1980 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is

for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1980

Morning Sitting

[ Page 4377 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Credit Union Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 4). Hon. Mr.

Nielsen.

Introduction and first reading –– 4377

Senior Citizen Automobile Insurance Grant Act (Bill 9).

Hon. Mr. Hewitt.

Introduction and first reading –– 4377

Estate Administration Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 2).

Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 4377

Presenting Petitions

Public inquiry concerning Kitsault mine, Mr. Passarell –– 4377

Speech from the Throne

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 4377

Mr. Nicolson –– 4380

Mr. Kempf –– 4384

Mr. Mitchell –– 4385

Mr. Ritchie –– 4388

Mr. Howard –– 4390

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4392

Division –– 4393

Motor Vehicle (All Terrain) Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill

7). Hon. Mr. Chabot.

Introduction and first reading –– 4393

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. RITCHIE: I'm very proud to introduce a group of very fine

people from my constituency this morning. We have 30 students in grades

9 to 12 from the Community Baptist Christian Academy with their

teacher, Mr. Johnson. Would you please extend a warm welcome.

MR. BARRETT: If I may, I would like to respond to the good

wishes of the House concerning my mother. Late last summer she suffered

a stroke. Fortunately, she is recovering very well, and I'm pleased that

the House expressed their concern. She is in very good shape and doing

very well. I visited her last night and then went on to a meeting. But

I must report, Mr. Speaker, that my mother heard that the House was

concerned. Purely on the basis of guilt-making, her quote was: "See,

Gardom thinks more of me than you do." Like with all mothers, I left

with appropriate guilt. I want to thank the members for their concern.

She's coming along very well. She also wished all of you her very best

wishes, even including me.

MR. KEMPF: In the gallery with us this morning are two fine

northern citizens, Mrs. Olga Walker from the great constituency of

Skeena, and Mr. Lloyd Gething from my constituency. Mr. Gething is a

member of the Omineca Social Credit constituency executive. I'd like

the House to make them both welcome.

Introduction of Bills

CREDIT UNION AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

Hon. Mr. Nielsen presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Credit Union Amendment Act, 1981.

Bill 4 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

SENIOR CITIZEN AUTOMOBILE

INSURANCE GRANT ACT

Hon. Mr. Hewitt presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Senior Citizen Automobile

Insurance Grant Act.

Bill 9 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

ESTATE ADMINISTRATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

Hon. Mr. Williams presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Estate Administration Amendment

Act, 1981.

Bill 2 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Presenting Petitions

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition

under the terms of standing order 73.

Leave granted.

MR. PASSARELL: To briefly state the matter, Mr. Speaker, it's

a petition from seven church organizations of the Victoria area asking

that the provincial government withdraw a pollution-control permit and

hold a public inquiry concerning the Kitsault mine.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to return

now to the debate on the consideration of the throne speech. In doing

so, I would like to point out that the throne speech mentions a very

brave and distinguished citizen of British Columbia, and it's important

that we should, at this time of the year, remember the contribution

that has been made not only to British Columbia, but to all of Canada —

in fact, to North America and the world — by the valiant and remarkable

initiative that was taken by Terry Fox on behalf of all of us. May I

say that he has made all Canadians stop and think what their

responsibilities are. I would suggest that on the eve of the

International Year of Disabled Persons we pay tribute to Terry Fox

through the throne speech, as well as the different awards and

presentations that have been given to him. The greatest presentation

that he has given to us has been the knowledge and the awareness that

those who suffer and have a disability can overcome that disability and

teach something to all of us. So in 1980, when we are on the eve of a

brand-new year and looking forward, may I say how very grateful we are

to Terry and how pleased we are that the mission which he started has

been so successful. Perhaps the war on cancer which he so ably brought

to our attention will be won by the research projects he has initiated.

I would also like to say that on the eve of the International Year

of the Disabled I am confident that our Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

Smith) and the social services ministries are addressing themselves to

a year which will bring to the attention of the people of British

Columbia those people who, like Terry, overcome their problems by our

understanding. May that understanding be that much greater because of

the initiatives that will be taken by our government in 1981.

There has been a great deal of discussion regarding the United

Nations years, and when the United Nations named the International Year

of the Child, this province marked it in a very real and meaningful way

as the International Year of the Child and the Family. Although some

remarks have been made on the floor of the House, even in this session,

I am proud of what was accomplished in that year. I think that we can

say that here in British Columbia, in this region and in this area of

Canada, we probably did more in the International Year of the Child and

Family than any other jurisdiction in this nation.

[ Page 4378 ]

I also want to remind our members that just within the last few

months we have marked the anniversary of the first child-abuse Helpline

in this province, and that initiative is a legacy of the Year of the

Child and Family. It is not the only legacy, but along with the

educational and training aspects of the child-abuse program, where we

have the best training program initiated in this country — and it has

been copied by other parts of this nation — it has been one of the

outstanding legacies of the Year of the Child and Family.

I want to tell you that that isn't the only legacy. There were many

other initiatives taken and carried on. It was not just a year in which

people were asked to become aware and we gave recognition to volunteers

throughout this province; indeed it was a year where we truly took

major steps forward in order to recognize the family and the children

in our province.

I want to mention just one of those as well, and that is the CHANCE

program. Along with my colleague the Minister of Education, for the

first time in this province we are able to give assistance and

educational opportunities to handicapped youngsters who ordinarily

could not get an education in the province, because they fell between

two stools, not being able to get into the institutional education

institutions and not being able to get assistance at home. Because of

that they were not able to get the opportunity that should be afforded

each and every child in this province, and that has been made possible

through the CHANCE program, where the Ministry of Human Resources puts

an aide in the classroom to assist the educator. I believe that in the

year to come this will have an even more profound effect on the

opportunities and the futures for the handicapped students in our

province. I'm very pleased with that program.

All of the programs that we initiate in this ministry.... May I say

that our social service ministries and our interministerial committee

together spend the largest part of our provincial budget. By every

comparison they spend the largest part of our budget; and compared to

other jurisdictions, ours spends more on social services than other

jurisdictions. I'm very proud of the social services in the province. I

would just like to remind you that our ministry spends over $2 million

each and every day; and our Ministry of Health spends almost $5 million

today on services for health. I would really like to remind our people

today, because this is the season to be mindful of those things which

strengthen our province and those things for which we should be very

grateful and thankful; it is a season where we should look back on what

we have done, and look ahead to what we can accomplish.

But surely, on the eve of a brand new year, each and every British

Columbian can be so grateful for the health services we have in this

province. Some of the comments that have been made during the throne

speech debate do not, I think, serve well to establish in our own minds

the kind of service that we truly have. I happened to be present during

the meeting of representatives from Australia and the Canadian Medical

Association in a meeting in the city of Vancouver — the second time

that they have chosen Vancouver to meet. It was certainly very evident

there that Canada, and particularly British Columbia, were the envy of

all of the jurisdictions represented — and some of them did come from

countries besides Australia. There is no question that our health care

in this province is outstanding and one which we should be very, very

proud of.

In fact, in this time of economic chaos in Canada.... I say that

with a great deal of concern and disappointment for what we have in our

Canadian budgeting and our Canadian economic situation. It gives me no

great pleasure at all to refer to the Canadian government's fiscal

policies, considering how bad they truly have been. When one considers

how bad they have been and how difficult a time other jurisdictions

have had in this time of world inflation and world financial problems,

it is remarkable, when we took back on the five years of this

government, to realize that we have initiated health and social

services programs which are the envy of the rest of this country. I

mention long-term care and denticare just for two programs alone. Other

jurisdictions are cutting down on health services, and Ontario was

closing hospitals when we first came into government. When other

jurisdictions were closing down other health services, this province

was forging ahead and has even now embarked on the very greatest

building program for hospitals that this province has ever seen. So we

should really pay attention to the kinds of things that strengthen our

province — and ease the minds of those who are ill and those who are

infirm. There is no question that this province gives them that

opportunity.

May I say that in my own Ministry of Human Resources.... As I

compare notes across this country, there isn't a level of service that

is any better for those who are in trouble, those who are in need,

those who are elderly, those who need our help temporarily or over a

long period of time. May I say that I'm proud indeed to have those

kinds of services within the Ministry of Human Resources. None of those

services would be available or possible if it were not for an economic

climate which has been created in this province under the most dire

circumstances after following a government which had left this province

not only without funds but also without the kind of direction that we

should have had. In 1975 our province was in a very difficult position.

Now in these past five years — five years to the day yesterday — we

have accomplished that which would not have been thought possible by

those viewing the economic scene when this government took office in

that December 1975. It has been a great accomplishment. As I say, none

of the social services would be possible without a good economic

climate. I am pleased to have been a part of initiating one of those

economic initiatives.

I'd like to speak about my own constituency of Vancouver–Little

Mountain, which I share with the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Wolfe). Vancouver–Little Mountain covers an area from the very affluent

to the very poor. We have subsidized housing, and we have probably the

most affluent homes in all of Vancouver, certainly in the lower

mainland. All those people have their problems in a varying number of

ways. I want to say that some of the initiatives this government has

taken.... One was announced just a week ago by the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the Minister of Lands,

Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). It was one of the initiatives

which will make a tremendous difference to the total lower mainland.

Why, in the city of Vancouver we have heard talk of a transit system

for the city of Vancouver for so long, and there have been so many

studies on rapid transit for that area — LRT or whatever kind of

transit system there could be — for so many years that the studies

alone, in the dollars spent and the effort spent, could possibly have

already built some miles of LRT.

[ Page 4379 ]

It is really to the credit of the government and of the ministers

involved that a tremendous urban development program, including a very

good initiative for housing and transit combined, was announced a week

ago.

As a Vancouver member who really knows the problems of traffic

congestion that builds constantly and continually in the city of

Vancouver, I am extremely pleased to see those initiatives taken. Isn't

it interesting — and it should be of note to this House — that it could

not be done under any other government, certainly not by the government

that preceded us, because the economic climate was not there under that

government. The faith we have in the province, and the capability of

putting together the dollars, through the initiatives we have taken

economically through our Ministry of Industry and Small Business

Development and by the very different economic initiatives taken by

this government, make it possible to do those things. There isn't a

government in Canada in this time in our economic situation in Canada

that can plan an initiative of that size.

