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)

THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 1979

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

175 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Sale of B.C. companies to American companies. Mr. Barrett — 175

Funding for Lions Gate Hospital. Mr. Stephens — 176

Refitting of "Princess Marguerite". Mrs. Dailly — 177

Transfer of B.C. Tel shares. Mr. Lauk — 177

Statement

CBC'S "Connections" program. Hon. Mr. Gardom — 178

Mr. Macdonald — 182

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 183

Hon. Mr. Mair — 185

Mr. Lea — 189

Mr. Calder — 196

Mr. Kahl — 200

Mr. Barnes — 205

Presenting reports.

Ombudsman committee. Mr. Davidson — 207

Appendix — 208

THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: We have in the members' gallery today a

large delegation of young people from the Pacific Region of the Boys'

and Girls' Clubs of Canada. The purpose of their visit is to present

the recently promulgated United Nations Children's Bill of Rights, to

interpret each one of the rights and to present printed proclamations.

This morning the young people met with the caucus of the official

opposition, and they met with the government caucus just about half an

hour ago. This is being done at all provincial legislatures, as well as

in Ottawa. The youngsters in the gallery today represent about 9,000

members in the province and 50,000 members across the country.

I know it's a long introduction, Mr. Speaker, but may I give you

some names? From North Delta is Sherry Dunlop who, incidentally, is

celebrating her sixteenth birthday; from Nanaimo, Donald Pugh; from

North Burnaby, Paul Hendriks; from Penticton, Joe Wellington and Corina

Wallner; from Vancouver-Fraserview, Brad Reanbeault and Roberta

Genschorek; from Vancouver Ki-Mount, Jasbinder Hayre; from Central

Saanich, Derrick Law and Tony Van Wyk; and from Victoria, Jason

Merriman.

Serving as their hosts, along with officials of Boys' and Girls'

Clubs today, are Youth Parliament members who are also in the gallery:

Anthony Gurr, Chris McElroy, Mike Seymour, Colin Hanson, Sandra Rodger

and Dan Burnett, all Vancouver Island members of the Youth Parliament.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there are representatives of the staff and the

board of directors of Boys' and Girls' Clubs in British Columbia: John

Ballam, the regional director; Doug Soo, director of the Ki-Mount Boys'

and Girls' Clubs, Mac McGillivary, national board member; Peter Nation,

program director in Central Saanich; Boeing Quan, program director in

Langford; and Mirella Spinelli, program director in Victoria. I believe

that those members on both sides of the House who received the

presentation and heard the comments with respect to the International

Year of the Child and Family were most appreciative.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, we also have a large group in the

gallery today who, while not as young in body as the ones introduced by

the Provincial Secretary, are still very young in mind. A group of

about 40, led by Mr. P.H. Andres and Mrs. Lois Reynolds, the acting

president of the MA Advisory Comcil for Retired Citizens, are here to

watch government in action. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member, for introducing those

people on my behalf. My note tells me that it is a group called "The

Widows Helping Others." We believe in volunteering out there.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Sitting in the gallery this afternoon is my

wife Sheila, my son-in-law Gordon McCallum, my daughter Barbara

McCallum and my nine-year-old son, Gregory. I'd like this House to bid

them welcome.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I have a very good friend who has

come down to visit from Vernon. Her name is Lee Kowalski. I'd ask the

House to make her as welcome as I have.

MR. SMITH: Today is one of those infrequent occasions when a

group of students from North Peace River are visiting Victoria. I'd ask

the members of the House to make welcome Mr. Bruce Chisholm and a group

of students from Buick Creek, a school north of Fort St. John.

MR. KEMPF: In the gallery with us today are two very good friends of

mine, residents of my home town of Houston, Mr. and Mrs. Rick Van Rhyn. I'd

like to ask the House to make them very welcome.

Oral questions.

SALE OF B.C.

COMPANIES TO AMERICAN COMPANIES

MR. BARRETT: I address my question to the Premier. I have in

my hand a document written by the federal Minister of Industry, Trade

and Commerce. The document purports to state that British Columbia

strongly resisted the policy of the federal Foreign Investment Review

Agency. I would ask the Premier if it is, indeed, the British Columbia

government's policy to object to keeping the ownership of Canadian

industry in Canada, as stated by Mr. Horner in this memorandum.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Leader of the Opposition is incorrect in his supposition, and the answer is no.

MR. BARRETT: Supplementary. I appreciate the answer from the Premier. Could the Premier then tell me why his government consented

[ Page 176 ]

without a protest to the sale of 74 British Columbia companies to foreign interests between 1976 and 1978?

HON. MR. BENNETT: As the Leader of the Opposition should

know, it's not a matter of British Columbia consenting. The Foreign

Investment Review Agency, as it did when British Columbia had the

unfortunate experience of their being government, processes these

applications, and a large number went through at that time. Nothing has

changed.

MR. BARRETT: Would the Premier inform this House whether or

not he has ever had conversations with Mr. Horner about the alleged

complaints that Mr. Horner has made about the government's position and

the fact that the government has never said in writing that they are

opposed to any single one of these takeovers?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I have not had any discussions with Mr. Horner on the subject.

FUNDING FOR

LIONS GATE HOSPITAL

MR. STEPHENS: My question is for the Premier. I welcome him back and hope he did good things for the province in his absence.

In view of the fact that through a special warrant recently issued

the Premier obtained $3 million, described as urgently and immediately

required for the public good in the distribution of the BCRIC shares,

why is he not prepared to give to the Lions Gate Hospital in North

Vancouver $750,000 which it so desperately needs and urgently requires

for the public good?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I an pleased that question was asked. This

government is not going to withhold funds or cause any problems to the

hospital. The hospitals have never been better cared for in this

province.

Let me say this: we don't have the problems that you see in other

provinces. In fact, we have seen an expansion of health services. I

want to say it may be difficult for the leader of the Conservative

Party to consider doing two things at once, but this government can do

a number of things for people in many areas. They do not conflict. They

do not deter one another.

There is progress on all fronts. Individual ownership is being

encouraged and extended to our people. We have the best health care in

Canada. I would ask that member to be in his place for the budget,

Monday next. I would be prepared to listen to his comments after the

budget.

MR. STEPHENS: I thank the Premier for his speech. Now,

perhaps, he would like to answer the question. In case he has forgotten

what it was, the Lions Gate Hospital in North Vancouver is in such

desperate shape that the vice-chairman of the board resigned in

frustration. This situation was presented to the government a year ago,

when the hospital board required the money. Why will you not give that

hospital a $750,000 contribution that it so urgently and desperately

needs for the public good?

HON. MR. BENNETT: There is going to be no problem with the

hospitals of this province. There has been a continued process.... I

recognize that the member is new and perhaps doesn't know how

government works, through the Health ministry, on budget years that are

not yet completed. I have to tell him that I took the opportunity to

provide representation while there have been vacancies on the two North

Shore constituencies, and that matter is well in hand.

I want to tell that member, without dealing with subjects that will

be more than adequately but very positively dealt with on Monday, that

I am pleased you have now given the public notice of the type of

positive answers they can expect from this government. Hospitals,

schools and all other parts of our society are being treated not only

with equity and fairness but in a positive way, so that this province

can continue to flourish and grow.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary question, I feel

very badly that I have to stand in this House and charge the Premier

with making jokes about health care, which has been absolutely put down

in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'll ask the question after I preface

my remark by charging that the hospitals have over $40 million in

deficits. They're paying more in interest per day than two hospitals

are paying for patient care.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: This is the hospital situation. What's the Premier going to do about it on budget day? Why didn't he do it a year ago?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Before the Pre-

[ Page

177 ]

mier answers, I would

like to remind the members again, as I did yesterday, that the purpose

of question period, of course, is to ask questions and not to make

statements. Beauchesne has some rather strong words about making

statements in question period.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has made a

statement on a figure that is not the information presented to me. Of

course, it is not unusual for the opposition to state incorrect facts.

It reminds me of the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), a member of their

party, who said in this House that the NDP makes up their own facts.

REFITTING OF

"PRINCESS MARGUERITE"

MRS. DAILLY: To the Minister of Tourism. We understand that

consideration is being given to scrapping the "Princess Marguerite."

We've been told through the press that it may cost close to $1 million

to refit it to meet certain standards. Could the minister tell us,

first, if this is an annual refitting cost?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I want to tell you we have no plans of

scrapping the "Marguerite" run. This is a valuable tourist tool. Last

year that old vessel brought over $8 million worth of tourism to our

economy. We intend to make sure that that ship sails not only on time,

but 18 days before the time it would normally go out. We have no plans

for scrapping the run. Unlike the previous government, we're using it

as a promotional piece to bring tourism to British Columbia. We intend

to do that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Premier. Pardon me, the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm glad the hon. members all understand that errors can be made. I must apologize.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, if it did, in fact, become fact, that would be an error indeed. [Laughter.]

MR. SPEAKER: I welcome the good humour. But it's not a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: I want to ask the Minister of Tourism whether or

not he will dissociate himself now with the remarks made by his

colleagues when they were in opposition, attacking the "Marguerite" as

being a boondoggle.

MRS. DAILLY: You say you're keeping the service up. We're

delighted to hear that. But is the "Marguerite" going to be scrapped,

and why? The "Marguerite" has a unique quality which we believe brought

thousands of tourists to Victoria. Could you tell us if you are

planning to scrap it, or not?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Thank you very much again for that question.

I want to tell you that ship was financed out of the back of Bob

Williams' pocket with a loan from the credit union. Had that been done

properly in the first place there would probably be no debt because of

the good management over the last few years, as far as that vessel goes.

I want to reiterate that we intend to keep the service going between

here and Seattle. We intend to improve it. That should be good enough

for the hon. member.

MR. LAUK: The minister means he is not going to continue to use the vessel "Marguerite."

TRANSFER OF B.C. TEL SHARES

My question is to the Premier. On February 14 he announced that

British Columbia Telephone Company had transferred, or was about to

transfer, 5 percent of its shares to its parent company, General

Telephone. The Premier indicated that 5 percent shareholding would go

into a flow-through voting trust with the British Columbia Resources

and Investment Corporation. He argued that would bring control of B.C.

Tel somehow to British Columbia. He said, at the time, that was not his

idea. The next day we asked Gordon MacFarlane of B.C. Tel, and Mr.

MacFarlane said it wasn't his idea. On that next day the vice-chairman

of General Telephone had never heard of the scheme. Now would the

Premier not change his story with respect to whose idea that sham was?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member is incorrect that I made the

announcement. I responded to an announcement. I said this: it is the

policy of this government for utilities and business doing business in

this province to make sure that the ancillary business and particularly

research and technical development, which will lead to greater

employment for our people, shall take place in this province. Control

of that shall take place. We have created a Ministry of Education,

Science and Technology to put greater emphasis on this opportunity.

That will take place.

In response to the initiative to get control of the research and development facilities and

[ Page

178 ]

supply into the hands of this Canadian company, the

British Columbia government said that if those financial arrangements

took place and it was approved by the Federal Investment Review Agency,

we would want those shares. Rather than vote an equity ownership to the

parent company, those would be voted in British Columbia, and the

voting rights would be handled by the British Columbia Resources

Investment Corporation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Answer the question.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That is the answer to the question.

It may be that the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) may

giggle, as he does every time with a matter of importance, but I want

to say that it is the policy of this government to see more

manufacturing capability and more of the industry and business in this

province directed in this province. That has been the policy of this

government, and we have so indicated, and we have had a response from

many businesses that are now moving to make this happen in British

Columbia for the first time, not by a big stick but by stating

government policy and having it clearly understood.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, I think it is time

to review the purpose of question period. Although I will not take time

out of question period to do this, this is the moment at which we need

to review the purpose of question period.

The same general rules of debate apply. The person who is recognized

and who has possession of the floor is not to be interrupted, either

while he is asking a question or while someone else is answering that

question. The purpose of question period is to seek information — not

information which is public knowledge, but information which is new

information. Whenever an answer is given, the answer is not to be

beyond the scope of the question.

If we allow the House to exceed those limits, on either side, we

have then destroyed the purpose of question period to that extent. I

would ask all members on both sides to observe those simple, basic

rules so that we can preserve the dignity of question period.

I am going to permit one more question, as I promised.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Premier. Could

the Premier, as a result of his answer, confirm that when he stated on

February 14 that the idea was that of British Columbia Telephone, he

was not telling the truth?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Not at all, but I would be pleased to help this member and give him a copy of the press release which I issued at that time.

MR. LAUK: I read it. It said it was not your idea. Were you telling the truth?

MR. SPEAKER: Question period is concluded.

On a point of order, the first member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: I had an important question today, on a point

of order, for the Attorney-General on British Columbia's fifth growth

industry, organized crime. The Attorney-General has not been in his

chair — he has been in the chambers. With respect, Mr. Speaker, you

should instruct the ministers — if they're here at all — to be in their

places and available to answer questions on matters of that much

importance. This minister has said that it's not a serious enough

matter to warrant a crime commission. I think he should be asked about

that, and dared to make that statement on the floor of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. member knows that the Speaker

does not require the presence of members in this House, nor can he

order them to be present. Each member's attendance in this chamber is a

matter of his own responsibility and will continue to be such.

HON. MR. GARDOM: With the leave of the House, I'd very much

like to file a statement that I presented to the members of the media

shortly before we came into session.

Leave granted.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It'll take me a long time, but I'll be happy to read it.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if it's to be read, it will need to be read with leave.

Leave granted.

CBC'S "CONNECTIONS" PROGRAM

HON. MR. GARDOM: The statement I gave earlier this afternoon dealt with the airing

[ Page 179 ]

of CBC's first "Connections" program in 1977, and

also with the airing of the recent program. There is no question that

it has created much public concern about the nature and extent of

organized crime in Canada. Both of the programs, of course, referred to

B.C.

Following the first program, I indicated to the people of this

province and to the Legislature the preventive strategies that were in

place in our province, those which were going to be studied and,

specifically, those of a crime commission.

Promptly thereafter, a crime commission study was initiated by a

team comprising the senior Crown counsel, one inspector from the

Vancouver City Police, another from the RCMP, and three members from

the policy analysis division of CLEU. Commission procedures in New

Mexico, New Jersey and Quebec were examined very closely, because they

were considered to be the most suitable models for adaptation, if

necessary, for any situation in B.C. Particular note was made of these

commissions' mandates, their powers and purposes, their structure,

their procedures, their activities, achievements, problems and costs.

The study dealt with the format, procedures, funding, composition and

general modus operandi of the crime commissions in these three areas.

Based upon the information gathered, particularly with respect to

the Quebec Crime Commission, a model for a crime commission has been

designed for our own province if the need is clearly demonstrated at

any time. Based on the costs of the commissions examined, it was

estimated that a commission here would cost about $662,000 a year. But

those figures exclude very, very considerable costs for additional

support and investigative functions, which such a commission would

obviously require from law enforcement and regulatory agencies.

The report of the B.C. team was presented to the policy board of the

Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit. That policy board consists of: the

Deputy Attorney-General, (R. Vogel), Deputy Commissioner Reed, the head

of the RCMP in the province; Chief Constable Don Winterton of Vancouver

City Police; Chief Constable Peterson of Saanich; Assistant

Commissioner Jensen of the RCMP "E" division Vancouver; Deputy Chief

Constable Tom Dixon of the Vancouver City Police; Mr. Neil McDiarmid,

QC, the ADM of Criminal Justice; Mr. Geoffrey Mortimer, the chairman of

the B.C. Police Commission; and Mr. Bob Simson, the director of CLEU.

The policy board had an in--depth review of this report of the B.C. team concerning

the commissions in other areas. Then it recommended to me that a crime commission

should not be established at the present time in our province, but that a careful

watch continue to be kept on the situation so that if the need does arise at

any time in the future, it would be possible to fully and promptly implement

the work that's already been done.

The usefulness of and the need for a crime commission is therefore

under — and will continue to be under — serious and continuous review.

I'd like to emphasize that our authorities are on the alert. The issues

are not going to slip by. The crime commission may be recommended and

implemented at any time, if necessary. The reasons for the

recommendation I received from the policy board of the Coordinated Law

Enforcement Unit are these: organized criminal activity in B.C. was of

a different character than elsewhere. While there's no question that

some similar problems are present, there was neither the same degree of

entrenchment of organized crime nor the type of corruption here in B.C.

as in other areas that made the establishment of crime commissions in

those areas necessary from their point of view.

There is also in existence in B.C. a wide variety of mechanisms for

combatting organized crime that those jurisdictions with crime

commissions did not have, and I would like to spend some time on that,

Mr. Speaker. In addition to the policy analysis division and the Joint

Forces Operations of CLEU — and that's permanent, not an ad hoc joint

forces operation — we have here in our province an integrated

intelligence service, plus large drug squads that are maintained by the

police, an efficient RCMP commercial crime section, and provincial

regulatory agencies which are cooperating in the control of crime

and/or organized crime.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the changes that were brought about in the

total criminal justice system over the past five years have increased

the efficiency of the province in dealing with this type of malaise. I

refer specifically to the regulatory agencies such as the

superintendent of brokers, the registrar of companies, the fire

marshal, liquor distribution and the superintendent of insurance and

real estate. Then, of course, there are the federal regulatory

agencies, which include immigration, port authorities and customs.

When I talked about the changes in the total criminal justice system

over the five years, this would include such things as the development

of permanent prosecutorial systems, a release of police manpower by

virtue of the sheriff services, improved police training via the

justice institute, the functions of the

[ Page 180 ]

B.C. Police Commission, and a considerably

increased emphasis on intelligence and analysis training. Also, B.C.

police strength is up about 25 percent in the five-year span, from some

4,076 in 1973 to 5,198 in 1978. The RCMP also expanded their

communications network.

Now it is felt, Mr. Speaker, that a sizeable allocation of funds

would be required also to set up and maintain a commission, and its

support services could be usefully spent in traditional law

enforcement. So it goes without saying that the requirement for a crime

commission has to clearly outweigh — and I think this is the viewpoint

that is being expressed in other areas in our country and in other

areas in the United States — the problems inherent in establishing such

a process which it does not do today in B.C. But as I've said, it does

require ongoing attention and consideration, which it will receive.

I think the cautions of Judge Jutile, who was an original member of

the Quebec Crime Commission, should be heeded before considering any

final decision. I think he stated it very succinctly when he said:

"Before setting up a permanent commission it is

essential that the existing system will be well tried and proven, and

that there will be every possible guarantee that it will succeed. Many

permanent institutions have not achieved the anticipated results,

because they've been too hastily formed and have not been provided with

sufficient guarantees of success. "We" — that is the Jutile commission

— "do not want to repeat these mistakes. It would be useless to

establish a permanent commission on organized crime that would simply

have a traditional institution yielding no concrete results."

So it's clear, Mr. Speaker, that there is also the need for an

abundance of coordination and cooperation between the government of

Canada and all of the provinces to ensure that this type of malaise is

not just taken care of in one area and then inherited in another. That

is, of course, another dimension deserving very careful attention when

one might be talking about just a provincial crime commission, because

crime doesn't recognize any borders. If a provincial step was taken, it

would obviously be most helpful if there was some parallel procedure in

other provinces, or powers to subpoena and effectively enforce

subpoenas beyond provincial borders for crime commissions. Or perhaps

they have a national vehicle that could be empowered to do the job if

it was called up provincially. And I think that's an option that is

deserving of consideration as well.

Concerning the CBC program, the officials further inform.... I think it is significant

to note, Mr. Speaker, that the reputed head of organized crime, as identified

in a first CBC production, one Joe Gentile, fled the country to Italy in the

early fall of 1976 as a result of law enforcement pressure and has not returned

to Canada.

As well, another reputed organized crime figure, Carlo Gallo, has

been convicted in B.C. of conspiracy to utter and possess counterfeit

money and was sentenced to four years in prison. A co-accused, Frank

Magasano, was sentenced to seven years. Other individuals identified by

the CBC are awaiting trial on June 4 of this year on the same charges.

Further, as was indicated by the CBC on Monday night, none of the

five Hong Kong policemen who were identified in the 1977 program as

significant criminal figures has returned to Canada. One of them, Hon

Sum, fled the country while awaiting a Crown appeal dealing with his

return to Hong Kong.

Because it is before the court, it's not appropriate for me to

comment on the CBC's portrayal of Joe Romano. It is on court record,

though, that he's charged with conspiracy to defraud with respect to

Seneca Developments in 1977, and extortion with respect to an incident

in late 1978.

The program also made reference to Mr. Angelo Branca, who's a senior

British Columbia lawyer, and now retired justice from the British

Columbia Court of Appeal.

With reference to the content of the program, and/or otherwise, I

asked law enforcement officials if there was any evidence or

allegations of criminality against Mr. Branca. I've been informed there

is none. As the people of B.C. know, Mr. Branca has had a lifetime

career as a highly competent lawyer and as counsel both for people

accused and as prosecutor for the Crown, and lastly as a jurist in the

appellate court.

Subsequent to the 1977 program, the intelligence contained in the

program was reviewed and correlated with law enforcement material, I'm

advised. It appeared there was little that our law enforcement agencies

were not aware of at that time. Again, as I did in 1977, I have

requested that law enforcement authorities consider the material

contained in the present CBC programs and interrelate it with their

present intelligence. That will be part of the various matters they

will be considering. If any evidence concerning any matter is of

assistance, it will be dealt with. If any charges should be required

from that, those charges shall be laid.

As my colleague the Attorney-General for

[ Page 181 ]

Ontario, the Hon. Roy McMurtry, said, there's

really considerable difference between showing someone involved with

criminals, and proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of

law. The CBC material indicates associations with reputed criminals.

Such an association does not necessarily or conclusively mean criminal

involvement. It could also mean that a person has not resisted being

imposed upon, or that he or she has been indiscreet.

The program also makes the point that the criminal can gain

protection from the object of his criminal act by way of fear of

reprisal. I'd say if more people would come forward, the criminal

element would conclude that their protection by way of fear of reprisal

was becoming denied to them.

I think it would be unjustified to suggest that the kind of criminal

element referred to in the program has been totally dealt with in B.C.

or totally dealt with anywhere else in the country for that matter, or

on this continent. Substantial progress has been made in the

identification of major British Columbia figures and their subsequent

prosecution. The development of the Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit

with its permanent joint forces police operations in both Victoria and

Vancouver has been a very successful vehicle in this regard.

In 1974, the combined intelligence units of the RCMP, Vancouver, and

other municipal forces identified some 400 individuals as significant

criminal figures. Of this number half were associated solely with

drugs, and the other half were engaged in crimes such as organized

prostitution, bookmaking, loan sharking, major thefts, counterfeiting

and robberies. To date, about 90 per cent of the total identified have

been targeted and investigated. This has resulted in charges being

laid, or sufficient pressure being brought to bear on them so that they

have become inactive, or have left the country.

Further, in many cases conspiracy charges have been laid prior to a

crime being committed, which is being consistent with a proactive

rather than a reactive approach. In relation to the cases I've been

speaking about, until the end of 1978 there have been about 636 arrests.

In the interests of promoting improved communication, coordination

and cooperation, the ministry has regularly met with the B.C.

regulatory agencies concerned with the problem. They have studied their

functions. Their powers, resources and investigatory information have

been a very beneficial liaison, with the exchange of information, the

pooling of resources, and the various talents and expertise. You can

see from the list I've given that there are many talents and a great

deal of expertise within the competence of these people. This has been

very good. It has helped to develop their potential for better

assistance in the control and suppression of organized crime in our

province. Also, the very fact of that exercise has created a greater

awareness of the problem within the agencies themselves.

Administrative and legislative measures have been implemented with

respect to the Vancouver Stock Exchange, together with increased market

monitoring by the exchange. The superintendent of brokers office and

the law enforcement community have made it more difficult to use the

exchange for questionable, unethical or illegal transactions. There

have been increases in the resources for the compliance department.

That has been expanded to security and intelligence. There's more

information re corporate charges and exploratory discoveries.

The superintendent of brokers is now vetting statements of material

fact, as well as the stock exchange. There is an anti-market

manipulation unit of the RCMP, which has an increase in numbers and is

spending more time in that area. Some considerable progress has been

made in the region of drug trafficking and abuse, with some very large

arrests. The members have been reading about those in the newspapers

over the last year. There are proposals, of course, within the Heroin

Treatment Act. Further within the federal-provincial drug strategy

committee, which was initiated by this province, there is active

consideration of new strategies and programs to contend with this

continuing serious problem. There is no question that organized crime

does feed on this.

It must be borne in mind that organized crime is much like the large

enterprise. Because a manager or supervisor is removed it doesn't

necessarily mean that the business would collapse. Regretfully, there

are probably many waiting in line to assume more responsibility. So

there is a requirement for constant vigilance, and a requirement to

keep up the pressure, both at the law enforcement level and the citizen

level. I stress the citizen level. New strategies will have to continue

to be developed to meet the complex and flexible character of organized

criminal activity. That is the continuing mandate given to ministerial

officials, police, CLEU, and to all the related agencies.

Finally, I wish to advise that I will very shortly have available

from CLEU the Third Findings Report on organized crime in our province.

This report, which is undergoing printing, will describe in greater

detail the

[ Page 182 ]

improvement made within the criminal justice system

in B.C. within the last four years; also the activities of the

Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit, and a more particularized overview of

the state of organized crime in B.C. I thank the hon. members for

granting me leave to make this statement, and for their attention.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we listen to a reply, I

think the best advice the Chair could give to the House is that when

you have statements of this duration, it would be far better that these

statements be filed with the House, particularly when we are in the

middle of a debate, such as the reply to the Speech from the Throne,

when we have certain time limitations. Perhaps we could abide by that

wisdom in the future.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, as to your request to the

House, would it not be just as important to advise cabinet members that

if they are going to make statements that affect a very serious matter

like this, the House be informed, as a courtesy, that such a statement

is indeed going to be made, rather than give a statement to the press

and then file it with the House? If it's so important to file with the

House, then it's very important that the House hear it first.

MR SPEAKER: I don't know of any authority by which I could require

that.

MR. BARRETT: No, I understand.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Just on a point of order, I don't want to

belabour the point. We want to get along with the business. That's

specifically the reason I requested to file it. It's a lengthy

statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. Whenever there is a ministerial

statement, which is the category under which this statement was made,

the only way we could interrupt the business in order to do it is if

there is a reply.

MR. MACDONALD: I must say, with regret, that the Attorney-General's statement is not acceptable....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'd like to ask if there is leave for the member to respond.

MR. SPEAKER: There was a Speaker's ruling regarding this very

matter. Whenever a ministerial statement is made, whether by leave or

whether by right, a reply is the procedure of our House. The reply does

not require leave, once leave is given for the statement.

MR. MACDONALD: As I say, with regret, the opposition cannot

accept the statement. The Attorney-General has said, and I took down

his words: "If the need does arise in the future, with respect to

organized crime in the province of British Columbia, then a crime

commission may be established." I want to say emphatically that we

believe the need is here now. We have what amounts to the fifth growth

industry in the province of British Columbia, which is organized crime.

We have the situation where white-collar crime is largely uncontained

and substantially unprosecuted. We have a traffic in heroin amounting

to $250 million in the province of British Columbia. We have people

hiding behind phony companies and....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if there are to be other statements, it will require leave.

MR. MACDONALD: We have people hiding behind phony company

fronts and laundering organized crime returns with impunity. We have

people who have been, as the Attorney-General said, identified as

participating in this kind of traffic in the province of British

Columbia and who have been required to answer to the community for

their conduct in no forum and under no technique. We have had an

amendment to the Criminal Code, which dates back to the days of Justice

Minister Ronald Basford, which permits a crime inquiry in this province

in cases where the criminal elements go undetected and do not have to

give an explanation for their conduct or their ill-gotten gains. We

have the technique under the Criminal Code whereby they can be required

to answer for their conduct. It isn't good enough that they should

simply be identified, nor is it good enough that this important

question of law enforcement — as we are told by the Attorney-General —

should for the next while be treated as business as usual.

We are told in one part of the Attorney-General's statement that

organized crime knows no boundaries, and that is perfectly true. In

another part he says that this area is relatively free from organized

crime. We simply cannot agree with that. There are no boundaries to

organized crime and Vancouver and the Lower Mainland in particular, and

other parts of the province of British Columbia, are in

[ Page 183 ]

the network and being subjected to the loss of millions of dollars to the coffers of organized crime.

I conclude, without debating the matter, by simply saying this: the

idea of CLEU, the organized law enforcement unit, was a two-phased

attack upon organized crime. The first phase, in terms of

identification, has been accomplished. The second phase has been under

review for the past three years and that is not acceptable to the

people of this province.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Not true. I was expecting a political statement and that's what I got.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, we cannot accept further statements. We would be entering into a debate.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yesterday I expressed my sympathy for

the pro tem NDP Leader of the Opposition, who just now left the House.

I want to again express that sympathy to him, in that I think all of us

are well aware that his security is threatened and being chipped away

by the B.C. Federation of Labour leader, Mr. Jim Kinnaird.

He is the man who will use any issue for a platform in order to gain

complete control of that party over there, a man who goes as far as to

suggest bloodshed. I know that when he speaks like that he certainly

doesn't speak for the labour movement. But he has attracted substantial

NDP crowds and effectively made a mark in Esquimalt with a nomination

there which beat out the Barrett man.

I spoke yesterday about the enormous NDP waste, the huge spending

increases, the growth of bureaucracy, the near destruction of our

economy. I mentioned in a lighter vein the millions of trees that we

inherited and which I was personally assigned to try and dispose of.

The former government had purchased from abroad millions of trees that

they had anticipated planting in False Creek. This list, as I said

then, read: Salix alfina, Betula papyrifera, Alnus and Populus nigra —

which, en Anglais, interprets into willow, swamp birch, alder and

cottonwood.

In answer to the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), who spoke

about the wonders of the NDP in Ottawa, I mentioned the hypocrisy of

those NDP members led by Mr. Leggatt, a would-be candidate in, I

understand, Coquitlam. On the one hand, he voted one way in favour of

legalizing marijuana and, on the other hand, voted against prostitution

control for Vancouver and other cities, as proposed by the Liberal

government.

Now I would like, for a moment, to speak as well on the hypocrisy of

the B.C. NDP. These members — and we've listened to them for a number

of days now — say they are concerned about drug abuse, but they voted

against the Heroin Treatment Act, a bold and courageous approach by our

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), who is fed up talking about

it and wants action.

They claim to be against rising local taxes. I want to quote some

figures now, and I want all to listen carefully. I'd like to have it on

record. The real property tax, business and special assessments, rose

an average for all municipalities by 13.6 percent in 1971-72; in

1972-73 the rise again was 13.6 percent; in 1973-74 — and just pay

attention to that year, '73, which was when we were unfortunately

saddled with the NDP — the increase went to 20.9 percent; in 1974-75

the increase was 18.7 percent; in 1975-76 it dropped to 13.8 percent;

in 1976-77 — a new progressive government for British Columbia — it

dropped to 8.0 percent; in 1977-78 the real property tax showed a 9.91

percent average increase for the province. While they claim to be

against rising local taxes, many of their members spoke out openly

against our tax control measures as introduced earlier this year.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

They want public ownership of B.C. resources and companies because

they claim it provides the province with more income. Yet income from

our natural resources is now at an all-time high. They want public

ownership of B.C. resources, but they don't trust the individual with

that ownership. They, as government or even as a party, want

guardianship and control — government and party before people. They

have made it very clear to all British Columbians that should we

provide every British Columbia citizen with his own holding of a piece

of B.C. resources by the provision of five shares, they will take them

back. They will do what they can to take those shares back. That was

repeated on television and on radio by the Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. Barrett) . Certainly they'll now try to squirm out of that and say

that they didn't really mean that or that they charged their minds. I

don't trust them. They'll take it away from the people.

Let's look at the record.

Hospital construction right now is the

[ Page 184 ]

highest ever in the history of British Columbia.

Income assistance for our seniors is second only to Alberta, and, as

a matter of fact, I'm not sure that we haven't already caught up.

Handicapped and families receive the best benefits in all of Canada.

Universal Pharmacare is a first in North America and provides a level

of protection to people who need this insurance, particularly those

with chronically ill children.

New long-term care is being watched, not only by every province in

Canada and every state in the Union but by other countries as well, as

the most progressive and forward program anywhere in the world.

Funding for independent schools was brought into being by this

government. Now, for the first time, we'll be able to compare; we'll

have a means of looking at one system as opposed to another, to assure

the citizens of British Columbia that we're getting fair value for our

tax dollars in the educational field.

Revenue-sharing in British Columbia was a first in Canada,

introduced by this government in the last three years — a tremendous

help to municipalities, who now know that as the province prospers and

grows, their revenues increase accordingly.

Community project programs have provided more help to all

municipalities throughout this province than in any other time in

history, and now municipalities are able to tax provincial buildings,

which they weren't able to do before.

We removed succession duties and the gift tax to stall the outflow

of capital to other provinces of Canada. All parties in all provinces

agreed that this was retrogressive, that it should have been removed.

Only the NDP in B.C. said, "Let's tax them whatever way we can, " and

understandably, too, because no matter how much money you gave them,

they'd blow it anyway.

Last year we had a total tax cut of $250 million in British

Columbia, yet government spending over the last three years has been

brought down from an NDP average of a 27 percent per year increase to

8.4 percent in British Columbia, and there are brighter things to come.

Let's look at some other revealing figures. Capital expenditures in

the forest industry in British Columbia, our number one industry, rose

by 50 percent in the last three years. The value of mineral production,

our number two industry, rose by over 25 percent. The value of

petroleum production has nearly doubled. The value of tourism has

almost doubled. And let's compare B.C.'s performance within Canada

again. Our gross product increase for all of Canada last year was 3.4

percent. The gross product increase for British Columbia was 4.4

percent. We led the way.

For Canada as a country, the total increase in investment was 7.7

percent. For British Columbia it was 11.1 percent. In retail trade, the

increase for all of Canada was 11.7 percent; the increase for British

Columbia was 13.4 percent. In manufactured goods shipments, the

increase for Canada was 18.8 percent; the increase for British Columbia

was 21.5 percent. In the employed labour force, the increase for Canada

was 3.4 percent; the increase for British Columbia was 4.4 percent.

One figure which dropped — and I think we can be proud of that too —

was the consumer price index. We're all concerned about it being far

too high and the increase being much too great, no matter where — in

this country or on the continent. But again, the cost-of-living

increase for Canada was 8.9 percent, and for British Columbia it was

7.7 percent.

We have a tremendous province with a tremendous record, and we're going to make it greater still, Mr. Speaker.

Let's consider the credibility of our railwayman, the member from

the opposition, the House Leader (Mr. King) who yesterday stood up in

the House and said he had a way of selling a piece of the BCR to the

Americans. My response to that was: "I hope he's never the one to

negotiate such a sale to the Americans, or we'll be sold out and down

the tube." That's what he said, however.

Now just let's look at his credibility as a railwayman, because the

BCR is extremely important to the whole of British Columbia and to all

of its citizens. In 1973 the operating profit for the BCR was $275,000.

In 1974, the first full year of NDP operation, there was not a $275,000

profit, but a $13,818,000 loss. In 1975, that other NDP year, the loss

rose from $13 million to $22,306,000. In 1976, when we first came to

office, the loss dropped to $21,056,000.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What happened the next year?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: In 1977, hon. member, it dropped to

$8,452,000, and in 1978 we made a profit. Hey, fantastic! I think that

certainly blows the credibility of that railwayman.

Let us now again look at the items in this throne speech. Denticare

is a comprehensive program to give the people of British Columbia a

measure of protection from the high costs

[ Page

185 ]

associated with basic dental care. They talked about it; we perform.

We've brought in a bill of rights to enshrine the rights and

freedoms of the individual. "Individual" is a word that doesn't mean

much to the opposition.

As to discriminatory auto insurance rates, people will no longer be

penalized because of age, sex, marital status or geographic location.

It's too bad the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who was so

much a part of that disastrous ICBC kefuffle, isn't in his seat. I

think he would probably crawl under the table now if he compared our

ICBC record with their disastrous ICBC record. We've made it into a

credible organization which provides the lowest unsubsidized rates

anywhere in Canada. Oh, it's disastrous.

There is an increase in home purchase grants...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Three minutes, hon. member.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: ...and a just and fair deal for those

lands that are expropriated. I have a whole lot more that I wanted to

speak about so I'll move very quickly now. Perhaps while the member for

Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) is in his seat, I'll pick on him for a moment. I

think we can clearly demonstrate that, as a government, we have not

discriminated against those constituencies they represent. No way. As a

matter of fact, Nanaimo has never had better treatment in the history

of that great city. We are providing Duke Point, which will give them

1,000 extra jobs. When he was the member, the minister forced

amalgamation in Nanaimo, gave them $4 million and said: "Now go away.

Take care of all your problems." Only a few weeks ago we bailed out

Nanaimo by giving them an additional $6.4 million. We bailed out

Kelowna, because of a forced amalgamation, with practically $50

million. We had to give Kamloops a large sum of money because of the

raw deal they got from the NDP.

I would like to speak about my constituency and all the wonderful things that

have happened there. Let me just mention a few figures concerning the grants

in Surrey. Look at these revenue sharing programs and compare then to the program

that was in effect. I'll just compare '75 to '78 without going into

all of the details. In 1975 the provincial government provided Surrey with $4,705,

308. In 1978, after only three years of Social Credit government, that had

risen to $8,257, 325. As to other grants, for sewers and water in 1975 during

the NDP government, my constituency received $1,442, 623. In 1978 under Social

Credit, that had increased from $1,400,000 to $3,241, 776. In my constituency

in 1975, the total value of homeowner grants in 1975 was $5,136, 311. In 1978

it was $8,984, 002. I could go on and on, but I appreciate my time's running

out. Let me simply say that this province is bubbling with activity and the

potential is tremendous. There are greater things to come. The only thing that

bothers us is the ghost of the NDP that still lingers on, and we'll soon

demolish that as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps, hon. members, if we could turn up

with the Whips, we would have a gentleman's agreement here. Thank you

very much, hon. members. The Chair does appreciate this rare piece of

cooperation.

HON. MR. MAIR: First of all, I would like very much at this

point to congratulate His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor on his

elevation to that high and dignified post. I had the opportunity of

knowing His Honour before he took over his new tasks. He was held in

the very highest esteem in the community before and, of course, will be

held in even higher esteem now by reason of the dignity he brings to

the job. I think it would be wrong if I did not at this time pay

tribute to the former Lieutenant-Governor, His Honour Mr. Owen, who, in

addition to being an old family friend, has distinguished himself

greatly in the service of his country and his province.

I would like to congratulate those who have been elevated since the

last parliament. I didn't have the opportunity at Christmastime to

congratulate you, sir, nor to congratulate my colleagues the member for

Burnaby-Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch) and the member for Skeena (Hon.

Mr. Shelford) on joining me in the cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, I would like at the outset, if I may, to share with the

House some of the concerns that my constituents in the great

constituency of Kamloops would like me to bring to your attention. May

I say that over the past years, during election time, the constituency

of Kamloops has been a pretty accurate bell wether of what has happened

around the rest of the province — it's been a microcosm. In 1975 the

popular vote very accurately reflected the popular vote around the

province; it did in '72 and it did in '69, and so far back as I think

we'd care to go. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, if the same rules follow

now as followed then, the people on the other side are in a heck of a

lot of trouble.

I want you to know that they have great confidence in what's been

done by this government, great faith in the government, and they're

pleased. They have one or two local

[ Page 186 ]

problems which remain to be solved. One is a second

crossing at the Thompson River. The only reason that that has not been

completely solved to the satisfaction of all is that we don't treat

Indian bands in this government as the former government did. We have

asked the Indian band in Kamloops to have a study of the impact that a

bridge would have on their community, prior to the bridge being built ;

and I am confident that that impact study will be favourable to the

building of the bridge and that, with their consent and with their

blessing, we will build it. I suppose that the only other local concern

that they have is the question of a new courthouse — long in the

planning. I have every confidence and every reason to believe that it

will not be long before that becomes a reality.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents, like constituents all around the

province, are concerned about several matters in the public eye today,

not the least of which is the question of labour-management relations.

And I'd like to dwell on them, if I may, for a moment. First of all,

let me make it clear that I enthusiastically support the Essential

Services Disputes Act. I support, without question and with the

greatest enthusiasm, my colleague the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Williams). I support the position taken by the Social Credit Party

convention — and a great many of us individually — against so-called

right-to-work legislation. But we have, in the face of all of this, a

campaign by the British Columbia Federation of Labour around the

province, a campaign of half-truths and scare tactics. More seriously

and more importantly, I think we have the symptoms of what has commonly

been called the British disease.

Let me say at the outset that I support and believe very strongly in

the right of new Canadians, from all parts of the world, to participate

in our democracy, in our way of life, and to play a full role, and to

play a full role immediately. I believe that as strongly as I believe

anything — make no mistake about that. There are many people in this

House who have their origins in other lands, and they've made their

contribution, and a full contribution. I know that there are two or

three on the other side of the House, and there are certainly one or

two on our side of the House who were born elsewhere and came here and

made themselves welcome by their contributions. As a matter of fact, I

even welcome American citizens who come to help us out of our problems

with ICBC — they're more than welcome.

But I want to say that when labour leaders preach class warfare and

call for blood in the streets, they're not talking the language of

British Columbians. I want to say quite clearly that the people of

British Columbia are sick to death of hearing British slogans and

British solutions being spouted from labour's pulpit. The working

people of British Columbia are not being fooled by this. They've seen

what's happened in Great Britain; I've seen what's happened in Great

Britain. They know that the social structures of Great Britain are such

that the accent you speak with may very well brand you for life into a

certain position. We don't need the problems of class, privilege by

birth, or disadvantage because of hardened social structures in this

country. We don't have them, we don't need them, and we don't want

them. Mostly we do not need the rhetoric of those who are too stupid to

see — or perhaps they're too clever to see — that British Columbia is

different and wants to stay different.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: You think they want you in power, Madam

Member? Let me tell you, you're being a fool. You're going to be the

vehicle of their power. You are the vehicle through which Kinnaird and

Fryer seek power — make no mistake about it — not for your leader, not

for you, but for themselves.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. minister. Perhaps we'd have a better tone in the House if you'd address the Chair.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite will, I

think soon, I hope soon, have the opportunity to fully regret their

special relationship with certain labour leaders — a regret,

incidentally, that Mr. Callaghan in Great Britain is going to feel very

soon.

We'll see, and I hope soon, who speaks for all of the people in this

province and who speaks for a few rabble-rousers who wear union labels

but don't represent union people. The time will come, and when it comes

it will not just be the business people or the professionals or the

retired or the people who may have money or the people who may be poor;

it will be the working man who rises up and puts those people in their

place. Mark my words! It will be the working men and women in the

constituency of Kamloops, I'm confident, who will return their member,

and the working men and women all around this province will return

free-enterprise government.

Mr. Speaker, let me turn from that for a moment to another subject

of importance which is touched upon in His Honour's speech, but to

[ Page

187 ]

my knowledge has not been touched upon — at least

in any great detail — in this chamber since. I would like to talk about

the relations between the province of British Columbia and other

governments in Canada, including the federal government. In February of

1976 I first had the opportunity of representing this province in a

federal-provincial conference. And I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker,

that I was told in no uncertain terms that for three years British

Columbia had been the laughing stock of federal-provincial conferences.

They had became used to buffoonery and cheap theatrics. They had been

used to a Premier going back to Ottawa, calling a press conference on

the steps of the parliament buildings, slamming the federal government

and playing the fool.

MR. MACDONALD: That's a cheap personal attack.

HON. MR. MAIR: Oh, you're an expert. The parlour pinko from

Point Grey comes in here, of all people, and talks about invective and

personal attack. Shame on you, sir.

MR. MACDONALD: Get off it!

HON. MR. MAIR: I have more reason than most in the House to know about your cheap tactics.

I have more reason than most, Mr. Member, to know of the way you

react. If you would say outside the House what you said inside the

House, but for your poverty, I'd be rich.

MR. MACDONALD: Get off personalities.

HON. MR. MAIR: When you get off personalities, Mr. Member, you'll have the right to come in this House and complain.

Mr. Speaker, let me just, if I may, bring the hon. members opposite,

whom I seem to have disturbed somewhat, back to the tenor of my

remarks. The performance of British Columbia delegations to Ottawa from

the years 1972 to 1975 was, by common consent of all, appalling.

MR. LEA: Name names.

HON. MR. MAIR: The Premier of the province.

MR. LEA: Who told you that?

HON. MR. MAIR: I'll tell you who told me that: every civil servant whom I talked to back there and every politician who had to listen to him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, perhaps we can find another

time for this type of argument. We're involved in the throne speech.

Would the minister kindly address the Chair, please.

HON. MR. MAIR: I certainly seem to have touched a nerve, Mr.

Speaker. And I don't think I have to name names, because anybody who

switched the tomfoolery on television during those years would have no

doubt of the truth of what I've just said.

But I want to contrast the performance of those days with that which

we have seen since 1975. And I would just ask fair-minded people in

this chamber and around the province to remember the economic

discussions and economic conferences we had, the federal-provincial

conferences, the First Ministers Conferences, where British Columbia

was not only better prepared than any other province, but better

prepared than any other government, not excluding the federal

government. For the first time in three or four years, the Minister of

Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the Premier of this

province suddenly showed the rest of Canada that British Columbia was

prepared to play a full role in Canada's destiny and was not back there

just to pick up same cheap ink. I think that tribute should be paid not

only to the fine public servants who assisted the Premier and the

Minister of Economic Development in those economic development

conferences, but also to the individuals themselves for bringing

dignity to the conferences and thereby bringing dignity to the people

of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about something that's even more

serious. Our country is in trouble. The country of Canada, the country

that we all love, that we all support, is in trouble. One province —

the second largest in population, largest in area — has a government

which is, for the most part, dedicated to pulling that province out of

the nation. We in British Columbia want to keep the country together.

Make no mistake about that.

But we have problems. We still are living under an economic policy

pronounced a hundred years ago. We can't amend our own Constitution; we

don't even own our own Constitution. We have political problems,

linguistic problems, cultural problems and economic problems, but wr

recognize this in British Columbia and intend, so long as we're the

government — and that will be a long time — to make every effort and to

spare no effort to keep this country together.

Let me say this, Mr. Speaker: we must have a strong Canada, and we

will have a strong Canada, but it will not be at the expense of

weakening the regions. We do not in this prov-

[ Page 188 ]

ince believe that Ottawa necessarily knows best. At

least, in my years on this planet I've seen very little evidence of the

truth of that. This country cannot be restructured in ignorance of or

indifference to the needs and aspirations of this province and other

regions.

We are being heard in Ottawa now, Mr. Speaker, and we're being

listened to. I want you to know that while there are some — and some in

this chamber — who don't take the matter seriously, a great many others

do. Political leaders all around this country are trying to find

solutions to the very serious questions and problems that beset our

nation. The former Liberal leader in this chamber, to his great credit,

recognized this and worked very hard toward achieving these solutions.

He spoke well on them; he thought well on them; he wrote well on them.

And I think I can say in a non-partisan sense that for that reason, if

no other, we will miss him.

The former Conservative leader, while he did not, perhaps, take the

same academic approach that the former Liberal leader did, to his great

credit was extremely concerned and showed his concern — something

different than the false prophet who now leads them.

But from the NDP, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing. There are

one-liners from my friend the parlour pink over there from time to time

about the Senate and about how euthanasia would take care of the

Senate. There has not been a word of constructive criticism since I've

been involved in the portfolio that has the responsibility for

constitutional concerns. Oh, I've heard, "cure the economy and all the

problems will go away, " but that's not so, Mr. Speaker. We had

problems when the economy was great. We had them when the economy was

bad, and we've had them when the economy was mediocre. The structural

problems and the cultural problems in Canada will not go away simply

through the message of one-liners.

MR. MACDONALD: Did you read my brief to the Unity...?

HON. MR. MAIR: I laughed all the way through it, Mr. Member.

I chuckled all the way through it. It's the only thing that you did and

even that was a joke, which is what you seem to be in a never-ending

way.

Mr. Speaker, there seem to be only two possible answers to the

absolute indifference of the NDP to the question of national unity.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: I repeat to you, sir — the absolute

indifference. The first solution I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, is that

perhaps they feel there is no problem. Everything's rosy; Mr. Levesque

will go.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: At least I've gathered a crowd here. I didn't have anybody here when I started.

I suppose, Mr. Speaker, it's all going to go away. The western

alienation is a myth. Mr. Levesque is going to go away and not be a

separatist anymore. The central Canadian domination is somehow

acceptable.

And to say that all of the efforts of so many Canadians towards a

solution to this problem is because of an illusion — perhaps that is

their suggestion. Mr. Pepin, Mr. Robarts, Mr. Clark, Mr. Trudeau, Mr.

MacDonald, Mr. Blakeney, Mr. Davis, Mr. Moores and our own Premier are

chasing rainbows; there's no problem at all there. Perhaps Mr. Claude

Ryan is just another ordinary, everyday, garden-variety politician who

happens across the scene. Perhaps it is their view that there is no

problem and that all of these businessmen, labour people, academics,

politicians and ordinary men and women are wasting their time.

There is another solution, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the NDP have nothing

to contribute, or don't care to, or both. All I can say, Mr. Speaker,

to the members opposite is: "Where have you been?" Oh yes, we saw your

comedy act, Mr. Member for Vancouver East. Where are your position

papers? Where were you when the joint Senate-House of Commons committee

held their hearings? Where were you then? Where were you when the

Senate held their hearings? What conferences have you attended? What

contribution have you made?

MR. MACDONALD: Sit down and I'll answer.

HON. MR. MAIR: Never mind the shrill rhetoric and the chest

beating. Never mind your one-liners, Mr. Parlour Pink from Point Grey.

What's your policy? Have you got one? Have you even read the position

papers of British Columbia? I challenge you to say now that you have

read them, because you haven't and you know you haven't. You couldn't

even tell me how many there are.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please address the Chair.

HON. MR. MAIR: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I should be more charitable and assume that the New Democratic Party agrees with the sensible

[ Page

189 ]

position that British Columbia has taken. Perhaps that's it. Perhaps they

agree. Perhaps they support us. If they do, Mr. Speaker, why don't they

say so? Because there's no shame in it. It's a good policy. It's

a Canadian policy. It's a policy they should be proud to associate themselves

with. By all means, Mr. Speaker, let the NDP today come forward and say: "Look,

we agree with you. You're on the right track. We'd like to participate.

We'd like to help. We'd like to keep this country together and we'll

all speak with one voice." You'll get no criticism from this side

of the House if you're prepared to do that. But you have not done a thing.

You've sat on your hands, taken the cheap shot issues, played politics and

forgotten your province and forgotten your country.

MR. COCKE: What are you doing right now, Rafe?

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm trying to give you a little lesson in

civics. If you'd spent less time reading the Webbs' and George Bernard

Shaw's political treatises, you might have learned a little about

civics and about your country.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, perhaps we could get back to a more normal

debate if the minister would kindly address the Chair.

MR. KING: It has been pretty abnormal.

HON. MR. MAIR: I suppose it has been abnormal, as the member

says. It's not often that they get a chance to debate the future of

their country and the future of their province. Obviously it troubles

them a little bit, because their ignorance takes the place of any

knowledgeable debate. That is to be expected, because they have done

nothing.

MR. MACDONALD: This is your contribution?

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes, it is.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, it's a pretty poor one.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'll tell you something: my people ran from the same thing yours did, and for the same reasons. We went straight.

The people opposite who would oppose this great Speech from the

Throne have, in my submission to you, been a disgrace to the province

on the issue of national unity.

Having done perhaps nothing more than prick their consciences and perhaps made

them think a little bit....

HON. MR. GARDOM: They haven't got a conscience.

HON. MR. MAIR: You're right Mr. Attorney-General. I think I

could do no better than to hope that they have some shame, and to

invite them to debate the issues with us as soon as the Premier calls

an election, which, as I said, can't come soon enough.

MR. KING: Call it now. Don't be timid.

HON. MR. MAIR: It can't come soon enough for me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. MAIR: Oh, Rosemary, you can't say unkind things like

that about me. I like your wardrobe, all 365 editions of it. That's the

third one today, isn't it? You had two yesterday.

Madame Runge rides again. Gee, it must be tough to go to your home

in Point Grey every night and then come down here in your big car and

your new dress and cluck your tongue about the poor. It must be tough.

Are you all in the same neighbourhood over there, where you have your

little cell meetings every night to cluck your tongue in Point Grey?

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't meet with her.

HON. MR. MAIR: No, but you don't live there, do you?

Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud to associate myself with His Honour's

speech, and I'm very proud to associate myself with this government. In

support of the catcalls that I've heard from the opposite benches, I

would be pleased to meet any one of them in the upcoming election in my

constituency. You must be able to do better.

I'm proud to support the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker. I'm

sure, when the moment comes, that all members will support it with me.

MR. LEA: How fitting it is that we have just been chastised

by the hon. member for Kamloops for not being concerned about the

relationship between the provinces and the central government, for not

being good Canadians, for not being frightened to death of Rene

Levesque,

[ Page

190 ]

and a host of other things that he spewed out in the last while.

How fitting it is, because I have something I would like to bring up

concerning my riding on the Queen Charlotte Islands and the

relationship between the provincial government and the federal

government concerning forestry and fisheries. I intend to prove over

the next few minutes that the provincial government counselled citizens

of this province to break the law. How did they go about it? How did

this government over here that feels so pious today go about

counselling citizens of this province to break the law? Why did this

government and the Liberal government in Ottawa use workers and

management people alike in this province as cannon-fodder to have a

political fight between themselves?

Let's go back a little way to 1977. A cutting permit on Queen

Charlotte Islands, cutting permit 144, was being discussed in 1977

between the provincial government, through the Forests ministry, and

the federal government, through the Fisheries ministry. The fruition of

those discussions took place in 1978 when it was agreed by the federal

Fisheries ministry and the provincial Forests ministry that cutting

permit 144 on Moresby Island in the Queen Charlottes would be allowed.

In 1978 the papers were drawn up, along with cutting permit 144.

Then, last fall, there was a storm. You will remember the storm, Mr.

Speaker, because it swept through the northwestern part of the

province, causing damage to the Queen Charlotte Islands, straight

through into the riding of Skeena. It caused considerable damage to

property, both public and private. We all remember that.

But at the same time that that storm swept through the Queen

Charlotte Islands, it did damage to 40 acres of cutting permit 144. Now

the Fisheries ministry took a look at the situation and said that there

had been a change in the situation since giving permission to go in

there and cut CP 144. The storm had made the difference. There was

damage in there caused by the storm, and they were going to go in and

apply the regulations of the federal Fisheries ministry.

We are not here to argue whether those regulations are correct or

not correct. What we do know, though, is that they are regulations

under federal law. And we had a federal civil servant working for the

Fisheries ministry go in and say: "As I see it, the regulations and the

law of Canada are not being adhered to." And he sent the company a

letter telling them to stop their logging.

At that time, of course, the provincial Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland)

was concerned. He sent a telegram to the federal minister, Romeo LeBlanc. A

telegram came back from Romeo LeBlanc, and meetings were held. Meetings were

held in Prince Rupert between the federal Fisheries ministry and the provincial

Forests ministry. A further meeting was held at the site itself, where the citizenry

and the company also took part. It was then decided that there would be designated

areas logged.

What was the next move by the provincial government? They were

looking for a fight with Ottawa, because the provincial government was

considering going to an election. They saw it work quite successfully

in Alberta with Premier Lougheed. "Fight Ottawa!" It's a good election

issue. So what did they do? They ordered the company and the employees

of that company to go in and defy the federal law. And they put it in

writing. They did it in a letter of March 5, 1979, a letter sent to QC

Timber Limited of Vancouver, the company which is doing the logging.

Now I want you to quickly review what happened. A federal order, under the law, said: "Stop logging."

But first of all I would like to point out what would happen if a

citizen had defied the law of the province, specifically a law

pertaining to the Forests ministry of the province. If any citizen of

this province went out into Crown-owned forest land and started cutting

down trees, and the Forests ministry said it was illegal to cut

those trees because they had reasons they did not want those trees cut,

and the citizen turned to the provincial government and said he didn't

agree with those reasons and was going to go ahead and do it anyway,

the question is: would the provincial government, through the Forests

ministry, lay charges? I suggest to you that they would. And they

should, because the place to decide whether or not the law is being

broken is in the courts of our land. The Forests ministry would lay

charges, you can rest assured of that.

What if I, Mr. Speaker, were to advise the person who happened to be

cutting down the trees to ignore the order from the provincial

government? What would happen then? I'm afraid there's a

section

in the Criminal Code that would apply to me for counselling someone to

commit an offence. Now the provincial government has advised a British

Columbia company, and the citizens of British Columbia working for that

company, to break the federal law.

That's what they've done.

What was the next step once they got into this dilemma ? And it is a dilemma. If those

[ Page 191 ]

loggers had gone to court, and had been found

guilty, there is no doubt in my mind that the provincial government

would have been found guilty under the Criminal Code of counselling

those people to break the law.

So the Premier had no choice but to say: "I'm going to fight for the

loggers." If he didn't, his cabinet could possibly be facing charges

under the law for counselling to break the law. He had to do it.

Do we have proof? We do have proof that the provincial government

advised citizens of this province to break the law. A federal order had

gone to the company, Queen Charlotte Timber, to stop logging. Meetings

were held, as I said. It was agreed that if the logging were to go

ahead in the same manner on that 40 acres on CP144, as it had been, the

federal government would not go along with it and would lay more

charges.

On March 5 the letter went out from the regional manager of the

Minister of Forests of Prince Rupert division to Queen Charlotte

Timber, attention John Sexton. It says:

"Dear Sir:

"Reference is made to your operation of cutting permit

144 of the tree farm licence A00892, cutting permit 144, Rennell Sound, Queen

Charlotte Islands. As a result of ongoing discussions with your company

and the resource agencies and the interagency joint field examination of CP144

on February 27,1979, we hereby reconfirm our cutting plans approval, letters

of August 1, 1978, and October 2, 1978.

"This letter has integral part of the cutting permit

144 document and should be attached thereto.

Yours truly,

Regional manager of the Forestry department."

This letter is telling Queen Charlotte Timber to go ahead and to cut

CP144 as per the agreement of 1978, even though the federal government

said that under their law and regulations, they must stop logging 40

acres in that CP144. The 1978 agreement said they could.

Clearly we have evidence that what was happening with this letter

was nothing more than advising citizens of this province to break the

law so that the provincial government could get into a fight with

Ottawa over jurisdiction of resources in this province and have

themselves an election issue. That's exactly what they were doing.

They didn't care whether people went to jail. They didn't care

whether the creeks were ruined. They didn't care about anything as long

as they had themselves an issue to take to an election. That's all they

cared about, and that's what they did. There is no other answer.

If that were not the reason that the provincial government advised

citizens of this province to break the law, then let them stand up and

tell us why they advised citizens of this province to break the law.

Why?

What kind of a bind was the timber company in? They've got the

federal government saying: "Don't log this." They've got the provincial

government coming along, saying: "Log it. If you don't, we will

penalize you." What was the company supposed to do?

They were in a bind, but they knew one thing. Their livelihood

depends on the logging industry, the provincial government, the

Minister of Forests, and the Premier. What were they supposed to do

with the provincial government telling them to go and break the law?

They had no choice. Their whole future as a company and the employees

of that company depended on a good relationship with the provincial

government. They had to make a choice. Do we break the federal law or

do we break the provincial law? Why could the meeting that settled this

dispute not have been held before? Why could the conclusions of that

meeting not have been held prior? Why did the provincial government

insist on, before going in there and solving the problem, that they

made sure that they ordered citizens to break the law? Politics.

Nothing more than politics. They wanted a fight with Ottawa because

they were going to go to a provincial election. They didn't care

whether they used the people as cannon fodder as long as they could get

the issue out there.

We're going to have more to say on the duplicity behind this order

of March 5 and the provincial government itching and pushing for a

fight with Ottawa to take to the election. But, my God, to go as far as

to counsel citizens to break the law for politics I think is an

all-time low for any political party or for any government. There's

absolute proof that that's what they did.

Is the Minister of Forests going to get up at any time and say:

"We're sorry we counselled people to break the law through my

department for political gains"?

What's he going to do? He's going to sit quietly and hope the issue

goes away, because now they can't go to an election and use it to try

to suck people into voting for a corrupt government that would go that

far. That's that they've done.

What else have they done? In the same area, in their hysteria to pay back the election

[ Page

192 ]

campaign money they got from the forest industry during the last election

— just across the road almost — they're not going to hold a tree farm licence

hearing to see whether or not there should be certain areas of the Queen Charlottes

set aside for other uses.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

They're not going to hold a hearing because the Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Waterland) says he doesn't like public hearings, because

they're too "emotional." I'll say it's emotional when the future of

those people there, having to live with the aftermath of whatever

happens, depends on the terms of the new agreement with the forest

company. The fishing industry; the logging industry; people who want to

use that land for recreational purposes — you can bet your life that it

would be emotional for them. But it doesn't mean that it has to be some

kind of wild, unstructured emotion. I think it's perfectly possible for

people to become emotional about an issue and at the same time put

forward their views in a calm, factual manner — but not wildly. I would

hope that our citizens would be a little bit emotional about the fact

that this government is planning not to hold public hearings into the

renewal of tree farm licences — licences that will go on in perpetuity

with no more say by the public as to what's going to happen. From there

on out, decisions about the forest industry are made behind closed

doors, affecting the lives of British Columbians and the lifeblood of

our economic stability. This is a government that is wild with emotion

to pay off its political debts to the people who put them in power, and

will do anything to remain in power. They will not hold public hearings

into the forest industry and the renewal of those tree farm licences.

They go so far as to counsel the citizens of this province to break the

law.

Also, the Queen Charlotte Islands has really had it up to here with

this government. Since this government has been in power, the price of

groceries has doubled and tripled on the Queen Charlotte Islands. The

main reason we've all had over a 20 percent increase in our groceries

in this last year — and the Queen Charlotte Islands had something like

45 percent on top of that — is because this government has not met its

obligation under a federal-provincial agreement to supply the

transportation needs in an adequate and reasonable way, as the contract

called for, for freight and services to get into the Queen Charlotte

Islands. Everyone including the member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) would

have to agree with me that the only reasonable way the northern and

central coast can be serviced is by self-propelled vessels that have

lift-on, lift-off freight capacity and which have the capacity not only

to take freight from Vancouver to the end destination, but also to

supply a service between the communities. That's missing.

What did the provincial government do? They took $8 million from the

federal government to supply services to the coastal communities. They

haven't supplied those coastal communities with the service; I think

that the federal government should sue them for not meeting the terms

of that contract. That's what should be done, because this government

has not met its responsibility to service those communities even though

they've taken the money from Ottawa. What did they do with the money?

They put it where they feel the votes are. There's not as many people

in the north, so where can they put the money best for their political

purposes? They can put the money into offsetting the costs of

transportation between the lower mainland and Vancouver Island. They've

actually stolen money from the northern runs to bring down here. That's

what they've done. That's what the Minister for Environment (Hon. Mr.

Mair) says. They want us to vote them back in for that? Do they

honestly want to go to an election on their record of taking money away

from people and giving even more wealth to the wealthy? Is that what

they really want to do?

Each successive budget they've brought into this House has shifted

the burden of taxation onto the working people, the small business

community, the municipalities and the school boards and given money to

the rich — every budget they've brought in. And they want to go to an

election on their record.

Tax increases? Now they want to give the people something. I saw Mr.

Helliwell, the Chairman of BCRIC, being interviewed by Mr. Fotheringham

on channel 21. Mr. Fotheringham said: "Mr. Helliwell, who came up with

this scheme of the free shares? How did it come about?" Mr. Helliwell

said: "Well, how it happened is that last November the Premier came to

me and said: 'I want to give the people something for free. Would you

work out a scheme?"'

There's evidence to support that. On his return from Palm Springs or

Hawaii, wherever he was, not long ago, the Premier was asked how much

it was going to cost to get these shares out to the people. The Premier

said: "I have no idea. But they're priceless." The scheme was costing

upwards of over $20 million, and the Premier ordered the scheme to be

put in

[ Page 193 ]

place, not knowing how much it was going to cost.

Is that the kind of fiscal leadership the people of this province

should have? That he doesn't know how much it's going to cost? That

it's priceless? That the scheme came into being in the first place by

the Premier going to the company, saying: "I want to give the people

something for free. Would you work out a scheme?" Does that sound like

politics, do you think? Is there the slightest chance that it may be

politics? I think we're going to have to leave that decision up to the

people of this province when election day comes along. I believe that

the people of this province are a little too smart to be taken in by

this kind of scheme.

The Premier's going around the province telling us that we should

actually take our money out of the bank and buy the other 95 shares.

The other 95 shares would cost about $570, close to $600. He's saying:

"Take your money out of the bank. Buy these shares. Oh, by the way,

there are no dividends for five years." No dividends for five years! If

you leave your $600 in the bank, how much compound interest would you

make over the five years? You'd end up at the end of five years with

approximately $1,000. Leave it in there and you make money. Take it out

and you lose money.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You don't know what you're talking about.

MR. LEA: Oh, don't worry. I won't buy any of the shares. I've

always made it a rule never to buy anything I already own. I've always

made that a rule. The real reason for this share scheme is very simple.

Is there anybody in this House or in the gallery who doesn't believe

that if you take everything, and equally distribute it out there, it

won't be long before it gets into the hands of a few? Everybody knows

that's true. That's the idea behind the whole scheme. What we will do

is put these shares away from public ownership, put them out into

theirs so that over a period of a few short years they can go into the

hands of a few. What a nifty way of taking something that every citizen

in this province owns an equal share of, and making sure that those

shares get into the hands of a few people who already own the wealth.

That's what's going to happen.

The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), when he was asked how many shares

he's going to buy, said he can't afford very many, maybe a hundred shares

— and he makes 50 grand a year. If the Minister of Forests, making 50 grand

a year, can afford only to buy another 95 shares, where does that leave the

rest of the people in the province? Does the minister believe that at 50 grand

a year he can afford only 95 more shares? Everybody else in the province can

afford their 5,000. Who can afford the hundred, if at 50 grand a year he can

afford only 95? Who can afford it? Only the Minister of Forests, I suppose.

And maybe not for long.

What have we seen? We've seen a government that is unfeeling. We've

seen a government that is politically dishonest. They have been

politically dishonest from the day they brought in the first budget of

1976. They were politically dishonest with the Clarkson Gordon report.

They were politically dishonest every step of the way. That's the credo

of that crew over there. For 2 1/2 years I went around this province,

and I had people telling me: "Social Credit are going to win the next

government." I said: "Why do you say that?" They said: "Because, when

the time comes, they're going to give us back everything they've taken

from us, and everything we already own." That government, that

political party, in their naivety, met the very thing that those people

out there were waiting for — a sign that this government is politically

corrupt.

If they hadn't been politically corrupt they could possibly have

been the next government of this province. People will put up with a

lot of things. They won't put up with political dishonesty. They won't

put up with political corruptness. They're not going to put up with

this government, come the next election.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Yes, we'll see, Mr. Member for Omineca. We will see.

Mr. Speaker, even though we are ready and willing to go to the polls

and to fight what we see as political dishonesty and political

corruption, they are not. Why don't they go if they're so sure that

they're going to win? They have sure used enough of the taxpayers'

money to set the scene. They've sure used enough of the taxpayers'

money to try and bribe the citizens of this province. They've sure used

a lot of money to do that. They've spent millions of dollars on Smile

campaigns; they've used millions of dollars to advertise. You can go

down and get something you already own. They've used millions of

dollars to get the shares out there and, you know, that is what the

people of this province were waiting for. They were waiting to see

whether the campaign promises cf Social Credit were really true,

because of what this group over here said in 1975: "Don't pay any

attention to the

[ Page 194 ]

old Social Credit. We're different. We're a new

breed. Boy, we're coming along here and it's a new style and we're as

clean as a whistle and we're not going to do all of those other things

that the old people did in the old days."

You know, Mr. Speaker, I was just informed a few minutes ago that

Phil Gaglardi is waiting in the Minister of Environment's (Hon. Mr.

Mair) office to speak to him. He's here in the buildings, watching you

people to make sure that you live up to the old days. You're living up

to them in every way, and the Minister of Transportation knows that.

Take the money in year one; take the money in year two; take the money

in year three; and give it back at election time.

Mr. Speaker, they went around saying there's no such thing as a free

lunch. They campaigned on it: there's no such thing as a free lunch. I

know someone who has been following the East Indian religions and the

gurus for some time. He's been looking for a guru who would actually

give him everything and a guru who would be honest and a guru who

wouldn't take him for some money. You know, he finally ran across one

from California; his name is Bubba Free John. He lives just outside of

San Francisco and he's got one of those little cult communes out there.

As my friend was listening and getting tapes from Bubba Free John, and

as he was getting letters from Bubba Free John, he thought: "Finally

I've hit the honest guru. He's not going to ask me for toasters and

shiny cars and part of my wages." But the inevitable letter came, and

he wanted 10 percent of my friend's wages to contribute to the movement

of Bubba Free John.

The Bubba Free John scenario reminds me of the scenario of the

Premier and his government. They give free shares, after saying "no

free lunch." He wrote to Bubba Free John after he got the letter

wanting 10 percent of his wages and he said: "Dear Bubba Free John,

Dear Bubba Not-so-Free John, Dear Bubba Expensive John." You know,

that's exactly what these free shares are all about. They are going to

be the costliest thing that anybody was ever given in their whole life,

because they're going to cost us our heritage. They're going to take

away from us the right to keep things in British Columbia owned by the

people of British Columbia and turn it over to those few people who

already have the wealth.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you take then away from the people?

MR. LEA: How can we take them away from the people once

you've given them to them? How can we do that, Mr. Speaker? Our leader

has said over and over again that it has gone too far.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is your leader?

MR. LEA: They want to know where our leader is, Mr. Speaker.

I'll tell you where our leader is. Our leader is out trying to bring

this province together. He's trying to bring labour, management and

industry together.

Mr. Speaker, as our leader is travelling around looking for

investment in this province that will create jobs and bring down the

cost of living, where is their leader? Their leader is trying to give

the people of this province a free lunch that he said nobody could

have. Nobody can get a free lunch, he said, not until he's the person

in charge of the kitchen.

Now that he's in charge of the kitchen, free lunches are all right,

as long as the free lunch that you get is one that you already own in

the first place. It's enough to make you throw up, that kind of a free

lunch.

MR. KING: It's $26 million to give you a lunch.

MR. LEA: Twenty-six million dollars will probably be an underestimation of the cost of giving out these shares.

Mr. Speaker, I would doubt very much whether anybody in their right

mind would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition, when he becomes

Premier — and Premier he will become — will take something away from

somebody that they already own. We're not going to do that.

Mr. Speaker, what we have seen over three years is a government that

is callous, a government that is preoccupied with political nuances

that do nothing to enhance the image of government and politicians

anywhere. They have brought politicians down in the estimation of

people in this province and in this country considerably, and I think

that's the biggest crime of all. It's hard enough to try and convince

young people to have faith in politicians; it's hard enough to go to

any segment of this society and say: "Please, have some faith in the

honesty and the integrity of politics generally and politicians next."

It's hard, because there is cynicism, and that cynicism has been

increased by a government that is petty, a government that is mean, a

government that is dishonest, and a government that is politically

corrupt. It drags us all down — anybody who is in politics now or

anybody who plans on going into politics in the future. It drags us

down because of that government, that political party and their

preoccupation with protecting the wealthy and

[ Page 195 ]

taking money away from the poor. That's all they've done for three years.

I say that if those people have got the intestinal fortitude, if

they put their money where their mouth is, they will go to the

Lieutenant-Governor and say: "Would you sign this writ so that the

people of this province can get back a government that they deserve?" —

people's government, a government that's concerned about the poor; a

government that's concerned about working people; a government that's

concerned about small business; a government that's concerned about big

business; a government that's concerned about every segment of our

society and not just preoccupied with slamming certain segments.

Every speech that they've made since this throne speech opened has

been aimed against labour. Is that any way to get labour and management

industrial relations on a good footing? All they have done is attack

labour. They hate labour; they hate working people. They hate them

because they see them as a threat to their political future. You know,

Mr. Speaker, I don't think they should hate them, but I think they

should really fear what those people are going to do to them, because

as I said at the outset — and I repeat in conclusion — the people of

this province will put up with honest mistakes. They'll put up with

well-meaning mistakes, but they will not put up with the style of

government that they've had in the past three years — a government of

deceit, a government of dishonesty and a government of political

corruption. That's what they've had. They've had it from the Clarkson

report on day one to the free shares on day three. They've had that

ever since this government took office.

Mr. Speaker, let them call the election; let them put their

reputations on the line and go back to the people and ask them what

they think of them. The answer will be that that government will go

forever, because the next election is going to do away with Social

Credit; it's going to do away with it. And in the years to come, what

we're going to have is sane politics in this province, We're going to

have the NDP on one side and the Conservatives on the other — good,

honest political parties. That's what we're going to have; we're not

going to have this group whose only reason for being, their only raison

d'etre, is to keep the NDP out of power. They have no philosophical

base, they have no ideological base. They have no base except to keep

the NDP out; that's why they exist.

Can anybody tell me any other reason why the Social Credit Party

exists in British Columbia, except to keep the NDP out? That's the only

reason. Nobody in this province, Mr. Speaker, can name one reason why

that party exists, except to keep the NDP out. They've got no policy;

they're bankrupt in policy. All we have to do is to take a look over

there at the ex-Conservative who is now the Provincial Secretary (Hon.

Mr. Curtis) ; at the ex-Liberal, who is now the Minister of Education,

Science and Technology (Hon. Mr. McGeer) ; at the ex--Liberal who is

the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) ; at the ex-Liberal who is

now the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) ; at the Environment

minister (Hon. Mr. Mair), an ex-Liberal. There they are, all over there

— the opportunists from all political parties, in power for one reason:

they're against something, not for anything. They're not for anything;

they're just against. They're against government, not for anything.

I defy the next speaker in this debate from that side of the House

to get up and give me any other reason for your existence except to be

against the NDP. There is no other reason. I defy you to stand up and

try to explain yourselves, tell us what you're about. Tell us about

your philosophy. You've denied Social Credit philosophy. You've denied

Conservative philosophy. You've denied Liberal philosophy — even though

I admit that's hard to find. You've denied every kind of philosophy in

your bid for power and your desire to stay in power. You are a bankrupt

group who are against and for nothing, and the people of this province,

when you finally get the guts, will throw you out.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the rather

hysterical rantings of the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), he made some

rather serious accusations. He has accused officials of the Ministry of

Forests of committing a criminal offence. That member knows that in this House

he has certain immunity, certain privilege, and he has abused them. I demand

that that member either apologize to the officials of the Ministry of Forests,

who he has accused of committing a criminal offence, or else make those accusations

outside this chamber.

MR. LEA: I did not accuse the civil service of committing a

criminal offence. I accused that government of doing it. And for the

minister's information, I have made the statement outside the House,

and I'll make it outside the House again, because you're guilty as

charged — counselling to break the law.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You're a wild man.

[ Page 196 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please withdraw any unparliamentary imputations, as referred to by the minister in his point of order?

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I've accused the minister and his

government of counselling citizens of this province to break the law

for political gain. I will not take it back; it's absolutely true.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, during that member's

rantings he brought forward as proof of committing a criminal offence a

letter written by my regional manager for Prince Rupert. That is, in my

opinion, in effect accusing that man of committing a criminal offence.

He offered that as proof of the fact the offence was committed — it was

signed by an individual in my ministry. He has therefore accused that

man of committing a criminal offence.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the member wish to withdraw any imputation towards the civil service in his address?

MR. LEA: I sure will. It has nothing to do with the civil

service. I would imagine that civil servants do nothing more than carry

out what the government wants them to do. It's their duty to do so. I

have said nothing against the civil service; it's against that minister

and that government. That's who has committed the offence.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member has just again

accused this minister, personally, of committing a criminal offence. I

demand an apology.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, parliamentary language is very

carefully spelled out. Would the member for Prince Rupert withdraw any

improper imputation towards the minister?

MR. LEA: Yes, I would. I don't think I've made one.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. CALDER: Once again, Mr. Speaker, we see wildness from the

other side of the House. Ever since this House commenced the session,

it would appear that the opposition is in disarray, disorganized. It's

been very noticeable because, after all, they lost their leader not too

long ago. Gordon Gibson had to return to Ottawa. So we can expect a

continuation of the approach of the previous speaker. But we don't mind

it; we're busy in the meantime doing the people's business.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed my pleasure to rise in my place once again

to speak on behalf of the fine people in that good constituency of

Atlin. In so doing, I wish first of all to congratulate His Honour,

Henry Bell-Irving, on his appointment to the high office of

Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia. His appointment marks the

second occasion upon which the constituency of Atlin has had a basis in

the early life of a Lieutenant-Governor. The Hon. Walter Owen, our

previous Lieutenant-Governor, was born in the community of Atlin — we

all know how well he served this province during his term in office.

Henry Bell-Irving worked for the Anglo-B.C. Packing Company at

Arrandak Cannery located at the mouth of the Nass River in 1931 and

1932. At that time I was 16 years old. I was just starting to work at

Nass Harbour Cannery, my first place, which was just around the corner

from Arrandak. His Honour was my good neighbour in those two years. I

wish His Honour good health and every success during his term in office.

I understand also that he will be visiting Kincolith and New Aiyansh

in my constituency on May 25. There's no doubt in my mind that this

official visit will be a memorable occasion for both His Honour and my

Nishga tribe.

I would like to pay tribute to my late friend, Hon. W.A.C. Bennett.

Many sincere and kind words have been directed to this great statesman

since his passing. You have heard them and read them. There are several

hon. members presently in this Legislature who had witnessed his most

active and constructive years, and his numerous successes. I believe I

remain alone in this House as one who had witnessed the beginning of

his dynamic march to the top.

In my term of office, commencing in 1949, W.A.C. Bennett was the

first maverick — a very constructive one at that — culminating, of

course, in his famous walk across the floor in 1952. I can still recall

that moment. I would say that was one of the exciting moments in my

term of office. What a tense moment that was. I could never forget the

expressions on the faces of such well-known politicians of that day as

Boss Johnson, Herbie Anscomb, Gordon Wismer, Peterson, Carson, Straith,

McDonell. I don't think they had expected that particular occasion. It

was a tense moment.

Those were the days of the coalition government. Young Mr. Bennett

was an hon. member of that post-war government. It was that govern-

[ Page 197 ]

ment that extended the franchise, or voting rights,

to the native Indians and Japanese in 1949. As a matter of fact, the

thirtieth anniversary of this voting amendment occurred only five days

ago on March 24. This legislation was the first that came to my mind on

hearing of the passing of W.A.C. Bennett. Of course, this amendment was

long overdue. Nevertheless, I am certain that the new voters were

grateful for the opportunity to participate in the political affairs

and politics in this province. As one of the leading advocates for the

right of native Indians to vote in this province, naturally I was

grateful indeed for the avenue provided by the coalition government to

enter this chamber as the first native Indian MLA.

Just in reminiscence, W.A.C. Bennett, I would say, was a bit of a

prophet. He predicted my defeat in 1956. On several occasions following

my re-election to the House in 1960, he predicted that one day I would

join his party. So much can be said and written about our late friend.

I believe that foremost in the minds of the people, not only in British

Columbia but in Canada and the trading nations, is that he was a

builder. Indeed he was. In his vision for the north he began a program

that was so tremendous in scope that it may not be paralleled for quite

a while in our history. We've been witness to many of these major

projects: dams, highways, railways, accesses to industrial sites,

public services, and other social and economic benefits.

I would like at this time to bring to your attention one major

project that, most surprisingly, has received very little attention. I

refer to the construction of the Stewart-Cassiar highway, which began

in 1953. Now just about two years before that there was an announcement

that asbestos had been discovered at Cassiar. Realizing the mineral

potential and other natural resource potential in the B.C. northwest,

the Social Credit government and the Bennett administration undertook

to build a major access road to the seaport of Stewart. The

road-building program at first received funds from the Mines

department; they were known as departments in those days. Of course the

administration was done by the Department of Highways.

In 1958 this project received funding from the Roads to Resources program.

This was a Bennett-Diefenbaker initiative, which amounted to $15 million. Of

course, there was quite some excitement in those days, because the completion

was scheduled for 1963. But, Mr. Speaker, it was that year that the Liberals

defeated the Diefenbaker government, whereupon the new Liberal regime proceeded

to terminate the federal share of the Roads to Resources program.

For a while the people in my constituency had very much fear that

the action of the federal government may have closed the

Stewart-Cassiar Highway project for good. But I bring this particular

matter to the attention of the House, because the then Premier, W.A.C.

Bennett, was quick to announce that on behalf of the people of this

province, he and his Social Credit government would go it alone to

complete the highway to Stewart. This was a most welcome announcement

and one that meant, to the concerned citizens of the north, the

continuation of the road construction to its final completion in the

seventies.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to know that W.A.C. Bennett lived to hear of

the Cassiar Asbestos Corp. decision to export its asbestos fibre

throughout the seaport of Stewart. Although this port is already in

operation, the official opening ceremony has been set for May 18. After

26 years the purpose for which that highway was built is now a reality.

It is there as another monument in the dynamic northern development

plans of Mr. Bennett. It was truly a vision come true. Today this

highway is considered, by the majority of highway users, much more

north-south geographic location. As a matter of fact, it is the final

link in the Pacific coast highway from Fairbanks to Mexico. Tourism and

commerce are on the increase on this highway system, and there is no

doubt about its use in the transport of pipes in the event the Alaska

pipeline construction proceeds.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the mover, the hon. member for

North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), and the seconder, the hon. member for

Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster), for their excellent deliveries and subject

matter in reply to the Speech from the Throne. It's indeed a proud

moment for their respective constituencies.

I want to refer briefly, Mr. Speaker, to the non-confidence motion

which Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition submitted to this Legislature on

Monday, March 26. I refer to it only because it marks the first time

that I have witnessed an NDP opposition back off from its own

non-confidence motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would just like to remind you

that reflection on a vote that has already passed the House is not

proper at this time. Please proceed.

MR. CALDER: I wish to continue, and if what

[ Page 198 ]

I say further is not proper, just remind me.

I would assume, Mr. Speaker, that that opposition had no faith in

its own non-confidence motion. But believe it or not, I note that only

five of the members of the opposition spoke to this. I've been sitting

here wondering why the opposition is lacking in debate. Up to this

moment, I think there are only nine who have entered into this debate,

and that seems rather strange. Like I said in my opening remarks, maybe

it's because they have lost their leader.

After hearing so many statements from the government side of the

House proving that the economy was moving ahead in this province, the

opposition decided to vacate this motion. I suppose the opposition

realized that this motion was not in step with the active and

progressive measures of your Social Credit government; that it was

completely out of order in view of the sound economic management of

this present administration; that it was archaic in terms of the

efficiency and accountability of this government; and finally that it

was absolutely uncalled for due to the Social Credit government's

restoration of economic stability and confidence in British Columbia.

I would like to say a few words about the debt that we have been

talking about since 1975, about the Social Credit surplus that is

currently being discussed by many people and the benefits to people

that have been programmed by this present administration. It would

appear to me, Mr. Speaker, that the NDP opposition does not give a

plugged nickel about the heavy debt burden it placed upon the shoulders

of this government and the people of this province. It does not give a

hoot either about the sincere efforts of this government and the people

of this province to retire the NDP debt. Instead, as we have witnessed

day after day, the members of the opposition would lean back with glee

and laughter as if the debt burden was one big joke.

Mr. Speaker, in order to eliminate the embarrassing debt position,

this government has had to adopt some unpopular financial policies. Do

you think that the members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition would

offer constructive suggestions as how to retire the debt they created?

No sir. Instead, they continue to lean back, laughing up their sleeves,

waving heroically to their friends in the galleries, winking at their

buddies in the press gallery and introducing stupid non-confidence

motions.

In the last two years, thanks to the people of this province and to

sound management, your Social Credit government has accumulated some

very favourable surpluses. From these surpluses we can expect fair and

equal distribution of funds for the benefit of every citizen in this

province. I would stress at this point in my speech that it is these

surpluses and, of course, confidence in the government that are

currently advancing our economy and providing employment. Again, what

are we hearing from the NDP opposition? Nothing but a non-confidence

motion against the government, laughter and innuendoes. What a

contribution!

Mr. Speaker, time does not permit me to list the numerous programs

and projects established in the last 31/2 years by this government. I

will say, however, that it was sound government management and

available financial surpluses that have made possible the social and

economic programs and projects in the province. But let us examine only

one area of our province. Let us look at the developments in the Atlin

constituency and see whether or not the economy is moving favourably

there.

With available surpluses and working capital, your government is now

able to fund and to provide employment in the following projects — and

this, of course, is during the years 1976 to 1978. Again, I don't know

if I have enough time to read. I head the list with the completion of

the Stewart-Cassiar road. It's not quite complete yet, because we still

have to deal with the upgrading of the temporary bridges. But that is

first on my list, and with the amount of money that we have allocated

to this highway system, it certainly provides jobs for northern people.

The construction of the Stewart-Kitwanga highway, Highway 37 — there

are projects, jobs, and a commitment to pave that highway system, and

look at the expenditure. It's certainly a designated high between 1976

and 1978 — $47,651, 451.17. Of course, the major work here that has

resulted in employment is the transfer of asbestos from Skagway seaport

into Stewart, again providing this project with employment.

Then, of course, there's the Highways day labour program, which is a

program to create employment, and this program is working very nicely

in that large constituency. Then, of course, this government, it is

well known, has restored confidence in the mining and other industries.

With the repeal of the mineral royalties we have major companies now

returning to that large constituency and doing exploratory work and

hiring local people for local employment. I cannot overlook the

reopening of Granduc which is certainly going to provide employment

again.

Installation of B.C. Hydro units throughout the constituency has certainly provided work.

[ Page 199 ]

Some of the work is still going on, such as the extension through to

Sawmill lake from Telegraph Creek, and the slashing for the extension

from Greenville to the town of Kincolith, a distance of about 18 miles.

The establishment of air ambulance service in February 1975 provided

employment, and airstrip improvements with provincial government grants

provide employment. We have an extension and paving of the airstrip in

Stewart to the tune of $320,000, which will be providing employment in

a matter of weeks. The people in Telegraph Creek were very happy to be

employed in the work on the 7,000-foot airstrip there. Even though this

involves federal licence, the work that's been done — the telephone

systems for Telegraph Creek, Dease lake and Iskut — provide work,

because we in the province have also done our share in requesting that

this service be established.

The housing projects in the new subdivisions in Dease Lake, Atlin

and Good Hope Lake are coming along nicely. The new school that is

going to be built this year in Telegraph Creek — over $1.3 million —

and the school additions at Cassiar and Dease Lake are all projects

which provide jobs for the local people. We have many recreational

facilities resulting from provincial government grants and so on. But

that is nothing.

We have several major projects still to be considered, which can

only result from surpluses: the replacing of temporary bridges on

Highway 37; a bridge construction to cross the Nass River north of

Greenville; upgrading of the Greenville to Aiyansh road, which, of

course, is in the new school district of Nass River. We're hoping that

B.C. Moly in Alice Arm will reopen, and already they have been urging

the government to consider building the Kitsault road to the Nass River.

Mr. Premier, I would hope that you would listen to this one: the possibility

of extending the power grid from Kitsault, Alice Arm to Stewart and Granduc,

so that B.C. Hydro would be available to other industries in the area.

We are asking for a health clinic at Dease Lake. We are asking for

improvements in the airstrips at Dease lake and Atlin. We are

requesting a government agency at Dease lake. We want additional RCMP

on the Stewart-Cassiar road because of the activity on that road. We

want increased budgets for the conservation offices throughout the

riding, and many designated parks require facilities. We are looking

forward to the establishment of a forest industry in Stewart.

Now I list all these things, all these projects, because it's

surpluses that will build these projects and I am hoping that the

government will consider spending additional sums of money in this area.

In connection with these projects that I have mentioned, I wish to

take the time to thank the seven ministers who visited the constituency

of Atlin last year. The result of their work was good in the eyes of

the people in the north. I would ask the Premier of this province and

his cabinet — and I'm referring to these surpluses — to be very

cautious in the distribution of the people's surplus funds.

I shall tell you why. I know you won't listen. But just be cautious