1980 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4307 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Prevent Uranium Exploration and Mining (Bill M201). Mr. Passarell.

Introduction and first reading –– 4307

Oral Questions

Foreign ownership of land in B.C. Ms. Sanford –– 4307

Foreign ownership of land and housing. Mr. Leggatt –– 4308

Foreign ownership of agricultural land. Mrs. Wallace –– 4308

Racial discrimination by employment agencies. Ms. Sanford –– 4309

Speech from the Throne

On the amendment

Ms. Sanford –– 4309

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 4312

Mr. Hanson –– 4313

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 4315

Mr. Hall –– 4318

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 4321

Mr. Lauk –– 4322

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 4324

Mr. Howard –– 4326

Division on the amendment –– 4329

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 4329

Assessment Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 6). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading –– 4330

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. BRUMMET:

Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome three constituents of

mine who are in the gallery today: Mr. and Mrs. Bill Szoo from North

Peace River, and Mr. Bill Tompkins. They have forsaken the clean, white

snow of the north to come down here and sample the dreary rain in

Victoria. I would like the House to make them welcome.

MR. REE:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon we have a gentleman, Mr.

Frank Wiesinger, from Winnipeg who has come out to the balmy west

coast, and I would ask the House to welcome him.

MR. STRACHAN:

Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome a gentleman who has

worked tirelessly on behalf of our party on Vancouver Island. Would the

House please welcome Mr. George Smith.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, should members be unduly concerned, I am advised that Mr.

Speaker is keeping a long-standing appointment in Vancouver today and

will, hopefully, be back with us later on this afternoon.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, before we hastily proceed to orders of the day, I want to

point out to all of the visitors in the gallery that the weather in

Victoria is highly unusual. Ordinarily we have many sunny days, and I

have a list here of all of the sunny days we have had....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the member have an introduction, or is he waiting for someone to attend for question period?

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker is imputing an improper motive, however correct it may be.

[Laughter.] Mr. Speaker knows well that that is an improper motive.

Pending the arrival of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) to

confirm these figures, Mr. Speaker, that most of the days....We have some of the best weather in the history of British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, order, please. This is the time for introductions. If the member has no introductions....

MR. LAUK: Is that the hon. Speaker's ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Further, I am advising the member that it is a very grave breach of the

rules of this House to do what the member may possibly be anticipating

to do, and I so advise him in advance.

MR. LAUK: Mr.

Speaker, I would not want you to anticipate anything improper. However,

I should point out that the standing orders require that all hon.

members attend the sittings of the House — their service — and so I move

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I have advised the member that at this time we are entertaining

introductions, and that the member was recognized as part of the

function of the Chair to recognize members standing for introductions.

On no other basis could the hon. member be recognized, and I am sure he

appreciates the position that the Chair is in.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I had every intention of introducing the Attorney-General to the chamber, but he doesn't seem to be present.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, that is not a matter that is open for any kind of debate

at this time. I must advise the member, in fairness to the rules of

this House, that at this time he cannot be recognized to do what he is

currently doing, and I must advise the member at this time that he must

take his seat.

MR. LAUK: Could Mr. Speaker point out under which rule the Speaker is ordering me to take my seat?

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, I have advised the member that he is out of order. It is

not up to the Chair to relate the rules of this House; it is up to the

member to be informed of the rules of this House.

MR. STRACHAN:

I have a further introduction, Mr. Speaker. I was remiss a few moments

ago. I would also like to ask the House to welcome Mrs. Smith, who is

with Mr. George Smith, and a young lady who is visiting us from Japan,

who is a Rotary exchange student. Would the House please welcome these

people.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO PREVENT

URANIUM EXPLORATION AND MINING

On a motion by Mr. Passarell,

Bill M201,

An Act to Prevent Uranium Exploration and Mining,

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

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

Oral Questions

FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF LAND IN B.C.

MS. SANFORD:

I'm very pleased that the Attorney-General is now here, because I have

a question for him. In 1974 the NDP government required purchasers of

land to declare their citizenship. Since this government was elected, I

have been pressing the minister to use the information collected and

also to monitor the ownership of our land by foreign nationals and take

action. In January 1980 the minister wrote that he had requested

further information from his staff and would be writing to me further

on this issue. Eleven months later, Mr. Speaker, I am still waiting for

an answer from the minister.

The question is: what action

has the minister taken to monitor the ownership of B.C. land by

foreigners, and secondly, has he now decided to take steps to restrict

the ownership of B.C. land to Canadians only?

[ Page 4308 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I'm sure the member realizes the question she poses is out of order,

but I would happy to advise the member that the examination of which I

advised her earlier this year — almost a year ago — has continued, and

that officials of the ministry are addressing themselves to those

opportunities there may be to rectify the situation which gives her

great concern as it does others.

FOREIGN OWNERSHIP

OF LAND AND HOUSING

MR. LEGGATT: My question is

directed to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Could the

minister advise the House whether his department, given his Housing

jurisdiction, has established a committee to review the extent of

foreign ownership in housing and apartment stock, and lands, in the

province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That question is partly correct.

MR. LEGGATT: I'm not sure I understood the minister's answer.

HON. MR. MAIR: He didn't understand your question either.

MR. LEGGATT:

Well, I'll make sure he understands the question; I'll ask it again.

Would the minister advise whether he has established any committee to

review the extent of foreign ownership in housing and apartment stock,

and land, and if so would he advise who's on the committee, and if the

committee is ever going to report to the House?

HON. MR. CHABOT: There is an interministerial committee examining the question of foreign ownership of agricultural land in the province.

MR. LEGGATT:

I take it I can assume from that answer that there is no committee

studying non-agricultural foreign ownership in the province of British

Columbia.

Has the minister taken any steps to determine the

extent of foreign ownership, and the impact that ownership is having on

house prices in the lower mainland? Is there any ongoing study in his

department, under his Housing jurisdiction, to determine what impact

foreign ownership is having on the fantastic house prices now being

charged in the lower mainland?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I

think one has to realize the reason for the impact on the supply of

housing in the lower mainland. The impact is because of the buoyant

economic policies of this government. It has attracted people in

ever-increasing numbers. Our population growth this year is going to be

2.8 percent greater than it was last year. In other words, there's been

a doubling of the number of people flowing into this province in 1980.

There are 70,000 people that have come to British Columbia because of

job opportunities that exist here. I'd like to compare that with what

happened in 1975. In 1975, more than 2,800 more people left this

province than came in. Oh, those were great policies they had in those

days!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, but the question, hon. member.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm glad you asked the question.

Most

of the people who are coming into British Columbia and causing this

pressure on supply, which reflects itself in price, are coming from

other provinces — other Canadians. Essentially, it's other Canadians

who are buying the housing stock in the lower mainland and other parts

of the province — where job opportunities exist almost everywhere. The

demand has been increased quite substantially. Officials in my ministry

don't consider that foreign ownership is a significant problem.

MR. LEGGATT:

I can recall, of course, an election promise by the Premier that this

matter would be investigated. I'm surprised his minister hasn't started

investigating the question of foreign ownership,

By the way,

I can recall that in 1975 young people could afford a house in the

province of British Columbia; they can't any more.

I have a

supplementary question. The present exchange rate of 83 cents on the

Canadian dollar in terms of U.S. funds is what is encouraging this

place to be a haven for foreign capital to drive the prices of our

housing up. Under the present system in the land registry office, those

records only require the declaration of Canadian citizenship; it does

not require a declaration of foreign ownership in a corporation, which

may own housing stock or apartment stock. Has the minister a committee

ongoing to study and recommend changes to the land registry provisions,

so that we can get a handle on foreign ownership in terms of share

ownership in Canadian or B.C. corporations?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Speaker, the member is asking a question of future policy, and I'm

not prepared to determine what our future policy will be or announce

future policy at this time.

But I want to say that as for

availability of housing, in 1975 people could afford them; there were

lots of vacancies because people were leaving the province. There were

no jobs here, and they had to go elsewhere. Consequently when 2,800

more people left this province than came in, there was lots of housing

stock as compared with today.

FOREIGN OWNERSHIP

OF AGRICULTURAL LAND

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I

have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In April, on

the question of foreign ownership of B.C. farmland, the minister told

the National Farmers Union that he did not want to interfere with the

owner's choice of buyer, if the land was for sale. In September of this

year the minister advised my colleague the hon. member for Alberni (Mr.

Skelly) that he had initiated an interministerial review of foreign

ownership of farmland, and that if the study confirmed the need, the

minister would "actively promote the necessary legislation." Could the

minister tell the House why he changed his mind between April and

September?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the comments I made last spring, I pointed out to the National

[ Page

4309 ]

Farmers

Union, as I have pointed out since then to reporters as recently as

this morning in my office, that when you put a restriction on the

purchase of land — and we're talking agricultural land, which already

has one restriction, which is to retain it in the agricultural land

reserve — you've told them they can only sell it as a farm, and now

you're saying to that farmer who broke the land, who worked it for 40

years, who wants to retire, who's going to sell it as a farm.... You're

now restricting him in the person he's selling to. You're saying he can

only sell to certain types of people, and I'm saying that's a concern.

I'm

saying to you, Madam Member, that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Williams), the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot)

and I, in looking at this problem.... There are many ramifications in

regard to just dropping a piece of legislation that says blankly: "No

acquisition of B.C. land by foreigners." Is that foreigners who are

coming here or absentee foreigners? Is it agricultural land two acres

or better or 100 acres or better? You know, there are many

ramifications to this issue.

MRS. WALLACE: I thank

the minister for reaffirming his April statement; would he be good

enough now to reaffirm his September statement, that if the committee

shows the need he will actively promote the necessary legislation?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the review and the final decision, taking

into consideration all the ramifications, if at that point in time it

is a policy of government, then that's the way we would go. But I'd

suggest that the member recognize what this government has done, which

the opposition, when it was in government, didn't do: we have placed

Crown land available for agricultural purposes in this province, and a

condition of sale is that it will be made available to Canadian

citizens — to B.C. citizens only. It is a condition on those lands that

the Crown owns and puts up for sale for agricultural purposes that in

perpetuity they will remain in Canadian hands. That's what this

government has done, Madam Member. Your government didn't even address

that point when you were in office.

MRS. WALLACE: On

a further supplementary, I gather from the minister's statement that

the report is not yet complete. Will the minister tell the House

whether or not he has put a top priority on the completion of that

report?

HON. MR. HEWITT: All issues, as far as this

government is concerned, Mr. Speaker, are considered to be priority

issues, and we work at them as quickly as possible.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the minister indicates that it is a priority

issue, I am sure he has set a date for the completion of that report.

Would he tell the House the date that report will be completed?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I am not sure what report the member is referring to, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. WALLACE:

The one we are talking about, Mr. Speaker: the report from the

committee reviewing the effect of foreign ownership on farmland in this

province.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in this regard, it is not my report; it

is an interministerial report. A task force is looking at it, and it will be

completed in due course.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

BY EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. Last Sunday the CTV W5

carried the results of a survey in which five Vancouver employment

agencies were requested by someone posing as a prospective employer

seeking to screen out all non-white applicants for positions in this

province. Three of the five employment agencies agreed that they would

screen out non-white applicants on behalf of this prospective employer;

only one refused outright.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister

advise what steps he has taken to inform the private employment

agencies in this province that such practices violate B.C. law and

customs?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I have to

inform the member that I did not see the program to which she refers. I

appreciate the thrust of your remarks, and of course I am totally

sympathetic to what you are saying. It is of some concern to me right

now, for obvious reasons, and particularly some of the items that have

been going on in the last little while. I think if you just leave that

with me I will make the appropriate inquiries and see if we can do

something.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I will prepare

the information for the minister and send it to him later this

afternoon, with the request that he take some action on it.

MR. McGEER:

Mr. Speaker, might I have the indulgence and leave of the House to

introduce a group of secondary students from Kitsilano school and their

teacher Mr. Appin. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MS. SANFORD:

Just before we adjourned last night at 6 p.m., I was outlining why I

supported the amendment that is before us, which expresses a lack of

confidence in the leadership of this government. I was pointing out

that one of the visible and telling signs of a lack of leadership, lack

of direction and lack of purpose is the public fighting that takes

place among the members on the government benches. I pointed out that

the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), the minister responsible

for ICBC, has been fighting with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair)

over ICBC rates. I pointed out that the Minister of Health has been

fighting in public with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) with

respect to the new financial act proposed by the Minister of Finance. I

pointed out,, Mr. Speaker, that the backbenchers were critical of the

leadership of the government. I pointed out that the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) had fought publicly with his

leader over the light rapid transit proposals. I had pointed out that

the Minister of.... No, I didn't point this out; I should have pointed

this out. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) pretends that he

doesn't know anybody over there

[ Page 4310 ]

when

he goes home to his constituency. But we have the Minister of Municipal

Affairs, who thinks that the leader is incompetent; the Minister of

Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer) says that he doesn't know why we're

here. He thinks the whole session is pointless. You know, they're in

bad shape, Mr. Speaker. I outlined this last night.

Just

before we adjourned, I read an

article which demonstrated how the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) had publicly insulted his

leader's constituents right in the leader's own constituency. I know

that the Minister of Education tried last night to get up and speak,

even though he was out of order. I'm sure that he wants to make

reference to this particular article, which I read into the record last

night. Because I didn't have time last night to complete the entire

article, and because I really want to make sure that the Minister of

Education can respond to the entire article, I would like to present it

again today and complete it for the benefit of the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: He won't respond before lunch.

MS. SANFORD: No, he won't respond before lunch.

Mr. Speaker, this

article appeared on Wednesday, October 22, 1980, in the Kelowna Capital News . It's a column written by Glen Schaeffer:

"When

his stomach calls, Education minister Brian Smith listens. Smith is the

guy who needs our help, according to the ads plugging his province-wide

series of public forums on education. His Friday night appearance in

front of a full house at Dr. Knox Secondary School in Kelowna was part

of a B.C. tour designed to tell him what the people think should be

done with education, say those same ads. It's hard to imagine that

Smith is hearing anything new or earth shattering at these forums as

the government does have more efficient ways of testing the public

pulse than sending a minister out to listen to each and every one of

us. So one concludes that this tour is designed, at least partially, to

make Smith look good. And judging from his Kelowna gig, that might have

worked, except for one thing. The Education minister's stomach got in

the way. In addition to appearing Friday night at Dr. Knox, Smith was

also slated to meet at noon Friday with Grade 12 students at

Springvalley Secondary School. That meet-the-kids date had been planned

for about a week. The students had been told about it, and they had

prepared questions for their meeting with the minister. The plan was

that a Springvalley staff member would pick up the minister at the CHBC

studios at about 11:30 a.m. Friday and bring him to the school,, where

he would meet the students at a 12:30 p.m. assembly.

"Well,

it didn't quite work that way. When the Springvalley staffer picked the

minister up, Smith's first question was: 'What's for lunch?' The

embarrassed staffer didn't know anything about lunch; the school hadn't

been told they were to feed the minister. Obviously, someone's wires

had been crossed somewhere along the way; it happens.

"But

Smith was not pleased. Upon arriving at the school, he checked the

school cafeteria — vacant at the time — and upon realizing that they

really weren't going to feed him, he stalked out of the school,

offering no explanation to the students or staff, and eased his hunger

at a local restaurant. Needless to say, the Springvalley students and

staff were surprised.

"But the Springvalley

incident wasn't just an isolated moment of pique. The next day,

Saturday, he was slated to appear at a morning meeting in Penticton. He

was half an hour late for that affair because he couldn't find a

restaurant in Kelowna which served a proper breakfast.

"Concern

for the inner man apparently is a dominant factor in Smith's conduct.

His penchant for down-home nutrition while on the road isn't doing

anything for his punctuality. Since I hate to offer criticism without

advice, my message to the Education minister is as follows: Brian, the

next time you leave your native Oak Bay, for your own sake take a

private chef with you."

To me, that's indicative of, you

know, an outright insult to the students of that school and to the

constituents of his own leader. I think it's indicative of the kind of

backbiting, infighting and public fighting that takes place on that

side of the House.

It's rather interesting to watch this

taking place in public. In fact, at times it's quite humorous. You see

one minister appear on television, and you wonder which minister is

going to appear next to contradict what has just been said. It has been

happening a lot lately; I'm sure you've noticed it, Mr. Speaker. It

would be very humorous it it were not tragic, in that these ministers

are so busy arguing and fighting with each other that they are unable

to take care of the problems that exist in the province. It's the

people who are suffering as a result of this kind of inability of the

government to govern. I want to give three examples of what I mean. I

think the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) outlined very well the

other day some of the problems that exist in health care in the

province. I want to give a couple of brief examples to illustrate the

points the member for New Westminster was making the other day. I'm

aware of an elderly couple in their seventies who have been able to

manage quite well on their own. The wife became ill; she needed a lot

of attention. The husband found that it was very difficult for him to

clean the house, do the shopping, cook the meals, do the dishes and to

take care of his wife, particularly since she needed care during the

night as well. He became very, very tired.

He had heard

about the long-term care program, and made an appeal for some

assistance so that he would be able to continue to care for her at

home. Because of the hiring freeze that was imposed, there was a

shortage of staff, so people could not be assessed for the needs that

they might require in terms of long-term care. They had to wait for six

weeks before they could even be assessed whether or not they needed

someone to come into their home to give them some assistance. Six

weeks! There is no way that man in his seventies could carry on for six

weeks doing what he had been doing in taking care of his wife; he was

too tired. So what happened? His wife had to be sent to the hospital —

she is still there, she's been there for well over two months. But he's

now been told that since the freeze on the hiring of people in the

health care program has been lifted, she's now going to be assessed,

and perhaps they will be able to take her home, and she can get some

help and continue to improve her health at home rather than in an

expensive hospital bed.

The same kind of lack of leadership

and concern is manifest in many ways in this province. I want to give

you another example of what is happening out in the communities

[ Page

4311 ]

because of the fact that this government can't get

its act together, has no leadership and doesn't seem to care about the

effect of its lack of planning and policies on the people of the

province.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

I have in

my constituency another elderly couple. They phoned me because they

were very concerned about a son who was suffering from a mental

problem. He lived in the lower mainland. They had gone over to see him

because they were concerned about him. They themselves were unable to

care for this son. He was an adult, married, broken up with his wife

and lived on his own in an apartment. He had been under a

psychiatrist's care. They went over to see him one evening, went into

the apartment, and found him sitting there alone — with a knife. The

parents were unable to get the knife away from him and had to call the

RCMP. The RCMP, after an hour and a half, were able to get the knife

away from this patient. The RCMP arranged for an ambulance to take this

patient to Riverview so that he could be admitted. He went in the

ambulance, arrived at Riverview, and they said: "Sorry, we don't have

any space. Please take him back."

In the meantime the parents assumed that he had been admitted — he

was taken away in the ambulance. The parents assumed that and returned

to their home in Parksville, only to discover, to their horror, that he

had not been admitted. He was back in that apartment by himself, and in

desperation they contacted me.

The psychiatrist involved said that he had tried every facility

that he knew about in the entire province to try to get him admitted.

Not only that, he had four other patients who were virtually in the

same state and who had no place to go. The psychiatrist felt there was

nothing else he could do. I spent the afternoon on the phone trying to

get a place for this particular patient, and finally — I suppose

because I am an MLA and am able to talk to some of the people in the

Health ministry — a place was found. How many others are in that

situation because of the lack of facilities and the lack of priority

given to health problems? But, as I say, that was very well covered by

my colleague, the member for New Westminster.

Workers'

compensation — the same sort of thing. Since June I have been trying to

assist a person who has a compensation problem. I have written to Maria

Giardini, asking her for some information about this particular case. I

wrote, initially, on June 3, and I received a letter dated November 29,

which reads as follows:

"This is to

acknowledge your inquiry" — because I'd phoned again on November 17 —

"received in our office. Unfortunately I have not had the opportunity

to date to prepare a report, as I had planned, with respect to this

particular worker's compensation claim.

"In

early August of this year one of our advisory officers left the

department to return to private practice. Because of staffing

constraints imposed by Treasury Board we were not in a position to fill

the vacancy, and therefore had to reassign and transfer approximately

two hundred files to the remaining staff, myself included. As a result,

I have been dealing with emergency cases."

And that's why, Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received an answer to my request for a report on this particular WCB claim.

I don't blame that staff at all. Maria Giardini does a fantastic job,

in my view, but has been so short-staffed, and because of that freeze

has been put in an impossible situation, and has still not been able to

prepare a report for me with respect to this particular compensation

case.

I want to go back to an issue that was raised and

discussed during question period today. That's the one that relates to

foreign ownership. I notice, Mr. Speaker, that you yourself are

interested in this. Or at least the member for North Vancouver–Seymour

(Mr. Davis) seemed to be interested, and is finally raising the

question from that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, this

issue of the foreign ownership of land in this province is one in which

I have been attempting to get some interest from the government for at

least the time that they have been elected. In fact, I was interested

in this question before that, and in 1974 the government of the day did

accept an amendment that I proposed, which required for the first time

that citizens state their citizenship when purchasing land in this

province.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You'd better sell your lot in Washington state.

MS. SANFORD:

Oh. what a joke! The only answer that the Minister of Municipal Affairs

has to my concern about the foreign ownership of land is to suggest

across the floor of the House that I sell my lot in Washington state.

Well, I assume that the minister has a lot over there. I know he has

moved out of his constituency. I don't know where he is living now;

maybe it is Washington. I don't have any land there.

Mr.

Speaker, I do not understand why this government drags its heels on

this issue. I have raised the issue on the floor of this House every

single year; I have placed private members' bills on the order paper; I

have asked questions time and time again, trying to bring to the

attention of the government that this is a crisis situation that exists

in the province, that the purchase of land by absentee foreigners is

driving up the price of land and is making it impossible for young

people to get started in farming and is now making it impossible for

people to purchase a house in this province.

The Minister of

Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) says that they now have an

interministerial committee that is looking into this question, and

there are so many problems. Why is it that we are the last province of

the western provinces to bring in any kind of legislation on this

issue? I have a private member's bill, and I am going to introduce it

next week.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am going to answer that in just a moment.

Mr.

Speaker, I feel that there is enough legislation in existence now that

the problem can be dealt with effectively. And I am not talking only

about farmland; I am talking about all land in British Columbia. Maybe

that will make it more simple for the government to deal with, rather

than trying to grapple with just farmland. But in, Alberta — where they

brought in legislation not too long ago — they found that within a year

purchases by absentee foreigners dropped by 90 percent. Now surely with

that kind of evidence they should be able to come up with some sort of

legislation that would deal with the problem of absentee foreign

purchases of land.

[ Page 4312 ]

The

other question that I posed to the former Attorney-General — and I had

written to him on this issue on a number of occasion as well....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD:

Once. All right, maybe I had written once, but I had also raised the

question with him on a number of occasions. Why is he saying today, in

1980, "What are you proposing?" when I was asking him in 1976 about

this? Why has the minister not been working on this issue? Why have

they not even looked at form 16A? This is a form that is now filled out

by anyone who purchases land in this province to state their

citizenship. Why has he not done it?

Mr. Speaker, the

Minister of Agriculture and Food says that they are going to initiate

an interministerial review on farmland, and he mentions the Peace River

in particular. By the time this government gets around to doing

anything, it is going to be too late.

In the last two years,

Mr. Speaker, in the Peace River area, some 168,000 acres of farmland

have been purchased by absentee foreigners. That is the Peace River

area alone.

The Institute of Agrologists has been trying for

two years to get this government to take this question seriously. Now

the B.C. Federation of Agriculture has passed a resolution calling for

the government to take some action in this area. Why on earth does it

take so long?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is asking me what I am proposing. I am

proposing that we bring in legislation which prohibits the sale of

British Columbia land to absentee foreigners — people who are living

outside this country and want to invest in British Columbia because it

is a good investment, and are prepared to pay more than the going

price, thus driving up the price of land. That is my proposal. It's a

very simple approach. The policy of the party is that we are to

prohibit the sale of land to absentee foreigners.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Any kind of land.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, any kind of land. That's what I'm saying.

Mr.

Speaker, what is happening is that we are not just having investments

in farmland — not just 168,000 acres in the Peace River area in the

last two years — but in commercial, residential and recreational land.

It's all being sold, and this government is not taking any action on it

and does not even view the problem seriously. They say, "Oh, we are now

structuring a committee," when they know that 168,000 acres in the

Peace River area have been bought up by absentee foreigners in the last

two years. They can't be concerned about it or they would have it on

the floor of the House today. It should have been here years ago.

Mr. Speaker, until we get some leadership over there, I don't expect much action on this issue or any other issue.

HON. MR. SMITH:

I was interested and amused by the remarks the member for Comox gave

yesterday and again today about problems with eating well on tour. I

know that she has a great deal of sympathy for a travelling minister

with an empty stomach, but I hate to tell her that the account she read

from the Kelowna newspaper is not correct. We did not stand up that

school in Kelowna. Indeed, we arrived at that school hoping to have a

meeting with students during the lunch hour, which was a part of my

format. I usually had members of student council and faculty together

for a lunch hour meeting. Also, in about 20 schools, I often had

student assemblies as well, but we were not able to do that in Kelowna

because we were there to participate in the opening of the new

buildings of Okanagan College, which was the purpose of being there at

that particular time.

The meeting that was supposed to take

place at Springvalley Secondary School at lunch was cancelled and we

went to the college and had a brief sandwich there with students and

faculty and then participated in the opening of the college. So I'm

sorry to inform the member that we did not stand up students. They, for

some reason, didn't know we were coming, and we were sorry we didn't

meet with them.

I might also tell the member that we usually

didn't eat at all on that tour, or if we did, it was at midnight. We

ceased to be concerned with our stomachs, which was quite an effort for

some of us, I assure you.

I just want to speak very briefly

on this motion from the standpoint of leadership. Over the last week I

have also been looking for a little bit of leadership from the other

side. I've been straining my ears and peering at the Blues, hoping that

I would find one scintilla of indication of the direction which that

party opposite was going to chart out for this province, and I have

heard really precious little. I've heard a little bit of the old

criticisms that were warmed over so many times during that lovely

session which ended in the twilight of August, and I've just heard

nothing. I still have yet to learn their position on the constitution.

I gather their position on the constitution is simply: "The British

North America Act of 1867 is wonderful the way it is, thank you to Ed

Broadbent for saving our natural resources, and we're against

everything you're doing." They haven't developed a constitutional

position in their party that would be equivalent to the thinking of

most of the students I saw in the grade 5 level, who are more coherent

on the subject than they are. But maybe we'll be enlightened by some

new things when we get into the debate on a specific resolution.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm very proud to associate myself with the leadership of our

Premier in the field of constitutional reform. As far as I know, under

his leadership and that of the present Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams)

and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), this province was the first

province in the field three and four years ago with coherent major

position papers on every aspect of constitutional reform. We have taken

constructive stands at conferences and have been in the forefront in

urging the patriation of that musty old British North America Act,

bringing it home from the British Museum, where it now resides, to

Canada — but bringing it home with some changes that are in the

twentieth century, not the kind of thinking the gentlemen opposite

exhibit, which has always been nineteenth century thinking. Yes, the

second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) looks at me. I've

heard him on the constitution. It's "abolish the Senate" — that's all

he's ever had to offer. Bankrupt leadership on constitutional issues

has been constant from the other side.

Now another area, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that I'm proud to be associated with is the economic

leadership that this government has given during the past year.

Everywhere that I went in the north, in the Kootenays and in the

interior I saw signs, as there are in the lower mainland, of the

healthy economic climate in this province, the high employment and

[ Page 4313 ]

the

investment that's coming in here. Contrast that with the situation in

1975, when you really couldn't even handle the people who were leaving

the borders; the customs posts were clogged with people leaving. Mining

companies were shutting down. And at the same time that was going on,

we had rampant inflation in wages, we had uncertainty in labour, we had

more lost man-days in this province than ever before. Under the present

government and the present Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and

his predecessor, we've had more labour peace and a much slower

escalation in wage settlements. We've had a healthy climate — not only

economic, but also in terms of labour relations. Leadership in those

areas has been paramount.

Also, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I draw

your attention to leadership in the field of social services. The

members opposite always talk about caring about people. The tears run

down their cheeks about caring about people, and that we are a

government that for some reason doesn't care about people. Yet this is

the government that brought in long-term care. Long-term care now means

that many elderly people in this province who used to have their life

savings wiped out in a month or two are able, with dignity, to get care

not just in institutions but in their own homes. All these gentlemen

and ladies opposite do is to cry about caring about people, but when

they were government, they didn't put a nickel into long-term care.

Denticare also, major initiatives in denticare at a time when in every

other part of this country social service programs are being curtailed.

Finally,

I want to mention another subject highlighted in the Speech from the

Throne, and that is the recognition, finally, of the rights of disabled

persons in this province. Those opposite who care so much about people

— what did they do for the disabled? The disabled now say that their

time has come. Their time is overdue. Now, under this government,

they're going to get some rights of access to public buildings. They're

going to be recognized and given a chance to participate as full

citizens with dignity. The public are going to appreciate that disabled

persons want to be able to stand on their own two feet. They don't want

shovelfuls of money from the back of NDP trucks; they want help, and

that's what they're going to get.

So I say to the ladies and

gentlemen opposite during this debate and also during the debates on

the two resolutions: please, for once, be constructive; please, for

once, tell us what your policies are.

MR. HANSON:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that you convey my regards to the

Speaker on his return to this House in good health. I was hoping that

he would be in the chair when I was making my remarks, but would you

please take that on my behalf.

I listened with interest to

the remarks of the Minister of Education. In fact I'm rising in support

of a motion which expresses on behalf of the vast majority of British

Columbians a lack of confidence in this government. I think from Race

Rocks to Lower Post, and all across this province, people are

witnessing a disarticulation, a decomposition, or whatever, of an

alliance for power that is coming apart right before our eyes.

even have the cabinet ministers standing up in this House and asking:

"Why are we here?" This has been the question foremost in the minds of

the public walking the streets of Victoria, and all the members of this

House. The decision was made by one man, and we know that. It's still

not clear to us why we're here. There's nothing in the Speech from the

Throne document which indicates why we are here. You know, it is a

hollow document. I think, if the public were to read the Speech from

the Throne and compare it with the performance of this government over

the last few years, they would see that it's a cruel, ironic and

satirical document; it's a Gulliver's Travels ; it has no relationship whatsoever with reality.

the Speech from the Throne are listed a number of basic aims felt to be

the prime concerns of all British Columbians. But when you read those

aims and you compare them with the performance of the government, you

see what I mean. For example: "To enjoy the best possible health."

Anyone who has followed the deterioration in health care under the

Social Credit government must realize that that's a cruel joke in

itself. It's just a PR statement; this is a PR document; it's put

together for public relations purposes. It bears no relation to the

reality that I face in my own constituency, with people waiting long

months to get into Royal Jubilee Hospital, to get into Victoria General

Hospital. The elective-surgery list grows, the number of cancellations

of operations for surgery is growing each month, and I have some

statistics that I would like to read to you later on.

But

first of all, I think it's very interesting that we had very few

speakers on the other side of the House who stood in defence of their

leader. We have not had people standing in their places, indicating

that the Premier is doing a good job, is a strong leader, and that they

support him. Because, you know, Mr. Speaker, what has happened is that

the vultures have left the trees. The Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) cannot resist an opportunity, every time the

Premier leaves this province on a tour, to attack him. He does not have

confidence in the leader, nor does the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). Have we seen him standing in his place,

supporting this leader? No, we haven't. None of the Liberals in the

coalition are supporting him.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON:

No, even the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), who just spoke....

Did he, in his remarks, indicate in any degree that he supported the

leadership of that government?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: He just finished saying it.

MR. HANSON: He didn't mention it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: He did.

MR. HANSON: He talked about us; he talked about 1974 and 1975 — reading the old Socred leaflets.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, hon. members. The second member for Victoria has the floor.

Would all members on both sides please accord the second member for

Victoria the usual courtesies of this debate.

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for saving me from that vicious attack.

[ Page 4314 ]

You

know, there have been many press reports recently that indicate that

the government and the Premier have an image problem. There is no image

problem; it's a problem of substance; it's a problem of actions. We

witnessed today, for example, putting the Princess Marguerite

back on the Victoria-Seattle run. The constructive criticism that we

gave when they started that bungling series of decisions to take it

off.... We pointed out to the government it was a mistake; the Coast

Guard said it was a mistake — both American and Canadian Coast Guards;

marine consultants said it was a mistake; the public said it was a

mistake; the only people who felt that they were correct were this

government, and that was ridiculous. It has taken over a year to

finally get them to agree on a good decision, which I applaud today.

But why did we have to be subjected to that year, in which millions of

taxpayers' dollars were wasted needlessly on converting ships and

wasted in the business community here, through the lack of tourist

revenue that would ordinarily accrue to the capital city? It's not just

an image problem, it's a substance problem, and their own party

recognizes it.

The other day it was recounted in the press

that there was a meeting of concerned Social Credit Party members held

in the Abbotsford area. They were concerned about the leadership, and

they brought in a consultant from Kamloops, a Mr. P.A. Gaglardi. He

didn't know whose home it was, he didn't know who had invited him, but

they picked him up at the airport and they drove him to Abbotsford and

they had a little meeting. Now was this three or four people sitting

around discussing the A plus B theorem of Major Douglas? They were

talking about the leadership of the Premier and the falling apart of

this government. Do you know how many people were at that meeting? Not

3 or 4, but 40 people; that's a small hall. It's indicated here in the Kamloops News

that there were 40 people at that meeting, every one of them concerned

about Bill Bennett's leadership. So what I'm saying to you, Mr.

Speaker, is that what we have happening before us is the historical

process of a coalition dying, undergoing its agonizing death throes

before our eyes.

The problem is, it's painful for the

public; it's painful for the people of British Columbia. This alliance,

whose prime purpose in life is to deliver privilege to the

super-rich....That is their prime purpose. It's a coalition of the strangest political bedfellows.

want to run through a few things just to refresh people's minds about

the record of this government. For example, the Kemano completion

project — they can't get their position together on that issue. We have

an MLA from that riding. Do you think he's had the courage to stand in

his place and, say, fight on behalf of his own constituency against the

Kemano 11 project? No. He criticizes the government, but not in this

House. He criticizes the government in his office. When a reporter

holds up a tape recorder to his mouth, he'll say he's not happy. He'll

pick his time to criticize the government; he'll pick his political

options. But do you think he has the courage to stand up in this House?

How many times have members in this House seen that man on his feet,

speaking on behalf of any issue, other than to introduce somebody in

the gallery? He doesn't do it. I'm saying to his constituents, look

through the record of Hansard . You'll find that their MLA does

not stand in his place in this House to carry forward any kind of an

issue, position or fight on their behalf with this terrible government.

He doesn't do a thing. Yet from news reports you'd think, oh, my

goodness, they have this renegade. He's trying to style himself as a

renegade, but it's not going to save him.

What else do we

have here? We've had a general deterioration in health care. I don't

think there's any question of it. I was talking to the medical people

at the Royal Jubilee Hospital the other day. This is what they tell me.

The situation reported as of November 28: the number of patients in the

corridors — not in beds.... Depending upon emergencies, the long-term

care patients who are occupying acute-care beds fluctuates between 140

and 150 a day. These are patients who require long-term care,

specialized care, but because there is no other facility available for

them they are having to occupy an acute-care bed, through no fault of

their own. It's a pressing problem. This government can't keep pointing

to our side and talking about things that may or may not have happened

five years ago. We're asking for planning and decision-making now, but

it's like talking to a stump — no reaction whatsoever. Constructive

criticism is not possible any more. They just don't listen at all.

Victoria

General is the other major hospital in the Victoria constituency. There

were 55 long-term care patients occupying the medical-surgical beds

last month, and 64 this month. In other words, 17 percent of all the

beds in Victoria General Hospital are occupied by people who should be

in another facility. At the same time, there are roughly a thousand

people waiting to go to Victoria General for elective surgery; they're

away from work because of hernia or tendonitis — all kinds of problems

that move a person out of the work force, the prime revenue-earner for

a family.

It's a serious problem. Do we get action from the

government? No. Do you know why? It's because every single extra dollar

this government gets goes into building pyramids in Vancouver. They

want to shore up the political fortunes of a number of key people in

Vancouver. That's what B.C. Place is all about. That's what all these

major projects in Vancouver are about — to try to save the Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) in Little Mountain and the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) in Little Mountain, to try to

consolidate their own position in Vancouver. Where they can sock it to

the public on Vancouver Island they do it — increasing ferry rates,

increasing ICBC rates, the cost of medicare. As our health critic from

New Westminster said the other day, we're the last of two provinces

that still charge a premium for health care. In every other province it

is taken out of general revenue. The need is the important thing, not

whether people are able to pay the premium each month for their own

children.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

What else

is there? The phony termination of the uranium inquiry. That was an

important inquiry to produce information that would be beneficial in

our knowing the impact that radiation would have on general health in

the province. They terminated that.

Sloppy accounting. They

wrote off $118 million in stumpage fees for the forest industry because

they couldn't keep proper accounting.

What do we get when we

want proper transportation from Vancouver Island to the mainland? We

get expenditures on a fixed link, already $100,000. The Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications wants to spend $1 million on

studies of a bridge between the mainland and Vancouver Island, without

any contemplation of the sociocultural impact of such a bridge and the

devastating effect it would have on the environment of Vancouver Island.

[ Page 4315 ]

They

dream these things up off the top of their heads. Did B.C. Place and

all the projects in Vancouver arise by urban planning and studying of

transportation and the needs of Vancouver? They were dreamed up off the

top of the Premier's head, and the taxpayer is going to pay for it,

just the same way that under Social Credit we have paid and paid for

bungling decisions in the past on the Columbia River and so on.

What

I am saying to you, Mr. Speaker, is that there is nothing in the Social

Credit government's record to indicate that the public could possibly

have confidence in this government. It's just one thing after another.

What we are seeing is different cabinet ministers sitting back trying

to size up their own political fortunes, like the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Williams). The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) is another perfect

example, sitting back. They've left the trees, they're circling and

waiting for fortunes to fall. They're waiting for the Tories to come

along, perhaps to join the Tories and start again fresh.

This

coalition cannot last. Probably within ten years, Mr. Speaker, there

will not be a Social Credit member sitting in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Want to bet?

MR. HANSON: Yes, I'll bet you.

HON. MR. GARDOM: How much?

MR. HANSON: A nickel. Yes, I'll bet you on that.

Looking

through the six principles articulated in the throne speech, Mr.

Speaker, I think I've objected to the health-care item. "To live in a

healthy environment" is another. You know, in my own constituency of

Victoria, which is the capital and should be the showcase for our

province, we in this House all know that raw effluent, raw domestic

sewage, is pumped offshore daily by the millions of gallons. There are

those who say we're just feeding the ocean; it's undernourished. What a

lot of nonsense! Drawing organic material from a huge area and pumping

it into one area is ridiculous. They've refused to face the problem.

The regulations of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) are

being violated every day. We have to subject ourselves to the

embarrassment of having the marine waters of Vancouver and Oak Bay

polluted. Children can't get near them in the summertime; they're

posted as a health hazard. What do we get from the government? A

ridiculous statement in the throne speech saying that one of the basic

aims and directions of this government is to live in a healthy

environment. Ridiculous!

I'm trying to say, Mr. Speaker,

that we cannot have confidence in this government, because we have

before us the record of the last five years. We know what they did

prior to that time, 1972 back to 1952. We know what that was all about.

think probably one of the most disgraceful aspects of this government

is the extent to which they assist their friends in special privilege

and special arrangements on land. We all know it. There have been a

number of items in the paper recently: the Olma brothers in Delta, for

example, the people who got a pub licence when there had been previous

refusals. And they picked up Hydro land that was appraised at a low

value. They are close friends of the Social Credit Party in that area.

think recently you've probably noticed a report under the Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) of what happened in

Invermere, when a former constituency secretary of the minister

assisted in having a hearing of the Environment and Land Use Committee

appeal a decision that had been twice turned down by the Land

Commission. Do you think that John Doe off the street could have gone

to cabinet and had such a decision overturned? No way. The Social

Credit connection is clear.

There is assistance given on the

basis of who you know in this government, and we know that it is there.

Inquiry after in-house inquiry by this government has been a whitewash.

We all know it. Is testimony ever given under oath? Are all transcripts

made available? No. So there's no point in asking for inquiries. It's

pointless. So we sit here in frustration, because, in my view, justice

is not done. When people testify under oath, the transcripts of such

important hearings should be made public — and they're not.

stand in my place in support of this resolution that there is lack of

confidence in this government. It is not just coming from my political

party: it is coming from people in the financial industry on Howe

Street, from business people, and from the general public. The failure

to recognize that is your risk.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I

stand to correct a statement made by the previous speaker. I believe

that immediately following his remarks is the appropriate time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, if you are rising under standing order 42, perhaps I

should explain that to you. If you are rising under standing order 42,

that can only be to explain a material part of your speech which may

have been misquoted or misunderstood. My speakers' list does not

indicate that you have spoken. Therefore, if I recognize you I would

recognize your place in debate on the amendment.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I will defer; I will be speaking later this afternoon.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

This is the first time I have had an opportunity to speak, and 1, like

the previous speaker, would ask that you convey my compliments and good

wishes to the Speaker.

I rise to speak against the

amendment, and while speaking I would like to refer to a number of

areas which, I think, have all demonstrated the leadership which has

been provided by our Premier, and particularly the encouragement which

he has provided to all of us in all our respective duties.

would like to make reference first of all — and quickly — to some of

the areas of economic concern and benefit which we have experienced

over the last year in British Columbia. I have before me something

which is available to all. It's a special report put out by Research

and Planning in the Ministry of Labour. I would like to make reference

to the opening paragraph of the survey which was released this week,

and it makes the following comment:

"The B.C. workforce totalled 1.289 million persons this

month, while employment stood at 1.215 million. The interesting point is that

compared to 12 months earlier B.C. has experienced a significant labour market

improvement. Over this period the labour force has expanded by 64,000, which

is a little

[ Page 4316 ]

better than 5 percent. But even more important is that employment

has increased by 75,000 jobs — something like 6.6 percent. The actual rate

of unemployment has declined to 5.7 percent from 6.9 percent in November of

'79."

Without

belabouring these comments, I would suggest, with all due respect, that

they reflect a confidence of all in the economy of British Columbia. I

don't really think that this happens by accident. I think it's the

result of policies and encouragement in a climate where capital is

prepared to invest and feel reasonably comfortable.

I have

noted also over the past year the tremendous net inflow of people

coming to British Columbia. While I realize that figures can be bandied

about again and again and that they do tend to befuddle a number of

points, I think the significant remark, Mr. Speaker, is that there has

been a significant increase in excess of 20,000 for six months. I would

suggest it'll be in excess of that for one year. There must be a reason

why people are coming to British Columbia. There's got to be a reason.