In addition, I'm very pleased with the progress and the programs

being put together for British Columbia Place. It will make such a

difference to the look of Vancouver and to the economic viability of

the downtown. Not only does it give us our long-sought-after sports

stadium, it gives us a redevelopment of that part of the city where one

crosses those bridges and looks down on a black, slum-like area of

railroad tracks and an industrial area which will be transformed by the

initiative of British Columbia Place into an attractive, park-like,

beautiful area. It will be one of the most significant changes to the

look of Vancouver and to the viability of the business community in

Vancouver that we have ever undertaken. Our Minister of Environment

(Hon. Mr. Rogers), who has led that, along with our Provincial

Secretary, should be congratulated, along with all other members of

government who have been behind it.

We have heard a lot of talk about Transpo, which will be there. I

would just like to say that the kinds of things that Transpo will

bring, where the world's attention will be on our province in that very

important year, will not only bring recognition to our province and to

our city, but also will bring many, many dollars. It will be the kind

of exercise, Mr. Speaker, that will make our city of Vancouver and our

province of British Columbia truly outstanding players on the world

stage in that year.

I would also like to pay tribute to another initiative of this

government. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips), the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) and I

have been involved in the Pacific Rim Trade and Convention Centre. I

want to make sure that this House appreciates that not only was the

participation in the trade and convention centre by the three levels of

government initiated by this government, but also there was the private

sector initiative, which will bring a tremendous change to the

waterfront in the city of Vancouver.

I think somebody said, "Once in a world a city like Vancouver," and

I'm very proud to represent that city. We have the most incredible

mountains, a water panorama — the scenery is outstanding. To think that

a city built in that particular area could be enhanced in any way is

very difficult to appreciate. But we have done much to the city which

has made it very unsightly, and our waterfront door is unquestionably a

disgrace and should be cleaned up. The trade and convention centre does

just that. It is the catalyst in the initiative to rehabilitate a very

nuserable-looking front door. The initiative by the governments, plus

the private sector, gives to us the development on the Upland property

that totally will come to about $350 million from the private sector.

Now when we talk about dollars like that it is very difficult to

appreciate what that means. We talk about the moneys initiated by the

trade and convention centre itself, the building of a very outstanding

hotel, the building of a small office tower, the building of the trade

and convention centre itself by public money — all of those dollars. It

is very difficult when one considers and talks in terms of millions;

but let me talk in terms of jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the jobs that will be created under the construction

alone of those initiatives by the governments, and by the private

sector on the Upland, include thousands upon thousands of construction

jobs. The trade and convention centre complex alone will hire up to

1,000 construction workers in the next two years; the hotel will have

another several hundred construction workers in the next two to three

years; and the Upland development of Marathon Realty, which will cover

the old tracks and give us a whole new access and traffic pattern in

the city of Vancouver, connected with B.C. Place, will give the city of

Vancouver the kind of effective and attractive development which will

bring tremendous jobs.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's exciting.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It's tremendously exciting, says my

colleague in Intergovernmental Relations. It is the most exciting

program of redevelopment and initiative for jobs that this province has

ever seen.

I would like to talk for a minute now about a program that our

ministry has introduced, because it couldn't have introduced it without

the economic initiatives I'm talking about. I cannot spend $2 million a

day in the Ministry of Human Resources unless the economic initiatives

are there in order for us to spend the money. I want our Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development, our Minister of Lands, Parks

and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot), all our ministers who have some input

into industrial development and economic development in this province,

and our Tourism minister, all to be super-successful in 1981, because

those of us who are going to be spending money in social services need

the success of those programs going on under economic development.

I like to share with members of the House the Individual Opportunity

Plan, which was initiated by our ministry this year. It is just really

off the ground. It is a new initiative for those on income assistance

who are able to work. It is for the unemployed employables, and it has

four very different thrusts than it has had in this ministry before. I

am very pleased to tell you that the Ministry of Human Resources is

very much involved with other ministries of this government and with

the federal government in making sure that this Individual Opportunity

Plan is exceptionally successful. The first, of course, is the

importance of having the four ministries working together — the

Ministries of Human Resources, Education, Labour, and the Manpower

division of the federal government. All of those people have joined

forces to make sure that when someone comes to us for help and income

assistance we are going to be able to take those four ministries and

make some sort of a plan which is going to give them their own

individual plan — a light at the end of the tunnel so that they won't

be on income assistance or, as some

[ Page 4380 ]

people in this province continue to call it, "welfare, " for the

rest of their lives. Mr. Speaker, I think that what we want for all of

them is that light at the end of the tunnel. We don't want to sentence

people to a life on income assistance. We want for all people in this

province to enjoy the affluent life, or as affluent as they can

possibly have to their own capabilities, and for their own individual

opportunity. I suggest that this program meets that.

I would just like to say that something else that is different and

something I am very enthused about — and I hope that members on all

sides of the House will take advantage and take a look at it — is the

Job Action Program which is a part of this program. The Job Action

Program is one where we took a leaf out of the American experience and

we have our people go through a three-week course — a very short

course. Just two blocks away from this building the Job Action Program

is finding people who have been on income assistance for seven and

eight and ten years and three years and six months and whatever time,

people who have been in jail and have come out and tried to get

rehabilitated but are still on income assistance, people who are

hard-core income assistance recipients in the true sense of the word,

that they have been on for such a long time finding a future in a very

short time. That Job Action Program is working. We are not holding

their hands, and we are not taking them to a job; we are asking them to

design their own individual personal development plan and they are

really making it successful.

Mr. Speaker, the Job Action Program has a success rate of 80 percent

on the pilot project. It has only been in operation for about four

months in the province and for about four and a half months in this

city. It has been extended upisland to Parksville and will be extended

to Dawson Creek, Burnaby, Surrey and Vancouver in the next few weeks.

Mr. Speaker, I am excited about that program, but I am more excited

about what has happened in the past five years — things like the

Individual Opportunity Plan would not be possible if it had not been

for the leadership that has been given in this province by our Premier

and by the government of British Columbia. Major initiatives that I

have talked about, social services that I have talked about,

educational opportunities and health programs are the best in all of

Canada. We have the lowest unemployment rate in more than a decade, the

least hours lost for job altercation in the province in the industrial

climate, better health care, better care for senior citizens than ever

before. We have also the great northeast development program, which was

led by our Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon.

Mr. Phillips), the exports of British Columbia products are growing by

over 20 percent annually, private investment is continuing at an

all-time high, and our inflation rate is far below the national

average. Again, I must say that we have the lowest unemployment rate in

a decade, giving more opportunities to those who come to us in Human

Resources for help.

These past five years — with our anniversary yesterday of our

election to the government of British Columbia — have shown that there

is no question, Mr. Speaker, that the leadership and the governing that

this government has given to the people of British Columbia have led

all of Canada in results and given to our people a better way of life.

In closing my few words to the throne speech this morning, may I say

I am very proud particularly of the kinds of initiatives that we have

had in this province by our Premier in terms of a constitutional

debate. There is no question that our province has been in good hands

in those negotiations, and yesterday's debate on the constitutional

resolution unquestionably and indisputably proved that.

It is my pleasure, in this season of good will, and in this throne

speech debate, to wish colleagues on all sides of the House a very

happy holiday season. May the year ahead be one which shows good will,

for a very great year ahead, toward all in British Columbia. I also

hope that in 1981 this House will address itself to the issues and to

the constructive building of a better British Columbia.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I ask leave of the House to introduce

guests.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: It's a great honour for me — and I'm sure

it's of great interest to the House — to have the opportunity to advise

you that there are nine fine young students from Highline Community

College in Seattle, under the leadership of Ned Brodsky-Porges, in the

House today. These students are all majoring in tourism, and they're

taking time out from visiting the tourist attractions and counting the

crumbs on the restaurant tables in British Columbia to learn about us

here in the Legislature. I would like to advise them, on your behalf,

that this really is the best show in town, and it's the freest. We hope

you have a wonderful visit. I ask the House to welcome them.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to welcome you

back, and I must say that, compared with our meeting about nine months

ago, your present attire is more becoming than hospital pajamas.

MR. SPEAKER: The shirt was a bit short, wasn't it?

MR. NICOLSON: I wish to welcome you back, and I also wish to

bring greetings, Mr. Speaker, from the Very Reverend Walter Donald, who

has been elevated to the post of dean of St. Saviour's Pro-Cathedral in

Nelson. Those of you who remember Walter when he served as executive

assistant to Sam Bawlf in these precincts will welcome that news. So

much for the good news.

I often hesitate to get involved in the field of housing. I am one who believes that one of the deadliest sins is the pride of

authorship and trying to relive the past and various other things; but

when news of some substance comes I feel it is my duty to reveal it and

to reveal it in a context which is responsible and thought out.

I look in this throne speech, and.... Indeed, as has been mentioned

before, even the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications

(Hon. Mr. McGeer) is at a loss to figure out why we have been called at

this time, having seen the scope of the very scanty legislative program

— which will probably be left on the order paper until next spring

anyhow. I must agree with the person whom I am supposed to be a critic

for in the field of science and technology. I certainly agree with him

wholeheartedly on that point.

We've also had the public announcements made by the Minister of

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

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) about housing initiatives to

be taken in Vancouver. From what I can see, the promise is to create so

many single-family lots, and.... Of course, we always need

[ Page 4381 ]

more single-family lots, and indeed, in terms of Canadian standards,

British Columbia is leading even the province of Ontario in creating

single-family lots in the urban areas. But there is no mention of

housing which is really and truly affordable housing. We have to look

at what has happened to the single-family lot. Last August the average

real estate listing in Vancouver was $120,000; and the rate at which

lot prices in the greater Vancouver area are now increasing is

estimated by Canada Mortgage and Housing to be 50 percent per annum.

The private realtors are claiming an increase of 100 percent per

annum in lot size increases. As I see it, this initiative is merely to

serve the demand for single-family lots. I have had a researcher from

Central Mortgage and Housing inform me that the only people who can

enter the housing market in Vancouver are people who have equity and

have sold a home in Alberta, Ontario, the interior of British Columbia

or some other part of the lower mainland, and they are purchasing a lot

with that equity position. There is virtually no chance for young

people to enter the housing market and home ownership in Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker, was there one word in this housing initiative about —

let's use the old term, the term which has sort of fallen out of favour

— socialized housing, subsidized housing or affordable housing or

whatever you wish to call it, whichever euphemism you may wish to pick?

Was there a mention of that? There certainly was not. Something which

is most serious has also come to my attention through sources. It is

that the Ministry of Housing has been in touch with Central Mortgage

and Housing and the federal counterparts in order to try to induce them

to divest themselves of the present stock of public housing under the

B.C. Housing Management Commission and privatize and sell off to the

private sector that very important housing stock, which was built up

not only while I was a housing minister but also under the previous

Social Credit government.

In other words, this government has become so extreme and dogmatic

that we have seen them not only unwind and destroy the programs of the

previous NDP government, but their zeal has carried them beyond that to

the point where they're destroying the good programs that were even

initiated under Social Credit.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what would happen if the federal

government.... I'm sure that the federal government will not go along

with this; I don't know what would happen if they did. If we need

anything today, it is a little bit of common sense. We don't need to

provoke people or make people any more insecure than they are, and that

is precisely what this government has been doing.

A couple of weeks ago I had two different meetings. I had a dinner

with a senior citizens' group, and I attended a tea with another group.

I was warned: "Mr. Nicolson, this is not a political organization;

there's no politics here." I kept my part of the bargain, Mr. Speaker,

but I couldn't stop some of those senior citizens. You smile, and I'm

sure you know. Other than groups that have been brought together on the

lawn of the Legislature, I've never seen a group which was not

organized around an issue and so unanimous in their opposition to the

so-called FAIR program and the arbitrary treatment that seniors have

had. A couple of years ago they were being sort of seduced with a

special discount for seniors. They were being appealed to. Politically,

some overtures were being made to senior citizens, so they had a

discount. Of course, there was a completely different system of rating

based on the traditional actuarial rating schemes. Then suddenly we were put on a system where territories, age and

driving record classifications don't matter, and in addition to that,

their discounts were taken away.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that we don't need to create doubt and

uncertainty in groups. We don't have to create it for senior citizens

or people who are in public housing. If you think this government has

had to do a backtrack with senior citizens.... I see the first official

evidence of it today.

I'll tell you that we would see a display on this lawn; we would see

things which I would regret, I'm sure, ever having to see in the

province of British Columbia, if this government should be so stupid

and if the federal government would comply with the wishes of the

provincial government in this onslaught on anything that is fair,

decent and helpful to people who have been disadvantaged by various

means or another.

Mr. Speaker, we have got a housing situation today which didn't come

about overnight. Yes, right now the housing starts for this year are

going to be pretty high. If they aren't higher than 1976, they'll be

the highest since. In fact, I could pretty well say that for this year

urban housing starts will probably be higher than they've been since

1970, but one year doesn't make a housing program. What has happened

here? I could not take credit for the record level of housing starts

which occurred in 1972, because those were really a reflection of what

went on a year or a couple of years before. I wouldn't take the blame

for the downturn in 1973 either, for that matter, because housing

programs take a little while to get going and they take a little while

to wind down, with all the various lead times.

But the average urban-housing starts for centres of a population of

10,000 and over in British Columbia have been 24,310 per annum. I

suppose I could run through some of the figures. In 1971 it started

fairly low at 20,748; it went up to a pretty high figure of 28,000 by

1972; it dropped down again in 1973: in 1974 it rose; in 1975 it

started rising more to 26,615; and in 1976 it reached an all-time high

for the decade of 29,575. Since that time it then dropped. Even in

December 1976 a drop had started to take place. That's because various

actions had already been taken. Certain housing units that were slated

for the rental-housing market in Burnaby — 500 units — were suddenly

dumped onto the condominium or strata-title market. All kinds of other

dislocations took place during the year, so that it did postpone

certain housing starts and plans for multiple units. It threw the whole

industry into chaos in 1976 because of some of the changes that were

made by the government. In 1978 we reached an all-time low for the

decade — you'd have to go back to 1970 to find anything lower — of

19,576 urban housing starts. And 1979 certainly 't much better: every

year

from 1972 through 1976 was certainly much higher.

As I say. this year the market has shrunk so much, and we have seen

a 100 percent increase. I say there are two ways of looking at it:

CMHC, who are very cautious, say 50 percent, but private realtors say

there is a 100 percent increase in land costs in greater Vancouver.

With an average cost last August of 50 percent, and with a rise in the

cost of housing, which is estimated to be running between 35 and 50

percent, that $120,000 figure right now is probably closer to $140,000.

Mr. Speaker, that is the situation today. The ministry's program does

not hold out too much hope for the people who live here — the young

people who are striving to buy a first home. It simply guarantees that

people who might be moving out here from Alberta will be able to find a

place, if they have

[ Page 4382 ]

the money from selling a home in Calgary or selling a farm in the

Prairies.

I'll quote a comment from CHMC:

"'The new provincial housing program for greater

Vancouver won't alleviate the area's housing problem in the short term

and may never benefit the people who are most in need of housing

assistance,' an official with Central Mortgage and Housing said

Monday. 'We support the provincial initiative to make assistance

available to facilitate the development of land and in the mid- and

longer terms,' said Keith Tapping, CHMC general manager in the B.C.

Region.

"'So the aim in the provincial program to provide

19,000 serviced lots in the Greater Vancouver Regional District is to

stabilize prices,' said Lands, Parks and Housing Minister James Chabot

in his announcement."

Well, I've used that same phrase, but that's when we were talking

about stabilizing things at some $40,000-odd. We put housing on the

market under $40,000 in Vancouver. We put housing on the market in

Penticton in 1974-75 under $30,000; in fact, as low as $22,500 — that

is single-family housing. Anybody who would try to take over this

problem after these four years of neglect would probably take two years

to show any kind of a turnaround in terms of prices. What we see here

is the absence of a very badly needed social housing program.

I did mention a little bit about ICBC and FAIR. I've had so many

letters on that. Again, the government seems to come out and club

people. It fouls things up, and then looks at it a second time. I don't

know why they couldn't have figured that out the first time around. You

weren't going to get away with it. You're not going to get away with

it. And you still haven't gotten away with that one. It's like the

Marguerite . The government has been cute by halves. Everything is

coming home to roost. But who suffers? Nobody over there really suffers

economically or in any other way. It's the people of British Columbia

who suffer: it's the people who are on the margin that makes the

difference between bankruptcy and a profitable operation in the tourist

industry in Victoria; or it's the senior who has to give up a second

vehicle.

That sounds like a luxury to some people here — a senior having to

give up a second vehicle. Well, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that

when people have worked hard, and at the age of 64 or 65, in

anticipation of retirement, they buy themselves a four-by-four pick-up

truck because they like to get out in the woods and they like to do a

bit of fishing, they like to saw some wood, and be active instead of

just slipping into retirement.... You don't want to drive around in

a four-by-four pick-up all the time. This is a person who looks after

his vehicle. I know lots of people in my riding who have two vehicles.

I have several letters telling me that because of this change in ICBC

rates they are going to have to get rid of the second one. I don't look

upon that as a luxury. I know people over there who've got vehicles on

this side of the water and on that side of the water. They aren't

insured by themselves; they're insured by the government of British

Columbia. These people keep cars at Tsawwassen and over here.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I would say that there are many people who live in rural areas who

need a car. This government has only been talking about Vancouver

transit. They've done very little in terms of increasing rural transit

— a little move in Trail, Kamloops and a few other places; that's still

in the cities. They have no choice....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're a bore. Why don't you say something

positive?

MR. NICOLSON: Well, it takes one to know one, my friend.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I must be getting to the other

side.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Heavy attack!

MR. NICOLSON: Well, you will get a heavy attack. I will tell

you that if you have the guts to call an election right now, you'll get

a heavy attack from the senior citizens who've been toyed with. I'm not

finished yet.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, I will defend senior citizens who have two

vehicles. I don't agree with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon.

Mr. Hewitt). Boy, what an about-face he's done. At least I give him

credit: he played the game; he supported the team. Then he got cut off

at the knees by his colleagues. He put on a brave face. He took the

heat. You guys caved on the thing, and thank goodness you did cave. I

think that's a great way to run a team.

Even with the latest changes, seniors are being forced to sell their

only means of transportation.

We've had a long speech from the Minister of Human Resources (Hon

Mrs. McCarthy) about all the marvellous things they're doing. It seems

the the Ministry of Human Resources is so careful when it comes to

looking at the expenditures and budgets of organizations like the

Endicott home for the handicapped in Creston, or Beaver Lodge, which is

also a residential home and training centre for handicapped children

and adults in Oliver, or the Northern Training Centre in Smithers, that

for nine months they held back any increases in their contracts or

budgets for this year and forced them to go on last year's budgets.

Going on last year's budgets, they eventually ate into any advances. It

came to my office's attention first of all in September, when I was not

here. We were given assurances that by the end of October everything

would be fine. Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm given assurances that a cheque is

on the way to the Endicott home — which is in my riding — as of

December 4. But these three organizations have been subject to the

greatest scrutiny. Their applications to Treasury Board have been going

back and forth; people have been sent out and meetings have held.

I wonder if the government is giving the same kind of scrutiny to

BCRIC, when insider trading, advance information and many other things

raised in the Getz report, which certainly unearthed a lot of

information.... It made no conclusion of wrongdoing, but it

certainly didn't say that

[ Page 4383 ]

things were hunky-dory either. It certainly didn't find that there

was no wrongdoing. I wonder when the government is going to start

giving the same kind of attention to things like BCRIC and our Crown

corporations committee, on which we're spending almost half a million

dollars a year.

We've had one meeting so far outside of a legislative sitting. We've

got things on our plate. We've got serious things that some of our

members want to look into, such as the land transfer in Delta, the Olma

brothers' centre and the land from B.C. Hydro which found its way to

the Olma brothers. We're told no, we can't look into detailed things

like that, which involve millions and millions of dollars. What about

the land which B.C. Hydro is now being forced to give up to the CPR in

exchange for B.C. Place? How many millions and millions of dollars are

involved there?

Yet we give the closest scrutiny to places like the Endicott home

for the handicapped — people that have on their boards professional

chartered accountants, people of integrity in the community. We

second-guess them, and now we're going to have a financial

administration act, according to a White Paper. We're going to have

more bureaucracy, and on homemakers to make sure they aren't doing by

one method what they're not allowed to do by another. I say let the

homemakers go ahead and do, by hook or by crook, the job they know they

have to do. If this government won't give them the money, let them do

it by means fair or foul, until the government can be fair with these

people and give them a fair hearing. This government is treating social

services in a most shabby manner. Yet it's letting the government and

the people of this province be ripped off by friends of government, by

people of special privilege. If you think we ever got rid of a class

system in this province, you're very sadly and regretfully mistaken. We

have a privilege system in this province that would make the

Plantagenets look like Karl Marx.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Of course, the member for Kootenay (Mr.

Segarty) wouldn't know who the Plantagenets were.

We have been brought down here again, at great public expense, on a

gambit. Let's throw a flyer; let's see if we can get the people all

confused. Can we make them forget about inflation, the dirty tricks and

the debacle of the Marguerite? And what a story it is, Mr. Speaker. It

came out quite well in some of the media, but in others it was as if

they were going to spend a whole $5 million to make the Marguerite

safe. Well, putting in holding tanks for sewage is not going to make it

safer; it's going to make it a darn sight more sanitary and

environmentally improved, and this should have been done many years

ago. But what a situation!

So where is the government today? They are calling BCRIC a piece of

the rock. We hear that BCRIC is down to $5.85, but in actuality, Mr.

Speaker, it is down to $5.18. That is what the combination of inflation

and the lack of growth of that stock has done to BCRIC. What has done

it? It is certainly not the performance of Can-Cel, nor the performance

of KFP, even though they have gone through some difficult times. It has

been the bad performance of a Premier who has been interfering with

BCRIC. When things go wrong he says: "It's now a public corporation;

government has nothing to do with it." They just own the largest

single block of shares, but they have nothing to do with it.

Mr. Speaker, there are people out there in British Columbia who are

trying to build the province, and they get more interference than help

from the government. With regard to applying for assistance from this

government, I have talked to small sawmill operators and to small

manufacturers who are providing jobs. Many of them have just given up,

and I have to tell them: "No, don't give up; you have a right to those

grants; you have qualified for them. Don't let them bamboozle you with

bureaucracy and red tape." One should not have to be a friend of the

government in order to get fair treatment.

Mr. Speaker, in this province there are people who are light-years

ahead of the big-money corporations in terms of technology. There are

people who are already using heat pumps for drying kilns, thereby

saving tremendous amounts of energy. Yet there are no initiatives from

the government.

I think that the major problems with this government are its lack of

direction and its internal problems. These can be best exemplified by

the

article which appeared under the name of Gordon Gibson in the Financial

Post . He reminded us of the departure of so many top-level civil

servants. What a coincidence it is that both the head of Treasury

Board, John Kelly, and the Comptroller-General, Lionel Bonnell,

departed within months of each other, both of them, I think, having

left successful careers elsewhere to come here. Mr. Bonnell, I think,

was only here about two and a half years. He even found it necessary to

request an appearance before the public accounts committee in order to

point out what he saw as very serious problems.

He also mentioned Mr. Harry Swain; Amy Anglin in Consumer and

Corporate Affairs and her spouse as well; and two of the top people in

the Energy Commission, Norm Gish and John Ludgate. Of course, we have

had others who have been around for a little bit longer, such as Gary

Runka. He also mentions the departure of long-time deputy and assistant

deputy — a career civil servant — Lloyd Brooks, and the treatment of

George Giles. Even Dave Brown — for whom I have had some criticism —

"loyal operative" as he is described, has left this government.

These are the signs that a government has never been so ill-equipped

to deal with some of the largest problems that we have had in the

history of this province. The government has tried to create a stir

about something upon which they themselves are not agreed. There is no

agreement about the approach as to whether civil law or entrenched

rights is more appropriate, and yet they have tried to use a focus like

that. They have brought us here for a session in which they've proved

they have no concrete ideas to solve the problems of this province —

the mess this province is in. In other jurisdictions, they would have

long ago, one by one.... These ministers should have been

resigning. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who can't figure

out whether his problem is too big a surplus or too big a

deficit.... One day it's one thing, and the next day it s the other.

Rather than Mr. Bonnell and Mr. Kelly resigning, the honourable thing

is for the minister to resign. There should have been many resignations.

things that have happened, of which I don't intend to re-enumerate

chapter and verse. This government does not have the confidence of the

people. The Premier has to duck, dive and hide, and he's hardly ever in

the province. I understand he's going to be away again after the New

Year. This government cannot face the problems. The Premier is not

facing the problems; he's not here to face them. He's been

[ Page 4384 ]

out of the province in the last couple of months more than he's been

here. This is where the problems are; this is where the solutions must

lie. If this group cannot do it, they should resign and give their

blessing to a new conservative party to take their place, and let's see

what happens from there.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place today to speak on

the throne speech, and to speak in favour of His Honour's speech on

behalf of those whom I represent, the people of Omineca. In so doing, I

will very objectively, as a northerner, relate primarily to those areas

of His Honour's speech which are of interest to my constituents.

However, prior to doing so, I too would take this opportunity to add my

message to those of other members of this assembly in welcoming the

Speaker back to this chamber and wishing him the very best of health in

the months and years ahead. Certainly it is with much gratitude that we

thank those who were instrumental in giving him the care and medical

assistance necessary to allow his return here to us.

Like him, I feel that it is good to be back in this chamber. Unlike

the members opposite, Christmas month or no Christmas month, I feel

it's my duty and, indeed, an honour to be here once again and to have

the opportunity to speak, particularly on the throne speech, on behalf

of those living in my area.

My riding is geographically vast and very diverse, stretching, as

I'm sure you are aware, from the beautiful Bulkley Valley on the west

to the very fertile Nechako Valley on the east. It encompasses a very

large part of the interior plateau of this province. It's a very large,

beautiful, rich and prosperous area of this province, and because it

is, we provide a very large share of the dollars that flow into the

coffers of the treasury of British Columbia.

In Omineca we have a very large and active forest industry, four

large mining operations, including Endako Mines, Canada's largest

molybdenum operation, and untold riches still in the ground or still

unfound. As well, we have a very vibrant agriculture industry — Mr.

Member for Vancouver Centre, it would do you well to listen to this; you

may learn something about this province — and a potential for the

tourist industry both winter and summer second to none anywhere in this

province, not to mention the many secondary industries such as guide

outfitting, trapping and others.

We're a very fortunate people in Omineca, for we have resources in

abundance, which provide many jobs for British Columbians and, in turn,

provide much for the economy of this province. We also have an

environment that is probably the largest factor in drawing to the north

our greatest asset, people who come to inhabit that area — proud, free

enterprising people with initiative, something that is far too often

discouraged in our society today. They are willing to brave the

elements, willing to put up with a little less in many areas in the way

of amenities, in order to make it on their own and to provide a better

environment in which our families can grow. We as northerners, as

people who are just a little more independent than our southern

counterparts, can agree with His Honour's speech, as it is our

philosophy as well, where it says:

"My government believes individual British Columbians

have six basic aims in life."

Certainly those are the six basic aims of

northerners.

"To enjoy the best possible health;

"To be protected by an even-handed, fair system of

justice;

"To attain personal financial security;

"To live in a healthy environment;

"To enjoy equality of opportunity and treatment; and

finally,

"To have the freedom to lawfully pursue their

individual lives without undue interference from either the state or

their fellow citizens."

We believe also in the philosophy, as His Honour's speech goes on

say:

"My government believes that the sum of degrees of

achievement of these six basic aims determines the quality of life for

each individual British Columbian. The greater the degrees of

achievement, the better the quality of life."

I believe that, and I believe that my constituents believe that, Mr.

Speaker.

"In pursuing this goal of bettering the quality of

life for all British Columbians, my government plans to turn the six

aims into a general guideline to be used as an important part of all

government planning processes. "

Mr. Speaker, we in the north....

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: You don't know anything about the north, the

northerners or their feelings, Mr. Member for Victoria.

MR. HANSON: How about Kemano II?

MR. KEMPF: I'll talk about Kemano II. Just hang tough.

We in

the north agree with that philosophy because we're a determined people,

not constantly looking to government for handouts, not expecting

government to do anything other than govern. We're not asking

government for handouts; we're not asking government to hold our hands

from the cradle to the grave; we're not wanting government to involve

itself in every aspect of our everyday lives. We expect government to

provide only the atmosphere in which we can show initiative — the

reason we moved there in the first place. We do, however, expect a fair

return to the north and to our area of the fruits of our labour. We in

the north are not isolationists.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We accept the fact that we must share the wealth of our area with

all British Columbians. We support, as British Columbians, such

projects as B.C. Place, the trade and convention centre, and yes, light

rapid transit. We support those, as British Columbians, even though we

have not one transit bus in the whole of Omineca. But also as British

Columbians, Mr. Speaker, we expect a return to our area from whence the

lion's share of the province's riches came from in the first place; we

expect the return of our fair share. The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard)

laughs about that. Maybe he'd better check with his constituents if

they believe in that philosophy. We want a return to the north of our

fair share, Mr. Member, in the way of health services, more roads

and...

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, I've seen some of your letters lately, Mr.

Member.

[ Page 4385 ]

...bridge construction and better road maintenance, better

communications networks. If you think you can give them better

communications, Mr. Member, come on up and oppose me in the next

election.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member would assist the Chair

greatly in maintaining order if he would address the Chair.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'd be glad to.

Mr. Speaker, we see in the throne speech further recognition of the

wants and needs of northerners, and I would hope to see even more in

the 1981-82 budget, upcoming later in this session.

Mr. Speaker, I am elated when I see in the throne speech the mention

of the creation of a northern health corps. Again I quote from His

Honour's speech:

"The provision of health services to rural or isolated

parts of British Columbia has been under serious review by my

government."

During this session, however long, at least we are going to do

something about it.

"During this session this assembly will be provided

with details of the creation of a B.C. rural health corps. It will be

an agency that will assure primary health care to all areas of this

province."

This commitment, Mr. Speaker, coupled with the continuing effort on

the part of this government to the airport assistance program, allowing

for the first time in this province for the provincial government to

participate in the building of community airports, particularly in

rural British Columbia, which facilitates our air ambulance service,

will most certainly be of benefit and a measure of confidence to the

people of Omineca, as I am sure it is to all rural areas of this

province.

His Honour's speech, Mr. Speaker, promises the provision of

assistance in obtaining additional and more adequate television

reception. Again I quote from His Honour's speech given a week ago

yesterday:

"My government is dedicated to ensuring that all

communities in British Columbia receive a basic television service,

including education, entertainment, and British Columbian, Canadian and

world news. Satellite technology now makes it possible for isolated

B.C. communities to receive appropriate television signals. My

government will announce policies and programs to assist British

Columbians to obtain satellite and other television services."

That's a definite positive step, for, as you know, with the long

winters and long winter evenings that we in the north experience, many

of our people rely on television for their main source of entertainment.

I could go on outlining from the throne speech advantages which I

see for the north. Maybe you can't see those advantages, Mr. Speaker,

but I would suggest you read His Honour's speech more closely. I see

many advantages for the people of the north and, in another forum, I

will be bringing those words to my constituents.

Before closing here today, I would like to speak on behalf of my

constituents about a couple of items which are of grave concern to many

of the people living in my area, and which for this reason could

rightly have been part of His Honour's speech. Firstly — and the

members opposite have condemned me for not speaking out in this regard,

an accusation which is not true; possibly I have not in this chamber,

Mr. Speaker, but I certainly have where it has been heard — is the

question of Kemano completion.

I spoke earlier of the people of my constituency moving to the north

to provide a good environment in which to raise their families. We in

the north are proud and very defensive of that environment. Don't get

me wrong, we're not anti-development. By no stretch of the imagination

are we anti-development. But we believe very strongly in planned

development, development in which there can be multiple use of our

environment. It is for this reason that I must say, on behalf of those

whom I represent, that I cannot accept in my constituency a project

which would bring about the devastation of one river system, namely the

Nechako, and endanger another, the Bulkley. I must stand against that

kind of project, and I do so here in this chamber.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: I just said that, Mr. Member. Are you hard of

hearing? I must do so here in this chamber for all to hear, and to be

recorded for all time in Hansard .

The second problem being faced by many constituents of mine at this

particular point in time, and one serious enough in my mind to be

discussed in this throne speech debate, is the plight of many small

operators in our forest industry, not only in Omineca but all over

this province. The inability of these bona fide loggers and small mill

operators who have historically made their living — and in some cases,

such as the people in the Burns Lake area of my constituency; they have

been the economic stabilizer of the community — to obtain timber to

continue their operations, has reached what I consider to be crisis

proportions, and it is felt by this member that the emphasis mentioned

here in this chamber must be placed upon it.

MR. LAUK: Will you resign if Kemano II goes ahead?

MR. KEMPF: No, I'll never resign, Mr. Member. If I were you I

would give it some consideration, though.

I shall vote in support of His Honour's speech. As I see it, there

are many moves in that speech which are very positive, not only for my

constituents in Omineca but for all of the people of this province. It

doesn't contain all the answers; I didn't expect it would. It does,

however, point out very clearly that while the economy in other

jurisdictions all over North America is at a virtual standstill, here

in British Columbia we are moving ahead.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to join with

everyone who has wished you a happy return to the Legislature. I would

also like to tell a little story about my first meeting with the

Speaker after he had recovered. I met him in Harrison Hot Springs, and

I met this young, slim, trim, healthy-looking person with a beard. We

talked, and I walked away, and I was trying to think who that young,

slim, trim, healthy-looking guy with the beard was, who looked like

Lenin. All of a sudden, as I walked away, I felt about that high. I

hope, Mr. Speaker, you don't hold that against me. Even I made a

mistake with the beard.

[ Page 4386 ]

I rise today to join in this throne speech mainly to express my

disgust and to say why I am going to vote against this throne speech —

not so much because of what was said in the speech, but because of the

action that was not taken. We have in this bill, enshrined in these six

beautiful sentences — "to enjoy the best possible health. " Mr.

Speaker, I don't know if you have gone through my mail lately and

watched time after time....

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: Everybody else goes through my mail, and I

imagine that caucus does too.

A number of people are writing me to get into hospitals in the

greater Victoria area for necessary operations, and they are denied

that because of a mismanagement of 25 years of Social Credit inaction

in hospitals in British Columbia and especially in the Victoria area.

Twenty-five years of Social Credit mismanagement has ruined the

hospital situation in this area. I say, Mr. Speaker, it's to the shame

of everyone in that department who knows it and has not stood up and

spoken against it.

There's one particular line that I feel shows that this government

has not faced the facts that are taking place in our world, the

section

that states "to attain personal financial security." For a lot of

people who are studying the technical development affecting this

province, this country and this world, we are on the verge right now of

the second industrial revolution in this country. We are on the verge

of the second industrial revolution of this modern age. I think it's

important that some of us should review what happened when the first

industrial revolution hit the world, when men and women from all walks

of life left the land to go into the cities and to work in the

factories. The modern technical development of the modern mills, such

as lead printing presses, put men and women out of work, put men and

women onto the street where men and women were literally forced to go

out and die.

It's easy, Mr. Speaker, now when we look back with a little 20-20

hindsight, to see that if the people of that time had taken some

planning to develop a human understanding of what was happening to the

workforce, there would not have been the degradation of egos of

fathers, husbands, who could no longer supply their families with food

on the table. Because of frustration they took to drinking, and they

died early. That was some of the record of the first industrial

revolution, and society at that time made no preparation for it. I say

now, Mr. Speaker, we in British Columbia and we in the modern technical

development are in the second industrial revolution. That revolution is

being led, is being developed, is being caused by the development of

the microchip.

I would like to read from a report from Dennis Robideau from Simon

Fraser University, when he outlined some of the problems, some of the

background of the micro-revolution that is taking place. He says:

"The history of the micro-electric revolution began in

1948 with the invention of the transistor, which dramatically replaced

the vacuum tube. Research in the fifties and sixties led to the

development of an integrated circuit and the discovery that a small

wafer of silicon, properly manufactured, will behave like several

transistors. This reduced the size of electronic equipment by several

factors. By the 1970s the silicon chip had been reduced in size to a

wafer smaller than the nail of a little finger on one's hand. In

addition to this reduction in size, there has also been a dramatic

increase in the number of functions which each chip could perform. When

this silicon chip, which acts like a miniature computer, is added to

the electronic systems of any number of machines, the creation of an

automated world cannot be far behind."

These are the facts of life that are affecting the men and the women

who are in the industry today and the youth of this province who are

looking for jobs.

I would also like to quote further from a recent publication of the

Science Council of Canada, who provided this explanation of

micro-electronics. They said:

"Dramatic innovations stem from recent developments in

the micro-electronic technology, leading to the introduction of the

microprocessor, a tiny chip of silicon with the capacity of a

computer. This remarkable advancement has made automation more

flexible. It has extended the range of electronic processing to many

economic applications in industry, communications, data processing,

office equipment, consumer goods and services, transportation,

recreation, medicine, and, in fact, in almost every area of human

endeavour."

I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is happening to us. In the

universities they are telling us it is happening so fast that the

predictions they are making today were out of date a month ago; they

can't comprehend really what is happening out on the industrial field.

I'm not one who will stand here and suggest that we can turn it

back. When the wheel was developed, we used it; when the electronic

computers and the technology is available for industry, we must use it.

I say that we must use it in this country, because if we don't use it,

if we don't utilize it in this country, industry will do like our

Canadian merchant navy did following the Second World War, when it went

to countries of convenience and sailed under flags of convenience. If

we don't accept industrial development in this country, then industrial

development under the multinational corporations will go to countries

of convenience. But I think if we're going to use it, if we're going to

face the facts that are there, we must understand what is happening, we

must understand where we're going. If we don't know where we're going,

we must start to prepare a program; we must prepare a chart and a

course.

Over the last number of years with the development.... It's not

only that it has eliminated jobs, but it has done something different.

Again, as Mr. Robideau states: "Employment might be affected." He says

"might." But then he goes on: "...that the outright elimination of

jobs or a slowdown in the rate of creation of jobs, and the potentially

widespread downgrading in job functions and of the skills required to

carry out such jobs...." This downgrading, Mr. Speaker, is often

referred to as de-skilling. This is not only going to affect people out

on the industrial jobs or in the factories, but is actually going to

affect lawyers; it is going to affect professional people; it is going

to affect doctors.

There have been certain reports, Mr. Speaker, that have been made in

the European countries which are trying to get a hold on what is taking

place, and I would like to quote from three of these particular

reports. There was the Simons report made in West Germany in 1978.

They predicted that the jobs

[ Page 4387 ]

of 40 percent of those employed in offices will be eliminated in the

next ten years — 40 percent of the people in the office industry, doing

the jobs they are doing now, will be eliminated in the next ten years.

In France, another report, Mr. Speaker, called the Nova report that

came out in 1977 reports that within ten years banks and insurance

companies will be employing 30 percent less personnel for basically the

same production. A third report I would like to quote from, Mr.

Speaker, is the Jenkins and Sherman report from Great Britain,

published in 1979, entitled "The Collapse of Work." They report that 42

to 44 percent of the United Kingdom's employees in the information

sector, such as TV, radio, telecommunication, clerical office and

personnel on newspapers, will not be required in their present jobs.

We all know that they say that the micro-electronic revolution will

affect the livelihood of British Columbians. But what we really have

not taken an effort to get on to, to get a hold on, is what's going to

happen, to understand what particular areas within this community are

going to be affected. I'd like to read another

section from Mr.

Robideau's report, where he states:

"They said a lot of the changes right now are coming

in office computers and equipment. It is easy to see how most jobs,

such as those of secretarial clerks and bank tellers, can be eliminated

with the introduction of micro-processors."

But what will this mean in human terms? This is what I say, Mr.

Speaker. We made the mistake in the first Industrial Revolution; we did

not understand, care or take an effort for the human terms of how it affected people. Mr. Robideau says:

"What will this mean in human terms? Due to the fact

that the largest percentage of workers employed in these areas are

women, it takes little to recognize that women stand to lose a great

deal from the introduction of the new micro-electronic technology."

Mr. Robideau goes on to say that.

I would also to like to go on and read another report, which says

that though it supports the fact that women will be one of the groups

that will suffer, the automation threat will affect other more,

technically developed people. I'd like to quote from the

Telecommunication Workers' Union publication called "The Transmitter."

I would like to read what they say regarding automation in the Bell

telephone company in New York:

"For most telephone workers, job security is the

crucial issue in the talks. A stepped-up program of computerization and

development of modular plug-in equipment is changing skills drastically

and threatening thousands of jobs. The computerization of clerical

departments has advanced so rapidly that the U.S. Department of Labour

warned last year that women, until recently a majority of the telephone

workers, were rapidly becoming grounded at AT&T due to automation

and sex segregation on the jobs."

It goes on further and says:

"In technical departments, computers are performing

many of the testing and analyzation formerly done by highly-skilled

crafts people. Disembodied computer voices are replacing human

operators. Thus far, automation has led to few layoffs, except during

the recession of 1974-75, but the various operating companies in the

Bell system have cut back drastically through attrition. In New York,

for example, 15,000 fewer employees are handling 50 percent more work

than they were in 1969."

Mr. Speaker, I think it's a problem that each one of us in this

House, who have been elected to give some leadership to this country,

must start to understand in human terms.

As I said, in the first Industrial Revolution, we didn't know. We

made no preparation and allowed companies to drift on and bring in

their new machines and throw people out onto the human slag heaps. But

we have been making studies in North America. I'd like to read a quote

from a study prepared by the United States Joint Economic Committee of

Congress, which indicates an increase of approximately 2 percent in the

overall mortality rates when there is an increase of 1 percent in the

unemployment figures.

"Deaths from cardio-vascular problems caused or

aggravated by stress and poor diet contribute significantly to this

increase. There is also a noticeable increase in homicides,

stress-related suicides and admission to prisons and hospitals. "

Mr. Speaker, we all have constituents. There are millions of people

working in this great land of ours. I say there will be millions of

people put out of work because of this technology. A recent study by

two Cambridge University economists contained information to the effect

that a continued rise in unemployment of one million people over a

five-year period could be the cause of 50,000 more deaths, over 60,000

cases of mental illness and 14,000 more prison sentences. Can we in

society accept and afford that social cost? Can we afford the loss of

fellow humans? Can we afford the cost of maintaining the mental

institutions because of the insecurity of the job industry that has

been created today by our industrial revolution that is taking place

around us? Can we afford the $14,000 for every million people that we

must maintain in jails? I say that if we are going to give any

leadership in this age, we must make the preparations that are needed

to plan for the future society. We must recognize that there will be

unemployment; we must recognize that there will be frustration; we must

recognize that as areas develop and technology comes in, we cannot

afford to have trained individuals thrown out on the street to take up

frustration and develop the hate, the worry, the drinking that we all

abhor. That will happen if we don't take some action.

It has been said that every person, within the next few years, will

be facing at least five or six job changes. If you are going to have a

workforce that is called on to move from one

section of an area to

another, there must be built into it a certain amount of security —

security which the throne speech mentions: "...to attain personal financial

security."

I am calling on this House and this government, Mr. Speaker. One of

the ways of making the workforce of this province far more portable

than it is, far more movable, far more innovative, far more

adaptable.... People cannot be allowed to feel that they are going

to be locked into a job for a pension, because it is not going to work.

I think this government, in conjunction with the federal government and

all other provinces of this country, must develop a fully integrated

portable pension. That portable pension must go from one job to

another, it must go from one industry to another. A person must have

the right to feel that financial security — the right to feel that he

has a

part in this land, that he has a responsibility not only to work

but to feel wanted.

I think this is an obligation that we as a society can afford to

give to each one of us in this country. If we don't — and I

[ Page 4388 ]

say this in all sincerity — we will have a very frustrated, bitter

workforce. That frustration will cost each and every one of us hundreds

and thousands and millions of dollars. A good example is the

demonstration that we had out in front of the Legislative Assembly on

our opening day, when 3,000 teachers from all parts of the province

came down here to demonstrate. It wasn't the half day that they left

school and came down here; that wasn't the frustration. It was the

frustration that developed within their own groups, within their

schools, within their families, that they talked about and that

motivated them over this period of time — the loss of teaching

abilities and the goodwill that we, the taxpayers and society, have

lost.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Another good example is in the area in which I am the critic —

communications. In that particular industry, the telephone company has

been going through long and bitter labour negotiations. That particular

group of employees has gone through every step that the trade union

legislation calls for. They brought down an industrial inquiry report,

commonly called the Peck report. For some unknown reason, the employees

accepted it; it was not the particular award that they wanted, but they

accepted it. But the company, an international multicorporation, would

not accept it. The part that bothers me is that this Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications failed to stand up, use his

good offices, meet with the union and the company, and give the

leadership that was needed to bring those two parties back together so

that they could be working today with a little more harmony.

What's happening? Because of the frustration of dealing with a

free-enterprise multicorporation the employees of that company in that

union produced a button. This button is blue and white — very

responsible colours — and all it says is "Crown Corporation Now," and

it has a telephone. It's just a small sign of frustration, an

expression of opinion.

Do you know what this private-enterprise multinational corporation

has ordered? They have ordered that any person found wearing this

button will be fired. Can you imagine that any company in this day and

age could run roughshod over the Bill of Rights brought in by John

Diefenbaker, which said you have the right of expression of opinion?

What would happen if one person wears a button to indicate that he

wants to have a Crown corporation now? That right has been denied.

Not one person from the government side has stood up and said that

was a trampling of rights of British Columbians. This government should

be leading the way. Every one of us should be standing up in disgust.

This is just one of the areas where this government has failed to give

leadership. We must have a portable pension so that people can move

around and work within the new, modern technology that is happening.

I also call on this government to set up a royal commission to study

the effects of what computerization is going to do to our industry and

what computer technology is going to do to our workforce. We must make

plans now, before we have a large

section of people unemployed.

MR. BRUMMET: Now we know how you're going to solve the

unemployment problem. You're going to appoint a judge and a royal

commission.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, here is a person who was a leader

in his community, a principal in a school, who knows that you must

study, who knows that there must be planning, who should be a leader to

the children in his area for whom he is going to help prepare a future,

and he sits there making insidious, snide remarks. I won't say it's

ignorance, because you may say that it's unparliamentary.

I'm saying a royal commission is needed to study it and face it.

Right now we're having royal inquiries into the crookedness and graft

of the Social Credit government. There is a difference between a royal

inquiry and a royal....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I must ask the hon. member, in

the parliamentary tradition, to withdraw the terms he just used.

MR. MITCHELL: I withdraw the remark, if it offended anyone. I

wanted to bring out that the inquiries that were made into the dirty

tricks have never been brought before this House. These reports are

what we're looking for. But this is the difference between a royal

inquiry and a royal commission. I say we must have a royal commission.

We must have a commission studying along the lines that have taken

place in Germany, France, the United States and Britain. And we must

start laying the plans down of what's going to happen in the future,

before we are back into the midst of the same Industrial Revolution of

history.

MR. RITCHIE: I too want to go on record as welcoming our

Speaker back to the chamber. I was hoping he would have been in the

chair, because I can recall being out yonder where he was too, and I

too believe it's great to be back anywhere, even here. I was going to

suggest that when I came down those stairs I had some chalk left over.

I just want to say, very briefly.... I had a speech prepared

earlier, but because of the amendment I was cramped a little bit, and I

just want to finish that off so that a few things that are important to

myself and my constituency will be on the record.

I'm extremely excited about the things that are mentioned in the

throne speech. I'm excited about the recent development in rapid

transit; 65,000 more jobs created; 20,600 new companies, and the lowest

bankruptcy rate in Canada. This excites me immensely. But I have to

admit that the most refreshing day of any that I have spent in this

House since becoming a member was yesterday. I would suggest that all

of you, after listening to a speech like the one we have just heard,

just go back to Hansard for December 11 and read that. That will make

you realize that there is still hope in this province.

I didn't want to go into a great deal of detail in preparing a

speech because I don't want to speak too long. But what I did do was go

back to a speech that I made to students in an agricultural economics

class at the University of British Columbia in February 1979. I'm just

going to read the

summary. It's as follows:

"In summing up, I believe that the challenges, not

only in our own country but in foreign lands, are unlimited, because we

are a highly respected country. If we do our homework properly there is no reason why we cannot

succeed. But it is important to realize that success does not just

happen; it must be caused to

[ Page 4389 ]

happen. I have often been told: 'My, aren't you lucky. Look how your

business has succeeded.' And they are right. But it is also very

strange to note that the harder I work the luckier I get. I believe it

is important that you never underestimate your abilities, otherwise

your subconscious mind will hold you down. Whatever you think you are,

you are likely to become.

"Our industry offers unlimited opportunities to those

who feel at home in agriculture. People who appreciate good fellowship,

and above all can appreciate the challenge of change, because our

industry is constantly in a state of change.... That keeps it

exciting, but like most industries our opportunities are very seldom

labelled; you must get in there and dig. The harder you work the more

they appear, and the favourite disguise of opportunity is hard work.

Failure is really the path of least resistance. You should never look

at the obstacles, but rather look at the possibilities. I want to

assure all of you that those possibilities in our country and in our

province are many. If I should have a dream, it would be that some day

I'll see all the people of our province and all Canada so enthused,

happy and proud of their country and province that they will be

prepared to fly the Canadian flag in their little corner of this

province. "

I'd like to just say a few thank-yous. I'd like to say thank you to

our Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), who did a tremendous job in

my constituency. He spent a whole day there, and I can tell you that

the people out there — teachers, staff and students — are all very,

very pleased with the efforts of our minister.

I want to say thank you to our Minister of Transportation and

Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) for the tremendous cooperation he and his

staff have been giving us in that area. I'd like to say thank you to

our Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) on behalf of my constituents for

the tremendous effort he's putting out. In spite of all the negative

stuff we hear many people out there are thankful for the tremendous

service. We in the Central Fraser Valley are particularly thankful for

the recent major expansion taking place in MSA Hospital, and for the

commitment to extend the extended-care service beds by providing us with

100 extended-care beds.

I also want to say thank you to our Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Wolfe) on behalf of the Clearbrook Golden Age Society and on behalf of

the Abbotsford Old Age Pensioners Society for the assistance they

received in helping them to develop those facilities that they need so

badly and of which they are making so much use. Not only the old-age

citizens but the junior people, our youth and middle-aged people, are

all immensely enjoying those facilities.

I'd also like to say thank you to our Deputy Premier and Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) for the individual opportunity

program. We are very pleased and thankful for the assistance we are

getting from that ministry. I'd like to say too that the staff in my

area are super; their cooperation is just tremendous.

I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, and thank every minister for what

he or she is doing for my constituency; I won't do that, because I just

don't want to take up too much time. The collective effort is showing

up in my constituency; it's showing up in jobs; it's showing up in

everything. No matter where you look, you can feel the vibrance of what

is taking place as a result of the positive thinking here. As we talk

about what government should do, I've very quickly come to realize that

one of the great challenges for government is to try to determine that

middle line between the tax giver and the tax taker, All we ever hear

from that side is on behalf of the tax taker. Then, of course, you go

to that side and you say, well, now we have to sort out the needy from

the greedy. But I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the needy are

heard in my area in particular and throughout the province, and many

people are very thankful for it.

There is another item I'd like to speak about, and that is some of

the things that we need. I've now said thank you to those ministers. I

hope they're all listening somewhere and feeling good about me and are

now prepared to listen to what I need. I want to get this into the

record because it's important that, when I go back to my constituency,

I can stand up there and say: "Yes, I asked for this." They can't

argue because it will be in the record. We very badly need more

secondary industry. We're an agricultural area. I consider that we're

the bread-basket of British Columbia, and therefore we are in the best

position to accommodate secondary industry related to agricultural food

products. As I speak of that, Fraser Valley College at this moment is

bidding for a new program of veterinary medicine, which I have

supported very strongly. I understand there is other competition for

it, but I would like to go on record publicly as saying that that

program belongs in the Fraser Valley College, because that's where the

action is as far as agricultural activities are concerned.

Another item we need out there is an accelerated bypass

road-building program, because our community is growing so rapidly. I

believe I mentioned earlier that from January to October of this year

somewhere around 700 families — I hope my figure is correct — have

moved into my constituency, not only from other parts of this province

but also from other parts of Canada. Our area is growing tremendously,

so great that you now decide to do your shopping during the week

because Saturdays and Friday nights — those busy times — you can hardly

move on the roads. We require an accelerated program to bypass our town

with bypass roads so that we can spread out that traffic and take away

the congestion from our downtown.

Then, of course, we have another program in mind that our Minister

of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) will be very interested in. I

know, Mr. Speaker, that as long as he can get hold of the funds

somewhere, he's going to make sure that this one is carried out.

This one has to do with something that is close to all of our

hearts, and that is land — agricultural land. Let me caution you to

keep your philosophical political nonsense out of this. We are only

interested in that true need — not just preserving land for the sake of

preserving land but rather to preserve our ability to feed ourselves

into the unforeseeable future. As I say that, Mr. Speaker, I would like

our Minister of Agriculture and Food to take note that we have

tremendous potential land available in the Matsqui prairies, which at

the moment is quite often under water. We need a draining program to

get these hundreds of acres of land recovered and into production.

We also have a problem that arises from time to time, and this one

affects our Ministry of Environment. It is also something that I think

gets mixed up in some of the regulations that are not, in my opinion,

always coordinated as they should be. It is to do with the

floodproofing regulations as they are laid down today. I recognize the

need

for stringent

[ Page 4390 ]

regulations applied to any residential, commercial or industrial

developments, but when you are talking about land that is locked into

the agricultural land reserve, it is something different. I am saying

that it is wrong to lay down a regulation that would demand that should

a farmer require an additional home for his farm labour, or should he

require replacement of his own home, he may find himself putting it up

on stilts, maybe 15 or 20 feet in the air. Mr. Speaker, I believe that

should there be a requirement to build a farmhouse within the

agricultural land reserve, the restrictions should be eased to allow

the local regulation to apply, with the condition that they do not come

back at some future date when there may be flooding taking place, and

say: "I need your help." That would not be fair; that would be wanting

your cake and eating it. I am saying that we should not be imposing

those hardships that really don't belong out there within the

agricultural land reserve.

Mr. Speaker, another area that needs help is the area of assisting

those with alcohol problems. I speak mainly of our King Haven alcohol

and drug centre. As you know, there was a fire there just recently that

almost totally eliminated the facilities. There is a great need not

only to replace that facility but to add new and modern ones. I am

asking our Minister of Health — I'm very happy to have him in the

House, but I know he was listening somewhere else — to take a very

close look at the need at King Haven because those people are providing

a tremendous service. Keep in mind too that a lot of it is volunteer

work. We need the assistance and encouragement of our Ministry of

Health to make sure that the facilities that have been burned will be

replaced and additional facilities will be made available as required.

That is my shopping list, Mr. Speaker, and I really welcome the

opportunity of putting it on the record.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, here we are about a half a million

dollars later, more or less, from the time when His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor came and told us why we were here.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You hollered for a session all fall.

MR. HOWARD: I am pleased that the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing tossed that query along here, saying: "I thought you wanted a

fall session." Let me get to that. I'll deal with it right now, if you

like; I might as well.

Yes, the NDP has persistently talked in terms of the necessity of

having a fall session of the Legislature. We have talked persistently

about the necessity — and I am sure you, Mr. Speaker, more than

anybody, will appreciate this — of having some orderliness to what we

are doing, some timetable, so that those of us who are members....

I am not saying that no one else is faced with this difficulty, and

probably to a lesser degree. But the gentlemen in the back row of the

Social Credit, who all applauded that statement — the members for

Kootenay and Peace River — and myself, from long distances, would

appreciate being able to predict within a certain time frame when it is

we might and might not be here. It doesn't matter to cabinet ministers,

who are here all the time anyway, doing relatively little. They've got

lots of time on their hands. In fact, they welcome the session of the

Legislature; it's an intrusion into their normally boring day.

Sure, the NDP has looked and hoped for a fall session. We have a

session now. I don't know that I would be one of those who would call

December 4 the fall of the year. The Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) seems to think it is, but then he's a bit out

of it on a lot of other things as well. Whenever the session is called,

it should be called to conduct some of the people's business, not just

to have a frothy throne speech debate, one resolution, a few items on

the order paper and an indication of "now it's time to go home again."

That's not a fall session. That's not a business session. That's just a

session to suit somebody in the Premier's office who called this thing

by way of a letter or something to somebody.

Yes, we have called for a session of the Legislature in the fall to

deal with the people's business, and we called for a session of the

Legislature in the spring to deal with the financial aspects of the

people's business and to get some orderliness as to what the

parliamentary timetable is. It wouldn't only suit the convenience of

MLAs, but it would certainly suit the convenience of the general

public, whom we are elected to serve. But that's not what we've got.

We've got a squandering of half a million dollars, more or less, to

bring everybody here and send them all home again, open up the

Legislature, provide a stock of food for the restaurant, which was

closed and is now apparently going to close again, and all of the other

costs involved in getting the Legislature ready to meet.

That's a squandering and wasting of roughly $500,000, all because

the Premier had some pipe dream that he thought he would be able to tie

in a constitutional resolution to a proposed closing of a parliamentary

committee in Ottawa. While he was off in Mexico for that ten-day trip,

he was out of touch with the realities of the situation, which were

that the NDP members in Ottawa on that committee and the Conservative

members of that committee in Ottawa were putting pressure upon the

federal government to extend the date of closure, and succeeded. If he

would have been paying attention to what was going on here at home, he

would have realized that he goofed in trying to tie his parliamentary

timetable for political purposes into somebody else's parliamentary

activities. However, that's the way the Premier operates things, and

that's why many cabinet ministers publicly said, "Gee, I didn't know

there was going to be a session," the day the Premier or his secretary

called it.

"What's it all about?" "I don't know." They found out afterwards,

just the same as the rest of us found out — by a news item. However,

we've got to ask ourselves why we are here.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) made a specific appointment

to examine hospitals in Terrace on December 8. He made the appointment

some time ago. We were looking forward to seeing him, and then he

suddenly discovered that the Premier told him he couldn't be there on

the 8th and had to be here, so he revised his schedule.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.)

You don't know how pleased I was, Mr. Speaker, when I found out that

I had to be here while the Minister of Health was supposedly going to

be in Terrace on December 8, because I am afraid of that wild man from

Kamloops, and I wasn't sure just what his apoplexy would do to the

situation if we were both in the same place.

AN HON. MEMBER: The wild socialist from Skeena.

[ Page 4391 ]

MR. HOWARD: Listen to all the chattering that's going on over

there, Mr. Speaker. Obviously they don't like the truth, and the only

way they can respond to it is by nattering away from their seats,

spinning around in their chairs and, with gravelly voices, making

catcalls. I don't mind. This is the Christmas spirit we're into now,

and if it's done in that spirit I accept it and I'll gladly return it.

I'm sure no one will be offended by it.

Speaking of returning something, I'll tell you how interested I was

in listening to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) making his maiden

speech in this House. The member for Omineca wrote an

article to his

hometown papers last year, April 30, and he talked about the session of

Parliament, etc., etc.... I'm not going to read the whole thing,

because a lot of it is froth and foam and not germane to what's taking

place here, but here's one of the things he said. There are two

paragraphs, and one of them says: "Here we see an opposition doing

certain things...." Okay, that's fine, whatever that was. That's

editorializing on his part. I don't mind that, but he spoke about his

own government. Here is what the member for Omineca said last year, as

for his reason for not saying anything. He says: "The government, on

the other hand, cautious because of the polarity of the vote in the

province and as well because of numbers in the Legislature, is unable

to make bold decisions or take strong action." What else has changed?

Nothing. The same commentary could come forward now.

He said further: "I'm wasting my time and your money in absolutely

useless and pointless debate...." We certainly heard that from the member

today; he certainly knew what he was going to say at the opening of

this session — useless and pointless debate, etc. "...with an

opposition set only on bringing down the government." Not only, Mr.

Speaker, are we set upon bringing down the government. Yes, the general

public in this province need an opportunity to get rid of this group

over there, but that's not the only thing we're concerned about.

Then he went on quoting the minister and he said.... Anyhow, wasting his time in absolutely pointless debate is not

what he considers to be the way to attain the goal. I really enjoyed

the member.

We could have been doing some things at this part of the session, if

we only had a government, Mr. Speaker, that was conscious and desirous

of doing those things. We tried that on opening day, as you remember.

The Premier stood up in this House and said: "No, I do not want to be

involved in any way in fair election practices, because I don't want a

fair election practices committee." The Premier also said: "Ho, ho, I

turn my back on my child, B.C. Resources Investment Corporation; I

abandon that as an orphan; I wash my hands of anything; I don't want to

touch it. Let the board of directors of B.C. Resources Investment

Corporation" — you know, the ones who the Premier hand-picked —

"mismanage B.C. Resources Investment Corporation. Let them play their

games of insider activities, let them reap the profits. I don't want

anything to do with that, and we certainly don't want a parliamentary

committee examining that situation; we don't want to know what Kaiser

and BCRIC and Helliwell and the rest of those predators are doing." We

could have been doing that.

The Premier also said he wasn't the least bit interested in having a

parliamentary examination as to what ICBC is doing to the people in

this province. We could have been looking at that situation, if we'd

only had a Premier who concerned himself with some of the important

subjects in this province.

Now, some things have happened outside of

the Legislature, Mr. Speaker. For instance, the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and, I think, the Minister of Lands,

Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) — I'm not sure.... In any

event, they went over to the lower mainland, went over to Vancouver,

and met with all of the representatives from the municipalities there,

had breakfast and made some very important, worthwhile announcements.

One of those announcements dealt with land assembly, dealt with making

serviced lots available to people in that area, because there was a

shortage of them. Oh, Mr. Speaker, how we would love it, how we would

enjoy it very much, if those same ministers would pay attention, say,

to my hometown of Terrace, where you can't get accommodation for love

nor money.

HON. MR. MAIR: You can for love.

MR. HOWARD: If you get accommodation for love, it's usually

of a short-term nature. It's not the kind of rental relationship that

we normally look to. Every day in the paper, every week....

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm going to live for love and money.

MR. HOWARD: Well, the Minister of Health says he can acquire

those things — whatever they are — for love and money. It's interesting

to note in that regard that there was a resolution at the recent Social

Credit convention that talked about the government living off the

avails of prostitution.

Every week in the paper in Terrace there are ads by people saying,

"Wanted, a place to rent," and no ads which offer places to rent.

There's a shortage. There's pressure and demand for housing greater

than exists in the lower mainland — maybe not numerically greater, but

certainly greater in its intensity and impact on human beings in that

area. I know there are more votes in the lower mainland; we know that

in the north. We know that we always have to be subservient to the

people in the lower mainland in our expectation of services. We've

known for years that we always have to play second fiddle to what goes

on with this government in paying attention to the people of this

province.

MR. KEMPF: Not so. I've got quite a few things for your

constituency.

MR. HOWARD: The member for Omineca may be satisfied with the

situation that in his constituency he's got the largest mileage of back

roads and gravel roads in the whole province. That may satisfy him, but

it doesn't satisfy me. I say we're just as entitled to attention and

service in Skeena as they are in Surrey, Mr. Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). The Minister of Municipal Affairs can

go over to Vancouver, or wherever he was, on a Saturday and say: "We've

got a great land-assembly program going on to supply housing." We have

a greater need in Terrace, for argument's sake, for that type of

attention than they do in the lower mainland. We could be doing

something of that nature.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Sit down, and I'll tell you what we're doing

in Terrace.

MR. HOWARD: I know what the Minister of Lands and Forests is

doing to Terrace.

[ Page 4392 ]

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Well, whatever his department is.... Those

gold-dust twins over there, it's hard to tell them apart. One's got

hold of the land, the other's got hold of the forests, and each is

terribly jealous of the other because they're intruding upon each

other's jurisdiction.

This session of the Legislature could have been dealing, at this

point in time, if the government so desired, with the position of our

native people in this province. Let's go back a bit. In 1867, and prior

thereto, when the discussions were taking place which were preliminary

to the enactment of the BNA Act in London, England, the native Indian

people were not counted as human beings by the parties that were at

that time talking about confederation — ignored completely; they didn't

exist. When this province entered Confederation in 1871, there was a

debate in the House of Commons about the terms of union, and about the

number of Members of Parliament and Senators that would be afforded to

this new province which was to enter, and the debate in the House of

Commons shows tip what MPs at that time were saying relating to the

population in the province. "Oh, yes, there are some Indian people

there, but they have never been counted as people or even numbers.

They are like the deer in the forest and the trees on the land. They

don't exist as human beings, and we don't count them." That's the sad

part of our history, that the original peoples of this land were not

considered when this constitution, the British North America Act, was

developed, or when British Columbia entered Confederation in 1871.

The resolution we dealt with yesterday ignored them completely, said

to the native people: "You don't count, you shouldn't be a part of

developing a constitutional structure that's going to affect you." It

wiped them out completely. I find that the best possible reason one

could have to have voted contrary to that motion yesterday. But in any

event, this is something we could have been doing in this part of the

session.

I don't want to go on at great length. [Applause.] That's the only

way to get applause from government benches — make some announcement

that you're going to sit down. Some of them even privately applaud

the Premier that way. They won't do it out in the open, but under the

desk they clap their hands and say: "Good, Bill, sit down, we've had

enough. "

There are a number of matters affecting one's constituency which

could be dealt with at this time in a wide-open throne speech, debate.

MR. KEMPF: Why don't you?

MR. HOWARD: To that person who broke his vow of silence and

who just finished his maiden speech, I find it more appropriate to

deal with those matters where I can get responses from ministers and

not just speak for the record, as the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf)

does. He speaks during the throne speech and says, "Oh, I raised my

constituents' problems," and then he shuts up for the rest of the

session. Read his

article of last year. Each person approaches things

the way he sees best to get results. We get results in Skeena because

we know how to go about it; we don't try to double-cross our friends,

as the member for Omineca did and got caught up short. You know, try to

be independent and then try to suckle up to the crowd that he belongs

to. We don't need to do that sort of thing to get attention in Skeena.

The estimates will be available to us at some time in the distant

future. That, to me, is an appropriate time to deal with subject

matters that more appropriately fit there. The Premier has participated

in squandering at least half a million dollars in this pre-Christmas

period, simply to deal with one resolution — as important as that

resolution is.

We had a speech from His Honour, which was a rehash of a lot of

other things. It made some pronouncements about hopes for the future,

but it was largely a pretty barren document. Since then, we've seen

government members, whether cabinet or backbenchers.... I've got to

congratulate them for it; they are trying to do what they think is the

way to go. They don't accomplish it very well, but they've been trying

desperately to put some flesh on an arid, lifeless skeleton, otherwise

called the Speech from the Throne. Because it's arid, lifeless,

insipid, and barren of any real projections of what we hope to

accomplish in this coming year, we have no choice but to vote against

it.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, we're in the final moments of

the first throne speech debate in almost half a century to take place

before Christmas. It's in the spirit of charity and goodwill that we

wind up and try to compare and contrast a little bit the positions

taken by the government and the opposition during what in the British

parliamentary system is the key debate of the whole of the legislative

session. It's the tradition of grievance before supply. Those who have

opinions to express about the manner in which government is being

conducted, who have particular wishes for their constituencies, and who

have a grander plan for their province and the people they represent

will have that opportunity to make their case and to indicate quite

clearly to the citizens they represent exactly how and why they would

put on a superior performance if they were given the range of

responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and all members of this House to consider

carefully the programs presented by the opposition. They have had the

golden opportunity to lay before the public of British Columbia, with

precision and clarity, the program they would take to the people of the

province. They have had an opportunity to dissect the shortcomings of

the government, and as never before they have had a grand opportunity

to see beyond the horizon, and lay before the public of Canada their

vision of what this country should be.

I've listened and, perhaps like other British Columbians, I've

wondered about how a group that has been able to do no better in debate

than during this past week could possibly accept, without fear in their

hearts, the responsibility of managing the affairs of this province. Do

they have a vision of the future? No, Mr. Speaker; they have a vision

of the past. And like Scrooge, who realized the errors of his past

ways, they discovered that all of the crusades that were presented with

such brilliance in debate by their socialist predecessors, when put

into practice by that government, turned out to be a statue with feet

of clay, because all of those grand arguments turned out to be based

upon false premises.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, if there's one overriding

reason why the NDP, is unable to present to this House a program of

positive action — and has been unable to for five years — it's because

they know that the things they have stood for have proved to be

wrong in practice, and because their ideas are wrong in practice; They

have never gone back to their roots to build once more a set of

concepts to test in government; should, heaven forbid, that disaster

ever happen: They are bereft of ideas, debate and any vision

[ Page 4393 ]

for the future. So I say to the opposition: take this time until we

meet again to prepare a program for the people of British Columbia,

present it in this House and let your ideas stand the test of time and

be reviewed by the people of British Columbia. Don't ask for the reins

of power during an election campaign unless you have prepared

yourselves and put that preparation before the public of British

Columbia.

What about the Social Credit government, who the opposition claims

is so unfit to hold office? Once more we have been through the most

prosperous period in our history, and what we were able to tell the

public of British Columbia in a Christmas message is that things will

be even better next year, because of the government they have in power.

The government is far from perfect, but one thing is clear: it is not a

government that is afraid of criticism, runs with the wind or runs with

the polls; it's a government that sets wise policies. The public of

British Columbia will enjoy the benefits of those policies despite what

the media or the opposition may say or what the polls may say today.

Mr. Speaker, it is performance that counts. It is no accident that

British Columbia is the success story of Canada, of North America and

of the world. It comes from policies which are based upon soundness,

wisdom and truth, rather than upon seeking instant popularity. This is

the contrast between the government and the opposition. You don't have

to took to debate to find it, though; it can be found there. It is in

performance; it is in comparing what happened between 1972 and 1975 —

when the opposition was in power, with the same ideas that they have

now — and between 1975 and 1980, when this government has been in

power. I say to the public of British Columbia, compare and contrast,

and then you will see the reason for our prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, there need be no halls hired in British Columbia,

because the hall for debate, for ideas and for a judgment is this

legislative chamber of British Columbia. I call the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The motion is:

"That we, Her majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the

Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg

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

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

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Davidson

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 24

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House will, at

its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider the

supply to be granted to Her Majesty, and that this order have

precedence over all other business, except interim supply and

introduction of bills, until disposed of.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House will, at

its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider the ways

and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a

message from His Honour the Administrator.

MOTOR VEHICLE (ALL TERRAIN)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

Hon. Mr. Chabot presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle All Terrain Amendment

Act, 1981.

Bill 7 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move that the House at its rising do stand

adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after

consultation with the government, that the public interest requires

that the House shall meet. Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so

satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such

notice and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned

to that time.

MR. HOWARD: Under the guise of debate on the motion, might I

wonder aloud if the government House Leader could advise us when that

might be in general terms.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It is dealing with the public interest, but

I would say within the general vicinity of two months.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:10 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home

Page ]

Copyright

© 1981, 2001, 2011: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada