1979 Legislative Session: ist Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 1979

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Availability of Crown land to real estate agents. Mr. Lea –– 5

Race horse transport licence. Mrs. Dailly –– 5

Kitimat ferry terminal. Mr. Howard –– 6

Funding of hospitals. Mr. Hanson –– 6

Telegrams

To Rt. Hon. Joe Clark re west coast ports dispute. Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 7

To Rt. Hon. Joe Clark re west coast ports dispute. Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 7

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate

Mr. Heinrich –– 7

Mr. Brummet –– 9

Mr. Hanson –– 12

Mr. Strachan –– 13

Mr. Mitchell –– 13

Mr. Davis –– 14

Mr. Hall –– 16

Mr. Rogers –– 19

Division on the motion –– 20

Presenting reports.

Liquor control and licensing branch annual report as at March 31, 1978.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 21

Rent Review Commission 1978 annual report. Hon. Mr. Nielsen 21

Privacy Act report for 1974 and amendments for 1975, 1976 and 1977.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 21

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, it's good to be back. [Laughter.] I can see that the members of the opposition don't think so.

Mr.

Speaker, in the gallery with us this afternoon are five individuals

from the great constituency of Omineca, who saw very fit to return me

to this House. I would like to introduce these individuals to the

House, and ask it to make them very welcome here this afternoon.

With

us in the gallery are Mr. and Mrs. Bud Nielsen from Fort St. James, Mr.

and Mrs. Harvey Milne from Vanderhoof and my good wife Shirley. I would

ask this House to make them very welcome.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Speaker, seated in the members' gallery today is a graduate of that

fine institution which lives on in spirit, Notre Dame University.

He's gone on to become a teacher and principal, and is now the MLA-elect for the Atlin constituency, Al Passarell.

MRS. JORDAN:

I have no further comments to add to my friend's from Omineca. But I

would ask the House to welcome some visitors from the North Okanagan:

Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Mitchell; Mr. Jim Yount and Mr. and Mrs. Walter

Atkinson. All are here this afternoon for the first time to not only

witness democracy in action, but to appreciate the enthusiasm of the

House.

MR. SMITH: I would like to welcome here today my two constituency office coordinators, Mrs. Betty Green and Mrs. Ginny Marshall Lang.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I ask you to welcome 52 students from the Hatzic Junior High School under the direction of their teacher, Mr. Weber.

Oral Questions

AVAILABILITY OF CROWN LAND

TO REAL ESTATE AGENTS

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask a

question of the Minister of Lands. In April of this year, the minister

said that the government does not intend to make Crown land available

to real estate agents. Have the minister or members of his ministry had

discussions with the real estate association in regard to making Crown

land available to members of the real estate association for

speculative purposes or for sale on a commission basis?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

I would have to take that question as notice because I'm not aware for

a couple or three weeks of any negotiations that might have taken

place. I'll take that question as notice and bring an answer back as

quickly as possible.

MR. LEA: I understand that the

minister has taken as notice whether members of his staff had meetings

with the real estate association. Has the minister had discussions with

the real estate association in this regard?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Yes, I've met with the real estate industry association — I forget

whether it was February or March — and the subject matter you raise was

not a matter of discussion.

MR. LEA: On a

supplementary question, was there a deal struck where members of the

real estate association would handle Crown land either for speculative

purposes or selling that Crown land on a commission basis, on a

multiple listing basis?

HON. MR. CHABOT: There was

never any question or any discussion regarding the speculative turning

over of Crown land to the real estate industry. There was discussion of

the most cost-effective way of making land available to the people of

this province.

MR. LEA: On a further supplementary,

is it not true that members of the real estate association and their

agents are at this moment selling Crown land on a commission basis for

speculative purposes?

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all,

in response to your suggestion, there was no deal struck and that

question which you raise appears to be a matter of speculation on the

part of the member for Prince Rupert, which I'm not aware of; but I'd

be glad to take the question as notice and report back to the House at

the appropriate time.

MR. LEA: On a new question,

there is a mobile home, strata titles Crown subdivision named

Hayesville in the city of Prince Rupert. There have been two lots, I

believe, sold to a real estate firm for speculative purposes. When the

minister is checking out the other details, that he seems to have a

hazy memory for, would he also check that out and see whether that

isn't true? And while he's at it, would he check to see whether the

name of that real estate firm is not Atlin Rentals? Would he also check

to see whether one of the main principals of that firm is a person by

the name of Roy Webber? Would he also check to see whether the same Mr.

Roy Webber is one of the principals of Webber Realty in Prince Rupert,

and would he at the same time check to see whether Mr. Roy Webber is

the past president of the Social Credit Party in Prince Rupert?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, it's apparent that at last the member has gone back to Prince Rupert. I'll take the question as notice.

RACE HORSE TRANSPORT LICENCE

MRS. DAILLY:

A question to the Minister of Transportation, Communications and

Highways. In August 1977, the Motor Carrier Commission rejected the

application of a company called Giddyup Go for a license to transport

race horses. In December 1977 the Commission reversed its decision and

granted the license to Giddyup. In May 1978, five months later, the

commission cancelled the Giddyup license, after protest from a horse

transport company called Thompson Van Lines. The cancellation left the

field clear for Thompson. Giddyup appealed and the cabinet, prior to

the election, sent the whole thing back to the commission instead of

making a ruling. The question is now coming for the hon. minister

concerned. Can the minister tell the House what decision has been made

in this case?

[ Page 6 ]

HON. MR. FRASER:

To the member for Burnaby-North: I am not aware of any of the details

that you have given, I'll certainly find out. I might say that if you

are referring to cabinet appeals, I don't sit on those regarding Motor

Carrier Commission appeals. I'll find out.

KITIMAT FERRY TERMINAL

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to also direct a question to the Minister of

Transportation in his capacity as the person handling or dealing with

the B.C. Ferries. I ask him if he can now tell the House when he will

be in a position to put into effect the commitment his government made

during the election campaign to place a ferry terminal in Kitimat, so

that the north coast can now be served by B.C. Ferries.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of that commitment, as that's a matter of policy and it will come in due course.

MR. HOWARD:

A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, if I could. If that is the case

as he's just answered now, then why has he agreed with the suggestion

by the Premier that the Queen of Surrey be taken out of mothballs and be used for that specific purpose'?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena is a bit mixed up. We certainly agreed to take the Queen of Surrey out of mothballs, and replace the Queen of Prince Rupert with the run to Prince Rupert, but not to Kitimat.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, then I'll so advise the newspapers up north that they got

the wrong impression from the Premier. But that's understandable.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, before we proceed with question period — and perhaps this

time should not be taken out of the allotted time — the purpose of the

question period is to ask questions and not to make statements. It is

not in order to gain the floor under the pretence of asking a question

when, indeed, the intent is to make a statement. Shall we proceed?

FUNDING OF HOSPITALS

MR. HANSON:

I have a question for the Minister of Health. In view of the almost

daily protestations during the election campaign regarding the

sufficient and adequate funding that would be provided for hospitals, I

would like to ask him to explain why within one week of the election

the renovation budget for the Royal Jubilee Hospital was cut by 50

percent.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The members will have

the opportunity to deal with hospital financing during my estimates.

Mr. Speaker, the member has the wrong information; that's not correct.

This ministry has taken no action such as he suggests.

MR. HANSON:

A supplementary question. Would he please check with Murray Halkett,

hospital planner, and see if, in fact, these funds were allocated for

safety equipment and wiring?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Perhaps the member would understand that it's up to the hospital to

check with Mr. Halkett, who works neither for my department nor the

hospital. Mr. Halkett works for the Capital Regional District, and it's

their responsibility to carry that forward, not that of the Ministry of

Health.

MR. COCKE: On a supplementary to the Minister

of Health, the minister who promised us when we left here that there

were no cuts being made in the hospital, he's treating a new member to

his usual tricks, and indicating that the minister is not complicit. Is

it not the minister's own decision that's putting the hospitals in this

whole province in an impossible position in terms not only of their

renovations, but in terms of their staffing? Is the minister ready now

to confess to the House that what he told us before we left this place

— that the whole thing is not in chaos but that he has everything in

hand...? Let him tell us that everything's okay.

HON. MR. MAIR: Okay, everything's okay. Next question.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. Can the minister comment then on a report on May 17 in the Colonist

newspaper that his ministry had cut back previously approved funds for

equipment and minor renovations by almost half? Is the newspaper story

in error, and would the minister so inform this House?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is not the purpose of question period to check the veracity of newspaper articles.

MR. BARRETT: A further supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: Another question, perhaps.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, it's to the Minister of Health.

I don't want to question the veracity of the Colonist , since they wrote an editorial about me this morning that may endanger my career. [Laughter.]

MR. SPEAKER: The question, please.

MR. BARRETT:

I want to ask the minister if he can assure the members of this House,

who have been receiving questions from their constituents about

hospital care, that under his ministry and under his budget there have

not and there will not be any cuts of staff in any hospital in this

province because of his budget.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

That's an impossible question to answer. In the first place, the Leader

of the Opposition doesn't need any help from the newspapers to endanger

his career. He does all right on his own. The hospitals of this

province are run as independent societies, funded for the most part by

the Ministry of Health. It's their decision to make whether or not they

need to adjust their staff positions up, down or sideways, not the

Minister of Health's. The Leader of the Opposition would be the first

person to protest in the most vigorous terms if this ministry

interfered with that opportunity for local control of provincial

hospitals. I don't intend to get into that situation.

There are many hospitals in this province which are having decreasing utilization rates to a very heavy degree.

[ Page 7 ]

For

those hospitals I would expect that they may need to make some

adjustments to their staffing. Some staff would not be laid off,

perhaps, but not returned as they leave on retirement and things like

that. The hospital must have that opportunity.

I can tell

you that there are no cuts in hospital budgets by this government.

Funds are being made available so that the hospitals of British

Columbia can continue to give the highest level of care in this

country. I've made figures available that the Leader of the Opposition

has the opportunity, if he so wishes, to study. They will show a very

steady and dramatic increase in the total amounts of money available to

hospitals in this province over the past four months. That will

continue, as it is continuing now.

In addition, Mr. Speaker,

I'm assuming that this House will have the opportunity to deal, during

the debates, during this session of the Legislature, with a special

fund which is available, which will allow hospitals, to all intents and

purposes, to pick up some of the deficits that they've built up because

of the things over which they have had no control in the past.

All

in all, Mr. Speaker, there have been no cuts in the amounts of money

made available to hospitals, there will be no cuts, and the commitment

of this government remains very strong.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I repeat my question to the minister: will the minister

assure the members of this House that no hospital in the province of

British Columbia will suffer staff cuts because of budgetary

restrictions imposed by his ministry on those hospitals?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, rather than answer that question — because it isn't mine to answer...

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

As I've attempted to explain to the Leader of the Opposition, who

doesn't understand and never has understood the way in which hospitals

are funded in this province....

But perhaps I could refer to

the published statements made during the election campaign by the

president of the British Columbia Health Association, which represents

all of the hospitals in the province, in which the president of the

B.C. Health Association said that having had the opportunity to see

preliminary estimates of hospitals throughout the province, it was his

opinion that there would be no necessity for either staff cuts or for

reduced services because of the budgeting levels made available by the

provincial government.

MR. BARRETT: What's your opinion?

MR. SPEAKER: The bell concludes the question period.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to read into the record two telegrams sent by

myself to Prime Minister Clark on behalf of both the government of

British Columbia and the Western Premiers' Conference.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, the first telegram was sent in my capacity as Premier of

British Columbia to the Right Honourable Joe Clark, Prime Minister,

Ottawa:

ON BEHALF OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA I WOULD LIKE TO

EXPRESS OUR GRAVE CONCERN AS TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE WEST COAST PORTS DISPUTE

AFFECTS THE ECONOMY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AND CANADA. THE IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING

THE INTEGRITY OF THE PORT OF VANCOUVER AND OTHER BRITISH COLUMBIA PORTS IN CARRYING

FORWARD OUR WORLDWIDE TRADING OPPORTUNITIES IS VITAL TO OUR INTERNATIONAL REPUTATION.

AS WELL, THE CONTINUANCE OF THIS DISPUTE WILL HAVE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCE FOR OUR

FOREST INDUSTRY AND OUR MINING INDUSTRY. I WOULD THEREFORE URGE YOUR GOVERNMENT

TO TAKE IMMEDIATE STEPS TO ENSURE THAT THIS DISPUTE CAN BE RESOLVED IMMEDIATELY.

And that's signed in my capacity as Premier of British Columbia.

The

second telegram deals in my capacity as chairman of the Western

Premiers' Conference and therefore has the concurrence of the Premiers

of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. It reads as follows, again

directed to the Right-Honourable J.C. Clark, Prime Minister, Ottawa:

AS CHAIRMAN OF THE WESTERN PREMIERS' CONFERENCE, I WOULD LIKE

TO EXPRESS THE SENSE OF URGENCY THAT WE SHARE ON THE MATTER OF RESOLVING THE

WEST COAST PORTS DISPUTE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. WE ASK THAT YOUR GOVERNMENT TAKE

STEPS TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER AS IT IS CRITICAL TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THE ENTIRE

WESTERN ECONOMY. AS WELL, THE COMMODITY SHIPMENTS THROUGH WESTERN PORTS REPRESENT

A VITAL PART OF OUR INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMMITMENTS AS A NATION.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

MR. SPEAKER:

The member for Prince George North. It's good to hear the welcome of

the House to a new member. I would also remind all honourable members

that perhaps we could extend the traditional courtesies of any member

making a maiden speech. Please proceed.

MR. HEINRICH:

I take pleasure in presenting the following motion, seconded by the

hon. member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), on behalf of the

people of British Columbia and the government of our province. The

motion reads:

"We, Her Majesty's dutiful and

loyal subjects of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in

session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious

speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of this

present session."

It is with a great deal of pride and

honour that I, as the first elected member for the new riding of Prince

George North, have been given the opportunity to move the Speech from

the Throne. May I express my thanks to the citizens of Prince George

North who elected me, and all of whom I represent.

I would

like at this time to express my gratitude and appreciation to the

former MLA for the old riding of Fort George, Mr. Howard Lloyd, who

worked very hard on behalf of our riding, which is now served by two

members.

[ Page

8 ]

It's a privilege to sit with all members of this House, who share a common bond in service to the people of British Columbia.

behalf of the members of the assembly, Mr. Speaker, may I extend to you

a warm welcome and congratulations upon your election to such high

office. May I also offer my congratulations to the first member for

Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) on his re-election as Deputy Speaker. We

are fortunate to have two such dedicated and capable members in

positions of authority and trust in our House.

Congratulations

are in order for our Premier in leading our party to victory, to all

members of our caucus, to those members of the opposition who were

re-elected, and to those who are members of this House for the first

time.

The speech delivered from the throne to the members of

the fourth session of the thirty-first parliament, and reaffirmed

yesterday in the first session of the thirty-second parliament, clearly

sets forth an ambitious social program with high priority to denticare

and long-term care for senior citizens, and the commitment to eliminate

discrimination in setting car insurance rates. Everyone should start on

an equal basis, with benefits to those with a good driving record. I'm

delighted to read that age and geographic location will no longer be a

factor in determining premiums. Our young people have the right to be

assessed on an equal basis.

The denticare program is of

critical importance. With encouragement and guidance from the dental

profession, we in British Columbia continue to be pioneers in the field

of health care. We're all aware of the high cost associated with

denticare, and it is our collective responsibility to help those who

are precluded from access to dental hygiene because they are without

the financial means.

His Honour made reference to the fact

that a number of collective agreements in the private and the public

sectors will open for negotiation this year. He expressed optimism that

all parties will find accord and satisfaction in the collective

bargaining process.

His Honour made reference to the fact

that a number of collective agreements in the private and private

sectors will open for negotiation this year. He expressed optimism that

all parties will find accord and satisfaction in the collective

bargaining process, a system which in an industrialized society cannot

be undermined and which is still the most effective method for arriving

at fair settlements. I would ask that the members on both sides of this

assembly join with the government in wishing well those who'll be

employed in negotiations and in affirming the faith of this assembly in

the wisdom of free collective bargaining.

What is sometimes

forgotten is that the process is such that it accommodates both discord

and harmony of the parties as they strive to each a fair and equitable

settlement. Perhaps we sometimes tend to emphasize the discord and fail

to recognize it as an essential step in the progress toward that

harmony we all desire.

This government has been accused in

the past — and unfairly accused, in my estimation — of impatience with

collective bargaining. The comments of His Honour in the throne speech

yesterday make it clear that this government carries no brief that

contradicts or threatens the collective bargaining process. The policy

of this government is to support that process; that is its policy and

it continues to be its policy. The Essential Services Disputes Act is

not

an Act to suppress the labour movement in this province; if it

were, industrial chaos would ensue. The trade union movement has a long

and courageous history. Collective bargaining is still the most

effective method for arriving at settlements between labour and

management.

Mr. Speaker, there is a feeling of optimism and

a climate of confidence in our province. The response from the private

sector during the last year is the best indicator. Capital expansion

programs announced by the forest industry now exceed $1.6 billion, and

announcements in the oil, gas and mineral industries are now

approaching $1 billion. The impact on our economy will be significant

both in new construction and permanent employment. To those who have

made such a positive commitment to British Columbia, we trust that you

will continue to have confidence in our province. The government's

positive record of development and accomplishment is evident everywhere

and all within a balanced budget. Most important of all, services to

the people of British Columbia have increased as rapidly as our

resources have permitted.

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to tell you something of the new riding

of Prince George North. This riding incorporates the older portion of the city

of Prince George and proceeds northward to include the district municipality

of Mackenzie, and further north to include Fort Ware. Prince George is the entrance

to the north and a major distribution centre for all points east, west, north

and south. I have the privilege of representing a riding which consists of a

great cross-section of people who ask for fair representation and their right

to be considered and to participate in all governmental programs. The riding

of Prince George North contains a large industrial base: five pulp mills, soon

to be six; ten major sawmills, soon to be twelve; and an oil refinery. Each

of these industries, all of which are resource oriented, provide substantial

employment. With the announcement of a major pulp mill expansion to commence

this fall, a capital program in the order of $150 million, Prince George North's

industrial base is enlarged and new citizens will take advantage of the special

and unique amenities which our community offers. Some secondary industry will

add a stabilizing influence to our economy.

major sawmill to incorporate the latest technology has now been

committed. Some of the financial help will come from the B.C.

Development Corporation with the encouragement of our Minister of

Economic Development, the hon. member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), together with the joint efforts of our government, the city

of Prince George and the CNR. Those plans should be a reality within

one year and, I might add, with some additional help from the Minister

of Environment, the hon. member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair).

is with the help of our government and wise planning by our city that

we are able to provide residential lots for our citizens at a realistic

price, where everyone has the opportunity to own a home and the land on

which it is built. The right of individual ownership should never be

surrendered to government.

The district municipality of

Mackenzie is also within the riding of Prince George North; it's 120

miles north of the city. Our government must continue to encourage

industrial development there as it has in the past. A recent

announcement has been made involving capital expenditures involving

something in the order of $36 million,

[ Page 9 ]

which will see the construction of a major new sawmill and expansion to an existing pulp mill.

The

population of the municipality is now pushing 7,000. What is important

to achieve is a population approaching 10,000 people, and it's for a

very important reason. We in the north with instant towns sometimes

have a great deal of difficulty in providing all of the services. They

cost money and the people are patient, but they do require some

consideration from time to time. A town begins to reach maturity, and

with that maturity and that population base comes economic stability.

Residential permanence, which is critical to us, and a wide variety of

social, professional and commercial services and a stronger provincial

presence are going to be required — and an improved social environment

so that those who provide those professional services, the doctors and

the teachers, will remain as residents on a long-term basis and take an

active

part in the organized growth of this community. More is required

than coming into areas like this to serve an apprenticeship and putting

in a certain amount of time.

I wish to recognize the efforts

of the hon. member for Cariboo, the Minister for Transportation,

Communications and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who over the past two

and one half years has directed our government on a highways

improvement program between the cities of Prince George and Mackenzie

on the John Hart Highway. Transportation is critical to all of us in

the north. I repeat: transportation is critical to all of us in the

north. More must be done and I'm sure that it will be.

Our

government has made a commitment for construction on the new Foothills

Bridge in the city of Prince George to span the Nechako River, as well

as an overpass at each end of the old Fraser Bridge. It is my duty as a

member to remind the government of this commitment.

While we

realize the importance of transportation and industrial development —

it is essential to the growth and progress of our riding, everyone

acknowledges that — let us not forget that social services are the most

important function of government. In our riding the programs initiated

by the Minister of Health, the hon. member for Langley (Hon. Mr.

McClelland), relating to health services in the city of Prince George

have been most encouraging. Our hospital serves as a regional referral

centre. A capital program for health services has blossomed in the last

two years. Last month a modern extended care unit was opened attached

to the hospital. A health unit clinic is now under construction and

should be completed this fall, and the construction of new surgical

facilities commenced last month. This is a program which will probably

embark on a two-year construction time-frame — $24 million when all

phases are completed.

There is one item which must be

addressed. There is an operating deficit problem. But this can be

resolved, and the government's making provisions for this. It is not

hiding from that responsibility; it acknowledges it and says we're

going to do something.

We do have excellent health care

facilities, our government responds to the needs of our community, and

we did need some help. And it will respond to the need for a new senior

citizens' home, presently in the initial planning stages, which

hopefully will be financed under the new federal-provincial housing

agreement announced by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, the

hon. member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot).

A major

thrust must be made to expand and improve the College of New Caledonia.

This is a regional college serving a very large area: Vanderhoof,

Fraser Lake, Burns Lake, Houston to the west; Quesnel and Williams Lake

to the south; Mackenzie to the north; and the greater Prince George

area including all of the small towns and villages between the centres

mentioned — and let us remember we must provide services and regional

centres for those people. A students' residence must be made a top

priority, together with funds to provide leasehold improvements on the

top level of the college building. We can and must provide

accommodation for those who wish to work and live in the central

Interior and the north, and we must recognize the major contribution

young people with vocational and technical skills make in our

community. We need and depend on those skills.

Mr. Speaker,

our government has a fine record of providing social services and

stimulating our economy. The throne speech deals with those principles

and objectives; it contains a real balance.

We refer to

social programs: the assistance to our senior citizens; assistance to

the handicapped and the disadvantaged; and a proposed denticare

program, which is going to be an expensive item, but we have a

commitment to that program.

There are a number of financial

concerns: the introduction of a fair compensation statute — this is

long, long overdue; the elimination of discrimination in car insurance

rates; and the accountability of the government to all the people of

British Columbia, through quarterly financial statements and the

appointment of an Auditor-General. I want you to know that I was

pleased to see on my desk, when I arrived, a copy of that report. It

was done.

On the subject of red tape and deregulation, with

the introduction of the repeal of obsolete statutes Act, and a concern

about the impact of excessive red tape and removal of barriers to

individual freedom and individual initiative....

I'm

delighted with the policy on natural resources, a policy to retain

management and control of natural resources owned by the province of

British Columbia.

Under energy, there are plans to develop

hydroelectric power and wood waste as an energy source in the forest

industry. We do not have to consider nuclear power to meet our energy

requirements.

Under the economy, Mr. Speaker, our government

has confidence in the job the private sector can do by encouraging

initiative and providing opportunity. Our government acknowledges the

private sector and the tremendous contribution it makes to the

prosperity of British Columbia. Our government has placed the rights

and responsibilities of the individual and the opportunity to grow

right up front. Let the private sector grow. We will regulate when

necessary so it is fair to all. It is the private sector that creates

the wealth of the nation, and it is with that wealth we will

successfully implement the social programs we all want.

MR. BRUMMET:

Mr. Speaker, if I could, perhaps I will just take a moment to introduce

my wife Audrey and my daughter Susan, who are in the gallery today.

is indeed an honour to be granted the opportunity to second this Speech

from the Throne. Like the hon. member for Prince George North, I am

very pleased and proud to be here, and proud to become a part of this

great tradition. I

[ Page 10 ]

would

like to support very strongly the congratulations that were extended to

yourself and to the Deputy Speaker. This House is indeed fortunate that

you are willing to continue serving in this important capacity.

May

I also, through you, Mr. Speaker, extend congratulations to our Premier

for his most important victory in this election, both personal and

party. I say "very important victory" because it does allow the

province to move ahead in the positive direction which has been

established. My congratulations go also to all hon. members who were

elected to this thirty-second parliament, both those in the government

caucus and those members of the opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I

would like to, on behalf of the members here assembled, extend

recognition to all the candidates who were not elected at this time.

They too are a very important part of our democratic process, and it

behooves us to acknowledge their significant contributions and their

personal sacrifices, particularly since they were not rewarded as we

are here.

To those who were previously members of this

House, I feel certain that their services to the people of this

province are recognized and appreciated, and, of course, I refer to the

members who were not re-elected. Here I would like to include Mr. Ed

Smith, who is known to some of you as the member who for many years

represented his constituency and the people of this province. I wish

him well.

It may seem presumptuous for a new member like

myself to be addressing comments, and congratulations to members who

were in this House before, but I do feel reasonably comfortable in

saying to those newly elected like myself that I hope you share with me

the excitement and the genuine pride in having been given this

opportunity to become a part of this Legislative Assembly. Like myself,

you are probably quite awed by the majestic surroundings, as well as by

the great responsibility which is suddenly ours. If I may again risk

being presumptuous, I sincerely hope that those members who are

returning here have rekindled their original aspirations and hopes and

that they too are excited and will share with us newcomers the

enthusiasm which comes from faith and idealism.

Despite our

divergent views regarding policies and methods, we have nevertheless

been charged by the people of British Columbia with the responsibility

of managing their affairs to their greatest advantage. I hope the

political campaigning can be set aside for a while so that we can, as

stated by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, get on with our

legislative duties on behalf of the people of British Columbia with

good will and diligence.

His Honour has given us in clear

and concise terms the directions which we are to take. I took forward

to the task ahead of us. I feel eager, enthused and excited, for we are

living in exciting times.

Never has opportunity been greater

for those of us who are in this position. Practically at the touch of a

button, we have access to the wisdom of the ages as well as to modern

science and technology. This gives us a research capability which I

hope we can couple with common sense and good intent in order to

provide for the greatest good of our present and future generations.

trust that all members of this assembly share my optimism for the

future. Really, mankind has the means to do what is beneficial and

good. We need only the faith, the intent and the willingness to work

together in that cause.

I am pleased to be a member of the

team that forms this government. It is a good feeling to be a member of

a party that stands by its principles and has the courage to stay with

policies which are best in the long run, even if it means living with

moves that are somewhat unpopular in the short term.

In 1975

our Premier and his colleagues recognized the need to establish

financial stability and good economic management if ever we hope to

realize the benefits and advantages that this wonderful province has

the potential to provide.

We are blessed with a land rich in

many resources, with a people who are imaginative and basically

industrious, surrounded by a country and a world that is hungry for our

products.

This government chose to restore opportunities and

initiative to people, to the individuals in our society, in the firm

belief that through private enterprise all our people would in the long

run derive the greatest benefit. It took some time, but as confidence

was restored development began to accelerate. We were just beginning to

reap the benefits this past year or so.

When good management

is in operation, when money is being generated by industry, when

government revenues are increasing as a result of genuine productivity

and when government can add facilities and programs from cash on hand

instead of by using extensive borrowed money, then and only then can

services to people be dramatically increased without saddling our next

generation with massive debts.

Many services have been added

in the past few years and many more are in the planning stage now. The

hon. member for Prince George North (Mr. Heinrich) has already referred

to a number of the proposed government programs, so I will not take

your time by reiterating them. There is reference to them also in the

throne speech. I feel certain that you will soon be hearing a great

deal more about these programs when the budget is presented. But I

think it must be pointed out at this time that extensive services to

people are being added, while at the same time taxes are being reduced.

This approach has to stand as a dynamic testimonial to the advantages

of sound financial management and good government.

The

policy of this government has been to provide the proper climate for

industry and incentives for individuals with initiative. Industry and

small business have responded by creating the greatest development that

this province has ever seen. And the benefits have only begun to accrue

to all the people of this province and will increasingly continue to

accrue. Admittedly, not everyone has yet realized this. There still are

and probably always will be some detractors who believe that big

government can run our lives better than we can ourselves. We must keep

in mind that every time people ask government to look after some part

of their lives, they in effect surrender a little more of their

personal freedom to that government.

We do need

opportunities that can only be created by government. There are

services that are best provided by government. We need a stable climate

so that we can plan ahead in the full knowledge that we will at least

have the opportunity to realize our plans, our dreams and our

ambitions, but we must retain control over our own lives.

This thought was so ably expressed by His Honour in the throne speech of March 22 of this year when he said:

[ Page 11 ]

"The

ultimate freedom and security of Canadians rests on the right and

responsibility of individuals to guide their own destiny." I am so

pleased that this is an avowed and steadfast principle of this

government.

I would like to refer briefly to the one area

which has been of vital concern to me for most of my life: that is the

field of education. Because education is paid for entirely by the

public, in one way or another it is of direct concern to everybody.

Because everybody has been directly involved in education, everyone can

claim to be a critic on the basis of that experience. Add to that the

fact that education is so complex that even the highly trained experts

tend to operate more on the basis of personal bias than they would like

anyone to believe. Finally, education does require a massive system to

deliver it to the public. There is always a danger that a large system

can become self-serving.

A good education today, in my view,

as through the ages, is still dependent, in the final analysis, on what

goes on between the pupil and the teacher in the classroom.

did not want to spend time elaborating today, but I want to introduce

this thought because I know that sooner or later we will be discussing

the topic of education. When we do get into our profound deliberations

on this topic, perhaps the honourable members will consider what the

real issues are.

Also, I would like to make the point that

we cannot safely always generalize when it comes to education. For

instance, we do not have a declining enrolment problem in the North

Peace River riding. We have a concern for adding facilities to keep up

with the growing population. Of course, that growing population is

based on the boom we have there.

I will resist the urge to

expand any further on education, because it would come fairly easy. I

would ask the indulgence of yourself and the members just to say a few

words about my constituency of North Peace River.

North

Peace River riding is a wonderful place to be, particularly since this

election has turned out as it did. There, perhaps better than anywhere

else in this province, the advantages of free enterprise are

self-evident, and have been for the past three or three and a half

years. We are in the midst of an unprecedented building and development

boom. Just to illustrate this point, let me use one example: in Fort

St. John, building permits in 1975 were approximately 4 million; in

1976 they went up to about 9 million; in 1977, up to 13 million; and in

1978, more than 35 million. It is expected to top 50 million in 1979.

That pattern is indicative of what is happening in the area. It's going

throughout the area, and in Fort Nelson and Hudson Hope as well. The

boom has been — if I may be allowed a pun — fuelled by the gas and oil

industry. It has also been supported and abetted by progress in the

lumbering, agriculture, mining and tourism industries, as well as the

hydro developments.

Unfortunately, even though the North

Peace River riding is geographically one of the largest in the

province, even though my riding produces a large share of provincial

revenue, even though we supply a great deal of the electricity and most

of the natural gas used in this province, it is difficult to get

widespread recognition throughout British Columbia. We're too far away

from the major centres to be recognized widely by the press. The Rocky

Mountains seem to present a barrier. To many people we are on the other

side of the mountains. You may have heard the expression "perhaps

beyond Hope. " We certainly got a minimum of British Columbia news and

news background. This is a very sensitive point in the riding.

Something has to be done to improve communication channels between the

rest of British Columbia and northeastern British Columbia.

This

government has certainly recognized our area and, together with the

South Peace River riding, our able Minister of Economic Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) has helped a great deal to focus attention on

northeastern British Columbia. But we have a long way to go to get

recognition from the general public. This recognition is very important

to us, not to flatter our egos — we do not need that. Many decisions

affecting us are made by people outside our region. For that reason it

is important that others become knowledgeable about the northeastern

areas.

I will use just one example to illustrate this

concern. If you are following the local papers, our Minister of

Education, Science and Technology (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has been severely

criticized in the press for his statement that we are short of skilled

tradesmen. His critic, from Vancouver of course, implied that there is

a surplus of unemployed skilled tradesmen. This could well be, but the

minister is very correct if we judge on the basis of our experience in

the northern areas. Where are these skilled people? Why are they

unemployed when employers in the north are practically begging for

skilled tradesmen and professional people? These people must prefer to

be unemployed rather than go where the work is.

We can be

thankful, Mr. Speaker, that the extension of the community colleges

system to the outlying areas is making it possible to train our own

people, who are likely to stay in our area and who can and do see the

many advantages of living in the north. I wonder how many people here,

or in this area, know that in the North Peace riding and Fort St. John

at least two years out of every four we have more hours of sunshine

than Victoria — and we certainly have a greater variety in our climate.

Let

me continue, Mr. Speaker, with the following observation. This

government has, on an increasing scale, been recognizing some of the

problems unique to our area. We have been getting more help with roads,

water and sewer systems, recreational facilities, hospitals and medical

facilities, social services, educational services and so on. I would,

however, like to remind the government — and all other members who do

influence important decisions in this parliament — that, because of our

accelerated growth, we do need some extra attention for a while in

order to provide the facilities and the amenities we need in order to

attract skilled and professional people to our area, people who will

come and who will stay. This is not asking for a handout; this is an

investment. The more investment that the producing areas of the north

get, the greater the revenue to the government, and that in turn will

benefit all people in this province.

Mr. Speaker, my

constituents in the North Peace riding have given me a strong mandate

to represent them here in Victoria. They have put a great deal of faith

in me to present their case to this assembly. It is a grave and serious

responsibility, and I know I can count on the consideration and the

support of this House. In conclusion I would like to use this

opportunity to sincerely thank my constituents for the opportunity they

have provided to me by electing me to represent them. And, again, my

thanks to this government for giving me the honour to second this

Speech from the

[ Page 12 ]

Throne. I hope to serve well both my constituency and this Legislature.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour today to rise as a member of this

Legislature. I have been an active follower of the proceedings of this

House for some years; but it is with particular pride that I rise today

as a representative of the riding of Victoria. I wish to thank

Victorians for the confidence they expressed in me in the election. I

will endeavour, over the next months and years, to represent these

people to the best of my ability.

I would also like to take

this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of congratulating you on your

appointment as Speaker, and similarly the first member for Vancouver

South (Mr. Rogers) as Deputy Speaker. I would also like to make a

comment and pay tribute to my predecessor in the riding of Victoria,

Sam Bawlf. He made a great contribution to raising the awareness of the

heritage resources of this city.

As an archaeologist I

intend over the next while to expand and extend the consciousness and

awareness of the heritage resources of our capital city and I hope to

increase the awareness of British Columbians in general about our past.

It may come as a surprise to many people that Captain Cook didn't

actually discover British Columbia; there have been people living here

for 10,000 and probably more years, with rich cultures and rich

traditions; and anyone visiting the Provincial Museum on the third

floor is well aware of a hint of that richness.

As you know,

I have an excellent colleague in Victoria, who was elected in 1975 and

has served this riding diligently since that time.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Name names, he suggests, Mr. Speaker.

intend to put our diverse backgrounds and experience and training

together to form a team to service this riding to the best of our

ability.

There are many pressing problems in British

Columbia, and there are many pressing problems in this city. High

unemployment — it's the highest unemployment of any western Canadian

city. The cost of living is particularly high, amplified by the fact,

that we live on an island. Foreign ownership is another pressing

problem that has an impact on Victoria, as well as an impact on our

province at large.

But the subject I would like to touch

upon today.... Upon reading the throne speech, I note with pleasure, as

many citizens do in this province, that the Lieutenant-Governor has

reminded us that the government intends to introduce a bill of rights

to ensure fundamental freedoms for all citizens in this province.

All

of us are very conscious of one of the most precious fundamental

freedoms: that is the individual's right to exercise his or her

franchise as we have just come out of a provincial election and a

federal election. I must admit to some misgivings regarding the

commitment of this present government to the guarantee of the basic

right of the franchise. We all know that in the last provincial

election tens of thousands of British Columbians were disfranchised and

were unable to vote in this last election.

In my own riding

of Victoria, the very fact that we had a federal and a provincial

election going on simultaneously meant that we could compare the

procedures in place for the voter registration. We know that in some

polls in Victoria up to 50 percent of the people registered to vote

federally were not registered to vote provincially.

We have

figures for Victoria on the number of unopened ballots. These are

ballots cast by people who believe that they have been enumerated and

have been registered to vote. The ballots left unopened due to the fact

that they were not on the list, or had not completed the affidavit,

moved from a figure in 1975 of 1,100 to a figure today in this last

election of 2,600.

This figure does not include the

thousands and thousands and thousands of people who know they were

disfranchised, who know they were not on the list and did not go and

swear an affidavit. My misgivings are that the tenor of the election

and the election procedures are not in the spirit of democracy.

The

very fact of calling an election, a provincial election, during a

federal election, I believe, was to amplify confusion among the voters

of British Columbia and strain an already outmoded registration system

beyond its limits. The Victoria Times and the Colonist and the Vancouver Express

all carried stories titled "Enumeration Horror Stories." A mailman

delivered 12 cards to a woman who lives alone in a James Bay apartment,

her own card and 11 others for previous tenants long departed. Cards

delivered for previous tenants, disfranchisement through loss of cards,

putting the registration commitment cards or confirmation cards out on

the 15 cents mail instead of the 17 cents mail so that they would be

delayed or they were delayed: I wouldn't be cynical enough to imply

that that was done on purpose; it was obviously a mistake. The Hon.

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who unfortunately is absent,

knows the magnitude of the disfranchisement of which I am speaking and

has commented since the election that this must be corrected. That will

be heartily endorsed by our party.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

do not want to give the House the impression that these misgivings

derive from bitterness or that they derive from a conclusion that the

results of the election in terms of the proportion of seats is

incorrect. That is not my intention. I raise these matters, and indeed

have chosen to use this subject in my first address in this House,

because the democratic parliamentary process is important to me. It is

important to the people of Victoria. It is important to the citizens of

this province.

The mismanagement and abuse of this process,

through the procedures in operation during the last election, violate

the foundations of our society upon which everything else, cultural and

economic, depends. The word "democracy" means that power should rest

with the people, and that people therefore should rule. Democracy does

not mean rule by cabinet order-in-council, which is a disturbing trend

in this Legislature. Nor does it mean calling an election and having

ministers proceed through this province dispatching and disbursing

public funds on the proviso that they are returned to government. The

first principle of democracy is that an individual is an end in

himself, and that the state is to serve the well-being of the

individual. I think the Premier would agree with me if that is

consistent with the kinds of remarks he has made through the campaign.

[ Page 13 ]

But

the Premier knows that the party I represent is founded on democratic

principles, and the solutions that we seek are to be sought

democratically. Why then, Mr. Speaker, would the Premier allow his

party to take out advertisements during the campaign stating that "The

New Democratic Party does not want you to vote" when he knows that is

patently false?

You know, Mr. Speaker, that the winning of

the vote for native Indians and for Asian people in this country was

won through the struggle of the CCF, the precursor of the NDP. No one

in this House would want to disfranchise any people now on the basis of

race or religion. Why should we now disfranchise on the basis of

neglect and shoddy election procedures?

I really don't care

to mention this at this time, but I'm going to just remark on it. I

really did not appreciate, nor did the people of my party appreciate,

the comment linking our party with national socialism. What I want to

see, Mr. Speaker, and what all of the people of this province want to

see is an electoral system that will provide people with the right —

the most basic right of all — to vote and to fashion their own destiny

through choosing a government of their choice. It should be easy to

vote. No one should be disfranchised because they are elderly, infirm,

because they are in hospital, because they are a shut-in, because there

are too few polls. We don't know what is in the Eckardt commission

report. We know there are six volumes. You can understand that our

party has some reservations about the initial recommendations which

were acted upon which did away with the seats of three of my

colleagues, who, I'm very happy to announce, are here today.

I'm

looking forward to my time in this Legislature, and I am anxious to

work cooperatively with all members of this House. I thank you.

MR. STRACHAN:

Mr. Speaker, at the outset let me say that I would be remiss if I did

not offer my most sincere best wishes to you, sir, and to the hon.

member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder). My understanding, Mr.

Speaker, is that you and the hon. member for Chilliwack serve the

office of Speaker in an outstanding manner, and to you and the hon.

member for Chilliwack my congratulations on your election to this most

high office.

I would also commend to you, Mr. Speaker, and

to this assembly that His Honour's speech, a masterpiece of brevity,

was most abundant in content and dealt with many superb items of

legislation, items that clearly indicate a continuation of the

excellent government that British Columbia has enjoyed for the past

three and a half years.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to His

Honour's comments concerning the high priority that will be given to

programs for senior, citizens, let me say that it is with pride that I

applaud such priorities. Concern for the senior citizens of our

province is something that is foremost in my mind and should be

foremost in the minds of all of us. Senior citizens are cherished

members of our communities, and their efforts, which were on our

behalf, must be rewarded. It is maybe with a bit of self-interest that

we look forward to programs for senior citizens. Becoming a senior

citizen is something to look forward to, especially when one considers

the alternative.

Mr. Speaker, His Honour, and the member for

Prince George North, spoke to a host of outstanding items. On behalf of

the new constituency of Prince George South, I wish to address two of

these items.

First let me say that I was most encouraged to

hear His Honour's remarks indicating the confidence in fair and proper

labour negotiations for this coming year. Prince George South is highly

dependent on a good labour atmosphere, and I would commend to you that

in the very vital woods industry we have enjoyed industrial peace since

1953. That's 26 years, Mr. Speaker, which clearly indicates the good

faith that exists between labour and industry. Needless to say, I am

most encouraged by His Honour's confidence in right and proper labour

relations. As the member for Prince George South, I assure you that the

continuation of good labour relations is an item that will be foremost

in my deliberations as a member of this Legislative Assembly.

Secondly,

Mr. Speaker, I applaud His Honour for the insight shown with respect to

the use of wood waste as an energy source. I am pleased to submit, sir,

that in Prince George there exist many firms who are pioneering

techniques that will maximize the bio-mass potential. On behalf of

these industries, I applaud the considerations that will be given by

our government to the efficient use of wood waste as an energy source.

closing I would be remiss if I did not publicly acknowledge the

tremendous efforts of our former member, Howard Lloyd. Mr. Lloyd served

Fort George in an exemplary manner, and it is with pride as well as

humility that I accept the responsibility to carry on for Mr. Lloyd.

Peripherally

to these comments, let me say on behalf of Prince George South how

pleased I am with the June 1978 report by Justice Eckardt which gave

the citizens of our north central Interior two members as opposed to

one. I now have the privilege of representing the west part of the city

of Prince George, the many vital communities east along the Fraser

River from Prince George and the vibrant communities of Valemont and

McBride.

Mr. Speaker, again my best wishes to you and to all members of this thirty-second parliament.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, before the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew begins,

I think it would be important to point out that this is not his maiden

speech. But since he has been absent for some time, perhaps we could

extend him the courtesy normally extended new members.

MR. MITCHELL: I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker on their election.

would like to reminisce a little. As the Deputy Speaker stated, it is

not my first time here. In 1951 when I first arrived I was sitting down

with a band of eight farther down. I was going to resent the member for

Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy), who has taken my seat and won't give it

up. It's been a lot of fun watching the change. As I look around, there

are not many left who were here when I was here. In fact, I'm the only

one.

I must take this opportunity to congratulate the Leader

of the Opposition on the period when he was government, and the change

that he made in this hall. I remember looking around in the old days,

and it was very grubby. Since the restoration of the parliament

buildings under the Leader of the Opposition there have been many

changes.

[ Page 14 ]

my first speech I remember I was talking on important things like

construction and the training of tradesmen — the craft of plastering

was very important to me in those days — and I very elegantly said:

"Look up at the beautiful plaster." And I looked up and I saw all the

young ladies up there, and I was speechless. For those who haven't

looked around at our building, they are very well dressed.

Why

am I here? I think it is important to this House and to the province of

British Columbia why this side of the House went from 18 members to 26

members. This is an issue that must be faced by this government. We are

here because you did not service my riding and many parts of British

Columbia.

What was the campaign issue? The issue today is

still what it was when we campaigned, and that was lack of jobs and the

inflation which this government has not faced. These are the issues

that we campaigned on and these are the issues that must be faced by

this parliament. The second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) said that

in his riding there were 11.4 percent unemployed when the campaign

started. That is why we are here today.

I know that I will

be bringing up many examples in estimates, but there are certain issues

that I feel that this House and the government must recognize. My

riding is a growing bedroom riding of the greater Victoria area. We

have what is commonly called the western community of Colwood,

Langford, Metchosin, Happy Valley. We have an area that is growing:

houses, subdivisions, apartments, townhouses. What do we need in a

growing bedroom community? We need transportation. There has not been

one improvement in transportation since 1975 when the NDP first took

buses out to that area. With all the modern technology that we have

today in the styles of buses — dial-a-bus has been innovated in many

parts of Canada — not one change has been made in the western

community. I say that government must face that issue; they cannot

continue to slough it off to the municipalities and add a

three-cent-a-gallon tax to gasoline for something we are not getting.

And I say to this government we will talk more about it in estimates,

but they must face that issue.

Also in my community I have a

forest company, the Sooke Forest Products Ltd. It is situated in the

logging capital of Canada, and according to the Pearse royal commission

on logging it is one of the most highly efficient logging mills in this

area. We have the situation in this mill where they cannot get logs for

that job. They are forced to import logs from Port Angeles. I say it is

a disgrace that any community must be denied the actual raw materials

that are part and parcel of British Columbia. The logging industry of

this area must be guaranteed logs for its operation. It is not only

something that is in my area. When I first announced it and complained

about it in the campaign, I received phone calls from Penticton, up

north and from many areas whose mills are being slowly squeezed out by

the monopoly corporations that control the timber in the northern and

local areas of British Columbia. I am calling on the Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) to make some arrangements to negotiate

with the companies who have control of the timber and who have the

forest licenses so that the local mills are guaranteed a supply of logs

to keep everyone working.

There's another

section that I

would like to bring up for the Consumer and Corporate Affairs ministry.

I would like to see the minister (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) institute an

inquiry into some of the shoddy practices that are taking place in the

construction industry in the rural areas. We have contractors and

construction companies setting up, building a lot of AHOP homes,

selling them with guarantees to complete them and then the companies

are going broke, and the consumer is left with a half-finished, shoddy

building. Then they move on and they are setting up in another town or

another area under a different name. I am asking for the Consumer and

Corporate Affairs ministry to study this; to bring in some

recommendations and regulations to protect the consumers of British

Columbia. This is not only happening in my riding; it is happening in

many ridings.

I would like to comment shortly on the throne

speech. I know there are many recommendations coming up and I'll have

opportunities to discuss them, but I would like to state now that in

the throne speech where we have a recommendation of dental care that

that dental care be all-inclusive, and it be at least the minimum of

dental care that is afforded to the MLAs of the province of British

Columbia.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring one

more thing to the attention of this House, and that is the problem that

came up during the election concerning the recommendation that the oil

tank farms in Victoria be moved out to View Royal. The oil tank farms

in Victoria are a danger in a built-up community and may pollute the

harbour. Every one of the arguments that has been made by the

provincial government — which has the control of the land — for telling

the companies to move these tank farms from the Victoria harbour is

just as imperative in Esquimalt. We will not sit back and have the

problems of Victoria moved into the riding that I represent. And I say,

Mr. Speaker, through you to the government, that if they want to move

these farms they study the problems, and that they properly place the

farms in an area where they will not pollute a harbour and where they

will not ruin the developing industrial area, the rural area and

private lands and estuaries in the lower Esquimalt harbour.

closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one final observation. When

I first came to this House, I guess we were at the height of women's

lib, because in the House at that time we had the one and only lady

Speaker. When the nominations were coming forward in the beginning of

this House, I was kind of hoping that maybe my return would have

brought a lady — and I was suggesting the lady from North Okanagan —

either as a Speaker or as the deputy. I sincerely recommend to this

House that maybe — not that I have anything against the deputy —

certain procedures can come back, that we can revive a little of the

women's lib that we had in 1951.

MR. DAVIS: Mr.

Speaker, first I would like to congratulate you and, of course, the

member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) on your election to your

eminent office. Your ability as Speakers include your happy faculty of

being able to introduce humour at the right time and to resolve some of

the impasses which might otherwise hold up the business of this House.

I think both of you are very well suited to the Speaker's job. I'm very

glad you are back here and I know that all the other members are as

well, so congratulations.

I'd like also to congratulate the

mover and seconder of the Speech from the Throne, the members for

Prince George North (Mr. Heinrich) and North Peace River (Mr.

[ Page 15 ]

Brummet).

I've been present during the reading of many Speeches from the Throne

and I've heard many movers and seconders make their presentations. I

think the presentations today are the best that I've heard and I do

congratulate those members for their contribution here today.

I want to say a few words about energy durin g

the few minutes I have here in the House today, but I would also like

to be quite concrete in my recommendations in that connection. I

believe that we in this province — indeed we in Canada, but

particularly we in this province — have an opportunity to in a very

positive way help solve the energy problems not only of our own area

but of this part of North America. There are things that we can do that

are safe environmentally, safe from an economic point of view and wise

from a good management point of view, which will help solve the

problems of shortages for our people and for our neighbours. Personally

I think the biggest problem — the biggest challenge that faces us all,

currently at least — is inflation, and next to that unemployment, but I

would put the energy challenge as one of the first five challenges

facing the people of this continent and indeed of the world. It is a

problem which can be solved with good judgment and certainly good

neighbourliness.

I would like to read again the two

paragraphs that appeared in the Speech from the Throne. I agree with

every word in them. I'd like to read them again, however, for emphasis

and introduction to my brief remarks that follow:

"British

Columbia is fortunate in having the traditional options of hydro,

thermal coal and petroleum hydrocarbons as energy sources. To this,

there can be added newer options of solar and geothermal energy in

which my government is taking an active interest.

"In

addition, my government, in cooperation with the forest industry, has

underway major initiatives with respect to the use of wood waste as an

energy source. We are fortunate that we do not have to consider nuclear

power as one of the options necessary to meet our energy requirements.

My government, however, shares the concern of many British Columbians

at developments in the nuclear field taking place outside our borders."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Now

I agree with everything that is said there. We have conventional

resources, safe resources. We have a lot of hydroelectric capability

that has yet to be harnessed and can be harnessed, providing, of

course, we look after our environment in the process. We have an

abundance of thermal coal, and using conventional means we can produce

electricity and, indeed, gas in that way if we're ever short of natural

gas. We have natural gas; our main problem is oil.

We have

wood wastes. We've other wastes which are not being used, which are

becoming an eyesore, an environmental hazard in themselves. We've coal

wastes in the Kootenays currently. Those coal wastes are accumulating —

unsightly mountains in the Rocky Mountain area. We should be using

those wastes now. We should be using also any surplus water we have and

selling those wastes in the form of electricity to our neighbours as

long as we do not have a need for them.

I believe we have a

great opportunity to export energy productively. It will help us in the

plants to convert that energy, that raw material into electricity. It

can later be used by ourselves. In the meantime we have surpluses which

we can't use — surpluses which, in a number of instances, such as the

waste coal in the Kootenays, constitute an environmental hazard,

certainly an environmental eyesore. And we can do this.

the south of us, particularly in the U.S. Pacific Northwest, they have

developed their resources. They have harnessed virtually all their

hydro power. They have little coal, and they are having to turn to

nuclear energy. We can postpone this move toward nuclear energy by

exporting some of our surplus power, some of our surplus electricity,

in a manner that's useful to us and, indeed, helpful to them. I think

that in asking them at least to postpone their plans to build nuclear

plants, particularly plants close to our boundaries, that we in the

long run will not only be doing ourselves a favour, but helping them as

well.

We've hydro resources in abundance. The Revelstoke

Canyon Dam is being built now and it will carry us for some years into

the future. We've got a project possible at Murphy Creek near Trail

which does not constitute an environmental hazard and which could be

built economically as the next project. There are others, particularly

on the Peace River, which can be developed. Site C is an example. But

again, there is an environmental problem. There are the vast resources

on the Liard and other northern rivers, and with modern development in

long-distance transmission, they will, in their good time, come into

focus and be developed. They have to be brought in in large blocks, and

there will be surpluses from time to time. We can sell these surpluses

conveniently. We must sell them at arm's length prices. We must be

insistent that we get the true economic value for those resources. We

can develop them in cooperation with our neighbours and to our own

advantage. We must remember that Canada has often been a major

importer. British Columbia has often been a major importer of energy.

Historically, coal was exported from Vancouver Island to California for

a time. We depended on oil from California from before the turn of the

century till the 1950s. We imported electricity from the Bonneville

Power Administration network, on and off, over many years from the

1930s onward. We've been neighbours in the sense of importers from the

U.S. Pacific Northwest and California, as well as exporters to those

areas. Today we export natural gas. But we bring oil into British

Columbia now from Alberta. It is to be hoped we don't have to depend on

other sources in the future. We cannot hope always to be totally

self-sufficient at all times. But if we cooperate, and particularly

work with our neighbours to the south, we can sell surpluses — indeed

surpluses which are of no use to us now but which can be of use to them

— and in the future count on their cooperation.

AN HON. MEMBER: And never shut it off.

MR. DAVIS:

The honourable member mentions never shutting it off. We have exported

electricity from Niagara Falls, for example, and shut it off. We have

exported electricity from various parts of Canada — Ontario, Quebec,

Manitoba and British Columbia — and imported at times, and increasingly

as their networks grow and their

[ Page 16 ]

power

developments grow, our small export contributions have amounted to as

little recently as 1 or 2 percent of their total energy consumption.

This

spectre of not being able to terminate an export is ridiculous.

Historically, there are many examples of having done so. Clearly, we

have to plan for a term. We have the provincial safeguards limiting the

export to certain periods, the contracts particularly. We have the

National Energy Board with its hearings granting permits. Those permits

are either for a year or perhaps five years at a time. It may be

necessary, in order to finance new plants, such as a thermal plant, a

coal burning plant in the Kootenays, to have an export contract for 10

or 15 years. It all would be definitely scheduled in the total context

of the energy networks of the Pacific northwest. It would be 1, 2 or 3

percent of their energy needs, less than a half a year's growth, for

example. Neighbouring utilities have been in the practice, in the

business of doing this sort of thing for many, many years, not only

within the United States, not only within Canada, but internationally

as well.

It is good business. A large plant is the most

economic kind of plant in the long run. You build the large plant and

sell your surplus during the period in which you have a limited

requirement at home. Alternatively, the neighbouring utilities with

whom you do business also will build large, have surpluses, and sell

that surplus to you. That is the way the power systems have evolved

across this continent, have evolved in Canada, and should evolve

internationally.

I'm

really only saying that if we are

concerned about nuclear power developments just across the line in the

United States, one of the ways of trying to deal with that situation is

to offer to sell surplus energy, particularly waste energy — energy

which is accumulating in the form of coal wastes in the Kootenays right

now. Either B.C. Hydro or private enterprise should have an opportunity

to convert that coal into electricity, upgrade it, in effect, upgrade

it from a waste to something that is useful, sell it to our neighbours

to the south for a term, repatriate it on a definite contract, a

definite treaty-type

schedule commitment, and have it for our own use

when we need it. I mention the waste coals in the East Kootenays

because there is not a water problem there. The pollution problem is

minimal because those coals are very low in sulphur. There are no

native land claim complications. It will also be a source of power in

an area where we will have to build thermal plants for our own needs in

the future. As far as local requirements are concerned, they can be met

without doing additional transportation, additional transmission all

the way across the province to serve that comer of the province.

have dwelled on this subject because it is referred to specifically in

the Speech from the Throne. Energy is a problem. It will be a problem.

But there are great opportunities here, particularly in a province

which has lake resources, and especially in a province which is

generating wastes. It has flood waters. It has wood wastes from its

many pulp and paper mills and sawmills. It has wastes from its

metallurgical coal mining operations in the Kootenays, and perhaps

elsewhere in the long run. We should convert those wastes into

something useful to mankind, reduce the environmental problem locally

in the process, and be good neighbours to our own advantage. In this

case we might well be proposing to our neighbours in the United States

that we sell them some of our waste energy — at the right price, but at

less cost than they would otherwise have to encounter if they were

building nuclear plants.

In closing, I would like to make

reference to one line in the Speech from the Throne. It was to the

effect that we don't need nuclear power now. We don't need it for

several reasons, one of which is economic. Nuclear power plants cost

between $1,200 and $2,000 a kilowatt to build, and their operating and

fuel costs are over and above that. We can develop hydro in this

province — vast amounts of hydro — from between $800 to $1,000 a

kilowatt, considerably less than the capital costs of building nuclear

plants, virtually all of the components of which would have to be

brought in from eastern Canada and elsewhere. We can also generate

electricity by burning coal in plants costing anywhere from $600 to

$800 a kilowatt. They, of course, require fuelling and have labour and

other operating costs.

We clearly have alternatives which

are cheaper in this province. They are physically available to us. We

don't need nuclear power for economic reasons. We don't need it for

other reasons. I did want to underline this great opportunity which can

be seized by British Columbians. I feel that in respect to energy, our

affairs are in good hands. We have a great opportunity to be good

neighbours as well as look after our own energy affairs in an efficient

manner.

MR. HALL: It is nice to be back, and to pay

my congratulations and my respects to you and to the Deputy Speaker,

and to wish well to the new members, and, indeed, to add my

congratulations to the government for having won the recent campaign.

have some experience in elections, and I thought you might be

interested to know that last week I was engaged in another election,

more as an observer than as a participant, and I'll have a lot more to

say about some of the aspects of that during the Provincial Secretary's

estimates. But I was in the United Kingdom last week, engaged a little

bit in the election for the Parliament of Europe. And I'm telling you,

when you consider the numbers over there and the distances and all the

rest of it, we've got a lot to learn — in terms of the production of a

simple voters' list to begin with. I will have something to say about

that to the Provincial Secretary at a later, date.

But in

winding up this extended debate — it's the longest debate I've ever

been in on the throne speech, I'm sure — for the opposition, I wanted

to depart from any remarks by way of response or rebuttal to the

government spokesmen for a few moments to adopt a perhaps more

traditional role for a new member, or at least for a member for a new

riding, and to say a couple of words about Surrey. I remember my maiden

speech in this House some years ago, in which I spent a great deal of

time talking about the then small riding of Surrey, and I would like to

say a few things about the new riding.

It's a two-member

riding, Mr. Speaker, as I'm sure you know. I think most of the province

knows it's a two-member riding. I think most of the province knows that

it's represented on either side of the House. It could be a watershed

riding, or whatever phrase turns you on, but I'll tell you one thing:

it's one of the largest ridings in the province. It's 125 square miles;

it's four times the size of Vancouver, and even allowing for my

partner's penchant

[ Page 17 ]

for

travel, and mine, we aren't going to get around it as often as we would

like to, because of the kind of tasks that have been given us in the

formation of that riding. There are 100,000 voters. We were first told

it was 135,000 voters. It took them a week to find out what the correct

figure was, and eventually I got a letter of apology from the chief

electoral officer and from the registrar of voters that they couldn't

count either.

I hope that when the results are in from

Atlin, we can get this thing to scale a little bit. With 100,000

voters, two members, four times larger than Vancouver, it's going to

take 50,000 people to elect one MLA. I don't know what Surrey has done

wrong to be so unrecognized, to be so under weighted. Is it what's

happened in the last three years? It wasn't under weighted when I was

over there, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: We represent people more than geography, old chap over there — whichever one it was.

MR. KEMPF: Have you ever been north of Cache Creek?

MR. HALL: Frequently, yes.

Mr.

Speaker, the fact of the matter is, though, that the riding was

gerrymandered into existence, and all my smiles won't remove that sad

fact. But that's exactly what happened. It was gerrymandered into

existence. It's uneven; it's irrational; it's not in line with the

other decisions that were made by that commissioner, and indeed by

those members, or whoever the real architects of the bill and the Act

and the commission report were. It's not in keeping with the decisions

that were made on the north side of the river. The whole thing was

gerrymandered from start to finish. It didn't produce the results that

the architects wanted, and I think, more importantly, it has placed an

absolutely unreal burden on the electoral machinery in Surrey.

is impossible to tell you in the time at my disposal today of the kinds

of problems that existed in a riding that big, with that many people,

with the total lack of planning and lack of foresight that took place

in the electoral machinery in the new riding of Surrey. I say, Mr.

Speaker, with all the power I can command, that whoever designed that

riding, whoever gerrymandered that particular seat in existence, in

contradistinction to the decisions that were made elsewhere in the

province, they should be ashamed of themselves. And those people who

supported that bill should be ashamed of themselves as well.

Mr.

Speaker, what of the election? Way back last April 3, in the longest

free-time speech that I've ever seen, the Premier said he wanted a

mandate. He wanted a mandate in the middle of a federal election to

send a message, I don't think he knew the address to which he was

supposed to send the message, but nevertheless he wanted to send a

message regarding the resources of the province of British Columbia. He

raised a straw-man issue, stating that the New Democratic Party would

turn over the resources of this province to the federal government. He

knew it was nonsense at the time. It was nonsense, it is nonsense, and

it was never mentioned again after April 3. He didn't get his mandate.

What he did get was a short, sharp kick in the estimates, and we've

never heard of those issues again.

His second reason, as far

as I can discern from reading that throne speech, which is going to be

recycled, hopefully.... I think it's going to be recycled; that was the

message we got yesterday. I'm waiting for my copy, Mr. Speaker, if you

wouldn't mind. His second reason that I can find is that he wanted to

clear the air so that we could get on with the business of the

province. He said that the temperature in here was too high, there was

too much fighting, too much politics, too much bad temper. I thought

that was what was supposed to happen in here: politics and a little bit

of fighting, a little bit of debate, a little bit of discussion.

MR. BARRETT: Politics in this chamber!

MR. HALL:

Political politics, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, the worst kind.

Remember those? Terrible. He wanted to get on with the business of the

province. I'm going to be reminding him of getting on with the business

of the province in the next few weeks and months, because I don't think

he's got any business ready. I don't think he's got any solutions to

the business of the province. That's the trouble, and that statement

was as misleading as the first one.

There is business to be

done, and I'll be dealing with that shortly. But this government, in my

view, doesn't have any plans for tackling that business any more than

they had the solutions last April. As unemployment continues, as

inflation eats away at fixed incomes and as jobs elude the grasp of the

school-leavers who are now crowding the unemployment rolls — and there

will be more at the end of this month as the high schools discharge

another group of shiny-faced kids onto the unemployment rolls — and as

cut after cut after cut is announced, there are still no solutions

coming forward. And I don't think there are going to be any next week

from this group over here.

But his solution on April 3 was

to have an election to try and divert everybody's attention from the

saddening and worsening situation, to try and catch the opposition off

guard, to find the Tories unprepared, the Liberals totally out of it.

Will any Liberals nod their heads over there? Were you out of it? And

he was hoping to catch the New Democrats flat-footed, engaged in an

expensively tough federal combat. He thought he'd catch us short of

workers, short of money, short of preparation. The Premier was wrong.

He was dead wrong, and but for 2,500 votes correctly distributed the

kind of distribution that I was talking about earlier he would have

been really dead wrong and he'd have been on this side of the House. If

you want any evidence as to whether he was dead wrong, and but for

2,500 votes correctly distributed — the kind of distribution that I was

talking about earlier — he would have been really dead wrong and he'd

have been on this side of the House. If you want any evidence as to

whether he was dead wrong, I can give you some people to ask. Ask Sam

Bawlf, ask Cyril Shelford, ask Elwood Veitch, or George Kerster.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Who?

[ Page

18 ]

MR. HALL: I never met a couple of these fellows; they were

one-termers. Some of them on the other side will be here again and that

makes them two-termers. Two-timers, that's it. But Elwood Veitch,

George Kerster, Kahl and a few others, they could give the Premier the

answer that he wants as to whether he was right or wrong. And while we

were all rushing around getting elected, what really was going on?

Well, during the election campaign, in that rush that I referred to,

there was some of the most unprincipled campaigning I've seen — and

I've been campaigning in this province for a long time.

Interjection.

MR. HALL:

Some of it, Mr. Member is this, in case you haven't seen it before. Are

you proud of that? Are you proud of the money it took to send that out?

Not on your life, you're not.

Mr. Speaker, the continuous

government advertising during the campaign, the blatant giving out of

taxpayers' money at every whistle stop was really something to be

remarked at. And you know, the cabinet said they didn't have time to

pass orders-in-council to, for instance, put into operation, onto the

statute books of this province, the required amendments to the building

codes for handicapped people. They didn't have time to have a cabinet

meeting for that, but if you look at the orders-in-council, they had

all sorts of time to authorize each other to give money out. They were

appointing each other to give away grants in aid of this, and grants in

aid of that all during the election campaign. They could come over here

and pass orders-in-council like they were going out of style, and

distribute the moneys as election bribes during April and May.

What

else? We saw the cuts coming. We saw the cuts in transit, cuts in the

hospitals — Royal Columbian, Riverview, Surrey Memorial — the hospital

cuts that we've referred to already. And five days after the election 1I

was driving along, I had the radio on and I couldn't believe my ears.

First of all we heard ICBC rates were going up. Then we heard about

ferry rates. Then we heard about the shortest in-depth inquiry into the

fishing industry I've ever heard of. Do you remember that one?

In-depth! About one fathom. I've never come across anything like it. He

was going to look at that fishing industry so closely he was so

concerned about it. Two days after the election: nothing, all over,

forget it. And the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) will be talking

about that at some length, I feel sure.

You sent memos

around — the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) is not in, so I can't

tease him very much. There'll be more memos around that you can shake a

stick at to countermand previous memos, Mr. Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). "Ignore the previous memo. Look for

recruitment savings. Don't look for recruitment savings. Look to

overrun. Ignore the first one." It's been ridiculous. I will spend some

time in budget going over those letters, and, Mr. Speaker, you and I

will have a giggle to end all giggles about how you can confuse the

public service of this province from the top. I have heard of people

confused from the bottom up but never from the top, not in this way.

We've seen that going on in the five days immediately following the

election. Now at the start of the summer the figures are just as bad.

Unemployment is just as bad. Inflation is just as bad. There are the

same problems and the same pressures, the same economic forecasts and

almost the same economic players; although there has been a significant

improvement.

MR. BARRETT: Same old Liberals.

MR. HALL: It's the same old Liberals and Conservatives.

think it's fair to say that in the 60 days that have passed since that

long-winded speech of April 3, all that's happened is that it's gotten

worse. Now we've got to get on with the work and the business of this

province. I suspect....

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down.

MR. HALL:

Somebody shouldn't be so cruel as to say "sit down." Really, I've not

been here for a while. You should give me an opportunity. I remember

that some of you stood up for 42 hours and just keep....

Interjection.

MR. HALL: Oh, it wasn't you; it was him over there. Oh, right. Okay.

Then

I would say that the 60 days that have passed since that long-winded

speech have only taken us further into the gloom, and the problems are

still with us. Now we have to tackle the problems. I will be looking

forward to the kinds of solutions that come, because they certainly

aren't indicated in the Speech from the Throne, nor have they been

indicated in the speeches from the members opposite.

There

was a great deal of talk from one of the members who introduced the

motion about the activity in the north. I have this curious feeling of

deja vu. When I first came here, there was a member for North Peace

River who told us about the activity in the north. The greatest

activity in North Peace River, Mr. Speaker, in case you don't know, is

to get the nomination. While the MLA is down here working for his

constituency and serving it well, there's somebody back home. I

remember in 1966 when the member Mr. Smith came. He used to be the

membership secretary of the North Peace River Constituency Association.

Who was the member before Mr. Smith? It was good old Jake. Good old

Jake was here working. The membership secretary was working very

diligently in North Peace. Then he came here and he had a good career.

And I wish you well. But I'll tell you: make sure you're the recording

secretary and the membership secretary and everything else in that

riding.

How much further along has this 60 days taken us in

terms of determining the priority that is referred to in the throne

speech for our old-age pensioners? I don't think it's taken us much

further along in the listing of priorities and preference if the recent

outrage of seniors is any measure when they found that their

cost-of-living adjustment in their cheques was somehow eaten up in the

bureaucracy and the computer. Now I don't think that you stole it — I

believe somebody once said that — but it was certainly eaten up in the

bureaucracy and eaten up in the computer. It certainly wasn't eaten up

off the tables of the old-age pensioners who could go and buy groceries.

How much further along has the last 60 days taken us in the denticare plan while we've been on the hustings?

As I comment on that throne speech, I think it fitting that I thank the government on behalf of all the taxpayers of

[ Page 19 ]

B.C.

for the savings of taxpayers' money that this four-page document has

meant. Rather than reproduce the March 22 speech again, we've got a

briefer and more succinct document, a less expensive document than what

might have been. This less costly document will recoup some of the

taxpayers' money that was spent on this document, this special

document, this special printing, produced hours before the election

call when just like that out of the blue somebody said: "Let's have an

election." A special printing two months ago: that was the special

issue of the British Columbia Government News which came out; $90,000

is the tab for that. There are all sorts of pictures in here.

Nevertheless, we needn't get too carried away with it, because we

really have to spend some time talking about it as well.

think the public knows what's going on, as far as that's concerned. The

blatantly partisan message has outraged, I think, a great number of

British Columbians. We can see the headline and we know what the effect

was. The four-page speech perhaps in a small way will go to assuage the

anger we felt about that particular piece of election propaganda which

became the major campaign document of the Social Credit Party. The

throne speeches we listened to made a number of promises. Now we have

to look forward to some performance. As far as carrying out those

promises, vague as they may be, we have to look forward to judging the

government on what they do in the next few weeks, and looking backwards

as to what they've done on previous occasions when they had the

opportunity.

Again, I feel we've got something to learn.

We've got the ICBC rate coming again. That sounds awfully familiar.

That is '76 repeated again in '79. Ferry rates: '76 repeating itself

again in '79. We've got hospital cuts which kind of repeat themselves

through the years. But I also sat on this side of the House. There are

headlines in the paper about unrecognized deaths relayed to hospital

cuts. The B.C. Medical Journal is a responsible organ of a responsible

organization. Not a two penny leaflet, this. Or even a $90,000 leaflet.

A journal of some reputation is seriously concerned about the cuts that

are going on. "Provincial Cash Squeeze Hurts in Burnaby General."

Surrey has the same position. I understand other hospitals are the same

all over the place.

It is not good enough for the minister

in question period today to try and just simply shuffle off that

responsibility to some elected board, and say that it is their job to

get on with it, when he has already made it abundantly clear that he is

going to punish them — publicly if they don't tow the line. We've had

minister after minister in the last three years publicly punish them

over there, publicly punish duly elected members of boards and

organizations and accuse them of wasting money. That's shades of Dan

Campbell. He used to do that all the time. Maybe he's writing their

speeches. I don't know. That is what he used to do. And I don't like it

any more now than I did then. I feel that it is rather much to expect

us to believe and to accept that kind of easy answer in the sense that

it is somebody else's responsibility, when we all know that the prime

responsibility for community health services in the hospital field lies

squarely with this government.

The latest figures I have

here that have been achieved in the province in terms of business

performance, which may interest one or two of the new members, are to

do with bankruptcies. As of April 1, I am sorry to report, in 1978-79 there

were 688 bankruptcies in this province, compared to 637 the previous

year; 420 the year before that; and only 197 before that. Economic

industry after industry is showing us that really things are getting

worse.

So it will come as no surprise to you that we cannot

really support this resolution, any more than we could last April, on a

much lengthier document. I feel sure you will understand that the

feeling that we cannot support this motion is supported by a growing

number of British Columbians. First, out in the ridings, where the

public of British Columbia voted for this party in greater numbers than

ever before, they share this feeling of disquiet. They share this

feeling of dissatisfaction. And they share this suspicion, this

lingering doubt, that we are not going to be faced with a program of

action. And this throne speech does not reflect anything like a program

of action. Second, as a result of that electoral activity, to which we

made reference this afternoon, we are now in a position to show you

that that feeling now reflected is supported by the largest number of

MLAs in an opposition party for years and years — that party that I

represent in a now two-party system in this House, where we call the

shots. There are clear distinctions. That is, I understand, what the

Premier wanted. This group which represents the party's best

achievement, in terms of popular vote, feels as I do, as I've

explained, in this, the most highly sophisticated — and highly

sophisticated politically — electorate in the country. They will be

observing our activities. They will be looking at this government very

closely. They'll be expecting all of us to bend our best wit to solving

the problems. I hope there will indeed be a program, one that certainly

is not to be found in this throne speech that we are voting on today.

MR. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, my congratulations to you on your re-election as the

Speaker of the House. My thanks to those members who have been so

gracious in their words of support to me as your deputy.

must say that I am very glad to be back and I'm glad, for a change, to

be on this side of the House. It's a totally different perspective from

sitting there with my colleague from Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) and the

new member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman).

I would also

like to congratulate all the members of the House, especially those

members who were here yesterday for the first time, today in our first

full day of chatty debate, as we shall call it.

I must say

that the last election campaign was most enjoyable. I'm naturally

delighted with the results from the people of Vancouver South. We had a

very interesting campaign.

MR. KING: Agnes didn't think so.

MR. ROGERS:

Well, maybe not, but two very worthy candidates represented the NDP.

Mr. Ujjal Dosanjh and Mr. Jim Duvall. I don't know what happened in

other constituencies, but we had a gentlemanly contest. I think that

would be the way to put it. There were other minor parties represented

by people and we never saw their signs or literature or them at

all-candidates' meetings. Their names did appear on the ballot, but

essentially it was a two-way fight, if you will. I would like to make a

tribute to them in this House, because we had a very sporting time of

it.

[ Page 20 ]

MR. BARRETT: Did Agnes feel that way?

MR. ROGERS: I can't recall the name. [Laughter.]

You

know, I don't know if Vancouver South is the smallest riding in the

province. We always hear about the size of other ridings in the north,

and now Surrey and other places. I must report, Mr. Speaker, that it is

very difficult to walk around Vancouver South in one day, but with the

aid of a ten-speed bicycle, it can be accomplished in about three and a

half hours. But the size of the riding isn't quite as important as the

diversity of the riding. I always really enjoy the time I spend in the

riding rather than the time I spend here because Vancouver South really

is a tremendous mosaic of people from all parts of the world — new

Canadians and people who have been here for generations and

generations. It's a developed neighbourhood and it's one in which I

always have great pleasure in working with my constituents and working

for them.

Members will recall Gerry Strongman, who was the

second member for Vancouver South. I regret to inform you that Mr.

Strongman was taken extremely ill on May 11 and was in intensive care

for about five days, after which time, when I went to visit him in the

hospital, I received a number of questions which I will address to the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) during his estimates. He has

recovered now, but he is not totally recovered. Although he worked

extremely hard during the campaign, he has been in a period of, shall

we say, convalescence for some time. As you know, Mr. Strongman has

difficulty in not working and was requesting maybe a telephone at his

bedside, but that's how he was the last time I saw him, with two

intravenous tubes in him. I know all members will wish him a speedy

recovery.

However, in the place of the retiring member, who,

by the way, gives me the assurance that, like the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, he will return to this House at some time

during the indefinite future.... But in his place there is a new second

member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman). I thought I would say a few

words about him, but then someone reminded me that he is quite capable

of speaking for himself. Maybe just for that one instance, I want to

tell you that I'm delighted with my new colleague for Vancouver South.

I think you're going to find him to be a very interesting member in

more ways than one.

In this revised and somewhat brief

Speech from the Throne, there is only one area that wasn't covered

earlier, and that is the emphasis on our position on nuclear power. Of

course, there are two positions on nuclear power: there's before Three

Mile Island and after Three Mile Island. I would like to share an

experience with the members that I had in discussion of nuclear power

with the Premier last year. At that time he was unalterably opposed to

nuclear power, and I thought, well, is it an issue? He said: "No, it is

not only an issue. We in B.C. are so very fortunate not to have it, not

to have to worry about the problems of nuclear power." I was a little

surprised when it came up as an election issue, knowing what his

personal feelings are against nuclear power. I searched Hansard ,

but I could find nothing in it with reference to members on this side

of the House having spoken in favour of nuclear power. Then it turned

up to be a campaign issue. So maybe we don't do that much politicking

in this chamber.

Perhaps I may play the devil's advocate for a while on the issue of nuclear

power. One must consider that when a Scotsman by the name of James Watt first

invented the steam engine, they had some difficulties with the contraption and

several of the boilers blew up. All sorts of people who were not knowledgeable

on the subject pontificated at great length about why we should certainly ban

the use of steam, and boilers were expensive and dangerous, and people were

likely to be killed, and that's very true. Now the analogy is not totally

appropriate to nuclear energy, but it is somewhat appropriate. We have learned

to harness steam and, Lord knows, if it wasn't for our learning to harness

steam, we would be in a very sorry state indeed.

We're

fortunate, but we must not be ostriches. Toronto has Pickering, a

nuclear power station, right in the suburbs of the city of Toronto. In

the whole of the U.K. right now a great amount of their power comes

from nuclear power, and so does it in almost every major North American

jurisdiction. And, yes, we can be smug because we're not going to have

to face that problem. But others are going to have to face it, and it

would do us well to not do the ostrich trick and to be aware of the

dangers, be cognizant of the dangers, and also be aware of the progress

that takes place.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to this

session and the challenges. I look forward to the responsibilities

placed on my shoulders as your deputy. And I must tell you that of

course I will support this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon.

members, the question is that we, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal

subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session

assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which

Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Hewitt

Mair

Vander Zalm

Heinrich

Ritchie

Strachan

Brummet

Ree

Segarty

Curtis

McCarthy

Phillips

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Fraser

Jordan

Kempf

Davis

Davidson

Smith

Rogers

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 23

Howard

Lorimer

Hall

Nicolson

Lea

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

King

Barrett

Macdonald

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Gabelmann

Hanson

Mitchell

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

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee

[ Page

21 ]

to consider the supply to be granted to Her Majesty, and that this order have

precedence over all other business except interim supply and introduction of

bills until disposed of.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, I move that this House at its next sitting resolve itself

into a committee to consider the ways and means for raising the supply

to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion approved.

Presenting Reports

Hon. Mr.

Nielsen presented the annual report for the liquor control and

licensing branch for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1978.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen presented the annual report for the Rent Review Commission for 1978.

Hon.

Mr. Gardom presented the amended report for 1974, the amendments for

1975, 1976 and 1977, and the report for the calendar year 1978 under

the Privacy Act.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 4:36 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1979,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada