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)

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1980

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4225 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Speech from the Throne

Mr. Mussallem –– 4226

Mr. Brummet –– 4229

Tabling documents

Science Council of British Columbia annual report, March 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4233

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I would like to introduce two sets of people to the House and ask the

House to extend the very warmest of welcomes to them: firstly, Mr. Alec

Hart, who will take up duties as agent-general for British Columbia in

London on January 1, 1981. Mr. Alec Hart is a great Canadian.

Also

seated on the floor of the House is a gentleman, Mr. Cyril Day, who has

served for 26 years with the staff of B.C. House in London. This is his

first trip to British Columbia on his retirement. Twenty-six years of

service, Mr. Speaker, is a great accomplishment. Mr. Day is accompanied

by Mr. Eric Wadey, a long-time member of the staff of B.C. House in

London, England.

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's my pleasure to

introduce to the House Mrs. Ann Van Hoffen from Salisbury, Zimbabwe.

Today will, I think, be the first day that this House has had a visitor

from the newest nation. Would the House please welcome her.

HON. MR. FRASER:

This morning I would like to introduce to the House residents of my

riding of Cariboo, Mr. and Mrs. Gordon Hames. Gordon works for the

Forest Service and is down to receive his 25-year service award.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you'll be interested to know that we have some

distinguished visitors from that magnificent riding of Okanagan North.

In the gallery today are Mr. Bill Lahowy and Mrs. Sharon Lahowy, Mr.

Jack Simpson and Mrs. Jean Elliot, and I'd ask the House to give them a

very warm welcome.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I rise

under the provision of standing order 35 to request leave for the

adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public

importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you briefly state the matter?

MR. PASSARELL:

In January 1979 the government of British Columbia issued pollution

control permit no. 4335, which will allow Amax of Canada Ltd. to dump

100 million tons of toxic waste, including arsenic, lead, radium 226

and other substances, many of those also poisonous, into Alice Arm,

which is a traditional fishing ground of the Nishga people. The

decision affects the livelihood and the possible health and safety of

my constituents.

Mr. Speaker, if you refer to the "six basic

aims of British Columbians" you will see that every one of them is

threatened for the Nishga by pollution control permit no. 4335.

Construction of the Amax Kitsault mine has reached a critical stage.

The government should have realized the strong outcry that the dumping

of tailings into the open water would cause.

I'm sure all hon. members of the House have seen the statement of the primate

of the Anglican Church of Canada and will have reflected upon it by now. With

every day that passes the decision becomes more and more difficult to reverse.

This is why the assembly should set aside other business for today, namely the

throne speech debate, to debate this urgent matter. An early resolution of this

matter would allow for construction of tailing ponds and other methods of pollution

control.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to move should the urgency of this matter be recognized by the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there a copy of the motion that I might consider?

would remind hon. members, while I am waiting for the motion, that in

making motions such as these it is desirable that the subject of the

motion be stated quite briefly, only sufficiently so that the Chair can

determine whether or not it is in order. After it has been determined

to be in order, it is then that the debate really takes place, and I

would like hon. members to keep that in mind.

Hon. members,

at question is not whether the motion is important; not even at

question is whether or not the motion is urgent. What is at question is

whether the motion is urgent enough to set aside the regular business

of the day, I'll just remind the mover that an opportunity is at hand,

during the throne speech debate, during which matters of this nature

could very easily be debated. As such the motion does not qualify.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's not debatable issue, hon. member.

Is the member seeking the floor on a point of order?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Are you saying that your ruling is not challengeable?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is not a debatable issue at all.

MR. BARRETT: I don't wish to debate the issue. I'm asking your ruling....

MR. SPEAKER: The motion simply does not qualify, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Is that your ruling?

MR. SPEAKER: That's the ruling.

MR. BARRETT: I challenge your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

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

YEAS –– 28

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Davidson

Wolfe

McCarthy

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

[ Page 4226 ]

NAYS — 23

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to stand before you today and move

this very important motion in response to the address of His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor. Again, true to his way, we saw not the letter of

the speech but the direction pointing to a greater and finer British

Columbia than ever before. The purpose of the throne speech is

sometimes lost due to the fact that we are prone to expect details of

what the government will do. But when we begin to understand the

process, we see here that it is the intention and the direction moving

forward into a greater and a more positive area, building on the

foundation before into the future. I think that can truly be said for

this government over the last five years — each day building on the

substance of the past into the future.

This throne speech

was one of those that pointed out that intention again: health care;

education to the disadvantaged, the needy; to the lower mainland,

transit; and for all of British Columbia, B.C. Place and a trade centre.

was surprising for me to hear some criticism from some members in this

House — not from this side, from the other side — in which it was

criticized that money from government funds would be spent in this

amount when there was so much need, so much poverty, so much

requirement. I want to say that what we lose sight of is that B.C.

Place and the trade centre are businesses in themselves generating

funds for the people of British Columbia, creating employment,

self-liquidating. That is what this government has stood for. Yes, we

could be called the bottom line. But everything we do is built on a

structure that will create for the future a better British Columbia.

That's the theme.

If you'll pardon my personal note here,

Prince Rupert is my home town, and I remember full well my father's

stories of that city: how he came here as an immigrant boy, not able to

speak the language, but how he loved this country and this land; how he

came here on the promise — he was a watchmaker on the Grand Trunk

living for his infant son, which was me. We lived in Prince Rupert. But

there was no railway then. It was before the railway came; it was being

built into Prince Rupert. Do you know that he told me very often of how

great Prince Rupert would be, how Sir Wilfrid Laurier had promised that

this great city would be the greatest city in all of Canada, how it

would be the port to the Pacific Rim nations, how all the industry of

Ontario and Quebec would flow through this port with the grain to feed

the starving people of the Asian countries. It was the great dream of

my father and the people of that day from Prince Rupert. They flocked

there; property skyrocketed.

