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)

MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4235 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling documents

Report re trading of securities of Kaiser Resources Co. and BCRIC.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4235

Oral Questions

Getz report into BCRIC trading. Mr. Macdonald –– 4235

ICBC rates. Mr. Ritchie –– 4236

Mr. Hall –– 4237

Ministerial Statement

Attempted counterfeiting of government bonds.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4237

Mr. Stupich –– 4238

Routine Proceedings

Speech from the Throne

Mr. King –– 4238

On the amendment

Mr. Cocke –– 4242

Mr. Ritchie –– 4246

Mr. Skelly –– 4249

Mr. Strachan –– 4253

Mr. Leggatt –– 4254

Mr. Davis –– 4258

MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In our gallery

this afternoon is the Ambassador for Lebanon, His Excellency Soleiman

Farah, accompanied by Mr. John Fayyod of Vancouver. I would like to ask

the House to welcome them, as did the member for Dewdney (Mr.

Mussallem) and I earlier today on behalf of the government.

MR. LAUK:

In the public galleries today are two distinguished visitors from

Vancouver, distinguished members of the New Democratic Party of British

Columbia, Mrs. Thelma Pankiw and Eileen Disteso. I ask the House to

welcome them here today.

MR. RITCHIE: I am indeed

proud to introduce my guest today. He is Jack Ritchie, a younger

brother of mine, and a small businessman from Victoria. Would the House

please welcome Jack.

MR. SEGARTY: In the members'

gallery this afternoon are Mr. Stuart Laing, president of Crestbrook

Forest Industries, Mr. Clem Garside, vice-president, and Mr. Jim

Gormley, vice-president of the pulp division. I'd like everyone to

welcome them.

MR. COCKE: I'd like to introduce a

former member of this House — a very popular member — from Delta. Carl

Liden is in the gallery today accompanied by a group of friends.

Hon.

Mr. Nielsen tabled a report, by Mr. Leon Getz, to the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs of British Columbia and to the Ontario

Securities Commission of an investigation into various matters

including trading in the securities of Kaiser Resources Co. and B.C.

Resources Investment Corporation.

Oral Questions

GETZ REPORT INTO BCRIC TRADING

MR. MACDONALD:

I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs,

who has just filed a report. In view of what's in that report, which

has been released in Ontario as well, and what the minister and we know

about the transactions that have taken place, has the minister referred

this matter to the Attorney-General of the province of British Columbia

for possible prosecution under

section 112 of the Securities Act?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, that procedure will be followed through the superintendent of securities.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, the ball is now in the minister's hands. This business of

leaving it to the superintendent is not proper when the minister has

this report in his hands and when, under

section 26, he has all the

evidence and transcripts.

My second question is: with all that information at your disposal and in view

of the fact that unquestionably Kaiser Resources was bilked of many millions

of dollars, has the minister made a decision that civil action will be taken

also under

section 112 of the Securities Act to see that that company is recouped

of the insider profits that undoubtedly occurred?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, the procedures which are available to any ministry of the

government or through the Attorney-General's office or superintendent

of brokers will be followed in quite proper manner and procedure, and

the conclusions reached by the second member for Vancouver East may or

may not be correct. I'm sure he'll be somewhat enlightened when he has

the opportunity of reading that report.

MR. MACDONALD: I think we're well aware of what's gone on in this case, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask the Premier a question. In view of the fact that in the July issue of B.C. Business

it was reported that Helliwell, then president of BCRIC, used to come

to Victoria and pass his plans regarding BCRIC investments before the

Premier for his approval or disapproval, I ask the Premier whether he

knew and approved of the BCRIC proposal to take over Kaiser Resources

and, if so, when that occurred.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr.

Speaker, first of all, the responsible management of all major

corporations in British Columbia share their plans, particularly

concerning major developments in the province, to see if they are

contrary to public policy of the government. Not once has the

government involved itself in comment or in investigating the financial

aspects related to the firm itself. But as a matter of policy, I must

advise that I knew that BCRIC was interested in taking control of

Kaiser, because that information was given to me on a confidential

basis.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not privy to the financial

arrangements, but I wanted to say that I told them that it wasn't

against the public policy of this government to see patriation of

ownership into the hands of Canadians and British Columbians.

MR. MACDONALD:

Supplementary question; perhaps in answering this the Premier would

tell us when he knew of these plans. I would like to ask him

specifically whether he knows that BCRIC was proposing to pay $55 for

Kaiser shares, which at the end of 1979 had never been above $23.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I don't involve myself in what would be the private

financial transactions of the company any more than I would comment

financially on the proposed takeover of ITT Rayonier by three B.C.

forest companies, in which the same type of meeting and information was

given to me. It is not up to me to be their financial consultant,

although I see some politicians are putting their own record of

financial management on the line by acting publicly as financial

consultants to the people of British Columbia — some of the poor little

shareholders who might listen to them, thinking that they had a record

of personal success behind them. I think they have been badly served,

Mr. Speaker,

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I don't know

how well the BCRIC shareholders have been served by having their stock

at $6 after paying an exorbitant price for Kaiser

[ Page 4236 ]

Resources.

Did the Premier not try, at these interviews with Mr. Helliwell about

this takeover, to discuss price and also to warn him that insiders who

had had a scam already in Kaiser Resources in 1969 would not repeat the

performance? Why didn't you protect the public interests, or did you?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, the second member for Vancouver East obviously would think

that the only time BCRIC talked to me they talked about Kaiser. They

talked about a number of things on public policy in British Columbia.

Most of the discussions were in other areas. In only one discussion

that I can remember, the most recent one — and long after that

interview that the second member for Vancouver East refers to — was the

question raised of public policy of the purchase of Kaiser. As I say,

it is not against public policy to have ownership of resource companies

operating in B.C. in the hands of British Columbians, but other people,

perhaps more skilful, will have to advise the shareholders of any

company, and their directors, on the viability of the purchase.

Certainly you can start second-guessing from day one. Perhaps three

years from now when a member talks about the price of shares, it might

be a matter for discussion. I am certain that it is the long term which

all these companies look at.

As far as the matter in the

line of questioning today, Mr. Speaker, and the question of the report

on the trading of shares, I want to say that I was pleased to see the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) file the

report in the House, because I can remember being in the opposition

questioning the trading of shares in Columbia Cellulose when it was

turned into CanCel. That second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald), who was then Attorney-General, would not table the report

and asked us to take his word for it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Would all members please take their seats for just a moment.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER: Now the second member for Vancouver East has a question?

MR. MACDONALD: This is relevant; that exchange was not, Mr. Speaker. I hope you noticed that, because the Premier's answer was not responsive.

haven't gathered whether the Premier really didn't know about the price

or if he made any suggestions to Helliwell. I'm asking the Premier if

he travelled at any time on a private jet of the Kaiser Resources Co.?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I would hate the implication of that question. I didn't to my

knowledge, unless it was leased during an election campaign. I had no

way of knowing who owned the aircraft that were leased by the party

during an election campaign and so, Mr. Speaker, that could be the only

possibility, to my knowledge, on an individual basis. As government,

and for the government, I have always used the government aircraft; as

a private citizen I use public transport, and sometimes as government.

To my knowledge I haven't as an individual, although the possibility

exists that planes could have been leased during election campaigns by

the committee — the ownership never bothered me for those who were

leasing them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Other members are seeking the floor for questions.

MR. MACDONALD:

On a supplementary question, I'll be brief. Perhaps the Premier would

came back to the House with a full answer to that question, having

investigated whether or not he was on a plane that had been leased from

Kaiser by the party.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I

would think all members of this House should make public their flights

on any private plane. I invite all members to join me, the member from

Prince Rupert as well.

MR. MACDONALD: Mentioning planes is kind of dangerous in this House. One guy lost altitude the last time it came up. [Laughter.]

just want to ask the Premier, since he knew about the transaction

before it occurred, if he was interviewed by Leon Getz or anybody on

his behalf?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I wasn't part of the financial discussion, and I was not interviewed because of that, I guess.

ICBC RATES

MR. RITCHIE:

I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Of course, like

many, I'm always concerned about dramatic increases in cost. The

question is concerning the recent increase in the insurance cost. Could

he tell us just what the percentage of administration costs is for ICBC

as it would apply in the private sector? Would he be able to tell us

here just what the percentage of administrative costs is in ICBC and

what it is in the private sector?

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

No, surprisingly enough, I just don't happen to have it. Maybe I'll try

to recall it from memory, and then I'll also file a report when I get

the details if the member is concerned about the actual specifics.

ICBC's approximate administrative cost is 17 percent; that I do know.

In regard to Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the government plans run, I

believe, between 20 and 22 percent administrative costs. So we have

made that comparison, and we come out very well with regard to

administrative expense. With regard to private insurance companies,

it's a little more difficult because they have both general insurance

and automobile insurance mixed. But in total administrative expense it

runs around 30 to 35 percent administrative costs for

[ Page

4237 ]

private insurance companies. In general terms I can

say that ICBC's administrative expense rates very high in comparison

with other insurance companies.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Thank you, Mr. Premier. Their record rates very high; their percentage

of administrative expense to total premium dollar is low.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister responsible for

ICBC. It's been a matter of record for many years that the

administrative costs in ICBC have been about 16 cents, the private

sector has been about 32 cents, and that's why we had ICBC formed. I'm

surprised the member for Central Fraser Valley doesn't read the

campaign literature as closely as he reads other things.

Can

the minister advise whether the cabinet sought independent actuarial

advice prior to approving the monstrous ICBC rate increases which have

recently been inflicted on British Columbian drivers?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, the rates and the actuarial calculations for premium

adjustment are carried out by the Insurance Corporation, the same as

they were in 1974-75. However, there was political interference at that

time, and that's why it suffered a $181 million loss.

MR. HALL: Is the minister telling us that the cabinet did not approve those increases?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Well, Mr. Speaker, the second member for Surrey knows full well that

under the legislation the cabinet approves the increase related to the

compulsory aspect of ICBC automobile insurance.

MR. HALL:

In that case, before the cabinet approved those increases — that the

minister has just admitted the cabinet made — did the cabinet seek any

independent actuarial advice?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr.

Speaker, in response to the question, no, we did not seek any

independent actuarial advice. But we didn't make any political decision

either. We looked at the information, and the information provided was

factual.

MR. HALL: Can the minister advise what type

of investigation the cabinet did launch, in view of the fact that the

corporation was 100 percent inaccurate in its estimate of the increase

in the cost of accidents last year?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Well, Mr. Speaker, the information it has provided to us in regard to

reviewing the compulsory aspect of the rate increases.... I'm not sure

where he gets "100 percent," because the compulsory aspect went up by

31 percent. In regard to the calculations that were made and presented

to the cabinet, they dealt with the statistical information provided by

the corporation and its staff. I'm assuming that the second member for

Surrey is now not attacking all the employees that work so hard to

provide insurance coverage for the drivers of this province.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Other

members are seeking the floor. We'll extend a further supplementary to

the second member for Surrey, and after that we will recognize the

member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty).

MR. HALL: Mr.

Speaker, can the minister advise whether the government is prepared to

order an appearance of ICBC before the Crown corporations committee to

address the insurance rate increases imposed recently, particularly as

the chief spokesman for ICBC pointed out that the corporation predicted

a 16 percent increase in the cost of accidents and there was a 32

percent increase in the cost of accidents, which is a 100 percent

inaccuracy?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I

smile at the second member for Surrey. He knows full well, as a former

director of ICBC, that the decisions made in setting premium rates for

the coming year are based on a number of assumptions based on

historical data. Let me give you some background.

In 1977,

in determining 1978 rates, the plan was put into effect and it worked

out to a 6 percent increase. In 1978-79, when we determined the 1979

rates, it worked out to an 8 percent increase. In 1979 the management

came to the board and the board endorsed an increase of 16 percent,

based on our historical data, assumptions about inflation, the

increased cost of automobiles, labour, paint and materials, etc. That's

going from 8 percent to 16 percent, looking to covering the costs for

He's quite correct, Mr. Speaker, that the percentage

increase was not 16 percent but 32 percent. The government doesn't set

premiums, nor does ICBC set the premium; it's the driving record of the

drivers of this province that sets the premium rates.

One

thing I can tell you: the mandate for ICBC is to break even, and not to

have drivers subsidized by non-drivers, and not to have political

interference by government. Premiums pay claims, and that's as simple

as it is. The good member for Surrey talks about the 100 percent

increase. He's quite correct. It went from 16 percent — what we

anticipated — to 32 percent. But we recognize that, and there won't be

any political interference by this government in the operations of

ICBC, Mr. Speaker.

ATTEMPTED COUNTERFEITING

OF GOVERNMENT BONDS

HON. MR. CURTIS: I have a brief

ministerial statement to make with respect to difficulties which were

discovered last month in the printing process of certain securities for

the province of British Columbia. First, I would express appreciation

for comments which have been made by members on both sides of the House

— for their concern, and their understanding of what has proven to be a

situation of some concern.

The province of British Columbia

is also indebted to the City of Victoria Police Department and to other

law enforcement officers who moved promptly and professionally in

determining that an attempted counterfeit operation had been underway

with respect to certain provincial securities. It must be emphasized

that exhaustive investigation, both internally and externally, has

produced no evidence of the theft or misuse of legitimate British

Columbia securities. What we

[ Page 4238 ]

have

encountered, I'm sure members will realize, is an attempted

counterfeiting, or, if you will, the production of bogus bonds or

portions thereof. Members will be pleased to know that there is no

indication whatsoever that the bond markets dealing in British Columbia

securities in Canada or the United States have responded negatively to

this particular situation — that word as recently as an hour and a half

ago.

While members of the Legislature are entitled to have

as much information as I can possibly provide on a subject such as

this, I remain, I believe understandably, reluctant to interfere in any

way with the judicial process or with any further police investigation

— if such is contemplated. I do not know if such is at this time.

However, all indications suggest that the materials and components

required for the production of counterfeit bonds or coupons were

incomplete, and therefore could not produce any credible documents.

assure the House that to the best of our knowledge there has been no

financial loss to the province of British Columbia or its agencies and,

further, that new security measures with respect to the printing of all

securities have been in place for some weeks.

MR. SPEAKER:

I would remind all hon. members that, while statements of a general

nature are admissible, we need to be very careful on this particular

matter because it is before the courts.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the minister's statement and are aware of

the danger of asking any questions at all. I think that at this time

the best thing we can say is that we will be awaiting further

developments, hoping that there aren't any further developments, and we

look forward to a discussion of the minister's estimates, by which time

we hope the whole story can be told.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, may I first of all welcome you, personally, back to good

health and to your esteemed place in this Legislature. I certainly join

with all of the other members in indicating our delight at having you

back with us.

Before I get into the main subject of debate

this afternoon, which is the throne speech debate, and the motion moved

by the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) relating to that speech, I

just want to comment briefly on revelations that have come before the

Legislature respecting the use of aircraft. I noticed that the Premier,

with respect to the use of aircraft, was very quick to point the finger

at someone else — as he is wont to do when he is questioned regarding

the specifics of his own conduct. He always points the finger at

someone else immediately, rather than dealing with the question — which

was put forward in an honest way — and revealing to the Legislature

precisely what he knows. That's what the Legislature is all about, so

that the executive branch of government can answer to this chamber and

its members, and through this chamber answer to the public of British

Columbia.

Before the Premier scurries out of the chamber, I

suggest that he surely must know whose plane he rented or borrowed

during the course of the election campaign. If indeed it was a rental

arrangement, what was the cost of the rent? Was it a nominal fee of $1,

or was he, like the tenants in greater Vancouver these days, subjected

to 60 percent and 70 percent rental increases?

They are

valid questions which I think the Premier should know and on which I

think the Premier should be prepared to divulge answers to the House,

rather than pointing the finger to other members when he comes under

questioning.

Really, the only substance in the throne speech

that I can find relates to a statement of principles which the

government has put forward, outlining the quality of life, basically,

that this government has committed itself to for the population of the

province of British Columbia. Of course, there is reference to a couple

of rather bewildering resolutions which were later placed on the order

paper — by a bewildered government, I might add. The lack of substance

of those resolutions is not for debate here, Mr. Speaker; that would be

quite out of order. But we look forward to having something to say

about them at the appropriate time.

This afternoon I would

like to address myself to the six objectives which the government has

identified, and examine how well they have conformed to those six

principles thus far. Before I do, though, with the kind indulgence of

the House, perhaps I might be allowed to comment on some of the remarks

put before the Legislature by the mover of the motion of acceptance,

the member for Dewdney.

The member for Dewdney went to great

and very unusual lengths to say how united the Social Credit caucus

really is. He praised the leadership of the Premier. Mr. Speaker,

that's a most unusual posture and most unusual behaviour for a Social

Credit member these days. At the time I thought of the old and

well-known phrase, "Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much," when

he was talking about the wonders and the cohesion of the leadership in

that fragmented coalition across the House. I wonder whether or not he

has talked to any of his colleagues lately. The adverse comments

regarding the lack of leadership in the government of the day does not

come from the opposition. It does not come from the media, which the

Premier likes to blame. I'll tell you who it comes from. I just want to

remind you.

During the last session of the Legislature, I

think it was the minister of science and technology and tunnels and

fixed links who came out with the observation that the Premier does not

sparkle in debate. He said that he doesn't sparkle in debate, and that

he wasn't very quick thinking on his feet. That is hardly a ringing

statement of support from one of the executive council members of his

own government. You will recall that the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) said that the Premier is really not open enough;

he said that he's rigid and not open enough, not flexible enough. A

third member of the executive council, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Mair), said that he'd have handled the dirty tricks much differently;

that he'd have bitten the bullet; that he would have handled them much

more effectively than the Premier of the province. They're hardly

statements of endorsation from his own cabinet.

The

gentleman Graham Roberts, who was a Social Credit candidate.... He was

a Social Credit appointment, I believe, to the Ferry Corporation in

this province. He slammed the Premier for the party's ills. I quote

from the Times-Colonist , October 2, 1980: "A former Social

Credit Party candidate and B.C. Ferries director has slammed Premier

Bennett for what he calls the bungles and scandals of his government."

That is not the opposition talking; that is not the media talking. That

comes from his own cabinet mem-

[ Page 4239 ]

bers.

It comes from people within the Social Credit Party. It comes indeed

from those who have carried the banner of Social Credit into the last

provincial election.

The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) —

he's in the House — said it's time the Premier pulled up his socks. He

said that perhaps he would consider joining yet another party if the

Premier did not pull up his socks and start to provide some leadership

in the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, here's the wire story

that I have in my hands. Maybe the member for Omineca would like to say

he's misquoted, although I saw him on television and he pretty well

confirmed it.

"An outspoken Social Credit

backbencher says his frustration with Premier Bill Bennett's government

has reached the point where he is considering other political

alternatives. Jack Kempf, MLA for the north central riding of Omineca,

admitted in an interview Friday that he would consider leaving the

party if things don't turn around for the troubled Social Credit

government. 'It's time Bennett pulled up his socks and ran the province

properly before it's too late,' he said."

Mr. Speaker, we

are going to be watching with great interest to see how resolute that

member for Omineca is in terms of fighting for the interests of his

constituents over the party dictatorship which tends to whip caucus

members into line when they start showing any vestige of independence

and principle. We're going to be watching very closely to see whether

or not that member from the north is man enough to stand up for his

principles where it counts, and that is in the voting in this

Legislature. We believe he will. We have great affection for that

member, who had the temerity to stand and be counted when it came to

the bungles and the shambles that this government is creating in the

province.

MR. LEA: Pull up your leotards, Jack.

MR. KING: I guess we will see by the voting pattern of the member whether indeed they are socks or leotards.

Mr.

Speaker, it's not just the executive members that I've named, or past

Social Credit candidates and backbenchers. None other than Les Keen,

the former president of the Social Credit Party, is sponsoring secret

meetings. No wonder the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie)

is starting to get uncomfortable; it was right in his constituency.

MR. BARRETT: He's less keen today, I'll tell you.

MR. KING: Les Keen is less keen about Social Credit today than he ever was.

and behold, Mr. Speaker, "Whistling" Bernie Smith said: "Well, it's not

very good manners not to invite me." They didn't even tell him that

there was a meeting to talk about this ineffective Social Credit

leadership. What kind of a shambles are they in? I don't blame them.

There

was another prominent person there, and I'll have you know he was the

only one who came to the defence of the Premier. He is a well-known

person who had something to do with aircraft and high-speed cars in

this province over the years. He is none other than the lovable former

cabinet minister and evangelist, Rev. Phil Gaglardi of Sandman fame. He

is lovable and he is loyal, because he defended the Premier. His was

the only Social Credit voice that was raised to defend the leadership

of the Premier in recent times. When he was questioned about his

leadership he said: "Oh, he's a nice boy." What a ringing defence of

the Premier's leadership qualities! Talk about being damned with faint

praise, Mr. Speaker.

That poor, lovable, elderly member for

Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) — wherever he may be — inherited the very

difficult task of trying to sell the proposition that we in this

province have a united governing party and a government that is

cohesive and knows where it's going. I would have thought they would

have given that job to someone like the member for Kootenay (Mr.

Segarty), who hasn't been around so long and might not have been aware

of just how difficult a selling job this was. On the other hand, maybe

it was appropriate that they gave it to the member for Dewdney. After

all, a guy that can make a million on selling cars might even be able

to sell that kind of ridiculous proposition.

Mr. Speaker,

what a shambles this province is in. When I look at the throne speech,

which contains absolutely nothing in terms of cohesive or dynamic

programs to deal with the current problems in the province of British

Columbia, I'm forced to ask: why did the Premier call this session of

the Legislature? I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker; why did the Premier's

secretary call it? I think the Premier was away at the time. Why did

the Premier's secretary call this session of the Legislature?

Certainly

there's no indication in the throne speech that this government has

gained control of the lurching ship. There's no indication that they

have any new programs, or initiatives, to come to grips with the

exorbitant interest rates, the exorbitant mortgage rates, that are

depriving young people, working people and people in the low income

bracket of any opportunity to afford a home or, indeed, rental

accommodation either.

I don't know why they called the session, Mr. Speaker, but I saw the Premier on Pacific Report

the other night, and I was struck by a number of things in the

interview. He was a highly nervous individual, as he displayed again in

the House today. Rather mysterious conduct on his part — when he's

asked questions about his leadership and his programs, what does he do?

He strikes out in a rather spiteful way at the Leader of the

Opposition. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has nothing

to do with the government's problems of today; those problems are of

its own making. Those problems come from the inside. They exude from

the very core of the Social Credit coalition.

The Premier

struck out at the media, saying: "Well, they're starting rumours about

Social Credit." And he implied that the opposition was starting rumours

about Social Credit. My God, Mr. Speaker, I don't think we could add

anything to the sorry, scandalous performance of this government over

the last 18 months, even if we were inclined to do so — and we're not.

We're elected by the people to try to bring some direction, some mature

discussion to the public affairs of this province. Quite frankly, I'm

sorry to see an intelligent discussion on those policy issues

sidetracked by the kind of sloppy, calamitous bungling that this

government has been convicted of by its own handling of affairs over

the last 18 months.

It's not just the Premier who is showing

a lack of leadership. It's not just the Premier who is under attack by

his own cabinet and his own followers. What we have in the province of

British Columbia today is really a government adrift, without any

cohesion and without any direction. Witness,

[ Page 4240 ]

Mr.

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

attacking his colleague the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair)

regarding the handling of the Surrey Memorial Hospital problem. He said

that those members of the board should have stuck to their principles,

implying clearly that his colleague the Minister of Health had induced

or coerced them to depart from their principles — clearly.

have the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt). You can't

mistake the minister; he's sitting right over there, Mr. Speaker. We

have him publicly knifing his colleague the Minister of Health. When

the Minister of Health suggested that the ICBC rates should be eased

for senior citizens, that Minister of Agriculture in charge of ICBC

said: "Well, the Minister of Health wasn't even at the cabinet meeting

where the decision was made to give the seniors some relief, nor did I

receive any request from him." It was a public display of two cabinet

ministers knifing each other.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, we

had the Premier of the province having to come out and publicly

dissociate himself from one of his cabinet ministers, namely the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), who gave

a speech in Vancouver to a group of insurance people from eastern

Canada. He gave a high-level speech on the constitution. He likened the

dispute between the east and west of this nation to a brawl between the

Toronto Maple Leafs and the Vancouver Canucks. That was his way of

elevating the intellectual debate that is taking place regarding the

destiny of our nation. That was his peculiar way of accomplishing that

purpose, as a minister of the Crown in the province of British

Columbia. The Premier of the province had to come out and say: "Well,

the minister was not speaking for the government of the province of

British Columbia."

Mr. Speaker, what is the public entitled to conclude from this kind of disarray,

from this kind of public disagreement by members of the governing party? I think,

and I suggest, that they are entitled to conclude that there is no direction

whatsoever, nor indeed is there any unanimity in terms of philosophical direction

or commitment within that coalition today. We have a government out of control;

we have a government in disarray. We have a government which are publicly catfighting

with each other on virtually every issue, and I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that we

can only conclude that that is the reason the throne speech introduced in this

Legislature is bereft of any dynamic policies to give direction and leadership

to the province of British Columbia. I say to the government, I say to the Premier:

why on earth don't you stop your catfighting and get down to giving some

sound and decisive leadership to the province of British Columbia?

The

lack of leadership of this government has embarrassed not only the

Social Credit Party and the public at large, but it has even gone so

far as to embarrass the opposition. And I have to appeal to them to do

something about it and try and get their act together and start giving

some leadership. They have embarrassed me, and that is very difficult

to do.

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech contains six

principles — the only positive thing in the throne speech. Well, there

is not very much in the throne speech to get around to. I do

congratulate the government, though, for the six principles which they

offer. I am going to read them out so that everyone will be aware of

them and have the opportunity to weigh the import of these principles

to which the government has committed itself.

"My government believes individual British Columbians have six basic aims in life:

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;

To have the freedom to lawfully pursue their individual lives

without undue interference from either the state or their fellow citizens."

These are pretty lofty ideals and I congratulate the government. It goes on to say:

"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."

Well, that's great; that's good news. I would

like to have a look, Mr. Speaker, at just how well this government has

conformed over the past 18 months of their current mandate to those six

principles which they have enunciated.

Their commitment to a

decent standard of health care: "the best possible health," it says.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I have some letters here from my constituents

relating to what might be expected as a reasonable standard of health

care. I have one from the vice-president of the Shuswap Teachers'

Association outlining their concern and their objection to the

elimination of the dental hygiene education program in all of the

schools situated in the Shuswap-Revelstoke riding. I have a letter from

the members of the Revelstoke School Board, a letter from the special

programs branch of the Salmon Arm School Board, a letter from the

chairman of the Salmon Arm School Board, a letter from Dr. Maxwell

Smart, the public health officer in that region, and a letter from

South Canoe teachers, all protesting the elimination of a dental

hygiene program in the school system in that area, which had been

eliminated for lack of funding last fall.

Mr. Speaker, we in

the interior rather resent the cutting back of those kinds of

fundamental services at one and the same time that this government is

proposing to spend billions of dollars on such pipe dreams as fixed

link crossings to Vancouver Island. A lot of pressure was put on the

Minister of Health. I wrote to him, as did literally dozens of people

from my riding, and on November 17, 1980, the Premier — maybe that's a

Freudian slip; maybe it's the man who would like to be Premier but is

still Minister of Health — finally wrote back to me and said: "I am

delighted to inform you that the freeze on hiring of dental hygienists,

which resulted in the dental health education program being suspended

in the Revelstoke and Salmon Arm school district, has been lifted. "

MR. BARRETT: He said there was no freeze.

MR. KING:

That's right, they said there was no freeze on hiring. But here the

minister admits it, after being pressured by the school boards, by the

teachers and by the citizens to re-establish that program, and finally

writes on November 17 and says: "I am delighted to inform you that the

freeze on hiring which resulted in the removal of the dental hygienist

program in Revelstoke and Salmon Arm has been lifted. Recruiting is now

proceeding and, like you, I will be very

[ Page 4241 ]

pleased to see the resumption of this preventive dental health program in the school districts."

Here

is another one which my colleague has passed to me. It's the same thing

up in my friend's riding of Skeena. This is a letter from the minister

to my colleague: "I wish to acknowledge with thanks your letter of

November 24, 1980, in which you query the vacant position of director

of the Terrace medical health centre. I am pleased to inform you that

this position has recently been exempted from the hiring freeze and

recruitment action may now commence." Well, we couldn't even gain

agreement, we couldn't even gain mutual acknowledgement by this

government, that there was indeed a freeze in effect which had

adversely affected the level of health care and other services at the

community level.

Mr. Speaker, in the city of Revelstoke a

lady who had returned from undergoing serious surgery in Kelowna

General Hospital attempted to obtain home care from the public health

branch in Revelstoke — that is, the attendance of a public health nurse

to attend to dressing changes and so on. That staff at the public

health office was so overworked — two people in attendance with the

whole area to cover — that she never even received acknowledgement of

her phone call for three days. When she finally did, she was advised

that there is no longer a home-care service in Revelstoke, not enough

staff. And here is a minister talking about six principles, the first

of which is adequate health care for all the people of the province of

British Columbia, at one and the same time that these programs are

being slashed by this bottom-line government.

Mr. Speaker,

people are waiting to gain entry to hospitals for elective surgery in

this province. It's two months in some cases for cancer patients and

many months of waiting for other people who are in serious need of

surgery. My friend who moved acceptance of the throne speech said in

this chamber last year that there was no shortage of beds, and because

there was a waiting list, it was all the doctors' fault. Do you

remember him saying that?

I have a letter here, Mr. Speaker.

This letter is a copy of one addressed to Mr. George Mussallem, MLA,

Victoria, B.C., over the signature of Robert J. Raine, M.D., of

Victoria, and it says:

"Dear Mr. Mussallem:

"In

the British Columbia Medical Journal of May 1980 you are quoted in an

article by Dr. Gordon Ritchie, the chairman of our public affairs

committee, to the effect that there was no shortage of beds in the

province, but rather that this was a false impression created by

doctors. Dr. Ritchie goes on to quote you: 'If the doctor is not ready

to operate he always says, 'I'll call you in when I get a bed.' It

doesn't mean that there is a shortage of beds, never did, there is no

shortage of beds'."

That was the member's statement, Mr. Speaker. I go on and I quote from Dr. Raine's letter:

"It

is hard to believe that even a politician can be so incredibly stupid.

I can assure you that there is a shortage of beds, and if you want to

find out, try to get into a hospital bed in Victoria without, of

course, twisting arms and using your political position as leverage to

get yourself in more quickly than the average Joe.

"In order for you to make such a stupid remark you

must either be incredibly ignorant or totally dishonest. I will give

you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are simply ignorant.

If you ever wonder why the Social Credit Party is in trouble in this

province, you might look at yourself in the mirror some day and see

some reason.

Yours sincerely,

Robert J. Raine, M.D."

Interjection.

MR. KING: "NDP," he says. Mr.

Speaker, every indictment of this government's lacklustre, clumsy,

bungling policy is brushed aside by the Premier and his followers as

either the opposition or some of their supporters out in the community.

I want to tell them, they're in for a big surprise, because dozens of

former Social Credit members are coming to me and saying, "Look, we're

through with them," and they're joining the New Democratic Party. If

you want to be oblivious to it, fine. You are the ones who will pay the

price.

Mr. Speaker, the mental health program in Revelstoke

has been curtailed. We had a psychiatrist who was able to come to

Revelstoke and service the school population and the community at

large. Due to lack of funding that service has now been cut back. We

are now afforded perhaps one or two days a week, if we are lucky, from

headquarters in Vernon — a service that is totally incapable of

servicing the vast area that extends all the way to Golden.

This

is their record in terms of health opportunities for people, and they

have the gall to state as a matter of principle in the throne speech

that they are dedicated to equality of health opportunity. Nonsense!

They have an awful long way to go, and there is nothing in the throne

speech to indicate that they even intend to relax their freeze on

fundings, so that some of these worthwhile programs can be

re-established, much less introduce any new programs.

Even-handed

justice is the second principle, Mr. Speaker. Even-handed justice! Can

anyone in this Legislature imagine a government having the crass,

colossal gall to even talk about even-handed justice in light of the

scandals of last year, when friends of Social Credit, in a whole chain

of cases, appeared to receive preferential treatment before the courts.

Even-handed justice indeed! The only bouquet I would throw to this

government is having such crass gall as to even raise that as a

principle of this administration. My God, it must take some kind of

perverted logic for a government to even proffer that as something they

are dedicated to. Man, oh, man!

Where is the next one?

Personal financial security — that's the other thing they are dedicated

to. Maybe there is more substance here to Social Credit's commitment to

financial security — for some people, Mr. Speaker: for David Helliwell,

for Edgar Kaiser, for the directors of BCRIC and the directors of

Kaiser, who apparently had the opportunity to benefit through insider

trading. What about the Olma brothers? Have you ever heard of them?

They seem to have the opportunity to flower and bloom in a personal

financial security sense. It seems to me they're the ones who were the

subject of some controversy regarding the issuance of a neighbourhood

pub licence. The fact that they were heavy contributors to the Social

Credit campaign fund was strictly coincidental, Mr. Speaker.

Just as coincidental is this headline in the Vancouver Sun

of Thursday, December 4, 1980: "Land Sold For Song Now Worth Millions."

Appraisers said that Hydro set prices far too low. The Olma brothers

once again have benefited in a massive way from a windfall granted

through purchase of

[ Page 4242 ]

Hydro land, which appreciated the value of their adjacent holdings — by the word of another appraiser — up to five times.

Mr.

Speaker, it's coincidental that Olma's brother-in-law was the appraiser

for Hydro. It is said that the brother-in-law stated his conflict of

interest and withdrew. Perhaps that is so. But the Olma brothers seem

to have done very, very well in any event, certainly much better than

anyone else who deals with Hydro, unless they have the benefit of some

influence, apparently.

Mr. Speaker, they say even-handed

opportunity for people to benefit and prosper, yes; but it certainly

helps if you know Social Credit or you're a party member or a

contributor of campaign funds. Jack Poole, David Helliwell, Edgar

Kaiser, the Olma brothers. What about the Wengers from Invermere? They

have the right to personal income security too, my friends. The

gravel-voiced minister from Columbia River can tell us how well the

Wengers have the right to financial security. Thank God for a Land

Commission that had the gall and principle to stand against the

colossal giveaway to friends of Social Credit that was engineered and

orchestrated by an agency of this government.

"To live in a healthy environment." Tell that, my friends, to the

people of Gambier Island. Tell it to the people of the Thompson River who have

been trying to get proper sewage treatment because their domestic supply of

water is being polluted while this government dishes out $850,000 for a sewage

treatment plant to a private corporation at Fairmont Hot Springs and municipalities

can't get the wherewithal and support from this government to come up with

proper municipal treatment plants. Tell that to the people in my friend's

riding where Amax of Canada and their tailings from the Kitsault molybdenum

mine are going to be dumped into Alice Arm without public hearings or any thought

and guarantee to protecting the public interest and the fisheries. "To

live in a healthy environment" indeed! This government has the colossal

gall to suggest that these are the principles that they embrace and hold dear

to their hearts.

I'm

just about out of time, Mr. Speaker. The right to enjoy equality of

opportunity and treatment is a sham and a mockery under this

government. The right to live without undue interference from the law

of the government is another sham when it suits this government and

their agency B.C. Hydro to flood out people, deprive them of their land

for their massive hydroelectric projects. The right of those

individuals to enjoy their own private life on their own private

property is subjugated to the will of this heavy-handed government.

They

fail on each one of the six principles they put forward. They fail on

any basis of the test of sound and cohesive administration. They fail

morally, socially and economically.

Mr. Speaker, in light of that, I am forced to move the following motion, seconded

by my friend and colleague the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke): that

the motion in reply to the opening speech of his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor

be amended by adding the words, "but this House regrets that the speech

from His Honour does not reflect the lack of public confidence in the leadership

of this government." I so move, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, first let me say that I also am happy to see you back in

the chair. I'm happy to see that you are well and wish you continued

health.

I know that there were many people in this House —

many people sitting on the other side of this House — who would only

too dearly have loved to get up and do what I'm doing now: that is,

seconding this motion of non-confidence in this government. How well

they know that this House does regret that the speech from His Honour

does not reflect the lack of public confidence in the leadership of

this government. Oh yes, they know in their heart of hearts. The member

for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) knows, and he's been saying it. The member for

Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), who moved the resolution, is the same member

that has been around criticizing this government with respect to their

ICBC policy particularly, because it offends many of the senior

citizens in his area. Further, it offends many of the safe drivers in

his area.

Because there is so much proof of the lack of

leadership, the bungling and the lack of priority in this government, I

must content myself to deal with only one area in this particular

regard. Incidentally, it's ironic that the government chose to place as

their first aim of their six basic aims the question of enjoying the

best possible health. A few days ago the Lieutenant-Governor sat in the

chair in which you now sit and said: "My government believes individual

British Columbians have six basic aims, and the first is to enjoy the

best possible health." I say that the government may have said that in

the throne speech, but what the Premier actually says is: "Let them eat

vitamins." That's what the Premier says. That's what the government

says. It's just another Marie Antoinette.

How can we take

this government seriously, when a statement acknowledges health-care

priority, yet they do so little about it? What are they doing to

relieve the crisis? They are saying: "Look at the astronomical sum that

we're spending on health care." Has anybody bothered to look at the

amount that has been moved over from Human Resources to health care in

terms of that budget? Massive sums. Millions of dollars. Human

Resources used to took after everyone who was significantly below the

poverty line — in rest homes, private hospitals. They don't have to any

more; we have a long-term care system. It's all been moved over to

Health. They moved homemaker service to Health, and so on. Therefore

it's a very good-looking budget from the standpoint of the increase.

MR. HOWARD: Do you mean they're padding the accounts?

MR. COCKE: Of course. By comparison.

What

the government did was to run a Gallup poll. That Gallup poll said —

taken in September — that 35 percent of Canadians worry about health

and health care; the next order of priority on that Gallup poll, 23 per

cent, worried about making ends meet. Having read that, what's more

sexy than to put in the throne speech that the government is also

concerned about health care. Let me say this: Mr. Devine — you may ask

who he is. People in the Okanagan know who he is, and I'm sure the

members from the Okanagan know who he is. Mr. Devine is the retiring

chairman of the Okanagan Similkameen Regional Hospital District. He was

ten years the chairman of that regional hospital district. What did he

say? He said: "Health standards are on the decline in B.C. For example,

the government said six years ago that it would

[ Page 4243 ]

cut

acute-care services but replace them with alternatives to institutional

care. They haven't delivered as promised. It may be sound financial

planning, but it's almost life-threatening." That is how they feel

about this health-care system which this government feels they should

put at the top of their list as a basic aim. They say one thing and

they do another.

The minister says that if we want better

health care we have to have higher taxes. He doesn't say that, however,

when it comes to B.C. Place — a billion dollars. He doesn't say that

when it comes to all the Socred monuments that we're looking at. But he

says that if we want better health care we have to pay higher taxes. He

didn't say a word about the UBC acute-care hospital, did he? I'm going

to give you a revelation today about that monument. For some time now

we've been suggesting that that was one big mistake. We said that it

was a monument.

First and foremost, the Premier obviously

made a promise to the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, which was: "If

you move over from the Liberals to us, you can get your heart's dearest

wish." That was the acute-care hospital out at UBC, that 270-bed

monument which will go down in history and will be dubbed McGeer's

folly. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about that hospital, which in many

respects is crawling with staff. Go over there and have a look at their

labs. There is no shortage of scanners for them. The Royal Columbian

has to go out and pass the hat to get a scanner because the government

will only put up a fraction of the money required, but there is no

problem out at UBC. It's first class for that monument. Expense is

absolutely no problem out there whatsoever.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you

about what's happening at UBC hospital. As I said, there's been no

money spared. The hospital is open. Oh, yes, they're going to say

surgery isn't started yet, but that's only a fraction of that hospital

to come and that will be opening up in January, I presume. Heaven alone

knows why it isn't. I don't think that they can get the staff out there

in terms of the medical doctors.

But let's look at the

utilization to date. In September they had an average of 11.9 patients

per day in that 270-bed hospital. The cost per day would be so

astronomical that nobody could even calculate it. The university is

going right out of their minds. As a matter of fact, the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) will be in

here with a bill removing that hospital from the university, because

they just can't hack it. They spent $1 million in pre-opening and

$800,000 on the grounds. This is that hospital.

They had

11.9 patients per day for the month of September. You see, Mr. Member,

what you do is divide the number of hospital days that are utilized by

the number of days in the month and it's very easy to come up with the

number of patients that they had on an average. That's what I've done

and I've got all the figures.

Secondly, in October they had

a massive increase. The kids are back in school and the students are

back to UBC. Let's not be too embarrassed — in the month of October

they raised it in that 270-bed hospital to an average of 22 patients

per day for the whole month. I am told that the majority come from the

family practice unit and the student body out at UBC. This is that

sophisticated multi-million-dollar hospital that we built on the

periphery of our health care system in order to satisfy the wants of

one individual in this House. Mr. Speaker, the payoff is beyond words.

also have out there a first-class intensive care unit. In the month of

September there was an average of 0.9 patients per day. In other words,

there was less than 1 patient per day in the intensive care unit. In

the month of October it was 0.77 patients per day in that hospital. The

only hospital that's being utilized — out there is extended care and

everybody knows why that is; you cannot get extended care beds in this

province. There are thousands on the waiting list at the present time.

believe that this government, putting before us this first minister....

Who can blame the poor old Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair)? What's

he got to say about it? The deal was made between the first minister

and the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey, the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications. What can he do about

anything, I suggest, under those circumstances?

Really and

truly, I say that the whole problem we have here is, as this resolution

points out, the lack of leadership. Scurry from one little problem to

another; let chaos reign; let chaos live in B.C. The government of

administrators — what hogwash! We have never seen such chaos in this

province. Even under the old coalition that were hammering away at each

other just like these people are, at least then there was some care

taken; not any longer.

Mr. Speaker, the present government

was the fortunate beneficiary of the NDP's programs, and do you know

what they have done? They've wrecked them as quickly as they can. Yes,

they have, Mr. Speaker.

Let me talk to you just for a moment

or two about understaffing. Think in terms of the emergency wards. Let

me quote a couple of words from an eminent physician in Vancouver. This

is a letter that was sent to the minister, with a copy to myself, and

he is talking about a Saturday morning at approximately 1:30.

"A very acutely psychotic patient, who had just arrived

from the north, walked out of the emergency ward shortly after finishing the

administrative registration. The hospital had been called, both by myself and

the physician in Dawson Creek, far in advance of the patient's arrival in

order to make proper arrangements for her care."

They're understaffed to the extent that that could happen. You go down

there any night of the week, Mr. Speaker, and you are going to find that.

set the wheels in motion for getting together a first-class emergency

facility down there; it should have been built two years ago but it's

not yet built and won't be opened up until this next summer. What's

going on? They talk about building for the future. They talk about

health as a priority, for heaven's sake.

A second patient the same day, at approximately 5:30 p.m....

telephoned the Vancouver police and advised them to make an emergency

house call to a severely depressed patient in order to prevent him from

killing himself, or someone else, with one of the three firearms which

he had in his possession. When they arrived they confiscated the

weapons and next were advised to transport him by ambulance to the

emergency department because they were unable to rouse him. At this

point I did not know whether he

[ Page 4244 ]

ingested an overdose of alcohol, medications, or both.

arrived at the emergency ward to find that the ambulance was parked in

front with the police and emergency members in attendance. The patient

had not been taken to the emergency ward. The attendants and police

informed me that the hospital, having no beds available, refused the

admission. I went inside to investigate and verify the report as given.

There was not one bed available, neither a quiet room, a corridor bed,

or any other. The emergency room was overflowing with attention.