I wonder about the dwelling-unit starts in British Columbia. We know

that they have been significantly higher in the last year when compared

to other provinces. There are probably a number of reasons for it. But

I would suggest that the investment climate and a climate where people

seek opportunity are factors.

One interesting figure which

came to be presented this week was the retail trade for metro

Vancouver. Sales again in that area are up 11.3 percent. Now if we're

going to look at the gross number of dollars involved, I think that

figure ought to be tempered by the inflationary factor.

Another

area I've noticed in British Columbia is tourism. It's up 17.6 percent.

We know that this is a very significant industry — 1.524 million in the

first half of 1980. That's an increase of 17.6 percent over last year.

Another

area where I think excellent leadership and direction is provided by

our Premier has been the general respect for the collective bargaining

system, a recognition by the Premier and the direction which he has

given to myself. His basic philosophy and that of our party is

reflected in a statement which I mentioned over a year ago in this

chamber. It is a system in which an industrialized society cannot be

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

fair settlements. I think through the past year our Premier has also

shown tremendous leadership when we have had difficult times. I'll

repeat something which I said in the House some time ago. What is

sometimes forgotten is that the process is such that it accommodates

both discord and harmony of the parties as they strive to reach 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

towards that harmony we all desire. By maintaining and adhering to some

fundamental principles during difficult times through each year that

British Columbia travels, providing we stay with those fundamentals,

we'll survive each year.

In passing, I would like to say

that a strong economy provides not only jobs, but an environment for

encouraging good labour and industrial relations.

I'm quite

prepared to be modest on this, Mr. Speaker, because I think there are a

number of factors involved. I think a lot of those factors are

reflected in the maturity in the private sector between labour and

management in the manner in which they have approached all negotiations

during each contract. But I do want to mention that providing the right

atmosphere, in my view, is probably only one of the factors which have

encouraged the number of man-days lost in 1980 to have declined

considerably.

Someone once said long ago — this is a theme

which the Premier has certainly passed on and provided leadership on to

his caucus — that as soon as government management begins, at times it

upsets the natural equilibrium of industrial relations, and each

interference only requires further bureaucratic control. I think that

that's perhaps enough said in that particular area.

I would

like now to go into something which I think has probably been the

outstanding area of leadership. It is why I speak against the amendment

before the House, Mr. Speaker. It's in the area of constitutional

debate, the federal energy program, the position taken by our province

and the hard work which has been done by the Minister of

Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the constitutional

committee in attempting to put before the federal government what I

believe to be some realistic proposals. One of the things which we and

our leader have attempted to do is to make the public aware of exactly

what is happening. Sometimes it's difficult for our citizens to hear

something which they're not familiar with. This subject is one of those

that falls into that category.

I think the Premier's message

has really been that the federal government knows the exact effect of

the game they are playing, and that game is hardball. It's best that

we, the citizens of British Columbia, recognize the rules of their game

at the onset. But without exception, before even discussing these

matters, the Premier has always said: "Let me emphasize that our

government recognizes the need for change in the constitution." And he

said: "We support the idea of patriation, we endorse the importance of

language rights, mobility rights and fundamental freedoms, and we

support the need for a more flexible amending formula than the present

rule of unanimity. What is at issue is if patriation of the

constitution is to come, unanimity is required to bring the

constitution home — not necessarily unanimity on an amending formula."

Again

and again, the Premier has said change is necessary, and we support the

need for improvement in the constitutional law of Canada. The issue

really is: how should that change be accomplished? Surely unilateral

action is the most unacceptable method. Surely it's better to receive

consensus on a constitution rather than have one imposed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. second member for Surrey rises on a point of order.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Speaker, I am one who believes, as I think the Speaker in the chair

yesterday outlined to the House, in a wide-ranging debate on the throne

speech and in any reasoned amendments to that speech.... I certainly

agree with that. I'm not taking exception to touching upon the

constitutional question lightly, but when I hear the exact words

contained in paragraph 2 of the notice of motion on the order paper,

then I think we really have to stop to wonder what we're doing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, you have....

MR. HALL: May I continue for a second, Mr. Speaker, because I think it's going to bother us all day.

We've had a request for a structured debate with a num-

[ Page 4317 ]

her

of speakers. That's all well and good, and I'm one who'd like to engage

in that possibility, but I'm not going to engage in that possibility

when people are going to talk about this resolution before agreement

about that debate has taken place.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Thank you, hon. member, your point is well taken. Will the minister

please continue on the amendment and try to refrain from any discussion

that is not yet before the House. I will advise you, hon. minister,

that latitude is allowed, but when one gets so specific as to mention

in the same wording a resolution that is not before us, then the Chair

must intervene at that point.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr.

Speaker, I have before me the amendment to the motion, and the

amendment makes reference to public confidence in the leadership of the

government. I was of the view that one of the items involved the

constitution debate, and I thought it was implicit that when we're

talking about an amendment to the throne speech where that amendment

does contain reference to the leadership of this government, leadership

would cover all areas, including the constitutional debate and some

reference to it. I'm somewhat lost. I accept your view.

find a number of these items in here all related. I don't want to abuse

the ruling of the Speaker, because I cannot see how I can refer to the

leadership in this area without indirectly making reference to some of

the problems that we are encountering.

Mr. Speaker, I'll

wind this portion down as far as the constitution is concerned, but I

would like to make reference to something which, in my view, the

Premier identified and identified early with respect to the.... Again,

it is all related with the national energy program, the constitutional

debate and the current federal budget. One of the things that really

bothered me was where he had taken a position with respect to the

imposition of a tax on natural resources and, particularly in British

Columbia, on natural gas. It was identified as such. Then the federal

national energy program came through and said the following: "The

export tax. The tax would have provided the federal government with a

major source of revenue which it would have to meet its national energy

obligations." The strangest thing is that I find this on page 34, and

will, therefore, impose a new natural gas and liquids tax."

MR. HALL:

Again on the rule of anticipation, Mr. Speaker, and I would point out

to you that the Motion 2 on the order paper, not in my name but in the

name of a minister of the Crown, states as follows: "That this

Legislative Assembly request of the Lieutenant Governor in Council that

spirit of the pact which brought us into Confederation and withdraw all

of the resource taxes which it recently imposed." It is my suggestion

to you, Mr. Speaker, that the member's remarks are referring entirely

to the scope of that resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am not being

difficult, but if the government is so inept that it cannot maintain

and regulate its own program, its own debate, the throne speech debate

and its own resolutions, then the rules of this House must obviously

always take precedence. It's their mess; let, them find a way out of it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I would remind all members that I'm well advised of the rule of

anticipation, and I remind all members in this debate on the amendment

that latitude will be allowed with respect to the debate on this

amendment. Specific anticipation — and I use the words "specific

anticipation" very carefully — of a resolution that is not before the

House will not be considered. However, the Chair will have to recognize

the fact that debate does have a great latitude in this debate on this

amendment. The Minister of Labour continues.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, I, of course, accept the ruling and I will save some of

those remarks for debate on the resolution to which the hon. member has

referred.

I speak against the amendment — this comes as some

surprise, does it? — and for a number of very good reasons. I have made

reference to the economy, and on every factor, on every item which

comes before us in the resource area — retail, it doesn't matter where

— we seem to be finding a tremendous affluence. In the area of

industrial relations we seem to have found a peace. We also have

noticed the leadership provided by the Premier in the areas of the

constitution — and I support this — and the economy, and I cannot

support the amendment for any reason whatsoever. I would invite the

opposition to offer some constructive comment in the areas of the

constitution, and I am really looking forward to seeing their

proposals. I haven't yet really heard anything.

I look to

the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) in the area

of housing in the recent announcements. One of the biggest problems

which we seem to have is lack of inventory. If we go to the interior of

the province or the northern areas, we find out that despite a lot of

land being available for residential construction, one of the reasons

why prices are much more acceptable to all of our people is, in fact,

that there is an inventory available to them. That is evidence of

leadership, and that has not been done.

I took to the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) on light rapid

transit, The announcement is made, and with the support of all of the

municipalities in the lower mainland, all of them, something was done.

AN HON. MEMBER: Announcements were made.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Announcements, that's right. Announcements, you might note, always

precede some activity. We'll raise that again, Mr. Member, in 1984-85.

I vote against the amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the hon. second member for Surrey on the amendment.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I hope it's not on the constitution, Ernie.

MR. HALL: No, it will be all in order; otherwise, I'm sure you'll be telling me about that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 4318 ]

MR. HALL:

I always try and remain in order, and I only rose to my feet because I

felt, frankly, a deep sense of injustice over the proceedings on the

order paper since the day we got here. It has nothing at all to do with

the minister or his speech, which I would have welcomed under a normal

set of circumstances, had we not been put into that position.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome — and

I always will welcome — those formal parts of our debates, in which

ministers stand and tell us those parts of the leadership program they

can support, and remain silent about those parts that they don't like

to support. Unfortunately we've had more of the latter than the former,

and that, I think, has been the key to the debate so far. In fact, I

want to congratulate the member for Prince George North, the Minister

of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), because he's the first one who's

directly said in clear, succinct terms that he supports the leader of

his party, and for that he deserves credit. He's now selling the

tickets to the deck chairs on the Titanic ; he's been promoted. But he said he wanted to hear something from us.

We've

had two speeches, Mr. Speaker, from two Ministers of Education — one

higher and one lower education. One of them said — and that is the

member for Oak Bay, the current Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith)

— that he wants us to tell him what we stand for. Yesterday, to some

rather thumping desk applause, the previous Minister of Education, now

the minister of higher learning (Hon. Mr. McGeer), told us they always

listen to us because we always say what we stand for, and we always do

what we say we're going to do. Now it seems to me that there is one

Minister of Education who has really learned what the New Democratic

Party stands for, because if ever there was a supposed threat, which I

take to be one of the best political compliments you can ever have, it

was what the minister for Point Grey said yesterday: that we mean what

we say and we do what we say. I think you can't have a finer

compliment, a finer tribute than that in the political arena.

Conversely

lies the route of our amendment, where we're complaining about the lack

of leadership, and there is no greater area of lack of leadership than

in the economic situation that surrounds the government's attempts to

look after its own direct involvement in the economic life of our

community — first of all, in one of its major Crown corporations. I

refer, of course, to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia,

which has seen now, this last little while, the arrival once again,

under the Social Credit administration, of monstrous increases, which

have caused a great deal of distress and, on occasion, headlines

similar to those in 1976.

Interjection.

MR. HALL:

Oh, no, you did that. Listen, you took my picture out of the boardroom.

It was not you, but a minister took it off the boardroom wall earlier;

I think it's back there now — a good sense of history, thank you very

much. I'm hoping that maybe one of these days it might be back there

again; you never know — I mean a second photograph. You follow what I

mean?

Now then, when these announcements were made,

immediately leaping into the battle was a member of the Social Credit

caucus, who promised to fight like a tiger about these increases. The

trouble is, he was six months too late, because an examination of Hansard

will show that this side had asked the minister to take into his

purview the effect of the increases on old-age pensioners. In fact, I

myself asked the minister if he would consider the effect of those

increases — this can be checked in Hansard

— and I pointed out to him that if he was going to be in charge of this

corporation, he should look at what is going on there. As the

corporation was going to phase in the program over two or three or four

years, why didn't he phase in, in a similar vein, that

section of the

increases referring to old-age pensioners? With prompt smile from

forehead to chin, the minister agreed that he would look into it.

I'm

going to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, the minister did not look into

it. That's in keeping with most of the promises made during the

discussion of estimates over there. The ministers do not fulfill any of

the promises they make during the discussion of estimates or look into

the things. On this side of the House we're speaking, as it were, for

the people who write to us and bring complaints and suggestions. Its

get it over with, any soft answer to turneth away the wrath, but

nothing is ever done. I could give you

chapter and verse on that. I can

show you unanswered questions on filed reports, secret forever —

studies. That's been the record of the Social Credit administration

since 1952.

However, the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem)

promised a good fight, and we presume he waged a good fight. At least

he wasn't singled out and categorized as not having made a fight. I

want you to remember that. The member for Dewdney said he would fight.

There's the headline. The minister responsible for ICBC didn't single

out that member and tell us he didn't fight. In the meantime, the

minister responsible said that there was no way they could roll back

the clock, that the increases were going through, that anybody who

couldn't afford the increases at all should seek assistance from the

Human Resources ministry.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Do you have that quote?

MR. HALL: Yes, I've got that quote right here. It's entitled "Mr. Hewitt's Insult."

HON. MR. HEWITT: The quote is incorrect.

MR. HALL: Well, there we are. Perhaps you'd like to chance your arm with this Speaker, and we'll have that withdrawn.

I'm

going to put it in the record, because this is what we've got here: his

suggestion that elderly people on fixed incomes who couldn't afford the

increase should seek assistance from the Human Resources ministry. That

shows about as much respect for the dignity of senior citizens as

slapping them in the face with a wet fish. He went on to say that the

rate for elders would stay.

In the meantime, the cabinet

sails blithely on, talking about its Financial Administration Act, its

municipal plans, its super bigness and its monuments. Then one person

who's got his eye on the votes says that we should have a second look

at it, and the member for Kamloops, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Mair), hints that there should be some aid for these old-age

pensioners. The leadership there seems to be double-headed; both are

members of the board of directors of ICBC. I wonder how many meetings

they go to, and whether they go together — more important, perhaps,

whether they come back together. It seems to me that there is

[ Page 4319 ]

a great deal of difference between the way they are looking at this Insurance Corporation.

Now we've got a situation where, in the opinion of one writer in the Colonist

— as it was then called — it might be found illegal for ICBC to

continue the discount for those over 65. We're now waiting for the

final details of how the corporation's plans to go forward with the

FAIR program and the legislation that is currently on the books are to

be squared with the announcement made by the Minister of Agriculture.

As one political observer said, it was a finale conceived in fear, and

one that was made through straight political influence and interference.

When

I was questioning the minister the other day, he said that the cabinet

really only approves the rates in some pro forma way; that really it

was nothing very significant; that it sort of crept in through the

cabinet door and went out just as quickly; that it was really only a

sort of stamped, addressed postcard that came into the hands of the

cabinet secretary and went out again — almost a tickety-boo and how's

your father.

What did the member for Boundary-Similkameen

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt) say? This is when this little postcard from Mr.

Holmes said everything's okay, chaps. He also confirmed that the

cabinet discussed the likely political impact of removing low-cost

premiums for the elderly before approving last week's increases. Then

he's got the gall to stand there and say there's no political

interference in setting the rates, when he admits.... Caught out again,

as he comes through the door, with a straightforward admission of a

political debate in cabinet about ICBC rates.

Yet another

gentleman — whose picture is on the wall of the boardroom — the good

doctor from Point Grey, once authorized the following statement by the

late Norman Bortnick, dated January 23, 1976. Mr. Bortnick states in

his third paragraph:

"Under the previous

administration" — that was us — "for reasons that are well known to

you" — that's the press — "premium rates were set by cabinet that were

insufficient in themselves to permit the corporation to run as a

self-sufficient, break-even operation."

That's a signal for applause; you missed it.

"Existing

legislation requires the cabinet approve the rates. I was delighted to

hear Premier Bennett's suggestion yesterday that legislative changes

might be made to permit ICBC to set its own rates in the future."

Four

years, and we're still waiting for the fulfilment of that promise.

There's leadership for you. There was the flush of enthusiasm in

January 1976 when you were going to undo all the socialist legislation,

when the philosophy of the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) was abounding

in the cabinet chamber. That's what they were going to do — undo all

the nuts and bolts of all the socialist legislation.

"It has been made clear to me" — the late Norman Bortnick

says — "that from now on it's up to ICBC to run its own show. Dr. McGeer,

as the minister responsible, has challenged me, and through me the entire corporation.

We have been charged with the responsibility of setting realistic rates in the

future and conducting our business in an efficient manner."

What a mockery! Four years later there is still naked political interference

by a government that said it doesn't do it. This is the problem. This is

where the fault of leadership lays. This government can't decide, having

hired an actuarially oriented private-sector trained board of directors, whether

to run an insurance company on that basis or whether to run it as an instrument

of social policy. They can't decide what to do. As a result you don't

do either very well. You mess up the actuarial side so Robbie Sherrell says

goodbye. You try and diddle around with the social policy instrumentation without

having the necessary set of principles to do it properly. As a result — and

the member for Omineca knows exactly what I'm talking about — you fall in

between....

MR. KEMPF: It's an albatross, and you know it.

MR. HALL:

The way it's being run you're probably right. It's not one thing or the

other, and you should be up on your feet telling them that.

Right

now there are even more experiments going on in ICBC which I predict

are going to be even more costly. The setting up of central registries

and the abandonment of some of the other programs, I think, are going

to prove costly. But more costly than anything else has been the

deterioration over the last 12 months — as I said in estimates last

June — in the relationship that must exist between this corporation and

those people whom it employs and with whom it does business. That's

been because of the sad, sorry lack of leadership by this minister, his

colleagues and the cabinet.

To move off the question of ICBC

and move on to a couple of other things to do with my riding and the

provision of care to the people in my riding, it's unfortunately true

that the effects of the cuts in the provision of care in Surrey, which

although restored in some measure by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Curtis), who we've not seen very much this current session.... While

he's suggested that he's taken the freeze off hiring in some of these

essential departments, what he's not done, and what he's not confessed

to you, is that he's not released the requirements of the lengthening

of the hiring process. It's still, unfortunately, true that it's taking

far too long to replace people and it's taking far too long to hire

people. As a result people who are waiting for home help and all sorts

of assistance in my riding are waiting six to ten weeks for assessment.

That, Mr. Speaker, is a direct result of cuts and Treasury Board

instructions regarding staffing. I think that shows the most callous

lack of understanding and sympathetic leadership in this field, whilst

at the same time a massive program of advertising goes on trying to

suggest that everything's all right, trying to suggest that new

programs are in place that are able to look after the vicissitudes of

some of the people in distress in Surrey. That's not correct. Day care

is one that comes to mind. With the reduction of the transportation

services in Surrey, day care becomes even more important as people are

away longer and longer.

Mr. Speaker, the next thing is the

question of the.... I have a letter here which speaks better than 1.

This letter was addressed to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy). The correspondent writes that his mother in White Rock, 89

years of age, is living alone in an apartment, receiving three hours of

homemaker service per week. She has difficulty with her vision because

of glaucoma, and had surgery for cataracts a few years ago. She

recently fell in her bedroom and broke her arm. She was, therefore,

unable to care for herself at all for about eight weeks. She went to the

[ Page 4320 ]

local Human Resources office to find out what they would do for her.

"All I received" – "I" being the writer, her son — "from there was a referral to the social worker. The social

worker, in turn, referred me to the one in charge of long-term care, who then

referred me back to the homemaker service. I received practically nothing from

that circle, so I started again this time with the social worker, who told me

she had assessed the situation and I would again have to contact the one in

charge of long-term care, who sent me along to the homemaker service, and so

the circle was complete for the second time. All I could get from all of these

offices was zilch. Perhaps I should call it peanuts. They agreed to send someone

in for a little more than an average of one hour out of the 24-hour day. For

the other 23 hours she would have to either sink or swim, and I personally know

she would sink. So because the offer is useless I should go back to my original

terms."

And then the rest of the letter to the minister is political, and is of no consequence to this debate.

"In order to repair the breach, you'll have to act very

quickly, otherwise the whole thing is a phony."

That's the kind of letter that we're getting frequently in Surrey.

We get phone calls about that kind of assessment procedure and failure of the

system to deliver. Again, it's a failure of the setting of the correct priorities

in home care. Other people have dealt with the hospital situation. Other people

have dealt with the day-care situation.

have another example of a total failure in leadership in a most

important area in our province — libraries. We passed a bill here in

June. It appeared to be a fair amount of money for libraries. Everybody

banged their desks. I'm sure the second member for Vancouver–Little

Mountain (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) was very pleased. But here's a quotation from

the Greater Vancouver Library Federation: "On November 3, 1980, the

Greater Vancouver Library Federation quietly celebrated its fifth

anniversary. How many readers remember the inauguration ceremony at

Harbourside Holiday Inn, November 4, 1975, when excitement abounded on

the new public library system established in the greater Vancouver

area?" Well, I remember that ceremony very well indeed. I was there. I

know what the high hopes of the libraries were. I remember what the

high hopes of the library development systems were all over this

province. It was three years in the making, and hopes for the GVLF's

future were high. Now, five years later, despite changes in government

attitudes towards public libraries, the GVLF still exists to provide

service beyond the capabilities of its members and the sharing of

resources. It's a sad, disappointed note, a downer for libraries.

Again, it's a question of leadership.

I'm reminded of the

cartoon characters. Every time a problem comes along, they look for a

solution. Instead of a solution being presented to the person seeking

it, a stick of lit dynamite is placed in their hand. That's what has

happened to the Premier of this province by the rest of the treasury

benches. They've let him down. No wonder there are gangs of four and

five seeking to lay the blame all around the place.

Going back to ICBC just for a second, what about the ripoff that

happened because of sloppy administration by this member here in terms

of being able to roll over your insurance to save next year's

increases? What's the corporation done about that?

HON. MR. HEWITT: What did they do when you were in, Ernie?

MR. HALL: It never happened when we were in.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Are you sure?

MR. HALL:

No, it didn't. You see, Mr. Member, you show so little knowledge about

it. When we were in there was only one renewal date, so it couldn't

have happened. Mr. Speaker, the questions are really so infantile, it's

just unbelievable.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're sure now, Ernie?

MR. HALL:

I'm positive. The fact of the matter is that the computer that this

member should know something about, if he ever goes to the board

meetings, should be able to indicate how many people have ripped off

and rolled over insurance in that period of time, so that the rest of

us have had to pay for that. By telegraphing their punches, because of

the mess, because they didn't know what was going to happen to the

rates anyway....

Ten years ago, Mr. Speaker — on other

subjects — we were talking about pollution in this chamber. The throne

speech talks about quality of life. Ten years ago we tackled some of

those problems in our speeches and set up some ideas about them. You

know, some of the things we talked about ten years ago are now coming

back to haunt some of those people on the other side. The

Lieutenant-Governor was here and read those six points to us from page

4, and we see how much the leadership of this province has done to

provide the basis to enjoy those six points they boast about. They talk

about a healthy environment. In a throne speech debate nearly ten years

ago — February 4, 1971 — I personally talked about Utah Mines — 9.3

million gallons of effluent per year and 20 square miles of ocean floor

being covered to the depth of one foot, half of it by weight-suspended

solids with cyanide, zinc and other reagents.

The minister

of the day, Mr. Williston, now enjoying a political patronage job with

this government, tried to defend himself. I was at the hearings up in

Port Hardy. I was one of the few MLAs that ever went to Pollution

Control Board hearings and listened to the evidence, which was given

for 12 hours at a stretch in rooms that were not heated, in the depth

of winter, with no refreshments in terms of coffee or anything, and in

villages, for witnesses that had come from all over that area.

Announcements of changes in plans were made the night before the

hearing. And now this government has the gall to sit here and say it's

interested and concerned about pollution. They built a 32-megawatt

power line up there against all the advice that was available.

The same year, in 1971, we had the catastrophe of Buttle Lake — proven. It

was first discussed in this chamber in 1967, when there were two reports on

the tailings from Western Mines delivered to the then member, Mr. Williston.

Who rushed to the defence of pollution by Western Mines in Buttle Lake? It was

the then Liberal member for Point Grey.

When

asked if he could square that defence of Western Mines pollution with

his ownership of shares in that corporation, he had nothing to say like

he said yesterday, when he lectured us in a loud, pompous way.

In 1970 and 1971 we said that one of these days Buttle Lake might be the richest oil body in the world, and I think

[ Page 4321 ]

those

days are coming to pass. Mr. Speaker, you can imagine the cynicism with

which people who've been here for a few years read, "My government

believes that individual British Columbians have six basic aims in

life," when everything that the Social Credit Party has ever done in

this province since 1952 has done away with and made it more difficult

to enjoy those six points. Whether it was the school freezes of the

sixties, the labour chaos of the early seventies — the Mediation

Commission, the instant, high-handed justice of that group.... It is no

wonder that there's trouble over there. It's no wonder there are secret

meetings. It's no wonder the last time we had a clear, definite,

distinct, clarion call of leadership from the member for Okanagan South

(Hon. Mr. Bennett) was when he said, while addressing his own cabinet:

"I want to tell you, friends, that we're only one statement away from

disaster." Do you remember that one? That's the last clarion call we

had from that Premier, and he was right. Since then there's been a

succession of those statements.

Mr. Speaker, I've no

difficulty in supporting this amendment at all. All I am surprised at

is that, in view of the statements by cabinet members and private

members opposite, both privately and publicly, I see them sitting in

their places instead of standing up and joining in the support of this

amendment.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have no....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. One moment, please, hon. minister. The second member for Victoria rises on a point of order.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Speaker, I'm rising under standing order 42. One of my remarks may

have been misunderstood. I think the Minister of Forests sought the

floor to correct it. It had to do with the forest stumpage fees of $118

million, It was the interest that was written off and not the $118

million. I'd like to correct that.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, as I was beginning to say, I have no intention of

supporting this ridiculous amendment. But I thank the second member for

Victoria for correcting his statement for, in fact, he did say that the

$118 million in stumpage was written off, and he has acknowledged that

that is not so. You'll also remember that at that time interest was not

charged on overdue accounts, so I don't know how you could write off

interest that was not charged in the first place. Of course, the

policies of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) now are that you

do charge interest on overdue accounts and also that the government

pays interest on its overdue accounts as well.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr.

Speaker, quite often I've heard members across the floor remark on

something that the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications

(Hon. Mr. McGeer) said: "I don't know why we're here in the House." I

guess a lot of us are wondering that. We've heard from the members over

the months and years we've been government opposite that we should have

fall sittings. Each year, during the summer months and into the fall,

we hear demands for a fall sitting and sittings late in the year so

that they could come back to work. So we have a fall sitting, and we

are wondering why they do come back, because they really haven't said

anything; they haven't brought any programs; they haven't brought us

any of their policies. They have attacked personalities in this House.

Their entire line of attack over the last two years has been to attack

personalities. They really can't attack the policies of this

government, because they have demonstrated that they are effective in

the things that are going on today in British Columbia.

MR. NICOLSON: A child in kindergarten could attack your policies.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: That may be. The child in kindergarten might be able to, but certainly the members opposite cannot.

Mr.

Speaker, there are some 80,000 members in the British Columbia Social

Credit Party; about 40 of them met to discuss perhaps.... I don't know

what they discussed, but it's reported that they discussed leadership,

I think all members of every party should discuss leadership. I would

point out that those 40 members represent 0.05 percent of the

membership of our party, Meetings go on at all times about party

policies, about our members, about our leadership. Most of these

meetings and discussions are very positive indeed, and, of course, they

don't get reported.

Mr. Speaker, I think if we talk about

leadership, we should look at what the leadership we have had in

British Columbia over the last five years — five years tomorrow, to be

exact.... We should look at what has happened in British Columbia in

that period of time. When we came to government five years ago almost

exactly, we had to look at the hand we'd been dealt, the cards we had

to play. We were picking up from a pretty disastrous period of time in

British Columbia. I'm not going to dwell on that disaster, because

that's long past. But we looked at what we had. We had a province which

had abundant resources and minerals in coal, in forests, in scenic

beauty which attracts tourism; we had a tremendous human resource which

had not been used and had been allowed to believe that the welfare

state was the way to go.

When we came to government, we had

to start doing those things which our leader and our government thought

were necessary in order to bring British Columbia back into the

prosperous days that it had enjoyed for so many years up until the

members opposite formed the government in 1972. I remember very well —

I've said this many times in the House, Mr. Speaker — that never in my

life had I paid very much attention to politics. I had been engaged and

employed in the mining industry for all my working life, the latter few

years as an employee of the provincial government, and I saw that

industry, which has done so much to build this province, literally

dying. Nothing was happening, and during a part of that period 4 time.

during the 1973-74 period, there were record prices for metals. I think

copper went up to as much as $1.50 a pound very briefly during that

period of time — very buoyant times — and yet here in British Columbia

where we have a tremendous mineral wealth, we had absolutely nothing

happening.

The people who I had worked with all my life were

leaving; they were going elsewhere, where opportunities existed. The

expertise which we had developed in British Columbia was leaving.

Absolutely nothing was taking place. The corporations weren't working.

The many thousands of

[ Page 4322 ]

employees

who worked for them weren't working. The individual prospectors, the

diamond drillers, the miners, all these everyday British Columbians,

were not working in that once thriving industry. So our leader said:

"We must correct that." At that time I was fortunate enough to have

been elected and to have been appointed Minister of Mines, and I had

the great pleasure of bringing in legislation, under the leadership of

our Premier, which corrected the course of the mining industry in

British Columbia. If we look today at what's happening in that industry

— the people who are employed, the exploration that's taking place, the

mines that are being developed and all of the spin off benefits to all

sectors of British Columbia that result from that — I think it's very

clear what leadership in that area has done for British Columbia. I am

very proud to serve in a government under a leader like we have now. We

have never had a better leader than we have at this time.

remember also, Mr. Speaker, in that period of time, the disaster that

had recently taken place in the petroleum and natural gas industry in

the great northeastern part of our province — the great Peace River

country. Nothing was happening. We were down to, I believe, six

drill-rigs drilling in that last winter of the socialist government,

because those involved in the exploration for and development of

petroleum and natural gas left because there were no opportunities here

in British Columbia. I think we remember well the famous statement that

"there is no natural gas in the Grizzly Valley; there will never be any

development there." There was a government then with no imagination, no

leadership and no understanding of what makes this province tick.

Our

Premier, and our government under his leadership, changed the direction

of that industry. In the last couple of years we have had the most

active periods of time that we have ever had in developing new energy

sources and resources for the people of this province, and that is

particularly important now, during a period of time when energy is a

very precious commodity throughout the world. But that did not happen

just by itself; it happened because we have a leader who thinks ahead,

who plans and makes things happen.

I recall the disaster

that was the forest industry when we came to government in 1975, the

utter fear of every investor, large and small, about placing any money

in the forest sector, either in new plants or in the rebuilding of the

many plants which so badly needed it, for they knew that the policy of

that previous socialist government was to eventually nationalize that

industry — to take it over, to buy it out; to first of all bring it to

its knees, then to take over the marketing of all the commodities of

that industry and in effect socialize it. Therefore there was no

opportunity, no activity, no money being spent to make sure that that

industry could survive bad times.

And what have we done

under the leadership of our present Premier? We have developed whit is

acknowledged to be some of the most progressive forest management

legislation and policies of any forest jurisdiction in the world. We

have, for the first time, plans with committed budgets for the future

so that we can plan ahead on this long-term resource we have to manage

and make sure that it is managed properly and that we do provide

opportunities, not only now but in the future. These things didn't just

happen; they happened as a result of the hard work and leadership

provided by our Premier and our government.

I remember the

previous government’s policies on coal development; there was nothing

happening again. That money-hungry treasury they had was looking for

every possible way of scraping every possible dime of tax revenue from

an industry which, at that time, was in some difficulty. That industry

is thriving now, and on the immediate horizons are some vast

developments in coal in this province which will again provide jobs,

opportunities, and work for our people. And these things don't just

happen. They happen because of the leadership provided by our Premier

and the hard work of ministers, such as the Minister of Economic

Development at that time (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who has worked endless

hours in order to bring that about, and it will happen.

remember, Mr. Speaker, the utterances of the member for Prince Rupert

(Mr. Lea) when he said that we should not bring tourists to British

Columbia because their cars driving along the highways have adverse

effects on the fish and wildlife, Therefore when he was the Minister of

Highways he didn't build highways; he didn't even maintain the

transportation systems that are so essential to the economy of this

province. Our tourists were not welcome, they didn't come, and the many

thousands of people who work in that industry were without work, were

going broke. Since that time, under the leadership of our Premier and

the present and two previous Ministers of Tourism, our tourist industry

has been thriving and prosperous. There has never been more

construction or more development in tourist-related facilities in this

province than there is now. And it didn't just happen. It happened

because of the leadership, imagination and forward thinking provided by

our leader, the Premier of British Columbia.

In North

America this last year we have had a very difficult time. In most of

North America a very serious recession has been taking place. But there

hasn't been a recession in British Columbia, because of government

planning and programs which have insulated us in this province from

those things. We have been insulated from those difficult financial

times because of planning and the harnessing of the resources which we

have, to make things better in British Columbia. The Premier has shown

leadership in injecting money into the economy during a time when the

economy is floundering around us in other provinces and other states.

Our province is buoyant; people are working; our unemployment rate is

the lowest it has been in many, many years. Those things don't just

happen; they happen because of the leadership provided by our Premier

and the effort provided by this government.

I would hope

that every party assesses its leadership regularly. Perhaps that's one

of the things the previous government didn't do. They had a leader.

They blindly followed him. They followed him as he led this province to

the brink of financial and economic disaster. If it weren't for the

fact that the people of British Columbia realized what was happening at

that time and elected a real leader, I don't know where we would be

today.

I cannot possibly support this ridiculous amendment. I will be very proud to vote against it.

MR. LAUK:

The previous speaker spoke against the amendment to the resolution. I

was tempted to stand on a point of order and draw to the Speaker's

attention that he offends the rule against tedious and repetitious

debate. Since coming to the Legislature, that minister has repeated the

same remarks every year in this chamber. He hasn't even changed the

phraseology. It's a reflection of the lack of creativity in the

cabinet. They've had nothing new to say for

[ Page 4323 ]

five years. They have nothing new in terms of policy, and nothing new to offer the people of British Columbia.

terms of leadership — which this amendment has something to do with —

take for example the hon. member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr.

Phillips). When he was in the opposition benches he said that the New

Democratic Party didn't create any jobs. He called upon me as Minister

of Economic Development to become the nerve centre of the government.

He promised the people of British Columbia that if a Social Credit

administration were elected the Ministry of Economic Development would

become the nerve centre and would create the tens of thousands of jobs

that were required in this province.

After the first 18

months the minister discovered that he had no files. After 18 months,

the major speech of the minister was that he had no files. What is he

going to do about it? Since that time, he's had a standing invitation

to go to the UBC archives and look at those files that were missing. Do

you know that he hasn't taken up that invitation? That is the reason

the ministry, under his leadership, has been such a disaster. If he had

availed himself of the opportunity, he would have found from those

files the tremendous number of economic plans that were available to

create the jobs that he promised. He failed to do so. I mention the

minister because he is one of the few who are courteous enough to stay

in the Legislature and hear the debate and take the heat.

This

resolution calls into question public confidence — and it's been very

carefully worded — in the leader of the government. Let's for a moment

canvass why this amendment is necessary. We have what we described at

the time as a design, or an election plot or scheme, to woo voters in

support of the Social Credit administration in 1979. That was BCRIC.

They took the assets that were acquired by the NDP administration and

placed them in a semi-quasi-Crown corporation that was sort of public

and sort of Crown and sort of whatever — created by statute — and

shares were issued and purchased.

At the time the Premier of

the province said: "I'm doing this, I'm fathering this child, I'm

creating this corporation to teach the people of British Columbia what

the free market system is all about." This year the lesson was well

learned. We found — as I think many of us on this side of the House

already knew — that if you know something about what's going on that

nobody else knows you can make a lot of money. We also found out, at

the hands of the Premier, that those with insider information can loot.

They can cash in, and the information that's not available to other

shareholders becomes of itself a very valuable commodity. So the

Premier was right. The people of British Columbia have learned a very

serious lesson about the free market system when it comes to shares.

would think that BCRIC would be above reproach. We would think that the

government would take special steps to ensure that such a widespread

shareholding in such a company would have the protection necessary to

give it the good public image that it deserves. It seems to me that

that lesson having been learned, we now focus upon this amendment. The

Getz report has indicated the total inadequacy of the laws of British

Columbia in dealing with that kind of privilege, that kind of class

privilege, and in dealing with securities in this province in a fair,

honourable and open way.

Talk about leadership, Mr. Speaker.

The government had a responsibility under the Premier to ensure that

BCRIC was dealt with in such a way that the shareholders and voters of

this province would be satisfied that it had been done fairly. I say

that it was done unfairly. I say that the government, by standing idly

by, in their own way connived at producing a tremendous fortune for

those manipulating in the boardrooms during the negotiated purchase of

the Kaiser resource shares by BCRIC.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: If the hon. member has an objection to something I've said, he should rise in his place and not chirp from his seat.

The

second reason I support this amendment is the recent announcement of a

land swap with CPR over the exchange of land involving B.C. Place. Here

we have a situation where Marathon Realty, the CPR.... You'd think we

Canadians would have learned over the past 100 or so years the dangers

of giving land to the CPR. They've held us to ransom. They've dictated

the development of our downtown core. They've held the east to ransom,

and they've held the farmers to ransom. They have controlled the major

land holdings of every major city across the country. When the CPR

moved to purchase more shares in a private company, the Premier moved

very quickly to try and stop the purchase of those shares. Yet when it

comes to providing five of the most valuable pieces of land in the core

of the major city of this province, there's a deafening silence because

they negotiated it. Once again Manhattan Island goes for a few beads,

Let

me tell you something, Mr. Speaker. The land that is intended to be

swapped for the B.C. Place land will, in a few years, be at least three

times the value presently placed upon it. I urge the government to

acquire as much as it can of this valuable land for core city

development in the public domain, be it municipal, provincial or

federal. It should not be removed from the public domain and placed

once more in the hands of a private company, let along the CPR. To give

it to the CPR again is a travesty; it’s turning their backs on the

history of this country of ours and the struggle that ordinary people

have had with the CPR because of their powerful land ownership position.

The

government must be urged to avoid the land exchange, to purchase the

B.C. Place land outright and keep the land in the public domain so that

the public — the ordinary voter — can decide their future and the

development of the core of the city, which not only belongs to

Vancouverites but to all of the people of British Columbia. We, as the

people, have a right to decide how our core is going to be developed.

We have a right to make it reflect the needs and the values of ordinary

people, and not the needs of a giant corporation such as Marathon

Realty that wants to build large commercial complexes to maximize its

profit. I don't blame Marathon Realty and I don't blame the CPR, but I

do blame the for its total lack of leadership in that regard. They are

rolling over once again, and why? Because they're scrambling for major

announcements. They're trying to save their image with the people of

British Columbia, and they're losing every step of the way.

The

convention centre is another example of rushing into an announcement,

making all kinds of impossible promises about costs. Now we're finding

that the cost of the convention centre may be in excess of $120

million, and there's no source of money to support the concept. I say

that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who

[ Page 4324 ]

on that board, should resign for the incompetence that she has

demonstrated under the Premier's leadership in dealing with that

concept. A good idea has been bungled by the minister. She, in all

honour, should resign from that board and admit that she has hopelessly

failed to bring about this project, which may have been worthwhile to

the city.

The other thing is transit. I was alarmed to see

today that in the scramble for the leadership of the Social Credit

Party, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) made an

announcement, we thought, committing the federal government to a

substantial contribution towards transit development in the lower

mainland. We find that, in his anxiousness, his desperation, his

headline hunting, he has made the announcement in a premature way. He

has endangered a federal subsidy to the transit system for his own

crass personal political designs. Mr. Speaker, the word of the minister

to the public, then, cannot be trusted, because a minister of the

Crown, making a statement that there's a federal commitment for subsidy

for transit, must be believed. We have to rely on the Crown minister

who's speaking for all of the people, as our government, giving us the

clear impression that there was that commitment. Now we find out that

he not only was premature, he was warned by the federal cabinet

minister in charge of the project that any premature announcement might

endanger the federal contribution.

That is a wanton and

reckless disregard for the interests of the people of the province of

British Columbia, and this has characterized the Premier; it has

characterized this government. In desperation moves, staggering from

disaster to disaster to save their image, they're not taking a

cautious, deliberate and responsible administrative approach to the

government of this province. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I support this

amendment that focuses the attention of this chamber on the lack of

public confidence in the leadership of this province. It is a crisis in

leadership. There is a credibility problem.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, although we greet with some satisfaction the news that the Marguerite

will be re-employed, I cannot help but point out the misstatements that

were made in the past by this government about the suitability of the Marguerite . The Marguerite

has not changed. There was no miracle so far as I know. I haven't

checked with all of the people who know about miracles, but so far as I

know that vessel has not been changed in any way since the time when

the Minister of Industry and Small Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and others called it a "floating

coffin" and said that it was totally unseaworthy.

MR. BARBER: It's been untouched for 15 months.

MR. LAUK:

It's been untouched for 15 months, and here we have the government

reversing itself. That's a disaster in leadership, Mr. Speaker. Once

again it demonstrates the incompetence and bungling of a government. Is

it little wonder, then, why the opposition would place on the order

paper an amendment to this motion calling into question the leadership

of the Premier and the government, and pointing out clearly the

widespread lack of confidence in that leadership, not only expressed by

people who support the New Democratic Party but by people by the

thousands who have traditionally supported the Social Credit Party? I

think the hon. members opposite know full well that that's true. The

leadership of the Social Credit Party and of this government is being

called into question by their own members and supporters. Is it little

wonder, then, that we so urgently and solemnly move this motion?

Lastly,

I want to challenge the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and others who

have openly criticized the leadership of this party to not only speak

their criticisms but to demonstrate clearly that they mean what they

say and that they are not just posturing for their own political

survival, and to support this motion with us, as a clear and serious

demonstration that they have a desire to represent their constituents,

instead of a desire for their own political survival.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I rise to denounce this most ridiculous amendment. Certainly as members

of the Legislature we ought to be very well aware that the measure of

leadership is evident throughout British Columbia, where we now witness

not only a vibrant economy but one which is the envy of all of Canada.

Perhaps we might just briefly compare it to what it was in 1975. In

1975 we then faced the highest rate of unemployment ever in the history

of the province. In 1975 we witnessed industry leaving the province of

British Columbia to settle elsewhere in other provinces and across the

line. In 1975 we experienced a rate of inflation second to none

anywhere in Canada. That was the leadership that existed then. There

was no leadership at that time. Now we can look at British Columbia,

and certainly the tables have turned. We have perhaps the lowest

unemployment rate, which we've enjoyed for many, many years — perhaps

the lowest in the whole of Canada, second only to Alberta. We have a

gross provincial product which is the envy of all the other provinces.

We have prosperity in business. We have, as I said, the lowest

unemployment rate. While inflation is a concern, it is certainly a

whole lot better than what it is in other parts of North America.

People are moving to British Columbia in record numbers because we have

good government, the province is growing and vibrant, and our Premier

provides excellent leadership.

Let's just look at a few

things. I was certainly aware of the earlier mention of the transit

announcement. Again, for the last decade there has been a lot of talk

about transit, but after only five years this government was able to

announce a transit program like nowhere else in North America, a

transit program that provides for all parts of the region, a transit

program which will provide for all the people in greater Vancouver, and

a transit program which now has the federal government wanting to

become involved to promote Canadian technology.

While the

Conservatives were in power, the federal government announced they

would