I'll tell you a story that's

well worth remembering — it skyrocketed and of course subsequently

fell, because Wilfrid Laurier, instead of being elected, met his

defeat. Prince Rupert crumbled and the dream crumbled. In the meantime,

nothing happened. It was always a land of promise — the member for

Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) will know what I say — always hoping for

tomorrow. But at last, this government, that Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), with his plan.... This

government alone set the climate, created the influence, so that Prince

Rupert has come into its own. The promise of Prince Rupert, made 70

years ago, has now been fulfilled — not by accident, not by chance, but

by planning. I say to you that I take great pleasure, and I only wish

my father were here to see — no longer a promise, but now a fact — this

great northern country planned by direction shown by throne speeches in

the last five years by this government.

The throne speech is

the heart-throb of this party — that's really what it means. It tells

what we hope. This party, with its total loyalty to our Premier and

leader, and a fierce unyielding attachment to one another, goes forward

as a united force to serve our province's people. I don't want you to

think we don't kick over the traces every now and again; some of us do.

cannot help but mention at this time an interesting little story told

by you, Mr. Speaker, at an appropriate time. If you look at me a little

bit with a motion I will change direction rapidly, but I'd like to tell

this story.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the story relevant?

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Speaker told this story to a group of people. By the way, how we

love to see him there in better health than we've seen him for many

years. If I may be allowed to say, he told the story on himself at a

large gathering. I can't say it as well as he did, but I'll try to put

it my best way.

He said: "You know, it's a funny thing, when

you're as sick as I was sometimes you think you have left the vale of

tears and moved into the beyond. I did have such a dream and I arrived

at the Pearly Gates. There was St. Peter, right there at the Pearly

Gates, and he said to me: 'Oh, it's you, Harv. How are you? I said:

'Well, St. Peter, I'm here. I want to go up above.' St. Peter said:

'Just a minute, Harv, everybody goes the same route. There are no

favours asked by anybody. Everybody goes the same route. You go

upstairs, on that ladder, to the blackboard up there, and you take this

piece of chalk I'll give you.' He gave me piece of chalk that I had to

put up over my shoulder. I went up this ladder, and I said: 'What do I

do with the chalk, St. Peter? He said: 'You write all the things you've

done wrong in the world below, put down all your sins and troubles, and

I'll decide where you go.' He said: 'All right, St. Peter, if those are

the rules, I'll abide by them'."

He put the chalk on his

shoulder and he went up the ladder. On the way up the ladder, what

happened? There was another fellow coming down. He looked and, behold,

it was Jack Kempf. He said: "Jack, what are you doing here?" He said:

"I'm going down for another piece of chalk." [Laughter.] Mr. Speaker,

thank you for your indulgence.

[ Page 4227 ]

The

quality of life in British Columbia is different than anywhere else —

can I say in the world? Let me say in the world. I don't know about all

the world, but certainly in Canada and certainly in the United States.

It's better, stronger, more vibrant. And here we have landed immigrants

and migrants from the rest of Canada coming in by the thousands —

65,000 new jobs created, as the throne speech said — to take

part in

the prosperity of the province. My father was a landed immigrant and I

could consider myself the same. I would like to say to them that we

talk of a bill of rights, we talk of enshrining rights in the

constitution. Fine, have a bill of rights; try anything you want. But

the greatest bill of rights for the liberty of people is in the

constitution of Soviet Russia. There you have the right to speak, the

right to freedom, the right to access, the right to say what you

please, the right to worship — and they have none of them.

will say to the landed immigrants — I can so speak because although I

was born here, my father was a landed immigrant — the important part of

an immigrant who comes to this country.... Yes, bring your music, bring

your culture, bring your customs, but don't bring your country. Take

part in the life of British Columbia.

My father said to us

as a young family — there were six of us: "You can speak the language

if you want to, but as far as I am concerned, it is forgotten."

Now

I don't exactly hold to that but, at the same time, he was so intensely

loyal, so intensely did he love this country, that he made it his home

for him and his family. He said there is no country like it in the

world. He left his land of Lebanon — then Syria — in a fusillade of

rifle fire. He was shot at and his two companions were shot dead in

escaping, because young men were not allowed to leave the country.

Those were the conditions that existed in that country in those days

and still exist in most of the eastern world. Here in this province,

where we live in a land of prosperity, it is unknown. I do not know why

it is unknown. This is the greatest prosperity we've ever seen. The one

thing that bothers me as I stand here before this microphone is why we

receive so much criticism. I don't understand that. I'm being factual

and honest. I do not understand it. We have such prosperity that there

are practically no poor in this province.

I would say to the

hon. members opposite that we hear the crying for the poor. I want to

tell you that. The poor are not the same poor. I know what the poor

are. There were none so desperately poor as our family when we left

Prince Rupert. I was driving down Hastings Street the other day with my

son Robert, and I pointed to a little stairway and said: "Robert, when

your grandfather and grandmother came here, six of us lived in one room

up there." I said to him: "We were very poor but, you know, it was our

happiest time."