"The

ambulance attendant and the police called other hospitals in Vancouver

to see if they could admit the patient, but all refused, presumably

because they, like the Vancouver General Hospital, could not

accommodate the patient."

How can this

government say that they are concerned over health care when this could

have been remedied by the prevention of going on with work that had

been started in the emergency field?

"After

failing to gain admission, I returned to the ambulance to make the

assessment of the patient's clinical status and the degree of probable

dangerousness. For 25 minutes the ambulance was turned into a

consultation room with the services of a team of police officers, an

ambulance and its attendants, who were needed elsewhere to deal with

other emergencies. It is estimated that at least 45 minutes elapsed

between the time the ambulance arrived at the hospital and the time of

departure following my examination of the patient."

How do you like them apples?

This,

Mr. Speaker, is the society in which we live, created by a lack of

priority in the very area that this government says they are most

concerned about, to the extent that they put it on the top of their

list. I think it is shocking. Read a Gallup poll and tell the world

what you think they want to hear, but it is not verified. Their actual

attitude is not home out.

Mr. Speaker, the waiting lists are

absolutely deplorable. We have an acute-care hospital system that is,

in my view, absolutely falling apart. In most major hospitals the

waiting period for elective surgery is two to five months, and one

reason is because long-term care patients are filling the acute-care

beds and there is nowhere else for them to go. Yet it is cheaper to

build those facilities. I have watched this government take credit for

building long-term care facilities. You know what they are doing? They

are going around opening the ones that we started.

Let's

deal with the waiting list for extended care. Their own central

registry reports that there are approximately 2,000 people on the

waiting list, with additional hundreds who have been offered a place,

but who are presently managing with other services or in other

facilities.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King)

spoke about the hiring freeze. I want to get into that in a few

minutes, but we know that they are still reporting problems all over

this province because of the hiring freeze on health care. If it were a

priority, would there have ever been a hiring freeze in this particular

area? No, Mr. Speaker.

To make matters worse, and to make

health care all the more inaccessible, what did they do this last

session of the Legislature? The minister came in and what did he

report? He reported that medicare rates were going from $5 to $7.50,

and then in 1980 up to $8.50, $21.25 for a family. The acute-care

hospital rate went up from the original $1 to $4, and now to $5.50 per

day. Ambulance care went from an original $5 to $15, and now to $19 for

the first 40 kilometres, plus 20 cents a kilometre, up to $125.

Extended care is going up from $6.50 to $8.50. What a priority! Mr.

Speaker, do they really care?

I believe that the whole

question should be answered during the debate of this resolution, this

amendment that talks about the leadership in this province, because

that's where it goes. It all goes back. The buck stops there. The buck

stops at that desk. We all know his lack of interest in what happens in

this place. We were surprised to be called back. We know we have to be

called back in March because he needs his estimates, but we were sure

surprised to be called back at this time of the year. We thought it

might be something like Saskatchewan. In Saskatchewan they call them in

in November for three weeks. But what do they do? They bring down all

the major legislation for the year. The MLAs then go home and have an

opportunity to discuss it with their constituents. There's no good

progressive leadership like that in this province. Not on your life.

"Come back here," the first minister says, "and I'm going to tell you

what a great guy I am." Nonsense!

Mr. Speaker, there is so

much to deal with in this whole question. But I want to just say this,

that the minister himself, in a press release, told us he had the

answer. I'm sure that was on the instructions of the first minister.

What did he say? He said: "I am going to establish a special task

force." He's going to establish a special task force to find out what's

gone wrong, and this is to review the problem of extended-care and

long-term care patients occupying acute-care beds. Why do you need a

task force? Phone up the hospitals. Find out how many there are. You

don't have to do that. He already knows. What's the task force going to

do? "I'm taking this action because it would appear that we are again

heading into real difficulties" — that's the most euphemistic statement

I've ever heard — "because of the number of extended-care and long-term

care patients occupying acute-care beds," said the minister. Why didn't

they create those beds? Why did they go into a long-term care program

with their heads in the sand, knowing full well that this in fact would

happen'? I'll tell you why they did, Mr. Speaker. Because it wasn't

really a priority.

What were the priorities? Well, we know

about one of them. Don't we all? Don't we remember that major priority

that we all saw? This was B.C.'s heroin program. Remember what I said

at the time, that it was money being poured down a rathole. That was a

priority. How many extended-care hospital beds could we have brought in

for the $15 million or $16 million that we've poured down the drain?

How many? Many. It costs about $10 million, or maybe $12 million now,

to bring on 300 beds of extended care. It's not the same cost that you

have in acute care. No, Mr. Speaker, we wasted it; we wasted it all.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: And the member across the way makes some inane remark.

AN HON. MEMBER: He said that McClelland blew it.

[ Page 4245 ]

MR. COCKE: Oh, I see. Well, that's not so inane, but I don't think that's really what he meant.

Mr.

Speaker, I had thought maybe I could go through some of these headlines

in terms of what's happening in the hospital system, but I'm going to

leave that to my colleagues in their own particular areas. I don't have

to say very much about the capital regional district, do I? There is

almost a headline a day about either the VGH or the Jubilee.

Mr.

Speaker, I would like to just discuss another program for a moment or

two. What do they call the emergency service — I'm talking now about

the ambulance service — is that part of the health-care system? I think

it's a very important part; I think it's a very important preventive

part, and I know that there are other members of this House who know

just how important it is. The minister was getting into a little

trouble. He was being told by the ambulance drivers' association that

they needed 250 more people to man the ambulances and they needed some

decent accommodation for the ambulance service. Well, the 250 members

were going to cost them something in the order of millions — naturally

they'll have to spend millions — but the accommodation was only going

to cost them thousands. So what did the minister opt for? He opted for

$500,000 and put out a majestic press release. He said that he was

going to spend $500,000 on improvements that will heighten the

reliability of the ministry's ambulance system during the coming winter

months. That's on locations.

Well, Mr. Speaker, ten of the

pits, as they're called lovingly by the ambulance people, are going to

be improved with this $500,000 — ten of the pits. In South Vancouver

they're getting a 27-foot Winnebago — what do you know about that! Mr.

Speaker, I believe that one big problem in this $500,000 area — not in

the manpower area — has been BCBC. The minister in charge of B.C.

Buildings Corporation should take note. Nobody can get that group

going, least of all the ambulance service. They can afford to get

involved in places like B.C. Place, but they can't afford to get

involved in providing decent shelter for ambulances.

One of

the ambulance kick-off points in New Westminster is the fourth floor of

the old nurses' residence at the Royal Columbian Hospital. The fourth

floor! Hey, you can get a good running start from the fourth floor of

the nurses' residence at the Royal Columbian Hospital, can't you? Won't

that give them lots of confidence out there that your ambulance service

is right ready for you! Nonsense! Mr. Speaker, the sum of $500,000 is

needed but they also need manpower, and they need it badly. They need

250 to 300 more ambulance attendants and what do we get? — $500,000

with headlines coming out our cars. Well, Mr. Speaker, they really

don't do that much for me, those headlines; I think it's pathetic.

noted, Mr. Speaker, that when the Premier was up north, he said that

there was a problem of health care up there and something had to be

done about remote health care. When he came back down — and I'll quote

him; I believe he was on Vancouver Island somewhere. Where was he? Port

Hardy. Jim Hume reports that the First Minister says: "Health care is

better than it was, but it's still an extremely serious problem in the

north," he said. "The smaller communities just can't hold professional

help, can't seem to be able to persuade doctors and dentists to stay.

It's a problem we have to address with some urgency, and it will now

become one of the cabinet's top priorities."

Well, Mr.

Speaker, I should congratulate him. He passed the word on to the

Minister of Health, and the Minister of Health came out and announced

that we're going to have a "medical corps." He hasn't told us what this

medical corps is going to do. I went to the doctors in this province at

the executive level, and I spoke to a number of them. And do you know

what? There was unanimity among them. What did they say? They said it's

a PR stunt. They said there's an easy answer to it. There are doctors

who want to get up there, that want to do the work. All they need is

somebody to provide them with some lodgings and transportation in and

out, and they're prepared. They'll give that kind of an undertaking any

day of the week. What do we get? A medical corps!

Well, Mr.

Butler's at work again, Mr. Speaker. I just suggest that we should also

take very seriously some of the complaints that are raised by the Union

of B.C. Indian Chiefs. They spoke at great length, and they gave a

great brief recently on this whole question. And who did they give it

to? Mr. Justice Emmett Hall. Anybody who hasn't got a copy of it should

just get a copy. Not only did they talk about some of the things that

could be done, but they talked about the fact that there is a major

lack of health care in that particular area. They talk about the

mortality. I'm not going to read it all out. Most of us know the infant

mortality that's enjoyed in that particular group, and the other areas

of mortality. I just suggest that we'd better get serious about it.

We'd better take it very seriously.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

go on, because after all, we're dealing with this first aim, this first

objective, and that is to assist in good health care. I say that the

Minister of Health obviously can't get through to the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), and the first minister isn't helping him

any, because I'm sure that if the Premier gave any kind of leadership

at all, he would not let the kind of thing happen that's happening now.

Mr. Speaker, the minister, in the Prince George Citizen , said in September:

"'We're having some problem with the freeze, but the cuts are

temporary. Budgetary cuts are almost over, however.' Mair said some 200 positions

remained frozen at that time." What are we getting now from Prince George?

What did we get just last Thursday? "Shortage of Inspectors Threatens Public

Health." Where? Prince George. It's ironic. "Staff shortages

in areas of the public health system, termed severe last August, have reached

a crisis point today." Is that complementary to what we're looking

at? No, Mr. Speaker, it is not. It shows that this first minister — this Premier

— is not giving the kind of leadership.... He probably doesn't talk

to his cabinet ministers, but if he did he's not listening.

the Comox-Strathcona district "the freeze was lifted in December, but

the implications of the freeze of hiring a long-term assessor in the

North Island area means that there's a backlog of cases." That backlog

was created from August 29 until now, and they only say the freeze is

lifted.

Langley city council, where the former Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) lived at one time — it's the riding he now

represents — what do they say? The exact same thing as they're saying

in Prince George. They're not getting help. The government putting

priority on health care!

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to deal

with this more, but I will deal with it later. On Friday we heard from

two government supporters, one who wouldn't think of embarrassing a

minister and another who would, but not in the House. And did that

great educator of our children over there — the member who seconded

that motion — mention the health

[ Page 4246 ]

problems

of youth? No, he didn't. I've got a file here on youth, and the fact

that they've been absolutely forgotten. There are adolescent psychotic

sociopaths out wandering around, and a government not knowing nor

caring.

Medicare needs help. The minister advertised for an

expert the other day. He needs one. What was that expert? He wanted an

expert to help the government employee relations bureau, and the expert

was to help in planning agreements with government governing salaries,

benefits and other conditions of employment in the Health ministry.

Everyone

is crying: homemaker societies, community resource centres, everyone. I

lay this challenge before the back bench, knowing that the government

members are locked in. I lay this challenge before the backbench. Those

people that are saying out loud that they are supporting this

government, but quietly, behind everyone's back, are saying that they

really don't, that they don't admire the leadership and have no

confidence in the leadership — I suggest to them to back this

resolution today, stand up in this House and play it square with their

constituents. Because if they don't, when they go home how can they

look their constituents straight in the eye and say: "I'm doing a job

for you?"

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: "No

problem," they say. If that's what they say, Mr. Speaker, let that be

on their head. They're going to find out at the next election whether

there's a problem or not. I totally endorse this resolution.

MR. RITCHIE:

What a performance! I wonder, Mr. Speaker, where that member was during

the last session. But I would say the performance of the two previous

speakers is exactly why their term of office was so short-lived.

get very, very concerned when I hear people criticizing our leadership

and government, but I've learned to get to know the member who spoke

last. I wish he would stay here. But he always seems to be so bitter;

always bitter, never smiles. I wonder why. But I can tell you that at

the last session he had an opportunity to talk about some of the things

that affect people in this province — some of the things that affect

their health and so forth. What did they do? They spent most of their

time on personal attacks and character assassinations.

Just

look at the record and see what amount of time was spent on those

things that really affect people out there. How about the time that was

spent on Human Resources — very, very little. You shushed your member

up. You said: "Don't waste your time. We want to keep up our personal

attacks, because that stuff doesn't work. We can't argue against those

successes at all. The only way we're going to win is to attack them

personally." You're now trying to do just that with our Premier. The

party which says not, not, not, negative, negative, negative, I

honestly cannot understand. The last speaker — the same old rehash, the

same thing over and over again. He never seems to get off the same

tune. I think it's about time that member would use a little

imagination and common sense. People are laughing at him out there.

People are fed up listening to all this negative nonsense — if I may

say, garbage — because they know that things are good out there. I talk

to them almost daily.

For any of you who have any concern

about the situation in the Central Fraser Valley, let me report that we

had a fund-raising meeting here a week or so ago — the 21st. It was a

sellout; in fact we ran out of seats. It was completely sold out,

standing room only. Also interesting to note is that the membership in

our constituency continues to grow. I think that is a reflection of our

leadership. We also have an excellent record as far as our renewals are

concerned. People are now saying they want to come in for more.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE:

That's right, more of that good stuff. How can anyone move such an

amendment, or even support it, when we're talking about a leader who,

in my opinion, has taken a position that we can all be very proud of,

as far as this province is concerned?

I'd like to touch a

little bit on those items that are mentioned in the throne speech.

Firstly, I want to speak about the question of a united Canada. I think

that it's fair to mention this, because it's another example of the

strong leadership we've got. I left the Old Country back in 1951. It's

a country that has suffered from depression and war, and has also

suffered from socialism. I came out here because I could see the great

opportunities. As far as I'm concerned, we're still very much in

support of a united Canada and very proud that our Premier has taken

this position.

The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) spoke

about the throne speech being a brief

summary of the past and an

indication of what we can expect in the future. I think that the six

basic aims of our government say the most of our leadership: (1) to

enjoy the best possible health — and we are enjoying the best possible

health. I will also say that we enjoy much better health programs here

than any other place in this world; (2) to be protected by an

even-handed and fair system of justice is something that we can be

proud of; (3) to attain personal financial security — everyone has that

equal opportunity; (4) to live in a healthy environment — a commitment

of our leader; (5) to enjoy equality of opportunity and treatment; and

finally, to have the freedom to lawfully pursue our individual lives

without undue interference from either the state or our fellow citizens.

think a remarkable record can be cited by our Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) under this leadership:

65,000 jobs created in the last 12 months — that's a real record;

20,600 new companies incorporated — another excellent record. I think

this is also showing up in my constituency, because we have had

approximately 700 new families move into my constituency between

January and October of this year. That's an example of the sort of

leadership we've got and the sort of government we've got. These people

are coming from other provinces. They like our leadership. We have all

of the resources to continue breaking these records.

I'd

like to interject a personal view here, which I know our leader will

listen to. If we're going to continue breaking these records, it's very

important that we be competitive, because being competitive is the key.

The secret lies in our ability to be competitive in national and

international markets. Of course, we know when we speak of being

competitive that productivity is the essential ingredient to its

success.

I often wonder how we go about this. I can't help

but go back and relate to what I myself did before getting into

politics and how I managed to get the competitive spirit of our people

into gear. That was done by making those employees part of the

operation and giving them an opportunity to earn beyond what is

normally expected for a day's pay.

[ Page 4247 ]

What

I'm speaking of is a program of profit-sharing by industry, maybe even

an employee equity-participation program that is going to give the

employee an opportunity to share in some of those benefits that go

beyond the weekly or monthly salary.

Under our leadership I

dream of the day when going to work will be much more meaningful for

the employee than simply packing a lunch bucket or even night and

morning punching a clock or negotiating wages and benefits. I believe

that if we would give the employee the opportunity to do the things

that others are able to do because of their financial muscle or their

ability to arrange it, then I think that we will see our productivity

improve immensely and will make us much more competitive in national

and international markets, and give us that great opportunity to expand

and develop our resources and the entire economy.

Why should

it be difficult for the average Joe to acquire shares in his company if

he so desires, especially if his company's shares are being offered on

the Toronto, Montreal or New York stock exchanges? I don't see why not.

It is possible, Mr. Speaker. Under our leadership, I'm sure it would

also be very simple. I hope that I can convince our people to look into

a program of this nature.

I know too that our Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development is fully committed to the

improvement, development and establishment of new businesses and I feel

quite free to be able to speak out on something that I doubt very much

any backbencher could if the NDP were on this side of House. I'd like

to say here that I would suggest to our minister responsible for that

area that before he gets committed to putting in any more funding for

any new programs, he take a look at the corporation capital tax and

hopefully give serious consideration to the removal of that tax as soon

as is possible. I think if we really want to help small business or any

business, then that's something that we should be looking at. I know if

the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) were here, he would be

applauding me because apparently he has also indicated that this is a

bad tax.

I'm very pleased to see, and I think I have had my

concern alleviated by, the remark in the throne speech indicating the

recognition of the rising value of homes which is going to affect our

property taxes. I'm very happy to see that that's going to be taken

under consideration. I'm also very happy to see that there's going to

be much more emphasis placed on helping the handicapped.

Who

can criticize our leader when we see the most remarkable record of our

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), who has shown such a dramatic

reduction in number of days lost due to strikes, etc? I would dearly

like to see those days converted to dollars, which is a real issue at

home and around the kitchen table. I very often wonder if possibly the

ultimate answer wouldn't be, as far as loss of time is concerned due to

strikes, etc., giving the vote to strike or not to the wives and

mothers of the families.

I'm also very pleased about the job

training program that is underway. I think this is a very, very sound

program and one that is going to be very, very valuable. I'd like to

tell you about a recent case where a young lady from my own

constituency — one of many to receive a letter from me when they

graduated — came into my office and said: "Mr. Ritchie, I had

difficulties at home and decided to leave a few months ago, but now

here in Victoria, away from home, I find myself having to support an

apartment and car and I can't find a decent job." I said: "What seems

to be the problem?" She said: "Well, each time I apply for a job they

tell me that I haven't got enough experience." Mr. Speaker, we can be

very proud of that program which is going to help many people,

particularly those young people like Maureen who come in to see me.

I'm

also very pleased that agriculture is going to receive a shot in the

arm, again under this leadership. I would say, too, that we have to go

further than the research facilities that are being planned for the

interior. I'd like to take this opportunity of going on record as

supporting a new concept, which would be the first in North America,

that the Western Agricultural Society has been working on here,

hopefully to be located in the Langley area. It would be a new-look

approach to demonstrating agriculture, and I hope that our minister

will take this seriously and do all that he can to assist that

organization and get that facility in place. Not only will it be a tool

that will build that bridge between agriculture and the consumer, but

it will also be an opportunity to provide some excellent on-field

training for many of our younger people. It would tie in very nicely

with the facilities that we have in other centres and tourism would

benefit from it. I would say the location that is being suggested is

ideal. So, Mr. Minister, I would hope that you will feel free to talk

to our leader and your cabinet colleagues and see if we can't get

something moving on that very exciting project that has been worked on

for quite some time.

There's also been some discussion

concerning the preservation of our farmland, and I would like very

briefly to touch on that, because this is also something very close to

my heart. I know that most people agree that we must preserve our

farmland, but there are a lot of people out there who don't agree with

the way we're doing it. I say that it is time we revamped the whole

program of preserving our agricultural land. I think that the day has

gone when we could talk about the preservation of parcels that were

two, three or four acres. We must start to recognize the parcel size by

the area, and make sure that we're not asking people — or telling

people — that they're locked into something that is economically

unsound and creates a hardship.

I would think too, Mr.

Speaker, that as we move into this area we have to also keep in mind

that there has been a great deal of political philosophy entering into

decisions, particularly by the opposition, when it comes to opposing

any move that is ever made in this respect. But it's about time that we

got down to some good common sense programming and views and actions on

this business of preserving our farmland and make sure that that land

we are identifying as being suitable for agricultural purposes is truly

suitable, and that it's not just based on philosophical, political

desires.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: I

think that maybe I'm going to get support from that member who just

spoke, because I understand that he has already gone on record as

supporting the removal of any land from the agricultural land reserve

provided it is necessary to do so. That was the second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), the fellow with the red vest.

Another

item I think we should be looking at, as far as the preservation of

agricultural land is concerned — and I think it would help to a great

extent in avoiding some of the discrepancies that take place — is

streamlining the office of

[ Page 4248 ]

the

Land Commission and very seriously considering a computer program in

there. That would make it much more accurate, much more convenient, and

much more efficient.

Also, Mr. Speaker — and I again refer

to the leader of our party — I'm very proud indeed that, as my

constituency rapidly becomes part of the bedroom of Vancouver....

I'm

really excited about the plans for a rapid transit system, and all of

the other benefits that are going to come with it. I think that's

something that we can all be very very excited about. I'm very pleased

indeed that at long last we have someone who has the backbone to say

it's time to get on with the job — we have wasted too much time with

studies, we've wasted too many tax dollars with studies; let's get on

with the job. I would suggest to our Minister of Transportation and

Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), if this has not already been thought about

— I would like to think many years ahead on what I have in mind here,

Mr. Speaker — that at each cloverleaf along the way throughout the

Fraser Valley, all the way east to Chilliwack, we make sure that we

have the land available to provide park-and-ride space. Some day I

would hope that this rapid transit system would move right out in that

direction. It's going to be needed.

Now I mentioned earlier,

Mr. Speaker, about how the opposition seemed to fail all during last

year to come up with any really constructive debate as to what we

should be doing. Oh, they know what we do wrong, or what we shouldn't

be doing, but I don't recall any really concrete discussion as to what

we should be doing. So, with that in mind, I have to give credit to the

B.C. Chamber of Commerce, who just recently invited them to a meeting,

because they have been successful in getting them to commit themselves

to what they would consider to be their platform.

Well, let

me go over a bit of this. Here we have the mining industry. The first

member for Vancouver Centre says: "We must tax profits." Well, why

don't we talk about taxing profits. Here's a quote, and this is by the

member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) on June 23, 1976. She was speaking about

our Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources at the time, the

Hon. Tom Waterland. She said:

"So what is he suggesting instead? 'Oh, we're going

to tax their profits,' he says. 'We're going to tax their profits.'

But the federal tax policies, as most people recognize in this country, are

generally designed to provide welfare for the undeserving. And if you look at

the various tax concessions, loopholes, escape routes and depletion allowances

that the companies have had over the years under the federal tax structure,

then you begin to question what kind of money the companies are going to pay

under the policies of this particular minister. So this business of taxing profits

is something that I am very skeptical about."

But, Madam Member, your member for Vancouver Centre says we are going to tax

profits. Your policy is changing.

Their

leadership is allowing this, Mr. Speaker, and I am really concerned as

to why they should take such a dim view of a leader who has had

policies that he has stuck to all the way through. Here we have one on

foreign investment. The member for Vancouver Centre said: "We must

create a climate of confidence for foreign investment." The economic

development strategy published by the NDP in 1979 says this about

foreign investment: "The NDP is committed to regaining control over key

sectors of the B.C. economy. Employers and employees alike should

demand to know whether their firms will be invited to join this key

club, and just how it will affect their lives."

Page 16 goes

on to say that "there are several ways that British Columbians can

regain control of their resource revenues from outside interests." Page

22, Mr. Speaker, says "an NDP government will regain B.C. control of

resource revenues by altering all royalty and stumpage charges and,

where necessary, setting up natural-resource marketing agencies to

collect a fair return from private firms for our natural resources."

We'll tax profits; we'll invite foreign investment.

Page 37 says:

"An

NDP government would require Crown corporations and private firms to

provide detailed estimates of their output and investment plans to a

provincial economic planning board. An NDP government would initiate a

program of industrial democracy" — listen to this — "to give labour and

the local community representatives a direct say in the operation of

all large firms. A specific form of industrial democracy will be

decided in consultation with labour and government."

What a policy!

Mr.

Speaker, I could go on but I get terribly upset as we listen to all

this chant about the leadership of a party and a government that has

brought this province into an economic condition that it has never

experienced before.

Talking about the ALR again here, Mr.

Speaker, the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) said on May 26,

1980 — and he was talking about a piece of land that had apparently

been removed: "The case was, and remains, simply this. You have to have

guts, the law and the weight of government to save farmland. Our

administration had the guts and the law, and when it was government it

did the job." Well, it seems that they've either lost the guts or

they've changed their policy, because the member for Vancouver East is

now saying that he would favour the removal of land from the

agricultural land reserve. At least, that's what he's telling the

chamber of commerce.

Interjections.

MR. RITCHIE: Well, it was behind closed doors, he thought, but that's what has been said, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: There was no Hansard , and that's not what I said at all.

MR. LEGGATT: Come on, give us the quote. Give us the citation.

MR. RITCHIE: Okay, I'll give you the quote.

Yes,

they agree with the removal of land from the agricultural land reserve

after full discussion, public discussion, if there is an identifiable

need. If there is an identifiable need, you will agree to remove it

from the land reserve. Is that correct? You can tell us when you have

your opportunity to speak.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. RITCHIE: Would you like to hear about a little NDP hanky-panky when it comes to dealing with the agricultural

[ Page 4249 ]

land

reserve? I can go into that for you too. I hope the public out there

are not going to be misled by the three-piece suits. I go back now to

general information that is not directly related to this particular

group but can be attributed to the NDP as a whole. I can't help but

remember their days of government when they promised the people of

British Columbia $25 auto insurance. Then you remember it was in

Saskatchewan many years ago when the NDP, I guess, in those days

promised the people of that province $2.50 shoes. How they got into the

tanning of hides to make those shoes.... People didn't get $2.50 shoes,

I can assure you. Of course, under their leadership, we also remember

quite vividly the involvement in the chicken and turkey business,

hatchery and processing plants — something similar to what happened

back in the early days of CCF in Saskatchewan when they got involved in

fish plants.

When we talk about democracy you'll recall

those days too when they came out with a piece of legislation that said

any company that refuses to go along with a decision of the Labour

Relations Board would be subject to takeover by government. And they

took over a box factory. It didn't take too long, but it was about

$350,000 later — in the red — that they closed it down. They didn't

protect the jobs of those workers, Mr. Speaker; they actually put them

right out of work. Under their leadership we also remember the Swan

Valley fiasco that cost British Columbia a great deal of

dollars-and-cents hardship.

Just speaking of NDP policies

and leadership, and comparing it, I've got another little note here

that I think really has to take the cake. This is one that happened

back in Saskatchewan a number of years ago. It can be found in this

book Douglas in Saskatchewan .

I thought it was rather interesting for those of you who haven't heard

it. This is talking about leadership and all of the things that carry

on underneath it. This is in reference to the Hon. C.M. Fines, who, it

says:

"...continued to grace the office of the

provincial treasurer for another seven years and then he stuffed his

bonds and bank books into the saddlebags of his Cadillac, and, like

Allore, left the province. Mr. Fines was a young and impecunious Regina

school teacher when he boarded the merry-go-round of political fortune

in 1944 and forthwith became provincial treasurer. He showed an

aptitude for handling money, and was not dismayed by large transactions

or steeply rising budgets presented in successive legislatures. His

personal affairs prospering sufficiently to permit early retirement and

travel abroad, Mr. Fines resigned his portfolio and his seat. He has

shown a partiality for tropical climes and if Saskatchewan and its

people's problems still concern him, it is not outwardly apparent. The

last report on his Farouk-like exile placed him in Jamaica where he is

supposed to be planning the construction of a multi-million dollar —

resort hotel. "

I think all of this says enough for the policies of the NDP and the leadership that they have had to offer.

There

are a number of things that I wanted to talk about that would concern

my own constituency, but because we're on an amendment here, I'm afraid

that wouldn't be proper, so I'll reserve that to another time.

But we are very thankful in my constituency for our leadership. We are thankful

too that we may speak up in public without reprisal under our leadership, and

thankful also that we can use our own judgment in extending courtesies to delegations

visiting our constituencies without fear of our Premier or leader issuing orders

to some party law enforcement team to administer disciplinary action.

In closing I just want to say that in spite of the little publicity that the Central Fraser Valley has had lately....

Certainly

you get the odd one that isn't entirely happy with everything, but

things are good there. Our leader is very, very popular. He's very

popular throughout this province, and I think the record speaks for

itself. Mr. Speaker, I'm opposed to this nuisance amendment.

MR. SKELLY:

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping to take this opportunity to congratulate our

returned Speaker for coming back to the Legislature in good health, but

possibly he can read it in Hansard . I'm very pleased to see you, Mr. Speaker, back as Deputy Speaker, in spite of what they say about you in North Delta.

But, Mr. Speaker, I stand to support this amendment. I do so

because, after reading through the throne speech a number of times, I

read about the six basic aims of British Columbians, and it looked to

me like the bill of rights that the Social Credit government had been

talking about in the last two or three throne speeches but which never

made it to the floor of this Legislature and which they have now kind

of relegated down to a short passage in the throne speech, in which

they say they are not the aims of the government of British Columbia or

a set of criteria against which they test legislation and their

administrative acts, but they attribute these aims to the citizens of

British Columbia.

In part, I suppose that's true; a lot of

citizens in British Columbia have those aims. To be protected by an

even-handed, fair system of justice is one; to live in a healthy

environment is another one; to enjoy the best possible health, Mr.

Speaker, is another one. But I suggest to you that in terms of the way

the Environment ministry is administered in this province and in terms

of the leadership of this government, those rights or those aims of

British Columbia's citizens are being thwarted time after time. To

suggest that these are the aims of B.C. citizens that this government

purports to support is a cruel hoax on the citizens of British

Columbia. This government has refused in environmental matters to

respect these aims on the part of citizens and, in fact, as I

suggested, has thwarted them time after time by denying citizens access

to legal process on environmental questions, and denying citizens the

right to effective input into environmental decisions which will affect

all citizens of British Columbia, their health and their ability to

survive in the environment of this province, and by the laxity of its

administration of environmental statutes and its enforcement of

environmental legislation, which laxity is directly traceable to the

minister and his office.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to

examine a number of cases which are currently of some concern to the

people in various regions of the province. I'd like to question the

government on the way it deals with people in terms of environmental

law and just what access the citizens of this province have to a fair

and even-handed system of justice in terms of environmental statutes. I

would ask the government this question first: if there was a person who

came to the government seeking employment as a printer of public

documents, and that person had a record of being a counterfeiter, would

the government hire that person to print public documents? That's a

good question that maybe the minister could deal with when he rises to

speak in this throne debate. But even further, if a

[ Page 4250 ]

person

who had a record of being a counterfeiter approached the provincial

government, would the government hire that person to monitor the office

of the legitimate printers? Would they put him there as a supervisor to

determine whether the documents that are being printed are correct and

legal documents as the government orders them? If the answer to those

questions is no, then I would ask why this government will continually

allow companies with a record of pollution control violations as long

as your arm in almost any jurisdiction in the world, including Canada,

permits to discharge pollutants into the environment, and furthermore

allow them to monitor their own permits and to report to the government

whether they're complying with those pollution control permits.

I'd

like to open the discussion by looking at the case of Amax of Canada

Ltd. I understand that the minister was meeting with the Project North

people in Victoria on the weekend, and he refused at that time to even

reconsider or examine the permit that's been granted to Amax of Canada

Ltd., a large American company with subsidiaries throughout the world,

including Canada, but a company that must file, on a regular basis,

reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States

on Form 10-K. Part of that report includes the legal procedures under

which they are presently involved in litigation.

Let's look

at the legal record of the Amax mining company and its subsidiary, Amax

of Canada Ltd. Three Indian tribes in the United States have lawsuits

against Amax, or are defendants in lawsuits initiated by Amax, which

company has attempted to either take lands on Indian reserves for

mining or for exploring, and the Indians have refused them access and

are now involved in litigation to keep them out of their lands and to

protect the Indian heritage. In the case of the Navajo tribe in

Arizona, they are suing Amax for negligence, wrongful death and

personal injury. The case is yet to be disposed of in the United

States, but this case is still being heard in one state. In addition,

there are a number of other environmental statutes in various

jurisdictions, under which orders have been issued to Amax for a breach

of statutes or a breach of regulations or a breach of permits or

conditions under permits, in which they have been fined.

We're

dealing with rights here, as suggested in the throne speech — the right

of British Columbians to enjoy a healthy environment. We're talking

about a company, now doing business in British Columbia, which was

granted a pollution control permit by the province of British Columbia

to poison the environment of Observatory Inlet in Alice Arm in the area

of the Nishga land claim. I'm suggesting that if somebody came to do

printing business in the province of British Columbia — say printing

government bonds — and had a record of counterfeiting, we'd send them

packing. But if a company comes to do business in the province of

British Columbia and is involved in natural-resource extraction and has

violated environmental statutes and conditions of permits, and has

violated Indian lands in the United States, then they're given the

benefit of the doubt and they're even given the right to monitor their

own pollution-control permits to determine whether or not they comply

and to submit reports to government on those permits.

The

state of Kentucky also has actions against the Amax mining corporation,

as has the United States government. There is case after case where

Amax has breached conditions of permit, and has breached the statutes

of those states and of the United States of America, yet we allow that

company to do business in this country, as if they had no criminal

record at all or no record of violating the law. The benefit should not

be given to the people who are violating the law — who are still in

violation of the law in some cases — in preference to the people who

have lived here for tens of thousands of years, about whom there's no

question as to the way they've managed the land and the resources. The

resources and the land were in a good condition to turn over to the

white people.

Look at how Amax received their permit in the

first place. Amax was required to do a certain number of studies, and

they hired consultants. The consultants submitted the studies. The

federal and provincial governments, I am advised, didn't do studies on

their own. They accepted the reports from Amax, a company which was

known to have violated pollution-control statutes, permits, etc.,

throughout the world. But they accepted the word of a convicted

corporation. They didn't even give the people in the area an adequate

opportunity to comment or to cross-examine the company at public

hearings. No opportunity was given to allow the people in the area who

would be directly affected by the disposal of tailings from that mine

to discuss the record of the company. In any criminal proceeding in

this country, if a person takes the stand and gives evidence, at least

the opposition has the right to cross-examine him and question his

credibility. But not in the case of Amax. The Indians, the Nishgas,

were denied a public hearing. They were not given a hearing.

spite of what the minister may have said to Project North, there is

still an opportunity to establish an inquiry into whether this company

should be allowed a tailings permit to dispose of tailings in the

ocean, or whether they should be required to dispose of tailings on

land in an acceptable way. Under the Public Inquiries Act the minister

could establish an inquiry similar to the uranium mining inquiry that

died an early death just a little while ago. What has the minister

done? He stands in defence of a subsidiary of an American mining

company against the Nishga people of this province, who have a

legitimate claim to that area, as it's the area of this province where

they obtain their food-fish and where they engage in commercial

fisheries. He stands in protection of the Amax mining company and

against those residents of this province and their resources.

did a tour of the province recently, Mr. Speaker, and the basis of the

tour was that we were looking into the Kemano II situation, or the

proposal to divert most of the waters of the Nechako River into the

Alcan reservoir and through to the Kemano powerhouse. Also, people in

the northern area of the province expressed some concern about the

diversion of the Skeena River system through the Kemano reservoir, and

through the Kemano powerhouse as well. In order to accommodate some

idea for the expansion that Alcan has announced to the people of the

province — although they're fairly vague on where this expansion in

smelter capacity is going to take place — every community of the north

made representations to the NDP caucus. We went there to find out their

opinions and to listen to their opinions, as the Social Credit

government, the Social Credit caucus, and even the single Social Credit

member for the area has yet to do. He hasn't taken the opportunity to

go and find out what their opinions are on this project and to take

their case to the Legislature in an attempt to either stop the project

or have it examined by an independent inquiry. The member for that area

has done nothing of the sort.

We heard opposition from all across the north. They

[ Page 4251 ]

don't

want the waters of the Skeena diverted into the Kemano reservoir. They

don't want the fisheries in the Nechako and the Skeena any further

damaged by the Nechako reservoir. They've seen the kind of damage that

Alcan has left behind in the existing Nechako reservoir, where the area

was flooded with no regard for the environment, where trees are still

left standing after the initial flooding for the present level of the

Kemano reservoir. The people simply don't want to see that again.

They've carried that message to their MLA in Omineca. We met with

people throughout Omineca, in Smithers, in Burns Lake, in Houston, in

Vanderhoof — citizens throughout the area who have sought

representation down here from their member of the Legislature, and he's

been silent. He's promised it. He's promised to come down to the the

Legislature and demand an end to the Kemano II project — or the Kemano

completion project, as they've renamed it in Social Credit newspeak.

Yet he hasn't said a word in the Legislature about that project, so the

New Democratic Party is forced to stand up and defend the citizens of

his riding from the actions of his own government.

Mr.

Speaker, there are options in the agreement between Alcan and the

provincial government. There are legal ways that that agreement can be

reopened to take advantage of the modern situation. We know a lot more

about the area than we did back in 1949-50 — the dying days of the

coalition government — when they rushed that agreement through and

rushed the legislation through in order to give Alcan virtual control

over a large percentage of the province.

Now the people of

that area are asking for a reconsideration, asking for an independent

inquiry into the impacts of the Kemano II proposal or the Kemano

completion proposal. Almost every municipality throughout the region

has made that demand. Every citizens' group of any standing throughout

the region has made that demand. The fishermen's union and fisheries'

groups in this province have made that demand. Even Alcan, when we

heard the submission of the Aluminum Company of Canada at Kitimat,

given by Brian Hemingway, now the vice-president for community affairs

for the company. Brian Hemingway committed his company to the fact that

they were willing to cooperate with an independent public inquiry, and

he did it in Kitimat in the form of a brief. He's willing to restate

that commitment.

The only people in this province who are

opposed to a public inquiry into the Kemano II or Kemano completion

project are now reduced down to the provincial government. Only the

provincial government is impeding a public inquiry into the impacts of

that project. Why are they doing that, Mr. Speaker? Do they want to

scuttle the member for Omineca?

MR. BRUMMET: So far you've got a public inquiry request for everything in this province.

MR. SKELLY:

Well, this is one government that requires a complete public inquiry

into all of its activities. You can't trust them. They've got hands in

every single pocket, and in some cases they allow their former

secretaries to stick hands in the taxpayer's pocket, and that's why you

require a public inquiry for almost every activity this government has

engaged in, Mr. Speaker. Are the members saying that because they have

so many public inquiries...? Most of them aren't public at all; most of

them are in-house inquiries to see if their members actually did engage

in the activities that they were purported to engage in. They are

hardly ever tabled, hardly ever reported, and when the minister answers

questions on them, hardly any of the answers are the same from one day

to the next. This is a government, Mr. Speaker, that requires a public

inquiry into almost every activity it engages in because it cannot be

trusted to administer the province honestly and legally.

the case of the Alcan project on Kemano II, this government should be

the first to ask for a public inquiry. After all, they are the

husbandmen of the resources of this province. They should be concerned

about the impact on wildlife. They should be concerned about the impact

on the forests of that area. They should be concerned about the impact

on the fisheries, and now the figures on fisheries losses are running

in the nine-figure bracket, Mr. Speaker.

This is a

government that is apparently concerned about the effect of federal

control over resources, yet they are prepared to allow a project, which

could possibly result in the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in

the fishing industry of this province, to proceed without a public

inquiry. All that the citizens of that area are asking for — not the

New Democratic Party, but the citizens of that area — all they are

asking their member for, is a public inquiry into the impact of the

Kemano II project or the Kemano completion project before it goes

ahead, Even the Aluminum Company of Canada, through its vice-president

of community affairs, has suggested that it would be willing to

cooperate in such an inquiry, yet the government refuses to go along

with it. It's a case where the proponent plus the people who are going

to suffer the impact would like an inquiry, and it is the government

that refuses to go along with it.

Why do they refuse, Mr.

Speaker? Is it because of the fact that they stand to gain about 600 or

700 megawatts of additional power to export through B.C. Hydro, through

the back door? Is that why they are not interested in calling a public

inquiry, so that when the project does go ahead they can blame it on

somebody like they blame everything on the federal government? Is that

the reason they refuse to call an inquiry? I call on the minister

today, Mr. Speaker, to stand up in this House and announce that a

public inquiry will be called into the Kemano II project.

For

two years we have called on the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who has

promised to come down to Victoria to seek a public inquiry into the

project, and he hasn't said a word.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: And he has never left Victoria.

MR. SKELLY: Up in Houston they say that he forgot to come back, like the people in North Delta.

are concerned that this government stands, to gain additional

hydroelectric power out of that Kemano project, to sacrifice the water

resources of the Skeena River and the Fraser River system, and to

sacrifice the wildlife and the forests of that area in order to blame

it on the aluminum Company of Canada, when they can't blame it on

anyone else such as the federal government.

Is that

leadership, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, when every time the government

turns around...? They talk about energy in their throne speech and how

their whole energy policy has collapsed because the federal government

imposed a tax on natural gas. The fact is, it was in a state of

collapse before the federal government imposed the tax, and it came as

a relief to the provincial minister and to the provincial Premier

because now they had somebody to blame it on. Is that the kind of

leadership that the member for

[ Page 4252 ]

Central

Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) talks about? When their policies are in a

state of collapse and along comes the federal government and imposes a

tax, then they can blame it all on the federal government.

Nothing

has been done in terms of energy in this province — absolutely nothing.

They were talking about a natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island.

They promised it two elections ago and they haven't delivered it yet.

They haven't held a public inquiry. They appointed a lady from

Simpson's-Sears; I don't doubt her ability to deal with the job, but

she doesn't have time, apparently, to deal with the natural gas

pipeline.

What's happening, Mr. Speaker? We hear that a

report has gone to cabinet which says that if the present natural gas

utilities on the mainland expand to natural gas conversions to

substitute for oil in their present market area, they will free enough

oil to ship to Vancouver Island at a subsidized rate so that oil would

be competitive with natural gas on the Island.

You may have

heard about this study, Mr. Speaker. Well, maybe not, because it was

submitted to cabinet. It was submitted to cabinet, and then they fired

the deputy minister.

But why hasn't any action taken place?

Why isn't there a move to expand the use of natural gas on the

mainland, where they already have the distribution systems, where they

already have the pipelines, where they don't have to go into hundreds

of millions of dollars in expansion? Why don't they do that right now

on the mainland of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker? Give everybody there

an opportunity to convert to natural gas, free enough oil, liberate

this province from dependency on oil, send a small percentage of that

oil to Vancouver Island at a reduced rate, competitive with natural

gas, and then you won't have to build a pipeline. Mr. Speaker, that is

oil already being used in British Columbia by people on the mainland.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Yet that report was buried by

the provincial cabinet, because it went against one of their policies,

to ship natural gas to Vancouver Island. I call on the minister, even

though he is not in the House, Mr. Speaker, to table that report in the

Legislature, give us all the facts so that we can deal with that issue

on the basis of the facts rather than what we hear from the government

occasionally.

The government's energy policy is in a total

state of collapse, and the kind of leadership we get from this

government is that they simply turn around and blame everything on the

federal natural-gas tax. It's a shame the way this government claims to

have bailed out the economy of the province. No leadership whatsoever.

Whenever they fail, which is most of the time, they blame Ottawa.

Mr.

Speaker, I cannot support the throne speech, and I intend to support

this amendment which questions the leadership of this government.

When

I look at the Ministry of Environment, Mr. Speaker, and the lack of

leadership in that ministry, and when I look at the throne speech and

it sets up the right of every citizen to enjoy a healthy environment;

when I look at the activities of that ministry in allowing corporations

with a record of environmental pollution as long as your arm; when I

look at the way that ministry is floundering in every one of its

dealings with other resource ministries; when I look at the promises we

see in the throne speech, Mr. Speaker.... In last year's throne speech

there was a promise that we were going to have a brand new Ministry of

Environment Act and that this was going to signal to the people of

British Columbia a whole new approach to the environment. All he did

was correct the spelling in the previous legislation. There was no new

approach. There was no new legislation. There was no