[ Page 4307 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Prevent Uranium Exploration and Mining (Bill M201). Mr. Passarell.

Introduction and first reading –– 4307

Oral Questions

Foreign ownership of land in B.C. Ms. Sanford –– 4307

Foreign ownership of land and housing. Mr. Leggatt –– 4308

Foreign ownership of agricultural land. Mrs. Wallace –– 4308

Racial discrimination by employment agencies. Ms. Sanford –– 4309

Speech from the Throne

On the amendment

Ms. Sanford –– 4309

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 4312

Mr. Hanson –– 4313

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 4315

Mr. Hall –– 4318

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 4321

Mr. Lauk –– 4322

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 4324

Mr. Howard –– 4326

Division on the amendment –– 4329

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 4329

Assessment Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 6). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading –– 4330

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome three constituents of mine who are in the gallery today: Mr. and Mrs. Bill Szoo from North Peace River, and Mr. Bill Tompkins. They have forsaken the clean, white snow of the north to come down here and sample the dreary rain in Victoria. I would like the House to make them welcome.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon we have a gentleman, Mr. Frank Wiesinger, from Winnipeg who has come out to the balmy west coast, and I would ask the House to welcome him.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome a gentleman who has worked tirelessly on behalf of our party on Vancouver Island. Would the House please welcome Mr. George Smith.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, should members be unduly concerned, I am advised that Mr. Speaker is keeping a long-standing appointment in Vancouver today and will, hopefully, be back with us later on this afternoon.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, before we hastily proceed to orders of the day, I want to point out to all of the visitors in the gallery that the weather in Victoria is highly unusual. Ordinarily we have many sunny days, and I have a list here of all of the sunny days we have had....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the member have an introduction, or is he waiting for someone to attend for question period?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker is imputing an improper motive, however correct it may be. [Laughter.] Mr. Speaker knows well that that is an improper motive. Pending the arrival of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) to confirm these figures, Mr. Speaker, that most of the days....We have some of the best weather in the history of British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, order, please. This is the time for introductions. If the member has no introductions....

MR. LAUK: Is that the hon. Speaker's ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Further, I am advising the member that it is a very grave breach of the rules of this House to do what the member may possibly be anticipating to do, and I so advise him in advance.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I would not want you to anticipate anything improper. However, I should point out that the standing orders require that all hon. members attend the sittings of the House — their service — and so I move

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have advised the member that at this time we are entertaining introductions, and that the member was recognized as part of the function of the Chair to recognize members standing for introductions. On no other basis could the hon. member be recognized, and I am sure he appreciates the position that the Chair is in.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I had every intention of introducing the Attorney-General to the chamber, but he doesn't seem to be present.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that is not a matter that is open for any kind of debate at this time. I must advise the member, in fairness to the rules of this House, that at this time he cannot be recognized to do what he is currently doing, and I must advise the member at this time that he must take his seat.

MR. LAUK: Could Mr. Speaker point out under which rule the Speaker is ordering me to take my seat?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I have advised the member that he is out of order. It is not up to the Chair to relate the rules of this House; it is up to the member to be informed of the rules of this House.

MR. STRACHAN: I have a further introduction, Mr. Speaker. I was remiss a few moments ago. I would also like to ask the House to welcome Mrs. Smith, who is with Mr. George Smith, and a young lady who is visiting us from Japan, who is a Rotary exchange student. Would the House please welcome these people.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO PREVENT
URANIUM EXPLORATION AND MINING

On a motion by Mr. Passarell, Bill M201, An Act to Prevent Uranium Exploration and Mining, 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.

Oral Questions

FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF LAND IN B.C.

MS. SANFORD: I'm very pleased that the Attorney-General is now here, because I have a question for him. In 1974 the NDP government required purchasers of land to declare their citizenship. Since this government was elected, I have been pressing the minister to use the information collected and also to monitor the ownership of our land by foreign nationals and take action. In January 1980 the minister wrote that he had requested further information from his staff and would be writing to me further on this issue. Eleven months later, Mr. Speaker, I am still waiting for an answer from the minister.

The question is: what action has the minister taken to monitor the ownership of B.C. land by foreigners, and secondly, has he now decided to take steps to restrict the ownership of B.C. land to Canadians only?

[ Page 4308 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sure the member realizes the question she poses is out of order, but I would happy to advise the member that the examination of which I advised her earlier this year — almost a year ago — has continued, and that officials of the ministry are addressing themselves to those opportunities there may be to rectify the situation which gives her great concern as it does others.

FOREIGN OWNERSHIP
OF LAND AND HOUSING

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Could the minister advise the House whether his department, given his Housing jurisdiction, has established a committee to review the extent of foreign ownership in housing and apartment stock, and lands, in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That question is partly correct.

MR. LEGGATT: I'm not sure I understood the minister's answer.

HON. MR. MAIR: He didn't understand your question either.

MR. LEGGATT: Well, I'll make sure he understands the question; I'll ask it again. Would the minister advise whether he has established any committee to review the extent of foreign ownership in housing and apartment stock, and land, and if so would he advise who's on the committee, and if the committee is ever going to report to the House?

HON. MR. CHABOT: There is an interministerial committee examining the question of foreign ownership of agricultural land in the province.

MR. LEGGATT: I take it I can assume from that answer that there is no committee studying non-agricultural foreign ownership in the province of British Columbia.

Has the minister taken any steps to determine the extent of foreign ownership, and the impact that ownership is having on house prices in the lower mainland? Is there any ongoing study in his department, under his Housing jurisdiction, to determine what impact foreign ownership is having on the fantastic house prices now being charged in the lower mainland?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I think one has to realize the reason for the impact on the supply of housing in the lower mainland. The impact is because of the buoyant economic policies of this government. It has attracted people in ever-increasing numbers. Our population growth this year is going to be 2.8 percent greater than it was last year. In other words, there's been a doubling of the number of people flowing into this province in 1980. There are 70,000 people that have come to British Columbia because of job opportunities that exist here. I'd like to compare that with what happened in 1975. In 1975, more than 2,800 more people left this province than came in. Oh, those were great policies they had in those days!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, but the question, hon. member.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm glad you asked the question.

Most of the people who are coming into British Columbia and causing this pressure on supply, which reflects itself in price, are coming from other provinces — other Canadians. Essentially, it's other Canadians who are buying the housing stock in the lower mainland and other parts of the province — where job opportunities exist almost everywhere. The demand has been increased quite substantially. Officials in my ministry don't consider that foreign ownership is a significant problem.

MR. LEGGATT: I can recall, of course, an election promise by the Premier that this matter would be investigated. I'm surprised his minister hasn't started investigating the question of foreign ownership,

By the way, I can recall that in 1975 young people could afford a house in the province of British Columbia; they can't any more.

I have a supplementary question. The present exchange rate of 83 cents on the Canadian dollar in terms of U.S. funds is what is encouraging this place to be a haven for foreign capital to drive the prices of our housing up. Under the present system in the land registry office, those records only require the declaration of Canadian citizenship; it does not require a declaration of foreign ownership in a corporation, which may own housing stock or apartment stock. Has the minister a committee ongoing to study and recommend changes to the land registry provisions, so that we can get a handle on foreign ownership in terms of share ownership in Canadian or B.C. corporations?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the member is asking a question of future policy, and I'm not prepared to determine what our future policy will be or announce future policy at this time.

But I want to say that as for availability of housing, in 1975 people could afford them; there were lots of vacancies because people were leaving the province. There were no jobs here, and they had to go elsewhere. Consequently when 2,800 more people left this province than came in, there was lots of housing stock as compared with today.

FOREIGN OWNERSHIP
OF AGRICULTURAL LAND

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In April, on the question of foreign ownership of B.C. farmland, the minister told the National Farmers Union that he did not want to interfere with the owner's choice of buyer, if the land was for sale. In September of this year the minister advised my colleague the hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) that he had initiated an interministerial review of foreign ownership of farmland, and that if the study confirmed the need, the minister would "actively promote the necessary legislation." Could the minister tell the House why he changed his mind between April and September?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the comments I made last spring, I pointed out to the National

[ Page 4309 ]

Farmers Union, as I have pointed out since then to reporters as recently as this morning in my office, that when you put a restriction on the purchase of land — and we're talking agricultural land, which already has one restriction, which is to retain it in the agricultural land reserve — you've told them they can only sell it as a farm, and now you're saying to that farmer who broke the land, who worked it for 40 years, who wants to retire, who's going to sell it as a farm.... You're now restricting him in the person he's selling to. You're saying he can only sell to certain types of people, and I'm saying that's a concern.

I'm saying to you, Madam Member, that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and I, in looking at this problem.... There are many ramifications in regard to just dropping a piece of legislation that says blankly: "No acquisition of B.C. land by foreigners." Is that foreigners who are coming here or absentee foreigners? Is it agricultural land two acres or better or 100 acres or better? You know, there are many ramifications to this issue.

MRS. WALLACE: I thank the minister for reaffirming his April statement; would he be good enough now to reaffirm his September statement, that if the committee shows the need he will actively promote the necessary legislation?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the review and the final decision, taking into consideration all the ramifications, if at that point in time it is a policy of government, then that's the way we would go. But I'd suggest that the member recognize what this government has done, which the opposition, when it was in government, didn't do: we have placed Crown land available for agricultural purposes in this province, and a condition of sale is that it will be made available to Canadian citizens — to B.C. citizens only. It is a condition on those lands that the Crown owns and puts up for sale for agricultural purposes that in perpetuity they will remain in Canadian hands. That's what this government has done, Madam Member. Your government didn't even address that point when you were in office.

MRS. WALLACE: On a further supplementary, I gather from the minister's statement that the report is not yet complete. Will the minister tell the House whether or not he has put a top priority on the completion of that report?

HON. MR. HEWITT: All issues, as far as this government is concerned, Mr. Speaker, are considered to be priority issues, and we work at them as quickly as possible.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the minister indicates that it is a priority issue, I am sure he has set a date for the completion of that report. Would he tell the House the date that report will be completed?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I am not sure what report the member is referring to, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. WALLACE: The one we are talking about, Mr. Speaker: the report from the committee reviewing the effect of foreign ownership on farmland in this province.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in this regard, it is not my report; it is an interministerial report. A task force is looking at it, and it will be completed in due course.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
BY EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. Last Sunday the CTV W5 carried the results of a survey in which five Vancouver employment agencies were requested by someone posing as a prospective employer seeking to screen out all non-white applicants for positions in this province. Three of the five employment agencies agreed that they would screen out non-white applicants on behalf of this prospective employer; only one refused outright.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister advise what steps he has taken to inform the private employment agencies in this province that such practices violate B.C. law and customs?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I have to inform the member that I did not see the program to which she refers. I appreciate the thrust of your remarks, and of course I am totally sympathetic to what you are saying. It is of some concern to me right now, for obvious reasons, and particularly some of the items that have been going on in the last little while. I think if you just leave that with me I will make the appropriate inquiries and see if we can do something.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I will prepare the information for the minister and send it to him later this afternoon, with the request that he take some action on it.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, might I have the indulgence and leave of the House to introduce a group of secondary students from Kitsilano school and their teacher Mr. Appin. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MS. SANFORD: Just before we adjourned last night at 6 p.m., I was outlining why I supported the amendment that is before us, which expresses a lack of confidence in the leadership of this government. I was pointing out that one of the visible and telling signs of a lack of leadership, lack of direction and lack of purpose is the public fighting that takes place among the members on the government benches. I pointed out that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), the minister responsible for ICBC, has been fighting with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) over ICBC rates. I pointed out that the Minister of Health has been fighting in public with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) with respect to the new financial act proposed by the Minister of Finance. I pointed out,, Mr. Speaker, that the backbenchers were critical of the leadership of the government. I pointed out that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) had fought publicly with his leader over the light rapid transit proposals. I had pointed out that the Minister of.... No, I didn't point this out; I should have pointed this out. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) pretends that he doesn't know anybody over there

[ Page 4310 ]

when he goes home to his constituency. But we have the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who thinks that the leader is incompetent; the Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer) says that he doesn't know why we're here. He thinks the whole session is pointless. You know, they're in bad shape, Mr. Speaker. I outlined this last night.

Just before we adjourned, I read an article which demonstrated how the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) had publicly insulted his leader's constituents right in the leader's own constituency. I know that the Minister of Education tried last night to get up and speak, even though he was out of order. I'm sure that he wants to make reference to this particular article, which I read into the record last night. Because I didn't have time last night to complete the entire article, and because I really want to make sure that the Minister of Education can respond to the entire article, I would like to present it again today and complete it for the benefit of the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: He won't respond before lunch.

MS. SANFORD: No, he won't respond before lunch.

Mr. Speaker, this article appeared on Wednesday, October 22, 1980, in the Kelowna Capital News. It's a column written by Glen Schaeffer:

"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. And 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 School. That meet-the-kids date had been planned for about a week. The students had been told about it, and they had prepared questions for their meeting with the minister. The plan was that a Springvalley staff member would pick up the minister at the 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 p.m. 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 they were to feed the minister. 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 — vacant at the time — and upon realizing that they really weren't going to feed him, he stalked out of the school, offering no explanation to the students or staff, and eased his hunger at a local restaurant. Needless to say, the Springvalley students and staff were surprised.

"But the Springvalley incident wasn't just an isolated moment of pique. The next day, Saturday, he was slated to appear at a morning meeting in Penticton. He was half an hour late for that affair because he couldn't find a restaurant in Kelowna which served a proper breakfast.

"Concern for the inner man apparently is a dominant factor in Smith's conduct. His penchant for down-home nutrition while on the road isn't doing anything for his punctuality. Since I hate to offer criticism without advice, my message to the Education minister is as follows: Brian, the next time you leave your native Oak Bay, for your own sake take a private chef with you."

To me, that's indicative of, you know, an outright insult to the students of that school and to the constituents of his own leader. I think it's indicative of the kind of backbiting, infighting and public fighting that takes place on that side of the House.

It's rather interesting to watch this taking place in public. In fact, at times it's quite humorous. You see one minister appear on television, and you wonder which minister is going to appear next to contradict what has just been said. It has been happening a lot lately; I'm sure you've noticed it, Mr. Speaker. It would be very humorous it it were not tragic, in that these ministers are so busy arguing and fighting with each other that they are unable to take care of the problems that exist in the province. It's the people who are suffering as a result of this kind of inability of the government to govern. I want to give three examples of what I mean. I think the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) outlined very well the other day some of the problems that exist in health care in the province. I want to give a couple of brief examples to illustrate the points the member for New Westminster was making the other day. I'm aware of an elderly couple in their seventies who have been able to manage quite well on their own. The wife became ill; she needed a lot of attention. The husband found that it was very difficult for him to clean the house, do the shopping, cook the meals, do the dishes and to take care of his wife, particularly since she needed care during the night as well. He became very, very tired.

He had heard about the long-term care program, and made an appeal for some assistance so that he would be able to continue to care for her at home. Because of the hiring freeze that was imposed, there was a shortage of staff, so people could not be assessed for the needs that they might require in terms of long-term care. They had to wait for six weeks before they could even be assessed whether or not they needed someone to come into their home to give them some assistance. Six weeks! There is no way that man in his seventies could carry on for six weeks doing what he had been doing in taking care of his wife; he was too tired. So what happened? His wife had to be sent to the hospital — she is still there, she's been there for well over two months. But he's now been told that since the freeze on the hiring of people in the health care program has been lifted, she's now going to be assessed, and perhaps they will be able to take her home, and she can get some help and continue to improve her health at home rather than in an expensive hospital bed.

The same kind of lack of leadership and concern is manifest in many ways in this province. I want to give you another example of what is happening out in the communities

[ Page 4311 ]

because of the fact that this government can't get its act together, has no leadership and doesn't seem to care about the effect of its lack of planning and policies on the people of the province.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

I have in my constituency another elderly couple. They phoned me because they were very concerned about a son who was suffering from a mental problem. He lived in the lower mainland. They had gone over to see him because they were concerned about him. They themselves were unable to care for this son. He was an adult, married, broken up with his wife and lived on his own in an apartment. He had been under a psychiatrist's care. They went over to see him one evening, went into the apartment, and found him sitting there alone — with a knife. The parents were unable to get the knife away from him and had to call the RCMP. The RCMP, after an hour and a half, were able to get the knife away from this patient. The RCMP arranged for an ambulance to take this patient to Riverview so that he could be admitted. He went in the ambulance, arrived at Riverview, and they said: "Sorry, we don't have any space. Please take him back."

In the meantime the parents assumed that he had been admitted — he was taken away in the ambulance. The parents assumed that and returned to their home in Parksville, only to discover, to their horror, that he had not been admitted. He was back in that apartment by himself, and in desperation they contacted me.

The psychiatrist involved said that he had tried every facility that he knew about in the entire province to try to get him admitted. Not only that, he had four other patients who were virtually in the same state and who had no place to go. The psychiatrist felt there was nothing else he could do. I spent the afternoon on the phone trying to get a place for this particular patient, and finally — I suppose because I am an MLA and am able to talk to some of the people in the Health ministry — a place was found. How many others are in that situation because of the lack of facilities and the lack of priority given to health problems? But, as I say, that was very well covered by my colleague, the member for New Westminster.

Workers' compensation — the same sort of thing. Since June I have been trying to assist a person who has a compensation problem. I have written to Maria Giardini, asking her for some information about this particular case. I wrote, initially, on June 3, and I received a letter dated November 29, which reads as follows:

"This is to acknowledge your inquiry" — because I'd phoned again on November 17 — "received in our office. Unfortunately I have not had the opportunity to date to prepare a report, as I had planned, with respect to this particular worker's compensation claim.

"In early August of this year one of our advisory officers left the department to return to private practice. Because of staffing constraints imposed by Treasury Board we were not in a position to fill the vacancy, and therefore had to reassign and transfer approximately two hundred files to the remaining staff, myself included. As a result, I have been dealing with emergency cases."

And that's why, Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received an answer to my request for a report on this particular WCB claim. I don't blame that staff at all. Maria Giardini does a fantastic job, in my view, but has been so short-staffed, and because of that freeze has been put in an impossible situation, and has still not been able to prepare a report for me with respect to this particular compensation case.

I want to go back to an issue that was raised and discussed during question period today. That's the one that relates to foreign ownership. I notice, Mr. Speaker, that you yourself are interested in this. Or at least the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) seemed to be interested, and is finally raising the question from that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, this issue of the foreign ownership of land in this province is one in which I have been attempting to get some interest from the government for at least the time that they have been elected. In fact, I was interested in this question before that, and in 1974 the government of the day did accept an amendment that I proposed, which required for the first time that citizens state their citizenship when purchasing land in this province.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You'd better sell your lot in Washington state.

MS. SANFORD: Oh. what a joke! The only answer that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has to my concern about the foreign ownership of land is to suggest across the floor of the House that I sell my lot in Washington state. Well, I assume that the minister has a lot over there. I know he has moved out of his constituency. I don't know where he is living now; maybe it is Washington. I don't have any land there.

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why this government drags its heels on this issue. I have raised the issue on the floor of this House every single year; I have placed private members' bills on the order paper; I have asked questions time and time again, trying to bring to the attention of the government that this is a crisis situation that exists in the province, that the purchase of land by absentee foreigners is driving up the price of land and is making it impossible for young people to get started in farming and is now making it impossible for people to purchase a house in this province.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) says that they now have an interministerial committee that is looking into this question, and there are so many problems. Why is it that we are the last province of the western provinces to bring in any kind of legislation on this issue? I have a private member's bill, and I am going to introduce it next week.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am going to answer that in just a moment.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that there is enough legislation in existence now that the problem can be dealt with effectively. And I am not talking only about farmland; I am talking about all land in British Columbia. Maybe that will make it more simple for the government to deal with, rather than trying to grapple with just farmland. But in, Alberta — where they brought in legislation not too long ago — they found that within a year purchases by absentee foreigners dropped by 90 percent. Now surely with that kind of evidence they should be able to come up with some sort of legislation that would deal with the problem of absentee foreign purchases of land.

[ Page 4312 ]

The other question that I posed to the former Attorney-General — and I had written to him on this issue on a number of occasion as well....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Once. All right, maybe I had written once, but I had also raised the question with him on a number of occasions. Why is he saying today, in 1980, "What are you proposing?" when I was asking him in 1976 about this? Why has the minister not been working on this issue? Why have they not even looked at form 16A? This is a form that is now filled out by anyone who purchases land in this province to state their citizenship. Why has he not done it?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Food says that they are going to initiate an interministerial review on farmland, and he mentions the Peace River in particular. By the time this government gets around to doing anything, it is going to be too late.

In the last two years, Mr. Speaker, in the Peace River area, some 168,000 acres of farmland have been purchased by absentee foreigners. That is the Peace River area alone.

The Institute of Agrologists has been trying for two years to get this government to take this question seriously. Now the B.C. Federation of Agriculture has passed a resolution calling for the government to take some action in this area. Why on earth does it take so long?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is asking me what I am proposing. I am proposing that we bring in legislation which prohibits the sale of British Columbia land to absentee foreigners — people who are living outside this country and want to invest in British Columbia because it is a good investment, and are prepared to pay more than the going price, thus driving up the price of land. That is my proposal. It's a very simple approach. The policy of the party is that we are to prohibit the sale of land to absentee foreigners.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Any kind of land.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, any kind of land. That's what I'm saying.

Mr. Speaker, what is happening is that we are not just having investments in farmland — not just 168,000 acres in the Peace River area in the last two years — but in commercial, residential and recreational land. It's all being sold, and this government is not taking any action on it and does not even view the problem seriously. They say, "Oh, we are now structuring a committee," when they know that 168,000 acres in the Peace River area have been bought up by absentee foreigners in the last two years. They can't be concerned about it or they would have it on the floor of the House today. It should have been here years ago.

Mr. Speaker, until we get some leadership over there, I don't expect much action on this issue or any other issue.

HON. MR. SMITH: I was interested and amused by the remarks the member for Comox gave yesterday and again today about problems with eating well on tour. I know that she has a great deal of sympathy for a travelling minister with an empty stomach, but I hate to tell her that the account she read from the Kelowna newspaper is not correct. We did not stand up that school in Kelowna. Indeed, we arrived at that school hoping to have a meeting with students during the lunch hour, which was a part of my format. I usually had members of student council and faculty together for a lunch hour meeting. Also, in about 20 schools, I often had student assemblies as well, but we were not able to do that in Kelowna because we were there to participate in the opening of the new buildings of Okanagan College, which was the purpose of being there at that particular time.

The meeting that was supposed to take place at Springvalley Secondary School at lunch was cancelled and we went to the college and had a brief sandwich there with students and faculty and then participated in the opening of the college. So I'm sorry to inform the member that we did not stand up students. They, for some reason, didn't know we were coming, and we were sorry we didn't meet with them.

I might also tell the member that we usually didn't eat at all on that tour, or if we did, it was at midnight. We ceased to be concerned with our stomachs, which was quite an effort for some of us, I assure you.

I just want to speak very briefly on this motion from the standpoint of leadership. Over the last week I have also been looking for a little bit of leadership from the other side. I've been straining my ears and peering at the Blues, hoping that I would find one scintilla of indication of the direction which that party opposite was going to chart out for this province, and I have heard really precious little. I've heard a little bit of the old criticisms that were warmed over so many times during that lovely session which ended in the twilight of August, and I've just heard nothing. I still have yet to learn their position on the constitution. I gather their position on the constitution is simply: "The British North America Act of 1867 is wonderful the way it is, thank you to Ed Broadbent for saving our natural resources, and we're against everything you're doing." They haven't developed a constitutional position in their party that would be equivalent to the thinking of most of the students I saw in the grade 5 level, who are more coherent on the subject than they are. But maybe we'll be enlightened by some new things when we get into the debate on a specific resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud to associate myself with the leadership of our Premier in the field of constitutional reform. As far as I know, under his leadership and that of the present Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), this province was the first province in the field three and four years ago with coherent major position papers on every aspect of constitutional reform. We have taken constructive stands at conferences and have been in the forefront in urging the patriation of that musty old British North America Act, bringing it home from the British Museum, where it now resides, to Canada — but bringing it home with some changes that are in the twentieth century, not the kind of thinking the gentlemen opposite exhibit, which has always been nineteenth century thinking. Yes, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) looks at me. I've heard him on the constitution. It's "abolish the Senate" — that's all he's ever had to offer. Bankrupt leadership on constitutional issues has been constant from the other side.

Now another area, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I'm proud to be associated with is the economic leadership that this government has given during the past year. Everywhere that I went in the north, in the Kootenays and in the interior I saw signs, as there are in the lower mainland, of the healthy economic climate in this province, the high employment and

[ Page 4313 ]

the investment that's coming in here. Contrast that with the situation in 1975, when you really couldn't even handle the people who were leaving the borders; the customs posts were clogged with people leaving. Mining companies were shutting down. And at the same time that was going on, we had rampant inflation in wages, we had uncertainty in labour, we had more lost man-days in this province than ever before. Under the present government and the present Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and his predecessor, we've had more labour peace and a much slower escalation in wage settlements. We've had a healthy climate — not only economic, but also in terms of labour relations. Leadership in those areas has been paramount.

Also, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to leadership in the field of social services. The members opposite always talk about caring about people. The tears run down their cheeks about caring about people, and that we are a government that for some reason doesn't care about people. Yet this is the government that brought in long-term care. Long-term care now means that many elderly people in this province who used to have their life savings wiped out in a month or two are able, with dignity, to get care not just in institutions but in their own homes. All these gentlemen and ladies opposite do is to cry about caring about people, but when they were government, they didn't put a nickel into long-term care. Denticare also, major initiatives in denticare at a time when in every other part of this country social service programs are being curtailed.

Finally, I want to mention another subject highlighted in the Speech from the Throne, and that is the recognition, finally, of the rights of disabled persons in this province. Those opposite who care so much about people — what did they do for the disabled? The disabled now say that their time has come. Their time is overdue. Now, under this government, they're going to get some rights of access to public buildings. They're going to be recognized and given a chance to participate as full citizens with dignity. The public are going to appreciate that disabled persons want to be able to stand on their own two feet. They don't want shovelfuls of money from the back of NDP trucks; they want help, and that's what they're going to get.

So I say to the ladies and gentlemen opposite during this debate and also during the debates on the two resolutions: please, for once, be constructive; please, for once, tell us what your policies are.

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that you convey my regards to the Speaker on his return to this House in good health. I was hoping that he would be in the chair when I was making my remarks, but would you please take that on my behalf.

I listened with interest to the remarks of the Minister of Education. In fact I'm rising in support of a motion which expresses on behalf of the vast majority of British Columbians a lack of confidence in this government. I think from Race Rocks to Lower Post, and all across this province, people are witnessing a disarticulation, a decomposition, or whatever, of an alliance for power that is coming apart right before our eyes.

We even have the cabinet ministers standing up in this House and asking: "Why are we here?" This has been the question foremost in the minds of the public walking the streets of Victoria, and all the members of this House. The decision was made by one man, and we know that. It's still not clear to us why we're here. There's nothing in the Speech from the Throne document which indicates why we are here. You know, it is a hollow document. I think, if the public were to read the Speech from the Throne and compare it with the performance of this government over the last few years, they would see that it's a cruel, ironic and satirical document; it's a Gulliver's Travels; it has no relationship whatsoever with reality.

In the Speech from the Throne are listed a number of basic aims felt to be the prime concerns of all British Columbians. But when you read those aims and you compare them with the performance of the government, you see what I mean. For example: "To enjoy the best possible health." Anyone who has followed the deterioration in health care under the Social Credit government must realize that that's a cruel joke in itself. It's just a PR statement; this is a PR document; it's put together for public relations purposes. It bears no relation to the reality that I face in my own constituency, with people waiting long months to get into Royal Jubilee Hospital, to get into Victoria General Hospital. The elective-surgery list grows, the number of cancellations of operations for surgery is growing each month, and I have some statistics that I would like to read to you later on.

But first of all, I think it's very interesting that we had very few speakers on the other side of the House who stood in defence of their leader. We have not had people standing in their places, indicating that the Premier is doing a good job, is a strong leader, and that they support him. Because, you know, Mr. Speaker, what has happened is that the vultures have left the trees. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) cannot resist an opportunity, every time the Premier leaves this province on a tour, to attack him. He does not have confidence in the leader, nor does the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). Have we seen him standing in his place, supporting this leader? No, we haven't. None of the Liberals in the coalition are supporting him.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: No, even the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), who just spoke.... Did he, in his remarks, indicate in any degree that he supported the leadership of that government?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: He just finished saying it.

MR. HANSON: He didn't mention it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: He did.

MR. HANSON: He talked about us; he talked about 1974 and 1975 — reading the old Socred leaflets.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. members. The second member for Victoria has the floor. Would all members on both sides please accord the second member for Victoria the usual courtesies of this debate.

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for saving me from that vicious attack.

[ Page 4314 ]

You know, there have been many press reports recently that indicate that the government and the Premier have an image problem. There is no image problem; it's a problem of substance; it's a problem of actions. We witnessed today, for example, putting the Princess Marguerite back on the Victoria-Seattle run. The constructive criticism that we gave when they started that bungling series of decisions to take it off.... We pointed out to the government it was a mistake; the Coast Guard said it was a mistake — both American and Canadian Coast Guards; marine consultants said it was a mistake; the public said it was a mistake; the only people who felt that they were correct were this government, and that was ridiculous. It has taken over a year to finally get them to agree on a good decision, which I applaud today. But why did we have to be subjected to that year, in which millions of taxpayers' dollars were wasted needlessly on converting ships and wasted in the business community here, through the lack of tourist revenue that would ordinarily accrue to the capital city? It's not just an image problem, it's a substance problem, and their own party recognizes it.

The other day it was recounted in the press that there was a meeting of concerned Social Credit Party members held in the Abbotsford area. They were concerned about the leadership, and they brought in a consultant from Kamloops, a Mr. P.A. Gaglardi. He didn't know whose home it was, he didn't know who had invited him, but they picked him up at the airport and they drove him to Abbotsford and they had a little meeting. Now was this three or four people sitting around discussing the A plus B theorem of Major Douglas? They were talking about the leadership of the Premier and the falling apart of this government. Do you know how many people were at that meeting? Not 3 or 4, but 40 people; that's a small hall. It's indicated here in the Kamloops News that there were 40 people at that meeting, every one of them concerned about Bill Bennett's leadership. So what I'm saying to you, Mr. Speaker, is that what we have happening before us is the historical process of a coalition dying, undergoing its agonizing death throes before our eyes.

The problem is, it's painful for the public; it's painful for the people of British Columbia. This alliance, whose prime purpose in life is to deliver privilege to the super-rich....That is their prime purpose. It's a coalition of the strangest political bedfellows.

I want to run through a few things just to refresh people's minds about the record of this government. For example, the Kemano completion project — they can't get their position together on that issue. We have an MLA from that riding. Do you think he's had the courage to stand in his place and, say, fight on behalf of his own constituency against the Kemano 11 project? No. He criticizes the government, but not in this House. He criticizes the government in his office. When a reporter holds up a tape recorder to his mouth, he'll say he's not happy. He'll pick his time to criticize the government; he'll pick his political options. But do you think he has the courage to stand up in this House? How many times have members in this House seen that man on his feet, speaking on behalf of any issue, other than to introduce somebody in the gallery? He doesn't do it. I'm saying to his constituents, look through the record of Hansard. You'll find that their MLA does not stand in his place in this House to carry forward any kind of an issue, position or fight on their behalf with this terrible government. He doesn't do a thing. Yet from news reports you'd think, oh, my goodness, they have this renegade. He's trying to style himself as a renegade, but it's not going to save him.

What else do we have here? We've had a general deterioration in health care. I don't think there's any question of it. I was talking to the medical people at the Royal Jubilee Hospital the other day. This is what they tell me. The situation reported as of November 28: the number of patients in the corridors — not in beds.... Depending upon emergencies, the long-term care patients who are occupying acute-care beds fluctuates between 140 and 150 a day. These are patients who require long-term care, specialized care, but because there is no other facility available for them they are having to occupy an acute-care bed, through no fault of their own. It's a pressing problem. This government can't keep pointing to our side and talking about things that may or may not have happened five years ago. We're asking for planning and decision-making now, but it's like talking to a stump — no reaction whatsoever. Constructive criticism is not possible any more. They just don't listen at all.

Victoria General is the other major hospital in the Victoria constituency. There were 55 long-term care patients occupying the medical-surgical beds last month, and 64 this month. In other words, 17 percent of all the beds in Victoria General Hospital are occupied by people who should be in another facility. At the same time, there are roughly a thousand people waiting to go to Victoria General for elective surgery; they're away from work because of hernia or tendonitis — all kinds of problems that move a person out of the work force, the prime revenue-earner for a family.

It's a serious problem. Do we get action from the government? No. Do you know why? It's because every single extra dollar this government gets goes into building pyramids in Vancouver. They want to shore up the political fortunes of a number of key people in Vancouver. That's what B.C. Place is all about. That's what all these major projects in Vancouver are about — to try to save the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) in Little Mountain and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) in Little Mountain, to try to consolidate their own position in Vancouver. Where they can sock it to the public on Vancouver Island they do it — increasing ferry rates, increasing ICBC rates, the cost of medicare. As our health critic from New Westminster said the other day, we're the last of two provinces that still charge a premium for health care. In every other province it is taken out of general revenue. The need is the important thing, not whether people are able to pay the premium each month for their own children.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

What else is there? The phony termination of the uranium inquiry. That was an important inquiry to produce information that would be beneficial in our knowing the impact that radiation would have on general health in the province. They terminated that.

Sloppy accounting. They wrote off $118 million in stumpage fees for the forest industry because they couldn't keep proper accounting.

What do we get when we want proper transportation from Vancouver Island to the mainland? We get expenditures on a fixed link, already $100,000. The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications wants to spend $1 million on studies of a bridge between the mainland and Vancouver Island, without any contemplation of the sociocultural impact of such a bridge and the devastating effect it would have on the environment of Vancouver Island.

[ Page 4315 ]

They dream these things up off the top of their heads. Did B.C. Place and all the projects in Vancouver arise by urban planning and studying of transportation and the needs of Vancouver? They were dreamed up off the top of the Premier's head, and the taxpayer is going to pay for it, just the same way that under Social Credit we have paid and paid for bungling decisions in the past on the Columbia River and so on.

What I am saying to you, Mr. Speaker, is that there is nothing in the Social Credit government's record to indicate that the public could possibly have confidence in this government. It's just one thing after another. What we are seeing is different cabinet ministers sitting back trying to size up their own political fortunes, like the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) is another perfect example, sitting back. They've left the trees, they're circling and waiting for fortunes to fall. They're waiting for the Tories to come along, perhaps to join the Tories and start again fresh.

This coalition cannot last. Probably within ten years, Mr. Speaker, there will not be a Social Credit member sitting in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Want to bet?

MR. HANSON: Yes, I'll bet you.

HON. MR. GARDOM: How much?

MR. HANSON: A nickel. Yes, I'll bet you on that.

Looking through the six principles articulated in the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, I think I've objected to the health-care item. "To live in a healthy environment" is another. You know, in my own constituency of Victoria, which is the capital and should be the showcase for our province, we in this House all know that raw effluent, raw domestic sewage, is pumped offshore daily by the millions of gallons. There are those who say we're just feeding the ocean; it's undernourished. What a lot of nonsense! Drawing organic material from a huge area and pumping it into one area is ridiculous. They've refused to face the problem. The regulations of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) are being violated every day. We have to subject ourselves to the embarrassment of having the marine waters of Vancouver and Oak Bay polluted. Children can't get near them in the summertime; they're posted as a health hazard. What do we get from the government? A ridiculous statement in the throne speech saying that one of the basic aims and directions of this government is to live in a healthy environment. Ridiculous!

I'm trying to say, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot have confidence in this government, because we have before us the record of the last five years. We know what they did prior to that time, 1972 back to 1952. We know what that was all about.

I think probably one of the most disgraceful aspects of this government is the extent to which they assist their friends in special privilege and special arrangements on land. We all know it. There have been a number of items in the paper recently: the Olma brothers in Delta, for example, the people who got a pub licence when there had been previous refusals. And they picked up Hydro land that was appraised at a low value. They are close friends of the Social Credit Party in that area.

I think recently you've probably noticed a report under the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) of what happened in Invermere, when a former constituency secretary of the minister assisted in having a hearing of the Environment and Land Use Committee appeal a decision that had been twice turned down by the Land Commission. Do you think that John Doe off the street could have gone to cabinet and had such a decision overturned? No way. The Social Credit connection is clear.

There is assistance given on the basis of who you know in this government, and we know that it is there. Inquiry after in-house inquiry by this government has been a whitewash. We all know it. Is testimony ever given under oath? Are all transcripts made available? No. So there's no point in asking for inquiries. It's pointless. So we sit here in frustration, because, in my view, justice is not done. When people testify under oath, the transcripts of such important hearings should be made public — and they're not.

I stand in my place in support of this resolution that there is lack of confidence in this government. It is not just coming from my political party: it is coming from people in the financial industry on Howe Street, from business people, and from the general public. The failure to recognize that is your risk.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I stand to correct a statement made by the previous speaker. I believe that immediately following his remarks is the appropriate time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if you are rising under standing order 42, perhaps I should explain that to you. If you are rising under standing order 42, that can only be to explain a material part of your speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood. My speakers' list does not indicate that you have spoken. Therefore, if I recognize you I would recognize your place in debate on the amendment.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I will defer; I will be speaking later this afternoon.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: This is the first time I have had an opportunity to speak, and 1, like the previous speaker, would ask that you convey my compliments and good wishes to the Speaker.

I rise to speak against the amendment, and while speaking I would like to refer to a number of areas which, I think, have all demonstrated the leadership which has been provided by our Premier, and particularly the encouragement which he has provided to all of us in all our respective duties.

I would like to make reference first of all — and quickly — to some of the areas of economic concern and benefit which we have experienced over the last year in British Columbia. I have before me something which is available to all. It's a special report put out by Research and Planning in the Ministry of Labour. I would like to make reference to the opening paragraph of the survey which was released this week, and it makes the following comment:

"The B.C. workforce totalled 1.289 million persons this month, while employment stood at 1.215 million. The interesting point is that compared to 12 months earlier B.C. has experienced a significant labour market improvement. Over this period the labour force has expanded by 64,000, which is a little

[ Page 4316 ]

better than 5 percent. But even more important is that employment has increased by 75,000 jobs — something like 6.6 percent. The actual rate of unemployment has declined to 5.7 percent from 6.9 percent in November of '79."

Without belabouring these comments, I would suggest, with all due respect, that they reflect a confidence of all in the economy of British Columbia. I don't really think that this happens by accident. I think it's the result of policies and encouragement in a climate where capital is prepared to invest and feel reasonably comfortable.

I have noted also over the past year the tremendous net inflow of people coming to British Columbia. While I realize that figures can be bandied about again and again and that they do tend to befuddle a number of points, I think the significant remark, Mr. Speaker, is that there has been a significant increase in excess of 20,000 for six months. I would suggest it'll be in excess of that for one year. There must be a reason why people are coming to British Columbia. There's got to be a reason. I wonder about the dwelling-unit starts in British Columbia. We know that they have been significantly higher in the last year when compared to other provinces. There are probably a number of reasons for it. But I would suggest that the investment climate and a climate where people seek opportunity are factors.

One interesting figure which came to be presented this week was the retail trade for metro Vancouver. Sales again in that area are up 11.3 percent. Now if we're going to look at the gross number of dollars involved, I think that figure ought to be tempered by the inflationary factor.

Another area I've noticed in British Columbia is tourism. It's up 17.6 percent. We know that this is a very significant industry — 1.524 million in the first half of 1980. That's an increase of 17.6 percent over last year.

Another area where I think excellent leadership and direction is provided by our Premier has been the general respect for the collective bargaining system, a recognition by the Premier and the direction which he has given to myself. His basic philosophy and that of our party is reflected in a statement which I mentioned over a year ago in this chamber. It is a system in which an industrialized society cannot be undermined and which is still the most effective method for arriving at fair settlements. I think through the past year our Premier has also shown tremendous leadership when we have had difficult times. I'll repeat something which I said in the House some time ago. What is sometimes forgotten is that the process is such that it accommodates both discord and harmony of the parties as they strive to reach a fair and equitable settlement. Perhaps we sometimes tend to emphasize the discord and fail to recognize it as an essential step in the progress towards that harmony we all desire. By maintaining and adhering to some fundamental principles during difficult times through each year that British Columbia travels, providing we stay with those fundamentals, we'll survive each year.

In passing, I would like to say that a strong economy provides not only jobs, but an environment for encouraging good labour and industrial relations.

I'm quite prepared to be modest on this, Mr. Speaker, because I think there are a number of factors involved. I think a lot of those factors are reflected in the maturity in the private sector between labour and management in the manner in which they have approached all negotiations during each contract. But I do want to mention that providing the right atmosphere, in my view, is probably only one of the factors which have encouraged the number of man-days lost in 1980 to have declined considerably.

Someone once said long ago — this is a theme which the Premier has certainly passed on and provided leadership on to his caucus — that as soon as government management begins, at times it upsets the natural equilibrium of industrial relations, and each interference only requires further bureaucratic control. I think that that's perhaps enough said in that particular area.

I would like now to go into something which I think has probably been the outstanding area of leadership. It is why I speak against the amendment before the House, Mr. Speaker. It's in the area of constitutional debate, the federal energy program, the position taken by our province and the hard work which has been done by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the constitutional committee in attempting to put before the federal government what I believe to be some realistic proposals. One of the things which we and our leader have attempted to do is to make the public aware of exactly what is happening. Sometimes it's difficult for our citizens to hear something which they're not familiar with. This subject is one of those that falls into that category.

I think the Premier's message has really been that the federal government knows the exact effect of the game they are playing, and that game is hardball. It's best that we, the citizens of British Columbia, recognize the rules of their game at the onset. But without exception, before even discussing these matters, the Premier has always said: "Let me emphasize that our government recognizes the need for change in the constitution." And he said: "We support the idea of patriation, we endorse the importance of language rights, mobility rights and fundamental freedoms, and we support the need for a more flexible amending formula than the present rule of unanimity. What is at issue is if patriation of the constitution is to come, unanimity is required to bring the constitution home — not necessarily unanimity on an amending formula."

Again and again, the Premier has said change is necessary, and we support the need for improvement in the constitutional law of Canada. The issue really is: how should that change be accomplished? Surely unilateral action is the most unacceptable method. Surely it's better to receive consensus on a constitution rather than have one imposed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. second member for Surrey rises on a point of order.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I am one who believes, as I think the Speaker in the chair yesterday outlined to the House, in a wide-ranging debate on the throne speech and in any reasoned amendments to that speech.... I certainly agree with that. I'm not taking exception to touching upon the constitutional question lightly, but when I hear the exact words contained in paragraph 2 of the notice of motion on the order paper, then I think we really have to stop to wonder what we're doing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, you have....

MR. HALL: May I continue for a second, Mr. Speaker, because I think it's going to bother us all day.

We've had a request for a structured debate with a num-

[ Page 4317 ]

her of speakers. That's all well and good, and I'm one who'd like to engage in that possibility, but I'm not going to engage in that possibility when people are going to talk about this resolution before agreement about that debate has taken place.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member, your point is well taken. Will the minister please continue on the amendment and try to refrain from any discussion that is not yet before the House. I will advise you, hon. minister, that latitude is allowed, but when one gets so specific as to mention in the same wording a resolution that is not before us, then the Chair must intervene at that point.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I have before me the amendment to the motion, and the amendment makes reference to public confidence in the leadership of the government. I was of the view that one of the items involved the constitution debate, and I thought it was implicit that when we're talking about an amendment to the throne speech where that amendment does contain reference to the leadership of this government, leadership would cover all areas, including the constitutional debate and some reference to it. I'm somewhat lost. I accept your view.

I find a number of these items in here all related. I don't want to abuse the ruling of the Speaker, because I cannot see how I can refer to the leadership in this area without indirectly making reference to some of the problems that we are encountering.

Mr. Speaker, I'll wind this portion down as far as the constitution is concerned, but I would like to make reference to something which, in my view, the Premier identified and identified early with respect to the.... Again, it is all related with the national energy program, the constitutional debate and the current federal budget. One of the things that really bothered me was where he had taken a position with respect to the imposition of a tax on natural resources and, particularly in British Columbia, on natural gas. It was identified as such. Then the federal national energy program came through and said the following: "The government of Canada is, therefore, not proceeding with a natural gas export tax. The tax would have provided the federal government with a major source of revenue which it would have to meet its national energy obligations." The strangest thing is that I find this on page 34, and on page 35 the following statement is made: "The government of Canada will, therefore, impose a new natural gas and liquids tax."

MR. HALL: Again on the rule of anticipation, Mr. Speaker, and I would point out to you that the Motion 2 on the order paper, not in my name but in the name of a minister of the Crown, states as follows: "That this Legislative Assembly request of the Lieutenant Governor in Council that it convey to the Government of Canada our wish that it respect the spirit of the pact which brought us into Confederation and withdraw all of the resource taxes which it recently imposed." It is my suggestion to you, Mr. Speaker, that the member's remarks are referring entirely to the scope of that resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am not being difficult, but if the government is so inept that it cannot maintain and regulate its own program, its own debate, the throne speech debate and its own resolutions, then the rules of this House must obviously always take precedence. It's their mess; let, them find a way out of it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would remind all members that I'm well advised of the rule of anticipation, and I remind all members in this debate on the amendment that latitude will be allowed with respect to the debate on this amendment. Specific anticipation — and I use the words "specific anticipation" very carefully — of a resolution that is not before the House will not be considered. However, the Chair will have to recognize the fact that debate does have a great latitude in this debate on this amendment. The Minister of Labour continues.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I, of course, accept the ruling and I will save some of those remarks for debate on the resolution to which the hon. member has referred.

I speak against the amendment — this comes as some surprise, does it? — and for a number of very good reasons. I have made reference to the economy, and on every factor, on every item which comes before us in the resource area — retail, it doesn't matter where — we seem to be finding a tremendous affluence. In the area of industrial relations we seem to have found a peace. We also have noticed the leadership provided by the Premier in the areas of the constitution — and I support this — and the economy, and I cannot support the amendment for any reason whatsoever. I would invite the opposition to offer some constructive comment in the areas of the constitution, and I am really looking forward to seeing their proposals. I haven't yet really heard anything.

I look to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) in the area of housing in the recent announcements. One of the biggest problems which we seem to have is lack of inventory. If we go to the interior of the province or the northern areas, we find out that despite a lot of land being available for residential construction, one of the reasons why prices are much more acceptable to all of our people is, in fact, that there is an inventory available to them. That is evidence of leadership, and that has not been done.

I took to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) on light rapid transit, The announcement is made, and with the support of all of the municipalities in the lower mainland, all of them, something was done.

AN HON. MEMBER: Announcements were made.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Announcements, that's right. Announcements, you might note, always precede some activity. We'll raise that again, Mr. Member, in 1984-85. I vote against the amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the hon. second member for Surrey on the amendment.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I hope it's not on the constitution, Ernie.

MR. HALL: No, it will be all in order; otherwise, I'm sure you'll be telling me about that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 4318 ]

MR. HALL: I always try and remain in order, and I only rose to my feet because I felt, frankly, a deep sense of injustice over the proceedings on the order paper since the day we got here. It has nothing at all to do with the minister or his speech, which I would have welcomed under a normal set of circumstances, had we not been put into that position.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome — and I always will welcome — those formal parts of our debates, in which ministers stand and tell us those parts of the leadership program they can support, and remain silent about those parts that they don't like to support. Unfortunately we've had more of the latter than the former, and that, I think, has been the key to the debate so far. In fact, I want to congratulate the member for Prince George North, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), because he's the first one who's directly said in clear, succinct terms that he supports the leader of his party, and for that he deserves credit. He's now selling the tickets to the deck chairs on the Titanic; he's been promoted. But he said he wanted to hear something from us.

We've had two speeches, Mr. Speaker, from two Ministers of Education — one higher and one lower education. One of them said — and that is the member for Oak Bay, the current Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) — that he wants us to tell him what we stand for. Yesterday, to some rather thumping desk applause, the previous Minister of Education, now the minister of higher learning (Hon. Mr. McGeer), told us they always listen to us because we always say what we stand for, and we always do what we say we're going to do. Now it seems to me that there is one Minister of Education who has really learned what the New Democratic Party stands for, because if ever there was a supposed threat, which I take to be one of the best political compliments you can ever have, it was what the minister for Point Grey said yesterday: that we mean what we say and we do what we say. I think you can't have a finer compliment, a finer tribute than that in the political arena.

Conversely lies the route of our amendment, where we're complaining about the lack of leadership, and there is no greater area of lack of leadership than in the economic situation that surrounds the government's attempts to look after its own direct involvement in the economic life of our community — first of all, in one of its major Crown corporations. I refer, of course, to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, which has seen now, this last little while, the arrival once again, under the Social Credit administration, of monstrous increases, which have caused a great deal of distress and, on occasion, headlines similar to those in 1976.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: Oh, no, you did that. Listen, you took my picture out of the boardroom. It was not you, but a minister took it off the boardroom wall earlier; I think it's back there now — a good sense of history, thank you very much. I'm hoping that maybe one of these days it might be back there again; you never know — I mean a second photograph. You follow what I mean?

Now then, when these announcements were made, immediately leaping into the battle was a member of the Social Credit caucus, who promised to fight like a tiger about these increases. The trouble is, he was six months too late, because an examination of Hansard will show that this side had asked the minister to take into his purview the effect of the increases on old-age pensioners. In fact, I myself asked the minister if he would consider the effect of those increases — this can be checked in Hansard — and I pointed out to him that if he was going to be in charge of this corporation, he should look at what is going on there. As the corporation was going to phase in the program over two or three or four years, why didn't he phase in, in a similar vein, that section of the increases referring to old-age pensioners? With prompt smile from forehead to chin, the minister agreed that he would look into it.

I'm going to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, the minister did not look into it. That's in keeping with most of the promises made during the discussion of estimates over there. The ministers do not fulfill any of the promises they make during the discussion of estimates or look into the things. On this side of the House we're speaking, as it were, for the people who write to us and bring complaints and suggestions. Its get it over with, any soft answer to turneth away the wrath, but nothing is ever done. I could give you chapter and verse on that. I can show you unanswered questions on filed reports, secret forever — studies. That's been the record of the Social Credit administration since 1952.

However, the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) promised a good fight, and we presume he waged a good fight. At least he wasn't singled out and categorized as not having made a fight. I want you to remember that. The member for Dewdney said he would fight. There's the headline. The minister responsible for ICBC didn't single out that member and tell us he didn't fight. In the meantime, the minister responsible said that there was no way they could roll back the clock, that the increases were going through, that anybody who couldn't afford the increases at all should seek assistance from the Human Resources ministry.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Do you have that quote?

MR. HALL: Yes, I've got that quote right here. It's entitled "Mr. Hewitt's Insult."

HON. MR. HEWITT: The quote is incorrect.

MR. HALL: Well, there we are. Perhaps you'd like to chance your arm with this Speaker, and we'll have that withdrawn.

I'm going to put it in the record, because this is what we've got here: his suggestion that elderly people on fixed incomes who couldn't afford the increase should seek assistance from the Human Resources ministry. That shows about as much respect for the dignity of senior citizens as slapping them in the face with a wet fish. He went on to say that the rate for elders would stay.

In the meantime, the cabinet sails blithely on, talking about its Financial Administration Act, its municipal plans, its super bigness and its monuments. Then one person who's got his eye on the votes says that we should have a second look at it, and the member for Kamloops, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), hints that there should be some aid for these old-age pensioners. The leadership there seems to be double-headed; both are members of the board of directors of ICBC. I wonder how many meetings they go to, and whether they go together — more important, perhaps, whether they come back together. It seems to me that there is

[ Page 4319 ]

a great deal of difference between the way they are looking at this Insurance Corporation.

Now we've got a situation where, in the opinion of one writer in the Colonist — as it was then called — it might be found illegal for ICBC to continue the discount for those over 65. We're now waiting for the final details of how the corporation's plans to go forward with the FAIR program and the legislation that is currently on the books are to be squared with the announcement made by the Minister of Agriculture. As one political observer said, it was a finale conceived in fear, and one that was made through straight political influence and interference.

When I was questioning the minister the other day, he said that the cabinet really only approves the rates in some pro forma way; that really it was nothing very significant; that it sort of crept in through the cabinet door and went out just as quickly; that it was really only a sort of stamped, addressed postcard that came into the hands of the cabinet secretary and went out again — almost a tickety-boo and how's your father.

What did the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) say? This is when this little postcard from Mr. Holmes said everything's okay, chaps. He also confirmed that the cabinet discussed the likely political impact of removing low-cost premiums for the elderly before approving last week's increases. Then he's got the gall to stand there and say there's no political interference in setting the rates, when he admits.... Caught out again, as he comes through the door, with a straightforward admission of a political debate in cabinet about ICBC rates.

Yet another gentleman — whose picture is on the wall of the boardroom — the good doctor from Point Grey, once authorized the following statement by the late Norman Bortnick, dated January 23, 1976. Mr. Bortnick states in his third paragraph:

"Under the previous administration" — that was us — "for reasons that are well known to you" — that's the press — "premium rates were set by cabinet that were insufficient in themselves to permit the corporation to run as a self-sufficient, break-even operation."

That's a signal for applause; you missed it.

"Existing legislation requires the cabinet approve the rates. I was delighted to hear Premier Bennett's suggestion yesterday that legislative changes might be made to permit ICBC to set its own rates in the future."

Four years, and we're still waiting for the fulfilment of that promise. There's leadership for you. There was the flush of enthusiasm in January 1976 when you were going to undo all the socialist legislation, when the philosophy of the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) was abounding in the cabinet chamber. That's what they were going to do — undo all the nuts and bolts of all the socialist legislation.

"It has been made clear to me" — the late Norman Bortnick says — "that from now on it's up to ICBC to run its own show. Dr. McGeer, as the minister responsible, has challenged me, and through me the entire corporation. We have been charged with the responsibility of setting realistic rates in the future and conducting our business in an efficient manner."

What a mockery! Four years later there is still naked political interference by a government that said it doesn't do it. This is the problem. This is where the fault of leadership lays. This government can't decide, having hired an actuarially oriented private-sector trained board of directors, whether to run an insurance company on that basis or whether to run it as an instrument of social policy. They can't decide what to do. As a result you don't do either very well. You mess up the actuarial side so Robbie Sherrell says goodbye. You try and diddle around with the social policy instrumentation without having the necessary set of principles to do it properly. As a result — and the member for Omineca knows exactly what I'm talking about — you fall in between....

MR. KEMPF: It's an albatross, and you know it.

MR. HALL: The way it's being run you're probably right. It's not one thing or the other, and you should be up on your feet telling them that.

Right now there are even more experiments going on in ICBC which I predict are going to be even more costly. The setting up of central registries and the abandonment of some of the other programs, I think, are going to prove costly. But more costly than anything else has been the deterioration over the last 12 months — as I said in estimates last June — in the relationship that must exist between this corporation and those people whom it employs and with whom it does business. That's been because of the sad, sorry lack of leadership by this minister, his colleagues and the cabinet.

To move off the question of ICBC and move on to a couple of other things to do with my riding and the provision of care to the people in my riding, it's unfortunately true that the effects of the cuts in the provision of care in Surrey, which although restored in some measure by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who we've not seen very much this current session.... While he's suggested that he's taken the freeze off hiring in some of these essential departments, what he's not done, and what he's not confessed to you, is that he's not released the requirements of the lengthening of the hiring process. It's still, unfortunately, true that it's taking far too long to replace people and it's taking far too long to hire people. As a result people who are waiting for home help and all sorts of assistance in my riding are waiting six to ten weeks for assessment. That, Mr. Speaker, is a direct result of cuts and Treasury Board instructions regarding staffing. I think that shows the most callous lack of understanding and sympathetic leadership in this field, whilst at the same time a massive program of advertising goes on trying to suggest that everything's all right, trying to suggest that new programs are in place that are able to look after the vicissitudes of some of the people in distress in Surrey. That's not correct. Day care is one that comes to mind. With the reduction of the transportation services in Surrey, day care becomes even more important as people are away longer and longer.

Mr. Speaker, the next thing is the question of the.... I have a letter here which speaks better than 1. This letter was addressed to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). The correspondent writes that his mother in White Rock, 89 years of age, is living alone in an apartment, receiving three hours of homemaker service per week. She has difficulty with her vision because of glaucoma, and had surgery for cataracts a few years ago. She recently fell in her bedroom and broke her arm. She was, therefore, unable to care for herself at all for about eight weeks. She went to the

[ Page 4320 ]

local Human Resources office to find out what they would do for her.

"All I received" – "I" being the writer, her son — "from there was a referral to the social worker. The social worker, in turn, referred me to the one in charge of long-term care, who then referred me back to the homemaker service. I received practically nothing from that circle, so I started again this time with the social worker, who told me she had assessed the situation and I would again have to contact the one in charge of long-term care, who sent me along to the homemaker service, and so the circle was complete for the second time. All I could get from all of these offices was zilch. Perhaps I should call it peanuts. They agreed to send someone in for a little more than an average of one hour out of the 24-hour day. For the other 23 hours she would have to either sink or swim, and I personally know she would sink. So because the offer is useless I should go back to my original terms."

And then the rest of the letter to the minister is political, and is of no consequence to this debate.

"In order to repair the breach, you'll have to act very quickly, otherwise the whole thing is a phony."

That's the kind of letter that we're getting frequently in Surrey. We get phone calls about that kind of assessment procedure and failure of the system to deliver. Again, it's a failure of the setting of the correct priorities in home care. Other people have dealt with the hospital situation. Other people have dealt with the day-care situation.

We have another example of a total failure in leadership in a most important area in our province — libraries. We passed a bill here in June. It appeared to be a fair amount of money for libraries. Everybody banged their desks. I'm sure the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) was very pleased. But here's a quotation from the Greater Vancouver Library Federation: "On November 3, 1980, the Greater Vancouver Library Federation quietly celebrated its fifth anniversary. How many readers remember the inauguration ceremony at Harbourside Holiday Inn, November 4, 1975, when excitement abounded on the new public library system established in the greater Vancouver area?" Well, I remember that ceremony very well indeed. I was there. I know what the high hopes of the libraries were. I remember what the high hopes of the library development systems were all over this province. It was three years in the making, and hopes for the GVLF's future were high. Now, five years later, despite changes in government attitudes towards public libraries, the GVLF still exists to provide service beyond the capabilities of its members and the sharing of resources. It's a sad, disappointed note, a downer for libraries. Again, it's a question of leadership.

I'm reminded of the cartoon characters. Every time a problem comes along, they look for a solution. Instead of a solution being presented to the person seeking it, a stick of lit dynamite is placed in their hand. That's what has happened to the Premier of this province by the rest of the treasury benches. They've let him down. No wonder there are gangs of four and five seeking to lay the blame all around the place.

Going back to ICBC just for a second, what about the ripoff that happened because of sloppy administration by this member here in terms of being able to roll over your insurance to save next year's increases? What's the corporation done about that?

HON. MR. HEWITT: What did they do when you were in, Ernie?

MR. HALL: It never happened when we were in.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Are you sure?

MR. HALL: No, it didn't. You see, Mr. Member, you show so little knowledge about it. When we were in there was only one renewal date, so it couldn't have happened. Mr. Speaker, the questions are really so infantile, it's just unbelievable.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're sure now, Ernie?

MR. HALL: I'm positive. The fact of the matter is that the computer that this member should know something about, if he ever goes to the board meetings, should be able to indicate how many people have ripped off and rolled over insurance in that period of time, so that the rest of us have had to pay for that. By telegraphing their punches, because of the mess, because they didn't know what was going to happen to the rates anyway....

Ten years ago, Mr. Speaker — on other subjects — we were talking about pollution in this chamber. The throne speech talks about quality of life. Ten years ago we tackled some of those problems in our speeches and set up some ideas about them. You know, some of the things we talked about ten years ago are now coming back to haunt some of those people on the other side. The Lieutenant-Governor was here and read those six points to us from page 4, and we see how much the leadership of this province has done to provide the basis to enjoy those six points they boast about. They talk about a healthy environment. In a throne speech debate nearly ten years ago — February 4, 1971 — I personally talked about Utah Mines — 9.3 million gallons of effluent per year and 20 square miles of ocean floor being covered to the depth of one foot, half of it by weight-suspended solids with cyanide, zinc and other reagents.

The minister of the day, Mr. Williston, now enjoying a political patronage job with this government, tried to defend himself. I was at the hearings up in Port Hardy. I was one of the few MLAs that ever went to Pollution Control Board hearings and listened to the evidence, which was given for 12 hours at a stretch in rooms that were not heated, in the depth of winter, with no refreshments in terms of coffee or anything, and in villages, for witnesses that had come from all over that area. Announcements of changes in plans were made the night before the hearing. And now this government has the gall to sit here and say it's interested and concerned about pollution. They built a 32-megawatt power line up there against all the advice that was available.

The same year, in 1971, we had the catastrophe of Buttle Lake — proven. It was first discussed in this chamber in 1967, when there were two reports on the tailings from Western Mines delivered to the then member, Mr. Williston. Who rushed to the defence of pollution by Western Mines in Buttle Lake? It was the then Liberal member for Point Grey.

When asked if he could square that defence of Western Mines pollution with his ownership of shares in that corporation, he had nothing to say like he said yesterday, when he lectured us in a loud, pompous way.

In 1970 and 1971 we said that one of these days Buttle Lake might be the richest oil body in the world, and I think

[ Page 4321 ]

those days are coming to pass. Mr. Speaker, you can imagine the cynicism with which people who've been here for a few years read, "My government believes that individual British Columbians have six basic aims in life," when everything that the Social Credit Party has ever done in this province since 1952 has done away with and made it more difficult to enjoy those six points. Whether it was the school freezes of the sixties, the labour chaos of the early seventies — the Mediation Commission, the instant, high-handed justice of that group.... It is no wonder that there's trouble over there. It's no wonder there are secret meetings. It's no wonder the last time we had a clear, definite, distinct, clarion call of leadership from the member for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett) was when he said, while addressing his own cabinet: "I want to tell you, friends, that we're only one statement away from disaster." Do you remember that one? That's the last clarion call we had from that Premier, and he was right. Since then there's been a succession of those statements.

Mr. Speaker, I've no difficulty in supporting this amendment at all. All I am surprised at is that, in view of the statements by cabinet members and private members opposite, both privately and publicly, I see them sitting in their places instead of standing up and joining in the support of this amendment.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have no....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. One moment, please, hon. minister. The second member for Victoria rises on a point of order.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm rising under standing order 42. One of my remarks may have been misunderstood. I think the Minister of Forests sought the floor to correct it. It had to do with the forest stumpage fees of $118 million, It was the interest that was written off and not the $118 million. I'd like to correct that.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, as I was beginning to say, I have no intention of supporting this ridiculous amendment. But I thank the second member for Victoria for correcting his statement for, in fact, he did say that the $118 million in stumpage was written off, and he has acknowledged that that is not so. You'll also remember that at that time interest was not charged on overdue accounts, so I don't know how you could write off interest that was not charged in the first place. Of course, the policies of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) now are that you do charge interest on overdue accounts and also that the government pays interest on its overdue accounts as well.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, quite often I've heard members across the floor remark on something that the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) said: "I don't know why we're here in the House." I guess a lot of us are wondering that. We've heard from the members over the months and years we've been government opposite that we should have fall sittings. Each year, during the summer months and into the fall, we hear demands for a fall sitting and sittings late in the year so that they could come back to work. So we have a fall sitting, and we are wondering why they do come back, because they really haven't said anything; they haven't brought any programs; they haven't brought us any of their policies. They have attacked personalities in this House. Their entire line of attack over the last two years has been to attack personalities. They really can't attack the policies of this government, because they have demonstrated that they are effective in the things that are going on today in British Columbia.

MR. NICOLSON: A child in kindergarten could attack your policies.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: That may be. The child in kindergarten might be able to, but certainly the members opposite cannot.

Mr. Speaker, there are some 80,000 members in the British Columbia Social Credit Party; about 40 of them met to discuss perhaps.... I don't know what they discussed, but it's reported that they discussed leadership, I think all members of every party should discuss leadership. I would point out that those 40 members represent 0.05 percent of the membership of our party, Meetings go on at all times about party policies, about our members, about our leadership. Most of these meetings and discussions are very positive indeed, and, of course, they don't get reported.

Mr. Speaker, I think if we talk about leadership, we should look at what the leadership we have had in British Columbia over the last five years — five years tomorrow, to be exact.... We should look at what has happened in British Columbia in that period of time. When we came to government five years ago almost exactly, we had to look at the hand we'd been dealt, the cards we had to play. We were picking up from a pretty disastrous period of time in British Columbia. I'm not going to dwell on that disaster, because that's long past. But we looked at what we had. We had a province which had abundant resources and minerals in coal, in forests, in scenic beauty which attracts tourism; we had a tremendous human resource which had not been used and had been allowed to believe that the welfare state was the way to go.

When we came to government, we had to start doing those things which our leader and our government thought were necessary in order to bring British Columbia back into the prosperous days that it had enjoyed for so many years up until the members opposite formed the government in 1972. I remember very well — I've said this many times in the House, Mr. Speaker — that never in my life had I paid very much attention to politics. I had been engaged and employed in the mining industry for all my working life, the latter few years as an employee of the provincial government, and I saw that industry, which has done so much to build this province, literally dying. Nothing was happening, and during a part of that period 4 time. during the 1973-74 period, there were record prices for metals. I think copper went up to as much as $1.50 a pound very briefly during that period of time — very buoyant times — and yet here in British Columbia where we have a tremendous mineral wealth, we had absolutely nothing happening.

The people who I had worked with all my life were leaving; they were going elsewhere, where opportunities existed. The expertise which we had developed in British Columbia was leaving. Absolutely nothing was taking place. The corporations weren't working. The many thousands of

[ Page 4322 ]

employees who worked for them weren't working. The individual prospectors, the diamond drillers, the miners, all these everyday British Columbians, were not working in that once thriving industry. So our leader said: "We must correct that." At that time I was fortunate enough to have been elected and to have been appointed Minister of Mines, and I had the great pleasure of bringing in legislation, under the leadership of our Premier, which corrected the course of the mining industry in British Columbia. If we look today at what's happening in that industry — the people who are employed, the exploration that's taking place, the mines that are being developed and all of the spin off benefits to all sectors of British Columbia that result from that — I think it's very clear what leadership in that area has done for British Columbia. I am very proud to serve in a government under a leader like we have now. We have never had a better leader than we have at this time.

I remember also, Mr. Speaker, in that period of time, the disaster that had recently taken place in the petroleum and natural gas industry in the great northeastern part of our province — the great Peace River country. Nothing was happening. We were down to, I believe, six drill-rigs drilling in that last winter of the socialist government, because those involved in the exploration for and development of petroleum and natural gas left because there were no opportunities here in British Columbia. I think we remember well the famous statement that "there is no natural gas in the Grizzly Valley; there will never be any development there." There was a government then with no imagination, no leadership and no understanding of what makes this province tick.

Our Premier, and our government under his leadership, changed the direction of that industry. In the last couple of years we have had the most active periods of time that we have ever had in developing new energy sources and resources for the people of this province, and that is particularly important now, during a period of time when energy is a very precious commodity throughout the world. But that did not happen just by itself; it happened because we have a leader who thinks ahead, who plans and makes things happen.

I recall the disaster that was the forest industry when we came to government in 1975, the utter fear of every investor, large and small, about placing any money in the forest sector, either in new plants or in the rebuilding of the many plants which so badly needed it, for they knew that the policy of that previous socialist government was to eventually nationalize that industry — to take it over, to buy it out; to first of all bring it to its knees, then to take over the marketing of all the commodities of that industry and in effect socialize it. Therefore there was no opportunity, no activity, no money being spent to make sure that that industry could survive bad times.

And what have we done under the leadership of our present Premier? We have developed whit is acknowledged to be some of the most progressive forest management legislation and policies of any forest jurisdiction in the world. We have, for the first time, plans with committed budgets for the future so that we can plan ahead on this long-term resource we have to manage and make sure that it is managed properly and that we do provide opportunities, not only now but in the future. These things didn't just happen; they happened as a result of the hard work and leadership provided by our Premier and our government.

I remember the previous government’s policies on coal development; there was nothing happening again. That money-hungry treasury they had was looking for every possible way of scraping every possible dime of tax revenue from an industry which, at that time, was in some difficulty. That industry is thriving now, and on the immediate horizons are some vast developments in coal in this province which will again provide jobs, opportunities, and work for our people. And these things don't just happen. They happen because of the leadership provided by our Premier and the hard work of ministers, such as the Minister of Economic Development at that time (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who has worked endless hours in order to bring that about, and it will happen.

I remember, Mr. Speaker, the utterances of the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) when he said that we should not bring tourists to British Columbia because their cars driving along the highways have adverse effects on the fish and wildlife, Therefore when he was the Minister of Highways he didn't build highways; he didn't even maintain the transportation systems that are so essential to the economy of this province. Our tourists were not welcome, they didn't come, and the many thousands of people who work in that industry were without work, were going broke. Since that time, under the leadership of our Premier and the present and two previous Ministers of Tourism, our tourist industry has been thriving and prosperous. There has never been more construction or more development in tourist-related facilities in this province than there is now. And it didn't just happen. It happened because of the leadership, imagination and forward thinking provided by our leader, the Premier of British Columbia.

In North America this last year we have had a very difficult time. In most of North America a very serious recession has been taking place. But there hasn't been a recession in British Columbia, because of government planning and programs which have insulated us in this province from those things. We have been insulated from those difficult financial times because of planning and the harnessing of the resources which we have, to make things better in British Columbia. The Premier has shown leadership in injecting money into the economy during a time when the economy is floundering around us in other provinces and other states. Our province is buoyant; people are working; our unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in many, many years. Those things don't just happen; they happen because of the leadership provided by our Premier and the effort provided by this government.

I would hope that every party assesses its leadership regularly. Perhaps that's one of the things the previous government didn't do. They had a leader. They blindly followed him. They followed him as he led this province to the brink of financial and economic disaster. If it weren't for the fact that the people of British Columbia realized what was happening at that time and elected a real leader, I don't know where we would be today.

I cannot possibly support this ridiculous amendment. I will be very proud to vote against it.

MR. LAUK: The previous speaker spoke against the amendment to the resolution. I was tempted to stand on a point of order and draw to the Speaker's attention that he offends the rule against tedious and repetitious debate. Since coming to the Legislature, that minister has repeated the same remarks every year in this chamber. He hasn't even changed the phraseology. It's a reflection of the lack of creativity in the cabinet. They've had nothing new to say for

[ Page 4323 ]

five years. They have nothing new in terms of policy, and nothing new to offer the people of British Columbia.

In terms of leadership — which this amendment has something to do with — take for example the hon. member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips). When he was in the opposition benches he said that the New Democratic Party didn't create any jobs. He called upon me as Minister of Economic Development to become the nerve centre of the government. He promised the people of British Columbia that if a Social Credit administration were elected the Ministry of Economic Development would become the nerve centre and would create the tens of thousands of jobs that were required in this province.

After the first 18 months the minister discovered that he had no files. After 18 months, the major speech of the minister was that he had no files. What is he going to do about it? Since that time, he's had a standing invitation to go to the UBC archives and look at those files that were missing. Do you know that he hasn't taken up that invitation? That is the reason the ministry, under his leadership, has been such a disaster. If he had availed himself of the opportunity, he would have found from those files the tremendous number of economic plans that were available to create the jobs that he promised. He failed to do so. I mention the minister because he is one of the few who are courteous enough to stay in the Legislature and hear the debate and take the heat.

This resolution calls into question public confidence — and it's been very carefully worded — in the leader of the government. Let's for a moment canvass why this amendment is necessary. We have what we described at the time as a design, or an election plot or scheme, to woo voters in support of the Social Credit administration in 1979. That was BCRIC. They took the assets that were acquired by the NDP administration and placed them in a semi-quasi-Crown corporation that was sort of public and sort of Crown and sort of whatever — created by statute — and shares were issued and purchased.

At the time the Premier of the province said: "I'm doing this, I'm fathering this child, I'm creating this corporation to teach the people of British Columbia what the free market system is all about." This year the lesson was well learned. We found — as I think many of us on this side of the House already knew — that if you know something about what's going on that nobody else knows you can make a lot of money. We also found out, at the hands of the Premier, that those with insider information can loot. They can cash in, and the information that's not available to other shareholders becomes of itself a very valuable commodity. So the Premier was right. The people of British Columbia have learned a very serious lesson about the free market system when it comes to shares.

We would think that BCRIC would be above reproach. We would think that the government would take special steps to ensure that such a widespread shareholding in such a company would have the protection necessary to give it the good public image that it deserves. It seems to me that that lesson having been learned, we now focus upon this amendment. The Getz report has indicated the total inadequacy of the laws of British Columbia in dealing with that kind of privilege, that kind of class privilege, and in dealing with securities in this province in a fair, honourable and open way.

Talk about leadership, Mr. Speaker. The government had a responsibility under the Premier to ensure that BCRIC was dealt with in such a way that the shareholders and voters of this province would be satisfied that it had been done fairly. I say that it was done unfairly. I say that the government, by standing idly by, in their own way connived at producing a tremendous fortune for those manipulating in the boardrooms during the negotiated purchase of the Kaiser resource shares by BCRIC.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: If the hon. member has an objection to something I've said, he should rise in his place and not chirp from his seat.

The second reason I support this amendment is the recent announcement of a land swap with CPR over the exchange of land involving B.C. Place. Here we have a situation where Marathon Realty, the CPR.... You'd think we Canadians would have learned over the past 100 or so years the dangers of giving land to the CPR. They've held us to ransom. They've dictated the development of our downtown core. They've held the east to ransom, and they've held the farmers to ransom. They have controlled the major land holdings of every major city across the country. When the CPR moved to purchase more shares in a private company, the Premier moved very quickly to try and stop the purchase of those shares. Yet when it comes to providing five of the most valuable pieces of land in the core of the major city of this province, there's a deafening silence because they negotiated it. Once again Manhattan Island goes for a few beads,

Let me tell you something, Mr. Speaker. The land that is intended to be swapped for the B.C. Place land will, in a few years, be at least three times the value presently placed upon it. I urge the government to acquire as much as it can of this valuable land for core city development in the public domain, be it municipal, provincial or federal. It should not be removed from the public domain and placed once more in the hands of a private company, let along the CPR. To give it to the CPR again is a travesty; it’s turning their backs on the history of this country of ours and the struggle that ordinary people have had with the CPR because of their powerful land ownership position.

The government must be urged to avoid the land exchange, to purchase the B.C. Place land outright and keep the land in the public domain so that the public — the ordinary voter — can decide their future and the development of the core of the city, which not only belongs to Vancouverites but to all of the people of British Columbia. We, as the people, have a right to decide how our core is going to be developed. We have a right to make it reflect the needs and the values of ordinary people, and not the needs of a giant corporation such as Marathon Realty that wants to build large commercial complexes to maximize its profit. I don't blame Marathon Realty and I don't blame the CPR, but I do blame the for its total lack of leadership in that regard. They are rolling over once again, and why? Because they're scrambling for major announcements. They're trying to save their image with the people of British Columbia, and they're losing every step of the way.

The convention centre is another example of rushing into an announcement, making all kinds of impossible promises about costs. Now we're finding that the cost of the convention centre may be in excess of $120 million, and there's no source of money to support the concept. I say that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who

[ Page 4324 ]

is on that board, should resign for the incompetence that she has demonstrated under the Premier's leadership in dealing with that concept. A good idea has been bungled by the minister. She, in all honour, should resign from that board and admit that she has hopelessly failed to bring about this project, which may have been worthwhile to the city.

The other thing is transit. I was alarmed to see today that in the scramble for the leadership of the Social Credit Party, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) made an announcement, we thought, committing the federal government to a substantial contribution towards transit development in the lower mainland. We find that, in his anxiousness, his desperation, his headline hunting, he has made the announcement in a premature way. He has endangered a federal subsidy to the transit system for his own crass personal political designs. Mr. Speaker, the word of the minister to the public, then, cannot be trusted, because a minister of the Crown, making a statement that there's a federal commitment for subsidy for transit, must be believed. We have to rely on the Crown minister who's speaking for all of the people, as our government, giving us the clear impression that there was that commitment. Now we find out that he not only was premature, he was warned by the federal cabinet minister in charge of the project that any premature announcement might endanger the federal contribution.

That is a wanton and reckless disregard for the interests of the people of the province of British Columbia, and this has characterized the Premier; it has characterized this government. In desperation moves, staggering from disaster to disaster to save their image, they're not taking a cautious, deliberate and responsible administrative approach to the government of this province. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I support this amendment that focuses the attention of this chamber on the lack of public confidence in the leadership of this province. It is a crisis in leadership. There is a credibility problem.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, although we greet with some satisfaction the news that the Marguerite will be re-employed, I cannot help but point out the misstatements that were made in the past by this government about the suitability of the Marguerite. The Marguerite has not changed. There was no miracle so far as I know. I haven't checked with all of the people who know about miracles, but so far as I know that vessel has not been changed in any way since the time when the Minister of Industry and Small Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and others called it a "floating coffin" and said that it was totally unseaworthy.

MR. BARBER: It's been untouched for 15 months.

MR. LAUK: It's been untouched for 15 months, and here we have the government reversing itself. That's a disaster in leadership, Mr. Speaker. Once again it demonstrates the incompetence and bungling of a government. Is it little wonder, then, why the opposition would place on the order paper an amendment to this motion calling into question the leadership of the Premier and the government, and pointing out clearly the widespread lack of confidence in that leadership, not only expressed by people who support the New Democratic Party but by people by the thousands who have traditionally supported the Social Credit Party? I think the hon. members opposite know full well that that's true. The leadership of the Social Credit Party and of this government is being called into question by their own members and supporters. Is it little wonder, then, that we so urgently and solemnly move this motion?

Lastly, I want to challenge the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and others who have openly criticized the leadership of this party to not only speak their criticisms but to demonstrate clearly that they mean what they say and that they are not just posturing for their own political survival, and to support this motion with us, as a clear and serious demonstration that they have a desire to represent their constituents, instead of a desire for their own political survival.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I rise to denounce this most ridiculous amendment. Certainly as members of the Legislature we ought to be very well aware that the measure of leadership is evident throughout British Columbia, where we now witness not only a vibrant economy but one which is the envy of all of Canada. Perhaps we might just briefly compare it to what it was in 1975. In 1975 we then faced the highest rate of unemployment ever in the history of the province. In 1975 we witnessed industry leaving the province of British Columbia to settle elsewhere in other provinces and across the line. In 1975 we experienced a rate of inflation second to none anywhere in Canada. That was the leadership that existed then. There was no leadership at that time. Now we can look at British Columbia, and certainly the tables have turned. We have perhaps the lowest unemployment rate, which we've enjoyed for many, many years — perhaps the lowest in the whole of Canada, second only to Alberta. We have a gross provincial product which is the envy of all the other provinces. We have prosperity in business. We have, as I said, the lowest unemployment rate. While inflation is a concern, it is certainly a whole lot better than what it is in other parts of North America. People are moving to British Columbia in record numbers because we have good government, the province is growing and vibrant, and our Premier provides excellent leadership.

Let's just look at a few things. I was certainly aware of the earlier mention of the transit announcement. Again, for the last decade there has been a lot of talk about transit, but after only five years this government was able to announce a transit program like nowhere else in North America, a transit program that provides for all parts of the region, a transit program which will provide for all the people in greater Vancouver, and a transit program which now has the federal government wanting to become involved to promote Canadian technology.

While the Conservatives were in power, the federal government announced they would participate with Ontario to the extent of $32.8 million if such a transit system were developed someplace other than Ontario. That is a commitment of the federal government. Only last Friday on a television talk show, the hon. Senator Ray Perrault announced that the federal government would consider $50 million. Prior to that, there was an announcement by the Hon. Ed Lumley that perhaps they would go as high as $100 million. Just a matter of a few hours ago I spoke to the Hon. Ed Lumley. He called me because there was a report in the local paper suggesting that perhaps the federal government was getting cold feet. That's not the case at all. The hon. minister assured me that they were still very much wanting to be involved because there is the opportunity of selling this throughout the world. There's possibly a market for $80 billion worth of transit equipment, of which British Col-

[ Page 4325 ]

umbia could receive a sizeable chunk, and where we could create thousands of jobs.

Some of the negative members from the other side have stated publicly that perhaps we should not be risking something untried. They forget this system has been developed over the last seven years, and they forget that it's been tested on the Kingston track for the last several years. They forget as well that there's a guarantee that goes with the system to ensure that it will perform to our expectations, and the test period is as long as five years.

If we in Canada are not prepared to be first in ensuring that we use Canadian technology when it comes to providing transit, how can we ever expect other countries or cities in North America to take on this technology? I was very pleased that Los Angeles announced that their technical people are recommending to the city council of Los Angeles that they too see the Canadian technology as the best approach to providing transit in their city. I think the opposition instead should be standing there speaking in support of what this government, under the leadership of our Premier, has done in announcing this tremendous transit program.

I realize there's been a degree of negativism expressed by some members of the Vancouver city council, but let me assure you they are very much in the minority, and I'm sure that once all the evidence is available to them they too will support this great innovation as a system second to none anywhere in Canada. It's this sort of thing that we've seen over the last number of years that is a great credit to the Premier particularly, and to the government of the province of British Columbia today.

There's a great deal in the press again now because municipal councils had their inaugural meeting last night about the potential for increased taxes at the local level. Let me assure you again that the revenue-sharing program is providing greater returns to municipalities than ever before in the history of British Columbia. Those moneys have increased tremendously. Let's compare that too with the record of the NDP. They certainly said: "We have some sort of revenue-sharing program." It was a pittance, an insult. It was nothing at all compared to the program introduced by our government under the leadership of our Premier.

Let's compare too the record of transit. We are providing a beautiful Canadian transit system for the whole of greater Vancouver. The NDP bought a train in Germany that wouldn't even fit the track, and it's still being stored in some barn in Vancouver. We're stuck with it; nobody will buy it. Was that leadership? They were flying by the seat of their pants. They don't know what leadership is. Who are they to talk about leadership? An insult to the people of British Columbia.

Earlier the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) spoke about the opportunities that we've given through amending or providing part 10 of the building code, where we're making buildings accessible to the handicapped. The NDP paid lip service to the handicapped. They did not provide that sort of initiative. The opportunity was available to them for the three years they supposedly governed. We provided that initiative, again under the leadership of our Premier and good government in British Columbia.

We've had tremendous opportunities in tourism. We've had a growth in tourism as never before. We've had a growth in all our industrial activities in the province of British Columbia. We've had fewer man-days lost due to labour disputes in the last year than ever before in the history of the last 10 or 15 years — a tremendous record, again because of the fine leadership shown by the Premier and our government.

We have witnessed in the area of health the introduction of the long-term care program and a hospital-building program unprecedented in the province of B.C. In my own constituency — I'm sure the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) would wish to get up and speak along these lines as well — tremendous advances have been made because of the announced expansions to the Surrey Memorial Hospital and the planned expansions for the Peace Arch District Hospital. Great progress, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you move out of Surrey for?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I've not moved out of Surrey. There was some mention made that I moved out of Surrey. I love Surrey. I have a home in Surrey. I live in Surrey. I've not moved to Victoria like all the opposition members. I look after my constituency. I'm proud of my constituency, and I work for my constituents day and night.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Would the member please take his chair.

I don't know on what basis members presume they have the right to interrupt the member who is speaking. An occasional outburst can be condoned, but constant interruption must be interrupted by the Chair.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, in the area of highways, the minister just in front of me is certainly to be commended for the tremendous highway programs that we have seen developed throughout the province. The citizens of my constituency are very pleased that we are receiving a further crossing of the Fraser to assure us an early end to the immense bottlenecks that presently exist. We know that there was talk during the NDP years about a possible crossing, but nothing was done. Reports and studies were commissioned, which only suggested further studies and more reports.

Mr. Speaker, this government acts. We get on with things; we do things. There is a great deal happening in this great province of British Columbia because this government takes the initiative this government moves. In only five years we have seen greater progress than we have seen over many years of the history of this wonderful province. And 1, Mr. Minister of Highways (Hon Mr. Fraser), am very pleased about the tremendous improvements that have been made to the King George Highway and about the facilities that are being provided elsewhere throughout my constituency. I am pleased that my ministry, through the revenue sharing program, was able to participate in a crossing for the Nicomekl River. All of these are very positive things that have happened, not only in my constituency, but in all of the constituencies.

We heard a little earlier from the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). Again, New Westminster is certainly an example of the tremendous progress that has been made through this government under the leadership of our Premier Bennett. New Westminster received many other benefits through that new revitalization program that exists — a revitalization program which will certainly also be available

[ Page 4326 ]

in another form to all of the smaller communities throughout the province. I have received inquiries from practically every constituency, many of them represented by NDP members. I will go into those constituencies. We want this program to be available to all the people, regardless of where the community is.

There is a tremendous program to assist small business. Mr. Speaker, throughout this year, throughout each and every year, we have seen tremendous advances, enormous progress because we in British Columbia enjoy good government and great leadership.

MR. HOWARD: After that reception, Mr. Speaker, I had better quit while I am ahead.

Mr. Speaker, 1, like others, want to express my own personal appreciation at seeing you back and in good health. I hope you don't ever lose your sense of humour in presiding over the affairs of this chamber, because I think that the saving feature of any Speaker is being able to assess the mood of the House and to deal with it. I am sure you will be able to do that.

I always very much enjoy listening to the Minister of Municipal Affairs — tremendous enjoyment in watching that performance. He is able, whether what he is talking about is mythological or factual, to approach it with the same kind of vigour — a true Liberal. He is the only minister of the Crown I know who will stand up in the House here, as he did a moment ago, and allude to some support for the Premier here, and the next day we will find him out in the corridor stabbing the Premier in the back — a true Liberal.

Let's read the amendment, Mr. Speaker, and see just what it says. Some members opposite seem to have forgotten, or not have paid attention in the first place to what the amendment says. It says: "This House regrets that the speech from His Honour does not reflect the lack of public confidence in the leadership of the government." That is what we are talking about — the lack of public confidence in the leadership of this government. Now that entitled us to examine information to support that contention. We are not talking, in this regard, about the lack of confidence on the part of the official opposition in the Premier's leadership. We are talking about the lack of public confidence. We are not only entitled to examine, I would think, the leadership of the Premier in that regard. We are also entitled to examine the atmosphere or the aura that has been created by Social Credit in the province, which is a companion to the question of leadership.

Let me make just a couple of references to identify the general theme of double standards which the government and Social Credit desire to get across.

Just in passing, I say that the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), the other day in this debate started off saying: "Oh, please, I hope we have a debate that does not involve personalities." Fine. I do too. But that's passing strange, Mr. Speaker, when that same member for Central Fraser Valley, during the last session, absent from the House for legitimate, proper medical reasons, came back to the chamber, was warmly welcomed by all members, and the very first thing he did was issue a press release attacking personalities in the opposition.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: That's right, because I go to Legion meetings and I get used to the use of that word.

My colleague for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) and my colleague the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), both absent for a couple of days for legitimate medical reasons, were attacked personally by the member for Central Fraser Valley, and then he had the gall to stand up in the House and say: "Oh, let's not have any more of that." Well, that's his assessment of the way the standard should be.

We're entitled to look — and I do this only in passing — at the comments of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), who the other day made a very thoughtful speech. Part of it, Mr. Speaker, condemned the federal government for excesses in finances, for overspending, for going into debt, for an escalating budget at the federal government level. That was properly done; he had every right to be critical of it. I mean, after all, who should know better than he? Some people may not remember, but that member for North Vancouver–Seymour was a Minister of the Environment in the federal government, appointed by Prime Minister Trudeau. After some complaints about not being in the cabinet, he finally got there. The one thing he accomplished — if one can call it an accomplishment — once he had his head to do what he felt like, was pretty near ruin the fishing industry in British Columbia. That's well remembered by the fishermen on this coast.

But let's have a look at what happened to that member's budget when he was the Minister of the Environment in Ottawa. Do you want to look at that?

I'm told by The Parliamentary Guide, a truthful document — I mean, after all, the member wrote what was in it himself — that he was appointed to cabinet as Minister of the Environment in the fiscal year 1971-72. The budget of his department that year — and I use round figures — was $200 million. In his first year in office — 1971-72 — he had accomplished an increase of 28 percent in the budget for his own department. The next year he drove it up to $248 million, another 22 percent increase. The following year — and his last, thank heavens — he had it escalated and elevated to the point of $316 million, another 28 percent increase.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: Two years as the minister and he's got a 78 percent increase in his budget. Well!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Would the member please take his seat until we have a point of order.

I'm enjoying the debate immensely. However, it is not in order to import a debate into this House which rightfully should be carried on in another jurisdiction. A passing comment is all right. Please proceed.

MR. HOWARD: Your words are well taken, Mr. Speaker, and properly so. I had examined the remarks of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour and I thought I took up about the same amount of time as he did. All I was trying to do was put on the record what exists within Social Credit about double standards — of saying one thing but in fact doing something else. The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) isn't here, but he did that yesterday. He

[ Page 4327 ]

made a direct statement, improperly imputing something to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) which he, the Minister of Agriculture and Food, knew in fact was not so — a double standard. He wants to be able to wield the tar brush at everybody else and cloak himself in some white sheet, indicating purity.

I want to, if I can, Mr. Speaker, try to put on the record and put before the House information on positions taken by people in the general public to substantiate the amendment before us. To do that, I need to refer to items, which have appeared in the press, some of them attributed to members of this House, some to others.

Let's look at the question of child welfare. If this reflects what I'm about to refer to — if this truth really reflects what the situation is, and I'm advised that it does — then that's an absolute disgrace and reflects directly not only on the leadership of this government but on the deputy leadership as well.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

In the Vancouver Sun of Friday, November 7, there was an article relating to a 13-year-old boy who was ordered by family court to be placed in a centre in Calgary for emotionally disturbed children. This was ordered by a family court judge in Vancouver. The article says: "He is the second Vancouver youth ordered placed in Calgary's William Roper Hull Home because B.C. lacks juvenile psychiatric centres." The order brings the city's child support bill to $6,000 a month.

"Judge Boyle ruled that the Juvenile Delinquents Act gives a provincial court judge the power to order a child who has been found to be a juvenile delinquent to be placed in an institution outside the province. 'The delinquent is a ward of the superintendent of child welfare, but Ministry of Human Resources policy' — and that's the same deputy leadership that we're talking about — 'refuses to finance the treatment of children in its care who are placed in social resources outside the province'."

They haven't got the social concern about human beings about young children — to do anything about them here, and they refuse to pay any attention to obligations of an ethical nature.

That's a shameful state of affairs, if what I am reading is correct. If it is not correct, the minister will of course take the stand to correct it. I notice that she corrects everything that is said in this House, except about guys like Eckardt and those sorts of things. But she'll correct it if it's not correct.

Here's a gentleman — John Turvey, a member of the general public and a Ministry of Human Resources social worker — who resigned because he said he was burnt out. He says "burnt out" means you're tired and frustrated and ultimately, "I'm feeling impotent." He is one of six Vancouver Human Resources social workers assigned to work exclusively with teenagers at high risk. They say the B.C. government is as negligent in its care of children as the unfit parents whose children are apprehended in court. What a shameful commentary to come from members of the general public, talking directly about the leadership or lack of leadership of this government.

We have the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair). He not only hasn't indicated that he's got any support for the Premier or the leadership of this province, but he takes the other approach; he expresses the lack of it. What happened? He woke up one morning and found out that the Premier and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) had cozied up to each other and developed something called the Financial Administration Act that was going to interfere with his development of budgetary proposals for hospitals. So he spoke out against it, and rightly so. The minister is saying: "Because they were developing budgetary practices, I had to state my objections to the financial control bill. There's no way I can talk to hospitals about their budget for next year and then hit them in the eyes a couple of months from now with some new financing system they're not expecting." Doesn't the Premier permit discussion between cabinet ministers in cabinet? Don't they know what each is doing to the other? Quite frankly, I don't think the Premier cares. But Rafe Mair, the Minister of Health, cares, and he saw fit to speak out against the Premier and against the leadership.

The same article to which I'm referring — the Vancouver Province for November 27, 1980 — also has somebody by the name of Kempf involved in attacking the Premier. This chap Kempf.... Here it is, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry, I didn't see this. I see it now. Kempf is the MLA for Omineca, it said, but he doesn't like anything about the bill, the financial control act. "The entire thing should be dumped in the nearest wastepaper basket," he said. You never hear him speak in the House. He took a vow of silence here all during the last session. I remember him from out in the hustings. I can hear that voice saying: "Oh, I could not in good conscience stand and vote for that." That's what he said about the utilities commission bill as well. But he'll vote today. He'll stand up for Bill. He'll stand up and support the Premier, because the member for Omineca likes that kind of insensitive, gutless leadership that we have in this province. That's why he's going to vote for it.

The Minister of Health reflects that lack of public confidence, and he was courageous enough to stand up and say so. I hope he is equally courageous when we vote on this particular amendment before us.

Let's look at another group of the general public not in this House, a group of highly respected people in our society, highly necessary people — professional. This is an article from the B.C. Medical Journal, November 1980. They talk about the government's decision on that new Financial Administration Act. They talk about authoritarianism, state control, neo-fascist attitude about government operations. They said: "They should indicate whether they agree with the notion that their membership fees in the College of Physicians and Surgeons are public money, and that it should be open to the provincial cabinet to scrutinize in a direct and detailed way how this money is budgeted and spent." They go on like that. There is a group of the general public expressing their lack of public confidence in the leadership of this province. Why? Because authoritarianism is the rule of the clay in cabinet, and they want to interfere in everybody's lives and everybody's activities. That's why this amendment.

Listen to this. Let's see what Denny Boyd has to say in the Sun, December 5 — all current material. He says: "Department of Quotes I Can't Believe Were Uttered.'' After I read them to you, I'm sure nobody in this House will believe they were uttered. Social Credit Party president Bernie Smith — he's a member of the general public, remember, whistling in the dark most of the time since he became the president. He said: "We realize there's an image problem with the party,

[ Page 4328 ]

but we don't know what's causing it. " Now comes the editorial comment by the columnist:

"Jeez, Bernie, before you fell among politicians you were a cop for 35 years."

You know all about that, Mr. Speaker, how you can perceive these things.

"You were the best beat cop that ever walked a dark Vancouver street. When you saw smoke, you hollered fire. When you heard glass tinkling, you thought break-in. When you saw a skid roader with his belly bleeding, you looked for a guy with a knife. If after 35 years of investigating trouble you can't trace a bad smell to its source, you're out of your depth. But here's a clue: prime suspect's initials are W.B. — goes by Bill. White, male Caucasian, swarthy features. Suffers from tennis elbow.

He's a member of the general public.

October 12, 1980, again from the Province. Here's another article. I'll give a prize to anybody who can identify who said this. I'll read the quotation. The first person to guess who it was wins a prize. "I'm not the only disenchanted member of the party. I think the cabinet must be getting the word from a lot of people out there; I know I am." Here's a further quote: "I intend to make a noise" — well, no doubt he'll be able to accomplish that — "and to keep on making a noise until something is done, until I have no choice but to face the options open to me. I'll be considering those options pretty carefully over the next few months."

SOME HON. MEMBER: Phillips! Tony Brummet! Allan Williams!

MR. HOWARD: Tony Brummet? Wrong, sorry. Try again. Sits close to him, Right in front of him.

MR. KING: Not Jack! Not Happy Jack?

MR. HOWARD. Yes. Jack Kempf, the member for Omineca.

Here's a former Social Credit candidate, a B.C. Ferries director — Graeme Roberts. He slams the Premier for what he calls:

"...the bungles and scandals of his government. While I'm not interested in the scandals, the bungles are quite evident. The question we should all be asking our Premier is: if he was the ordinary person in the street, would he sit back and accept the things that he saw and read in the dirty tricks scandal, the Marguerite bungle" — unbungled now — "the Gracie's finger fuddle, the heroin treatment scandal and now the Kaiser-BCRIC debacle?"

That's the question he's asking: would the Premier, if he were an ordinary citizen, sit back and let those things go by? The answer is obviously no, he would not. That's another expression.

Do you want to look at another group of public citizens who are concerned about what this government is doing and where it's going? Just a few days ago the lawyers in the province became so concerned about the intrusion by this cabinet into the rights of people in this province that they want to conduct an inquiry so that they understand what these awesome powers are that the cabinet has arrogated unto itself. Vancouver Sun, December 8, a couple of days ago: "Lawyers representing B.C.'s legal community have decided to investigate the increasing power being given to cabinet in new provincial legislation such as the Utilities Commission Act." Lawyers, a respected profession, members of the general public, are expressing openly the desirability, from their point of view, of conducting an inquiry into the leadership of this province which is concentrating power more and more into the hands of cabinet and less and less out in the country to the people — an antidemocratic stance of government. They desire only to make their decisions in the secrecy of the cabinet room, with no public debate, no dissenting opinion — just an enforced law pushing people beyond the limits of accepting the concepts of democracy. The lawyers want to look at that. That's an expression of lack of public confidence.

The Premier came up my way not too long ago. He spoke to the Interior News in Smithers, and made some ridiculously stupid comment about the only thing in food production that we will be able to be self-sufficient in is apples. He got that covered in his hometown paper, the Kelowna Capital News, where he was thanked in a letter. The letter said: "Thanks a lot Bill. At least we know exactly where you stand."

He talks about the apple business. Part of the comment in Smithers was that it was too difficult to get land out of the Agricultural Land Reserve. He said it was too difficult. "There should be more land available," said the Premier, "to land developers wishing to develop lots in the Agricultural Land Reserve. It's sure tough to get it out." Now what he was saying was: "We're not going to be able to produce food self-sufficient to ourselves here, except for apples." So the rest of it, in Smithers, which is an agriculturally oriented community of some long standing and high regard all throughout the province.... He said to them: "Forget about your dairy herds, and forget about everything else. Let's build some highrises and some parking lots on your agricultural land. Let's take it out of the reserve. " That's what the Premier was saying. That's leadership? What did the Interior News have to say about it? I wouldn't use these words myself in the House, Mr. Speaker, but I can read them from here. The editorial of October 1, starts off by saying:

"The statements made by the Premier of British Columbia in Smithers last Wednesday are either figments of a distraught mind" — boy, how perceptive that editorial is — "or they are an indication of the most frightening policy direction yet brought down upon the province. There is so little agriculturally suitable land in this province — a maximum of about 4 percent — that it's incumbent upon society to make that land precious, to use it in the most practical manner and to husband it with loving care. It does not need to become part of a blacktop jungle. There is any amount of other land suitable for housing without alienating the little bits available with which body and soul can be kept together. Frankly, we don't think the Premier really knows what he's talking about. It is simply not possible to give any credence to anything the Premier or any of his cabinet may say these days. Trust has gone so let the people decide."

That, Mr. Speaker, is what this is all about. That resolution asks those in the cabinet who have expressed their lack of confidence in the Premier to stand up and be counted. Ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who is now leaving, but who, as the Premier knows, has talked about him behind his back when the Premier is not in town. Ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs. That's what the resolution says. Come back and vote where your mouth is.

[ Page 4329 ]

Ask the Minister of Health — the resolution does — to stand up like a true person and vote for this amendment. That's what it's asking. It's asking the other Liberals — the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) who never in his life as a Social Credit member has had one praising word to say about the Premier. Not once. It asks those gentlemen.

It asks the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) ; it asks those of you who in your hearts know full well that you are being misled by smiling Bill over there — know full well that the leadership of this province is totally and thoroughly incompetent and bungling.... All across this province, the medical profession, the legal profession, "Whistling" Bernie Smith, the general public, the trade union movement, all are expressing lack of public confidence in the leadership of this province. Come on, those of you who are there, vote with us on this amendment and bring an end to this bungling and muddling incompetence, and let the people have an opportunity to bring sanity back into the annals of government by returning us there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, section 45A(2) of our standing orders states that: "On the fourth of the said days, if an amendment or a subamendment be under consideration at 30 minutes before the ordinary time of daily adjournment, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put the question on any amendment and(or) subamendment then before the House." It is my intention, therefore, to do so.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

NAYS — 28

YEAS — 24

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It's my pleasure to stand in my place today to respond to this great throne speech that is before us and to the main motion. May I just say to our Speaker of the House, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are so pleased to have him back with us in such good form and we are grateful to you for having made sure that this House was kept in good order in the Speaker's absence.

May I say today that I'm just a little surprised, frankly, that there's been the great preoccupation through the debate on the amendment as to why we are all here. It seems to me that every speaker who got up in the House on the opposition side seem to want to create the mindset, aided and abetted by members of the media, that this was a useless time to call a session and that this was not a time when a session should be called. In fact, I noticed that the press today quoted my colleague, the hon. Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), in the newspaper. I see that the headline is: "McGeer Yearns for Home. "

But it's interesting. I sat through the speech that our Minister of Universities, Science and Communications and all that made yesterday morning and I think that he laid out a very good case for the premise which he made very clearly. Frankly, I don't think it's been so well reported. I heard some of the television reports on that and I've read the newspaper on it. It's too bad, you know, Mr. Speaker, to think that a person who very thoughtfully presented to this House an address yesterday morning which drew to attention the fact that there was the frivolity in this House over a very serious call of this Legislature to this building.... He said it very clearly, and I'm sorry that it's been misinterpreted. Very clearly, it's been misinterpreted and misreported....

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Those who are raising their voices on the opposition side of the House frankly cannot really raise those voices with any degree of sincerity, because with the exception of two who are in the House now, they weren't in the House when the minister made that address.

Let me just say that if we were to consider why we are really here — and those members of the House, I think, should give this a very serious consideration — I would say that this is probably the most important session that these members of this House will ever be called to, because in this session we will be discussing the future of this country and the future of this province within the country of Canada. We'll be discussing it in a resolution as Canadians, and if that's not important to members of the media and to members of the opposition who, preoccupied with their own mindset, want to make it a frivolous session, then that's fine. But, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to say this to you. I don't think it has escaped the notice of the people of British Columbia that our Premier, throughout very many months now in this country, has gone to Ottawa; has pleaded with the Prime Minister of this country; has pleaded with the Members of Parliament in this country to listen to the people of British Columbia. That's why we're here in this session, and a very important reason it is indeed.

May I say this: it would not have been possible, if all of those western provinces had not spoken for it in a very clear manner, to have stopped the rampant, raging debate that was going on and was going to be stopped by the Prime Minister of Canada in the House of Commons. They would not have listened, had it not been for the western provinces and particularly our Premier, who has clearly stated on behalf of British Columbians and our fellow citizens that our people will not tolerate that kind of rushing through of the most important thing and the most important statement that our people will have before them.

[ Page 4330 ]

It's important to note, then, that this province in calling the Legislative Assembly has given the country a signal that we want to express ourselves at this point in time. To paint the session as something unnecessary I don't think actually does a service to this assembly or to our members within it.

As I said before, this is probably the most important session that this parliament will ever address itself to. There comes a time when partisan politics should be put aside and we all must speak up as Canadians, not as members of an opposition party or even as members of the government party, but as citizens of this province and this nation.

Before I continue with my address, I want to respond to the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who has just taken his place. He made some remarks regarding the treatment of children in the province who suffer from very difficult emotional problems. He raised the case of one child who in these last few months was placed in a receiving home, or treatment centre, in Alberta. We are well aware of the child. Once in a while we have had to send a child outside of this province, because the treatment for the child is all-important. Whether or not we had something in the province is not what was important in that child's case; it was where that child could get the best treatment. The reference to whether or not the city of Vancouver was to pay for that child is not important; this is a discussion between the city of Vancouver and us. It is under debate. It was never a question of funding; it was a question of the way the judgment was made.

May I just go through some of the things we do for children in treatment. It's important that this House know that when a child gets into trouble with the law, or when a child gets into trouble because of some problems he has at home, then it's important for those in this House — again, in a non-partisan way — to understand what happens to those children.

There are many areas where our Human Resources ministry and the Ministry of the Attorney-General treat children. There are foster care services. These are special services for very special children, difficult children, on a one-to-one basis — one couple with one child. There are group homes for children and therapeutic homes for children. There are all these different levels of service. Where one child will fit into one foster care situation he cannot be placed in the therapeutic home, and vice versa. These therapeutic homes are for severe behavioral disorders and intensive treatment.

Then we can look at the specialized resources that we have. If you want to refer to the annual report of the Ministry of Human Resources it's available to the member for Skeena. It has specialized resources which provide residential and non-residential care for those children who have emotional and behavioral difficulties. They cover a tremendous amount of services: Outreach, Wilderness Ranch, receiving, assessment, planning, residential group programs, etc. I could go on. The annual report is available to that member for Skeena, just as it is to all of us. I want you to know that in every area I have mentioned the dollars to treat these have been enhanced considerably and dramatically since that opposition party was the government of this province in 1973, 1974 and 1975. For example, $3.7 million was spent in group homes in 1974. In 1979, five years later, it was almost $9 million. That example you can place before every single service that I have mentioned.

What I want to say is that the future planning for these difficult children, with the cooperation of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and myself, is being addressed in a very meaningful way. The Minister of Health is, at the present time, embarking on a new feature at The Maples which will treat these youngsters. In terms of my own ministry and the interministerial committee we have a five-region plan to take care of these very difficult acting-out youngsters who have to be contained. These are children who get in trouble with the law.

I would just like to make this point in this House tonight, after the kind of example that was brought up before us by the member for Skeena; and he was kind enough to say that it may not be true. If I could be charitable to him, he probably meant that there is more behind this than perhaps meets the eye. I would just like to share this with members of the House — my colleagues and members of the opposition alike. In almost every story that you will read, in the newspaper or anywhere else, about a child in trouble you will find a very big story indeed behind it. It is not quite as one reads, as carefully as those people in the media wish to portray it. There is always another story. There is always a very difficult and long story behind it, and I want to impress that upon the members of this House who would, perhaps, in trying to enhance their political futures or their political present, wish to overdramatize cases which are very difficult. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that in this House there are probably members and members of the gallery and people outside of these walls who have very difficult problems within their own families, or know of somebody in their neighbourhood who has these problems. And yes, we are doing something with them.

Let me say this to you, Mr. Speaker: in all of the time that the opposition members who sit in great criticism of this throne speech — in all of the time that they had to bring those resources into reality in this province — they neglected those resources pitifully. We have taken all of these five years to try to catch up on some of the things that they neglected to do. So I think we can all share in the responsibility of what we have to do for those young people in the province. But we also have to appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that we have a very difficult time in society right now, in the last three to five years — a much more difficult time to address. Because of the very many tragedies in our society we have an even greater responsibility to provide services than has ever been imposed upon any government in this province. We are willing to take that responsibility on, and we are. We will see that happen in the year to come. We already have very many services that address the problems in a meaningful way.

Mr. Speaker, I do have some other things that I would like to address this evening, but I am going to leave them until tomorrow.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Assessment Amendment Act, 1981.

[ Page 4331 ]

Bill 6 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, for the information of all members, the government proposes to call the motion tomorrow morning. I think that had been conveyed earlier to all members by the Whips. Therefore I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.