[ Page 4279 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Mineral Land Tax Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 5). Hon. Mr. McClelland.

Introduction and first reading –– 4279

Company Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 3). Hon. Mr. Nielsen.

Introduction and first reading –– 4279

Oral Questions

Getz Report on BCRIC trading. Mr. Lauk –– 4279

Mr. Macdonald –– 4279

Mr. Leggatt –– 4279

Rail service to Whistler Mountain. Mr. Hyndman –– 4280

Ku Klux Klan activities in B.C. Mr. Barnes –– 4280

Feeding of elk in east Kootenays. Mr. Segarty –– 4280

Mr. Nicolson –– 4280

Mr. King –– 4281

Speech from the Throne

On the amendment

Mr. Barnes –– 4282

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4286

Mr. Passarell –– 4291

Mr. Hyndman –– 4292

Ms. Brown –– 4295

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 4300

Ms. Sanford –– 4303

Tabling Documents

Universities Council of British Columbia annual report and budget proposals 1981.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4305

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

Introduction of Bills

MINERAL LAND TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

Hon. Mr. McClelland presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Mineral Land Tax Amendment Act, 1981.

Bill 5 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

COMPANY AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

Hon. Mr. Nielsen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Company Amendment Act, 1981.

Bill 3 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry I was a little slow at the opening this afternoon, and I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REE: It's my pleasure this afternoon, as it has been once previously, to introduce my eldest son, who is attending the University of Victoria and is in the gallery this afternoon. His name is Scott. With him is a young lady from Saltspring Island, Barbara Woodley, who is also a student at the University of Victoria. I would ask the House to welcome them.

Oral Questions

GETZ REPORT ON BCRIC TRADING

MR. LAUK: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Section E of the Getz report states that Mr. Helliwell phoned Edgar Kaiser Jr. on April 25 this year and expressed interest in acquiring majority control of Kaiser Resources. The evidence discloses that Helliwell's view of the conversation was that prospects for a deal were good. On April 30, Kaiser Jr. purchased $160,000 Kaiser Resources shares on the open market, for which he eventually received a clear profit of $4.48 million. Kaiser's purchase of shares on April 30 was taken on insider information which was not available to all shareholders and was clearly designed to loot the BCRIC treasury. Has this information been referred to the Attorney-General with a view that charges should be laid?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I don't know whether the member was reading verbatim from the Getz report or whether he added some commentary on his own. I believe he added some commentary on his own. The Getz report has been made available to the Attorney-General's ministry. The Attorney-General's ministry, along with the superintendent of securities, have had the opportunity to review that report. The Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs hired Mr. Getz to conduct an investigation on our behalf and part of the terms of reference of Mr. Getz's instructions would be, of course, to advise our ministry as to any aspects of security law which may or may not have been breached in British Columbia. The conclusion Mr. Getz presented to us was that there had been no breach of the securities law in British Columbia. I can't really respond to the commentary of the member, and I believe it was commentary rather than verbatim.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question for the Premier. We are told that the BCRIC-Kaiser takeover was announced on August 21, 1980, and consummated within nine days thereafter. Was it during that period that the Premier discussed the matter with Mr. Helliwell, the president? If so, on what date?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I was advised somewhat immediately prior — a day or two, to my recollection, of the proposal to acquire Kaiser. I did not get into elaborate discussion — but the advice was within a day or two. I might take this opportunity to answe r— I was going to wait until outside question period, but the question was asked by the second member for Vancouver East yesterday — as to whether the Premier of the province had ever ridden in an airplane owned by Mr. Kaiser. The answer is no.

MR. MACDONALD: Maybe the Premier will tell us some other time about what leased jet planes he rides on and who supplies them; that is not relevant here. Surely the Premier knows when he was.... This is a big transaction in the history of the province. On what date did you meet with Mr. Helliwell? You've had ample time to look up your diary and tell us.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the decision was advanced to me by telephone.

MR. MACDONALD: On what date, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) is trying to aid his seatmate by shouting other questions across the floor. Anything that is relevant to this I will take as notice. I'll bring back any times I have met or spoken to or with Mr. Helliwell, except those of a social nature.

MR. LEGGATT: My question is also to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Getz report did indicate certain possibilities of violations of the law. The Getz report states that the exercise of stock options by seven senior Kaiser executives on September 2, 1980, may be considered a violation of B.C. law. Those officers used insider knowledge because they knew that the deal was completed. That information was not available to other shareholders. Has the government decided to prosecute those Kaiser executives under the present B.C. statutes?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, through the office of the superintendent of brokers, has not decided to prosecute under any statute in

[ Page 4280 ]

British Columbia. Whether the Attorney-General's ministry, upon reviewing the documents, will make any other decisions, I don't know at this time. But the report from Mr. Getz, reviewed by Mr. Bullock, our superintendent of securities, reached the conclusion that no prosecutions should be undertaken.

RAIL SERVICE TO WHISTLER MOUNTAIN

MR. HYNDMAN: I have a question for the minister responsible for B.C. Rail, with regard to the very fast growing Whistler Mountain area — the opening this fall of the new Blackcomb ski portion and the resulting increased automobile traffic to Whistler. The opening of the Whistler ski season being virtually at hand, I wonder if the minister would be prepared to investigate on a priority basis, and right away, the possibility of putting into service this season, as soon as possible, the Royal Hudson as a special train from Vancouver to serve the burgeoning Whistler ski area.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much for that question, Mr. Member. I realize that we have a problem at Whistler, because it is becoming one of the greatest ski areas anywhere in the world because of the policies of this great government. Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, they will be able to accommodate some half-million skiers this year — about 17,000 a day.

Now, we have alternatives. I would be quite happy to discuss with the railway the possibility of putting the Royal Hudson on. I think we may have some problems getting it on, and I don't think it would solve the problem. We have another way, Mr. Speaker. I might advise that I've discussed with the concerned people that we might be able to provide a shuttle bus service from Squamish. I'm sure we would have the cooperation of the British Columbia Railway to provide a huge parking lot, and then we could just go from Squamish to Whistler. But I'm certainly very pleased that people from all over the great world are coming to Whistler to ski. The government's policy of making this a 12-month recreational province is well underway.

KU KLUX KLAN
ACTIVITIES IN B.C.

MR. BARNES: My question is to the Attorney-General. On October 31 of this year a request was made by the National Black Coalition for consent to proceed with charges against the Ku Klux Klan, which is a requirement of the hate propagation section of the Criminal Code. Would the Attorney-General advise the House why no consent has yet been granted to prosecute members of this most dangerous organization.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I wish to thank the member for raising the question; it's a very topical one. At the outset, may I say that neither I nor any member of this government in any way accept as appropriate the attitudes and the philosophies of the Ku Klux Klan. However, they are, as far as we are aware, citizens of Canada, and therefore they are entitled to the same protection of the laws of this country as anybody else.

The material which was submitted to regional Crown counsel by the coalition has been examined. In relation to the specific provisions of the Criminal Code and to those very few decided cases which have dealt with this matter, reluctantly I must say at this time that the material which has been provided to us and other material which we have, through the criminal justice division, had the opportunity of reviewing do not establish a case of the nature which is required in order for a prosecution of this kind to be undertaken,

MR. BARNES: My question is to the Minister of Education. Ku Klux Klan members have been engaged in distributing Klan material at the B.C. Institute of Technology and at public schools. What steps has the minister taken to prevent the propagation of hate-literature propaganda in institutions under his jurisdiction?

HON. MR. SMITH: Both school boards and colleges have ample authority to repel distribution and intrusions of a non-educational nature, and indeed are doing so. I have asked that any materials of this kind that are distributed should be forwarded to me and to the Attorney-General for examination. I also announced at the conclusion of my tour last Tuesday that I was going to institute some new regulations which would assist with the problem in the public schools by strengthening the hands of principals in repelling intrusions of a non-educational nature on school grounds.

FEEDING OF ELK
IN EAST KOOTENAYS

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I've got a question for the Minister of Environment. Over the past week or so there's been an extremely heavy snowfall in the Kootenay region, 1.5 to 3.5 metres in some cases. This has caused a severe problem for elk trying to get to their traditional winter range. In some cases elk have broken into farmers' haystacks and have already depleted their winter hay supply. Industries in the Kootenays have volunteered their equipment to drop hay to the stranded elk. My question is: will the ministry consider matching dollars raised by the East Kootenay Wildlife Association to feed the stranded elk, or has the ministry got any contingency plans to feed the elk or help the farmers replenish their stock?

MR. SPEAKER: Only the second part of the question is in order.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the member for the question. My ministry has been aware of this problem for the last five or six days especially. The fish and wildlife branch feel very strongly that feeding of elk is not the correct thing to do in terms of nature. However, I have asked them to review this policy in case the snow gets any thicker. I've also asked them to consider whether or not we would allow shooting of the animals out of season — or out of the extended season now — from a humane point of view, to provide the game to various needy groups throughout the province. I appreciate it's a severe problem, but biologically the best thing to do is to let nature take its course.

MR. NICOLSON: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Environment on the same subject. It is reported that this morning the minister said it might seem cruel that some elk should have to starve. I understand the request is for about $20,000 to $40,000, and what is at stake is the base of the resource of a $3 million industry in the East

[ Page 4281 ]

Kootenays. I ask the minister if, in making his decision, he has considered the effect on this industry, and secondly, the fact that thousands of these animals will die, not ultimately of starvation, but by being attacked in their weakened condition by predators — being hamstrung and disembowelled alive.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Yes to the first question and no to the second one.

MR. KING: I have a supplementary on the same topic. Is the minister not aware that one of the basic problems with the lack of winter feed for the elk population is due to the settlement of the lower reaches where they have traditionally grazed in the winter period? It's all settled with a human population and forecloses that source of winter range. Is the minister suggesting that in light of destruction of their natural food supply, they should be abandoned to starvation?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, Mr. Speaker, I'm not suggesting that. However, the member opposite knows full well that under the coordinated resource management of this particular area the wildlife habitat has been reinstated to a very large extent, and....

MR. KING: At high levels, at high elevations.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's hear the answer.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, the difficulty in handling this range habitat has been that situation since the turn of the century, and it's not an occurrence that's taken place in the last day.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. For the guidance of members, may I just refer to this nice, new edition of Beauchesne's parliamentary rules — it's the fifth edition. On page 129 it says: "The purpose of a question is to obtain information and not to supply it to the House." Those are good words.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On page 36-1 of yesterday afternoon's Blues, I have been wiped clean for half a page in responding to the barb that the Premier threw at me about Columbia Cellulose. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that Hansard must be a verbatim report of what occurs in this House. I don't know what czar or censor is about to amend the proceedings, but somebody has — with a pencil — and I believe these words should be restored. I dare say that we were both out of order — certainly the Premier was in introducing it, and I was just being responsive to him. But even if we were out of order, let Hansard show what happened.

MR. SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. Hon. members, I think that we should all be aware of the procedures. When a member stands in his place to be recognized to speak, he must first be recognized by the Chair and determined to be in order. I think we must preserve that procedure. The member having been recognized, the staff at Hansard control then turns on the member's microphone, and it is only then that orderly debate — and yes, debate worthy to be recorded in Hansard — actually takes place. If the member would like to have those procedures changed, I think that perhaps a recommendation to the House might be considered. I don't know. But the Speaker is tied to the present procedures.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, everything I said was clearly on mike, because it is faithfully reported. Notwithstanding the bit of heat that I employed at the time — and had to employ in view of what was said — it seems to me, including your calls to order, that what happens in this House must be reported so that the people know what happens. That includes the rulings of Your Honour, as Speaker. If you say that somebody's out of order and ask them to sit down, that should be reported too. Clearly the mike must have been on, because it's faithfully transcribed, every word of it, but stricken from the record. I object to that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same point, the member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, inadvertently I'm sure, said something a little alarming when addressing the second member for Vancouver East's point of order. You said that only those remarks "worthy" of record should be recorded. I'm sure that Mr. Speaker said that inadvertently, that Mr. Speaker or Hansard are not entitled to make that judgment, as Mr. Speaker well knows. The verbatim record of the House must be recorded without judgment as to its content. Otherwise, indeed, Hansard for an entire session may only be three pages long.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The word "worthy" was used, of course, in a matter of qualification, not in a matter of value.

On the same point of order, I will accept one more opinion.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do recall yesterday that the second member for Vancouver East was expounding quite loudly and waving his arms around. He was not recognized. He was out of order, and the only reason his words are recorded by Hansard is because he has the convenience of sitting next to two mikes which are open pretty well at all times.

MR. SPEAKER: I think I have sufficient opinion to make this recommendation to the members. The recommendation is this: we have a standing committee of this House which concerns itself with procedure, and indeed the standing orders. I would recommend that this matter be taken up in that committee, and that committee return to this House with a recommendation which can be implemented here. As it is, I would be tied to the procedures as we know them.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we're not asking on the question of policy, we're asking for a ruling on a specific incident. The Speaker called the Premier, recognized him as having the floor. The Premier then made certain statements. Those statements have been expunged from the record; those statements made by the Premier have been deleted. The question of whether or not the member was in order in responding to those deleted remarks was first raised by my colleague, but there is no method whereby, once a member is recognized, remarks are automatically

[ Page 4282 ]

expunged from the record simply because somebody may or may not have been out of order later on in response to them. So it is this specific item, Mr. Speaker, that we draw to your attention, and we ask you to restore those words, which were in order, to the official record of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I will review the tapes, and I will bring a decision to the House.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I've had to publicly wish you well and congratulate you on your return to the assembly after your illness.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment to the Speech from the Throne, expressing the lack of public confidence in this administration. I would, unfortunately, have to query the sincerity of the government in calling this session, especially when it failed to address a number of the issues that have been of serious concern to those of us in the community. Strangely, there was no mention about the presence of an organization calling itself the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in this province. It is to this deletion, and the lack of government attention to this matter, that I wish to address my reasons for supporting the amendment, which suggest that the public no longer has confidence in the administration.

Mr. Speaker, there was a meeting held in Vancouver some two months ago by an organization calling itself the Ku Klux Klan, which is apparently an organization imported from the southern United States. Although it is being presented as a new movement in Canada, it does have a history in this province dating back to the 1920s. In fact, I understand that at one time there was a member of this assembly who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, and who I believe held a cabinet position. I find this rather revealing in terms of the atmosphere in this province, and in terms of the way things have generally been dealt with as far as human rights are concerned.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, if you would attempt to maintain some decorum in the House I would appreciate it. This is not a matter of the usual venue, where we have fun and crack jokes, such as those coming from that Minister of Housing over there.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You should stop blanket smearing too.

MR. BARNES: I don't recall that member ever standing up in this House and indicating his interest in human rights. But now he wants to defend some spectre. It's not every day that I find myself personally feeling such irritation about the attitude of an administration as I do today.

I want to read some remarks that were made by the national leader in Canada, at this meeting some two months ago that I was referring to. This man, whom I shall keep anonymous because I don't think he needs the benefit of having his name in Hansard, as far as I'm concerned.... Nonetheless, the remarks that I'm about to read can be verified; they were made at a meeting at which he was soliciting new members. This happened at the Coach House Inn in North Vancouver. He said to those people in attendance:

"Don't let the past of the Ku Klux Klan bother you. It shocks people. It's better than other names, such as Nazi or White Citizens' Organization. When the time comes we'll change the name to something else."

He went on to suggest that.

"The silent majority of whites in this province really want us here. We are a secret organization of responsible and important community people. Some are legislators, some are in charge of hospital boards and in other high places. White people are different because of their creations — architecture, science, art and so forth.

"A system that allows blacks and other nonwhites into the country must be changed. Whites are the backbone of this country. They have done the most and they are the best. Politicians who let nonwhites into the country are stooges and creeps who are undermining white people. Negroes and Pakistanis don't have to be destroyed, as long as they go back to where they belong. "

He admonishes the people he's speaking to. He suggests that they should "wake up, and let's take our country back."

Recently the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) made some disparaging remarks about immigration minorities. In the Chinatown News Magazine for November 3 of this year they editorialized a response to those comments.

"He is of the opinion that unless there is some management and direction, B.C. could have racial problems much like those that exist in the United States and Britain, What Mr. Davis meant was that British Columbians should be worried about the effect on Canadian society of large numbers of visible minorities being admitted into the country in general and to British Columbia in particular."

On July 21 of this year I sought approval from this government to move the following motion:

"That this assembly declare its affirmation that Canada is a multicultural and multiracial society, founded on respect for the person regardless of race, religion, color, sex, ancestry, place of origin, marital status or any other class; and that this assembly record its opposition to the Ku Klux Klan, an organization which is subversive to these Canadian traditions; and that this assembly call upon all levels of government to ensure that all Canadians are protected from racial attacks, harassment and intimidation wherever they occur, and to prosecute the perpetrators of these attacks with the full force of the law."

Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, I had no opportunity to speak to that motion, because I was denied leave even to raise it on the floor of this House. However, as the Klan organizing escalated with each passing day, in desperation I

[ Page 4283 ]

drafted letters to be mailed to some 50 ethnic and multicultural organizations, in an attempt to elicit information that might be of use in trying to make a representation on their behalf — something, incidentally, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) should have taken the initiative to do. The letter, dated November 6, 1980, which I wrote to these 50 organizations, chosen at random from some 200 such groups, is as follows:

"Much public concern has developed over the recent re-emergence of the Ku Klux Klan in British Columbia. To date I have made a number of public representations on this subject, bringing many queries to my office. Clearly there is a need for a sharing of views and opinions from among the various ethnic and multicultural organizations. To a degree this is taking place, but as one holding public office I am concerned about Klan activities.

"I seek the benefit of your input. To achieve this, I propose a meeting for Wednesday, November 26, 1980, at 7:30 p.m. at the Carnegie Community Centre, Hastings and Main in Vancouver. There will be many topics raised, I am sure, but I would specifically request that everyone come prepared to discuss the following: effectiveness of present laws; public information and education; and, finally, recommendations for action by governments, organizations, institutions and individuals."

I had considerable response. I sent letters as well to the Attorney-General and to the director of the Human Rights Commission soon after. On November 14 I said to the Attorney-General:

"I understand you are reviewing the prospects for the successful prosecution of the Ku Klux Klan under the hate literature provisions of section 281 (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada. It is my understanding that the specific complaint under review concerns statements made over public media by the Ku Klux Klan organizers. While I appreciate that there is some complexity and perhaps some difficulty involved with prosecuting under this section, I would urge that this matter be pursued with some vigour to arrive at an early conclusion on whether or not to prosecute.

"I am sure you are aware that the Klan is actively distributing racist literature in British Columbia. The lack of clarity in the position of the Attorney-General's ministry makes the victims of such literature unclear of their position and uncertain as to the correct response. In the course of making such a determination, your officials will obviously come to some conclusions about the adequacy of existing laws to control the spread of hate literature.

"The Ku Klux Klan has produced literature which promotes unwarranted racial attacks upon specific identified minorities who are a part of the cultural mosaic in British Columbia. Part of my purpose in writing is to encourage that such a review is expeditiously carried out. If it is not already doing so, I would like to request that the Attorney-General's ministry place the Ku Klux Klan under active and close surveillance. This is important if children in the public school system are to be protected from Klan intrusions.

"I look forward to your early response on these matters."

This letter, signed by me, was dated November 14, 1980. I am still waiting for a response.

I wrote a letter to the director of the Human Rights Commission, stating:

"We are aware of the significant organizational efforts by the Ku Klux Klan in the province over the past few months. Doubtless your office is cooperating with the government to monitor this organization, but in the meantime, vexing questions go unaddressed that need clarification if responsible leadership and guidance is to take the forefront instead of allowing a less desirable trend to emerge that could upset public stability.

"On November 26 I meet with leaders of some 50 ethnic organizations from the lower mainland to share responses to the Klan and to obtain recommendations for action. The Klan clearly aims to subvert this country. It is starting by attacking the delicate and sensitive nature of a system that relies on all races, colours and classes of citizens, respecting each other~'s right to full and equal status as citizens and as persons.

"Material currently being distributed by the Ku Klux Klan is racist and to my mind qualifies as hate literature. A primary target for circulation is our public school system where they hope to corrupt vulnerable young minds, I shall be thankful to have your early response to the following: (1) Do Klan activities in any way offend the Human Rights Code of British Columbia? (2) In the opinion of the commission, what recommendations would it submit to bring about effective machinery to combat situations such as created by recent Klan activities?

"Trusting you appreciate the public's urgent need for responsible guidance from your department, the government and other concerned public officials, I took forward to hearing from you soon."

I signed that letter, which I have not had a reply to either.

Mr. Speaker, needless to say, when you're really offended in the way in which this government is offending not only this member but the public, it leaves you rather dumbfounded as to what to do next. One has to sit back and take cognizance of their emotions and try to remain calm. But I can tell you this is gross indecency, to say the least, on the part of the government.

There was an order-in-council recently designating December 10 as Human Rights Day in cooperation with the universal declaration of human rights, which is a resolution passed by the United Nations some 30-odd years ago.

Here is the press release of November 21 issued by the B.C. Human Rights Commission:

"The universal declaration of human rights was proclaimed by the United Nations on December 10, 1948. To commemorate the thirty-second anniversary of this proclamation, the B.C. Human Rights Commission will present a special evening program on December 10, 1980, at 7 p.m. In the theatre of the Robson Square Media Centre, Vancouver.

"In September the Human Rights Commission sponsored an art poster contest on human rights topics for elementary school children in this province. The 50 best posters, as judged by art specialists, are to be

[ Page 4284 ]

exhibited in the foyer of the media centre from the 5th to the 10th of December. The winner will be presented to the community and the media at 7 p.m. at the December 10 meeting.

"The commission will also make a public testimonial dedication to Terry Fox, who has shown clearly what a single human being is capable of doing, given the will to help.

"Next there will be the presentation of a special issue of the commission newsletter devoted to questions effecting the disabled. This issue will anticipate other government initiatives planned for International Year of the Disabled.

"The keynote speaker of this very special evening will be Mr. George McCurdy, executive director of the Human Rights Commission of Nova Scotia since 1971. Mr. McCurdy, a sixth-generation black Canadian, has had a vast experience in human rights. His address will occur at 8 p.m. and will focus on racism as a human rights issue.

"At 9 p.m. you are cordially invited to join guests and members of the commission in exchanging views over coffee. Human Rights Day will be an important event in British Columbia only if the community participates. "

So you see, Mr. Speaker, there is cause for cynicism in light of what I've just read and in light of the obvious lack of direction, leadership, sincerity and demonstration, or any real concern about what is happening in this province. Here they're having a Human Rights Day filled with important events, no doubt, but hardly addressing the very serious crisis that this province is facing today.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the United Nations General Assembly we — that is, British Columbians and Canadians — are committed to this body's resolutions. They had a ten-year war on racism, in which they made certain pronouncements and recommendations. One of them was to declare that:

"Discrimination between human beings on the grounds of race, colour or ethnic origin is an affront to humanity and shall be condemned as a violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as an obstacle to friendly and peaceful relations between nations and as a factor capable of disturbing peace and security among peoples.

"...the vigour with which action is taken by individual governments and the degree of cooperation between them, inside and outside the United Nations, to fulfill the purposes and principles of the charter and to implement the resolutions relating to the eradication of racist policies and practices, as well as colonialism; the full utilization of the desire and readiness of men and women to devote their energies, talents and abilities to the benefit of society, and more particularly to combat racism and racial discrimination.

"The ultimate goals of the Decade are to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind on grounds of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, especially by eradicating racial prejudice, racism and racial discrimination; to arrest any expansion of racist policies, to eliminate the persistence of racist policies and to counteract the emergence of alliances based on mutual espousal of racism and racial discrimination; to resist any policy and practices which lead to the strengthening of the racist regimes and contribute to the sustainment of racism and racial discrimination; to identify, isolate and dispel the fallacious and mythical beliefs, policies and practices that contribute to racism and racial discrimination; and to put an end to racist regimes."

Mr. Speaker, the public seeks guidance and it has a right to seek guidance. I'm standing here before this assembly, hoping to appeal to a sense of real understanding of the democratic process, the delicate principles that we all take too casually, and I think the number one principle that we're all concerned about is that of free speech. But free speech has its limitations. I suppose, to those of you who are on the so-called free enterprise side, there is nothing freer than free. But I can tell you, there is nothing free, period — nothing, certainly not these principles. I didn't bring along a lot of the testimonial letters that I've received from people who lived under the regimes in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s and at the beginning of the 1940s, people who personally experienced the consequences of the head-in-the-sand approach to dealing with problems. But I think this is a time when we have to question principles, when those principles are clearly being misused. I'm not suggesting that they have no merit or any value, or that they have not in the past served us well; but there is nothing that's etched in stone, not even stone itself — nothing. And it's a cop-out on the part of the government and any other civil libertarian, or individuals who claim to be concerned about principles that are going to benefit humanity in general but benefit no one specifically.

In the meantime we talk about peace; we talk about striving for justice — and I believe some of those expressions were used in the Speech from the Throne with relation to the conflict between Iran and Iraq. We hope that that matter can be abated to avoid further disturbing the world peace. But, Mr. Speaker, peace is achieved by individuals like you and me, people who have confidence in the concept of peace — which, incidentally, is an expression that was coined by individuals like you and me. So peace means nothing unless it means something to me, you and everybody else. It doesn't mean anything because some intellectual came out with a phrase and said peace is something to achieve. It doesn't mean a thing if I don't buy it. Neither does free speech. I could tell you, Mr. Speaker, without being out of order, that I'll be damned if I'm going to let someone have free speech if it's going to bludgeon me and my family to death.

Having made that expression, it wouldn't be responsible for me, as a publicly elected official, to stand here and say that I have no respect for guidelines, for law and order, for the legislative process, or for the commitment on the part of all of us to abide by certain rules for the common good even though we may dissent or disagree at any point in time. What I'm suggesting is that it's my duty to point out the inequities and obvious difficulties that exist from time to time that may not have been seen previously but become more and more evident and obvious with each passing day. Not being a lawyer is perhaps the best thing that ever happened to me, although I sometimes have a lot of trouble trying to figure out what's going on. It doesn't take much imagination for me to realize how difficult it is for the public who perhaps have even less experience than I in dealing with these problems.

[ Page 4285 ]

There is a need for leadership and direction. There is a need for a heck of a lot more than we're getting from this administration, who are posturing in the comfort of their chambers and suggesting that there's nothing we can do, no laws are being broken, when people are quivering in their boots on the streets, especially the new Canadians, those who can hardly even speak English. We're bringing them in by the thousands every day in this country. They are coming and they are being shocked because we're saying there's nothing we can do because there are certain principles at play that we don't want to violate.

I've been looking for a quote, but I don't have it. I've read it enough that perhaps the best way to tell it is the way I perceived it when I read it. It had to do with a former chief justice of Canada, Sir Lyman Duff, who suggested that free speech is something that we should all cherish and recognize as the right of everyone in a free and democratic society. However, when it fails to respect the right of a person to live in dignity, when it fails to appreciate the delicate balance we have in a culture mosaic such as this, where cooperation, confidence and a will to show compassion for one another is of the essence, then one has to question the value of that free speech. In other words, there are parameters, even on free speech.

Again, I don't have the quote, but in 1965 there was an all-party committee in the House of Commons addressing the question of hate propagation, They deliberated for many months before they came down with their recommendations. They suggested, even in those days, that the problem was serious, that one of the greatest menaces facing a free and democratic society was the inability of the society to recognize the limitations of its principles with respect to intruders and infiltrators who would undermine that system. They recommended 15 years ago that something be done about making the courts more accessible to the individual. They recommended that every person should have his day in court. We shouldn't have to go to the Attorney-General for a fiat in order to have him decide what values I place on whether I'm being intimidated or threatened or not. If someone criminally assaults you, you should have the right to take action, and not have to go and ask the Attorney-General, "What do you think?" and have him deliberate over the matter and say: "Well, I don't think the law has been broken." You say: "Well, what about my head?" He says: "Well, it's probably just one of those things that happen from time to time."

It's a serious problem. It's one in which we need inventive minds and imaginative people. We need people who are prepared not to relax on their laurels or degrees they've achieved in the past, because the future requires action, persons with commitment and a sense of vision who are sensitive to the reality of daily living, not just something in the abstract past. We're talking about today.

There are people on the streets who are upset today. The group of people that attended that meeting I held on the 26th consisted of people from every imaginable description and from all over the world — people from the east, the west, the north and the south. They were not all people of so-called "colour." They were people of Nordic, Scandinavian and European descent. They were people who care about the concept of freedom and democracy. They recognized the dangers that are lurking out there, that have in fact become pretty well rooted in this society and that are being propagated by the Ku Klux Klan. So this is not a conspiracy of the left or a conspiracy of anything; these are Canadian people who are concerned. There's no need to contrive something like this. This is real, not imaginary. This isn't a kind of situation where you have someone say: "Well, there can't be that many of them out there. There're only a couple. What difference does it make? You're just making a mountain out of a molehill. Just disappear and they'll disappear. Don't give them any publicity. Be quiet." That's fine as long as you've never experienced the debilitating experience of racism. If you've never experienced it, you don't know what it is. You've got to go out there and try to find out.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, one good thing you can say about me is that I learned my lesson well, and I've learned self-control. But I can tell you that there was a time when I'd have been out on the streets fighting. It's only by the grace of some people who just kept telling me to hang in there that war is not where it's at. You've got to have confidence; you've got to have patience. But I can tell you, patience runs thin when you come to the senior lawmaking officers of your province, to the people who are charged with administering justice in this province, to the people who are supposed, be informed and who care, and they tell you there is nothing they can do. Well, you know the law of the jungle: go for yourself.

Don't think that it can't happen in British Columbia. It's happened all over the world, and it can happen here. I don't mean to alarm anyone. We don't exactly have a peaceful environment in the first place. We don't exactly have everything our way in the first place. There are still many aggrieved people of all walks of life in this province who are very concerned about the indifference, the attitudes of this government with respect to human dignity and justice. It's not just the Klan. The Klan are a group who are exploiting a situation that happens to exist. They've recognized the weaknesses, and we're too cozy to face it ourselves. That's all they are doing. There are principles involved here. No, the Klan is not the issue. We are the issue. Indifference is just a state of mind that we seem to have allowed ourselves to fall into, which is as lethal as sitting on a keg of dynamite. It can blow up in our faces and we can be hurt.

The government may have a problem indeed in terms of the legislation that exists being faulty. But, you know, there's no excuse for the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) to stonewall the rights of those people who have come to him legitimately with a complaint and asked him to refer it to the Solicitor-General or whatever procedures are necessary in order to give them their day in court. That's the very least he could do. Why should he have to sit on his judgment? No, it doesn't require any genius to do that. It doesn't even matter if the minister happens to be wrong. No one is suggesting that they will win their case, but they should have an opportunity to try to win. That's the fault. That's the serious error that this government is making. You can believe me that it's unforgivable. In fact, it's contemptible against the Canadian people. You don't even appear to be concerned. You're not even trying to do anything. You have no suggestions, no recommendations. You just think there's nothing we can do, the law isn't being broken. Well, hogwash! The law is being broken when people are being hurt.

Whether the law is clear or not, the point is that when you ask people how they feel about this, I can tell you there's a great voice out there saying: "What is the government doing. What can we do?" I get calls every day: "What can we do? How can we help? This is a serious problem." It doesn't matter really about numbers. If people want to be involved in

[ Page 4286 ]

protecting their environment and their society, they should have a right to do that. You should be concerned about trying to help them do it. This is why I've said it's best perhaps not to be a lawyer, because you're closer to reality. In other words, I have to get out and scratch for everything every day. I don't have time to do that much intellectualizing about the complexities of how to make something stick in the courtroom. All I know is that you better find some answers. Do that or resign. If you can't find the answers, then admit it, but don't hold the people up who are asking, especially in a multicultural, multiracial society where we brag and boast about our mosaic and how well we are doing. To tell those people that they should accept the effrontery of the Ku Klux Klan, when they suggest that their citizenship is not valid — imagine the gall! Even an attack on Her Majesty the Queen wouldn't be any worse of an offence.

Even though you may not understand it, what you are saying is that it's okay to come in and insult the subjects of the Crown — a subject of this society, the people. The main number one resource in this society are all of us individuals. No other resource, in my view, takes precedence over myself — or over you, in fact, because we are, and we should have the confidence and the security to know that at least our citizenship is not up for debate.

We may debate our behaviour, we may talk about a violation with respect to our activities — and that's all fair comment. But, Mr. Speaker, it's not fair comment to have someone suggest that all the blacks, all the Pakistanis, all of the Chinese, and various other people, and perhaps those who are not quite White Anglo-Saxon Protestants — and perhaps even them later — must leave, and go somewhere else. I think that's an offence under the Criminal Code. It certainly disturbs the peace. You may say that it's not of the usual nature with respect to the Criminal Code — it has nothing to do with material things, it has nothing to do with physical violence or those things — but I can tell you the emotional and psychological violence is even more hurting sometimes than the physical, because it goes on generation after generation. I mean, you just take the case of the Irish fighting each other. It's been going on for hundreds of years.

But the point is that once hate is embedded and once people make their mind up that they are better than the other guy, they're going to fight. We're aiding and abetting that right now. We're supporting it right now by doing nothing. I think that the government should reconsider its position and come out front and perhaps start making some recommendations, if the Criminal Code is not adequate as it is, and saying that maybe there is some measure, some degree, of fault with words — maybe there is something about these words that is more lethal — and maybe we'd better start restricting freedom of speech when it starts to hurt our country, because that's exactly what it's doing.

I don't like being called names, I don't like being singled out, I don't like being offended, and I think that that's the very least I could ask of the government. Even if I'm starving to death and can't get a job, I want at least to be able to suffer in dignity. But these are the kinds of insults, Mr. Speaker, that go far beyond someone attacking you on the streets because there's a difference of opinion. When they start suggesting that they should dismantle this country one by one — person by person — and fire them out of here, and saying that we're going to have it just for a certain class, that's a declaration of war, an absolute declaration of war.

So I would like to see the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), who is responsible for the Human Rights Code, take the leadership and show some initiative, show some indignation, and not just say that they think that the Klan is, as the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) suggested, just repugnant. Well, great! They're repugnant. So let's forget it. They're just repugnant. No, we want more than that. We want you to do more than hold conferences for ethnic communities, when you're getting ready for an election, to talk about policies, and then as soon as the election is over forget it, or make promises which you don't keep, like appointing the cultural heritage adviser without consultation with the community and these kinds of things. Stop playing games with the ethnic communities and get on with doing something which shows that you have a real commitment to the mosaic in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I'll just close my remarks by suggesting as well that if nothing else, this government should recognize the need to make the Human Rights Code arm's length from politicians, the same as the auditor-general and the ombudsman's office. In other words, get out of the ballgame if you can't play it fairly. Leave the people to do their job. We don't need to get politicians involved in human rights. Let's set that commission up so it can do the job it has to do. This is one of the other faults. Let's begin to recognize that citizenship is not the core curriculum only; it involves recognizing the delicate nature of the democratic society so that people understand when they are in trouble. Let's start doing something about that in the school system.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I think that we could do with a few impassioned speeches from that side of the House. So far we've heard nothing. I don't think they really understand. It's difficult to draw the analogy between the kind of mentality it takes to sell cars, perhaps, and the kind it takes to look after human rights, but I think that that government has an obligation to at least try.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, number one, I would like to again reiterate my good wishes to you upon your return, sir, your cheery disposition and, indeed, your most healthful presence in our House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, sir.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm delighted to have you back.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I'm not going to comment upon the very thoughtful speech of the last speaker, except to make one observation about what he said about core curricula. I think, really and truly, that this is an area that we should be giving a great deal of additional consideration to. I do know that my colleague, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), is responding to requests that have been developed over the past months concerning the introduction into core curricula of something about our democratic institutions, our democratic goals and our democratic way of life. I think that the sooner we have that within our schools in a better fashion than it is today, the better, and to be included in that should be an expansion of legal education. It is my general understanding that today there is only one elective course in legal education — I think it's a very good course, which, I believe, is in grade 11 or

[ Page 4287 ]

grade 12. But, you know, we all live under a democratic society, we all have to subscribe to the rule of law, and precious little is ever taught about it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few moments to talk to you and to my colleagues in the Legislature about our view of the constitutional turmoil that currently besets our country. I'd say there is no question that because of it and because of the economic dilemma, we're now facing some very critical times in Canada at this point in our history.

I will not be transgressing upon the motion, Mr. Speaker, you may rest assured of that.

This September we were as close as we have ever been to substantial constitutional reform. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the capacity to fully and to fairly recognize that opportunity became lost. It was lost because of an unrealistic and an unworkable timetable; it was lost because of the lack of success at the first ministers' meetings in September; and it was indeed lost because of a process that did not adapt itself to the possibilities of reasonable compromise and accommodation. We have to look at what is the present result in the country. I'd say it's regrettable feelings, exacerbated rhetoric, separatist sentiments and a federal activity that is proposing unilateral, self-defined solutions — with all the discordant emphasis and the discordant result from that — instead of everyone better utilizing our collective Canadian energies to address the more serious and, indeed, the ever-increasing problems of the day: the wildly mounting deficits in our national economy; the double-digit inflation — most of the members have made some reference to that already during the throne speech debate; burgeoning national unemployment — it's pretty good in B.C., but in the rest of the country it's on its way up; staggering bureaucracies across our land; a spreading housing crisis — members on both sides of the House have talked about that; interest rates — well, I guess you could say they are blowing the Richter scale, and they used to be called usury at the rate they're at now.

MR. MACDONALD: They're still going up.

HON. MR. GARDOM: And they're still going up. It's dreadful. And a letter takes about two weeks to cross town.

But, Mr. Speaker, you can remember that it was only about six months ago that all Canadians, and both sides of this House, urged Quebeckers to stay with us at the table of Confederation, and in turn, all other provinces, led by the federal government, promised Quebec substantial constitutional reform. I have to put the question to you, Mr. Speaker, as to whether the federal package will produce that, and I'd say the answer purely, simply and unequivocally has to be no. There is no question that we are very proud of our country. We want to make it work, and that's very much the commitment of the government of which I am part.

We are completely opposed to separation, as I said in a talk in Toronto, "be it east, west, central or centrifugal separation." The government of the province of British Columbia is today, was yesterday, and will be tomorrow for one strong and united Canada. And all of us should be, for the country has got to stay together.

But you have to take a look at where Canada is six months after the Quebec referendum, We have discontent throughout Canada in varying but in increasing degree, and it exists right across the whole of our nation. It's sad and it's indeed unnecessary, but it's nonetheless a fact. I think we can all agree, there is more than one cause for that: the quavering economic performance, the elective imbalance on the national scale, and the constitutional issue — and, I'd say, the amazing amount of federal emphasis that has been placed upon the constitutional issue.

Mr. Speaker, we've existed for 113 years under our present constitution — I think it's of good stuff — and I'd say that with an effective amount of cooperation and flexibility we could probably go on for another 113 years. But if we're going to change it, then we've got to do it the right way and it's got to be the Canadian way, and we have to do it properly.

I'd like to address to all members of the House what has happened since June 8. Here is a quick rundown, On June 8 the Prime Minister and the Premiers requested consideration of 12 items of constitutional reform. It wasn't 1, 17 or 6; it was 12. Extensive meetings were held right across the country, and it was a very, very intensive process. I say, without qualification, that a lot of consensus and agreement was arrived at on all matters. I think more could have been developed had the timetable been extended even by a month, but that was denied. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the will was there for agreement, Even a formula for amendment was developed subject to rounding off some rough edges, and that became known as the Vancouver consensus or the Vancouver accord. But that accord that was developed in the city of Vancouver by all of the provinces was not heeded by the federal administration, and I say that heretofore accepted Canadian conventions, Canadian customs and practices — and, indeed, appropriate legal routes — were abandoned. This culminated in the federal government introducing its own material into the House of Commons.

MR. HALL: On a point of order, I'm somewhat loath to interrupt the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. It's a good speech, I wish he'd give it more often, but I'm wondering whether or not in view of the resolution on the order paper.... The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations is indeed the House Leader, and it's his timetable; he gave notice of the motion. Is this particular part of his contribution today in order?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I don't have any difficulty whatsoever in responding to that point. The motion deals particularly with patriation of the constitution and a formula for amendment of the constitution. That was referred to during the throne speech. I do not intend to get into particularity during this talk but to inform all hon. members how the process developed to this point in time. I can assure the hon. member that I'm most delighted to speak during the motion when it's called and develop some particular aspects of it. This is a general talk informing you of what is happening in the country at the present time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: While the point raised by the second member for Surrey is a fair point to raise, I must say that the motion is very clearly set out. While there is a very thin line here, I believe the minister presently addressing us is keeping to the appropriate side of that line.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, you should be aware that there is an amendment to the motion, and it is the amendment which is under debate at this particular time. That amendment is regretting that His Honour failed to comment on the lack of leadership of this government.

[ Page 4288 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Notwithstanding the point, the debate on the throne speech or amendments to the throne speech has never traditionally restrained to that degree discussion by any members. Otherwise, hon. member, it would be difficult for the Chair to rule many of the addresses in order on that point.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I certainly will be indicating to all of the hon. members.... I'm sure if they will give me their attention they will receive from my remarks very, very clearly the distinct impression that there's been excellent leadership in the province of British Columbia vis-à-vis constitutional reform since 1976, but rather a void prior to that.

I was mentioning that the accord that was developed in Vancouver was not heeded by the federal administration. I drew to your attention that the conventions, customs and usages in our country, and indeed the appropriate legal route, were effectively abandoned by the federal administration introducing its own material into the House of Commons, which clearly incorporates intrusions into the historic and, indeed, accepted divisions of powers between the federal government and the provinces of our country. We are objecting to that, and we are showing leadership in this regard.

The activity that has been undertaken by the federal government is unilateral as opposed to cooperative. It was, and it is, increasingly discordant. What is happening, as you will see from my remarks, is completely contrary to the accepted concepts of Canadian federalism, and this is coming from the one agency that all Canadians should be able to look toward and count upon as the wellspring of unity in our country.

The concerns that I am expressing are just not the concerns of this British Columbian, nor the concerns of just one government in our country. They are very legitimate concerns; they have been expressed right across the whole of our nation. I'd say let's not try to get caught up in the parlance that is so often used these days that this is just Ottawa bashing. These people expressed those kinds of observations. The kind that I'm expressing are just as Canadian and just as much a part of Canada, and they have just as much right and responsibility to express their points of views as do those who differ with them. What we've constantly said in B.C. Is to return to the table and try to agree; and I say that we have to do that.

In 1978 the Premier of the province, at the first ministers' conference on the economy, called for a more businesslike, planned approach to resolving Canadian issues. Last month, November of this year, he called for a cooling-off period and a return to the economic and constitutional table to resolve our constitutional difficulties and then get to the real problems, which I've been talking about.

In 1978, as the second member for Vancouver East knows, if he's yet read them.... I do hope you have at least read them by now; you've had two years of them hanging around. You have an opportunity to break open that book jacket, sir, and read the comprehensive set of constitutional proposals that were prepared by this administration. The aim of this administration then was to enhance Canada and to make it a better place for all Canadians. We believe very strongly — and this is the philosophy of this government — that strong provinces make a strong Canada, and that the main part of Canada's strength is in its being a true federation, where that which can best be done locally is done locally, and that which can best be done federally is done federally. That is cooperative federalism; that is what this country has lived under and indeed has prospered under. But the country today is not experiencing a program of cooperative federalism but confrontative federalism. I say that this is very contrary to the concepts and the spirit of Canadian federalism and the BNA Act, and those thoughts and sentiments are shared by provinces right across this country; those thoughts and sentiments are also shared by citizens right across this country. We believe Canada is more than just the sum of its parts; that is by far the most shared view of the country. Then surely this nation is more than just the sum of one perspective or of just one government timetable.

Federalism is fragile. Its very strength is also where it is most vulnerable. A belief in federalism implies a belief in diversity, which in turn reflects the source of its richness. It implies the acknowledgement of its separate parts, and it requires that each respect the unique desires and needs of the others. Is that being done today in our country? I have to put that question to you. I submit that it is not. When this respect suffers, the trust is broken and the entire federal fabric suffers. This brings us back to an amending formula, which is indeed an issue which is too fundamental to short-circuit.

As I said, this is a view that is shared by many across the whole of our country and by the majority of our provincial governments. Since this proposed federal alternative is without provincial agreement, it is contrary to Canadian practice and custom. It is contrary to Canadian convention and contrary to Canadian law. This is the main theme which I want to develop in this talk: the common thread throughout our history is that where both federal and provincial responsibilities are involved, the consent of all of the constituent parts must be required to validate any kind of request for an amendment.

I'm going to talk to you a little bit about Prime Minister Pearson. I'm going to read you some of the words that were expressed by Arthur Meighan when he was the Leader of the Opposition; Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Borden, Prime Minister St. Laurent and some others. These sentiments certainly come from very well known and historical figures in our country. I don't think they can be lightly disregarded, but I suggest to you that they are being lightly disregarded in today the national context. I say that's very, very bad and improper.

Prime Minister Pearson when he was talking about unanimity said this — I'm going to paraphrase: "The facts of national life have imposed the unanimity requirement, and experience since Confederation has established it as a convention that a government or parliament would disregard it at its peril."

Arthur Meighan, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, said: "The common thread running through the federal-provincial conferences has been that Canada should have a method of procedure to amend its own constitution without resource to the United Kingdom, provided that method was satisfactory to the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures."

Sir Wilfrid Laurier said: "Confederation is a compact. It should be altered only for an adequate cause and after the provinces themselves have had an opportunity to pass judgment on the same."

This House ought to hesitate in passing judgment until it has before it the views of all the provinces affected.

Prime Minister Borden was again talking about the federal compact: "It is only right that each province should be

[ Page 4289 ]

consulted and its decision given in the right of its separate entity."

Prime Minister St. Laurent said: "It is and has always been the view of the federal government that the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces which gives a federal character to the constitution of Canada must be respected. " Is that being respected today in this process? I submit to you that it isn't.

Mr. St. Laurent made an earlier comment when he was then the Minister of Justice for Canada: "It has always been my view that any procedure for amendment of the joint portion of the constitution must make proper provision for participation by both the federal and the provincial authorities."

Mr. Speaker, I think this is perhaps best summed up by a short statement in 1965 in the federal government's own White Paper on the constitution: "The Canadian parliament will not request an amendment directly affecting federal/provincial relations without prior consultation and agreement with the provinces."

So, Mr. Speaker, what do you really see from all of that? I put to you that it is abundantly clear that there is an inviolate requirement on the part of the government of Canada to receive provincial consent before there are any steps along the line it's proposing to take, because that is the clear and dominant theme. Sovereignty under our federal democratic system is not the private preserve of just a federal government, but is divided between the two levels of government.

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm going to refer to that in just a moment. As a matter of fact, that point was taken into consideration during the debates in Ottawa and they have had a ruling that it is not sub judice.

The member for Surrey is talking about the proceedings that are in front of the Manitoba court of appeal. Proceedings are also going to be taken in front of the Court of Appeal of Quebec and the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland. In all of these cases, at least six provinces are going to be addressing the issue that the legality and legitimacy of the federal position is in very serious question.

I think we should not leave this point without making some reference to the Senate of Canada and what its responsibility will be concerning these matters. I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is indeed a very commanding responsibility upon the Senate of Canada within its role of having to provide sober second thought to the House of Commons legislation and, secondly, within its historically conceived responsibility to represent regional or provincial interests. The Senate will have to take a very careful look at this type of legislation, because what is being proposed by the federal government will certainly shape the future of our country.

The Senate will have to give very highly detailed and exceptionally careful consideration to the process as well as to the substance of the Commons proposal. In the absence of provincial consent, in the face of opposition from the majority of the provinces of our country, and in the face of what appears to be clear intervention into existing provincial legislative domain, the Senate will have to determine whether that which is being proposed is inappropriate and is not the Canadian way of doing things.

MR. LEGGATT: They haven't got the guts. They'll never change.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The former member for Ottawa, the member for Coquitlam-Moody, says the Senate haven't got the guts and they'll never change. I don't know. Maybe you're right, but I hope that won't be the case.

I have before me the report on certain aspects of the Canadian constitution which was chaired by Senator Goldenberg, and it's dated November 1980. I'll be darned if this material was not apparently produced — and I quote from the first page.... "This report was approved in substance by the committee before the beginning of the first ministers' conference on September 8.'' It was too bad it wasn't released at that time. It goes on with a final revision given at a meeting on October 30.

This is what this committee of the Senate of Canada said in their report. I'd like to read it to you, because I think they should have to live by their words on this issue. I say the Senate of Canada has a commanding requirement to live by their words in this issue. This is on page 7. I'll read it to you. "It is genuinely accepted today that Canada should have a genuine federation in which each order of government would be sovereign within its own areas of jurisdiction." Now, senators, please don't change your minds over the Christmas holidays.

I will carry on. "This basic principle has been recognized by all the documents that have dealt with constitutional reform in recent years." So they have accepted the concept; they have accepted the wisdom of the direction of the Meighans, the Bordens and the St. Laurents of this world, and I say thank God for that and I do hope that they will have the courage to stick to it.

They refer to the Pépin-Robarts report. It said that since we view the provincial governments as equal in stature and maturity to the central government, we have no difficulty in stating that in a restructured, genuinely federal union the provinces should be recognized as having a constitutional status equal with that of toe central government. That is the quotation of the senators of Pépin-Robarts. They refer to the Beige Paper of the Quebec Liberal Party. "Quebec wishes to belong to a federation in which all of the provinces will be sovereign and autonomous in their fields of jurisdiction."

In the 1978 White Paper of the federal government — they refer to that too. "The federal government set as its first condition for the renewal of the constitution of Canada that it should be a genuine federation, that is a state in which the constitution establishes a federal parliament with real powers which apply to all parts of the country, and provincial legislatures with equally real powers within their respective territories."

I like the way they sum up, and I do hope that we are going to have your support during this amendment or during this debate.

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: My goodness, time for repentance, my friend. But I would like to read this to you. I am returning to the senators: — Other documents as well have expressed their support for a genuine federation. There seems to exist, therefore, a general consensus on the principle of sovereignty or nonsubordination of the two orders of government." Senators, please read your own words and don't forget them, and if the senators read their own words

[ Page 4290 ]

and if they live by them, the present constitutional proposals will not pass through the Senate of Canada, and I say that they should not.

We have to conclude from that, Mr. Speaker, without question, that the House of Commons is moving too far and it is moving too fast; it is moving clearly without the kind of consent and the kind of Canadian accord that is required for the Senate's approval of a measure that would be as difficult and as dramatic to reverse as this one.

I'm going to talk to you now a little bit about London. As you know — and these were filed with the Clerk's office, and copies were sent to your caucus, to your leader, sir.... This deals with the B.C. brief that was filed to the Select Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs of the British Parliament, which is receiving evidence on the legal and constitutional responsibilities of that parliament, its duties, procedures and juridical position. I would say that it is very regrettable that the Mother of Parliaments has to be drawn into a process which can be, and should be, resolved here in our country. And I say, without being presumptuous, as to the conclusion that will be reached by the House of Commons, surely it will be bound to recognize that for years Canada has been a free and independent and sovereign nation, and surely the United Kingdom parliament, which is the trustee of our constitutional heritage, is being put into....

MR. LEGGATT: I just wanted to raise the question of relevance around the debate. The motion that is before the House deals with the question of leadership. I haven't heard the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations refer in any way, so far that I have been able to detect, to the motion on the Coor. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you give consideration to the relevancy of his remarks.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, since we got the attentive ear of the member, it is very clear that British Columbia has taken great leadership in the development of the best set of constitutional proposals put forth by any province in our country by opposing this unilateral activity on the part of the federal administration, and we are not rolling over like you are, sir.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise the question of the relevance of the debate, when one considers the presence of the motion on the order paper dealing with the constitution, and ask you if you would consider for one second whether any of the remarks that the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations has just been making over the last 20 minutes would have been declared out of order had he been speaking on Resolution 1.

Secondly, all the leaders he spoke about in these last 20 minutes are dead.

Thirdly, I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, that you're allowing the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations to deliberately abuse the rules of the House as he just did in his rejoinder to the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) when he said that this government is providing leadership in opposing the unilateral actions taken by the federal government, which specifically refers to parts of Resolution I on the order paper.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the minister, I must confess that the Chair is having some difficulty in making all the remarks by the minister relevant to the amendment presently before us. Nevertheless, in the throne speech amendment we have traditionally allowed great latitude. But I must remind the minister that there is a motion on the order paper, and he must bear that in mind when continuing with his remarks.

HON. MR. GARDOM: An excellent caveat, Mr. Speaker, and I shall certainly endeavour to do so.

I think the hon. members would certainly appreciate receiving first-hand some particulars of the leadership that this government has shown by filing its brief in London. That is just collateral to the resolution, as you will see once I've summed up the remarks of the brief in London. If you'll just bear with me for a moment, it's not reflecting upon....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order....

HON. MR. GARDOM: I have the floor, Mr. Speaker, if you don't mind. I'm responding to their point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I thought the point of order had been resolved and you were continuing your address. I did recognize the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall). If the member was continuing on a point of order then obviously he will retain the floor.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I was.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You will continue on that point of order, and then I will recognize the second member for Surrey.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I've just informed the hon. members of the kind of leadership that this province is demonstrating and the initiative that it has taken in London. I think that these hon. members would like to receive specifics of it. I can give them every assurance that I'll be speaking in the next debate, and we will be dealing with many, many specifics and particulars which I am not dealing with now. I'm informing them of the position that is taken in London. This is, I would say, a most unprecedented time in the history of our country,

MR. HALL: On a point of order, the entreaty by the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations is in contrast to the lecture that he gave us half an hour ago. The point of order that I wish to raise is that it's only some three and a half hours ago since conclusions were reached to see the debate that the member talks about take place on Thursday. I don't make the rules around here, and neither does the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. He's the leader of the government in this House. He's the one who saw fit to put the motion on the order paper. He's the one in charge of the timetable of the government, not 1, and not you, sir. It's up to him to arrange the government's business in such an order that he can tell us those things in a proper way, and not seek to bend the rules to his advantage when it suits him. I suggest to you that he's been out of order for the last 20 minutes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Again, I must remind all hon. members that, traditionally, on the throne speech reply, whether it be in the main motion or amendment to the motion, great latitude has always been allowed. Nevertheless, I must bring to the minister's attention the fact that there is very clearly a motion on the order paper, and that the

[ Page 4291 ]

member must relate his remarks more specifically to the amendment which is presently before us. I find it difficult to rule specifically on the points of order raised by the second member for Surrey, but I would ask hon. members to bear in mind, when addressing their remarks, the long standing traditions of this House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Insofar as the London process is concerned I just want to repeat that the U.K. Parliament is the trustee of the constitutional heritage of our country, and it's been put into an invidious position by the actions of the federal government. As such a trustee I say that the U.K. Parliament can well ask if that which the federal government proposes effects existing provincial powers under the BNA Act. I say it should put that question. If the answer is that it does, then the trustee Parliament ought to ask the additional question: is there provincial consensus? I'd say in the absence of such consent, an unprecedented abuse of power would be worked upon the U.K. Parliament by the federal administration. I don't think it should respond to that kind of practice.

Since the legality of the federally intended procedure is being considered by the Canadian courts this would create an additional dilemma for the United Kingdom Parliament. If it happened to take any action on just one request, it could end up developing new laws that would govern all of Canadians. Depending upon the outcome of decisions before the courts, those laws in themselves could well be subject to later constitutional and legal challenge in our own country. And this is why, Mr. Speaker, this province is showing leadership. This is why other provinces in our country are showing leadership. This is why I say they are responding to the defense of Canadian traditions. This is why the British Parliament has been entreated to do nothing until the matters are resolved in Canada through the legal process or political process to the satisfaction of the federal and the provincial governments.

Mr. Speaker, I have some specifies now which would infringe upon the motion. I do not propose to discuss them. But I'd like to say that I think the time has come for some up-front, straightforward, no-frills, Canadian-type negotiations, and a return to Canadian common sense. Let's get this constitutional thing properly back on track. I'd say that the time has come for the Prime Minister of our country to state that he will return to the table with all of our Canadian Premiers to develop an early return of our constitution and to develop an amending formula. By taking this kind of route — to the member for Vancouver East — at least we'd be able to get the constitution home and the capacity to reach accord would be within the Canadian family, where it should be. Our current disagreements may be dealt with within the Canadian family, where they also belong. What we want is a "made in Canada" constitution.

MR. PASSARELL: At the outset, I welcome you back to the hotseat. I hope you can enjoy the next week or two.

It was unbelievable that the previous government speaker stated at the onset of his speech that he wouldn't comment on the second member for Vancouver Centre's (Mr. Barnes's) speech concerning the Ku Klux Klan. What he did was he lambasted the federal politicians in Ottawa again — a continuing saga of this government on its Ottawa-bashing routine. It's a shame that this government can't show the type of leadership it should be showing when we have a problem such as the Ku Klux Klan.

Mr. Speaker, in the throne speech the present coalition government spoke on the individual British Columbian as having six basic aims in life. They are six basic aims in which northern residents have once again been ignored. For instance, the first basic aim that shows the lack of leadership in this party is that every British Columbian should enjoy the best possible health. It makes it very difficult to enjoy the best possible health when for the last two years we've been talking about the need of a health facility in Dease Lake. Two previous Health ministers have had this fact drawn to their attention, that there's nothing in place in Dease Lake for a community of 300. There is no type of trailer, no type of medical facility. Everything is done out of the nurse's kitchen, and I think it's time that this government, if it's going to put down aims, start putting in some type of facilities more than having a nurse operate out of her kitchen.

The provincial medical facilities in many communities in the north are non-existent, For instance, Cassiar is a private hospital. It's about time the provincial government showed some type of leadership in taking over the Cassiar first-aid station and making provincial medical stations throughout the north to benefit residents,

Secondly, Hydro was in the Speech from the Throne. There was an interesting article in the May 26, 1980, Citizen: "Bennett's Answer Shocks Kemano Opponents." I'll just read a little bit, Mr. Speaker, from this article: "The Kemano hydroelectric project can go ahead any time the Aluminum Company of Canada wants, according to what Premier Bill Bennett told a group of protesters on Saturday." Skipping down to the end of the article: "One of the demonstrators said: 'We were shocked when we saw this. This is directly contrary to what the Energy minister, Bob McClelland, told us when we were in Victoria. We have it in writing. I think one of them is speaking with a forked tongue.'" It's about time this government showed a type of moral leadership in this province, instead of running around and stabbing each one of the ministers in the back. There should be a direct and concentrated effort to benefit residents in this province.

I agree with this morning's statement by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), concerning Hydro and its policy of overbuilding. When a policy statement comes out on new construction, on massive dam complexes such as the Stikine-Iskut and the Laird complex, compared to building small hydro dams on rivers for local consumption.... This would be greeted much more by residents in the north than building some massive dam on a river that affects not only the environment and the livelihood of people, but the wildlife in the area also. Once again the residents of the north must sacrifice their environment to keep swimming pools warm in California, if projects such as the Stikine-Iskut-Laird go ahead.

The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) has once again displayed a non-caring attitude by not holding a public inquiry into this aspect. But they say it's just a feasibility study at this stage. Well, presently there's a 40-man camp at Site Z, drilling a 2,000-foot diversion tunnel. This is much more than a feasibility study. Hydro yesterday applied to the lands branch to have a Cat trail built — they call it a Cat trail because they originally asked for a road, which was turned down, to bring in a Becker drill and some other heavy equipment for the 2,000-foot diversion tunnel. Then the government still has the audacity — it's leadership — to say that it's only a feasibility study. Knowing that a road would cause considerable protest from the local residents, Hydro

[ Page 4292 ]

attempts to sidestep the environmental impact assessment study by calling their road a Cat trail, to be used only for a one-shot effort to bring in the Becker drill. This is nonsense and a travesty in terms of money and use. Once again I reiterate that I agree with the member for North Vancouver–Seymour that Hydro should be looking towards local consumption — small dams on streams and rivers instead of building massive dams.

A company up in the Atlin constituency has gone ahead, and they're using a program of this nature for the benefit of the local residents. That's Cassiar Asbestos, which is constructing a small dam on the Cottonwood River for local consumption and industrial use. Small rivers can be harnessed for local consumption and development, without the massive environmental damage that dams such as the Stikine-Iskut and Laird will cause.

The fourth thing mentioned in the Speech from the Throne was a healthy environment. I wonder how northern residents can achieve a healthy environment when the present government, through its lack of leadership, allows 100 million tons of toxic waste to be dumped into Alice Ann — an area the Nishga nation uses for its food source. Never once have they been directly involved in the decision-making process. We have heard the Minister of Environment — he's not in the House at this time — state publicly that there's nothing he can do concerning the Amax dumping permit. At the same time, we're selling the livelihoods of the native people — the Nishga — to the interests of a multinational company that's known in many other countries across the world as a poor corporate citizen in its dealings concerning environmental issues. This is an Environment minister who allows a pollution permit to be granted three months prior to a federal government order-in-council, and then turns around and tells a group such as Project North that it's too late to do anything. While he was meeting with Project North — the church organization made up of seven different churches — the minister had to be corrected by his deputy, that he couldn't do anything concerning the pollution-control permit. If one reads the statute books — chapter 110, the Environment and Land Use Act — it spells it out in three different places exactly what the Minister of Environment can do, if he's willing to take the time to read the act, concerning the pollution permit in Alice Arm.

Point five is equality of treatment and opportunity. A campaign promise by the Premier, back in 1975, to the Nishga people has still never been addressed by the Premier, as well as the present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). When this government attacks Ottawa over the constitution, it's ironic that this present coalition government has failed to address the problem of aboriginal rights for the first citizens of this province. It seems that they're simply ignoring the native issues in their Ottawa-bashing routine.

Also included in equality of treatment and opportunity as an aim is the fact that northern residents, to a certain extent, pay higher taxes because of the increased wages that they get, but receive few social services in return. I think it's time that this government granted some type of tax incentive for northern residents. Hopefully, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) will support me in a resolution — if the three of us can get together sometime — that the MP for the area, Frank Oberle, presented in the House concerning northern taxation benefits for northern residents. Both of you are aware of what Mr. Oberle presented in Ottawa?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. PASSARELL: Fine. I think it's time we sat and had a discussion about that. Hopefully the member for Prince George will join us in that discussion, to introduce rebates to a certain extent for rural residents of this province, specifically in the north, in a structure of income tax and sales taxes.

Another interesting aspect was that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who's in his seat at the present time, put out a flashy brochure a few months ago concerning financial assistance for small business individuals. But once again he ignored the concerns of the north by putting a rider, subsection (5), on who can apply for small-business grants. He stated that the program at this time is only for the lower mainland, specifically the Fraser Valley, Vancouver and Victoria. It's a shame that the minister has ignored rural businessmen by discriminating against them with this program, by allowing small-business men and women in the lower mainland to be the only ones to apply for this program.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the throne speech, which ignores northern residents' concerns and livelihoods. I support the amendment of the New Democratic Party.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by joining others in the assembly in extending words of welcome to the member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), who is back with us in his normal role as Speaker. He is not in the chair at present, but I would like to associate myself with all of those who welcomed him back. At the same time, to you, sir, the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson), at present in the chair, I once again acknowledge the very fine work done by you standing in for Mr. Speaker last session, and welcome you back as Deputy Speaker this session.

In dealing with the amendment to the throne speech motion, which is couched in terms of confidence in the leadership of the present government, and in rising to oppose the amendment and to support the leadership of the government, I want to talk in terms of the leadership being provided by this government in British Columbia Rail. I'm pleased to see that the minister responsible for B.C. Rail, with his usual interest in these matters, is in the House.

The record of B.C. Rail in the last several years is a commentary on the leadership shown by this government in turning around and improving B.C. Rail, a Crown corporation which languished in difficult straits from 1972 to 1975. Just last week a very independent newspaper, the Toronto Globe and Mail, had a feature story on B.C. Rail. The headline was this: "Projected $10 Million Profit at B.C. Rail, First in a Decade, Completes Turnaround." In commenting on the leadership role provided by the present government in turning around B.C. Rail, I will read several paragraphs from this article, which begins as follows:

"The long train of troubles that three years ago brought sell off and close-down suggestions has finally clattered past for the British Columbia Railway, according to company president M.C. Norris. BCR this year is expected to have its first net profit in a decade, close to $10 million, in a not particularly favourable year for BCR operations.

"The turnaround has been achieved by support-at-a-distance decisions by the railway's owner, the

[ Page 4293 ]

British Columbia government, and by management's own efforts. The milestone for management was the appointment two years ago of the railway's first business-type board of directors with a minimum of government representation and interference. This was confirmed last year by the appointment of Mr. Norris, a lifelong railway man and previously vice-president, as only the second non-politician to be president."

So, Mr. Speaker, if you want to talk leadership and look around the province at British Columbia Rail, you see a record of success and improvement determined by the leadership role of this government in putting B.C. Rail at arm's length, putting in a businesslike board of directors. And the decisions have flowed. Today, in talking about B.C. Rail, I want to commend the Premier and the government for their leadership role with respect to B.C. Rail and to suggest that that leadership role can and should be maintained by moving in a further direction with B.C. Rail. I want to spend a few minutes proposing a major passenger division on the basis that that onward-going kind of policy will be continued leadership, and the people of this province not only support and recognize the leadership that's been provided to date by B.C. Rail; they want it to continue.

In terms of continuing leadership for B.C. Rail, may I talk about the need for the immediate establishment on a priority basis of a passenger rail division for B.C. Rail. Mr. Speaker, passenger service has never been given a fair test on B.C. Rail. That's not the particular fault of management or government; it's an accident of history. Passenger service has been the necessarily neglected orphan of a resource railway — a railway which in its time to date quite properly has been concerned with resource development and resource movement. Management at B.C. Rail has had neither the mandate nor the financial help with which to initiate and run a proper passenger rail system. The time has come for B.C. Rail to be given the mandate and to be provided a financial footing for a major passenger rail service.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

May I just spend a few moments on the history — such as it has been — of B.C. Rail passenger service. It began in 1956 with the purchase of six of what we call Budd cars, or Budd rail diesel cars, and the start of the North Vancouver to Prince George run. Those same six Budd cars, Mr. Speaker, are the same six — and the only six — passenger stock in service today, nearly 30 years later, and they're nearly worn out. They would cost about $1 million each to replace. They would cost about $700,000 each to reconstruct. Presently about 40 percent of the total usable time of those six passenger Budd cars is reflected in down time in the shop for repair and problems of age and mechanics.

It's no surprise that passenger rail service — such as it has been — has been declining, and passenger rail losses on B.C. Rail have been mounting. But it's a Catch-22 situation, Mr. Speaker, because the losses have been mounting due to declining passenger volumes and increased operating and repair costs. But the declining passenger volumes, in turn, are a consequence of poor equipment and equipment that's often broken down. So it's a vicious circle. As the equipment gets older, it gets less attractive, it spends more time in the shop. As what's offered to passengers becomes less attractive, or isn't available, or is interrupted because of shop time, fewer passengers want to ride.

The losses in B.C. Rail on passenger service since 1968 have increased from $184,000 per year to about $933,000 per year. The total losses in respect of rail service now exceed about $5 million on a cumulative basis in B.C. Rail, and passenger service is declining. Last year it fell to about 72,000 from about 76,000 the previous year.

The Victoria Times, in a wise editorial, commented on the difficulty of passenger service and passenger traffic generally in this country. May I quote, Mr. Speaker, from the June 6, 1979, editorial of the Victoria Times, which had this to say about passenger rail service, in particular with respect to the E&N line here on Vancouver Island — but I want to come back and comment about that relative to new leadership for B.C. Rail. The editorial says:

"Ironically, rail passenger service has never been more popular. The E&N is carrying more people than it has in years. Passenger volume on Amtrak is up. Given the increasing price of gas for private automobile travel, the trend is likely to continue. Railway passenger service is at a crucial crossroads. It cannot continue much longer without new investment in more efficient equipment and improved road beds. Without them railway passenger service will deteriorate even further. Once abandoned, railway passenger service cannot be replaced except at tremendous cost. "

And that's exactly where passenger service at B.C. Rail seems to be at today, a very, very critical crossroads.

Last summer when the Crown corporations committee sat, executives from B.C. Rail came forward and provided some very interesting evidence about the rail service, the passenger division, and the possible future of passenger rail service, I want to quote from some of the testimony given to the the Crown corporations committee of this House by those B.C. Rail executives, because, Mr. Speaker, they underlined the fact that the reason why passenger service on B.C. Rail has been shrinking is because of an inability, for financial reasons, to offer better service or better equipment, and they went on to say that if you could improve the service and improve the equipment, passenger patronage would increase.

Now Mr. Sturgeon, who is the vice-president of marketing and sales for B.C. Rail, had this to say to the Crown corporations committee just this last July about reasons for the loss of passenger traffic on B.C. Rail: "I would assume that the basic reason to reflect the loss in passenger traffic is basically the fact that we haven't been able to utilize our equipment because of the problems we have had in the mechanical end of it. " In other words, the equipment itself accounts for the declining passenger service. It follows, Mr. Speaker, that an improvement in the equipment would provide an improvement in passenger volume.

Mr. Sturgeon went on, and again I quote:

"The biggest single complaint on the railway is that we don't have good equipment. The equipment is old, it's uncomfortable, it doesn't enhance the railway in any sense of the word. I feel that if we had good equipment and provided a better service to the people in the Interior and what not, we would be able to encourage a considerable number of passengers on the railway."

In terms of what the railway might do to provide an ongoing leadership role for service to people in this province, how interested is B.C. Rail management, Mr. Speaker, in

[ Page 4294 ]

getting involved in passenger rail service? Again, the evidence of the executives of B.C. Rail is that if they had some financial support or capacity to get involved in passenger rail service in a meaningful way, they would be enthused to do it. Mr. Norris, the president, had this to say: "We are prepared to cooperate with enthusiasm, provided our financial health is protected. We would do that enthusiastically." Mr. Norris gave further evidence that management at B.C. Rail had the expertise to do a first-rate job in passenger service and could do at least as good a job as VIA Rail, and at less cost. So I am proposing, Mr. Speaker, an ongoing leadership role for B.C. Rail. Now that as a resource railway it is back on the rail, so to speak, the turnaround has been accomplished — operating at arm's length a businesslike board of directors, a leadership success story provided by this government — the next stage of leadership, in my view, is into the passenger service area.

My proposals are these, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the immediate establishment, on a priority basis, of a passenger division of B.C. Rail, and the appointment of a separate vice-president for passenger services with a separate passenger services budget. Now why is that important, Mr. Speaker, if B.C. Rail is to have a new initiative for passenger service? It is important because to date, it has been a resource railway. If you look through the annual report, which is about 15 pages long, and full of a lot of valuable data, there is a total of one and a half lines devoted to the figures on passenger service, and there is no sign of a senior executive in charge of passenger service. That, historically, is understandable, given that the mandate has been to develop a resource railway. But here we have a railway with an investment in it of about $700 million dollars by the people of this province, 3,000 employees, annual revenues of about $126 million from operations, and virtually a thimbleful of financial and human resource presently going to passenger rail service. It is no wonder the McKenzie commission recommended that the passenger rail service be discontinued, but only because it was operating at a loss. And as I say, modern, proper passenger rail service has not been given a decent chance. That chance should now be provided as a matter of future leadership at B.C. Rail.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is going to take some dollars, as these things do, to get that going. I would suggest that the provincial government provide a special passenger service grant of $25 million to B.C. Rail towards the establishment of the passenger rail service division. That figure is arrived at subjectively, Mr. Speaker; it is about 10 percent of the proposed cost in 1980 dollars of the automated light rail system that is going to serve greater Vancouver. It seems to me if, in 1980, we can talk about $250 million for automated light rail for greater Vancouver, then for a passenger rail service to serve the people of the province, 10 percent of that figure is a reasonable suggestion as an initial funding. In other words, Mr. Speaker, at the same time as we are committing to a major lower mainland urban light rapid transit system, let's contribute even a fraction of that capital investment requirement to get a new passenger rail service going at B.C. Rail.

Mr. Speaker, what should the purpose of this passenger rail service division be? It should be to establish a modern, attractive and efficient passenger rail service for the citizens of British Columbia for their regular, their commuter and their recreational travel, as well as to provide a new avenue for tourism development in the province.

The particulars of that new leadership role which B.C. Rail can undertake in the passenger area would include the following, and it's no great difficulty to negotiate the use of alternate and existing railway roadbeds through right-of-way agreements. So utilizing, as might be needed, right-of-way agreements to obtain the access and jurisdiction to run BCR equipment over other rail beds, I would recommend we proceed as follows.

First, to immediately upgrade the Vancouver-Prince George rail service, including the immediate acquisition of new equipment, with the following goals: a) a regular, modern and attractive passenger service from Vancouver to Prince George, b) the immediate establishment of a Whistler ski train, and I emphasize the possible use of the Royal Hudson for that purpose this winter with the Whistler ski season almost upon us. The Royal Hudson is a piece of equipment that's available, and given it might take a year to find fresh, new equipment, why not consider the Royal Hudson now? Finally, some look at special Cariboo tourist passenger services summer and winter.

Second, Mr. Speaker, the taking over of Vancouver Island rail operations, and utilization of the Esquimalt and Nanaimo railway lines to provide provision of the following: a) regular first-rate, comfortable, modern passenger service up and down Vancouver Island, b) regular recreational rail services up and down the island for recreational purposes including Mount Washington ski trains, c) special tourist trains and packages up and down Vancouver Island.

Further, Mr. Speaker, the establishment of a Fraser Valley commuter recreational GO train on the south side of the Fraser River which would include the following components: first a Hope-to-Vancouver and Vancouver-to-Hope commuter GO service much like the kind of commuter GO service which moves in and out....

My good friend the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree), I believe, has an introduction to make. I would happily yield for that purpose.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, any time a member yields the floor of the House, he runs the risk of losing his place in debate. Is it by leave? Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. REE: I would like leave to introduce some students we have in the gallery, if I may.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. REE: It's my pleasure to introduce 55 students from Carson Graham School in North Vancouver that arrived just a few minutes ago. They are grade 11s, and they are under the guidance of their teacher, Mr. Frank Perry.

I'd like to point out that possibly during the last session we had more students from Carson Graham School visit us than any other school in British Columbia, and I think they'll keep the same record. I ask the House to welcome them.

MR. HYNDMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly should have added that I'd be happy to yield on the basis that I might be allowed to continue.

In any event, I think, Mr. Speaker, and you, sir, as the member for Chilliwack, would have some special interest in

[ Page 4295 ]

this. I think the time has come when a commuter type of GO train running from Hope all the way to Vancouver and back has arrived, and the B.C. Rail passenger service division could look at that. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, you, sir, are familiar with the recreational opportunity in the eastern end of the Fraser Valley — the Hemlock ski area, the Manning Park ski area, the Skagit Valley, I think the time has come when British Columbians from the lower mainland would make good use of a recreational commuter type of rail service where, for example, they could take speedy rails to Chilliwack, Rosedale and Hope, disembark there and be bused for a day's skiing, hiking or what have you. So in addition to the commuter GO service up and down the Fraser Valley, a recreational service could be provided for winter and summer recreation to areas like Hemlock Valley, Manning Park and the Skagit Valley.

Then, in terms of the ongoing leadership role of B.C. Rail and passenger service, some future planning could include the following. First of all, a new rail ferry from Vancouver to Nanaimo sponsored by B.C. Rail and providing all rail connections to and from Vancouver Island on B.C. Rail. It would be possible for people to go entirely by rail and ferry from, for example, Chilliwack to Victoria. Additionally, I think the time has come for a fresh look at the wisdom of a rail spur being built from Clinton to Cache Creek to provide a passenger rail service to the Cariboo from the CNR and CPR present mainline roadbeds. B.C. Rail could look at improving the Vancouver-Seattle passenger service. And B.C. Rail passenger division, in terms of forward planning, could consider, and I think it should, providing all rail service in British Columbia for passengers from Calgary west by taking over all services presently offered by VIA Rail, and by providing British Columbia-based and British Columbia managed passenger rail services for all rail travel within British Columbia.

Within that concept, and providing modern equipment and modern service with a British Columbia flavour, people could travel from Calgary west on the rails, on the B.C. rails, on a special British Columbia rail passenger service, tourist packages, down the Columbia River Valley from Golden or you could go south from Salmon Arm into Vernon. The possibilities, Mr. Speaker, are limitless. With the greatest of respect to VIA Rail and efforts to manage passenger service from eastern Canada, I think in this province, which does so well in tourist management and promotion, if we bring the management of passenger rail service closer to home, we'll do a better job of that.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, if B.C. Rail can be allowed to take a leadership role in passenger rail service, these kinds of benefits can accrue to all British Columbians: a vital new transportation link in the province of B.C. for all our citizens; an easing of road traffic and congestion; the use of an energy-conserving form of moving people; the provision of an alternative form of transportation within the province, given the vagaries of weather and climatic conditions; further, a new link for tourism development throughout the province, a new assist for recreational enjoyment, giving access to our citizens for increased recreational opportunities. It would be a supplement and a complement to the announced lower mainland ALRT system. Of course, a passenger rail division, with the requirements of new equipment and new programs, would mean the provision of jobs, business and industry for our province.

In concluding, Mr. Speaker, if we're going to talk about leadership in this amendment, the record is that the leadership of this government, the Premier and the minister responsible for B.C. Rail has taken B.C. Rail as a resource railway to a new level of accomplishment and success, I submit that it's now time to continue that fine record of leadership with further leadership, more leadership, new leadership for B.C. Rail into a passenger service division.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to add my voice to that of the other members of the House in welcoming you back into the chair and to wishing you continued very, very good health.

Before supporting the amendment, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to express my thanks and gratitude to my colleague, the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), for that very moving and articulate statement which he made on behalf of all minority-group people in British Columbia. I know that there is a body of opinion, Mr. Speaker, who believe that the best way to deal with groups like the Ku Klux Klan is in silence, but I recognize that that body doesn't take into account the sense of isolation and loneliness and how vulnerable, really, minority-group people feel when a group like the Klan invades their community and such an invasion is met with silence or by silence on the part of community leaders and inaction on the part of the government. For that reason and certainly on behalf of all of the young people of colour in this province, I certainly appreciate and want to thank specifically the second member for Vancouver Centre, as I said before, for that very moving statement.

In speaking in support of the resolution, Mr. Speaker, maybe I should repeat it, because I think that we may have forgotten, or certainly the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs, when he spoke, seemed to indicate that he had forgotten what the amendment was all about. But in speaking in support of the amendment, which says that we regret that the Speech from the Throne failed to reflect the lack of public confidence in the leadership of this government, I would like to deal certainly with a number of groups who have come to recognize that there is no leadership at all from the government of the day. If there is any leadership, it's certainly not working on their behalf.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), in speaking to this resolution, mentioned that he thought that the throne speech was written by someone with a very distorted sense of humour. I want to support that statement, because it would take a very distorted sense of humour, indeed, to make a statement such as: "My government believes that individual British Columbians have six basic aims in life: to enjoy the best possible health; to be protected by an evenhanded, fair system of government; to attain financial security; to live in a healthy environment'' — and specifically — "to enjoy equality of opportunity and treatment." That's the one I want to deal with specifically, because it's a very cruet, cruel statement to talk about full equality of opportunity and treatment when one thinks about certain groups in our society who, certainly under this government, have been very badly used and have had no equality of opportunity whatsoever.

The first group I want to deal with are the disabled, As you know, Mr. Speaker, next year, 1981, has been designated by the United Nations as the International Year of the Disabled, The whole reason for having an international year is so governments around the world can involve themselves in positive, aggressive initiatives toward improving the lives

[ Page 4296 ]

of disabled people in their communities. To this extent, some governments have not waited. Some governments have made public announcements to that effect. Certainly the federal government has already struck an all-party committee to travel around the country to listen to groups that work with disabled citizens or groups that are disabled themselves speak and make statements about the kinds of changes that they would like to see come about in this year which has been designated to be for their special concern.

Certainly some other governments, such as the governments of Saskatchewan and Ontario, have already made concrete kinds of efforts in the direction of trying to enhance the quality of life of the disabled people in their particular jurisdiction.

In British Columbia a group which is known as SPARC — and everyone knows about SPARC, because certainly it's one of the community organizations which has worked very, very hard on behalf of a number of disadvantaged groups in our society down through the years — decided to grab the initiative and begin preparing for the International Year of the Disabled. Recognizing that the disabled community did not want this year to be a government year, did not want buttons, song books, scrolls, badges and ice-cream cones on the lawn, and didn't want the year to be treated in the way the International Year of the Child was treated or ignored in the way the International Women's Year was ignored, SPARC appealed to the government for funding so that they could in some way do what the federal all-party committee is doing: canvass the disabled community and work with them in terms of preparing for this year. This request for funding was turned down by the government. Certainly that's a clear indication of the failure on the part of this government to extend equality of opportunity to that particular sector.

As a matter of fact, the only comment that we've heard about it so far is in the Speech from the Throne, which says there are going to be some amendments to the regulations in the Human Rights Code, and I'll talk about that to a greater extent later.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, in case you are under the impression that there are just a handful of people who are touched by this, in British Columbia there are 12,935 people who are in receipt of handicapped benefits. As you know, it's very, very difficult in this province to quality for handicapped benefits. So if there are nearly 13,000 people who qualify, you can be sure that the number of people who would be considered to be disabled would certainly be closer to 15,000, 16,000 or 17,000.

This is the group that SPARC wanted to work with. They wanted to work with them in terms of community projects and help them to prepare for the International Year of the Disabled. And this is the group that was turned down by this government.

The government of Saskatchewan has already established a committee of representatives from governments, organizations working with the disabled, and agencies serving disabled and handicapped people to start preparing for the International Year of the Disabled. This government has done absolutely nothing in that regard.

A very small group of disabled people from Victoria demonstrated on the day the Legislature opened and asked for a number of things. One of the basic things they asked for was that the Human Rights Code be amended to include protection against discrimination in either housing or employment or whatever based on the fact that they are disabled. Instead, what they received was a commitment in the throne speech to look at the regulations to the code and do something with the regulations, and that's not good enough. In fact, what has to happen is what happened in Ontario and what happened in Saskatchewan, where the code itself was opened and amended to ensure that discrimination against this particular group did not occur.

We have an example which was reported in the Vancouver Sun of October 25, 1980, where a landlord refused to rent accommodation to a man because he was in a wheelchair. This man was married and he had children, but the landlord very clearly stated that he did not want to rent his accommodation to someone who was in a wheelchair. The Human Rights Code does not provide any protection for a person like Murray Hutchison, and fiddling around with the regulations to that code is not going to give him the kind of protection that he needs.

It's not an impossible task. All that the department — the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), who is responsible for the code — would have to do would be to contact the Minister of Labour in the Ontario government, the Conservative Minister of Labour, and ask that he send him a copy of his code, because Ontario just revised their code about a month ago — maybe not even that long, a couple of weeks ago — to include in it the words "handicapped and public assistance," and I'll deal with the public assistance afterwards. It says: "Every person has a right to equal treatment in the enjoyment of services, goods and facilities without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, age, marital status, family, or handicap. " That's right in the preamble to the act. And then it goes on to say: "Every person has a right to equal treatment in occupancy and accommodation without discrimination...."

Again, it includes, among the traditional lists of race, colour, creed and marital status, handicap, and even goes so far as to include people in receipt of public assistance. On it goes: "freedom from harassment" — it includes it there — "equal treatment in employment" — again it includes it there — and all the way through. And then it goes on to give a definition of what comes under the heading of a handicap, and it includes:

"...physical disability, infirmity, malformation or disfigurement that is caused by bodily injury, birth defect, or illness, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, including epilepsy, any degree of paralysis, amputation, lack of physical coordination, blindness or visual impediment, deafness or hearing impediment, muteness or speech impediment, or physical reliance on a dog guide or on a wheelchair or other remedial appliance or device."

It's an excellent amendment. It's an excellent act, and could, in fact, be copied verbatim by a government that meant what it said when it talked about making its creed "enjoyment of equality of opportunity and treatment for all people within the province."

Ontario is not the only province that's done so. Saskatchewan has a piece of legislation which it refers to as its own act dealing with the Human Rights Code. Again, it talks in the code about the inclusion of physical disability and lists the same things: infirmity, physical disability, bodily injury, use of a wheelchair or guide dog, these kinds of things.

[ Page 4297 ]

So here are two provinces which have deliberately shown the direction that a government which really is concerned about equal treatment — and a government that has some kind of commitment to the International Year of the Disabled — as a first step, could do: a simple amendment to the code. Simply opening up the regulations and writing something into them is not going to go far enough.

Saskatchewan has, in addition to its act, regulations — what they refer to as "accessibility standards" — which they have laid down for guidelines in terms of dealing with buildings and jobs and other kinds of opportunities, and ensuring that it's not possible to keep a person from living in a place or working in a place simply because it's not accessible in terms of their getting there. If the government wants to include that in the regulations or introduce something of that nature, fair enough, but certainly opening the code is a major request which was made by the disabled groups in the province. Certainly the groups that demonstrated at the opening of the Legislature, the groups that were addressed by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), are very disappointed that the government has not seen as part of its responsibility opening up the code to include disability as one of the areas to protect from discrimination.

I want to give you an example of how this government treats disabled people. There's a 58-year-old woman in the Mount Pleasant–Kitsilano area, who is an ex-psychiatric patient. She's in receipt of social assistance, and at one time she participated in the VIP program — which means that for working X number of hours a week she was paid $50 a month. Now she's on the handicap pension. She has applied for admission to the Community Involvement Program.

Maybe I should tell you a little bit about the Community Involvement Program. Every time the Ministry of Human Resources does anything, we get a lot of fanfare, and bugles trumpet — or whatever bugles do — and a lot of glossy material comes out. Then when you examine it you find that there is no substance to it. The whole point of the Community Involvement Program is to give individuals an opportunity to work in non-profit agencies and organizations; people who cannot work full-time at any job can work for non-profit agencies or organizations. In exchange for this, they get $50 a month. It's nothing great, it's totally inadequate, but it does give people a chance — like this 58-year-old woman — to get out of the home, to get out of the house once a week or twice a week, and go into the community and do something which is worthwhile, which gives her a sense that she is doing something and that she's making a contribution.

Well, this disabled woman applied for admittance to the Community Involvement Program. She was told that the funds for that area had been depleted and that she, along with five other people, had been placed on a waiting list. Presumably there won't be any more funds for this program until a new budget comes down in the spring of next year.

That's the kind of way in which this government fails to honour the commitments which it had the gall to mention in its statement about equality of opportunity for all. The disabled people spoke about the problems they have with transportation. There's absolutely nothing — no commitment made in the throne speech to deal with the whole area of transportation as it affects disabled people. This is a major concern, much more so than it is to people who are not disabled. Without transportation they can't get anywhere. They can't get out of the home. They can't even do the basic kinds of keeping in social contact with other people that are so essential and so necessary to them. Yet there was no mention at all about transportation in the throne speech.

There was no mention either about vocational training opportunities, about specific education opportunities. A number of these disabled students are being placed in the public school system. The whole problem of there not being enough support staff to make that transition work smoothly and operate in the best interests of these children — none of that was touched upon in the throne speech debate. There's no indication whatsoever that the International Year of the Disabled is going to be treated with any kind of respect whatsoever by this government. For that reason and for no other, I certainly am in full support of the resolution which says that there's a complete and total lack of confidence in the leadership of this government. I'm not blaming the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), because any minister in a government is only as good as the leadership of the government. If there is no leadership, there isn't very much that the various ministers can do. So my remarks are not directed to the Minister of Human Resources. My remarks are directed to the inept and incompetent leader of....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No leadership, no results, as the member for Victoria just reminded me.

There's another program which is known as the Infant Development Program. This is a particularly interesting and important program. What it's supposed to be is prevention rather than cure. It's a program that deals with what we refer to in social-work jargon as front-end aspirations — whatever that means.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No, it's not available in Prince Rupert. Where it's available there have been severe cutbacks. The basic assumptions underpinning the program include, (1) that infancy is a crucial period of life, and that the latent development during that period can be long-lasting and have cumulative effects on the development of any child. We're talking about infants; we're not talking about adolescents or juveniles or adults. The other assumption is that intervention at the very earlier point in that child's life is crucial. If there are any kinds of changes to be made, the very soonest that one can intervene and start to work on behalf of those changes, the better the chances are of good results in the end.

The other assumption is early detection, early identification and then early intervention. It's an important thing that we're talking about, infant development, starting right at the very beginning. The final assumption is that the family unit is the most crucial source of learning. It's the best source of emotional support and the most profound source of developmental stimulation of the healthy ego-development available to the child. It's an excellent, excellent program. No one would dare not to support the idea of this particular program. What has happened to that program in the one or two areas where it has been pioneered? In the Kootenays the Infant Development Program works specifically with babies who have been identified as being either mentally or physically handicapped and works with them from birth to age three, as I said before, in an attempt to encounter some of the massive setbacks of their reality. What we find is that because of the continuously low budget, because the program never gets the

[ Page 4298 ]

amount of money that it needs, the one psychiatric nurse, who is there to serve all of the Kootenays, finds that she has to pay her own hotel and restaurant bills when she travels. She has to pay her own transportation. She actually said that the program has to beg, borrow and steal office supplies in order to carry out some of its responsibilities.

Now in case you wonder.... A program as vital as this should have a fairly large staff. May I remind you that we are speaking about one psychiatric nurse who has to service the babies in the Grand Forks area, Kaslo, Slocan, New Denver, Nelson, Castlegar, Trail, Rossland and Fruitvale — one person. This one psychiatric nurse with that incredible caseload — and the guidelines say that a person doing this job should not have a caseload of more than 25 families. She is working with families, not just with the babies. In fact she has a caseload of 40 families and still not enough money to deal with the kind of travelling that has to cover that area. She ends up most of the time having to pay her own travel expenses or her own hotel bills and restaurant bills if she has to eat while she is on this tour. Well, a hue and cry went up from the Kootenay region and, lo and behold, the ministry found an additional $3,000. What this means is that this nurse, instead of having to cut back completely and only deal with a small area, is now able to visit the Slocan Valley, Nakusp and Kaslo, although she can still no longer serve Grand Forks, Kaslo, New Denver and Slocan. There is just not enough of her to go around, and her caseload is still much higher than it should be.

There was a letter which was written to the minister in August about the infant development budget for the North Island Infant Development Program, and there again they had the same problem: with a population of 16,400 people there were 41 families again. The recommended caseload is 25 and the Infant Development worker found herself having to work with 41 families from Comox to Port Hardy — 250 miles. So a request was put in for an additional worker, for some additional funds to cover the cost of transportation and all the other kinds of things to make it possible. The North Island Infant Development Association received a letter from the minister saying that she was genuinely concerned about the service and thought they were doing a marvellous job. However, moneys are used up and there isn't going to be any more until the next fiscal year which again, presumably, is in March of 1981.

At the same time as that is happening, we have the hypocrisy of a press release from the minister's office saying: "There are few things in life more difficult than correcting delayed development in infants, and for that reason we have this program, which is simply called Infant Development and helps parents of delayed-development infants to teach their children to achieve their full potential," and goes on to say that "access to the program is open and simple." The hypocrisy of such a statement, at the same time infant development programs around the province are being short-funded! They're being told there is no more money, that there will not be any more money until April 1981.

There's another program dealing again with another group: the mentally handicapped people in this province. The whole concept, Mr. Speaker, again is to move the mentally handicapped out of institutions, back into the community, as smoothly and as quickly as possible. With this in mind the Community Living Board was established and started to do a really good job. The very same thing happened to them as happened to the infant development program. At the same time as the government is talking about equality of opportunity and treatment, groups like the Community Living Board are finding that their funding is being cut off, that they are running out of funding, and they are being told that there is no more money and there will not be any more money until 1981.

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded want to use the community of Burnaby as a pilot project for their ComServ project, which has the complete support of the Community Living Board and all the other community groups. The ComServ concept is an attempt to coordinate all of the services which the mentally handicapped use, so that people don't fall in the cracks and each person has complete planning done for him on a one-to-one basis. The government was invited to participate in this. Some funding is necessary, and they were asked if they would contribute to this. The response was a very firm no.

In Burnaby there are 185 mentally handicapped adults and 109 mentally handicapped children who would have benefited from this program, and the provincial government has indicated that they will not support this request, and so the pilot project is in jeopardy. Most of the money for the project was coming not from the provincial government but from the federal level anyway. But even so, the provincial government has indicated its unwillingness to assist.

There is a letter from a person involved in the community living society who talks about his sister, who is 27 years of age. For 15 years she was in Woodlands, and recently she moved out on her own through the community living society — worked on a one-to-one basis, moved into a staff supported residence in the Burnaby region 13. That is now being threatened as a result of the lack of funding. He talks about the great improvement in her as a result of that.

There is another letter — and all of these letters go to the Minister of Human Resources. This one is from Penticton — the coordinator of community support. There is another letter from North Vancouver. All of these letters support the kind of job that the community living project does and bewail the fact that as a result of the government's lack of leadership and lack of caring, the funding for these programs has been cut off. This disadvantaged group — because they are a disadvantaged group in our society — are being left on their own without any assistance.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The other group who I think have really been treated very badly as a result of the lack of leadership of this government have got to be the teenagers in this province who make up that alarming number of young girls becoming pregnant. I'm talking about young people who are still in high school when this occurs. Again, SPARC did an overview for the province, in which it dealt with the number of girls aged 14 and under who are becoming pregnant while they are still in school. They talked about 8,000 teenage pregnancies. There was a 33 percent increase in that particular group aged 14 and under, but in all the teenagers still in school, there were 8,000. Of this number, 3,667 carried their children to term and are now caring for babies, although some of them have placed them for adoption. Of this number, 80 to 90 percent of them kept their babies. As one representative of the Canadian Council on Social Development responded, we are talking about children having children and the alarming things that happen: the whole increase in health risk to the mother; the

[ Page 4299 ]

incredible infant mortality rate, where 17 of every 1,000 of these children do not survive. We are talking about the increase in child abuse — the large percentage of abused children who, when it is investigated, turn out to be the children of teenagers.

I am really pleased that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) is in the House, even though he is yawning. I am glad he is here to listen, because he is certainly failing in his responsibilities in this area, although again I am saying it is the leadership. There is no point in blaming the ministers for not doing the job, because they are not getting the leadership. If the leader got after them and set an example and insisted that something be done, it would probably be done. But it is not happening.

In the Vancouver study, it was found that 80 percent of these girls never got a chance to finish high school, and that 23 percent of them had less than grade 8. We are talking about children in elementary school, Mr. Speaker — children in elementary school, who are themselves having children and keeping those children. Seventy-six percent of these children are on welfare, and what happens is that Health fails in its responsibilities and Human Resources has to pick up the pieces.

The kind of educational job that should be done in the education system.... As you all know, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) is not in support of this. At least to give the Minister of Health credit, he recognizes that ignorance is no solution. To keep these young children ignorant of the facts and of the reality is not the solution to this particular problem. He recognized that, but the Minister of Education certainly doesn't seem to recognize it, and, of course, he is not doing anything about it. He is cutting off funding to the Planned Parenthood Association for a specific project to deal with education in this area. When they appealed to him for that kind of funding, it wasn't there — he said there was no funding for that. There are no educational options for these girls to attend regular class.

Victoria is pioneering a project in that area, but in the province as a whole there is absolutely no leadership from the government in this field — no leadership in terms of the kind of information which young people obviously must have if this tragic phenomenon is to be dealt with, either through the school system or through community groups like Planned Parenthood or through the home. The government is showing no leadership whatsoever in that respect. The government is giving no support services. The biggest problem that these young girls have in terms of continuing their education is the lack of day-care facilities. There is no leadership at all, yet they have the nerve to mention in their throne speech two things: the best possible health care, and then they go on to talk about equality of opportunity. What sort of equality of opportunity does a 14-year-old have, who gives birth to a child and then decides to keep it, and has no resource in the community such as day care so that the mother, who is a child herself, can return to school and complete her education? Complete and total failure. They absolutely fail the 8,000 children of this province who ended up being pregnant. They're just ignoring it, as though the problem is going to go away simply by ignoring it. It is not going to happen. And it is not just the girls; the fathers are in the same predicament. The statistics show that approximately 70 percent of these young men who marry at 17 and under never get a chance to finish high school.

And we wonder about the massive number of people who are unemployed, who have no skills, who have no education, who are not at all prepared to enter the job market. This group makes up a percentage of that, both the girls and the boys. The other thing is that there is no housing. The YWCA tried to sponsor cooperative housing for single mothers. Their funding was cut off and they had to shut it down. That was the only house in British Columbia that was available, the only resource in housing available for single-parent mothers that specifically was being used by these very young single parent mothers, and because of the lack of funding they had to shut their door, they had to close that door, and those resources disappeared.

There are no programs, we learned from the Colonist of October 20, no comprehensive programs to respond to the needs of sexually abused children. We don't talk about incest; we pretend it doesn't exist. Nothing is developed to deal with that very real problem which exists in our society today. There are numbers of recommendations which have gone to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) ; there are a number of recommendations, I'm sure, which have gone to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), but none of these have been dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that I only have two minutes and I haven't had an opportunity to talk about the number of other people in this province who have been failed as a direct result of the lack of leadership on the part of this government. But I want to touch just very briefly on one other statement in the throne speech that has to do with the fact that a women's office is now going to be reintroduced. Very quickly, I'll remind the government that the first act they did in 1976 when they took over office was to wipe out the coordinator for the status of women office; that in 1976 they fired the adviser on sexism in education from the Ministry of Education; that inn 1978 they wiped out the women's economics rights branch and the Women's Bureau from the Ministry of Labour; that in 1979 funding for the women's access programs in the junior colleges as well as funding for women's groups suffered a setback; that in fact the only thing that has to do with women that we've heard from this government to date was an attempt by the chairperson of their women's auxiliary at their convention to establish a task force to study the legalization of prostitution as a means of raising revenue for the government over there.

I think it takes some gall for a government with that kind of history to stand up and talk about equality of opportunity and to talk about re-establishing a women's office in this province. They have clearly demonstrated by every act which their government has involved itself in from 1976 to the present date to the final statement made at their recent convention in the fall of this year, 1980, that they are not interested in the well-being of women and in fact are only interested in legalizing prostitution, in using women in that manner to raise funding for general revenue or for whatever else they may have in mind.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, I regret that I must inform you that your time under standing orders has now expired.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your bringing that to my attention. I will just close by saying that I support very strongly this amendment which draws attention to the lack of public confidence in the leadership of this government.

[ Page 4300 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: I will add my comments, although the Speaker is not in the chair at the present time and you are substituting for him, that I am very pleased that he is back with us and in good health. We know that he will bring guidance to this House, as you do, Mr. Speaker, in these debates that we have.

With regard to the amendment to the throne speech, I rise to speak against it. I just want to touch on some of the things that maybe will indicate that the motion, like previous motions that have been brought before this House by the opposition, is somewhat out of order, uncalled for and possibly just relates to political rhetoric that comes across the House from time to time.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the Speech from the Throne reads: "but this House regrets that the speech from His Honour does not reflect a lack of public confidence in the leadership of this government." The quotation does not reflect a lack of public confidence in the leadership of this government, and the question I want to pose is: what constitutes public confidence, or the lack of it, in any government? Is it the sensational headlines that we read in the paper? Is it the political editorials that we read? Is it the political cartoons that we see that sometimes amuse us? Is that what judges public confidence? Is it the negative outlook of a few? The people who speak of doom and gloom and everything is down — is that what constitutes public confidence or the lack of it in any government? Is it the political rhetoric that we hear — the say anything, do anything opposition that speaks out on every and any issue, picks up the odd letter or news article and does most of their research through the news media, to state that all things are bad and nothing is good? Is that what judges the public confidence in any government? I suggest to you it is not. It's the record of the government that judges that government in the eyes of the public. In this country and this province I think we have to look and understand one very important factor, and that is that governments are elected to govern, not elected to interfere with the day-to-day workings of people, business, trade and commerce of not just this province but of the country. We come here as elected officials, as elected representatives of our constituents. Yes, the party that has the majority forms the government and the government of the day makes the decisions that guide this province in its activities. That's the way governments should be judged.

Let's look at some of the actions of this government if we're going to talk about the amendment to the throne speech which talks about lack of public confidence.

Governments are there to govern and to provide social services to its citizens, to those people who are less fortunate than we, those people who are elderly, on fixed and low incomes or the handicapped. Approximately $800 million was put into the budget for 1980-81 to do just that in our Ministry of Human Resources.

Governments are there to ensure proper education for our young people, because in our young people, of course, is our greatest asset of the future. This government, in 1980-81, put $1.2 billion in the budget to carry out that educational program.

Governments, of course, are elected and have a responsibility to provide adequate health care for our sick and infirm. There's over $1 billion in that ministry to carry out that activity. I think the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) mentioned $1.55 billion in that budget.

Over 60 percent of the revenue generated in this province by its economic activity is redirected back to the social areas of our economy — namely, human resources, health and education. I suggest that you'll go a long way before you'll find any other government that has shown the leadership in providing good service like that.

The question has to be put. Is government elected to create a climate for industry and commerce to grow and prosper and to provide jobs? The answer to that has to be yes. That's one of the responsibilities of government. I can say to you, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure the opposition are fully aware of the fact, that the fair taxation practices of this government have indicated to industry, trade and commerce that this is a province in which they can grow and prosper, and in doing so they can create jobs. The taxation they pay gives us the revenue to provide those social services and that redistribution of funds to assist those people in their education or those people who are less fortunate than we.

Government also has a responsibility to represent its constituents, and by that I mean the people of British Columbia. It is the government's responsibility to represent those people to other levels of government — in this particular case, Ottawa. We can't all, in British Columbia — 2.5 million people — descend on Ottawa to debate the issues, so the provincial government speaks out on behalf of all British Columbians regardless of political stripe. We speak out on behalf of the people of British Columbia, and we may speak out with a firm voice. It is the responsibility of this government to speak out on behalf of British Columbia with a firm voice, not as has happened in the past when the former Premier of this province was quite prepared to give jurisdiction over all natural resources to the federal government. A cop-out, leaving the people of British Columbia without proper representation by their government. They know, full well, that the Premier of this province has shown great leadership in speaking out with that firm voice on constitutional matters. They know that in 1978 when the constitutional talks first began, the Premier of this province and other cabinet ministers responsible for debating the constitutional issue went to Ottawa and debated the constitutional issue and provided documents which were commented on across the country, indicating that it was time for a change and time to recognize that things have happened in 113 years and in order to create a better and sounder Canada, we should look at the change in such things in the constitution as the Senate and the representation in the Senate and the Supreme Court of Canada.

Our Premier, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and others have also spoken out on the national energy policy of this country — a strong, firm voice saying that we have a responsibility to our citizens and our constituents to represent British Columbia fairly and to indicate to Ottawa that the loss of revenues on natural resources through the federal energy policy could seriously impact on those social services that we provide to our constituents.

Because of our firm voice, we get accused of saying or indicating that there is a break in the western part of Canada. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the opposition knows full well that it is six-tenths of Canada, not just the west, that is speaking out with concern over constitutional issues. British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec, Prince Edward Island and New-

[ Page 4301 ]

foundland are all speaking out and expressing concern about the matter of the constitution. Our Premier, in his resolution that has been put on the order paper, has indicated to the constituents of British Columbia that this government is for one Canada, a strong and united Canada.

That, Mr. Speaker, shows strong leadership at a time when people would use political rhetoric and jump on the bandwagon and make great statements and issues when it is a time when we should be united in this province so that all parties in this province would be speaking together and not taking advantage of some comment that was made, blowing it up and getting headlines because they want a personal gain and it is so important for them to promote their socialist ideas. They want so badly to get back into government. Is that what you're after? This is Canada we're talking about — not some personal gain of the former Attorney-General, who sits there with a smirk on his face. It is a major issue. It's about time that the so-called politicians in this House calmed down, addressed the question, dealt with the issue and spoke united for all British Columbians and for a stronger, better Canada in the future.

Mr. Speaker, if we're talking about leadership in this province with regard to where we're going, are we to be judged on the employment in this province? And if so, we know — and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) has mentioned today — that we have the lowest unemployment in Canada. If we're to be judged on that I'd say that's fairly good leadership. If we're to be judged on balance budgets in the last four years, accountability of government or accessibility of government, I would suggest that this government has shown strong leadership, which will continue to allow opportunities for the individual and not government involvement and direction of the individual.

This government has shown strong leadership and will continue to do so in the development of new business opportunities. This government will continue to provide health programs, and we've indicated that. I haven't heard any comment about the fact that we will be the first in Canada to have a denticare program, or about education and the fact that the throne speech talks about the knowledge network — television in the home to provide people at home with an education. There has been no constructive criticism or comment from the opposition; just personal attacks, innuendo and comments related to what they read in the paper last night or the week before.

It's a sad story, Mr. Speaker, but when you look at the record of this government and what the throne speech indicates for the future, I would suggest that the amendment moved by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) is uncalled for. It should be withdrawn, but I know that won't happen, because they're looking at their personal gains. They're so wrapped up in the socialist philosophy that they have one goal in mind, instead of looking at the overall picture and where we're going in this province and this country. In saying that — since it won't be withdrawn — my comments basically relate to the fact that I'm opposed to the amendment, and I will vote against it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: During the last speech we've just heard, either the minister deliberately misled this House or he was in error. He attributed a statement to the Leader of the Opposition saying that the Leader of the Opposition had at some point, at some time, offered all of the natural resources of this province to the federal government. I believe he knows that's not true. He made the statement anyway and deliberately misled this House. I demand that he apologize to this House for that, or bring the statement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, unfortunately only the member who was referred to may ask for that type of a correction.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: I'm saying that this minister deliberately misled the House. Any member can rise. Either put up or shut up!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, again, members of this House know very well that individual members must take responsibility for the comments they make in this House. When withdrawals are asked for, the member who has been referred to may ask for the withdrawal or the correction of a statement he made. Other than that, hon. member, there is no option.

On the same point of order, the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: When one member has been misrepresented in this House, we all are misrepresented — all of us. That minister made an incorrect statement, and I demand that he withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, again, we have covered this point on numerous occasions in the past session. If every time a statement was made in this House to which another member took exception.... We would virtually be up and down on points of order all the time. It is clearly understood, hon. members, that members must take responsibility for the statements they make in this House. A particular member may rise on standing order 42 to personally demand a correction, but that is the only time, hon. member. I regret that the member takes exception to the rule, but I'm sure the member offended will have an opportunity, if he so desires.

MR. LEA: If what you say is indeed a fact, you are saying that a minister can deliberately mislead this House, and there's no recourse. I challenge your ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Firstly, I must tell the hon. member that the term "deliberately mislead" is totally unparliamentary. I must ask the member, would he be kind enough to withdraw?

MR. LEA: Right after you ask him to withdraw that statement. You never even asked him if it was a true statement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I have asked the member for Prince Rupert to withdraw what the Chair must infer is an unparliamentary remark.

[ Page 4302 ]

MR. LEA: I withdraw it. Now I ask you to ask that minister whether he deliberately misled this House, or whether he did it inadvertently.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Once again, I will inform the members that the statements made by individual members in this House are made on their own responsibility, their own volition. They alone take responsibility for what they say in this House. It is inconceivable that every time a statement is made that another member feels to be incorrect, a point of order could be raised on that particular issue; and there the matter lies.

HON. MR. MAIR: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, during the few moments when you were trying to recover order in the House, it was clearly heard by all members of the House that the member for Prince Rupert said about the Minister of Agriculture and Food that he lied. I would ask the Speaker to ask that member to withdraw that statement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On that point of order, the Chair itself did not hear the remark or it would have asked for that remark to be withdrawn. If the remark was made, could the member at this time withdraw that remark.

MR. LEA: Going back to your original ruling, how could he do what you stopped me from doing?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, if the remark was made, would the member so withdraw the remark.

MR. LEA: I withdraw it. But that minister knows very well that he did not tell the truth in this House. He did not do it, and I don't see how he should get away with it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members must recall and remember that the Chair is bound to uphold parliamentary tradition. The Chair is not bound to engage in philosophical discussion or to comment upon the nature of remarks made by members as to whether or not they have validity in discussion. The sole responsibility of the Chair is to uphold the rules of this House. The member has withdrawn as asked, and I thank the member for that withdrawal.

MR. HOWARD: The point of order I want to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, relates to that. The Minister of Agriculture and Food did make a particular statement which was an accusation — improper accusation — against a member of this House. The accusation he has made he knew to be wrong, because that matter has been laid to rest a dozen times in this House. The ruling that you made in that regard, Mr. Speaker, was challenged by the member for Prince Rupert, and the Chair, I must say, went off in another direction and asked for some withdrawal and didn't deal with the question of the challenge.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point made by the member for Skeena is a valid one. The ruling of the Chair was challenged, and on that the question now will be put that the ruling of the Chair be sustained.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 20

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, I ask the hon. member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) to withdraw the allegation he made that I stated we would turn over all resources to the federal government. The member is misquoting me, and I ask him to withdraw or be prepared to accept the tabling of my full statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Food attributing to the Leader of the, Opposition any motive unbecoming an hon. member?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must ask the member if this is his intent. Is it?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not my intent.

MR. SPEAKER: It is unparliamentary; it is indeed out of order to attribute to another member....

HON. MR. HEWITT: I was just stating the facts as I knew them.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member please be seated.

On the previous point of order, if there's a dispute as to accuracy of statements made, I will remind the House, as I have many, many times before, that every member accepts responsibility for statements made in this House. If there are inaccuracies, then at the conclusion of a speech another member may stand, and if it is his statement that has been

[ Page 4303 ]

inaccurately reported in this House then a correction can be asked for, with this proviso: that that speech must have been made in this House. Because this House cannot possibly be held accountable for speeches made outside this House, to the extent that it is not even in order in question period to inquire whether a speech made outside of the House was accurately recorded in the press.

Hence the general policy of the House is that every member accepts responsibility for his own statements made in the House. If there is an inaccuracy, then a member who has been quoted inaccurately may ask for a correction, but only if, that speech was made in this House. These are the rules by which this House operates. I trust it's acceptable to all members. If not so, then a substantive motion is in order, and I'm sure that committees would be delighted to deal with the situation.

MR. BARRETT: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, would you instruct the House and its members as to how a statement that is made inadvertently or deliberately that is patently false is to be allowed to stand in the record without a member stating that it is a false statement?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is not the purpose of the Chair to instruct in the rules. It is the obligation of every member to know the rules, and it is the Chair's responsibility only to enforce them in this chamber.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I asked, in the time-known methods of asking withdrawal in the House.... The member has made a false statement attributed to me that impugns me personally, and I'm asking for a withdrawal of the statement — not a correction of it. It is a false statement that impugns me, and I'm asking for a withdrawal on that basis.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair in this instance is interested only in whether or not an improper motive is imputed to another member, and I have been given assurance by that hon. member that this is not the case. Statements made outside of this House are not of interest to members in this House, and the case must rest on that score.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, an hon. member, having stated that he is being knowingly or unknowingly impugned by a false statement by another member, calls for withdrawal. As an hon. member, I am stating that a false statement has been attributed to me. I'm asking that that statement be withdrawn now that the member knows the statement is false.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the solution is for a correction to be made either in the same debate — that's what debate is all about — or to utilize the provisions of standing order 42.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On this same point of order, I'd like to rise in support of the Speaker in this regard and suggest that the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely wrong when he refers to this, procedure as a time-honoured procedure in this House. It isn't at all. At any rate, not since I've been in this House has there been an established procedure to ask people to withdraw items that were contained in their speeches. Of course, there have been many occasions when one member may disagree with the accuracy or truth of a statement that was made by another member in this House, but it's always been the practice of the House that there are other ways of remedying that. One of those ways is to take part in the debate. There will always be differences of opinion about what is true and accurate. In this instance there are several other people in this House, including myself, who believe that the Minister of Agriculture and Food made a perfectly accurate statement.

MR. BARRETT: I think you're a liar.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I would have to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to withdraw.

MR. BARRETT: He should withdraw his statement. Is that the same rule? Mr. Speaker, is that not the case we're dealing with?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the statement "I think you are a liar." Will the hon. member please withdraw.

MR. BARRETT: I withdraw the remark.

Further on the point of order, is not the request for me to withdraw the remark the exact analogy of the point I'm making, when the minister is making a statement that is patently false? I have said so and I ask him to withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think that the remedies have been clearly recited. If a member inadvertently makes a statement which is inaccurate, it can be corrected in further debate, but the provisions for withdrawal are just not present in this standing order. As a result, the Minister of Agriculture and Food proceeds on the amendment.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm on the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Just for clarification, the Leader of the Opposition, who wasn't in the House at the time I made the remarks referred to, said that I said "all resources." I think if he checked the Blues he'd find it was natural resources I was talking about, and I think he should check the Blues on that remark. Natural resources mean oil and natural gas.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. We are now going into the merits of the argument, This Chair is not interested in those merits. We are interested only in the procedure. Thus rests the case. Next speaker.

MS. SANFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First, may I join the others in this House in wishing you continued good health, and to say that we're glad that you're back.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, ma'am.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to take my place in this debate on this amendment, which expresses a want of confidence in the leadership of the government. I think we have ample examples of the lack of leadership that's shown on the part of the government. All you have to do is look at the public fights that are taking place amongst the cabinet ministers. If that group were together, if

[ Page 4304 ]

they had a purpose, if they had a common goal and a common interest, we would not see the kind of public fighting that's taking place over there every day of the week.

Mr. Speaker, it was only today that the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) was quoted on the radio a number of times as indicating his lack of confidence in the leadership of this government by saying: "I don't know why this session's been called. I think the whole thing is quite pointless. And as a matter of fact, I'm showing my displeasure by deliberately coming in late." I also noticed that he was so dissatisfied with the leadership and the decisions being made over there that he didn't even appear for the speech from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. We didn't see him anywhere. Where is he now? Well, he came in to vote, I noticed that. But there's want of confidence in the leadership from the government benches themselves, including the back bench.

Mr. Speaker, aren't we having some interesting fights over there among those members? When I look at the kind of fighting that is taking place, I wonder what those cabinet meetings must be like. My goodness, if people are prepared to fight in public like this cabinet is, those cabinet meetings must be very interesting indeed.

What we have, Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) publicly disagreeing with decisions that have been taken in cabinet, publicly disagreeing with the position adopted by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) with respect to teachers and pensions. We see the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) publicly disagreeing with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who is also responsible for ICBC. Public fighting; I have never heard of this public fighting.

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to watch. That government is coming apart at the seams, and one of the major reasons for the whole downfall of this government is the lack of leadership. I don't know how any of the people on those benches that are fighting with each other every day of the week can possibly vote against this amendment, which expresses a lack of confidence in the leadership.

We have two people who sit on the same ICBC board disagreeing with each other. The Minister of Health indicates that he is going to do something for those senior citizens who have been faced with 70 percent-plus increases in their insurance rates. The minister responsible for ICBC, sitting on the same board, said that there is no way that the government is going to do anything about these huge increases for senior citizens. The Minister of Health then says: "I'll go to cabinet and I'll make sure that there are changes made." A cabinet meeting is held and, lo and behold, announcements are made that there will be a government program to assist senior citizens with these exorbitant car insurance increases. The most interesting part about all that is that the Minister of Health, the one who was going into cabinet to fight for a change in attitude of the government, was not at that cabinet meeting. They are fighting back and forth every day of the week.

I believe that the Minister of Education said that he's going to make a public appeal to cabinet. Now have you ever heard of a cabinet minister making a public appeal to cabinet unless he's unhappy with the direction that government is taking, unless he's unhappy with the leadership? Oh, what a bunch!

We have the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) disagreeing publicly with the Premier — criticizing him — over the light rapid transit. I think that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has also indicated that he doesn't feel that the Premier is fit for the job. What kind of confidence does he have in the leadership? How can he possibly vote against this amendment with an attitude like that?

What about the fact that the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications feels that the leader is incompetent? I mean, surely the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications cannot go on the radio saying that he feels the leader is incompetent, and saying that he sees no reason for this session to be called, and thinks that the whole thing is pointless, and come into this House and vote against this amendment. There's no way he could possibly do that.

The cabinet ministers are obviously not happy with each other, nor are they happy with the direction the government is taking. It's obviously because of the lack of leadership. If they had some purpose, they wouldn't be fighting like this; they wouldn't be fighting in public about one issue after another; they wouldn't be heading from one crisis into another. They respond, because there is no leadership, only to crises. Even at that, there are a number of crises that the government doesn't even bother responding to. Now surely this government could have foreseen what those 70 percent-plus increases in ICBC rates to senior citizens were going to do to the senior citizens. They were stunned by that increase. It was exorbitant. There was no way the senior citizens could face that kind of increase.

If this government had had any kind of leadership, they would not have agreed to those increases in the first place; they would not have allowed those senior citizens to suffer the anguish that they suffered worrying about how they were going to find money to pay for those increases. Then, a few days later, Mr. Speaker, we have an announcement that, oh yes, the government is going to introduce a program to assist the senior citizens with their car insurance rates. But why haven't we got the program, Mr. Speaker? Why haven't we yet had any information about what kind of program this government is going to bring in to assist the seniors? They still don't know; they're still worried out there; they still wonder about this government after a 70 percent-plus increase. No wonder.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What a bore!

MS. SANFORD: Oh, isn't that interesting coming from the minister who is commonly known as motor-mouth in this.... I apologize. I take that back, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, I don't have to apologize, okay. Here comes the minister who is not sure why we're here.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MS. SANFORD: That's right, he thinks the whole thing is pointless.

Mr. Speaker, the situation is so bad among those cabinet ministers, and the in-fighting that's taking place, that the Minister of Education publicly insulted the Premier in his own constituency. Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker? I'm

[ Page 4305 ]

going to tell you how he did that. I have in front of me an article which appeared in the Kelowna Capital News, dated Wednesday, October 22, a column written by a Glen Schaeffer. Now, really, Mr. Speaker, this is very, very interesting. In this constituency of Okanagan South, in the Premier's own riding, we have the Minister of Education insulting the Premier of the province. I'm going to read this article, and then I will adjourn the debate until the next sitting of the House.

"When his stomach calls, Education minister Brian Smith listens. Smith is the guy who needs our help, according to the ads plugging his province-wide series of public forums on education. His Friday night appearance in front of a full House at Dr. Knox Secondary School in Kelowna was part of a B.C. tour designed to tell him what the people think should be done with education, say those same ads.

"It's hard to imagine that Smith is hearing anything new or earth-shattering at these forums, as the government does have more efficient ways of testing the public pulse than sending a minister out to listen to each and every one of us. So one concludes that this tour is designed, at least partially, to make Smith look good. Judging from his Kelowna gig, that might have worked except for one thing: the Education minister's stomach got in the way.

"In addition to appearing Friday night at Dr. Knox, Smith was also slated to meet at noon Friday with grade 12 students at Springvalley Secondary. That meet-the-kids date had been planned for about a week. The students had been told about it, and they'd prepared questions for their meeting with the minister. The plan was that a Springvalley staff member would pick the minister up at CHBC studios at about 11:30 a.m. Friday and bring him to the school, where he would meet the students at a 12:30 assembly. Well, it didn't quite work that way. When the Springvalley staffer picked the minister up, Smith's first question was: "What's for lunch?" The embarrassed staffer didn't know anything about lunch. The school hadn't been told that they were to feed the minister, and obviously someone's wires had been crossed somewhere along the way. It happens. But Smith was not pleased. Upon arriving at the school, he checked the school cafeteria. It was vacant at the time. I assume all the students were in the auditorium. Upon realizing that they really weren't going to feed him, he stalked out of the school, offered no explanation to the students or staff and eased his hunger at a local restaurant."

Mr. Speaker, that is a public insult to the Premier of the province in his own constituency, dealing with his constituents in that way.

There is more to the article, but I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. SMITH: On a point of order, I want to correct something that was put forward by the previous member.

MR. SPEAKER: Has the Minister of Education already taken part in the debate underway?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I have not.

MR. SPEAKER: Then under what provisions does the member wish for correction?

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll do that at a later time. I'll move adjournment.

MR. SPEAKER: We have a motion on the floor of the House put by the member for Comox.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. McGeer tabled the sixth annual report of the Universities Council of British Columbia, along with their budget proposals for 1981.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.