1979 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 1979

Night Sitting

[ Page

151 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 151

Mr. Stupich — 155

Mr. Rogers — 163

Mrs. Dailly — 166

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 170

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, it's a privilege to stand in

my place this evening to speak on the Speech from the Throne. While I

appreciate that the attitudes regarding the speech may be divided in

this House, I believe that the citizens of British Columbia will

reflect very positively on the message which was contained in the

speech. The Lieutenant-Governor, in offering the Speech from the Throne

this year to the citizens of British Columbia, stressed the very

positive action of the government in the past as well as in the future,

and stressed some very important principles which are part of the

philosophy of the government of British Columbia.

There has been a considerable amount of consideration and discussion

in the province about one of the first comments in the speech of the

Lieutenant-Governor, and that was to do with the British Columbia

Resources Investment Corporation concept of offering shares to

individuals in British Columbia. I appreciate that members across the

House do not necessarily share the enthusiasm which most citizens in

the province have indicated for this. I know that the members across

the floor had a mild problem in deciding which way to turn. Originally,

upon first blush, the decision was that they would reject it out of

hand, and then, upon sober consideration, it was decided that they may

as well live with what is there. So there was a minor flip-flop, which

is reminiscent of the famous debate on daylight saving time a few years

back.

The concept of individual citizens in British Columbia having within

their possession a share of the resources of this province is very

basic and philosophic to the concepts that we, on this side of the

House, believe in.

I appreciate and I can understand the philosophy of those opposite

who suggest that citizens of a province or a country should entrust to

a government that jurisdiction and that they should, by way of their

election of members to a Legislative Assembly, entrust to them the

resources of the province.

There's a very important difference in philosophy. Members on this side

of the House believe that individual members of society should have that opportunity

of being personally involved rather than represented by government. It's

a very basic difference in philosophy. I appreciate that that difference in

philosophy is what makes a horse race. That's why people are involved in

different political parties. That's why there is difference of opinion.

I'm not condemning any one opinion. One is as legitimate as the other. It's

a matter of whether the majority of people within a jurisdiction support one

or the other. The results of the last election in British Columbia indicate

that people in our province support the concept of individual ownership, rather

than ownership by proxy through a government.

The Lieutenant-Governor's message to the people of British Columbia

was very concise. It mentioned some specific programs which are being

offered to the people of our province in this year, along with a review

of many of the accomplishments of the government over the past three

years. We believe very strongly that individual citizens in our

province are the most important ingredient in our society and that no

government can claim to have greater wisdom or capability than that

which would be condensed from all the citizens within our society. We

do have a system which permits people to make a choice and to ask their

representatives to speak on their behalf. Each of us in turn takes that

opportunity in this House.

It's a difference in philosophy. I recognize that. Many members in

this House do recognize that. Once that difference in philosophy is

resolved, then the people are told to do the job. The member for

Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) in his address to the House today made a

very important point — I think perhaps it was the only important point

— when he said that a government is given the mandate to govern. When a

government chooses to make use of that mandate, of course, it is open

to criticism. Our system permits, recommends and encourages that

criticism to come through.

But there's a difference between criticism and politics. What we

have witnessed in this House, day upon day upon day, not only in this

but in previous sessions, is just an exercise in politics. There's no

question in my mind and in the minds of many citizens in this province

that the BCRIC share offering is perhaps one of the greatest

innovations that any government in our country has been able to

develop. I have no doubt that if the opportunity was before the former

government, they might indeed have done the same thing, and would have

been telling us what a great idea it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: I doubt it.

[ Page 152 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, all right. It's quite possible that

they would have, though, because it is a very good idea. The opposition

has reluctantly agreed to the concept. Their leader, who was criticized

by other speakers in this House, reluctantly came to the point after he

had checked the wind and understood that people thought it was a great

idea. He reluctantly said: "Well, maybe we won't cancel the

distribution, should we be elected as government, and we won' t try and

buy it all back and force people to sell their individual ownership."

AN HON. MEMBER: They will.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, they won't.

AN HON. MEMBER: They would if they could. They'd take it back.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, they won't take it back. They won't be

given the opportunity to take it back and the people of the province

know that. You can fool people once, but you can't fool them twice.

They won't be fooled again in this province.

The harping of the opposition in relation to this throne speech is

most interesting, because with the major newspapers in Vancouver being

on strike, the members of the opposition must really wonder: "What

should we say to attract a headline? Does 9:30 at night mean anything

anymore? Is there a deadline for newspapers?" What we heard from our

member for Revelstoke-Slocan and the second member for Vancouver East

(Mr. Barrett) was repetition of the same speeches we've heard for the

last four sessions. We heard 1979 introduced in this House by the

Leader of the Opposition on a replay of MEL Paving, of the BCR, of

natural gas — of which he suffers from an overabundance — and of the

great railway to the Yukon or Alaska or wherever.

The same stories have been going on now for four years. He's the

Xerox-Copy Kid, with the same speeches. I might say that I was

disappointed in some of the speakers' inability to come up with

something new.

There are members on the opposite side of the House who do introduce

a new system or method of debate each session. But there are some who

lack the ability to accept reality and just recycle speech upon speech

upon speech. It's the same old nonsense that we've heard for so many

years. The headlines did not follow those speeches this year. No

wonder! Surely the press gallery is getting tired of reprinting the

same information and the same comments year after year after year.

There are no new ideas being offered to this House from the opposite

side. There is criticism, yes — criticism which they feel to be

legitimate — which is their role, but nothing new.

We are asked today to accept from one of the members opposite that

their leader, in the role of a Messiah, is going throughout the

province offering new and exciting schemes which are being accepted by

all political parties, by businessmen big and small, by industrialists

and by others, with such great excitement. If there is a secret in this

province today, it's widely known. It is that British Columbia more

than any other province in our country is the province to lead our

country into the future.

When you have the opportunity of attending First Ministers'

Conferences or interprovincial conferences across our country, and when

you hear from older provinces, and when you hear from other parts of

our country about the incredible envy they have for our province, and

they ask, "Do you understand your potential?" I think you respond to

them that, indeed, we do. Indeed we recognize the greatness of our

province. We might tell them that, of course, there is an official

group of people who do not recognize the greatness of our province, who

have through concerted efforts attempted to keep our province back, and

who bad-mouth our province so others may hear, for their own common,

limited political desire. The public can't be fooled all the time. The

public can't be fooled much of the time.

The members opposite seem to feel that the opportunity for the

citizens of our province to make a decision may be near. Well, I think

that decision has already been made. Should the Premier decide at some

time in the future to ask the people of our province to, once again,

take the opportunity of deciding who should be government of this

province, the answer is already known. This government will be returned

as the government of British Columbia, to complete the job that has

been started.

I thought it was most interesting that one of the members opposite

said that they can compare the record of the NDP and the record of

Social Credit. My goodness gracious! What audacity to even suggest that

someone compare. Oh, of course, they'll compare, but what a dreadful

comparison. How uncharitable would be any member of the government to

ask any intelligent individual to compare the record of the NDP and the

Social Credit government. I wonder, indeed, if members of the NDP would

like a handicap system of some kind so that, perhaps, the comparison

would be more fair. Of course, they are handicapped. But comparison?

[ Page 153 ]

My goodness gracious! What a comparison could be offered to the

people! I thank the member opposite who suggested that, because I'm

sure no one on the government side had considered comparing the records

of the two governments. It is a record of despair and a record of

accomplishment; it is as simple as that.

My critic and my friend, the member for Vancouver-Burrard,

emphasizes very often the number of bankruptcies that are recorded in

the province, ignoring completely the number of incorporations that

take place in our province. You know, the official opposition would

have everyone believe that it is sinful and almost criminal for anyone

to take a chance and go broke. This happens many, many times, as

everyone who has been involved in business knows. There's a very

legitimate opportunity to go broke, to be unsuccessful. There is no

guarantee in life. And certainly government does not have that role to

play, to guarantee someone is going to be successful. Government does

have a role to play — that it will not interfere in the opportunity of

someone being successful.

Today one of the members opposite derided the Ministry of

Deregulation, and I know that the term "deregulation" may offend some

(Mr. King). It's a bit of an awkward word, but nonetheless the intent

is very clear, and the effect is very important. In recent times we

have seen people who have thrown up their hands and said: "I've had

enough of regulation; I've had enough of red tape; I've had enough of

bureaucracy. I will take my money, I will take my capital and I will go

elsewhere."

There are those in certain political parties who are so unsure of

their own capabilities that they will permit bureaucrats to handle

everything. Instead of making decisions themselves — decisions for

which they were elected — they will appoint, they will provide

authority for appointed people. They will have a committee. They will

have a commission. They will have someone else make that hard decision.

They can always say: "It was non-political. We didn't make the

decision. Someone else did." The people are not well served by such a

concept. It may be very convenient for members who haven't got the guts

to make decisions for which they were elected, but it does not serve

the people. The people of this province and the people of this country

have had about as much as they need and as much as they desire from

appointed bureaucrats who do not have a responsibility to the people

but serve only those who appoint them.

What a convenient way of avoiding an issue. What a convenient way of

making a decision by allowing it to slip down to those people who are

appointed. Then you can remain Simon-pure and say: "Well, we didn't do

that. We would never do that. We would never make a decision."

Bureaucrats, commissions, committees, authorities and all the rest of

it to avoid responsibility. It's interesting to speak to common people

in our province, to ordinary citizens who expect their government to

make decisions to assist them, rather than allowing some person who was

appointed to make that decision.

MR. KING: Who are the common people?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for Revelstoke Slocan wondered

who a common person was. My friend, I would suggest that if you worked

very hard for the next decade you might raise yourself to that status

of being a common person.

MR. KING: Are you uncommon?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, let's not interrupt the member. He was doing so well.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Thank you very much.

The citizens of the province, I'm sure in the near future, will be given an opportunity to speak once again.

MR. COCKE: I hope they are.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, I hope they are, Dennis. New

Westminster is looking for a complete new look. I think they'll start

with their MLA, along with Columbia Street. I don't think it's proper

for members of the House to bet on various things. One of your members

turned me down tonight on a bet.

We have a Minister of Deregulation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) . That's a big

cause of humour on the other side apparently. The Minister of

Deregulation, according to our throne speech, is going to bring in

regulations to rescind redundant legislation. I think perhaps that the

model the Minister of Deregulation may use is the rescinding of the

"Redundant Governments of 1975 Act" to a bill by way of the general

election of that year.

It's interesting that some of the members opposite say: "The

government on the other side won't forget they won." Yet it's obvious

that their biggest problem — in their thinking — is they can't forget

they lost. I wonder how many people would prefer to be in that

position. There is nothing improper about winning. I thought the

concept and idea of contesting a

[ Page 154 ]

situation

was to win. There is nothing improper about winning. Surely

congratulations should be offered rather than criticism. There is

nothing particularly wrong about losing. The NDP, and the CCF before

it, had great experience in losing. They are good losers. They've had

experience. They should be.

There is certainly a difference between the CCF and the NDP. There

are many people of history who belonged to the CCF who were people of

integrity. Unfortunately it's not hereditary. When you passed through

the metamorphosis of change from the CCF by way of marriage with the

CLC into the NDP, you lost a great deal in translation. You can claim

what you wish from your political ancestors, Mr. Member. You're going

to have to convince people. Your words are inadequate. You're going to

have to convince people that you have retained some of that integrity.

MR. COCKE: That's right, I was there in 1948. Where in the hell were you?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, you were there in 1948.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. minister please address the Chair and assist in maintaining order.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I certainly will.

There were many people around in 1948. Some of those continued to

develop since 1948. Others are mired in the errors of 1948. We do have

some very good examples in this House tonight. He says: "Where in the

hell were you in 1948?" That was it. I'm quoting it.

In 1948, as I recall very vividly, I was standing in front of a shoe

factory in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan when Tommy Douglas was producing

shoes for the people, all left foot, along with the woollen mills,

along with all the other socialized industry of Saskatchewan that went

broke.

Mr. Speaker, many people have stayed back in 1948. The only good

thing about 1948, Mr. Member for New Westminster, was the coins of

Canada.

The importance of the throne speech has been lost because of the political

difficulties of so many speakers in this House. The seriousness of the throne

speech has been ignored by so many because they're repeating that experience

they learned in 1948, year upon year upon year, without improvement. It's

fine for them to criticize, reject and offer alternatives, as they call them

— retreads, recycles — yet, begrudgingly, the opposition, including our lone

representative from the Conservative Party, had to look upon some of the positive

aspects of the throne speech, including the concept of denticare, a concept

which was offered to the people of Canada in 1933 by the CCF. Isn't that

wonderful? Isn't that wonderful that the CCF offered the concept of denticare

in 1933?

Why didn't they introduce it? Well, they were never given the chance

to introduce it because they were never elected as government. But the

NDP was elected as government. Did they bring in denticare? No. They

would have solved all the problems of the universe. We've heard that

time and time again, year after year. They were going to. They would

have. They were going to do it.

I hope that the introduction of denticare into our province

alleviates many problems for many citizens. That, certainly, is not a

partisan concept by any government; it's a good concept, and I hope

that the people of British Columbia are in the position to afford it,

are responsible in making use of it and that the benefits to them are

wide-felt.

The Ministry of Human Resources and other ministries within our

government have recognized 1979 as the Year of the Child and Family.

Surely such a concept, in coordination with the United Nations'

recognition of the International Year of the Child, is well beyond

partisan politics. There are many children within our province in need

of assistance. There are many children who have been ignored for many,

many years, through no fault of any one individual or government. There

are many children who have finally received some assistance from

government to overcome their handicaps.

MR LAUK: Now they've got their five free shares.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for Vancouver Centre believes

that the way to alleviate a blind child's problem is to give him five

free shares of something. He just referred to that, Mr. Speaker. That

is not the manner in which to relieve such a handicap, Mr. Member. You

approach the problem seriously, pay attention to those people who

understand the problem and then respond.

Yesterday I had the honour of speaking to the Canadian National

Institute for the Blind at their annual general meeting. The CNIB was

very gracious in commenting about how the government of British

Columbia has responded to the needs of visually impaired children. I'm

not interested in seeking political points, when any government

responds to the needs of such children. We are in a position,

[ Page 155 ]

in 1979, to be the beneficiaries of the great

technology, study and science which has given our civilized world

tremendous technological advantages and children with various problems

and handicaps the chance to live a more normal life.

Many technological advances are available through associations such

as the CNIB, the Western Institute of the Deaf and others, to allow

children to lead a more normal life.

I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the government of British

Columbia has recognized that opportunity and has seen fit to provide

funds to allow such organizations to obtain such apparatuses to allow

these children to enjoy a much more normal life.

There's no great political advantage to being humane. There's no

great political advantage to keeping handicapped people down somewhat

if you can possibly assist them. Through the International Year of the

Child, and the Year of the Child and the Family in British Columbia,

many citizens of our province, young and old, will benefit from the

awareness of government which assists them in enjoying a much more

normal life. The technology is available to us. All it takes is good

will and, in many instances, capital to permit them to enjoy life, and

this will be done this year of 1979.

Mr. Speaker, one of the programs which was mentioned by the

Lieutenant-Governor in the Speech from the Throne was the universality

of Pharmacare. Governments preceding ours, going back, I believe, to

the late 1940s — perhaps that date is incorrect — introduced a basic

concept of medicare, pharmacare or whatever you wish to call it, and it

was improved upon over the years. Our government took upon itself the

obligation to modify it even more, so that a family which has the

problem of a number of children or a number of members of their family

with chronic illnesses would not be faced with very large

pharmaceutical bills. Through our universal system of Pharmacare they

are permitted to take care of their family members without extremely

high costs. Hopefully a denticare program will be introduced in our

province which will alleviate that serious budgetary problem of so many

families with children in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, a very important program which is being introduced by our government

relates to a subject I spoke of before — deregulation. We have seen, in recent

days, a number of people who have simply given up, and presumably have left

the province with their capital because of excessive regulation, because of

frustration on their part with bureaucrats, red tape and so on. The Ministry

of Deregulation, at this session, is to introduce legislation which will bring

under one authority the responsibility for coordinating the codes, the standards

and inspection service relating to construction, the use of occupancy buildings

and structures within our province. Although that may appear to be, on the outside,

very technical and not too attractive, it is vitally important to our industry

and to our economy in British Columbia. I believe that depending on the force

with which our Minister of Deregulation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) and associated ministers

allow themselves to go forward, we will have success, and it will be vitally

important to the investors who are looking upon British Columbia as a place

to make use of their capital.

Mr. Speaker, the ministry which I previously had the privilege of

administering was involved in a program to provide Crown land to

citizens of our province, and the new Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is following through with legislation at this

session which will see that the citizens of our province are offered

the opportunity of owning their own corner of British Columbia. There

are many who are opposed to the concept, many who believe that the

province of British Columbia should not be used by people, certainly

not by citizens of British Columbia, but should be used for some other

purpose.

Mr. Speaker, we have the capability and the capacity to make good use of our

lands and to allow the citizens of our province the opportunity to own their

own. Such is the theme of the throne speech this year — that British Columbia

belongs to the citizens of the province, not to the government of the province

of British Columbia — and that separates the philosophies of the two sides of

this House: the individuals, represented by the government side; and huge government,

bureaucratic government, red government, represented by the other side of the

House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Collectivism.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Collectivism. "Big is good; big government

is good; Big Daddy can take care of you; we know best. How dare you

allow ordinary citizens the right to have something to say about the

destiny of their province? Vander Zalm, you started that."

I sincerely hope that the people of British Columbia will be

provided with an opportunity very soon once again to speak out

collectively and tell the rest of the world that British Columbia is in

safe hands.

MR. STUPICH: The minister's closing remark

[ Page 156 ]

reminds me of a time — I think it was in 1960 —

when the then Premier of the province was speaking at a meeting in

Vancouver. He said he was so pleased that so many cabinet ministers

were in the audience because they could hear when the election was

going to be at the same time as the rest of the people in the province.

He's hoping tonight that the people are soon going to have an

opportunity, and wondering, just as all of us are, when that will be.

He will find out not one moment sooner than the rest of us. He'll be

told.

On my first opportunity in this session, I'd like to make some

reference to the Speech from the Throne — the people who were members

of this House and who are no longer with us.

W.A.C. Bennett — I was a member of this House for six years while he

was Premier. He was certainly a man who will be long remembered.

Dorothy Gretchen Steeves was not nearly as famous or infamous as

W.A.C. Bennett, depending on your point of view, but certainly was a

person of extremely high intellect — one I knew well. I think it was a

great gain for me that I did have an opportunity to know her well, and

a loss for those who didn't have that same opportunity. She was a truly

remarkable, extremely capable woman and an excellent MLA.

With further reference to the Speech from the Throne, I'd like to

say, on a positive note, that I welcome the reference to the Duke Point

development at Nanaimo — a development that Nanaimo has been talking

about, wondering about and waiting for for a very long time. The Speech

from the Throne refers to the massive Duke Point project in Nanaimo as

another example of federal-provincial joint funding. This will result

in the direct creation of 1,100 new jobs. It is an economic shot in the

arm that Nanaimo sorely needs. For some time we wondered whether or not

we were ever going to get it.

I can't help but compare this paragraph from the Speech from the

Throne with the previous one, which I presume must be the other

example. It talks about providing 1,200 new jobs and $4 million help —

1,200 new jobs in the B.C. Development Corporation. It would appear as

though the one project in Nanaimo is almost 50 percent of the total

contribution that B.C. Development Corporation has made to the province

in the history of this government. That doesn't surprise me one little

bit. I'm not surprised that this is all the government has contributed

to the development of B.C. under that particular minister.

When I read some of the minister's comments from the past few years

about this project, starting March 15,1977 — at which time he was

talking about the development of a steel mill in the Duke Point area —

I reacted in a rather dismayed fashion. I phoned his ministry to find

out what the minister was talking about. They apologized for him and

said he really didn't know where Duke Point was. He thought it was

somewhere 30 miles north of Nanaimo. I was to ignore his comments about

the possibility of a steel mill in that area and I was quite happy to

do that.

Then further newspaper stories referred to the possibility of a

steel mill being built in the province. They said that any plans NKK

had to develop a steel mill in B.C. went out the window with the defeat

of the NDP government in 1975. I've told you previously that the NKK

was quite interested in developing a steel mill in British Columbia.

They were heavy users of B.C. coal and knew that the government they

were dealing with at that time was determined to get full value out of

our resources and determined to use the coal to provide job

opportunities in B.C. They realized that if they were going to continue

getting our coal, they would have to start doing something here in B.C.

But with the defeat of the NDP, there was no need for them to think any

more about creating job opportunities in B.C. They were dealing with a

new government that was interested only in getting rid of our resources.

The minister started talking about the deep-sea port development in

May — the first newspaper story I have is May 14, 1977. We now see it

in the throne speech in March 1979. When B.C. Development Corporation

acquired the land, the minister at that time was talking about an early

start on the project. Speaking in Nanaimo in November 1977, some eight

months later, the minister was still talking about an early start and

saying that the only thing holding it up was negotiations with the

federal government. In January 1978 it was all ready to go ahead,

starting almost immediately. It's still going to start immediately, if

not sooner.

On April 19, 1978, the minister is still talking about it starting

almost immediately. He says it's just around the corner. Mr. Speaker,

you're too young to remember the stories during the Depression about

how prosperity was just around the corner. With the Minister of

Economic Development the Duke Point start was just around the corner

for two years. Finally, in spite of the Minister of Economic

Development, it did happen. The ministerial blasts start the Nanaimo

Port project, September 30, 1978. It did get going. We welcome it.

We're glad to see it happening in

[ Page 157 ]

Nanaimo.

I'd like to tell you a little bit more about the history of Nanaimo.

I was doing a bit of reading on this and I thought it might be

interesting. Interesting that the socialist NDP, if you like, has

represented Nanaimo constituency for a longer period than any other

political party since we started keeping track of these things. For 28

years the socialist NDP members have been representing the constituency

of Nanaimo. The first one was James Hawthornthwaite, in 1901. That

started it. For 28 years NDP members have represented the constituency.

The second longest party to have a representative in the House is

the Liberal Party, which had two members: Mr. Sloan, who represented

the constituency for some 12 years; and a Mr. Pearson, who represented

it as a Liberal for 13 years and then as a coalitionist for a period.

Then there were other coalitionists — they called themselves Social

Credit. The coalitionists in total represented the constituency for 21

years, the Liberals for 25 years. The Liberals are ahead of the

coalitionists, whether they be Social Credit or Liberal coalitionists.

The Conservatives even had a fling at it for four years.

There's something interesting about one of those representatives,

George S. Pearson. As an individual, although he changed parties along

with changing times, he was the Minister of Labour, Minister of Health

and was Provincial Secretary. He was really an important person in the

history of this province. As Minister of Labour he was particularly

important. I'm sorry the Minister of Labour isn't here this evening.

I'd like to compare the two. George S. Pearson, as Minister of Labour,

was not only the minister of the Labour department; he was the minister

for labour. He was widely respected and highly regarded by that

particular constituency that he represented when he was Minister of

Labour. In 1947 the government of the day decided to bring in some very

repressive labour legislation. George S. Pearson, as Minister of

Labour, publicly disagreed with that legislation and would not

introduce that legislation. How different from the Minister of Labour

we have today, a man who has publicly taken a position on several

occasions with respect to labour issues, only to knuckle under to a

government decision to do otherwise, and then to pretend that that was

his position all along. I'm proud to say that the Minister of Labour

who represented the Nanaimo constituency was a man who had principles —

not a man who moved from one party to another because he changed his

political opportunistic attitude, but a man who was a Liberal first and

a coalitionist second. The Liberals joined the coalition when he was

part of it. Nevertheless, he was a man of principle when it came to

dealing with his labour constituency and a man to be respected for his

stand on that.

Several of the members opposite feel that they can stand up and

compare the record of the Social Credit government with the record of

the NDP government and come out ahead. I'm really amazed. It takes a

very selective memory to try to pick some good things out of their

record and compare them with what they feel are bad things in our

record.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You should know better. How can you stand there...?

MR. STUPICH: The member opposite, for example, has hinted several times in the debate, never too loudly. He's talked about Swan Valley....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, until we can get the hon.

minister to restrain himself. I think he's had the opportunity to

express himself in this debate. Perhaps he would like to give the other

members the same opportunity. Please proceed.

MR. STUPICH: The Swan Valley issue was raised with

legislation that was introduced by that minister. You'll recall that

legislation was dropped. The government didn't want to discuss Swan

Valley in this Legislature. They were prepared to talk about it, not to

have it discussed on the floor of this Legislature. The legislation was

allowed to drop. At least they showed enough intelligence to drop that

issue without having it discussed publicly on the floor of the House.

What about some of the other issues? The Socreds talk about their

resources policy. Goodness gracious! They were going to turn the

economy around. They certainly did. They turned it around — down. Talk

about coal royalties, the development of our resources. You'll recall

that when we arrived on the scene on September 15, 1972, B.C. was

getting a royalty on its coal that averaged 14 cents a ton. Three years

and three months later, that royalty was up to an average of $1.44 a

ton, with the promise and the agreement, on the part of Kaiser Coal,

that it would go up a further dollar on April 1. Although the profits

of Kaiser have increased enormously since that date, the royalty has

not changed.

HON. MR. HEWITT: What's their tax rate?

[ Page 158 ]

MR. STUPICH: I suggest you look at the profit, and you'll

find out that they didn't make any profit at all until the NDP arrived

on the scene in 1973. That was the first year in which they made any

profit at all. The profit went up year by year and the royalty went up

year by year. The royalty was going to go up higher again, and the

profits will continue to go up, but the royalties have not gone up, to

their discredit.

The minister dared to raise the issue of natural gas prices. Maybe

he's new in his department and just doesn't know the history of this

situation. I took the opportunity, since the hon. first member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) spoke on it, to do some checking with

the B.C. Petroleum Corporation and the B.C. Energy Commission.

In point of fact, when we arrived on the scene on September 15,

1972, according to the B.C. Energy Commission we were actually getting

28 cents a thousand cubic feet for our natural gas export price. It

went up to 31 cents almost a year later; it took us that long to get

any kind of movement at all.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'm not saying what somebody else said. I'm

telling you that I'm saying that I got the figures from the B.C. Energy

Commission and from the B.C. Petroleum Corporation.

On November 14 we got that price up to 61 cents. There had been

relatively no movement prior to that. It took us over a year to get it

up to 61 cents, almost double what it was before. On November 1,1974,

it went up to 81 cents. On July 1,1975, we got it up to $1.60; that was

the highest price during our term in office, although further price

increases were provided for, according to the agreement. But even if we

accepted that figure of $1.60 com-pared to 28 cents, that's an increase

of almost 500 percent — 5.7 times.

The minister said: "Oh, but you increased the price for B.C.

consumers as well." B.C. consumers were consuming roughly 10 percent of

the total gas. The 90 percent that we were selling abroad we increased

by 5.7 times. The B.C. consumers were saved from that increase, because

although the price charged to B.C. Hydro was higher, we kept the lid on

the prices charged to the local consumers. We did that quite

deliberately. We knew that the gas part of B.C. Hydro was the part that

was making money, and that that division of B.C. Hydro could well

afford to pay more for the natural gas it was buying and charge at the

same price to the consumer. We were looking after the consumers, but we

were also getting more money for the people of B.C.

We knew that the price of natural gas was going to go up. With the

Arabs increasing the price of oil and with the price of all kinds of

energy going up worldwide, we knew that no one would live for long with

a price of 28 cents a thousand cubic feet for natural gas. With the

price of everything else going up all over the world, it was bound to

go up. Had we not moved in and established the B.C. Petroleum

Corporation when we did, the price of natural gas would have gone

up.... I'm not suggesting for one moment that it would not have gone up

the way it has. It might even have gone up more, for that matter, had

we not stepped in.

We made sure that the increase in price went into the pockets of the

people of British Columbia, not into the pockets of the international

oil companies. There is no doubt that that is what would have happened

had we not established the B.C. Petroleum Corporation. As much as the

Social Credit members of the Legislature of the day opposed the

establishment of that corporation, that's one corporation that even

they haven't dared tamper with. They haven't done much about getting

more money for the people of British Columbia since that date. There's

not been much change in price since that date. Nevertheless, they

haven't dared tamper with the establishment of the B.C. Petroleum

Corporation.

One of the members — I think it was the Minister of Tourism (Hon.

Mr. Veitch); he's not here, either — mentioned what they've done for

tourism. Mr. Speaker, you and I were here in 1976, and we can remember

what they did for tourism in 1976, can't we? The price of B.C. Ferries

was more than doubled and the tourist year was the worst in the history

of British Columbia. For the first time, tourism went down so badly

that people were ruined. The number of bankruptcies that have happened

since then can no doubt be attributed in part to the move on the part

of that government to more than double the cost of travelling on B.C.

ferries. You'll recall also that their reason for doing that was based

not on economics, not on the loss to the B.C. Ferries, but entirely on

political revenge.

They had a report prepared that told them that if they increased the

price of travelling on the ferries by even 50 percent, it would have a

serious effect on traffic across the Gulf of Georgia. In spite of that

report and in spite of the knowledge of what they were going to do to

the economy of British Columbia, they proceeded to more than double the

price as

an act of political revenge. There

[ Page 159 ]

has been recovery since, and they've had the nerve

to boast about it. Since then, they've spent a lot of money encouraging

tourists to come to B.C. They say: "Aren't we good? Everything is so

much better now than it was in 1976 when we ruined everybody. We're

really great, aren't we?"

Then there was the Prince Rupert pulp mill. You will recall the then

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) and now Premier of the province

travelling to Prince Rupert and reassuring the people of that community

that if his government were elected they would not close down that pulp

mill for renovations, for improvements, for changes. It wasn't too long

before they closed down that pulp mill and put some 340 people out of

work. That's the kind of promises we get from that group opposite, and

yet they've got the nerve to compare their record with ours.

Just look at the BCR as one example. When we arrived in office the

Dease Lake extension was in progress — the Fort Nelson line. We've all

heard stories about the Fort Nelson line. We've managed to keep it

operating in spite of the fact that it was a railroad built on

political promises rather than good ballast. Nevertheless, we managed

to keep that line operating, and we proceeded with the Dease Lake

extension because we believed in the future of the province of British

Columbia.

The hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) referred to Beale's

Letter, but not this one, an earlier one. This is the letter that deals

in large measure with William Andrew Cecil Bennett, and it talks about

his attitude towards the development of the province and the importance

of a railroad.

"W.A.C. Bennett had a broad vision. Forest development

was never isolated, but was part of a total program. Energy and rail

could not stand alone. Both must be linked very closely with resource

developments so that all could benefit."

He was determined to push that railroad just as fast and as far as

he could. The NDP were elected, and the NDP were determined to push

that railroad as far and as fast as we could. It's this crew opposite

that has shut down a major portion of that railroad. This crew opposite

took a bribe from the federal government in the amount of $84 million

to stop construction of the Dease Lake extension. They accepted that

payola to stop. W.A.C. Bennett would never have accepted money to stop

building a B.C. railroad.

It also talks about the forest development in the area, the

importance for Fort Nelson of pushing the railroad on and not stopping

at Fort Nelson. Mr. Speaker, I disagreed with W.A.C. Bennett on many

issues for most of the six years that I was in the House, but when it

came to being a British Columbian, and one who was determined to build

the economy of British Columbia, one who recognized the importance of

the trio that he mentions here — forestry, energy and transportation —

then there was no disagreement. I agreed with him that the railroad had

to go ahead. I still agree the railroad had to go ahead.

I disagreed with this group opposite when they closed down the Dease

Lake extension. I disagreed with them when they threatened to close

down the Fort Nelson extension and, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you are

as worried as I am as to what this government will do in the unhappy

and unlikely event that it is elected, with respect to that Fort Nelson

extension.

For three months they agonized over what they would do with that

recommendation from the royal commission about closing down the Fort

Nelson extension. Then, when they thought they were going into a fall

election, the Premier said they were going to keep it operating. The

member from Fort Nelson pretends to be optimistic that that extension

will keep operating one day after the next election if that group is

re-elected. It's just a pretence. It's a bold pretence, but I'm sure he

doesn't believe for one moment that that railroad will keep operating.

I'm sure it will fold.

This government has no faith in the future of British Columbia. This

government does not have the vision that W.A.C. Bennett had. This

government does not recognize the importance of keeping transportation

going, of extending the transportation links, let alone the importance

of extending the transportation link into Alaska. They closed down the

Railwest car plant, and then almost the day after had to start looking

for more cars. They've ignored the Reed and Associates report

completely because they're not terribly interested in building a

railroad. That's government enterprise. It might succeed. We can't have

government enterprise succeeding; we have to close down that railroad.

If we push it on it might be a good thing for B.C. It might be that the

government will get some recognition for doing something good

economically. That would never do.

Look at the NDP record — and they talked about our record. Mr.

Speaker, you'll recall that when we arrived in office September 15,

1972, Ocean Falls had half closed down. Half the men had left town; the

plant was closing. It was all going to be abandoned. As an NDP

government, we couldn't stand idly by and see that happen. So we bought

it and kept opera-

[ Page 160 ]

ting it, and it's still operating and still successful.

You will recall that a deal was almost consummated to sell the

Canadian Cellulose holdings to Weyerhaeuser, and you will recall also

that part of the agreement of sale was that the Prince Rupert pulp mill

would close down completely. We couldn't stand idly by and see that

happen. The previous Social Credit administration could. They were

prepared to see Ocean Falls close down completely; as a matter of fact,

it had half done so. They were prepared to see Canadian resources sold

to Weyerhaeuser, even though it meant closing down the Prince Rupert

pulp mill.

So what? That's private enterprise; it's free enterprise. They weren't concerned.

We kept Ocean Falls going. We took over Canadian Cellulose. We kept

Prince Rupert going. We established the Railwest car plant, because we

didn't have enough cars and couldn't get enough cars to ship our

lumber. It was important to keep our economy going. We were looking

beyond that.

The minister responsible for energy was talking about the need to

plan. Well, we were planning too. But we were also trying to enter into

long-range contracts with the province of Alberta to ensure an oil

supply. We weren't just planning for the sake of planning. We were

doing something concrete. Associated with that there was the

possibility of an oil refinery, and we had gone a long way towards

arranging the financing for that oil refinery. We were really doing

something, Mr. Speaker. Those plans have been dropped, along with the

NKK steel plant that was dropped immediately after the defeat of the

NDP administration. The B.C. Rail plans were dropped as well, along

with all these other things.

Some reference to mining has been made during this discussion. Well,

how can they talk about what we did to mining compared to what they

have done to mining and hold up their heads? Only two mines have opened

since 1975. In the three years and three months since the election only

two mines have opened, and one of those — Afton Mines — was arranged by

the hon. first member for Vancouver Center (Mr. Lauk). The deal had

been made by the NDP administration, by that then Minister of Mines.

The Mining Association said in November 1978: "By the end of 1978,

no new mines will be in sight, no mines have announced plans for

production and no construction is underway." Bob Matthews, director of

the B.C. Mining Association, said: "If the decline does not stop, we

may not have a mining industry in British Columbia." And this is not

dated November 1975; it's dated June 16, 1978. Bob Matthews says again:

"Unless we open more mines quickly, the mining industry

will largely disappear. There will be only 18 operating mines in B.C. by this

year's end."

That's dated October 10, 1978.

Yet they've got the nerve to stand up and talk about mining as

though it were something they invented. The first member for Vancouver

Centre asked how many have closed. Well, it's an interesting list. It's

a sorry list for the province of British Columbia. These are mines that

have closed since the election of 1975: in 1976, Granduc mine, 80 men

laid off; 1976, Phoenix mine, 23 laid off; 1976, Texada mine, 176 laid

off; 1978, last year, just several months ago, Granduc mine, 320 laid

off; 601 men laid off in that period. In addition, Craigmont has

announced plans to close in 1979 with a loss of 320 jobs. And they talk

about mining as though it were something they invented.

I think it was the Minister of Small Business Development who made

some reference to Dun and Bradstreet. Well, I'm going to refer to Dun

and Bradstreet as well, Mr. Speaker. I wish he were here to hear my

reference.

In March this year Dun and Bradstreet said British Columbia was the

number three province as far as bankruptcies were concerned. Now that's

really a record. Social Credit have always liked to have B.C. on top,

always liked to have us number one. Well, we're only number three when

it comes to the number of bankruptcies in the province. They talk about

how we formed more companies. More paper companies are being formed

every day. But what does it mean for the economy of the province when

existing companies, companies that have been operated in B.C. in some

cases for as much as 100 years, find themselves forced to close because

of economic conditions in the province? These are not economic

conditions brought on by the NDP administration but economic conditions

that have developed and deteriorated under the present administration.

Mr. Speaker, I think I should say something about the BCRIC shares.

There have been a lot of comments about these on that side of the House

in particular. I think we should remind ourselves how it was possible

for the government to establish the B.C. Resources Investment

Corporation in the first place. I think it is advisable to remind

ourselves that, with one exception, all of the assets turned over to

B.C. Resources Investment Corporation were assets that were acquired by

the NDP administration at a very good price for the people

[ Page 161 ]

of British Columbia.

One of those assets, Plateau Mills, was in the process of being sold

to an American group. You recall, Mr. Speaker, the comments from some

political leaders about B.C. not being for sale. Well, there was one

administration in the history of this province that was determined that

B.C. would not be for sale and acted on that. Plateau Mills was in the

process of being sold to an American group. The NDP administration of

the day were not prepared to sit idly by and see these resources sold

from out of our hands into an American group, and we moved into the

negotiations. We offered the owners of Plateau Mills the same price as

they were going to get from the Americans.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) please come to order.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad the member for Omineca

reminded everyone that when we did pay that price, we got it for $3

million less than it was worth. That was a good deal for the people of

British Columbia. What we did was to offer the owners exactly the same

price as the Americans were offering, and the deal was made.

MR. KEMPF: Garbage!

MR. STUPICH: That member for Omineca has the nerve to say

"Garbage." Mr. Speaker, that member was a member of the public accounts

committee when he and others of his party tried by every means at their

disposal to get the previous owner of Plateau Mills to admit that he

was terrorized into selling to the NDP administration, and the owner of

that company said he was not. The owner of that corporation said that

he was offered the same price by the NDP administration and that he was

satisfied with the deal; he was dealt with fairly by the NDP

administration. He said that, and it's recorded in the Hansard of the

public accounts committee.

MR. KEMPF: What choice did he have?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. member for Omineca

please come to order. Hon. members, standing order 17, subsection 2,

says: "When a member is speaking no member shall interrupt him, except

to raise a point of order.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. member for Omineca withdraw that remark.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. member for Omineca to

please observe the standing orders of this House, because the

guarantees that he requires of this Chair when he is speaking are the

same requirements that must be required of him when other members are

speaking. If the hon. member cannot observe the standing orders, then

we will have to ask the House for the kind of remedies that are

provided for in the standing orders.

The member for Nanaimo proceeds.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. STUPICH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The previous majority

shareholder of Plateau Mills, Bill Martens, appeared at the public

accounts committee and told us that he was dealt with fairly by the NDP

administration; that the NDP administration offered him exactly the

same price as he was being offered by the prospective American

purchasers; and that he accepted the same deal as he and his fellow

shareholders had previously negotiated with the Americans but had not

yet signed. So he said he was extremely pleased with everything that

had happened and he was still carrying on in some capacity in the

company.

But it's true, Mr. Speaker, that, as the member for Omineca said in

his interruption, it was worth $3 million more, because the day after

we made the deal with Mr. Martens, the Americans, on finding out that

there was another purchaser getting involved in it, changed their minds

and changed their offer and said: "We're prepared to offer $3 million

more." But by that time the deal had been signed and we, on behalf of

the people of British Columbia, had bought for $7.1 million an asset

that was worth in excess of $10 million, and that was just one of them.

Kootenay Forest Products, which was a loser at the time we bought it

but which had thousands of acres of deeded land.... We knew when we

were buying the plant that we were buying a plant that was not

currently making a profit.

[ Page 162 ]

But we knew we were reclaiming for the people of

British Columbia thousands of acres of timber land that were about to

be sold to Japanese interests. To us, B.C. was not for sale, and we

backed that up with action, because every time an opportunity arose for

us to reclaim for the people of British Columbia some assets of the

people of British Columbia, we reclaimed them in the name of the people.

The Canadian Cellulose interests — two pulp mills, sawmills and

everything else that went with it — were in the process of being sold

for $10 million. The member for Omineca may feel that we cheated

someone there as well because we got that price down too. We

negotiated; we were tough bargainers. On Canadian Cellulose,

Weyerhaeuser was going to pay $10 million and they were going to close

down the Prince Rupert pulp mill. There was no doubt about it. That was

announced; everyone knew that; everyone knew what was happening. The

deal was almost signed when we arrived in their office, but it hadn't

quite been signed, Mr. Speaker. Fortunately for the people of British

Columbia the election in 1972 took place on August 30 and not September

30. We were able to stop that. We were able to get the price down to $1

and we were able to reclaim for the people of British Columbia an

enterprise that has been making money ever since, an enterprise that

cost the people of British Columbia and that was sold to the B.C.

Resources Investment Corporation.

The gas drilling rights in the Peace River really didn't cost us

anything, except the loss of potential revenue in the future that is

going to cost the people of British Columbia something when they might

have been sold. George Froehlich of theVancouver Sun , the paper that

used to publish in this province, has estimated the value of those to

be some $200 million that the citizens of British Columbia will not

have.

Somebody's going to get it, but it won't be the citizens of British

Columbia collectively. All of those assets that cost the people of

British Columbia in the neighbourhood of $38 million were sold by this

administration to the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation for $151

million. That gave them a profit of $113 million. We did make a good

deal.

For $38 million we bought something for the people of British

Columbia that three years later was worth $151 million, and gave the

government of the day the day they sold it a profit of $113 million,

and gave them the opportunity for the Premier to put out a letter and

personally promise to offer to all of the citizens of British Columbia

five free shares which, at a value of $6 each, would come to something

like $100 million, and he's still ahead of the game. He was able to do

that. He was able to make this political promise, this election

promise, this election bribe, because of the good sound business

administration of the NDP administration.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that our first reaction as a party was that

this should not happen; the people of British Columbia collectively

should not give away something that was worth — if we include $200

million from the gas rights — $350 million. We should not give away to

people who have the financial resources to go out and buy a 1 percent

interest in this company, or even some lesser amount.... The people of

British Columbia should not give up this $200 million of future revenue

from the sale of those natural gas drilling rights. We should not give

up the profits that are being made by these corporations that we had

acquired in the name of the people of British Columbia, and in the

event we formed a government soon enough, we would not allow that to

happen.

That was our first reaction, Mr. Speaker. It was a reaction on

behalf of the people of British Columbia, and it was a responsible

reaction. But we realized an election isn't going to happen soon enough

for us to be able to forestall this election gimmickry, so we had to

take a second look at it, and there is nothing irresponsible about

taking a second look.

Our second look is to advise all the people of British Columbia who

are entitled to apply for these five free shares to get out there and

apply for them. It's one way of getting back some of the extra $1,500

per family that has been extracted from the people of British Columbia

as political revenge for then having dared to vote into office an NDP

administration. It's their only opportunity to get something back from

this government. They can get back at this government when the election

is called, and I dare them to call it — the sooner the better. Let's

get rid of them, and let's get on with B.C.

The Leader of the Opposition promised in 1975 that if he were

elected as Premier of this province he would turn the economy around.

By golly, Mr. Speaker, he's sure turned it around, and down. Let's get

on with it. Let's get a new administration in, an administration that

is determined to move British Columbia ahead, an administration that is

determined to make the economy of British Columbia grow, and an

administration that is determined to govern not in the interests of a

few who can go out and buy shares, but in the interests of the people

of our great and

[ Page 163 ]

glorious province.

I suggest the time is now, Mr. Speaker — the sooner the better. Let's get on with it.

MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, it's good to be back. I guess the

more things change, the more they stay the same. I sometimes wonder

every year when I stand in my place to address the throne speech if I'm

not suffering from deja vu, because I never seem to be too early on in

the proceedings.

I do join with you, Mr. Speaker, and the other members of the House,

in mourning the passing of the former leader of the government of the

province, Mr. W.A.C. Bennett. I had only two or three brief

opportunities to meet with him. On one particular occasion, on a very

wet, rainy Wednesday, I was delivering some filled-out membership forms

to the Social Credit Party headquarters on Main Street, and lo and

behold the president of the party came out of the back room and she

said: "Have you got a car? Would you like to take a special guest to

the Hotel Vancouver?"

I said: "I'll take your special guest, but all I've got is my truck."

I'll tell you one thing about that man: he wasn't proud at all. He

rode in my 1954 Chevrolet van all the way down to the Hotel Vancouver,

and the doorman just about fell over — and it didn't have "Mussallem"

written on the back of the plates.

He was a great guy and a great personality. What's more, he gave me

some encouraging words. I guess I owe him a debt of thanks. By taking

some of his instructions I manage to find myself here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you sorry?

MR. ROGERS: In a way I am. My father here wants to ask you some personal questions.

I also have some thankful words about our new Lieutenant-Governor.

It seems to me that every time a Lieutenant-Governor or a

Governor-General in Canada is ending their term there is speculation in

the streets: "There are no more people like the last one." They always

seem to find them and our latest Lieutenant-Governor has taken over the

role of that very responsible job. He is doing a wonderful job so far.

I'm sure he and his wife will continue to do an excellent job for the

province.

Speaking of new arrivals on the scene, the member for Skeena (Hon. Mr. Shelford)

once again finds himself in the role of the Minister of Agriculture. I think

he's back among friends and he's certainly very comfortable in that

portfolio. I know he'll do an excellent I job.

But the real surprise is it's hard for me to imagine anyone tackling

the portfolio of tourism with more enthusiasm than the previous

minister (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). It would seem that her efforts are being

surpassed by the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch). Lord

knows, he has ridden on railway trains and had his son dressed up in a

Boy Scout uniform and all sorts of wonderful things in efforts to

promote tourism in this province.

I was hoping the member for Revelstoke Slocan (Mr. King) would stay

in for this one little bit. It's been something that's been concerning

him, I know. I'd like to speak about it before I get into the debate on

the speech itself. Recently, in the Queen Charlotte Islands, some

loggers were arrested by officials of the federal fisheries department

with drawn guns as they were laying down their chainsaws. Actually they

were not loggers. They were fallers. The press was incorrect in having

reported them as loggers. Fallers would not like to be known as

loggers. They are, in fact, fallers. Anyway, they were arrested by the

fisheries officers, and it reminds me of a brief instance I had last

September. One of my constituents asked me if I'd ever had the

privilege of working on a fishboat. While I had, I told him I would be

delighted to do so again. I was invited to spend an evening in a

fishboat off the mouth of the Fraser River doing what's known as a

standard gillnet operation. We went out one evening at 8 o'clock and I

asked him what we expected to catch. He said: "Oh, around 120 fish."

About 7 o'clock in the morning we had almost 500 sockeye on board.

Instead of selling the fish to a cash buyer, we took them into the fish

docks at the foot of Commissioner Street. Since I had raingear and

gumboots and that special stick with the nail in the end that they use

for putting the fish in the basket, I was down in the hold. Lo and

behold, a rather young lady with a hard hat and a badge on and a

holster on her side with a .357 magnum in it came aboard the vessel. I

had a beard at the time, some of you may remember. I didn't really look

like an MLA. In fact I really did look like a deckhand on the boat. It

shouldn't have made any difference anyway, and I'm glad it didn't. But

I asked her what the gun was for and she produced the gun and said:

"The gun is for me to look after people like you."

No sooner had I finished unloading the fish than I got home and had

a shower and went down to my constituency office and dictated a rather

long letter to Mr. Romeo LeBlanc, the then Minister of Fisheries, and I

sent a car-

[ Page 164 ]

bon copy to the Attorney-General. It was a concern

of mine that the city of Vancouver has a police department which are

armed and which very seldom ever produce their firearms. The RCMP have

officers who patrol the city of Vancouver dealing with narcotic

smuggling and some with special federal interests. Vancouver city has

harbour police as well, who are also armed. So I was a little curious

to know what happens. I'm told that not only do the fisheries officers

in Canada carry arms, but they are the most heavily armed of any of the

police forces in Canada with respect to the power of the handguns that

they carry. While the fisheries department is undertaking some form of

training program to see that they don't shoot their feet, they are as

yet not completely trained.

I would think that this incident in the Queen Charlotte Islands

would bear a little more close examination of the necessity for arming

the federal fisheries officers. I realize it's a federal matter, but it

does overlap with the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General. The fewer

handguns we have in place in this province, in official or unofficial

hands, the better off we'll all be.

Some of the members went to Maui in the few months that we weren't

sitting. I didn't do that. I decided to visit Canada, what with the

dollar being at 82 cents. I decided to visit our beautiful arctic. I

want to recommend to everybody that if you ever get a chance to go up

to Coppermine, as long as you're not with Greenpeace or the Sierra

Club, you'll be treated with an absolutely wonderful time. I would

recommend that if you get a chance to go up there, you do so. It is a

beautiful desert. It's a part of Canada which very few people ever get

to see. We get to see what the CBC tells us it's all about. It really

isn't that way. Instead of George going to Maui next winter, I

recommend you come with me. We can take your airplane and go up to the

arctic.

Now to the throne speech. There are many items in the throne speech

which each of us wishes to address in our own way. The highlights

depend on your own priorities. What you find as priorities might be

different from what someone else finds as priorities. In my particular

case, I think probably I speak for most of my constituents when I say

the most important thing in there is the one that financially means the

least, but in terms of privacy and personal freedom means the most.

That's the announcement of the government that we will be having a

provincial bill of rights. The bill of rights is not something you can

necessarily use to bargain with every day, as you can your BCRIC

shares, but something which you can refer to in those times when you're

under stress from one or more agencies of the government, or your

neighbours or someone else. I look forward to that.

The announcement of a dental program is again welcome. I think that

many other members have spoken of it. One of the concerns I have is

that those people who should be going to the dentist now — who should

be going to the dentist after this program is announced — will still

not be going to the dentist, because of a historical fear of the

dentist. The poor people, who in many cases have poor nutrition and

could avoid the trip to the extractionist, may still be reluctant to do

so. I hope the program will encourage people, especially children, to

go to the dentist, because that's where the whole thing is so

critically important. If we can get the children to go to the dentist

at a young age, we're going to be able to see benefits further down the

line. It's another one of those instances where you've got to make an

investment before you see the dividends.

Now the Minister of Deregulation has mentioned some things in the

building code. I've spoken in this House before about what I consider

to be the evil monopoly of eastern Canadian manufacturers — the

Canadian Standards Association. I know that he has heard my piece on

that in private and here in public. He's indicated that at some point

along the line we're going to have standardized building codes. In

terms of the average person and his own private dwelling, nothing could

be more important in this province than to have a contractor or

contractors, be they subcontractors or primary contractors, to have a

same set of guidelines and rules for every municipality. In the Greater

Vancouver Regional District there are areas where a man can cross the

street and enter into an area with different rules of plumbing,

different rules of wiring, different rules on gutters, different rules

on all sorts of things. The standardization of those rules will

eventually mean, not necessarily cheaper housing, but a decrease in the

cost-of-housing increase which we have been experiencing.

I don't think there is anyone who can quarrel with the decision to

make the driver responsible in insurance rather than the vehicle. I

have always had some difficulty in looking at my vehicle and trying to

explain to it that it has a good driving record, when in fact a good

driving record belongs to the driver. It's like this camel trader here

from the Kootenays, who has had the same problem of lending a car to a

friend and finding out the car comes back with a crumpled fender. Then

[ Page 165 ]

is accused of being a poor driver, although we know

he is an excellent one. It's a tradition in the family. I find that

very encouraging.

The BCRIC shares are something which people have discussed. I

sometimes get the feeling, tongue in cheek, that maybe the members of

the opposition ask: "Why didn't we think of it first?"

Interjection.

MR. ROGERS: Do you find that amusing? I applaud the program.

I think it is excellent. There have been some very, very interesting

remarks from the opposition as to what should be done with the BCRIC

shares. There have been quarrels about the amount of commission paid to

the agents for selling BCRIC shares. If you're looking for investments,

I would advise all of my constituents and all of the people that may

listen to me to deal with an investment dealer. If you are concerned

about banking, you should deal with a banker. Asking your banker

whether or not you should invest in equities is a little bit like

asking the priest whether it is okay to pray on the side. It's a

conflict in terms, there's no question about that. It's a conflict in

terms.

But I did take a chance, hon. members. I did take this opportunity

to check with various brokerage houses to find out what the odd lot

commissions were on small sales. I find that while the BCRIC shares are

being underwritten at $5 — the commission fee for one unit of five

shares, or whatever increase it is — that is substantially below the

Toronto and Vancouver exchange rates which vary between $5 and $15 for

minimum registration. So as odd lot transactions, it's not out of line.

It's also not out of line for the registration commission to be paid

by someone else. In many cases where an employer decides to make a

stock option plan available for his employees, the employer picks up

the commission and also underwrites the stock at a discount, which

makes it attractive for employees. The program works very well. All of

you have been to Woodward's. If you don't think the program works, ask

anyone who has worked at Woodward's anywhere in this province for more

than five years if they like the employee stock option plan. It's

excellent.

We're giving the people of B.C. the opportunity to participate in a

very exciting underwriting. The second member for Victoria has

exclaimed that he would like to buy 95 shares because he wants to go to

the general meeting and, in his words, "ask questions." Now we know the

second member for Victoria has not participated in too many annual

general meetings, so perhaps it would be incumbent upon me to advise

him some of the things he can do. But first he said he was going to

have to buy 95 shares.

Now he need only go to Vancouver, get an invitation to go to dinner

at the home of the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald),

take the Fourth Avenue bus west to the end of the line, get off, wander

down to Point Grey Road and, when he's there for dinner, ask to go to

the bathroom. Once he's been to the bathroom, he should take a hot

towel, put it up against the five free shares that are wallpapered on

the bathroom wall of the first member for Vancouver East, and he'll

only have to buy 90 shares because there are five free ones that

someone else doesn't want that he can have.

Now there has been one other member — and I believe it was the

member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) — who said they're worthless shares in

a bankrupt government. As a predominantly capitalistic person, I want

to tell you you can make money out of worthless shares, especially if

they're being underwritten at a premium. My advice to him is to take

his five free shares. My advice is to wait for August 6, and on August

6, on opening day, when the market opens, all he has to do is walk into

his brokerage firm and say: "Sir, I would like to short 5,000 or 10,000

BCRIC shares." When the shares hit a dollar or, as he says, if they're

worthless and they hit nothing, he'll have a capital gain of about

$60,000. It's not out of line. He'll have to pay capital gains tax on

it. But if he believes the shares are worthless, then short them. If he

believes they're worthwhile, as I do, then he should go along with

them. I'm not giving him investment advice; I'm telling him how he can

make money whichever way they go. He can always read it in Hansard . It's quite clear now.

I'm sorry that the Tory leader isn't here tonight. He was quoting

Tennyson last night. He said there were socialists to the left of him

and socialists to the right of him. Tennyson said it was cannons to the

right of him and cannons to the left of him, and into the valley of

death.... Well, I'm afraid he's riding into the valley of political

death, and it's not 600; it's just him and his Sasquatch hunter. But

when he turned and said to the members on this side that we were

socialists.... There are not many things in this House that offend me,

but that offended me. I had to drive my car all the way out to Oak Bay

last night and park it on a side street in Oak Bay. Can you imagine the

fear I would have had if I had woken up in the morning and some small

child had taken a spray can and written

[ Page 166 ]

"Parlour Pinko" on the side of my old vehicle? I mean it's just

disgraceful. What am I going to say to my neighbours when they go home

and they say: "Vic Stephens says you're a socialist! "

Interjection.

MR. ROGERS: That's right. In my neighbourhood, in my

constituency, it will be disgraceful. Well, you know what happened to

the socialists there.

He did tell us two interesting things, though. He said that in the

off-season — if we can call it the off-season — if his government were

elected, the budget would be slashed in half. I presume what he means

is that we would go back to selling the hospitals to private

corporations — like they do in Phoenix — and have them on a commercial,

fee-for-service basis, Master Charge, Chargex, you know the story. I

assume we'd go back to toll roads and toll bridges. I assume we'd do

away with free education. I assume we'd do away with a lot of things..

He said: "I'm not a Progressive Conservative." The member for

Burnaby-Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch) said: "Progressive Conservative is

like military intelligence; it's a contradiction in terms." I suppose

that's quite correct. He said: "No, I'm a true Conservative." He's

racing into the thirteenth century at full speed. In fact, I have sad

words to tell him; he's really a regressive Conservative.

So, Mr. Speaker, with that — my advice on how to make some money on

the BCRIC shares, either way, and my kind words to the Tory leader —

I'd like to thank you very much and tell you it's good to be back.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to pay tribute to.

the memory of the former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett. I remember when I

first came to this House, quite a few years ago now, how very kind the

former Premier was to me and to those of us who were new members in the

Legislature, and I shall always remember it. I think all of us will

always remember the contribution which he made, in his own wisdom and

with his own sincerity, towards this province.

I would also like to mention the passing of Gretchen Steeves. I

don't think any of us here would have been present in the House when

she was a member. I met her, of course, many times. I didn't see her at

the time she was a debater in the Legislature, but I understand that

she was, and will still be, despite the many fine debaters we have in

this House, remembered as one of the best we have ever had in the B.C.

Legislature. She was also a great humanitarian. I wish to make those

opening remarks, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Now on to the throne speech debate, even though, at this late hour,

I'm sure many people are getting somewhat weary, especially hearing

some of the speeches that we've had to listen to tonight from the

members of the government bench. Frankly, I intend to try and relate my

remarks to the throne speech debate, because in listening to most of

the Social Credit speakers in the last few days, it's been quite clear

that they have simply used the throne speech debate this year as a

rehearsal for their campaign speeches.

I don't think they are going to have too much success on the

campaign platform if the tone of the speeches which we have heard here

in the last week is going to be carried out when the election is called.

We had a lecture from the new Minister of Tourism and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Veitch), who suggested that the NDP were always

negative and only the Social Credit were positive. Then he proceeded to

give one of the most negative speeches I've heard in the Legislature

this week. I can assure you that if the government members who receive

their renomination go out on the campaign trail and continue to just

preach negativism, I don't think the people of British Columbia are

going to give any consideration to the return of this government.

There's a

section in the throne debate that I'd like to read. It

rather impressed me because of the hypocrisy of the statement: "My

government believes that the principles of accountability and sound

financial management are the essential foundation for creating

individual security and individual opportunity for the citizens of

British Columbia." After three years of this government with their

fiscal mismanagement and their inability to handle the economy of this

province...

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: ...how can any citizen in this province — and in

your constituency, Mr. Member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) — possibly have

any economic security? As a matter of fact, in the three years, the

programs, whatever they've been.... We've failed to see any that the

Social Credit have presented produce anything. Their economic and

fiscal policies have been an absolute disaster. When policies are a

[ Page 167 ]

disaster economically and fiscally, naturally the

effect reverberates throughout the whole province of British Columbia.

I don't think people have ever felt so insecure in this province as

they have since the Social Credit took office.

Something that the Social Credit government has failed to realize is that if

economic growth is purposely stifled.... This is what this government has done

in the last three years: they have stifled economic growth with their policies.

The rich are the last ones to be punished. Even if economic growth

is stifled, the rich of any community can always afford to shelter

their assets, their properties and stocks, and they can wait out the

adverse economic conditions comfortably at the top of the economic

ladder. But those who are lower on the ladder, even individuals with

high incomes who may be taxed at high rates, and those struggling to

get on the ladder in the first place, are prevented from advancing

upward. That is the situation we have inherited in British Columbia

after three years of Social Credit policies. They have been stupid

policies based on an overtaxation theory which has been proved

throughout this world in most forward countries to be absolutely the

wrong thing to do in a time of recession.

I believe that these policies were brought in not only out of sheer

vengeance. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) referred to the

vengeful policies of the Social Credit government. It wasn't only being

vengeful towards the NDP; it was also being absolutely stupid fiscally.

They have shown they are incapable of managing the economy of this

province.

I know that when we get on to the budget debate we will be going

into more detail about the economy of this province and the financial

policies of the Social Credit government.

In my own community of Burnaby you can see every day how the people have had

to suffer from the increased taxation imposed upon them by the Social Credit

government. At a time when the cost of living is the highest it's ever been

in our history, this government has imposed further costs on the taxpayers of

British Columbia. As the member for Nanaimo said, it has been estimated that

the taxation policies of that government have taken out an average of $1,500

from the pockets of the average person in British Columbia. Yet they are now

going to give out five free shares. I don't think the people of British

Columbia are going to be fooled by the fact that no matter what is now given

to them three years later, what has happened to them under this government

for the past three years can never be repaired. The tragedy is that some of

these effects are going to be very long lasting.

Back to my own community of Burnaby. As far as taxation goes, I'll

go into this in more detail in estimates and during the budget. On top

of the high cost of living the people of Burnaby, because of this

government, have had, when it comes to school costs, imposed upon them

now a situation where they are paying 75 percent — and I believe

perhaps slightly more than that — of all school costs. That means they

are paying over three-quarters of the cost of education in Burnaby, and

the provincial government is paying a quarter. This government talks

about providing economic security to the people of this province. It is

quite interesting to hear them keep talk about the individual and

individual freedoms. It is pretty hard to feel absolutely free when

every day you find yourself economically becoming more depressed.

If I may digress for just a moment from what's happening in my own

area of Burnaby, I do want to comment on the economic security of the

child. After all, this is declared by the United Nations the

international Year of the Child. It is all right for this government to

talk about handing out medals and medallions to children, having them

out in the front lawn for a big parade. But if a family is not

economically secure, the child is going to suffer. I really was

shocked, and nobody else has brought this up, and I'll be interested in

hearing a response, maybe from our next speaker, the former Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) . All across the world they are

celebrating the International Year of the Child. This isn't a very

deep, preponderous statement or thing to be puzzled over, but I am

rather interested in your reaction. All over the world this has been

declared the International Year of the Child. Yet for some strange

reason, in British Columbia alone, we have had the arrogance to change

it to the International Year of the Child and the Family. The new

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) simply announced this

to the public. She was the only minister in North America — in the

world for that matter — who decided to change it.

I consider it arrogant. I consider it superficial. I consider it

sheer nonsense. You know why? It shows a lack of understanding of what

this whole International Year of the Child is about. I don't expect the

member for Omineca to understand this. Maybe his constituents will. It

was selected after many, many years of discussion in the United Nations

years ago to make this International Year of the Child. Not the family.

Everything is to focus in this

[ Page 168 ]

year on the child and its problems. This new

Minister of Human Resources has to make a unilateral decision without

any explanation or discussion with anyone in this province, and change

the whole title. The only place in the world.

I'm sure we are considered and looked at as being rather an object

of ridicule in other parts of the province. I don't expect the former

minister to have to defend that. I'm sure, however, that the new

Minister of Human Resources will finally tell us why she has been

arrogant enough to feel that she knows better than all the hundreds of

people, thousands of them, who worked for years preparing for the

International Year of the Child.

Speaking of Burnaby and the taxation that's been imposed upon them,

which creates economic insecurity for the citizens of Burnaby which I

represent, no wonder the Burnaby municipality joined with the Greater

Vancouver Regional District. I know how fond Mr. Speaker is of the

regional districts. No wonder they joined — Burnaby council did — to

refuse to participate in the urban transit policy as announced by this

provincial government. I know there is going to be a lot of discussion

on this later, so I'm not going to go into details. The point I'm

making here is: they didn't participate, because they could foresee

once again that the Social Credit government policy on urban transit

was simply going to mean increased taxation on the local taxpayer in

Burnaby. It's bad enough having bus services cut back in Burnaby, but

when they hear they're also going to add increased taxation on them for

an inadequate service, no wonder the Burnaby council opted out along

with the other members.

Those are only two examples of what's happened in my own

municipality. There are many others which we'll be discussing in the

budget debate of increased taxation by the Social Credit government.

The people of Burnaby face a problem that every citizen faces, not only

in British Columbia but right across Canada, of course, and the world

today. It's the problem of the high cost of living, and particularly

food.

I always find it very interesting that the Social Credit members

very seldom take on this subject. Yes, they had an agricultural

committee and my colleague for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) has

expressed very clearly and very well our feelings about that committee.

Three million dollars went down the drain, with no easement at all or

even a recommendation of an easement of the cost of food for the people

of British Columbia.

Naturally, I cannot in all fairness give the Social Credit government of British

Columbia the complete responsibility for increased food prices. But is there

anything they could be doing? They're not doing anything. I remember the

minister we haven't heard from yet, who has just returned to the House,

who was the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair). Whenever

our critic last year would bring up to him his concern over increased food prices,

he usually said: "Well, that doesn't come under my jurisdiction. I

will get in touch with Ottawa." That is not good enough. The people of

British Columbia are not satisfied with that, because we know that Ottawa just

raises its hands and says: "We can't tell the corporations that they're

making too much money." So all we can assume is that the Social Credit

government of British Columbia is exactly the same as the present government

that has just been dissolved in Ottawa. You don't care how much profit

is made by the large companies in Canada and in British Columbia. You have never

made a statement protesting them, to my knowledge.

My solution, Mr. Speaker, would be this: expose them to the public

eye. Why not have a committee meeting right now where you bring those

people right in front of you? Why not demand explanations for the

rip-off prices in this province? If you put the public gaze on these

large companies, these corporations and these monopolies, I think

you'll find that they're going to have to sit up and make some changes

in their prices. But right now there's nobody bothering; and you're the

government. You have the power to do something about it, and you've

done absolutely nothing. As a matter of fact, what's even worse, you've

added to the cost of food in this province. The former Minister of

Agriculture (Mr. Stupich) is very aware of this.

Whoever was responsible for the selling out of Panco to that large

monopoly, Cargill, has ensured that the prices of food in that sector

involved in the Panco area are going to go up, because they're a

well-known company that doesn't believe in competition. They're one of

the largest, apparently, in North America — maybe even further afield —

and yet this government sold out to them. They're selling out not only

our resources, but they're selling out the people cf British Columbia

to these large companies.

Never once have I heard one of those members get up and say what

they would do about the high rise in food prices. They spent three

million dollars for an agricultural committee that just produced

volumes and volumes of research reports, and even tried to apologize

for the big profits that are being made by the

[ Page

169 ]

big companies in British Columbia. The situation with the cost of living is

serious for the people of Canada and British Columbia. We all know it. I think

they've estimated that food prices are going to spiral. I believe it's

estimated that they could be going up another 13 percent. And isn't it

interesting? While they're going up 13 percent we find that everyone is

suggesting that wages must be kept down, including this government. Yet I never

hear them saying: "What about the profits?" Never a word from Social

Credit.

Last year there was a 70 percent increase in the price of lumber and

plywood. The department stores had prices set which resulted in profit

increases of 89 percent. Can you imagine if any of our workers asked

for 89 percent? And there was a 19 percent increase in food prices for

1978. There's a major rip-off in beef and bread prices right across

Canada. There isn't one government or one political party, exclusive of

the New Democratic Party, that has come out with any concrete policies

in the area of stopping the rip-off in food prices.

It's interesting to note that the Toronto-Dominion Bank had

announced before Christmas its intention of raising interest rates on

unpaid Chargex balances from 18 percent to 21 percent, effective April

1. It wasn't until the NDP leader in the House of Commons pointed out

the Toronto-Dominion's 29.2 percent profit rise in the past year that

the bank backed down. Now there is an example. The bank backed down

when a political party had the courage to focus publicly on the rip-off

they were planning to make on the people. And that is what we're asking

this government to do. For the short time that you have left in office,

at least try to do something for the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to finish off on a subject which really

concerns me and all our caucus members. When you have a government

which has created a very bad economic climate, the first group that

seems to suffer is youth and women. I spoke on this in the House last

year and I think it is terribly important to reiterate this — as I know

that other members on this side of the House will be doing in later

speeches — because there is a great deal of discrimination out there

against women today in the workforce.

Many studies have shown that women are definitely the hardest hit by unemployment.

They tend to be employed in the lower-paid occupations in the services sector

of the economy, and they are often not represented by trade unions. In the minds

of some people the notion still persists that for most women working today a

job is a luxury, not a necessity, that women by and large work because they

want to, not because they have to.

But studies have clearly shown us — and I think I put this on the

record last year, and I would like to bring it up to date again this

year — that this is not the case. A Labour Canada study done in 1975

showed that 31 percent of women in the workforce were single and needed

a job to support themselves. Over 9 percent of women in the workforce

were widowed, divorced or separated and almost 21 percent of women in

the workforce were married to spouses earning less than $10,000 and had

to work in order to support their families. Now there are the facts. It

is simply a myth that most women working today are doing it for

luxuries. This study also showed that almost half the Canadian families

in which both spouses work still earned incomes below the national

median income for 1975. It is quite clear that women are working to

support themselves and their families, not because they are bored or

because they want to earn extra money.

In the last ten years women have increasingly begun to enter the

workforce in search of employment. This is something of a phenomenon,

because they hadn't expected quite so many women seeking employment in

this decade.

In 1968, for example, the B.C. female labour force participation

rate was about 37 percent. Last year it was over 48 percent. Since 1966

an average increase of 2.8 percent in the British Columbia female

participation rate has occurred each year. This increase has caught

governments by surprise. They were wrong in their earlier predictions

about this situation, and therefore governments were not prepared and

discrimination has come about because of ignorance. Therefore new

policies are needed desperately at both the federal and the provincial

levels to assist women to find jobs, for many of them absolutely have

to have them, as I said earlier.

I think one of the most appalling things about this government, Mr.

Speaker, in the last three years has been their attitude to day care.

As I've pointed out, these women have to work, but they have to have

the security of knowing that their children are being cared for,

particularly those who are single parents. And every time I turn around

I see some complaint from some group in this province that they cannot

keep up their day-care centres; because of lack of money they may have

to fold.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 170 ]

I accuse this government of being very negligent. To talk about the

International Year of the Child in the face of closing day-care centres

is absolutely hypocritical. Mr. Speaker, I think again the member for

Nanaimo explained very well the comparison of records. I think it would

be wise if you looked up the number of day-care centres opened under

the NDP and the former Minister of Human Resources (Mr. Levi), compared

to what you've done as a government for day-care centres in this

province.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the new Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Vander Zalm) is anxious to get on his feet, and I know we'll all

have an opportunity to speak again in this session. I simply want to

say that this throne speech which we are debating now is a vacuous

speech. It's what we can pretty well expect from a government that is

bereft of ideas economically and fiscally. I could not support it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure

to respond to a Speech from the Throne which offers further opportunity

to British Columbia and gives promise of a great future for a great

province.

But I must, for a moment, answer some of those questions which were

raised by the member for Burnaby North, and then I would like to answer

some of the questions and items mentioned by the Leader of the

Opposition as well.

The member for Burnaby North takes great exception to the fact that

we have declared 1979 as the Year of the Child and the Family. She says

it is arrogant and stupid for us to be so different from all other

provinces in this great dominion. Mr. Speaker, not only is it great to

be different and to include the family with the child, but I know that

throughout Canada they are following our lead. Those provinces which

did not initially pick up on this are now envious and certainly looking

in that direction. They recognize the value of it, because when you

recognize the child, you must equally recognize the family. I think

certainly, especially in times like this, all of us should be reminded

time and time again that the family is the most important unit in our

society.

We in British Columbia, certainly through our government — and I had

the fortune as Minister of Human Resources to be a part of that — have

done a tremendous amount in promoting the importance of the family and

providing whatever assistance we could to strengthen the family. I

think perhaps this is where we differ from the opposition in many

respects, because we have continually stressed the importance of the

family. We have recognized this by providing assistance and assuring

that the policies which were developed throughout government indicated

very clearly the importance of this.

I can recall that a few years back when I first became the Minister

of Human Resources there was certainly a feeling throughout the

ministry then — and it had certainly been promoted by the government

which preceeded us — that somehow it didn't matter much, and families,

while important, didn't require all the attention, and children

definitely could decide to leave on their own if they so wished. It

didn't matter all that much. We saw then lineups at the welfare

counters of 14-year olds and 15-year-olds and 16-year-olds, and they

were given assistance because it was supposedly their democratic right.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing that did more harm than that in that

it led further to breaking up the family unit. People could leave and

family maintenance was something that wasn't thought of, or certainly

wasn't encouraged in any way. Support payments? No way. If there is a

split, by all means provide them with welfare. Support isn't necessary.

It shouldn't be encouraged; it wasn't encouraged. This is where we

differ. We do recognize the all-importance of the family as the number

one unit in our society in British Columbia and throughout the country.

Mention was made of day care and the fact that if you want to help

those women particularly who require employment, then you must provide

a good day-care program. Well, day care didn't happen only a few years

ago. The program certainly has been in existence for some time. But if,

in fact, as the member mentioned, the all-important thing is the rates

we pay to assure that those day-care units can operate effectively and

remain open as often and as regularly as required, I think our record

is good, because in a matter of three years, those rates were increased

from 40 to 50 percent. That certainly is a far greater increase than at

any other three-year period during the history of this province.

Mention was made of urban transit by the former speaker and the fact

that we were imposing a tax on people for the transit system. Well, I

think perhaps the hon. member loses sight of the fact that there's more

to British Columbia than simply Vancouver and Victoria.

British Columbia is strong because of a progressive, hard-working,

energetic people in the north, in the east, and in many other areas who

have continually supported a transit system through taxation, not only

in their own

[ Page 171 ]

area, but by paying, in their hydro bills, for a

system in Vancouver and a system in Victoria. Those hon. members seem

to forget about that part of British Columbia. Our great north, which

certainly provides all of us in the south who are proud of the areas we

live in with many of the benefits we enjoy, and possibly take for

granted.

Is it fair that the people in Kamloops, in Prince George, in Trail,

in Nelson and in all these other parts pay through their taxes for

their transit system, and then pay again in their hydro bills for the

transit system in the urban areas? I say it is. Not only that, I think

if you want to develop a good system of transit in all areas of the

province, then you must put some responsibility of cost directly with

the people who make the decisions at the local level. That makes for an

accountable system. That makes for a credible system. That makes for a

system that can grow progressively and effectively.

I must answer some of the negativism which was expressed by the

Leader of the Opposition yesterday. The doom and gloom experts on the

other side certainly, suddenly, seem to know all about railways. We

found in our pro tem leader of the NDP a great rail expert who is

suddenly prepared, or came forth with a proposal, to sell a piece of

the BCR to the Americans.

I would suggest to the House, and to all British Columbians, that it

would be a sad day if that member was ever the one to consummate a deal

between the Americans and ourselves with respect to the BCR. I can

appreciate that the pro tem leader of the NDP has some difficulties.

Frankly I feel for him. He cannot be so naive as to not realize that

Mr. Jim Kinnaird, the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, is

chipping away constantly, waiting for the day that he might grab

control and become the leader of the NDP. Those rallies around the

province.... They are, of course, based on a phony issue — based on a

non-issue, for that matter. I don't believe he really understands the

new issue of right-to-work. His concern is not the right to work or the

right not to work or the right to eat or the right to starve. His real

worry, I would suggest, is the fact that among the many good union

people, the many members of those various unions, there is a real

movement towards bringing a greater amount of democracy into the

system. They want more democracy in their system, and why shouldn't

they deserve more democracy in their system?

But again, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that for Mr. Kinnaird and a

few others who couldn't make it in Great Britain, that's a real worry,

because more democracy within their system would weaken the powers they

presently hold. He doesn't want less power; he wants more and more and

more power. He can see that he and others like him could possibly take

control of a vulnerable and weakly led NDP party. He wants to be the

leader. He would like to be the Premier one day, with John Fryer the

Minister of Labour. They don't really care about bankrupting the

province in the process. After all, like the doom-and-gloom people

across the way, they are more powerful when people are poor.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have been a member of this progressive

government, a government which effectively turned the province from a

downhill backwards slide to a forward climbing position to outshine

every province in this great nation. And as was so ably stated by the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), we did all of this being

terribly handicapped in having followed that group of incompetents.

That government overspent at an unprecedented rate, and I think we

ought to remind the people of British Columbia time and time and time

again. I think it should be repeated throughout all parts of the

province, not only when there is an election called but all of the

time, because if we don't remind the people time and time again.... If

we should ever once again be saddled by a socialistic government in

British Columbia, this province may never recover. Those industries

would move and the people would be without jobs and the suffering that

would follow could never be turned about.

The average increase in the provincial budget while they ran the

show was 27 percent per year. Finally at the very end — and I think

perhaps that was a wise move, because certainly he was a far more able

person, but he was too late — the member for Nanaimo had to take

control of finance. It was wildly out of control. They had no idea

whatsoever. That member, being an accountant — and he works at it very

hard — I think might have done something to improve it. But it was too

late. It couldn't be done. He knows it. He knows it well. The cost of

the bureaucracy had increased in only three years from $228 million in

1972 to $550 million in 1975. Every Crown corporation was stamping the

taxpayers deeper and deeper into debt. Welfare had risen by 50 to 60

percent in some areas in only one year. That's on the record. It can be

checked time and time again in many communities throughout this

province. If we need to be reminded of what it was like, let's look at

those welfare records. I think they too tell a story.

[ Page 172 ]

Mines were closing. Forestry was down. Tourism was discouraged.

Hospital construction was at an all-time low. Highway construction and

maintenance — and Mr. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), you can

bear this out — had virtually stopped. Highways that were leading

south, north, east and west were breaking up, and nothing was being

done. They were in a disastrous state. Those were tough times to

inherit or to take over government.

There were some light moments as well. I can recall the day when the

then Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Lorimer) came in to cabinet one

day and presented me with a list of trees. He said: "Bill, you are the

tree expert. I hope you can do something about this list of trees." So

he gave me this long list of millions of trees. The NDP government had

gone out and bought all these trees from different places all over the

world, and they had planted them out in greenhouses and in beds in

Surrey and other nurseries elsewhere throughout the province. They had

spent all sorts of money building beds and coldframes and hotbeds and

greenhouses. We had millions of trees. What will we do with all these

trees? There really wasn't any place for them. Initially we were told

all those millions of trees were intended to be planted in False Creek.

But then it was discovered that plan wouldn't work.

So the minister presented me with a long list of millions of trees.

I looked at the list and saw salix alpina, Betula papyrifera, Alnus and

Populus negra. Now I want to tell you what that means. Those are Latin

names. If you don't think we had a problem with all of those millions

of trees, those are Latin names for all those millions of trees that

were going to be planted in False Creek. I'll translate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I'll inspect to see

whether or not any of those are on the list of unparliamentary words.

[Laughter.]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'll translate those Latin names.

Translated, we had millions of willows, swamp birch, alders and

cottonwoods. That's what we had. All of those beautiful trees had been

imported and were going to be planted in False Creek. What do you do

with a million cottonwoods? What do you do with a million alders? What

do you do with millions of swamp birch? That was, perhaps, one of the

light moments, but certainly sad too, because it cost the taxpayers of

British Columbia many, many hundreds of thousands of dollars for that

useless program, which obviously hadn't been thought out. It was just a

wild pipe-dream of some then minister in that particular government.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Whatever happened to the train that bent in the middle? [Laughter.]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: One of the other moments was the train

that wouldn't meet the ramps at the railway stations — it wouldn't fit

the track. We still have the train, however. That train justified a

trip to Sweden for the then Minister of Municipal Affairs in the NDP

government. Frankly, I was on the regional district at that time and

was asked to go along. I was a part of that trip to Europe for a part

of the time. Yes, Mr. Minister. Actually, it probably was a good

learning experience in what not to do, but it made me more aware, too,

that government can be very wasteful. It certainly has little regard

for taxpayers' money, especially when they are a bunch of socialists

and don't just know exactly what money means. They simply think there's

an endless supply of it.

The ferries without ramps.... I don't want to tell all of these

stories. I think I should leave a few for the others. No, I just don't

think it's fair that I take all of this. For that matter, I think we

should save a few.

It's been suggested by some members on the opposite side that there

might be an election. I want to go out there and tell all those people

of the north that at one time we had millions of cottonwoods imported

by the NDP. That's certainly something that would go over big in

Houston, Smithers or one of those places. Perhaps the people in New

Westminster would appreciate all those alders right now, although, mind

you, perhaps we should keep a few of those stories for them.

The member who just spoke for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), also made

mention of the NDP in Ottawa. What a wonderful bunch. What wonderful

things they had done, and how the NDP in Ottawa — the socialists there

— were doing such a great job. I just want to point out that there's a

great deal of hypocrisy with the NDP in Ottawa too.

The member who is going to be seeking the nomination in one of the

Coquitlam ridings was an MP. I believe his name is Leggatt. He led the

NDP forces in Ottawa. They voted unanimously to legalize marijuana —

not the grower, not the importer, not the pedlar, but the user. So for

the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), just so he understands it —

not to decriminalize it for the grower, the importer or the peddler,

but the user. That's one standard. A few days later, in the same ses-

[ Page 173 ]

sion, that same member led those same NDP forces

and voted against prostitution control measures that were being

introduced by the Liberal government. They said it wasn't fair to

charge the prostitute, but we should instead charge the user. Talk

about hypocrisy. "Different standards, different times, different

people."

Mr. Speaker, I think, possibly there are more people using marijuana

than peddling marijuana, so there are more votes. Maybe there are less

prostitutes than users, so there are more votes. But we have a similar

situation in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: It doesn't make sense.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It does make sense. Just think about it. It's a long time getting through.

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

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I have so many more things

to talk about that I would like to take the balance of the time

tomorrow, and I would move adjournment of this debate until the next

sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get up on a point to

correct the minister. In his usual way he has flirted with the truth

and found it hard to find, accusing the member for New Westminster of

legalizing marijuana, or suggesting that it be legalized. That is

totally erroneous, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, if there are to be

corrections made, this is the right time. However, the corrections are

only to be directed to that area of a speech made by the individual who

takes objections. In other words, the correction in this instance could

only have been made if someone had misquoted a portion of the speech

made by the member for New Westminster. So, we cannot accept that.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:01 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1979, 2001, 2011: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada