[ 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.

I 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.]

I 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 1980.

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.

I 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.

Lo 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.

We 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.

We 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.

I 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.

We 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....

"I 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.

"I 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.

We 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.

In 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.

I 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.

I 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.

In 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.

We 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.

In 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.

We 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 change in the administration of the ministry which would lead us to believe that there's a new opening and a new policy in the Ministry of Environment. It was going on in the same old flip-flop way, no leadership whatsoever and nothing coming out in statute law that would lead us to believe there is change.

Today the same thing appears in the throne speech. Now we are getting some t's crossed and some i's dotted in the Pollution Control Act, or at least that's the promise. We've learned that the promises made by this minister and promises made in the throne speech shouldn't really encourage us to expect very much, especially from this ministry, because nothing is ever delivered. In spite of the promises made last year, in spite of the promises made this year, when we look at that minister's approach, it is the same thing day after day, year after year.

What happened in Riley Creek when the minister allowed forest companies to log on slopes that were too steep, polluting the waters of that area? When private citizens attempted to lay charges, the Ministry of the Attorney-General stepped in and stayed proceedings, because the one thing they don't want to happen is that the forest companies be questioned on the way they log in this province. The resource extraction departments of this government are allowed full sway, and the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers), even when he wants to be an advocate for his resources, which isn't very often, is low man on the totem-pole every time. The minister was appointed for that reason.

What happened with the environment and land use secretariat? Was this part of the new approach in the ministry, a part of the new approach to the environment? The only agency we had in this government that had the facilities and personnel to examine environmental and resources conflicts in an integrative way applying all specialties, remote from the line departments, from the control of those ministers like the Minister of Lands and Gravel and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), remote from the control of those ministers who want to dispense with those resources — cut 'em down, dig'em out.... We had an integrative agency, one that could study environmental and resource conflicts independently, and the minister supposedly responsible for environment tore them out. We don't need them anymore. We have a new approach to the environment, and that's to let the Minister of Forests do anything he pleases, and to let the Minister of Lands and Gravel do anything he pleases, and to let the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. McClelland) do anything he pleases, and the Minister of Environment will be given a new semi-portfolio of distributing land to CPR. That's about what it amounts to, Mr. Speaker, and that's what we can expect from the Minister of Environment.

Why did he do away with the environment and land use secretariat? Why did he destroy the ability of the Environment and Land Use Committee to do independent studies and analyses of what other resource ministries were doing, or when resource ministries were in conflict, to do analyses of the conflicts and come up with a reasonable solution or compromise? The minister tore them out.

I think they embarrassed the previous minister. They produced a report which was critical of the way the ministry handled the Cheekye-Dunsmuir project. That's a good thing,

[ Page 4253 ]

that's a healthy thing, that's why we have an opposition in this House — to analyze and to criticize, so that the government can always be on its toes. Yet every opportunity this government has they criticize the existence of an opposition. They criticize the existence of an opposition because they would prefer to operate in the dark. They're arrogant and dictatorial. They lack leadership. Any government with leadership would be able to sustain that criticism. They would even absorb some of it, listen to some of it, and act on the basis of some of it. Yet this government refuses to act, refuses to listen.

Here's an example of the leadership of this government in terms of the environment. When the NDP was in office we set up working committees — standing committees of the Legislature — and at that time we had a forestry and fisheries committee which we renamed environment and resources. We called that committee and the members of that committee to work. We referred terms of reference to that committee, and they went around the province and examined some of these problems that were affecting the province of British Columbia. Social Credit members went along on some of those committee tours — even the one who said "payola" just a minute ago.

It's hard to remember back that far, Mr. Speaker; it's really hard to remember. I recall some of the most negative criticism any opposition has ever mounted against any government, absolutely baseless criticism. Yet to that opposition everything was considered fair ball; the end justified the means. They didn't talk about the issues. They wouldn't have mentioned Amax of Canada; that would have done away with some of their campaign funds. They wouldn't have mentioned Alcan or Kemano II; that might have threatened some of their campaign funds. They made things up: juveniles being kept in the Empress Hotel, horses on welfare, gravel pits in Windemere or wherever, payoffs to secretaries. We didn't have any of those during our term of office, but the payoffs that are coming out now would curl your hair.

In spite of that, this was the most negative party in opposition that this province has ever experienced in its history. And they talk about criticism! They talk about criticism because they can't stand it. They would like to insulate themselves from it. They'd like to be a government without opposition. They'd prefer not to listen at all to the public of this province and the people who represent them. They'd like to go on their single-minded way to convert this province into a totally paved British Columbia — back up all the rivers into reservoirs, sell all the power to the United States, grab all the minerals out of the land and poison the marine environment. That's the appearance this government gives to the people out there. They never listen to people, and they call that leadership.

As I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote against this throne speech. I support the amendment which suggests this government hasn't exercised any leadership at all. I pointed out a particular way, under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Environment, in which this government demonstrates its lack of leadership. I'd like to put this government, the people of this province, and the companies in this province who would pollute our environment on notice now that if the government of this province changes there will be an inquiry not only into Amax's marine tailings disposal but also into the way the permit was granted in the first place.

What happened in the dying days of the Liberal cabinet in 1979, when Iona Campagnola shepherded the one-of-a-kind regulations through the federal cabinet, allowing Amax of Canada Ltd. to exceed the effluent restrictions under the Fisheries Act? We'll look into that, Mr. Speaker. And why did the province go along with those regulations knowing it was a one-of-a-kind venture and that it violated the federal Fisheries Act effluent guidelines? What was the deal with Amax? Do they have aircraft to lease? How does that stand up to this government's recognition of the aims of citizens to live and enjoy a healthy environment? Now the minister says that there is no way he's going to reopen the Amax case, pull back on the permit or allow an inquiry into the permit. How does that square with their aim of an even-handed judicial system? Don't these citizens have any rights at all against an American corporation which has a record of environmental charges and convictions as long as your arm? Is that the kind of leadership we have in the province? Well, if it is I'm certainly going to vote against it.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that it's my pleasure as well to welcome you back to these hallowed halls, especially when I consider — as you've told me — the alternative. It's very nice to see you here, sir. I also extend my best to the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) on his election to the office of Deputy Speaker. I should also tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the members opposite have been most gracious; realizing, of course, that you missed the estimates debates of last session, they are doing them for you again just so you will be aware of what we said last session.

Needless to say, I am voting against the amendment that this House regrets that the speech from His Honour does not reflect the lack of public confidence in the leadership of this government. It's rather a kinky use of the double negative, but, hon. members opposite, I will tell you that you're absolutely right: the speech does not reflect the lack of public confidence in the leadership of this government. The reason it doesn't reflect that is that there is no lack of confidence in the leadership of this government. As we know, it's a reasoned amendment, and of course we recognize that this is becoming a standard ploy of the opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I would submit there is every confidence in our Premier, and that confidence is characterized by the tremendous support for our Premier that I've seen just lately in Prince George. In the past couple of months the Premier has visited Prince George twice. They've been most successful turnouts. As a matter of fact, I should point out that in numbers they were a little more supportive than the support shown for the NDP caucus when they were in Prince George. I watched the tremendous support that the people in my area and of the north central interior — Cariboo, Omineca, Prince George North, South Peace River, North Peace River — have shown for our party, our Premier and our leadership. I should point out that we're going to have some very interesting news about the state of support for our Premier in Vancouver during the next month,

Mr. Speaker, in my own riding just two weeks ago I witnessed thousands of people coming out to see the Premier, a very tremendous response, and I'm very, very happy, because we have a leader who has shown good leadership. He has shown leadership with respect to our provincial resources — how he serves this province, how he feels the provinces have the tremendous incentive to develop resources, resources that have allowed the provinces the right to fulfil the dreams of their citizens, to provide the people of

[ Page 4254 ]

the provinces with everything that is rightfully theirs. We stand with the Premier, who feels that the provinces have to be allowed to take part in shaping their own unique destinies.

Mr. Speaker, our leader speaks for the rights of all British Columbians. He speaks for the rights of many thousands of people who are directly employed in the resource industry. He speaks on behalf of the many thousands of people who are indirectly supported by the resource industry: the suppliers, the truckers, the teachers — all those people who are so dependent upon our B.C. resources. In retrospect every British Columbian must realize that our Premier has tremendous interest in maintaining a strong British Columbia resource economy.

I guess there are those who would abrogate their responsibility to British Columbia, and they would maybe feel that we should dash the dreams of our resource industry. For reasons unknown to me they would maybe advocate nationalizing our resource industry at the expense of British Columbians. But they demonstrate no concern for the many who would be unemployed: again, the drillers, the warehousemen, the truckers, the teachers. They demonstrate no concern for every man, woman and child who would suffer as our provincial resources dwindled. Our Premier speaks for the fact that our provincial resources must be kept strong and intact, and I hope that all of us assembled can realize the folly of resource nationalization and recognize that such theories cannot supplant real life.

MR. COCKE: Have you got a PetroCan credit card yet?

MR. STRACHAN. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for New Westminster has debated the estimates of the Ministry of Health and he speaks of public health inspectors in Prince George — and I will admit that we do need more public health inspectors in Prince George. However, inspectors are coming and I can assure you of that. Further, I note that the member for New Westminster did not mention a $6.7 million hospital addition to our already superb hospital in Prince George. In response to your question, Mr. Member, I have no problem looking my constituents in the eye with respect to the Ministry of Health and its programs.

We're heard about Human Resources and the resource boards. I should tell you, hon. members — and you, Mr. Speaker — that I've spent many years working with handicapped people. I witnessed two Ministers of Human Resources and how they operated. One was a minister with the current opposition and the other one was a minister with our government. What happened during your government, members opposite? Nothing, absolutely nothing — and I bear no malice against the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi); outside of the House he's a great guy. However, during his tenure nothing happened. Then our government was elected, and what happened? Lots, my friends, lots.

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I'll give you an example, Mr. Member, and maybe you could just go to our community and have a look around. The Aurora Achievement Centre for the Handicapped in Prince George received a capital grant of $83,000 in 1978; the Prince George Association for the Retarded received $33,000 to implement a home-living program for the handicapped adult.

The government implemented the Infant Development Program. Perhaps, Mr. Member for New Westminster, you might say you're speaking against that and the success of this government. Mr. Speaker, these are signs of good government and signs that things are going well in our province. And you, hon. members, regret the fact that His Honour's speech does not reflect a lack of confidence. Why should we reflect a lack of confidence? Should we show non-confidence because we reduced days lost in industrial disputes by 75 percent since 1975? Do you wish to reflect non-confidence in leadership that has seen our province lead Canada in business capital investment since 1975?

Do you wish us to reflect non-confidence in a leadership that has lowered the unemployment rate to 5.6 percent? Should I remind you that when you were government the unemployment rate was 9 percent? Do you wish to reflect non-confidence in the government that introduced the ombudsman, the funding for independent schools, the child-abuse Helpline and educational TV? I remember one night in Prince George in August 1979 when the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and I were on that educational TV network, and both of us commented on what a good thing it was for the north. Do you wish to reflect non-confidence in the government that is introducing denticare? Do you wish to reflect non-confidence in the inflation rate that's well below the Canadian average? I don't think you ought to reflect on that leadership. The proof, of course, since you introduced the amendment two hours ago, is that you haven't said one word about leadership. You've spoken about items that might arise in the estimates debate, and you've mentioned items that you said in the estimates debate last session, but not once have you commented on the leadership.

I might take issue with the member who was speaking about Kemano, and the fact that we have been silent on that. I should point out to all members assembled — the northern NDP MLAs are aware of this — that if you peruse Hansard you will note that during the Utilities Commission Act debate not one member of the NDP said anything about Kemano. You can check your Hansard on that.

There are some who might say there is not enough proposed legislation. But upon examination, I would ask all British Columbians what more legislation you would want. We live in a growing province; we have a buoyant economy; we have a very low unemployment rate; we enjoy tremendous confidence of investors throughout Canada and throughout the world. It is difficult to improve upon that type of demonstrated success, but our government and our leader will continue to carry on efforts to ensure success for all British Columbians.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I do not support the amendment.

MR. LEGGATT: First of all, I'd like to associate myself with the others who welcomed you back. We're so delighted to see you so vigorous and so healthy.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. LEGGATT: I would like to say a couple of things about the Speech from the Throne, which I agree with and I admire. I'm delighted that the government saw fit to have our Lieutenant-Governor refer to young Terry Fox, who resides in Coquitlam-Moody. I think perhaps it's worthwhile reading:

[ Page 4255 ]

A young British Columbian, Terry Fox of Coquitlam, performed an act of unprecedented courage. Himself suffering from cancer, he earned world-wide admiration for his selfless attempt to jog across Canada from coast to coast to raise money for medical research on this disease.

I think all members of this House — in fact all across Canada and to some extent now around the world — admire the tremendous courage and dedication of this young man. I'm delighted. I know that we as the official opposition associate ourselves with the good spirit intended in that resolution in the Speech from the Throne.

Unfortunately, after we get by that, we have to ask ourselves about the reality. Now we've got a decision to make here: do we think the Speech from the Throne reflects the atmosphere of the province, or does the opposition's motion reflect the atmosphere in the province? That is, is there really a lack of confidence in the leadership of this government? Are things really peaches and cream, as outlined in the Speech from the Throne? There's a way to test that. You don't have to test it in here.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: Go ahead and have an election, then you'll find out. Then we'll find out which motion is reality and which is peaches-and-cream nonsense,

HON. MR. HEWITT: In due course. In due course.

MR. LEGGATT: I've heard the Premier say many times: due course means not next year, but the year after. We might have another bill to try to extend it for another year — who knows? I don't know when you're going to call an election. The members of this government know that they are under tremendous criticism, not from this party but from the public of the province of British Columbia. They have to ask themselves some serious questions about this. I listened carefully to the last speaker, who told us that unemployment is great, investment is up and things are marvellous in British Columbia. Well, if things are so good in British Columbia, why do people feel your leadership is so bad in British Columbia?

MR. BRUMMET: They don't; you do.

MR. LEGGATT: You've got to ask yourself that question. I just read these right-wing polls from Canada West and all these organizations. They're not our organization. All these very objective pollsters keep telling me that you fellows have got a leadership problem over there.

MR. SEGARTY: That's Marjorie Nichols.

MR. LEGGATT: Marjorie Nichols is a very insightful lady.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: Don Phillips for leader — yes, that's interesting.

When it comes time to vote on this motion I'm asking our colleagues on the other side to seriously consider. I'm asking my friend from Omineca to seriously consider. He's already considered that. He's backing off a little, but he's thought pretty hard about this motion that's in front of us. I wish he were here so that he could think about that question of leadership, because he's clearly been concerned about that.

We've got other people concerned about leadership. I see the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) here today. He's concerned about leadership. We heard today the minister responsible for ICBC say he would never interfere with the setting of rates. Well, we have a very progressive Minister of Health who interfered awful fast when it came to the seniors on rates. He's thinking ahead, that fella. He's a bright fella. He's thinking about leadership.

You know, we're still asking ourselves this fundamental question: "Why are we here over the Christmas season?" The Premier said, during the Social Credit convention, that he had three options in dealing with this subject. One was a referendum around the constitution, another was an election around the constitution, and a third was the calling of a special session. So I presume what we are now in is what the Premier predicted would be a special session to deal with the constitution. I don't know why we're here, if that's not the reason, because we....

MR. SEGARTY: You never did know.

MR. LEGGATT: I know why you're here.

But you know, we're allegedly here to deal with the constitution, and I want to read — because the subject of this motion deals with the question of leadership — a quote from a real leader. His name's Premier Bennett. This is in the Colonist, June 23:

"Premier Bennett appealed Tuesday for all Canadians to support the constitutional document which he predicted will go down in history books as the 'Charter of Victoria.' As expected, B.C. gave formal approval to the constitutional charter of 1971, which was drawn up at the conference of the first ministers held here June 14-16. Premier Bennett said a letter confirming approval had been sent to Henry Davis, secretary of the constitutional conference, to make it completely official. In fact" — now get this — "an order-in-council was passed by the provincial cabinet endorsing the Victoria Charter."

I wonder if that order-in-council is still in force. Maybe we'll.... You know, I'd like to see whether there's going to be a new order-in-council, because this government continues to be on record as supporting the Victoria Charter — by order-in-council. Maybe there's been a change. There's been all this crying about what's happening, what the feds are doing to us. They proposed a constitutional amending formula that was in fact sponsored by the government of the province of British Columbia, supported by the province of British Columbia, and as far as I know, the order-in-council still says it's a good formula for amending the charter. It's still there. Are we here to debate the constitution?

That was a Premier — a Social Credit Premier — who took leadership on this question. He led the Premiers of the west in coming up with a formula which would try to keep this country together. Now, Mr. Speaker, what about the present Premier — Junior — what has he done lately to promote the western view with regard to the constitution? He has been carrying the Premier of Alberta's bags for the last two years, that's what he's been doing.

What the Premier of British Columbia fails to understand is that this province imports 75 percent of its oil, and when you're going to get in a fight about oil, you better think about

[ Page 4256 ]

oil prices for the consumers of the province of British Columbia as well as the multinational oil companies in British Columbia. And they haven't done that. They haven't given it any consideration.

Now the other thing that simply amazes me is that at the convention he recently attended the Premier said: "Look, give us another meeting. We'll sort this all out. The problem is we just haven't quite been able to put it together, but I'm sure if you give us 60 days we'll put it together just like that."

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: Trudeau's formula gives you two years. When the constitution comes back there are two years to come up with a provincial agreement on an amending formula. The minister knows it. There are two years in order to come up with a provincial agreement and even then, if that's not acceptable, a referendum can be held around that particular formula.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let's hear the debate.

MR. LEGGATT: My good friend the Minister of Health says there has to be some kind of an agreement before a referendum can be put. In fact my understanding of the proposal is that the provinces can unilaterally put their own referendum.

HON. MR. MAIR: That's right.

MR. LEGGATT: You agree. I'm glad to see the minister agrees. Therefore this idea that it is being shoved right down this Premier's throat.... Any fair examination of that formula clearly shows that the options are quite unlimited for this government if they had the confidence in their own position and felt they could persuade the Canadian public to their view of the formula. There's nothing the matter with that.

But when we talk about leadership there's a failure of leadership that's more fundamental than any other. That is that you can't fool around with the question of separatism. You can't fool around and say: "I sympathize. I understand what those fellows feel. My gosh, they're out there feeling this terrible discrimination that we have in the west, and while I can't quite join them folks, boy, there's some pretty responsible people in that group." If you don't condemn them you're with them, as far as I'm concerned. What we call upon is for the Premier to stand in his place in this House and condemn without equivocation people who would rip this country apart.

There are games being played around the question of separatism, and you'll find that when you play games with those kinds of people they are going to wind up destroying us in the west. We're waiting patiently for an unequivocal statement condemning separatism and all of its treasonous consequences to Canada, because we're Canadians first, Mr. Speaker. We're going to keep this country together.

I remember the Premier going back to the Montreal Chamber of Commerce not too long ago, before the referendum was held, and he gave a very eloquent speech to the chamber of commerce condemning separatism in all its forms in the province of Quebec — "Have nothing to do with separatism" — and pleaded with the people of Quebec to defeat the separatist referendum, which they did. All we ask for is the same outright condemnation of these kooks and loonies of the separatist movement in British Columbia that was applied to the kooks and loonies of the separatist movement in Quebec. And we haven't seen it yet.

There's another interesting part in the Speech from the Throne. We're going to see, apparently, a resolution. I doubt whether we'll get it debated. It deals with the question of provincial ownership of resources. It quotes the BNA Act. "All lands, mines, minerals and royalties belonging to the several provinces of Canada, and all the sums then due or payable, shall belong to the several provinces in which the same are situate or arise," etc., etc. Good position! Good position in the BNA Act. Good position the province of British Columbia has taken in keeping provincial ownership and management with regard to those resources.

It goes on to say: "My government will recommend that this Legislature give its unanimous support to a resolution asking the federal government to confirm that the ownership and control of all renewable and non-renewable natural resources in British Columbia remain in the hands of those who can best manage them, the people who live in the province of British Columbia." Worthwhile. They forgot a paragraph. The paragraph was that Ed Broadbent has already obtained for the province of British Columbia those resources in the federal House of Commons. Where was the leadership, Mr. Speaker? You wonder why we put this kind of resolution, that it takes a federal — actually a member from the province of Ontario — New Democrat to guarantee to the province of British Columbia the resources to which they are entitled, not the Premier of British Columbia. Not this government, Mr. Speaker.

Oh, it's a sad day. Mr. Speaker, when we look at the reality in this resolution, when we look at the atmosphere in the province about leadership, no wonder there's a genuine lack of confidence when they see that the Premier and his government have failed to even obtain in their negotiations the minimum protection for the province of British Columbia.

No wonder you're screaming about the feds doing you in. You haven't done a good job of negotiation under the leadership of that Premier. And that happens to be the fact.

Now just to put it on the record, let me read a letter of October 20 last year, directed to the Prime Minister of Canada, from Ed Broadbent:

"Many Canadians in recent years have expressed apprehension about their provincial governments' lack of control over their provincial resources. It's certainly true in Atlantic Canada, in Quebec and in western Canada. It is for this reason that I strongly believe that the constitutional recognition of the provinces' right to control their resources must be established at this time to obtain the kind of regional support among Canadians that is necessary for parliamentary action to be seen as desirable at this time."

The response from the Prime Minister of Canada was:

"(1) We confirm the jurisdiction of the provinces with respect to exploration, development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province, including making of laws in relation to the primary production of such resources."

[ Page 4257 ]

I won't go on, but it confirms everything that this government was trying to obtain.

Now that's the first item that it seems to me is very persuasive for the public who are out there and not involved in this debate, and thinking about their general interests. Surely they have to question the leadership of the Premier of this province when we find out that a New Democratic MP from Ontario winds up getting resource control for the province of British Columbia. Where was the Premier? Not even a thank-you. Maybe an offhand "Thanks, Ed." Nope, nothing.

Let's go to the next question in the Speech from the Throne. We're talking now about returning the province's economy to its "traditional soundness." "All the actions taken by my government to achieve financial security were necessary in the public interest for the good and well-being of all British Columbians both for now and for the future." Right? "This difficult task has been accomplished" — get this; I love this — "in spite of the external forces of inflation and recession that are pressing on us from outside our borders." Nothing ever occurs inside British Columbia. It's all these things that are coming from outside. Right? We didn't have anything to do with inflation.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. This is the throne speech debate, and everyone has an opportunity in good time to make his point. We are now listening to the member for Coquitlam-Moody, I think.

MR. LEGGATT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Those socialist herds make me mad.

MR. LEGGATT: I'm glad you spelled that with an "h."

Mr. Speaker, again, it states in the Speech from the Throne: "This difficult task has been accomplished in spite of the external forces of inflation and recession that are pressing on us from outside our borders."

Well, there is one of those forces that this government could have controlled for the last five years, and it hasn't done a damned thing about it. The incursion of foreign investment into the residential real estate market has now driven housing prices right out of sight in the lower mainland. What have you done about it? You knew it was coming. It was there. What about all your real estate friends who were flying those German businessmen out to pick up houses at any kind of price they like? What about the Hong Kong money that's been flowing in, the Philippines money that's been flowing in and making it impossible for our average citizens to afford any kind of decent housing whatsoever? There's an external force these guys haven't got the clout, guts, wit or intelligence to do anything about, and that's to cut off foreign investment in residential housing and give our young people a break.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're against Germans and Hong Kongers, eh?

MR. LEGGATT: I'm against anybody outside this country taking advantage of the exchange rate that Canada has and using that in order to take away the birthright of our children in this province; that's what I'm against. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development should know that if he's interested in seeing our children have a future in this province he'd better do something about investment in residential properties in the province of British Columbia, because it's now madness, and that doesn't even touch the question of farmland. We're selling out our property for nothing.

I want to deal briefly with some of these.... There must have been a humorist involved in the Speech from the Throne this year, because when it came to the last part talking about health, a fair system of justice, personal financial security, a healthy environment, I can see a kind of a chuckle in the back room when they put those in. Don't you think there must have been a little bit of humour going around? Even you guys got a laugh at some of that, come on.

Again, where has the leadership of this province been in attaining these objectives? Let's have a look at them one at a time. "Enjoy the best possible health." Where I come from we have one of the largest units concerned with health, which is the Riverview mental health facility and the Valleyview Hospital facility. Under this government's administration they are phasing out all of the cottages around the Valleyview Hospital, reducing the number of psychogeriatric people who have a facility to look after them and cutting down the wards and the staff. That's what they're doing with regard to health. And when you look at what health is really all about, it's a right. Remember the principle of medicare as a right. We're one of the only provinces in Canada that still charges a premium in spite of the Hall commission report. Remember that the recent Hall commission report pointed out quite properly that we're in the dark ages on health. Leading the country? My God, we're one of the last two provinces to charge a premium for it. Everybody else does it on income tax. We should be doing the same, Mr. Speaker. This isn't leadership at all.

"To be protected by an even-handed, fair system of justice." That one really boggles the mind. I thought maybe there were some lessons out of the last session on this one. I thought the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) might have looked a little deeply into his soul about the provision of an even-handed, fair system of justice. But let's go through just a few of the counts. (1) The Deputy Attorney-General phones Judge Govan; Mr. Justice Seaton inquiry: inappropriate and improper. (2) The Rigg case — intervention of the Attorney-General's department: inappropriate and wrong. (3) The member for Central Fraser Valley recommends that charges be laid and dealt with at the Victoria level: inappropriate that it be dealt with at the Victoria level. In the Wendy King–John Farris case, do you think John Farris was treated like any other average citizen in the province of British Columbia? I doubt it. Why, certainly we're never going to be able to find out, because we never had a full inquiry. The Moran case.... It goes on and on and on.

Then we get election dirty tricks. I'm just surprised — really shocked — that that would be included, unless the boys were really having a bit of a chuckle and when the civil servants wrote this speech they thought they'd just do it as a joke and see if these guys were naive enough to leave it in. And they did. I can't believe it! They believed it, and are defending it.

No, Mr. Speaker, I don't think there would be any doubt, if the public were asked about the amendment that has been proposed, that they would find no confidence in the leadership of this party. I think the reality is there. They are saying,

[ Page 4258 ]

yes, the economy is fairly buoyant. Let's be honest about this; it has been fairly buoyant, sure. It's fairly buoyant. We've still got too much unemployment; we still have an inflation rate that is killing small business, which the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) should know, and I hope he thinks of some devious means to do something about it.

But, you know, you can't have a small business around that pays 17 percent on their money and then expect them to be able to turn a profit and keep their head above water. As long as those interest rates stay the way they are, we are going to have more and more business failures, and I hope this small business venture capital system will have a fairly massive infusion of low-interest capital to small business, because that is needed very desperately. But I have a feeling that these guys like high interest. Do you know why? Because, Mr. Speaker, high interest is always good for the redistribution of wealth in reverse. Every time you have inflation and high interest, the banks, the multinationals and the large businesses keep acquiring more and more assets. It floats up to the top much faster.

In fact, that is probably the most important part of the Social Credit philosophy. It is no longer the old A plus B, but it is Milton Friedman's monetarism. That is the kind of philosophy they have now.

AN HON. MEMBER: How to ruin the world!

MR. LEGGATT: How to ruin the world in one easy lesson: get a handle on the money supply and jack the interest rates up and you will get a handle on inflation.

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT: Morty Shulman's not a monetarist; he knows a little bit about saving money but that's beside the point.

If you look at the problems of this economy, and again, the lack of leadership on the part of the Premier, inflation is the major and most important item. I am waiting patiently to see how this government proposes to deal with the ruinous inflation rate in the province of British Columbia. It is ruinous to small business; it is ruinous to the housing market. How often are we going to have any input at the Bank of Canada? I hope you people have finally got your appointment there to that board.

You know, on that whole question of inflation, when you deal with this other thing that allegedly this government and this leader have promoted, attaining personal financial security, the only personal financial security that's been developed in the last four or five months has been through Edgar Kaiser, that I can recall, but what about the individual? The average guy isn't getting any more financially secure as a result of the policies of this government. Of course they're not. As I say, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, and there are a few guys being looked after.

I want to end, Mr. Speaker, on a slightly higher note. Of all the things that could be done with regard to my constituency, the most important deals at the moment with housing and transit — and I want to say a little word about transit. The decision in terms of the commuter rail service down the CPR, which I congratulate the government for, should come now. I'm delighted that they have adopted my proposal that I've been making since 1969-70 — and that of my colleague from Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), who's been promoting the CPR rail service — but for my constituency that's only one of about eight things that must be done immediately. We need a CPR rail service; we need four lanes on the Barnet Highway; we need to change that freeway traffic so that we alternate outgoing and incoming traffic, so that when the masses of people are moving to work in the morning, we get additional lanes travelling west, and then in the evening additional lanes reverse-flow travelling east; we need a fast bus lane down that freeway so that we have the middle covered, and no traffic should interfere with that bus lane. There is a whole series of things.

We are now in such a transit crisis that this LRT system that's proposed — and I don't know whether it's good, bad or indifferent — is not going to solve it. We need a multi-pronged attack on transportation in the lower mainland, and this government isn't doing it. One LRT system isn't going to make much of a dent in the problems of commuters who are daily lined up, crawling back and forth to work. In fact, the day is going to come when they all get out of their cars on that freeway and let us politicians try to clean up our act. Now it's time we all got together and spent some money and did some intensive planning for the whole suburban region so they can get in and out of Vancouver. That hasn't been done. I'll end on that note.

I think the motion we have before you, Mr. Speaker, speaks for itself. I think it reflects the real views of a vast majority of the public of the province of British Columbia. I urge my colleagues to support it. Let's get out of here and have an election, and we'll see.

MR. DAVIS: It's good to see you back again, Mr. Speaker. It's good to see you in the Chair after an illness which would have sidelined all other MLAs indefinitely.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. DAVIS: That was a tough session, I know. So we promise to be good, at least for a while. We'll get ready for Christmas by saying nice things about each other — as nice things as we can — certainly about British Columbia's current prosperity and about the future of our nation, which in the long-term at least seems to be assured. Some issues will still divide us, but there are others upon which we can all agree. One is the essential brotherhood of man; another is the fundamental goodness of men and women as individuals. It's true, we have rules in this Legislature; we make laws to govern the unruly. But deep down we have an abiding respect and affection for one another. This is the attitude upon which lasting societies are built and nations gain credibility the world over.

In the Speech from the Throne Canada is described as a federation. It's really a federation of regional societies rather than governments. The people are certainly far more important than government. True also, we live in different provinces and we think different thoughts, but we still find unity in our diversity. This unity of purpose will be reinforced by decisions taken by and on the part of our people, which respect minorities in every comer of our great land. I'm referring more particularly to our new Canadian constitution. It must be ours and ours alone. It must not only be Canadian but seen to be Canadian. This is why we must patriate the British North America Act as soon as possible. This is why we should make its consequential changes our changes.

[ Page 4259 ]

This is why as many of our people as possible should be consulted in the formulation of a contract which will not only ensure the continuation of the democratic process in Canada, but also allow regional and local voices to be heard as well. All political parties agree that we should patriate our constitution. All ten of our provinces agree that this should happen and happen soon. These are among the reasons why I will vote for the resolution presently on the order paper that advocates, first, an early patriation of the constitution of Canada from the United Kingdom — it's long overdue. Surely all MLAs, on both sides of this House, can say this by voting yea when the resolution is voted on later this week.

I don't have any difficulty, either, with the second part of the solution. It asks us, as the people's representatives in this province, to support "a formula for the amendment of the constitution of Canada in respect of matters affecting federal-provincial relationships." In other words, we should support a formula whereby our constitution, once it is here in Canada, can be changed. Such a formula or process is also long overdue. We've left it to the Parliament of the United Kingdom for 113 years. We must now work out ways and means of amending our new constitution ourselves.

Laws, Mr. Speaker, are never perfect. Circumstances alter also. Relations between our two levels of government frequently have to be updated. Agreements achieved at our first ministers' conferences should be implemented in a reasonable period of time. So we need an amending formula, something which is missing from the British North America Act, something which will allow our democratic institutions to work in our own uniquely Canadian way. A degree of flexibility makes sense. A rigid constitution, such as that which we have tended to have over the past century or more, is a kind of strait-jacket; it's too confining; it leads to all kinds of frustrations; it can lead to a blowup of unmanageable proportions. It can do irreparable damage to the fabric of our great Canadian society if it can't be changed within reason and in a reasonable time by a conscious act of the Canadian people themselves.

I contend that the official opposition has to be for an amending formula. It has to be for change with reason. It has to vote for both parts of the resolution, because a contrary vote would not only be an unthinking endorsation of the status quo, but it would also amount to a denial of the democratic rights and privileges of every man and woman living in this great country of ours.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I don't wish to cut your debate short, but I would like to draw to your attention that we have a motion on notice on the order paper. You are, perhaps, anticipating the debate of that particular motion in your present remarks. A generalized statement would be acceptable, but a debate on the constitution would be more in order when that resolution is called.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to consider my further remarks and have more time to do so. Could I please call it 6 o'clock?

I move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjourned of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.