1980 Legislative Session: 2nd

Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The

following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 3, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 1195 ]

CONTENTS

Matter of privilege

Telephone tapping of minister's offices.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1195

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Future of the ferry Princess Marguerite.

Mr. Barber –– 1196

Role of A-G's office in allegations

against member. Mr. Macdonald –– 1196

Death of James Bay Lodge resident. Mr.

Cocke –– 1198

Matter of urgent public importance

Allocation of coastal services.

Mr. Lockstead –– 1198

Ministerial statement

Commission of Inquiry report.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1199

Routine proceedings

Speech from the Throne.

Mr. Ree –– 1200

Mr. Strachan –– 1203

Presenting reports

B.C. Energy Commission annual report.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 1205

Labour Relations Board report as at

December 31, 1979.

Hon Mr. Heinrich –– 1205

MONDAY, MARCH 3, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we have in

the gallery today

Mr. and Mrs. David Nichols. I'd like the House to welcome them, because

David and Barbara are today completing their honeymoon.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the

gallery with us today is

Mr. Chuck Emery from the constituency of Boundary-Similkameen. Mr.

Emery is a member of the B.C. Marketing Board. I'd like the House to

bid him welcome.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Speaker, visiting with us

this afternoon is

Professor Donald G. Balmer from Lewis and Clark College in Portland,

Oregon, and he is accompanied by his 23 students. Interestingly enough,

Mr. Speaker, as Professor Balmer has been coming here on a regular

basis since 1957, I would ask this House to make him especially welcome.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, from among those

students I would

like to introduce Bob Henry. Bob's grandfather visited this House a few

years ago. He was the state senator for Colorado during the war. His

uncle, James Henry, is a lawyer in Denver and is married to my cousin,

Catherine Graham, formerly of Bellingham.

MR. SPEAKER: That would make him twice

welcome, wouldn't it?

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like

each one of you to

welcome my guest this afternoon. As each of you know, the

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew riding is known as being the centre of the armed

forces on the west coast, both for the army and the navy. In that

tradition my guest followed in those footsteps and served as a member

of the second anti-tank regiment in the 6th brigade in the 2nd division

and saw action in the eastern European war zone in World War II. My

guest has been very active in the political scene of the greater

Victoria area, and these activities have made him well known, not only

in greater Victoria but in British Columbia. It is with great pleasure

I ask each of you to welcome my guest, the one and only Gordon Townsend.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to

introduce three

members from the Canyon City Band, who have come down here to Victoria:

Alvin Azak, Chester Moore and Harry Nyce.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I would also

like to welcome Mr.

Townsend. I haven't seen him since he broke into the cabinet meeting

about three or four years ago.

I would also like to welcome to the chamber and welcome back

squash partner. I nearly lost him in the federal election. Gerry

Kristianson got third prize, I think, in Saanich. I am very pleased to

welcome him back to our House as an observer.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, important to

all members of the Legislative Assembly are those who serve us within

the constituencies as constituency secretaries. They relay and help

deal with those problems of our constituents while we are busy in the

House. Here today from the constituency of Okanagan South is my

constituency secretary, Jan Duncan, and her husband, Glen Duncan. I ask

the House to welcome them.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would

ask the House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. John Emerson who are in your

gallery, sir. They are from the great city of Vancouver and are here to

watch the proceedings of the House.

While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, if I may I would just like

to bring to your attention that this is the day that marks the

beginning of Human Resources Week in the province of British Columbia

when we honour all of the 5,000 people who serve in the Ministry of

Human Resources and the many volunteers who assist them in their work.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I don't rise

to welcome anyone but I do rise to bring you a message. I apologize for

my attire; it was necessitated by the glint in the eyes of some of the

hon. members in the opposition — that I get here on time. I would like

you to know that the daffodils that were to be on the tables today

froze this morning on the corner of Portage and Main in Winnipeg. But

there is the daffodil blitz with the private sector from Victoria,

cultural and recreational people from Victoria and His Worship the

Mayor of Victoria, who are taking the good message of "Come to visit

British Columbia and enjoy our spring" from our province to Calgary —

where yesterday we had the privilege of meeting the B.C. curling team,

who are at the Canadian championship and lost their first game — and

Winnipeg today. They will be in Regina and Edmonton tomorrow. I would

just say, Mr. Speaker, that tourism in British Columbia is very

healthy, and in Victoria it has absolutely taken off.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, there are six

representatives from

the Vancouver Status of Women in the gallery. They're here to meet the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). I wonder if the House would take

this opportunity to wish them luck, first of all, and then to bid them

welcome.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a

matter of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you please state the

matter.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to

advise the House

that by a letter dated February 22, 1979, I received the following

information from an agent designated by the Attorney-General: that

pursuant to

section 178(12) of the Criminal Code of Canada, a specially

designated judge authorized the interception of my private

communications. "This letter is for the purpose of notifying you of the

said authorization pursuant to

section 173(28)(1) of the Criminal Code."

Mr. Speaker, l have now determined from a transcript of

testimony in

proceedings held in the county court of Vancouver dated January 29,

1980, that for a period of approximately one year my private

communications by telephone out of my residence and out of my office in

the parliament buildings, and by a room monitor out of my headquarters

in Richmond, were intercepted. This is the earliest opportunity to

bring this matter to the attention of this House.

[ Page 1196 ]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the interception of the

communications to which I have referred constitutes a breach of

privilege. I would ask you to take this matter under consideration and

advise this House if I may, as a matter of privilege, move the

following motion:

"That a Special Committee of Privilege be

appointed to

consider the matter of the interception of a member's communications

brought to the attention of this House on March 3, 1980, and that the

said committee report its findings to the House, the said committee to

be comprised of eight members to be named by the Special Committee of

Selection, and that the committee so appointed have the following

powers: namely, to have all the powers and privileges of the

Legislative Assembly under the Legislative Assembly Privileges Act."

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps I should say, while I

am waiting for the

statement to arrive, that the motion is not part of the statement, but

the motion will only be moved should the statement be found to

demonstrate a prima facie case. And in trying to determine whether a

prima facie case does exist, I have to determine first of all whether

the first opportunity was taken in which to bring the matter before the

House, then, secondly, whether or not the facts as presented would lead

to such a decision.

I want to thank the hon. member for having acted according to

good

practice in this House, in having advised that at least a matter of

privilege was to be raised, although this is the first that I see the

statement itself. Nonetheless, I would like to commend that practice to

all members. If, indeed, a matter of privilege is deemed to be before

the House, or even before a member, I appreciate the opportunity of at

least knowing in advance.

I will reserve decision, hon. members, and seek, by the facts

that

are presented in this statement, to come back to the House with as

early a decision as possible. I think all members know that in some of

these instances, particularly where considerable time is taken to come

to a decision, it can be sometimes three, four or five days, up to a

week before a decision can be reached. I'll try to do it much earlier

in this particular instance. I will reserve decision on the matter.

Oral Questions

FUTURE OF THE FERRY

PRINCESS MARGUERITE

MR. BARBER: I have a question for the

Minister of Finance. Can he inform the House whether or not the vessel Princess Marguerite

will be sailing on the Victoria-Seattle run this summer?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it would seem

to me that the question has been directed to a minister who does not

have responsibility for the subject of the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you for drawing that to

our attention.

MR . BARBER: With respect, Mr. Speaker,

were that so, that same minister would have not made the announcement

two months ago that the Marguerite

was being discontinued. So, accepting what I anticipate would be a

ruling, I will redirect to the minister allegedly responsible and ask

the Minister of Transport: will the vessel Princess Marguerite

be sailing on the Victoria-Seattle run this summer?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, as the

government has already

announced, the Princess

Marguerite will not be running in 1980 on the

run from Victoria to Seattle.

MR. BARBER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Elworthy,

general manager of the B.C. Steamships Company, has announced on his

own authority that it will indeed run this summer. Has the minister

requested the resignation, therefore, of Mr. Elworthy?

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the

minister might not have heard the question. May I restate it? Mr.

Elworthy has on his own authority announced that the vessel will indeed

run. That seems to contradict the government's policy — at least today.

Has the government, therefore, requested the resignation of Mr.

Elworthy?

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not

sure what the

first member for Victoria is referring to. I read in the press — if

that's what he's referring to — that, from reliable sources, the

Princess Marguerite

would run. I didn't know it was Mr. Elworthy or Mr.

Smith or whoever. I don't know who the reliable sources are. You should

maybe ask the Victoria

Times that wrote the article.

MR. BARBER: Whether or not he's aware of

it, there is indeed

significant conflict between the policies of the independent — I

believe

the Premier used to call them — board of directors of B.C. Steamships

and

your administration. Has the minister taken any steps whatever —

anything? Have you done a thing to resolve the obvious conflict between

Mr. Elworthy and his board of directors and your government and its

current policies?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, this

government has decided what we will do with the Seattle-Victoria run

and we have announced that.

MR. BARBER: To your eternal regret, you'll

discover.

ROLE OF A-G'S OFFICE IN

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MEMBER

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a

question for the

Attorney-General. Did the Attorney-General have a conversation with

officials in his department or officers of the RCMP relating to

investigations into allegations that might involve the hon. member for

Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) prior to December 18, 1979, when

the Associate Deputy Attorney-General announced that no charges would

be laid?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The answer to the

question is no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: Will the Attorney-General

indicate to the

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

his Deputy Attorney-General relating to these allegations?

[ Page 1197 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in view of

the precision with

which the question is asked, I would like the opportunity to consult

with my diary so I can give a precise answer.

MR. MACDONALD: A further question. I asked

the

Attorney-General on December 21, 1979.... The Attorney-General stated

that he was satisfied that the decision of the Associate Deputy

Attorney-General and his Deputy Attorney-General was the correct one.

Did the Attorney-General have new information at the time he

made

that decision? If so, what was the new information that either he or

his deputy or associate deputy had that the RCMP and regional Crown

counsel did not have?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'll take that as part

of the notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEGGATT: My question is also directed

to the

Attorney-General. Would the Attorney-General advise the House if, after

the decision and announcement were made that no charges would be laid,

he consulted a lawyer in private practice in regard to this whole

matter?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The answer to the

question is no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEGGATT: Supplementary question, Mr.

Speaker. Would the

Attorney-General advise the House whether he in fact contacted any

lawyer in private practice surrounding this matter subsequent to the

decision that was taken?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have

spoken to a number of

practising lawyers on a number of matters. What is the matter to which

the member refers?

MR. LEGGATT: To clarify the question, did

the

Attorney-General consult with regard to the process surrounding his

decision — in other words, the process of overriding a decision of a

local Crown counsel and supplementing it with his own decision or the

decisions of his officials in the Ministry of the Attorney-General?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I

consulted with a

number of distinguished counsel with respect to the system which has

been developed over the years in this province for the administration

of criminal justice.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, another

question to the

Attorney-General. On December 18, 1979, the Associate Deputy

Attorney-General announced to the press that no charges would be laid,

and he made other comments. Did the Attorney-General authorize the

release of that statement in any way?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I was

informed that the

Deputy Attorney-General had made a decision in a matter that was within

his responsibility, and I was advised that he would be making a

statement.

MR. MACDONALD: A further question to the

Attorney General.

Having been advised prior to December 18, 1979, that a statement was to

be made, did the Attorney-General investigate as to what the statement

was to be or on what grounds it was going to be made before this press

statement was to be issued?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the member

is attempting to return to matters which I have already taken on notice.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, with respect,

this is a different

matter. This is the question of the release of information to the

press. As I gather from the answers of the Attorney-General, prior to

the release of the information to the press the Attorney-General was

apprised of the matter. On what basis did he decide that a release

should be made by the Associate Deputy Attorney-General? On what

grounds did he make that release? Apparently the Attorney-General

approved it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the

member would read my answer to his previous question.

MR. MACDONALD: I would ask the

Attorney-General a further

question. Can he inform the House what additional information either he

or Mr. Vogel or his Deputy Attorney General or his Associate Deputy

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

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

above what regional council had and recommended, that led him to the

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

any additional information?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the member

insists on asking questions that I have already taken on notice.

MR. MACDONALD: May I assume from that

answer, Mr. Speaker,

that the Attorney-General will then bring the answer to that question

back to the House?

MR. SPEAKER: He has taken the question on

notice.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to

the Attorney-General

on the same matter. On October 17, 1979, one Henry Friesen, the hon.

member for Central Fraser Valley and a journalist named Frank Klassen

of the Abbotsford News

held a

midnight meeting that lasted, on their own admission, one and one-half

hours, after which the complainant, Henry Friesen, attempted to

withdraw his charges of wrong-doing against the hon. member for Central

Fraser Valley. Did the RCMP conduct an investigation into that meeting

with a view to charges being laid for obstruction of justice under the

Criminal Code?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I know of

no such investigation. I'd be happy to take the question on notice.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the

gravity of that

kind of meeting during the course of a police investigation into

wrong-doing, did it not occur to either the Attorney General or his

ministry that an investigation through the RCMP respecting obstruction

of justice be conducted, rather than having the matter raised at this

late date during question period?

[ Page 1198 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the

question deals with

allegations only. I'm advised that the investigation of all matters

associated with the incident were complete.

MR. LAUK: With respect to the meeting on

October 17, if the

Attorney-General was satisfied that a charge of obstruction of justice

could not be founded — based on no investigation, it seems — did he ask

for an investigation to be conducted with a view to a public mischief

charge against the complainant?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, as I said a

few moments ago, all the matters associated with this incident have

been fully canvassed.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have just one

other question

for the Attorney-General, who said that before the Associate Deputy

Attorney-General went to the press and made this announcement, he was

aware that the Associate Deputy Attorney-General was going to do it.

How did he become aware? Was it by a memorandum, or did somebody come

to talk to him about the situation? How did he become aware that this

announcement was going to be made?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I was so advised by the

Deputy Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: I ask you then: did you

discuss the case that

we are talking about with the Deputy Attorney-General prior to the

announcement and assume what I would suggest is the responsibility of

your office prior to the announcement?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You are making

assumptions, Mr. Member,

which are not justified. No, I didn't make inquiries into the case

before the announcement was made.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, because of the

gravity of these

questions to the Attorney-General and his reluctance to give

information so obviously in his attention, I am puzzled at why the

Attorney-General would arrive at question period unprepared.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member has

a question?

MR. LAUK: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the

Attorney-General

if he would not bring the answers to these questions to the House at

the earliest opportunity — that is to say, tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I think we're

all aware of the

procedure for questions taken on notice. The minister will elect to

bring the answer to the House when he is prepared, or not at all.

MR. LAUK: In view of the fact that we are

not receiving answers to these questions, the question period will now

be terminated. [Laughter.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members,

as I understand the provisions of standing orders, the bell will

terminate the question period.

DEATH OF JAMES BAY LODGE RESIDENT

MR. COCKS: Mr. Speaker, I have a question

for the Minister of

Health to take on notice. In November of 1979, while there were only

three staff attending the needs of 208 residents at James Bay Lodge in

Victoria, an elderly gentleman by the name of John Pascoe fell from a

window to his death. As a result of the inquest which followed, the

coroner's jury recommended that the government increase the minimum

staff requirements for long-term care programs. Has the government

decided to act on that recommendation?

HON. MR. MAIR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let

me see if I can read my answer: I – will — take — that — as — notice.

ALLOCATION OF COASTAL SERVICES

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, under

provisions of standing

order 35 I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the

purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance,

namely the impending chaos and disaster to the coastal communities of

British Columbia which inevitably will occur this spring unless this

government's incredible mismanagement of ship allocations is reversed

today.

The disastrous social and economic threat includes the very

real

possibility of food and commodity shortages as well as punishing travel

restrictions for the residents along the entire mainland coast from

Howe Sound to Ocean Falls to Bella Coola and Bella Bella, due to the

incomprehensible withdrawal for a two-month period at least of the Queen of Prince Rupert

in order to put it on a run it was not designed for. That also includes

the threat of a crippling blow, the second delivered by the present

administration to lower Vancouver Island's critically important tourist

industry and all the small businesses and their employees who depend on

the Princess Marguerite

service that is now being scrapped. The threat goes beyond these

immediate regional impacts, because clearly all British Columbians will

have to pay for the mindless waste of money caused by this government's

shocking indecision and lack of planning which brought about this

unforgivable bungle.

The urgent need for immediate action by the elected

representatives

of the people of both sides of this House is clearly demonstrated by

the spectacle only yesterday of the cabinet's appointed president of

the B.C. Steamship Company, Mr. Arthur Elworthy, relying on the

previous solemn undertaking not to interfere politically with Crown

corporations, announcing that the Princess

Marguerite

will be run to Seattle this year, only to have the Minister of Highways

(Hon. Mr. Fraser) announce the same day that the government will not

allow the Marguerite

to sail

regardless of the corporation's directors. The decision of the

government can only be described as a comedy of errors which has

already resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars to the

small-business sector and thousands of jobs in the community, Mr.

Speaker.

[ Page 1199 ]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members. I

think I have the matter well in hand.

Hon. members, may I perhaps just interrupt the business long

enough

to refresh the memory of all members. In raising a matter of urgent

public importance under standing order 35, in stating the matter it is

not necessary — as a matter of fact, not even desirable; as a matter of

fact, not even permitted — to enter into the debate itself. Therefore

just a very brief statement of the matter is all that is required.

Now may I rule immediately on whether or not this can be

allowed

today. The matter to decide is not whether or not this is urgent, as in

the mind of the member it definitely is; but we have to decide whether

it is urgent enough to set aside the business of the day immediately

for its debate. I would rule that an opportunity exists immediately,

since we are presently embarking on the debate in reply to the speech.

Therefore, since an opportunity is at hand immediately, I would have to

rule that the motion cannot be allowed.

Order, please. The member for Skeena on a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: The point of order being that,

with respect, sir,

there is an assumption that certain hon. members who are scheduled to

speak today will raise that particular item...

MR. SPEAKER: You have that opportunity,

though.

MR. HOWARD: ...and that being the case, I

think one must appeal your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. member knows

the Chair is not

aware of any order of speeches. It is an arrangement between Whips.

Nonetheless, there is no appeal to that ruling in any event.

Shall we proceed?

MR. HOWARD: Then I need to follow the other

course of appealing your decision that there can be no appeal.

MR. SPEAKER: There is an appeal to the

ruling. Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 30

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Davidson

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 25

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Barber

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Mitchell

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Passarell

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals

of the House.

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY REPORT

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to

make a statement

with regard to the report of the Hon. Mr. Justice P.D. Seaton, which

was tabled in the House by the Provincial Secretary on February 29,

1980, that report being pursuant to the Public Inquiries Act and the

commission of inquiry pursuant to order-in-council 1885, of July 5,

It is gratifying to note that at the conclusion of the

hearings the

commissioner said: "I see no evidence of sinister conduct on the part

of anyone. I see no evidence of improper motive on the part of anyone."

It is equally gratifying, Mr. Speaker, that the commissioner, upon a

careful study of the transcripts of the proceedings during the inquiry

found nothing to cause him to withdraw from either of these views. In

this regard it is to be noted that in the course of the inquiry the

commissioner had the opportunity of considering not only the conduct of

the Deputy Attorney-General, but also that of other senior officials of

the Ministry of the Attorney-General.

The conclusions of the commissioner serve as ample

justification of

the confidence which I continue to have in the Deputy Attorney-General

and the responsibilities which are reposed in him.

Aside from those clear conclusions the report is valuable for

the

enunciation of the fundamental importance of an independent judiciary

to all persons who would maintain a free society enjoying liberty under

the rule of law. The Hon. Mr. Justice Seaton in his careful review of

the development of this vital aspect of our judicial system has

restated the determining principles which are the root and function of

the judiciary in this nation, and has reminded all of us, judges and

judged alike, of the obligations which must be understood, accepted and

discharged if the central ingredients of an independent judicial system

are, and are seen to be, preserved.

Mr. Speaker, I wish all members to know that upon the receipt

of the

report from the commissioner, the Deputy Attorney-General, under the

direction of my predecessor, together with those officials of the

ministry who are responsible for providing for the support services and

facilities necessary to the effective functioning of the judiciary,

undertook an extensive examination of the manner in which that

responsibility has been discharged. I am pleased to state that

throughout the court services division there is the fullest

appreciation by all those whose daily tasks bring them into association

with the judiciary that it is their paramount duty to conduct

themselves in a manner which assures that the judges whom they serve

may discharge their independent judicial responsibilities in the

justice system so as to provide the highest standard of service

possible for those persons who require its attention, yet administer

the effective accountability measures which the development of the

system demands. Notwithstanding this, Associate Deputy Attorney-

[ Page 1200 ]

General Sheppard, in his role as chief

administrator of court services, has undertaken a program of in-service

instruction throughout the more than 80 court registries in the

province to ensure that the personnel in the court services division

have reinforced for them the matters to which the commissioner has made

reference in his report.

Further, members should be aware that the recruitment program

this division of the ministry does take these matters into account, and

the Justice Institute is used to provide training for all court clerks

and sheriff officers, which encompasses the special obligations which

their responsibility to the judiciary casts upon them.

Additionally, in recognition of the danger identified by the

commissioner, which these administrative responsibilities may pose to

the independence of the judiciary, the Deputy Attorney-General has

adjusted responsibilities within the executive of the ministry,

designed to ensure that the functioning of the court services division

in the provincial court will be in accord with the procedures adopted

for the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the British Columbia

Court of Appeal by statutory amendment in recent years.

Hon. members will have the opportunity to consider legislation

this session dealing with these important aspects of the ministry's

responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, as Attorney-General for this province, I wish to

state

unequivocally that I and the officials of the ministry who are charged

with the superintendence of the administration of justice in this

province have accepted without reservation the obligation of ensuring

that in the discharge of those responsibilities no conduct will be

countenanced which has, or may be seen to have, the effect of impairing

the ability of any member of the judiciary to render a fair and

unbiased decision, a just decision in accordance with the law.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I want to make

a very brief

reply, and congratulate the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt),

who has also made some very important remarks on this subject. I think

we are all glad that Mr. Justice Seaton found that the Deputy

Attorney-General had acted in good faith, and I wouldn't have expected

anything else; but there was indiscretion. And it is up to the

Attorney-General, as perhaps he has indicated, to spell out the

guidelines very clearly. It's not an easy line to draw, because you

want an expeditious and fair administration throughout the justice

system, but on the other hand there has to be absolutely no political

interference with the pros and cons of any case that may be decided by

the judges in the provincial court system — or any system, for that

matter.

I'm rather surprised that the Attorney-General should say that

the

court registry personnel are being got in touch with on this matter, as

if it were to safeguard the judges and see these principles are upheld.

It would seem to me that it's not for them to stop somebody who's

dialing a judge or something of that kind coming from the

Attorney-General's office. It's for the Attorney-General to spell out

the guidelines and make sure that doesn't happen. And in the conclusion

of his remarks the Attorney-General addressed himself to possible

legislative changes. I would hope those would be forthcoming at an

early date, because I would think myself that the powers of the

Judicial Council should be enhanced and spelled out in this realm, and

perhaps in other realms where it's important in the administration of

justice.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I at this point would

beg leave to introduce relatives and friends who are in the gallery.

Leave granted.

MR. REE: I have the pleasure today of

introducing my eldest

son who has been in Victoria this past weekend and endeavouring to

advance his studies by going to the University of Victoria next fall.

His name is Scott Ree. I'd also like to introduce a young lady from

West Vancouver who is with him, and who is at present attending the

University of Victoria, Colleen Cattell. I have the further honour to

introduce two other young people from the city of Vancouver: Karen

Wesson, who is the daughter of a secretary I had who gave faithful and

valued service for some period of time; and her friend, Pius Amstutz —

both from Vancouver. I would ask this House to welcome them.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pride and pleasure

that I stand here in this House now assembled and on behalf of the

people of British Columbia present the following motion, which will be

seconded by my colleague from Prince George South (Mr. Strachan). The

motion reads:

"We, Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal

subjects, the

Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg

leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour

has addressed to us at the opening of this present session."

As stated, it is with pride, as we enter this new decade, to

have

the honour and the privilege of moving appreciation of this throne

speech. The honour is enhanced in that I represent the people of North

Vancouver–Capilano, and to all of them I express my thanks and

gratitude for this opportunity. The trust they have bestowed in me I

will do my utmost to prove warranted, not only in the deliberations and

debates of the next few months but in all my endeavours on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, if I may digress for a moment, I, on behalf of

all the

members here assembled, wish to welcome you back for this second

session of the thirty-second parliament. I know we shall all be richly

endowed from your profound rulings.

I would also like, on behalf of the members, to congratulate

the

hon. member from Delta (Mr. Davidson) on his election as Deputy

Speaker. I am confident he will carry out his duties in a manner

befitting that office and to its credit, as did the erstwhile Deputy

Speaker. We are indeed fortunate to have two such competent members

holding these offices and whose wisdom and expertise will be of benefit

to us all.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday last when His Honour was presenting the

throne speech, I was proud to be a member of this government with its

commitment to national unity, its commitment to one Canada and all the

provinces and territories thereof being within one Canada. In the last

two weeks I've heard many advocating that British Columbia alone or

together with its western sister provinces should follow the course of

separatism. Regretfully there are always such people bent on destroying

the work and the results of the positive majority, usually for their

own selfish purposes. Certainly our Confederation has had and still has

many complex problems and stresses, but Canadians, being of an

innovative and an imaginative nature, through peaceful negotiations have

[ Page 1201 ]

survived the last hundred years and as

a united

country will survive the next hundred years. This does not mean,

however, that we as British Columbians should continue to tolerate a

subservient position to that of other regions of the country, but

rather in the alternative should continue, in leadership, partnership

and by example, in utilizing the resources available to us towards

constitutional change within the country where our widely diverse

interests may have a stronger and more effective voice in federal

decision-making on matters that affect the provinces.

This government under the leadership of our Premier has in the

last

four years initiated specific constitutional proposals. These

proposals, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, would give British Columbians

and those of the western region of the country equality and partnership

with the remainder of Canada in order that we might all take full

advantage of the benefits to be derived from the enjoyment of our

abundant natural heritage. Yes, I am proud to be a Canadian and proud

to be a part of this government that will work towards strengthening

Canada — towards building and not demolishing.

MR. NICOLSON: Were you proud enough to vote?

MR. REE: I voted.

Mr. Speaker, today in British Columbia there is a rising tide

optimism not felt since the days of our pioneers. This optimism has

recently been gaining in momentum in spite of forces outside of our

boundaries which at any other time would have created an economic

crisis of disastrous proportions. It is an optimism that the future of

British Columbia and other parts of the northwest sector of this

continent hold the destiny of North America, not just for the next

decade but also for the next century. It must be recognized, however,

that this optimism would not be here, nor would we have the opportunity

of building towards our destiny at this time, had a solid foundation

not been put in place in the past ten years. The people of British

Columbia are indeed fortunate that under the able stewardship of our

Premier a strong foundation for growth was built in the last decade, in

spite of setbacks in the early part thereof.

The government, recognizing and believing in the benefit to

the

people of the individual enterprise system, and with the mandate of the

people of the province, developed a climate whereby individual

enterprise could flourish. It was under this climate and with sound

financial management that the industry of the people of British

Columbia was able to build a foundation which will provide benefits for

all, a foundation upon which the structures of the eighties can rest

secure and ensure the needs of the people of British Columbia in the

twenty-first century.

Mr. Speaker, there are those of mischievous intent who have

been

labelling this government as a stopgap government. If this is their

honest opinion, then the only direction of which they themselves are

capable is that of going backwards. All we have to do is look at the

performance in the last decade and ask in what direction this

government is going compared to that provided by our opposition. The

NDP exercised power for approximately 33 percent of the decade, while

the Social Credit Party governed for the remainder. Yet in all areas of

performance, whether in economic growth, in industry, or the providing

of services to the public and need to the less fortunate of the

province, the NDP's percentage, except in one instance, fell far short

of 33 percent.

We have been labelled as a cold, hard government not

interested in

the people's needs. Yet during the decade 79.5 percent of all money

spent on health-care facilities construction was spent under the Social

Credit government. Seventy-five percent of all new beds for extended

care have been provided under the Social Credit government.

Seventy-four percent of all moneys provided for health-care services

was provided under the Social Credit government. In education the same

percentages are reflected in moneys spent, not only for schooling but

also for post-secondary institutions under this government. These are

just a few examples of the benefits to people which were made possible

through sound fiscal policy, a policy of paying our way from current

revenues and not by encumbering future generations.

The exception whereof I spoke and wherein the opposition

reversed

their trend of minimal percentage of participation was in their

so-called forte. That was in labour relations, and under their term of

office there were more industrial disputes and more man-days of work

lost than in any other three-consecutive-year period in the history of

this province. In fact, during the last two years of their government

they had the distinguished record of three times the number of man-days

lost than this government has had in its last two years, and they had

these lost man-days at a time when they had a smaller workforce than we

have today.

Further, we often hear from across the floor how wonderful the

opposition was in creating the B.C. Petroleum Corporation. That

corporation was their energy policy. That creation and that policy

ill-served the people of British Columbia at a time when there were

clear warnings throughout the world of a coming energy shortage. Not

even in one of the three years they were in office were more wells

drilled than in any other year of this decade. The reserves of this

province diminished during their tenure, but since the Social Credit

government has come to office we now have greater reserves than we had

in August 1972.

Those are the facts of which the NDP is proud. Their energy

policy

was the creation of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation. This was the wagon

to which they were hanging their star. The only difficulty was they

were not attaching it to a star, they were attaching it to a horse, but

the horse was at the rear of the wagon. Then when reserves diminished

and exploration and development in the province had almost ceased, they

threatened the private enterprise sector with penalties, being all the

same as whipping this horse which was tied to the reverse of the wagon.

They got their results. They continued in the same direction —

backwards.

In December 1975 the driver of the wagon was replaced, the

whip was

put down, the horse was moved to the front of the wagon and given an

incentive. The financial statements of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation

will tell you the rest of the story, including, if you'll read the

foot-notes, that we have now replaced the horse and put an engine in

there that is running in high gear.

Mr. Speaker, the results of the last five years and the

foundation

that is being built for the economy and the benefit to the people of

this province indicate that we are not a stopgap government. Our pause

is only a momentary stop on the threshold as we move to erect on our

foundation that structure which will carry us into the twenty-first

century. The blocks are being put in place, the resources are being

marshalled, and the architect's signature is being affixed to the

plans.

It is these plans which we shall be deliberating in the next few

months, plans with a far-seeing vision of the

[ Page 1202 ]

future prosperity of this province

through sound management of all

our resources with a minimal environmental impact.

Last month this

government announced its energy policy, and it wasn't a whipping-boy

policy. It was a policy under government stewardship to ensure the

energy security in this province for the benefit of future generations.

It was a policy directed towards utilization of our hydroelectric power

potential, towards establishing the feasibility of coal and wood

biomass conversion, towards harnessing solar energy and towards the

development of other forms of energy, save nuclear power.

The policy was also directed towards the husbanding of our

present

petroleum reserves and minimizing our dependence on petroleum imports.

It is a policy through the enabling legislation, to which His Honour

referred, under which we in British Columbia will develop employment

opportunity and security in present and new energy-related industries,

many of which will involve the future processing and finishing, which

we do not at this time enjoy, of our other natural resources. This

policy, however, does not give free rein to the development of energy

for energy's sake. It sets out the stewardship role of government in

ensuring that development must first be subject to the thorough

scrutiny, and for the needs and benefit, of the people, without

unwanted environmental side effects.

I was pleased when His Honour reaffirmed the policy of

providing

sound financial management of the material resources of this province,

a policy that has stood well for the people of this province in the

last five years, a policy of a balanced budget under which we have all

benefited, so that today the people of British Columbia enjoy lower

taxation than any other province of this country, save one. Yet with

this lower taxation, this government has still provided benefits for

the people not elsewhere enjoyed on this continent, and, as indicated

in His Honour's address, will continue to provide these benefits for

their enjoyment. To this end, I am referring to GAIN, SAFER,

Pharmacare, allowances for the handicapped and disabled, long-term

care, acute and extended care programs, homeowner grants and health

care. To add to this, I was most pleased at the commitment of this

government to implement denticare later this year. It was regretted

that this was not implemented earlier, but it is a credit to our

Premier and to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) that such a

program was not hastily put into place until full discussion with the

dental profession and thorough study had been held and a responsible

program devised. This program will be of great benefit to the health of

the people of British Columbia.

His Honour referred to a program that we will receive in the

House

to assist the municipalities of the province with an opportunity to

redevelop their downtown areas. This, I am sure, will be well received

by us all and is a further indication of our concern and assistance to

the community areas of the province and the small businessmen who

founded and built these areas. I am confident that this assistance,

together with that at present being provided under revenue sharing and

proposals with the changes in the Highway Act announced by His Honour,

will add a new vitality and pride in the municipalities throughout the

province.

As a member of one of the oldest professions [laughter] —

actually I almost said a member of two of the oldest professions:

politics and, naturally, law — I was gratified when His Honour

announced that we would receive legislation to allow the provincial

Judicial Council to discharge more effectively its role in the

administration of the affairs of the provincial court and its members.

We have in the past been well served by the members of this court in

the dispensing of justice for all, and I believe it is only fitting

that they receive more authority over their affairs, for the benefit of

all that may come before it and under their scrutiny.

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago I was in Delta, when the Premier

and the

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) announced the

Annacis Island bridge and highway development proposal. I wish to

commend this government on its proposal, in recognizing the needs not

only of the people of the immediate area, but also of the lower

mainland. There are the usual detractors to any progressive venture,

but this new transportation route will greatly assist the movement of

people and their needed goods and services in one of the fastest

growing areas of Canada.

I was pleased, in reviewing this proposal, that the planned

route

will have a minimum disruption of existing and built-up residential and

commercial areas. This, as has been suggested, is not a stopgap

proposal, but part of the planned needs of the people of the lower

mainland.

It is not a policy of this government to change the lifestyle

of the

people by forcing them out of their cars by not providing automobile

transportation routes, but it is a policy to allow each individual to

have a choice as to his mode of transportation. Thus I am pleased to

see this new transportation access. And the government, as indicated in

the throne speech, is actively pursuing, in conjunction with the

municipalities, planning for LRT. The new Annacis Island route, I am

confident, will be a valuable adjunct to that planning.

Likewise, Mr. Speaker, I was at the announcement of the

proposed

British Columbia Place development for the north shore of False Creek.

May I say that it has sparked tremendous enthusiasm in not only the

lower mainland, but all of British Columbia. It is a most imaginative

proposal that, during and after construction, will have resounding

benefits for all the people of this province. This development, in

conjunction with Transpo '86, will make Vancouver a showplace of the

world, besides revitalizing the downtown area. The setting for an

amphitheatre and a major exposition could not be more favourable, when

you consider Vancouver as being a world terminus of all modes of

transportation.

I am most proud to be a part of the committee charged with

having an

influence in this development, and I know my colleagues and myself

welcome this challenge as an opportunity to contribute to the progress

of this province. We have been questioned as to whether British

Columbia Place and the amphitheatre will become reality. May I assure

this House, and the people of this province, it will become reality. We

in British Columbia have the industry, the expertise, the resources,

the knowhow and the desire to make it a reality. It will be a

testament to what can be accomplished through a partnership of the

private sector and government under a free enterprise system.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that it will become a reality, because

under

that same partnership we have a major, although not as large,

development in my constituency. In North Vancouver–Capilano there is

underway a $70 million development called the Lonsdale Quay. It is at

the foot of Lonsdale, and even before construction has started, it has

initiated substantial revitalization and development of the area. Under

the auspices of the B.C. Development Corporation, the government and

the private sector will provide a people's place on the waterfront.

Besides a seven-acre park,

[ Page 1203 ]

there will be walkways and promenades

through and around

residential, commercial and office buildings, and also a marine

training centre. The location, like British Columbia Place, will enjoy

the waterfront and view of our mountains.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What about that great

drydock we were talking about?

MR. REE: That, under the influence and

auspices of this

government, is going to come to pass, Mr. Minister. In fact, Mr.

Minister, they are even now working on some of the projects for the

setting of that drydock into place. I believe the whole expenditure

there is $63 million, to the benefit of my constituency, Mr. Minister.

We in North Vancouver will be the envy of our neighbouring

municipalities with this Lonsdale Quay. And if I may quote the mayor of

the city of North Vancouver: "When this Lonsdale Quay is completed,

Granville Street will merely be an extension of Lonsdale Avenue."

The private sector has shown overwhelming interest in this

development in North Vancouver, and I am confident the same interest

will be shown in British Columbia Place, and the same resulting

benefits for the city and the province obtained. Yes, Mr. Speaker,

British Columbia Place will become a reality for the enjoyment of all

British Columbians.

Interjection.

MR. REE: It's five years since you people

started. You've stopped and gone backwards.

Interjection.

MR. REE: They never did start.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's let the

member continue.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I regret time does

not permit me to

comment on all the matters proposed in His Honour's speech — although I

know my colleague from Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) will remedy

my omissions — but before closing I wish to compliment His Honour and

his ministers on the ambitious program that will be placed before us.

It, and what is now in operation, will result in an economic structure

on our solid foundation that will be the envy of all North Americans.

We enjoy abundant resources and wealth in this province second

none; and with that, together with the labour stability we have

achieved under the former Minister of Labour and which we continue to

enjoy under the capable guidance of the member for Prince George North

(Hon. Mr. Heinrich), the destiny of this province in the eighties and

the next century will more than satisfy the most optimistic of British

Columbians.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to second

the Speech from

the Throne. At the outset let me extend my best wishes to you, sir, and

also to the newly elected Deputy Speaker (Mr. Davidson). I'm sure all

of us take pride in the knowledge that the member for Delta will serve

the office of Deputy Speaker in a most exemplary manner.

As we enter the second session of this great thirty-second

parliament, Mr. Speaker, let me also take the opportunity to formally

welcome all members of this assembly. As I look about I see the

enthusiasm beaming from every face. I feel a tremendous sense of

anticipation for all members assembled: enthusiasm for our upcoming

deliberations and discussions; anticipation of the warm, friendly and

meaningful dialogue that will prevail in this chamber during the

ensuing days, weeks and months — Mr. Speaker, anticipation of the

harmony, accord, felicity, camaraderie and good fellowship that is such

an overwhelming feature of this House now assembled.

Mr. Speaker, His Honour's speech enumerates a substantial

number of

programs that will bring great benefit to all citizens of British

Columbia. More importantly, His Honour articulates so well the

fundamentals of our great free enterprise government which we enjoy as

citizens of this province.

Mr. Speaker, one of the underlying tenets of free enterprise

is that

the government has the responsibility to paint the white line down the

highway, show direction and encourage the journey; however, at all

times remembering that the government can only encourage the journey,

but not take that journey. To do so is to rob the individual of

initiative, the freedom of endeavour and the joy of success.

Mr. Speaker, our members opposite will not share our

government's

preference of free enterprise over socialism. But let me quote, if I

can, American labour leader Samuel Gompers, who writes: "Socialism

holds nothing but unhappiness for the human race. It destroys personal

initiative, wipes out national pride...and even plays into the hands of

the autocrats."

I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that Sam Gompers really had a

handle on

the perfect and better union. Seventy

Years of Life and Labour was

written in 1935.

Direction and encouragement, Mr. Speaker: that is what is

contained

in His Honour's Speech from the Throne. Now outside this House the

critics have tailed in their perusal of the text. They have called it

empty. Mr. Speaker, the only thing missing in the speech, from a

critic's perspective, is something to criticize.

The critics I heard following His Honour's speech employ the

philosophy of strudel pastry: puffy on the outside, flaky and light as

soon as you're through the crust.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr.

Ree)

has dealt extremely well with a number of programs contained in His

Honour's address. I would like to speak, sir, to a few of the items

that are so important to me as the member for Prince George South. Mr.

Speaker, since our election the government has shown tremendous

advantages in encouraging the forest industry. As the member for Prince

George South I am pleased to comment on our government's further

commitment to British Columbia's major industry.

Mr. Speaker, as we enter this decade we now enter a tremendous

transition period with respect to the management and harvest of our

forest wealth. The transition period, Mr. Speaker, takes us from the

period of liquidation of old forest growth to the extensive expansion

of our second-growth forest. It is a policy that will serve future

British Columbians for years to come. Mr. Speaker, these are not empty

comments. They are based on fact and on past performance. As you know,

sir,

section 9 of the Forest and Range Act requires a complete

assessment of forests to this House now assembled within fifteen days

of the opening of the Legislative Assembly. This is the type of

legislation that our government has in place — action legislation.

[ Page 1204 ]

Let us now look at the reforestation programs in our province,

Mr.

Speaker. In the fiscal year of '74-75 — remember those — some $13

million were put towards the perpetuation of our province's greatest

resource. It doesn't sound bad at the outset, but it pales considerably

when you compare it to the 1979-80 figures of $40 million. His Honour,

when speaking of our substantial increase in the reforestation program

was not speaking of an empty program. Now we see seedling increases of

30 percent to 100 million seedlings and an expansion to encourage the

private sector in forest management and responsible silviculture. We

are, sir, a government committed to integrated resource management that

will guarantee future generations of British Columbia the tremendous

security and economy that everyone in B.C. now enjoys.

Mr. Speaker, a member from the central interior cannot speak

of the forest industry without mentioning the tremendous economic

development that has occurred during our term as government. Solid

encouragement of our industry is further contained in His Honour's

address. The items dealing with our province's economy are manifold.

Our government will rationalize the financing of our great resource

railway, the British Columbia Railroad. We have sound policy and

encouragement for the great energy potential of the province. We have

in place now the British Columbia Utilities Commission, a positive

policy towards the use of wood waste and our biomass and the knowledge

and commitment to develop our tremendous British Columbia coal

potential. Pretty sound policy, Mr. Speaker. Specifically stated, an

encouraging policy that is even more encouraging when one recalls the

member opposite when he sat as a member of government and said: "I feel

that nuclear power should be given serious consideration." That's Hansard ,

January 26, 1973.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

HON. MR. MAIR: Is he still here?

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, the member is still

here. It's Hansard , January 26, 1973. It's page 10.

That member then tried to rationalize his argument by

comparing

projects the size of Three Mile Island to the minute amounts of

radioactive materials used in nuclear medicine.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ed Broadbent, right?

MR. STRACHAN: You're warm.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy as a British Columbian when I realize

that

our future generations will not have to fear or face a dependency on

nuclear energy.

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN: I think it was, Mr. Premier.

I am also encouraged by His Honour's comments about our

agricultural

industry. The constituency of Prince George South has a large

agricultural base, particularly in the Robson Valley, Mud River,

Hickson and Punchaw regions. The Ministry of Agriculture, during our

government, has adopted a very positive posture of encouragement for

the farm producer.

The Prince George South producers are largely concerned with

forage

crops and subsequent cattle shipments, and I am pleased to note the

steady and mature growth on this all-important facet of our

agricultural base. As a matter of fact, the solidity of the cattle

market is amply demonstrated by assessing the cattle shipments during

the past decade — yearly shipments numbering over or very close to

100,000 per year. I should also note that the only significant decline

in cattle shipments occurred in 1974 and 1975, when we saw declines

averaging 20 percent.

HON. MR. MAIR: Who was government then?

MR. STRACHAN: It's in Hansard .

We can look that up.

this juncture I would like to speak to the throne speech on behalf of

the city of Prince George. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Prince George has

experienced dynamic growth during the past 20 years, growth that began

during the great government of the 1960s and growth that has made

Prince George one of British Columbia's most dynamic communities. Those

of us in Prince George were delighted to hear of His Honour's comments

with respect to downtown development. Thanks to good city planning,

Prince George has grown in an orderly manner, and we have initiated

some downtown development and face-lifting. Therefore we are extremely

pleased to see our government specifically calling for further

legislation to aid our community. I am sure all members now assembled

share this enthusiasm with me.

Continuing on a municipal note, Mr. Speaker, I also applaud

the

forthcoming legislation from the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser)

which will allow provincial highways in cities over 30,000 people. I

should also point out that the city of Prince George is now entering

the final planning stages of a substantial highway and bridge

development program with the Ministry of Highways, and I am sure that

this is also legislation that all members now assembled will welcome.

However, as I comment on the tremendous growth that is

occurring in

our province and the manner in which our government is assisting the

total British Columbia community, I would be remiss if I did not

acknowledge the fact that when the members opposite were government

they probably, too, would have introduced legislation that would have

assisted the growing pains. However, they did not have a chance,

because there were no growing pains. Everyone was leaving. During the

last year of their term of government 65,880 people left the province.

With this type of exodus one does not really have to worry about

helping municipalities with growth problems. However, with the election

of our government in 1975 we have seen the trend reverse itself, and we

are once again enjoying a healthy population growth. As we grow our

government is acting in a positive manner.

I have mentioned programs to assist our British Columbia

municipalities, but let us look at the people programs as our province

grows. His Honour mentioned that in British Columbia we have 11

percent of the Canadian population but 15 percent of the nation's new

jobs. Our critics might try to trot out statements about unemployment

in the province. However, one only has to read the "Help Wanted" ads in

any paper to know that there is an abundance of work available.

I am delighted to hear His Honour comment on the legislation

that

will be introduced by the Ministers of Labour, Education, and

Universities, Science and Communications. Legislation from these

ministries will enable our young people to gain the training so

necessary to our province's future.

If I can be parochial for a minute again, Mr. Speaker, and

[ Page 1205 ]

comment on behalf of Prince George

South and the community of Prince

George, let me enumerate some of the new programs initiated by our

province by Prince George's College of New Caledonia, programs now 100

percent funded by government. The College of New Caledonia has

introduced substantial adult basic education programs which include

Canadians and basic employment training. The College of New Caledonia

technical division now includes electrical electronics, chemical

metallurgical technology, surveying technology, the access to nursing

program for practical nurses, a long-term care aid program and pulp and

paper technology. These programs have all come about during the tenure

of our government, and the list of programs currently in planning

stages is tremendous.

Mr. Speaker, His Honour spoke to the House of social programs

that

our government has introduced and will be expanding. Our programs speak

for themselves, but let us not lose sight of the fact that our social

programs speak most emphatically of good government and sound fiscal

policy. We have heard in a session past — and I'm sure we will hear

again in upcoming sessions — there is nothing wrong with a deficit.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I would submit to this House that you can only

shovel so much out of the wagon and then it's empty, and to pay for

social programs you need a sound economy. Good social programs are the

result of a sound free enterprise policy. That fact cannot be denied,

and our record in government clearly demonstrates the advantage to all

who live in a healthy free enterprise economy.

Mr. Speaker, as an assembly we are gathered to discuss the

business

of the people and the legislation of the province. His Honour's speech

has mentioned a host of legislative items that will come to this House,

and the business of the people will be served as we deliberate this

session. I should like to say that our government has the utmost

respect for the office of Speaker and Deputy Speaker and for our

standing orders, particularly standing order 43, contained on page 13,

which speaks to members who might wish to wallow in irrelevant debate.

We know that this will not be the case in this session, Mr. Speaker,

and I commend you for the exemplary manner in which you maintain the

office of Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, His Honour's speech has clearly articulated the

positive and fortunate position British Columbians enjoy, and His

Honour spoke at length of the potential of Canada's greatest province,

British Columbia. Accordingly I second the Speech from the Throne.

Mr. Howard moved adjournment of the debate.

Tabling Reports

Hon. Mr. McClelland tabled the annual report for the calendar

year

ended December 31, 1979, for the British Columbia Energy Commission.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich tabled the report of the Labour Relations

Board of British Columbia for the year ending December 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 3:40 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative

Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1980,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria,

B.C., Canada