make it work properly.

In Victoria there are literally thousands of tenants who have come

to respect and call upon the rentalsman when they're in trouble or have

a dispute, and not have to wait months to go into the courts to get a

dispute resolved at great expense. So don't throw tenants and their

rights to the wolves

[ Page 3300 ]

— the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is not here —

but maintain those rights in a fully staffed, well backed up, objective

and fair rentalsman's office.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard some members of the government indicate

that they feel the ombudsman's office should disappear, which is

unfortunate. It is sometimes difficult to find the right words to

describe a government that appears to want to take on so many services

to people. Without reflecting on the last session and what this

government did, suffice it to say that this government does have a

reputation for wanting to destroy or eliminate many essential services

that make life bearable and tolerable for those who are having

difficulty in many areas of our province. Now we hear, after you've

removed human rights legislation and the human rights branch, and the

office of the rentalsman is to go, and other support workers for

families and children in trouble have been removed, that there is now a

move afoot to take away the last vestige of any government service that

tries to help people when they have a complaint. What are you going to

leave? Is it going to be a total jungle out there, with survival of the

fittest, with, as the member over there talked about, dog eat dog? We

are going back one or two hundred years in our attitudes. We're

supposed to be a civilized and progressive community, but we're

destroying some of the very things that allow people to demand

wrong. Now you want to take way the one thing that is left to someone

who, feeling that they have been treated improperly, can say: "I can go

to the ombudsman and have it investigated objectively and without

political interference." Where is this government going to go next? All

the little people out there who have a problem and can't get it

resolved — and there are thousands of them.... Now you're going to take

away — or we hear certain members want to take away — the very office

that helps those little people.

It's very sad. I hope the government, or the saner members of the

government, will not heed the wishes of some of the back-benchers who

cry out to cut virtually everything that helps people, under the guise

of restraint. It's not restraint; it's a philosophical mission that

you're on to destroy some of the very things that have come to be part

of a progressive and civilized British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I urge

this government to think about that course. Don't take away the last

thing that people have, to try and get accountability or some objective

recourse for improper actions.

Before I close, I want to talk briefly on the education system. I

tried to last week, but it was right at the end of the session, and

everyone wanted to pack up, so the opportunity wasn't really there to

go into what is happening in the greater Victoria area. I have to speak

up on behalf of those who are trying to teach our children in this

area. School boards are under horrendous pressures and budget

constraints that have been ordered by this government. Because of its

policies this government now says that School Board 61 is going to have

to remove $15 million from its budget over the next three years. I

asked the minister — and he didn't deny those facts — whether he was

concerned about the quality of education in this area and how many

teachers he was prepared to see go.

I see my time is just about up, Mr. Speaker, but on behalf of the

children of this particular school district, which is going to see some

incredible restrictions in the educational services in this area — a

school district that has become well known in the province for offering

a variety of services and types of educational pursuits.... I hope the

minister and this government can reconsider that course of action,

because education is the future. It is one way that we were trying to

build and bring back economic recovery in this province. It's so

shortsighted to cut off the children's education and opportunities.

Again, I have to question a government that takes on some of the

most fundamental parts of what we've come to expect in a progressive

and civilized society. It starts to really eat away at what makes us a

civilized and progressive part of society, and education is certainly

that, Mr. Speaker. We've said the words over and over again, and we

just have to ask this government to consider some moderation and

rethink some of their policies. Certainly, on behalf of the children of

this area, and looking at what is going to happen to their teachers,

support services and programs over the next three years.... I hope it

doesn't come about; I really do, because there won't be much left.

Mr. Speaker, my time is up. But I hope this session will be a little

better than the last one and that there will, indeed, be some

rethinking by this government. They don't just have to think about the

bottom line and the cash register. There are people and services.... We

are in a terrible economic time. People are having problems in these

times, and they have to be considered.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to speak after the

second member for Victoria, because you don't really have to do a lot

of research in your files to know what to speak about. He leaves you a

lot of things you can comment on. I too, like the second member for

Victoria, am concerned about the children in his constituency. I also

happen to own a home in his constituency and he's my MLA when I'm here

in Victoria. My great concern for the children in his constituency and

the area I live in is the fact that he's the one who's talking to them.

He's the one who's spreading this doom and gloom in the city of

Victoria — which goes right across this province.

I wrote down some notes as the member was speaking. He said: "This

province is in serious trouble." I don't want that kind of an MLA going

around telling the children in our schools that this province is in

trouble when it's not in trouble. This province is the greatest

province in all of Canada to live in. It's got a great government, one

that has been praised in the financial community around the world. I

see the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) is here, and

he'll probably get up and speak. I know that with his stock portfolio

and his land portfolio he must read Barron's

every once in a while — a well-respected financial newspaper that comes

out of the United States. If he read the front page of the September 5

edition of Barron's he saw

that they said very positive things about the province of British

Columbia and the things the Premier is doing in this government. I

would suggest to this member for Victoria that it might pay him to read

Barron's once in a while.

Also, give that point of view to those young children in his high

schools in Victoria so they would have another view of what's happening

in this great province in a buildup to the year 1986, when we'll have a

world exposition here that every British Columbian can be proud of, no

matter what their political stripe.

MR. BLENCOE: Should I tell them about B.C. coal?

MR. REYNOLDS: I would suggest that he take a group of his school children up to see B.C. coal. I wonder if the

[ Page

3301 ]

member has been up there himself to talk to those

New Democrats who have jobs because this government has one of the

greatest projects in the world going on in that area.

MR. BLENCOE: How much is it costing the taxpayer?

MR. REYNOLDS: The taxpayers of this province will make

millions and millions of dollars out of that project. It's too bad that

this NDP has to be so negative about everything this government wants

to do in this province. This is the same party that was so negative

about the stadium. They didn't want to build it downtown; they didn't

want to build it at the PNE. But now it's been built they go to the

football games, they enjoy it, as do the people who vote for them in

this province, because it's the greatest stadium not only in Canada but

in the world — built by a progressive government that doesn't listen to

the negativism of the NDP in this province.

[4:30]

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, even Mike Harcourt likes it now.

The member for Victoria talks about the unemployment in Victoria.

Might I suggest to him that it's because of himself and his cohorts on

the Victoria council, and some other councils in this part of British

Columbia, which scares business away from this area. I might suggest to

him that right now there's a large development waiting to take place in

this area out in Tod Inlet. They want to build a large golf course and

a large hotel, and promote tourism in the area. The promoters from

Vancouver are even putting up $160,000 so Victoria can have a golf

tournament this year to promote this area. They're not the negative NDP

thinkers of Victoria; they're the progressive businessmen from

Vancouver who are trying to get things done over here. But they're

still being held up on the Tod Inlet development because there's a

bunch of socialists running around worried that somebody might make a

profit by putting their money up. When is the NDP going to learn that

profit is not a dirty word, that if the public is going to put their

money into projects they want a return on their investment and they

can't be so negative?

MR. BLENCOE: Where's the return on B.C. coal?

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, the member keeps on talking about

B.C. coal. We'll show you the return, Mr. Member. We'll show you after

the next election, when we'll win more seats than we won in this past

election because of the progressive attitudes of this government.

This same member talks about the fish plant in Victoria. He says the

government won't take action. Why should the government take action to

get into this kind of business? If this member is so concerned about

this fish plant in Victoria.... He said: "Put up your money and you can

employ 300 to 400 people." Why don't these same NDP members go to their

union friends, with their big bank accounts of union dues, and ask them

to put the money up to open the fish plant?

MR. BLENCOE: There you go — blame the workers.

MR. REYNOLDS: Aha, Mr. Speaker, here we are: "Blame the workers.

Blame the people." I'm not blaming the workers, I'm not blaming

the people, I'm blaming the union leaders who invest those funds. I'm

saying, why don't you invest it in some businesses to employ your own people?

You say: "Blame the workers." Those same union leaders demanded from

their workers that $5, $10, $15 come off a paycheque to go to Solidarity, without

asking those workers whether they wanted it to go there or not.

MR. LAUK: So what?

MR. REYNOLDS: So what! The S100,000 a month going to

Solidarity could put those 300 to 400 fishermen to work. That member

doesn't like that idea because they wouldn't be fighting this

government then. They might be doing something constructive.

MR. LAUK: Get rid of this bunch sitting over here.

MR. REYNOLDS: Now the member says: "Get rid of this bunch

sitting over here." He wants to get rid of the Socreds in this

province. He says: "That's right." Well, I'll tell you something: the

people of this province don't want to get rid of us, Mr. Member. I

don't have to go through the rhyme of the member for Point Grey (Hon.

Mr. McGeer) that will tell you how many times your party has been

defeated in this province. You got in once, and that was enough for a

couple of centuries.

I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Member: why don't you get serious? If the

member for Victoria wants to talk about putting people to work, why

aren't the unions in this province, instead of donating money to

Solidarity, putting it into some of these businesses that you seem to

think are so great? Have the union leaders got something against making

money in a fish plant? Let them put their money into constructive

activities.

MRS. JOHNSTON: They did build a hotel in Nanaimo.

MR. REYNOLDS: Well, they don't want to talk about that.

As I said, I haven't even got to any of my own notes yet, there are

so many things that this member said. He talked about the ombudsman and

how some members would like to reduce the ombudsman's department. Well,

he's right there. He didn't say it was the member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound, but I'm very proud to be able to stand here and

say that I have no objection at all to looking into reducing the size

of the ombudsman's department. If you want to be serious, take a look

at his report. Over 90 percent of all the cases he hears could be

handled by every MLA in this House, including the members of the NDP,

and we could be saving this province a lot of money.

I issued a press release today. I won’t go through it all, but the

figures in there will show you that the ombudsman's office, even his

report, is flowery and inflated. I'm very serious when I ask this House

in my motion to reduce the ombudsman's staff to himself and two

secretaries. If after a thorough investigation by the members of this

House they decide he should have three or four staff members, I'm the

greatest guy in the world to compromise. I've looked at the ombudsman's

department and his very pretty report, and I've read it thoroughly. You

can go through item after item of cases he has solved; any one of us

could have solved the majority of the cases in this book without the

added expense.

[ Page 3302 ]

MR. BLENCOE: That isn't true.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. REYNOLDS: Unfortunately for this member for Victoria, he

doesn't believe that's true, but that's probably because he runs a

constituency office covered with NDP signs that the average citizen's

afraid to walk into. I'm going to get into that in a few minutes, too,

when you want to talk about fairness and how you treat the citizens of

British Columbia.

But $1.6 million for an ombudsman who is supposed to be

independent.... I thought that when I came here. Reading his reports, I

didn't agree with what he was doing. Then I saw the conference they had

on the Canadian legislative ombudsman which was held in British

Columbia on September 12. The official opening.... This is the official

program I got delivered by his office to my office. In the chair at the

Park Ballroom at the official opening was Karl A. Friedmann, the B.C.

ombudsman. That makes sense: he's there inviting all the other

ombudsmen from across this country. Seated next to him, His Worship

Mike Harcourt, the mayor of Vancouver. That's not unusual; he's the

mayor of Vancouver and he should be there. But who's there representing

the rest of us? Mrs. Eileen Dailly, Member of the Legislative Assembly

of British Columbia; greetings from the official opposition.

MR. NICOLSON: You were invited and refused to go.

MR. REYNOLDS: One member says we were invited and we refused

to go. I was never invited to go there. If I'd been invited as an

individual I may have considered it. I spoke to the ombudsman and asked

him, and his answer was that he invited.... The government House Leader

was speaking later that afternoon, and he considered that was

appropriate. I don't consider that appropriate in a province where the

New Democrats aren't the government, to have one of their members

welcoming people from the rest of the country by an ombudsman who's

supposed to be politically neutral. I don't believe that he is

politically neutral, and that's why I would like to have a look at his

department and see it reduced. I ask the members of the NDP to read my

press release today....

MR. BLENCOE: How low can you go?

MR. REYNOLDS: The member wants to know how low we can go.

Well, we just love to look at all these government expenditures, Mr.

Member, and I'm going to continue to look at them. I'm looking into

other areas.

I mentioned in a speech last week that the corrections department is

another one where the bureaucracy is just too large. This government is

doing a tremendous job of looking into all areas of the bureaucracy and

getting government down to the size it should be. I don't know why this

New Democratic Party member is afraid of more responsibility being

placed on MLAs and Members of Parliament and members of councils in

this province. They seem to want to create bureaucracies upon

bureaucracies, because of course if they ever get in again they can

fill them with their friends and maybe really keep power, or power that

they think they have, a little longer.

Those were just the notes from the second member for Victoria (Mr.

Blencoe). I also made some listening to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds

(Ms. Brown), who makes very similar speeches all the time. She talks

about the violation of rights: the message is going across Canada that

it's open season on racism in British Columbia and open season on

sexism in British Columbia. The New Democrats, when they were in,

brought in this great human rights legislation. They're the party in

favour of human rights. They're the party in favour of women, children

and everything good, and the Socreds are just bad guys.

MR. BLENCOE: Hear, hear!

MR. REYNOLDS: Keep on banging your desk and it'll cure your cold.

While I was listening to that great speech from the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds, I just went and grabbed my little file and came up

with some things. The NDP say they're so great when it comes to human

rights. They forget about John Bremer, the man who got fired by this

government and libelled by the Premier of the day, who had to apologize

— he did it on television. Poor John Bremer. At least he got a

financial settlement. That is not an issue to these NDPers. You see how

they get excited. The second member for Vancouver Centre's (Mr. Lauk'

s) hair will even curl a little bit if we mention John Bremer. That's not

an issue any more, because it happened years ago. They fired the man on

television. They lost their libel case and had to pay him some money —

and that's not an issue, Mr. Speaker. That's the great human rights the

NDP see in British Columbia.

The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) fired Stanley Knight, an

education commissioner, with no notice. And it goes on and on. The NDP

talk about this great human rights group that they have, how they

protect everybody. You just want to go through and look at them.

Stephen Craig, who obeyed the law and crossed an illegal picket line

set up last August by his fellow workers, was subjected by his union to

enormous verbal abuse. They then fined him $1,000. Is the NDP defending

Stephen Craig?

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: He went to court. This man, verbally abused by

his union, fined $1,000 for doing something that was perfectly legal —

and a court said it was legal....

Where was the NDP, asking our minister? Are they protecting Stephen

Craig? No, they wouldn't offend their union members. They couldn't do

that.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: I would hope, Mr. NDP Member, that if the man

needed any assistance for legal fees, we would take up a donation here

and help him out.

I mentioned the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, and I happened to come

across a column by my old middle-of-the road friend, Les Bewley, who is

also a good friend of the second member for Vancouver Centre. Reading

Les Bewley is, I think, very appropriate when you hear the member from

Burnaby-Edmonds get up and talk about the sanctity of human rights, how

great they are, and how pure she is in all her intentions. I quote Mr.

Bewley:

[ Page 3303 ]

"The other example of a woman unfortunately led astray

by her male colleagues is the MLA for Burnaby-Edmonds. She is the New

Democrat who is always ready to assert that anyone who makes

disparaging or mean remarks about anyone else should be fined or

jailed, or both. In the Legislature she once referred to the Minister

of Human Resources, who has red hair, as 'the scarlet teenager,' [sic]

in the course of a speech in which she also cheerfully slandered Deputy

Attorney-General Richard Vogel ( Hansard , March 7, 1980, p. 1331).

"I didn't think that was a very nice remark about

another woman's hair. But it must have been all right, because the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds didn't turn herself over to the police

afterward. Anyway, the Minister of Human Resources didn't respond to

that nasty observation by calling the member for Burnaby-Edmonds

Brillo-head or something, which I suppose she could have done in

return."

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, when they have

got to yell and scream when they are listening to some of the facts.

They really have a hard time sitting there listening quietly.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The standing rules ask that we only have one speaker at a time.

MR. REYNOLDS: It is very interesting. They talk about Les

Bewley, who in fact is a former judge, a well-respected British

Columbian who only prints the truth. I wouldn't read his column unless

every word of it was well researched by the honourable former judge,

who writes a tremendous column in the newspapers. But it's certainly

not appreciated.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: It wouldn't be the first time he had attacked

me, Mr. Member, because I say what I feel, and sometimes even my

colleagues don't appreciate it. The one thing he does is print the

truth. Les Bewley goes on to say:

"The member for Burnaby-Edmonds recently got all

fussed again, in a letter on this page — 'Cricket Wasn't the Issue,'

August 17 — in which she complained that Sun

sports columnist James Lawton hadn't been fair to her. Lawton had

written a column headlined, 'MLA's Comments Weren't Cricket.' Of the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds' speech in the Legislature asserting that

the abolition of the Human Rights Commission allowed the B.C. Cricket

Association to discriminate against a cricket team by not selecting it

to play in the B.C. Summer Games, Lawton said it 'was a ragbag of

stupefying nonsense.'"

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, I wonder what this has to do with the throne speech?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Extremely wide-ranging debate has traditionally been allowed during the throne speech, and this certainly satisfies that.

MR. LAUK: I could answer the second member for Victoria's inquiry. Les Bewley wrote the throne speech.

[4:45]

MR. REYNOLDS: It's always nice, Mr. Speaker, to have these

gentlemen from the opposite side jumping up and down, and to see them

getting some exercise.

Les Bewley goes on:

"Well, as the facts turned out and as the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds obviously later discovered, her assertions of

discrimination were indeed a ragbag of stupefying nonsense. But the

B.C. Cricket Association would have to go belly-up broke to prove its

innocence if the Human Rights Commission, beloved by the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds, were still in existence.

"The member for Burnaby-Edmonds wrote: 'Mr. Lawton

erred in accusing me of not understanding the game of cricket. As one

who spent her childhood in a British colony that gave the world some of

the world's greatest cricketers, I not only played the game but had the

pleasure of seeing it played at its best.' Let's try to make some sense

out of that. She not only loves cricket, she actually played it. In

that case, why did she assure her fellow legislators, as reported in Hansard ,

July 14, on page 301: 'As I say, it's no big deal. I don't understand

why anybody wants to play cricket anyway. I don't understand it. It's a

game I observe because I observe it'?

"Poor James Lawton, who gets hit over the head with

the member for Burnaby-Edmonds' handbag and has his accuracy questioned

just because he took her at her original word, has to understand that

that appears to be just the member for Burnaby-Edmonds either telling a

little whopper to the Legislature or to the public.

"No big deal, really, but it does illustrate again how

very far the ladies have to go before they really master the useful

ancient art of stretching the facts."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I recognize the second member for

Vancouver Centre I'm afraid I'll have to ask the member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound to withdraw any imputation of improper motive.

Whether or not he's quoting from an

article or using any other device,

he cannot impugn another hon. member of this House. I ask him to

withdraw any imputation of dishonourable motive.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would withdraw any imputation of improper motive toward the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The device of reading someone else's

correspondence really does not qualify a member to use unparliamentary

language, expressions or concepts.

MR. REYNOLDS: I thank the second member for Vancouver Centre

for bringing it up. I was just quoting the article, Mr. Speaker, and

got carried away in the last paragraph.

[ Page 3304 ]

MR. LAUK: And the first one.

MR. REYNOLDS: And the middle one also.

I could go on and on, talking about these human rights that the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds talked about and some of these NDP members

talk about, but I just hope that we bring back that legislation. I know

it will have a different number on it. I think it was a great move that

the government made in the last session to abolish the Human Rights

Commission as it stands and to set up a new one. I hope we'll see that

legislation very shortly. A number of people in my constituency feel

very strongly that we have to replace it with what we said we were

going to replace it with. I know the Premier promised consultation, and

that's what we've been doing over the last few months. I took forward

to that human rights legislation being introduced very shortly in its

new form. I'm sure it will still not be acceptable to my New Democratic

friends to the right over here, but I'm sure it will please the

majority of the citizens of British Columbia.

I would also suggest they talk about the rentalsman. I'm looking

forward to that too. I know the minister has been consulting with

people around the province, just like we said we would do last year.

We've been consulting all the way through. I'm looking forward to that

piece of legislation coming back into this Legislature very shortly.

When they talk about human rights, I cannot help but say thank God

that the mayor of Vancouver, Mike Harcourt, didn't run for the

leadership of the NDP. If he had, I think he would have embarrassed the

group who sit in this Legislature, because I'm sure they couldn't agree

with the mayor's comments about trying to keep a great man of the

stature of Henry Kissinger from having the right to come to Vancouver

and speak to a group of people, who were going to pay $150 each to hear

him and have most of that money go as a donation to a worthy cause.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: The second member for Vancouver Centre calls

him a warmonger. Well, I would suggest to him that the man won the

Nobel Peace Prize. He may think he's a warmonger, but he probably

doesn't think Fidel Castro is a warmonger. He probably doesn't think

other dictators who are killing people around the world are warmongers.

Henry Kissinger is a respected man around this world, a man who had a

tough job when he was doing what he did. I think he did an excellent

job. I'm looking forward to going to hear him about a week from now. I

know that the rest of the people....

MR. LAUK: Who's going to explain his speech to you?

MR. REYNOLDS: The second member for Vancouver Centre wants to

know who's going to explain the speech to me. Mr. Speaker, I don't need

to have any explanations for Henry Kissinger's speeches, only the

speeches from the second member for Vancouver Centre. I would imagine

that's why he's now the second member for Vancouver Centre because a

lot of people in his own constituency didn't understand his speeches.

It's embarrassing to me, as an MLA in this province, to have the mayor

of our largest city and some council members start complaining about a man of

Henry Kissinger's stature coming here. They also complain because Bill Vander

Zalm is part of the Pope's visit. I'm just wondering how far these people

on the left and ultra-left will go in causing us problems in this province.

Are we going to have to pass legislation to make sure that none of these left-wing

people can complain or...?

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: Certainly they can speak, Mr. Member. But do

they want to come out and embarrass this country by talking about who's

going to welcome the Pope? I'm surprised that some of these members

from the NDP haven't asked some of their colleagues on the Vancouver

council....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, although the throne speech

debate does allow great latitude, I think we have really stretched it.

If we could return to some reference to His Honour's address it would

be appreciated.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I think the speech talked about human rights and our new legislation, and I'm keeping it in that area.

MR. LAUK: Why didn't Archbishop Carney ask me to help the Pope come to Vancouver? I was only late for mass once in 20 years.

MR. REYNOLDS: You know better, Mr. Member, why you didn't get invited.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about restraint in this province, but we hear

nothing from the NDP on how to solve the problems. We heard today from

the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), who said we've got to

work together. That sounds very nice, but we haven't heard any positive

proposals from these members of the NDP.

Mr. Speaker, the other day your office kindly sent out some guidelines for

our constituency offices. I was shocked when I drove by the NDP constituency

office in the city of Victoria and saw NDP signs all around the windows, and

a sign on the window which says: "This office is supported by donations

from the New Democratic Party." There are a lot of Socreds in Victoria

who are paying taxes to support that office also. I would suggest to the member

that