But we don't have the poor anymore. One

thing about our province is that no one need be poor. The poor today

are the well-off tomorrow. Education and planning, which this

government has made possible for everyone...the possibility of a great

future. We're not looking after everybody and telling them what they

must do, as the socialist system required. We're saying to people: "Do

your thing. We are the people that stand for you to help yourself."

That's what this party stands for that's different — to give

encouragement to the people and tell them what we want from them.

I have, if I can find it.... I don't have it with me.

The

last sounding board of the Vancouver Board of Trade said: "We are sorry

that we misinterpreted the economy of British Columbia for the year

1980. In the year 1979 we stated that the economy would go downhill,

but we regret that we did not see factors that changed the position of

British Columbia until it is now the most prosperous of provinces in

Canada." The Board of Trade said that in the last sounding board.

I've

found it. I'll just quote the very words now, if I may. I was just

guessing at them. "While the secretarial perception was in part

accurate of the downward trend of the British Columbia economy,

insufficient attention was paid to the growth in capital spending, the

level of immigration and the increased diversification of the

provincial economy." I think when so prestigious an organization as the

Vancouver Board of Trade says something like that, it speaks great

things for our party and our government.

The plans that are

now before us.... Waste management, for example, was suggested in the

throne speech. I want to tell you here that I think one of the first

plants of this kind that will be applied for will be in the

municipality of Maple Ridge. We have a bright young man there who has

been planning for the last two years to develop such a plan, not

knowing it was going to be in the throne speech or that waste

management is a big problem. It is a very big problem, especially in

Maple Ridge. It is everywhere, but there especially. We're going to

have a plant there which will consume all the garbage and make steam

and electricity. And with the assistance he'll get from the throne

speech — from the plan of this government — I think this fellow will be

away.

One thing that I can say with the greatest pleasure —

and I'm sure everybody noticed — is that we have never seen five years

of better labour peace. I have never known it like this, especially

after a time when, five years ago, the country and this province came

to a grinding halt and this House was called back to start up again.

This is one of the great things of today.... Talk about socialism.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not comparing it with Russia or Poland, but I'm

saying that here unionism thrives under our government and our policy.

We help and assist. But there, the Russian troops are on the border of

Poland, ready to walk in. Why? Because the trade unions are asking for

an extra crust of bread. That's all. I'm telling you we should hang on

tightly to our freedoms. How easily they are lost. How easy it is to

take a step backwards in the wrong direction.

The throne

speech directs us in free enterprise and private enterprise, but the

other system tells us what to do. That's the difference between private

enterprise and socialism. There is the extension of socialism, and I

look with great fear and dread on the future of this country should we

ever take a step backwards.

Education is so vast. I would

have said a short while ago that everybody was covered; but lo and

behold, there are more scientific ways: education through TV, basic TV,

keeping pace with science and technology, satellite, news and

education, knowledge network of the north. There was a time when a

person living in many isolated places in the north of the country just

got the education that the mother and father could give. Now they're

going to get it all. Imagine getting a degree in the university without

ever entering the gates of a university. Imagine that! The possibility

is here.

The throne speech calls for energy, energy, energy

— more energy from coal liquefaction. I think that's a great plan —

tremendous.

Our strength is in the free enterprise of

people. The throne speech showed us direction, and that is the

direction we're going. The next five years will show what this

government has done. Each throne speech in its several ways points to

the continued direction of prosperity.

[ Page 4228 ]

I come from the constituency of Dewdney. We have concerns in Dewdney, but I believe they will all be met.

There's

a ferry at Albion called the Albion-Langley ferry. Do you know,

honourable friends, those two little boats carry more cars than the

combined ships of the B.C. Ferries fleet from Tsawwassen to Swartz Bay?

Would you believe it? More cars per year than the combined ships across

the Strait of Georgia. I say it is high time that the government will

consider the necessity of building a bridge at this point. These are be

two large industrial areas. I do believe a bridge is called for in due

course. I think the planning should start now. I address the Minister

of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), and say to him that

we should be looking strongly at a bridge at Langley.

AN HON. MEMBER: Instead of Annacis.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Not instead of Annacis. No, that is foregone; it's positive and it's necessary. But next we need a bridge at Albion.

Maple Ridge we want to thank the government for encouraging us — not

helping us yet, but encouraging us — in building our industrial areas.

In Maple Ridge now, we have an industrial park of 370 acres; in Mission

we have a similar park, with a gigantic Fiberglas operation that is in

operation today. The idea of the industrial park.... Today we have

highways blocked, and the commuters are in trouble. What we have to aim

for in British Columbia is employment in the area where the people

live. It is possible and it is coming.

I would like to add

also and thank the government for the legislation in respect to the

town centre development — the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm). That's a great idea. The municipalities of Maple Ridge,

Mission and Pitt Meadows are taking advantage of this. We'll see one of

the most beautiful town centres in British Columbia in those areas,

particularly Maple Ridge. I want to congratulate the minister for that

very bright idea, which is going to elevate the level of our town in

this province of British Columbia. That is indeed a major move. Then

again, as I'm saying, if we'll just look again at the throne speech, it

points direction, generally flowing to a conclusion, to greater things

to come.

I believe that a town centre, when it brings the

people together and people are able to commune with one another in

their own community, instead of rushing off to shopping centres five or

ten miles away, is really a great breakthrough. Do you know, the

greatest things sometimes don't seem so great at the moment. But when

you look at this in the future, you'll see it as a move that we will

live with and say, what a wonderful thing happened that many years ago.

I'd

like to impress on the government another thing that is close to me. I

think we're missing a great bet here. I know that Transpo '86 is on the

tracks. I know B.C. Place is on the way. I know that they're great

things. I know they're self-liquidating. I know they're expensive now,

but they'll pay their own costs. I know all that. But I think we're

missing a very great bet today, that we do not employ the tracks of the

CPR. You'd almost think those tracks were put in for commuter purposes.

want to explain to this House that in the municipalities of Pitt

Meadows, Coquitlam, Maple Ridge, Mission and then Burnaby, that whole

area — Burnaby is the large part at the east end — but right up to

Mission all the population lives within three miles, most of them

within a mile, of those tracks. I address the Minister of

Transportation and Highways and say that Highway 7 at Maple Ridge

carries more traffic than the freeway, No. 1. The traffic is far too

heavy. I think that new roads are too expensive. I know the minister is

planning for another throughway on that side of the river. I know

that's been in the planning. It has been for some years. I would say to

the minister that with very little cost indeed he could establish a

small number of commuter trains along the CPR tracks running at

appropriate times. I think if you do that we'll save $500 million and

not build our freeway. The cars you use could be used somewhere else if

it wasn't successful, but it would be successful. It just can't fail.

The

trouble with buses, if I may say, Mr. Speaker, is that every 40 people

need a driver and another bus. It becomes a part of the traffic jam,

but the railway does not. It's timed. When the railway says it leaves

the place at such a time and arrives at such a time, it does. It will

take hundreds, if I may say thousands, of cars off Highway 7 and cancel

the necessity of another freeway. We don't want another road, but if we

must have it, we must have it. I realize that buses are not the answer.

Mr.

Speaker, I did not bring the material with me, but with proper material

I could prove that a bus costs more in fuel energy to move one

passenger than an automobile does. It's cheaper to go by car, as far as

energy is concerned, than use the bus. But I say, let's get rid of both

on the north side of the river. Let's put cars on the CPR tracks,

double-tracked all the way. It would be an ideal situation. I appeal to

the Minister of Transportation and Highways to give this consideration

before Transpo '86.

The Mission bridge. I want to say, Mr.

Speaker, if I may continue regarding my constituency, the Mission

bridge is now at last being completed. My compliments to you, Mr.

Minister of Transportation and Highways. I want to say that that bridge

was built by us before, opened by the Leader of the Opposition. It was

just the time they were returned to office. I will say that by policy

and planned forethought they said at that time that there would be no

more additions to the bridge. They said it wasn't necessary and

highways were not necessary and people could walk wherever they needed

to go. I remember those speeches very well. I remember being called up

to the platform. I was sitting in the audience, I remember, and he

said: "Call George Mussallem up here." I was the defeated candidate. I

walked humbly up to the platform and sat down and, lo and behold, they

asked me to speak. I implored at that time the then Premier. I said:

"Mr. Premier, I hope that this bridge is built. The plan for the

completion of it is in your hands and it would cost so little now to

complete the job. It would be a credit to you." The Minister of

Highways stood up and said: "We're not building any highways; we're not

developing anything like this.

British Columbia from that day on....

Interjection.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I'm not saying anything against these people. They're great thinkers.

They have great ideas, don't misunderstand them — but doing things

creative, nothing, and that's the problem. It's far easier to say we're

not doing anything than we're going to do something. Maybe

[ Page 4229 ]

that's

why we're getting into trouble so much, because we are so full of

ideas, so full of creative things to do. What happens? We make the odd

mistake, and so we land on both feet. But it doesn't matter about the

mistakes. It's the good things that count. Through it all British

Columbia is prospering as it never prospered before. It was no

accident; it happened by planning. And the planning is going on, only

faster, almost by geometric progression. I say you look forward to a

future of a greater British Columbia, and it's happening right now.

want to say to you that Mission has a fine industrial park through the

efforts and cooperation of the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). We've got a factory there covering

five acres of land. Imagine, up there in Mission — Fiberglas, five

acres of land; 250 people employed and more coming. That is what this

government creates. That is the direction the throne speech shows.

People seize this direction and become part of it.

One thing

I'd like to speak to the hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways,

the hon. Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and the

hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) about — all three of them —

is the Mission raceway. I'd like to say this: I think that we have let

down the Mission raceway. I say this sincerely, the Mission raceway did

not need to leave the area they left. If they had not left that area,

we wouldn't have had the Fiberglas plant in Mission. It could not have

come. But they were convinced to get out of there and they were sold

out for $1 million. It was a bad deal for them. They were given new

land, but even filling the land, I say to the three ministers, was not

enough to put that back in place, The people sitting there spent their

money on pumping sand and trying to complete the job without any funds.

They couldn't complete that job, and they moved out to create this

industry. I know that the municipality of Mission is partly

responsible, because they pushed them hard. I know I pushed them hard.

We needed that industry. But what's happening today? I think we should

help them. I appeal to the government at this time. I know we have a

consensus, but we haven't got the money yet, and I think they should be

helped.

I'll tell you what's happening. I'll tell you why

this is so important. This is the reason. Young people that like to

race their cars — drag-stripping — have no place to go on the lower

mainland. The area they've got is way off by the river. Every Sunday

these boys and girls go up there racing their hot-rods. It was a great

outlet for them, and it worked very well. You never heard of

drag-racing on the highways, but in the last two years drag-racing on

the highways has become epidemic. Boys and girls will go to a stoplight

— both cars together — and zoom off with the light. That's happening

almost everywhere they think there are no police. That's a thing that

we could overcome if we reinstated that raceway. All right, you can

blame the raceway — they should have asked for more money. If they had

asked for more money they wouldn't have got it, and we wouldn't have

the Fiberglas plant. So I think it's the responsibility of this

government to see them through this tough spot.

But

everything is going well, and I would like to suggest also, to the

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

to be used for housing are not in the lower part of this valley, not in

Richmond — it doesn't matter if they are — not in Coquitlam

necessarily, but on the land north — Maple Ridge and the Crown land.

There's an enormous amount of Crown land there that could be created

into a new town centre, to make housing for people through the private

enterprise system. Make it available to people to build their homes,

because we have the facilities, we have the area, and it would cool the

cost of property. I make this suggestion.

I thank the

government for the help they've given our communities in the

constituency of Dewdney, as they do in all the constituencies — not one

is forgotten. But as I'm moving the reply to the Speech from the

Throne, I want to speak of mine. Any of you could say the same.

have great pleasure in saying how much I appreciate the consideration

I've always been given by every minister, by every member — the

friendship, the total appreciation one of the other. I have never been

in a caucus where there has been more fun and pleasure, and more

getting together, than this one in the last two sessions. It seems to

be that when we're under attack we're closer together. I say this for

anyone who wants to hear. I say, as the Whip — and I know them all,

every one who's sitting there — there never was a better feeling of

friendship. Not one single one, not one — show me one — not one.... I

saw a headline in the Toronto Star , of all places: "The

Beleaguered Socreds." Beleaguered for what? I have never heard such

nonsense. We're riding high. We're all together. We've got the

legislation. We've shown the direction.

This session, I

predict, will be one of the great sessions in this country. I believe

that as we go on we will say it has been so, when we look back in

retrospect, I do one little thing quietly. I call on the opposition to

forget the past years. See the greater vision. Join with us in making a

greater British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I now have the honour

to move, seconded by the hon. member for North Peace River (Mr.

Brummet), that we, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the

Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg

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

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

MR. BRUMMET:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to second the Speech from the Throne. I was going

to say that I am impressed by the eloquent terms and the inimitable

style of the member for Dewdney, but probably in simpler terms I should

say: "How do you follow that act?"

I certainly appreciate

this opportunity, once again, to be able to second the Speech from the

Throne. I feel pleased and honoured.

I concur with a great

deal of what the member for Dewdney has said, so I will not repeat what

he has said about various parts of the throne speech. I would like to

refer to some parts of the throne speech and perhaps make a few

personal observations.

First of all, though, I would like to

congratulate Mr. Speaker, who has now left the chair, and welcome him

back, somewhat more hirsute but perhaps still of sound mind and good

humour. We certainly look forward to his special touch in controlling

the occasional lapse from the rational and reasoned debate that goes on

in this House.

I would also like to congratulate, the member

for Delta (Mr. Davidson) on his reappointment as Deputy Speaker, and I

would like to take this opportunity to recognize the admirable way in

which he took over and handled a fairly difficult session earlier this

year. I know the Speaker is proud of his protege.

[ Page 4230 ]

The

Speech from the Throne yesterday paid a well deserved tribute to the

achievement of Terry Fox. I think we all owe a sincere vote of thanks

to this young man, who was able to tear us away from our apathy and our

cynicism and allow us to share a little of the glory and enable us to

express our hero worship in a tangible way for a worthy cause. He has

done us a great favour because we are rather reluctant, as Canadians,

to show signs of any hero worship, and here was a man who very

unselfishly provided us the opportunity to feel good about what someone

does and a very worthy cause. I think it might be appropriate that we

can go into 1981 with this in our memory, because the United Nations is

now focusing on the handicapped.

Here I might get into a bit

of personal observation. I think it is too easy to fall into the trap

of trying to find ways to help the handicapped or the disabled when

really we can do the most good by providing them with the opportunity

to help themselves. This may sound like semantics, but based on past

personal experience it is a very real difference to me.

make my point, let me just perhaps illustrate with a couple of

experiences that I had. I had a baseball manager years ago who was

confined to a wheelchair. I learned a lot of baseball from that man and

a lot about courage.

Many years ago I took a blind girl into

grade 8 in the school of which I was principal, and this was before it

was considered possible or could be done, and against a lot of good

advice. I must say that in the two years that that girl stayed with us

she earned good marks in grade 8 and grade 9, and she contributed a

great deal to the school music program, as she played the piano very

well. I should say that she taught us all a great deal, both the

students and the teachers.

During my many years in education

I was in contact with many people that we would consider as

handicapped, either physically, mentally or whatever. They did not

always see themselves that way, and when we sort of overlooked the

handicapped and treated them as real people, they blossomed. The last

thing that was of any use to them was pity or our self-righteous help.

I say self-righteous when it did more good for our ego than it did for

them.

I think we should temper our good intentions, as we go

into 1981, with a degree of caution and wisdom when we set out to help

the handicapped. We might do well to remember that Terry Fox helped a

lot of other people.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few

words about my constituency of North Peace River. It is a large area,

it is a great distance from Victoria geographically, and we are trying

to close the distance in terms of communication. We have made some

gains in terms of gaining recognition and promoting understanding.

Because of our riches in gas and oil now, a great deal of the rest of

the province and the rest of the world know that we exist, but there is

still a great deal left to learn about our area and about the people in

our area.

Just briefly I could describe North Peace River.

From the Peace River to the southern boundary it is farmland, very rich

farmland and probably some of the most undeveloped Crown land that can

be used for farming in the province, if not in Canada. As you travel

north along the highway you get into the mountains. The scenery is some

of the finest in the world, really, as we see the Rocky Mountains.

Then, north of Fort Nelson, you have the mountains again, beautiful,

rugged, majestic scenery.

If any of you ever have the

opportunity to make that trip you will find that a good deal of the

highway north of Fort Nelson is paved with cold-mix, and so the dust

problem is no longer there. A great deal of that highway has been

straightened out and paved. We are looking forward to the day when it

is completed.

It is certainly a worthwhile trip. Underneath

us, of course, and around us lie many of the provincial riches, the

natural resources.

Mr. Speaker, we were delighted to have

the economic development committee of cabinet visit us recently, and we

are pleased that more cabinet ministers are visiting the Peace River

area more often, along with some of their staff, because I think it is

important and it does help when these people are familiar with what

they are dealing with when they are making decisions that affect us.

are also pleased that recently a few camera crews have come up and

taken some documentaries of our area to tell our story to the outside

world, and we are looking forward to the day, perhaps soon, when they

will come back and tell the real story instead of the sensational

tidbits — I might say the sensational tidbits and the untypical

activities. Let me illustrate one example. It makes good news, it makes

juicy film, but I wonder if these people realize what harm they are

really doing. They went into a pub, found a transient and interviewed

him. That transient said that in Fort St. John the police will pick you

up if you are driving in a sober condition because it is so unusual.

That is garbage.

The point is — and what irritates me about

that — they may be having their fun and they may be looking down their

noses at us rural people, or the people in the outback, as some of them

would like to think, but they don't realize that we, too, need

professional, highly skilled people, and when a doctor or a dentist is

thinking about coming into our area and the only impression his wife or

his family have of our area is what they saw in that particular

fallacious TV program, that really does hurt us.

At the risk

of being critical of the press, I think we have to consider that some

of these people who are looking for the sensational bits are not

helping themselves — either. There is a really exciting and dramatic

story in our area; we don't need to resort to that.

I said

earlier that I would like to express a few personal viewpoints, and I

would like to take advantage of the latitude which is sometimes allowed

in the throne speech debate to present these personal viewpoints.

was certainly encouraged by the commitment in the throne speech to

provide improved television services to all the people of British

Columbia. It is time that the people along the Alaska Highway got at

least one communication link with the rest of British Columbia and the

rest of the world, and hopefully this can be provided through the

satellite TV. I'm thinking of the people not only along the highway,

but in many other remote parts of British Columbia, even in

northwestern British Columbia. I see that member is not here, but I

would like to help him. I'm not as interested in creating adversary

situations as he is; rather I'm interested in trying to get some

services to the people.

I know it is probably difficult for

many of you to visualize no radio reception, no TV reception and a

newspaper that gets there two or three weeks late. That's the news that

they get. The best news they have is from the truck drivers who ply the

highway. We are all aware of the steps that have been taken by members

of this government to try to legalize TV reception from satellites. It

might take a few million dollars to cover the whole province in all the

remote areas, so that these people can get radio and TV reception. Here

I'm

[ Page 4231 ]

speaking

of, say, the northeast, the northwest, some of the central areas and

the southwest. So I would hope that if in a special appropriation bill

some money is allotted towards this program, all members of this House

would support that and bring these people into the twentieth century

along with the rest of us.

Another vital link which unites

this province is our transportation system. We realize it is easiest to

give top highway priority to the areas where the pressure is the

greatest. I would like to urge this government to continue the policy

of building good transportation links to all areas of the province. It

was that policy which encouraged the opening up of the resource-rich

areas, and thereby contributed greatly to the prosperity we enjoy in

British Columbia. I think it's important that that be continued,

despite the criticism that we get from some members. It's easy for the

critics to say that spending money on highways is really not serving

the people's needs. It should be self-evident that if we create

revenue, we can serve the people better. Generally, these critics have

paved roads all around them and can afford the luxury of scoffing at

those people who do need roads.

People who find their roads

impassable every time it rains do want them at least gravelled. People

who live beside a farm road which once had little traffic but who now

see a steady stream of oilfield service vehicles and logging trucks

raising the dust are perhaps justified in wanting pavement. They know

that these industries generate much revenue for everyone in the

province, and so they resent having to suffer the extra dust. We

recognize the need for the major freeways, but we want our needs not to

be forgotten.

I would be remiss if I did not commend this

government for the work that has been done on highways in our area. I

would hope the maintenance and improvement program will be increased at

the same time as more freeways are built in the southern part of the

province.

One classic example is what we call the Fort

Nelson–Fort Simpson road. This has now been accelerated by extra

efforts from the ministry, more funding from this government, in that

way encouraging the federal government to move their completion date

ahead to 1982. For those of you who are not familiar with what that

road might do, it opens up British Columbia to the Mackenzie Valley. It

would be the only year-round, all-weather transportation link that we

have with the Mackenzie Valley. The potential for commercial trade and

so on is fantastic.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They closed it down.

MR. BRUMMET: Would they vote down something like that?

know it also completes a tourist loop, because the Mackenzie Highway

from Alberta comes up to Fort Simpson. With the scenery that I've been

talking about, the famous Nahanni Valley being made accessible by those

roads, I think the tourist potential is fantastic. We all know what

tourism has done for this province under this government. Already there

are mining ventures opening up that will be served by that road.

They're going at their work now so that they will be in production as

soon as the road opens, or even before. This Fort Nelson–Fort Simpson

road will be a valuable investment many times over.

resource development in the north continues, which it surely will, the

need for skilled labour will increase. I would like to offer a

few suggestions as to how these needs can be met. For the initial

stages, which involve exploration and assessment, there is already in

place a highly skilled work force which industry may not yet have

recognized. I refer to the native Indian people, who know the woods,

the rivers and the mountains. They know more about the wilderness than

several years' study by outside experts and inventory takers will

reveal. If we learned to listen to them and use their talents and

skills, both we and they would benefit. Certainly I am aware that there

are areas which they would not want developed, and that there are other

parts of the country which they would like preserved. I'm convinced

that if we can arrange to meet in a serious way with these native

people, we could arrive at a satisfactory agreement regarding both

development and preservation. I believe in rational settlement. I see

no advantage in promoting the adversary tactics.

When and as

the native people choose to become involved in that development

program, they would then take advantage of training programs for trades

skills. But I think we must meet them on their own ground first. We

cannot expect such training programs to be successful if we ask these

people to go to distant schools and, in a completely foreign

environment, study theory rather than basic, practical skills. We must

take the training to them.

In the same vein, Mr. Speaker, we

must put a greater emphasis on putting trades training programs into

the areas where the particular skills are used. How easy it is to fall

into the trap of centralist thinking, which I will define as bringing

the students to elaborate central institutions as the best way to

accomplish training. I can easily accept that in the case of major

universities, because there the research facilities and the academic

programs are essential, but I cannot see it as the way to promote the

best trades training.

Let me illustrate. In the Peace River

area we have a great need for heavy-duty mechanics, instrument

technicians, pipe-fitters and gasline-related trades. Many of our young

people are working in these trade areas and they do not get trained,

because they cannot afford to go to the lower mainland to take their

training. It costs them not only transportation costs, their board and

room, but also the cost of their trips home — because they are human

beings — and the part-time wages that they could make if they were in

the area. So the area resident remains untrained. If the training

program is offered at BCIT, a young person from the lower mainland can

afford to attend and get the training. When trained, that person often

refuses to leave his familiar surroundings, and so we have an untrained

person employed in the Peace River area and a highly trained person in

the lower mainland who is unemployed.

I'm trying to suggest

that to reverse this pattern we should take the training programs into

the areas where that particular occupation is in effect. I don't think

we need to build expensive labs. There are labs all around them. If we

could just get out of thinking that the training has to happen inside

the doors of an institution.... I think we can take that program out. I

think we need a small, central facility to coordinate the training, but

they can do a lot of work on the job. The labs, as I say, are real

industrial facilities that are operating now.

I know this is

an oversimplification, but I guess what I'm suggesting in principle is

that we take the oil- and gasfield-related industry training to

where the oil and gas industries operate, take the logging training to

where logging operates — I know there's one program working in Prince

George that could be expanded, and I know there are others in the

province — and take the mining training to where the mines are

operating. I think we can accomplish a great deal.

[ Page 4232 ]

However,

much of our professional advice in this respect comes from people who

are either in the institutions or have been influenced heavily by

institutions, so it's hard to break out of that mould. A lot of the

institutionalized thinking, I feel, is, to an extent, self-serving.

There

are many other areas I'd love to discuss, but perhaps I should move on.

The throne speech makes reference to the great progress which has been

made in providing increased services to people, these having been made

possible by unprecedented economic activity. I think it is remarkable

that this government can realistically commit itself to so many

positive and progressive programs described in the throne speech, while

other parts of the country are concerned with cutbacks and recession.

This has not come about by accident. I repeat: this has not come about

by accident. Our good economic position is a result of sound government

policy.

I would like to offer a few of my observations on

the effects of the recent federal budget and the proposed national

energy policy. To many British Columbians this may appear to be an

academic exercise for political discussion, but to my constituency its

effects are very real. Several Canadian firms who were pursuing a very

active drilling program have been forced to move their programs to the

United States. That's hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Unlike

the large multinational oil companies who can survive sudden variations

in taxation policies the small Canadian companies need cash flow and

the confidence of their investors and lenders. That is why they will be

investing their money in the United States, where they are encouraged

through monetary policies. Ironically our enterprising and highly

skilled Canadian companies will be devoting their funds and expertise

to helping make the United States self-sufficient in their energy

program, thereby reducing the need for British Columbia gas and hurting

our natural gas market.

Interjections.

MR. BRUMMET:

I know there can be a lot of discussion, but I think that we must

acknowledge that the health of our oil and gas industry, and the great

deal of revenue that it has generated for this province, has depended,

to a large extent, on the American market. We seem to be helping them

now to destroy that. Fortunately, our own government has encouraged

industries to come in here. If it weren't for the recent announcement

by Dome Petroleum to create markets for our natural gas within the

province and with other nations, we would probably see a very severe

setback in the oil and gas industry. So the small Canadian companies

were hit first and hardest.

Let me again illustrate. One

company that I know of has cut back from the 28 wells they had planned

to drill in northeastern British Columbia this winter to 12. That's not

a great number; it's only a cutback of some 16, if my arithmetic is

correct. I'd like to spend a moment to illustrate just how much effect

that has. That is only one company. There are many other companies that

are cutting back as well. It takes anywhere from 35 to 60 truckloads to

move a rig from one location to another. So those 16 wells represent an

awful lot of trucking hours to the private enterprisers, to the people

who own those trucks. The reduced drilling program has a fairly

extensive effect down the line — and fairly quickly.

I think

few people realize how many are involved in the drilling of a well,

Ahead of the seismic crews there is the land clearing — the clearing of

the cutlines. Then surveyors must plot these cutlines, and they also

have to plot the location of the well sites. These sites are then

cleared by heavy equipment operators and prepared for the drilling

operation. There are roads that need to be built into the sites. Where

usable timber is affected, that has to be salvaged. So that creates

more employment. Then come the truckers who move the rigs. On the well

itself, enough crew is required to keep the drilling going in shifts

around the clock. The drilling operation must be serviced by

mud-haulers, by water-haulers and by waste-removal trucks. Welders with

portable units are employed. Onsite camps are required, complete with

cooks and first-aid attendants. The companies that provide drilling

bits, valve-servicing and chemicals, the cables and pressure testing,

all come into the picture. If the well is successful, it must then be

tested and prepared, hooked up and capped. The pipeline crews and the

production supervisors get their turn when the well goes into

production. Even this inexpert description — and I certainly can't

claim to be an expert in the oil industry — of what is involved in the

drilling of a well should allow us to at least visualize the number of

jobs involved directly and indirectly, and I haven't even gotten into

the service industries such as the restaurants, motels and so on.

Most

of these jobs go to small businesses that are operated by local

entrepreneurs and their employees. The average cost of a gas well in

British Columbia is somewhere between $1 million and $3 million, and a

high portion of that revenue remains in the area and goes into the

local economy. So let us not be fooled by the fact that a considerable

amount of drilling will still go on this winter; many of these programs

have been committed and they must drill. The only option that they have

is whether they drill the minimum number of wells to keep their program

going or whether they drill as many wells as the season allows. That is

what will hurt some people this drilling season this winter and on into

next summer, because these people too have mortgage payments to make on

their houses, and that depends on their jobs and their jobs depend on

an active industry. I would hope that, since it takes about a year for

the industry to gear down or to gear up into their drilling program, a

change of heart — no, I perhaps change that — a change of mind by

Ottawa would help to get this program back on its way.

think it's important to note that the federal taxation scheme on

natural gas and oil combined with the energy takeover policy has driven

out the Canadian companies or virtually shut them down, and it has

discouraged further investment by the large oil companies. The

combination of the budget and the energy program has eliminated any

hope of Canada reaching self-sufficiency by the 1990s unless there is a

quick change in thinking by the federal government. When we realize how

many billions of dollars it is costing Canada to import oil from

foreign sources it is a puzzle as to why development of our own

supplies is being discouraged. And this is happening as we drive away

the needed investment dollars,

A very blunt

summary of our

situation was expressed earlier this week by Gerald Hobbs, the former

chairman of Cominco Ltd. and now a business consultant. I'd like to

quote a few of the things that he said because I think they very

succinctly state the situation:

"We are told to conserve when encouraged by price to consume, while the Canadian government

[ Page 4233 ]

piles up debt by subsidizing the price of oil by more than half.

"The

continuing subsidy on imported oil to be funded through the new

petroleum compensation charge levied on the refineries does not make

economic sense. Once the energy companies have been plundered, who is

left to pay government debts? It is we, the citizens, who will pay.

"The

loss to Canada in exploration spending will amount to billions of

dollars, and because of the reduced exploration now there will be less

production in the future. The energy program will cause an enormous

outflow of money to the United States — some taken there by Canadian

companies, yet more handed over by the government to buy up

multinationals who have finally succumbed to the federal offer which

they cannot refuse.

"For a country dependent

on a continuing inflow of capital to finance its development, measures

to buy out existing oil producers and drive Canadian capital south,

where it is treated much better than at home, are as ridiculous as

forcing an anemic patient to become a blood donor."

In view

of the damage which has already been done to the oil and gas industry,

and in turn to the revenues we derived and the jobs we need, it is

astonishing to me — probably it shouldn't be surprising — that a

prominent, would-be leader in this province has in effect said: "Hit

them again and harder; they're still breathing." In one grand gesture

he has offered 45 percent control over a major provincial resource to

the federal government and, in a magnanimous gesture — at least, I

imagine that in his view it is a magnanimous gesture — he has offered

10 percent of the production income to the oil companies for investing

their money, taking the risks and doing the work. I wonder how many of

them will stay on those terms. And if they leave, where do we get the

funds to replace them? Do we borrow billions, as is being done by

Ottawa, or do we squeeze it out of our own consumers? For any of you

who may not be familiar with the Barrett formula for dealing with the

oil companies, that was stated by him, I guess, in an address to the

B.C. Federation of Labour convention.

Mr. Speaker, I believe

we can benefit by encouraging investors rather than by chasing them

away. I believe it is important that we control our natural resources

and the revenues from them. I cannot see us being taken in by the

generous offer of several million dollars to encourage development in

British Columbia, when it took about three times that much money away

from us in order to give us that much back. I think we can handle those

decisions, and certainly a higher share of much less will not benefit

the federal government or the Canadian people.

I am

concerned that the grandiose taxation and nationalization scheme of the

federal government will hurt Canada and Canadians everywhere in the

long run. And I do get upset when, because of this concern and because

I express this concern, it is implied that I am anti-Canadian. That is

garbage. I think all of us are Canadians and we want to be Canadians;

but I think we have to be Canadians on terms in which we can best serve

this country and this province.

Let me conclude, Mr.

Speaker, by saying that I think we will continue to prosper. I can't

see British Columbians being taken in by the negativism and promises

which cannot be honoured. The throne speech contains commitments to

many positive and progressive programs. This province was built by

optimism and by encouraging investment. I believe this will continue.

I would like to say again that I have been very pleased and honoured to second the Speech from the Throne.

Mr. King moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. McGeer tabled the second annual report of the Science Council of British Columbia, for the year ended March 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:32 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1981,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada