[ Page 4377 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Introduction and first reading –– 4377

Senior Citizen Automobile Insurance Grant Act (Bill 9). Hon. Mr. Hewitt.

Introduction and first reading –– 4377

Estate Administration Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 2). Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 4377

Presenting Petitions

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

Speech from the Throne

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 4377

Mr. Nicolson –– 4380

Mr. Kempf –– 4384

Mr. Mitchell –– 4385

Mr. Ritchie –– 4388

Mr. Howard –– 4390

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4392

Division –– 4393

Motor Vehicle (All Terrain) Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 7). Hon. Mr. Chabot.

Introduction and first reading –– 4393

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. RITCHIE: I'm very proud to introduce a group of very fine people from my constituency this morning. We have 30 students in grades 9 to 12 from the Community Baptist Christian Academy with their teacher, Mr. Johnson. Would you please extend a warm welcome.

MR. BARRETT: If I may, I would like to respond to the good wishes of the House concerning my mother. Late last summer she suffered a stroke. Fortunately, she is recovering very well, and I'm pleased that the House expressed their concern. She is in very good shape and doing very well. I visited her last night and then went on to a meeting. But I must report, Mr. Speaker, that my mother heard that the House was concerned. Purely on the basis of guilt-making, her quote was: "See, Gardom thinks more of me than you do." Like with all mothers, I left with appropriate guilt. I want to thank the members for their concern. She's coming along very well. She also wished all of you her very best wishes, even including me.

MR. KEMPF: In the gallery with us this morning are two fine northern citizens, Mrs. Olga Walker from the great constituency of Skeena, and Mr. Lloyd Gething from my constituency. Mr. Gething is a member of the Omineca Social Credit constituency executive. I'd like the House to make them both welcome.

Introduction of Bills

CREDIT UNION AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

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

Bill 4 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

SENIOR CITIZEN AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE GRANT ACT

Hon. Mr. Hewitt presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Senior Citizen Automobile Insurance Grant Act.

Bill 9 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

ESTATE ADMINISTRATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

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

Bill 2 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Presenting Petitions

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition under the terms of standing order 73.

Leave granted.

MR. PASSARELL: To briefly state the matter, Mr. Speaker, it's a petition from seven church organizations of the Victoria area asking that the provincial government withdraw a pollution-control permit and hold a public inquiry concerning the Kitsault mine.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
(continued debate)

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to return now to the debate on the consideration of the throne speech. In doing so, I would like to point out that the throne speech mentions a very brave and distinguished citizen of British Columbia, and it's important that we should, at this time of the year, remember the contribution that has been made not only to British Columbia, but to all of Canada — in fact, to North America and the world — by the valiant and remarkable initiative that was taken by Terry Fox on behalf of all of us. May I say that he has made all Canadians stop and think what their responsibilities are. I would suggest that on the eve of the International Year of Disabled Persons we pay tribute to Terry Fox through the throne speech, as well as the different awards and presentations that have been given to him. The greatest presentation that he has given to us has been the knowledge and the awareness that those who suffer and have a disability can overcome that disability and teach something to all of us. So in 1980, when we are on the eve of a brand-new year and looking forward, may I say how very grateful we are to Terry and how pleased we are that the mission which he started has been so successful. Perhaps the war on cancer which he so ably brought to our attention will be won by the research projects he has initiated.

I would also like to say that on the eve of the International Year of the Disabled I am confident that our Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) and the social services ministries are addressing themselves to a year which will bring to the attention of the people of British Columbia those people who, like Terry, overcome their problems by our understanding. May that understanding be that much greater because of the initiatives that will be taken by our government in 1981.

There has been a great deal of discussion regarding the United Nations years, and when the United Nations named the International Year of the Child, this province marked it in a very real and meaningful way as the International Year of the Child and the Family. Although some remarks have been made on the floor of the House, even in this session, I am proud of what was accomplished in that year. I think that we can say that here in British Columbia, in this region and in this area of Canada, we probably did more in the International Year of the Child and Family than any other jurisdiction in this nation.

[ Page 4378 ]

I also want to remind our members that just within the last few months we have marked the anniversary of the first child-abuse Helpline in this province, and that initiative is a legacy of the Year of the Child and Family. It is not the only legacy, but along with the educational and training aspects of the child-abuse program, where we have the best training program initiated in this country — and it has been copied by other parts of this nation — it has been one of the outstanding legacies of the Year of the Child and Family.

I want to tell you that that isn't the only legacy. There were many other initiatives taken and carried on. It was not just a year in which people were asked to become aware and we gave recognition to volunteers throughout this province; indeed it was a year where we truly took major steps forward in order to recognize the family and the children in our province.

I want to mention just one of those as well, and that is the CHANCE program. Along with my colleague the Minister of Education, for the first time in this province we are able to give assistance and educational opportunities to handicapped youngsters who ordinarily could not get an education in the province, because they fell between two stools, not being able to get into the institutional education institutions and not being able to get assistance at home. Because of that they were not able to get the opportunity that should be afforded each and every child in this province, and that has been made possible through the CHANCE program, where the Ministry of Human Resources puts an aide in the classroom to assist the educator. I believe that in the year to come this will have an even more profound effect on the opportunities and the futures for the handicapped students in our province. I'm very pleased with that program.

All of the programs that we initiate in this ministry.... May I say that our social service ministries and our interministerial committee together spend the largest part of our provincial budget. By every comparison they spend the largest part of our budget; and compared to other jurisdictions, ours spends more on social services than other jurisdictions. I'm very proud of the social services in the province. I would just like to remind you that our ministry spends over $2 million each and every day; and our Ministry of Health spends almost $5 million today on services for health. I would really like to remind our people today, because this is the season to be mindful of those things which strengthen our province and those things for which we should be very grateful and thankful; it is a season where we should look back on what we have done, and look ahead to what we can accomplish.

But surely, on the eve of a brand new year, each and every British Columbian can be so grateful for the health services we have in this province. Some of the comments that have been made during the throne speech debate do not, I think, serve well to establish in our own minds the kind of service that we truly have. I happened to be present during the meeting of representatives from Australia and the Canadian Medical Association in a meeting in the city of Vancouver — the second time that they have chosen Vancouver to meet. It was certainly very evident there that Canada, and particularly British Columbia, were the envy of all of the jurisdictions represented — and some of them did come from countries besides Australia. There is no question that our health care in this province is outstanding and one which we should be very, very proud of.

In fact, in this time of economic chaos in Canada.... I say that with a great deal of concern and disappointment for what we have in our Canadian budgeting and our Canadian economic situation. It gives me no great pleasure at all to refer to the Canadian government's fiscal policies, considering how bad they truly have been. When one considers how bad they have been and how difficult a time other jurisdictions have had in this time of world inflation and world financial problems, it is remarkable, when we took back on the five years of this government, to realize that we have initiated health and social services programs which are the envy of the rest of this country. I mention long-term care and denticare just for two programs alone. Other jurisdictions are cutting down on health services, and Ontario was closing hospitals when we first came into government. When other jurisdictions were closing down other health services, this province was forging ahead and has even now embarked on the very greatest building program for hospitals that this province has ever seen. So we should really pay attention to the kinds of things that strengthen our province — and ease the minds of those who are ill and those who are infirm. There is no question that this province gives them that opportunity.

May I say that in my own Ministry of Human Resources.... As I compare notes across this country, there isn't a level of service that is any better for those who are in trouble, those who are in need, those who are elderly, those who need our help temporarily or over a long period of time. May I say that I'm proud indeed to have those kinds of services within the Ministry of Human Resources. None of those services would be available or possible if it were not for an economic climate which has been created in this province under the most dire circumstances after following a government which had left this province not only without funds but also without the kind of direction that we should have had. In 1975 our province was in a very difficult position. Now in these past five years — five years to the day yesterday — we have accomplished that which would not have been thought possible by those viewing the economic scene when this government took office in that December 1975. It has been a great accomplishment. As I say, none of the social services would be possible without a good economic climate. I am pleased to have been a part of initiating one of those economic initiatives.

I'd like to speak about my own constituency of Vancouver–Little Mountain, which I share with the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). Vancouver–Little Mountain covers an area from the very affluent to the very poor. We have subsidized housing, and we have probably the most affluent homes in all of Vancouver, certainly in the lower mainland. All those people have their problems in a varying number of ways. I want to say that some of the initiatives this government has taken.... One was announced just a week ago by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). It was one of the initiatives which will make a tremendous difference to the total lower mainland. Why, in the city of Vancouver we have heard talk of a transit system for the city of Vancouver for so long, and there have been so many studies on rapid transit for that area — LRT or whatever kind of transit system there could be — for so many years that the studies alone, in the dollars spent and the effort spent, could possibly have already built some miles of LRT.

[ Page 4379 ]

It is really to the credit of the government and of the ministers involved that a tremendous urban development program, including a very good initiative for housing and transit combined, was announced a week ago.

As a Vancouver member who really knows the problems of traffic congestion that builds constantly and continually in the city of Vancouver, I am extremely pleased to see those initiatives taken. Isn't it interesting — and it should be of note to this House — that it could not be done under any other government, certainly not by the government that preceded us, because the economic climate was not there under that government. The faith we have in the province, and the capability of putting together the dollars, through the initiatives we have taken economically through our Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development and by the very different economic initiatives taken by this government, make it possible to do those things. There isn't a government in Canada in this time in our economic situation in Canada that can plan an initiative of that size.

In addition, I'm very pleased with the progress and the programs being put together for British Columbia Place. It will make such a difference to the look of Vancouver and to the economic viability of the downtown. Not only does it give us our long-sought-after sports stadium, it gives us a redevelopment of that part of the city where one crosses those bridges and looks down on a black, slum-like area of railroad tracks and an industrial area which will be transformed by the initiative of British Columbia Place into an attractive, park-like, beautiful area. It will be one of the most significant changes to the look of Vancouver and to the viability of the business community in Vancouver that we have ever undertaken. Our Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers), who has led that, along with our Provincial Secretary, should be congratulated, along with all other members of government who have been behind it.

We have heard a lot of talk about Transpo, which will be there. I would just like to say that the kinds of things that Transpo will bring, where the world's attention will be on our province in that very important year, will not only bring recognition to our province and to our city, but also will bring many, many dollars. It will be the kind of exercise, Mr. Speaker, that will make our city of Vancouver and our province of British Columbia truly outstanding players on the world stage in that year.

I would also like to pay tribute to another initiative of this government. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) and I have been involved in the Pacific Rim Trade and Convention Centre. I want to make sure that this House appreciates that not only was the participation in the trade and convention centre by the three levels of government initiated by this government, but also there was the private sector initiative, which will bring a tremendous change to the waterfront in the city of Vancouver.

I think somebody said, "Once in a world a city like Vancouver," and I'm very proud to represent that city. We have the most incredible mountains, a water panorama — the scenery is outstanding. To think that a city built in that particular area could be enhanced in any way is very difficult to appreciate. But we have done much to the city which has made it very unsightly, and our waterfront door is unquestionably a disgrace and should be cleaned up. The trade and convention centre does just that. It is the catalyst in the initiative to rehabilitate a very nuserable-looking front door. The initiative by the governments, plus the private sector, gives to us the development on the Upland property that totally will come to about $350 million from the private sector.

Now when we talk about dollars like that it is very difficult to appreciate what that means. We talk about the moneys initiated by the trade and convention centre itself, the building of a very outstanding hotel, the building of a small office tower, the building of the trade and convention centre itself by public money — all of those dollars. It is very difficult when one considers and talks in terms of millions; but let me talk in terms of jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the jobs that will be created under the construction alone of those initiatives by the governments, and by the private sector on the Upland, include thousands upon thousands of construction jobs. The trade and convention centre complex alone will hire up to 1,000 construction workers in the next two years; the hotel will have another several hundred construction workers in the next two to three years; and the Upland development of Marathon Realty, which will cover the old tracks and give us a whole new access and traffic pattern in the city of Vancouver, connected with B.C. Place, will give the city of Vancouver the kind of effective and attractive development which will bring tremendous jobs.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's exciting.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It's tremendously exciting, says my colleague in Intergovernmental Relations. It is the most exciting program of redevelopment and initiative for jobs that this province has ever seen.

I would like to talk for a minute now about a program that our ministry has introduced, because it couldn't have introduced it without the economic initiatives I'm talking about. I cannot spend $2 million a day in the Ministry of Human Resources unless the economic initiatives are there in order for us to spend the money. I want our Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, our Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot), all our ministers who have some input into industrial development and economic development in this province, and our Tourism minister, all to be super-successful in 1981, because those of us who are going to be spending money in social services need the success of those programs going on under economic development.

I like to share with members of the House the Individual Opportunity Plan, which was initiated by our ministry this year. It is just really off the ground. It is a new initiative for those on income assistance who are able to work. It is for the unemployed employables, and it has four very different thrusts than it has had in this ministry before. I am very pleased to tell you that the Ministry of Human Resources is very much involved with other ministries of this government and with the federal government in making sure that this Individual Opportunity Plan is exceptionally successful. The first, of course, is the importance of having the four ministries working together — the Ministries of Human Resources, Education, Labour, and the Manpower division of the federal government. All of those people have joined forces to make sure that when someone comes to us for help and income assistance we are going to be able to take those four ministries and make some sort of a plan which is going to give them their own individual plan — a light at the end of the tunnel so that they won't be on income assistance or, as some

[ Page 4380 ]

people in this province continue to call it, "welfare, " for the rest of their lives. Mr. Speaker, I think that what we want for all of them is that light at the end of the tunnel. We don't want to sentence people to a life on income assistance. We want for all people in this province to enjoy the affluent life, or as affluent as they can possibly have to their own capabilities, and for their own individual opportunity. I suggest that this program meets that.

I would just like to say that something else that is different and something I am very enthused about — and I hope that members on all sides of the House will take advantage and take a look at it — is the Job Action Program which is a part of this program. The Job Action Program is one where we took a leaf out of the American experience and we have our people go through a three-week course — a very short course. Just two blocks away from this building the Job Action Program is finding people who have been on income assistance for seven and eight and ten years and three years and six months and whatever time, people who have been in jail and have come out and tried to get rehabilitated but are still on income assistance, people who are hard-core income assistance recipients in the true sense of the word, that they have been on for such a long time finding a future in a very short time. That Job Action Program is working. We are not holding their hands, and we are not taking them to a job; we are asking them to design their own individual personal development plan and they are really making it successful.

Mr. Speaker, the Job Action Program has a success rate of 80 percent on the pilot project. It has only been in operation for about four months in the province and for about four and a half months in this city. It has been extended upisland to Parksville and will be extended to Dawson Creek, Burnaby, Surrey and Vancouver in the next few weeks. Mr. Speaker, I am excited about that program, but I am more excited about what has happened in the past five years — things like the Individual Opportunity Plan would not be possible if it had not been for the leadership that has been given in this province by our Premier and by the government of British Columbia. Major initiatives that I have talked about, social services that I have talked about, educational opportunities and health programs are the best in all of Canada. We have the lowest unemployment rate in more than a decade, the least hours lost for job altercation in the province in the industrial climate, better health care, better care for senior citizens than ever before. We have also the great northeast development program, which was led by our Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the exports of British Columbia products are growing by over 20 percent annually, private investment is continuing at an all-time high, and our inflation rate is far below the national average. Again, I must say that we have the lowest unemployment rate in a decade, giving more opportunities to those who come to us in Human Resources for help.

These past five years — with our anniversary yesterday of our election to the government of British Columbia — have shown that there is no question, Mr. Speaker, that the leadership and the governing that this government has given to the people of British Columbia have led all of Canada in results and given to our people a better way of life.

In closing my few words to the throne speech this morning, may I say I am very proud particularly of the kinds of initiatives that we have had in this province by our Premier in terms of a constitutional debate. There is no question that our province has been in good hands in those negotiations, and yesterday's debate on the constitutional resolution unquestionably and indisputably proved that.

It is my pleasure, in this season of good will, and in this throne speech debate, to wish colleagues on all sides of the House a very happy holiday season. May the year ahead be one which shows good will, for a very great year ahead, toward all in British Columbia. I also hope that in 1981 this House will address itself to the issues and to the constructive building of a better British Columbia.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: It's a great honour for me — and I'm sure it's of great interest to the House — to have the opportunity to advise you that there are nine fine young students from Highline Community College in Seattle, under the leadership of Ned Brodsky-Porges, in the House today. These students are all majoring in tourism, and they're taking time out from visiting the tourist attractions and counting the crumbs on the restaurant tables in British Columbia to learn about us here in the Legislature. I would like to advise them, on your behalf, that this really is the best show in town, and it's the freest. We hope you have a wonderful visit. I ask the House to welcome them.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to welcome you back, and I must say that, compared with our meeting about nine months ago, your present attire is more becoming than hospital pajamas.

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

MR. NICOLSON: I wish to welcome you back, and I also wish to bring greetings, Mr. Speaker, from the Very Reverend Walter Donald, who has been elevated to the post of dean of St. Saviour's Pro-Cathedral in Nelson. Those of you who remember Walter when he served as executive assistant to Sam Bawlf in these precincts will welcome that news. So much for the good news.

I often hesitate to get involved in the field of housing. I am one who believes that one of the deadliest sins is the pride of authorship and trying to relive the past and various other things; but when news of some substance comes I feel it is my duty to reveal it and to reveal it in a context which is responsible and thought out.

I look in this throne speech, and.... Indeed, as has been mentioned before, even the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is at a loss to figure out why we have been called at this time, having seen the scope of the very scanty legislative program — which will probably be left on the order paper until next spring anyhow. I must agree with the person whom I am supposed to be a critic for in the field of science and technology. I certainly agree with him wholeheartedly on that point.

We've also had the public announcements made by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) about housing initiatives to be taken in Vancouver. From what I can see, the promise is to create so many single-family lots, and.... Of course, we always need

[ Page 4381 ]

more single-family lots, and indeed, in terms of Canadian standards, British Columbia is leading even the province of Ontario in creating single-family lots in the urban areas. But there is no mention of housing which is really and truly affordable housing. We have to look at what has happened to the single-family lot. Last August the average real estate listing in Vancouver was $120,000; and the rate at which lot prices in the greater Vancouver area are now increasing is estimated by Canada Mortgage and Housing to be 50 percent per annum.

The private realtors are claiming an increase of 100 percent per annum in lot size increases. As I see it, this initiative is merely to serve the demand for single-family lots. I have had a researcher from Central Mortgage and Housing inform me that the only people who can enter the housing market in Vancouver are people who have equity and have sold a home in Alberta, Ontario, the interior of British Columbia or some other part of the lower mainland, and they are purchasing a lot with that equity position. There is virtually no chance for young people to enter the housing market and home ownership in Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker, was there one word in this housing initiative about — let's use the old term, the term which has sort of fallen out of favour — socialized housing, subsidized housing or affordable housing or whatever you wish to call it, whichever euphemism you may wish to pick? Was there a mention of that? There certainly was not. Something which is most serious has also come to my attention through sources. It is that the Ministry of Housing has been in touch with Central Mortgage and Housing and the federal counterparts in order to try to induce them to divest themselves of the present stock of public housing under the B.C. Housing Management Commission and privatize and sell off to the private sector that very important housing stock, which was built up not only while I was a housing minister but also under the previous Social Credit government.

In other words, this government has become so extreme and dogmatic that we have seen them not only unwind and destroy the programs of the previous NDP government, but their zeal has carried them beyond that to the point where they're destroying the good programs that were even initiated under Social Credit.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what would happen if the federal government.... I'm sure that the federal government will not go along with this; I don't know what would happen if they did. If we need anything today, it is a little bit of common sense. We don't need to provoke people or make people any more insecure than they are, and that is precisely what this government has been doing.

A couple of weeks ago I had two different meetings. I had a dinner with a senior citizens' group, and I attended a tea with another group. I was warned: "Mr. Nicolson, this is not a political organization; there's no politics here." I kept my part of the bargain, Mr. Speaker, but I couldn't stop some of those senior citizens. You smile, and I'm sure you know. Other than groups that have been brought together on the lawn of the Legislature, I've never seen a group which was not organized around an issue and so unanimous in their opposition to the so-called FAIR program and the arbitrary treatment that seniors have had. A couple of years ago they were being sort of seduced with a special discount for seniors. They were being appealed to. Politically, some overtures were being made to senior citizens, so they had a discount. Of course, there was a completely different system of rating based on the traditional actuarial rating schemes. Then suddenly we were put on a system where territories, age and driving record classifications don't matter, and in addition to that, their discounts were taken away.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that we don't need to create doubt and uncertainty in groups. We don't have to create it for senior citizens or people who are in public housing. If you think this government has had to do a backtrack with senior citizens.... I see the first official evidence of it today.

I'll tell you that we would see a display on this lawn; we would see things which I would regret, I'm sure, ever having to see in the province of British Columbia, if this government should be so stupid and if the federal government would comply with the wishes of the provincial government in this onslaught on anything that is fair, decent and helpful to people who have been disadvantaged by various means or another.

Mr. Speaker, we have got a housing situation today which didn't come about overnight. Yes, right now the housing starts for this year are going to be pretty high. If they aren't higher than 1976, they'll be the highest since. In fact, I could pretty well say that for this year urban housing starts will probably be higher than they've been since 1970, but one year doesn't make a housing program. What has happened here? I could not take credit for the record level of housing starts which occurred in 1972, because those were really a reflection of what went on a year or a couple of years before. I wouldn't take the blame for the downturn in 1973 either, for that matter, because housing programs take a little while to get going and they take a little while to wind down, with all the various lead times.

But the average urban-housing starts for centres of a population of 10,000 and over in British Columbia have been 24,310 per annum. I suppose I could run through some of the figures. In 1971 it started fairly low at 20,748; it went up to a pretty high figure of 28,000 by 1972; it dropped down again in 1973: in 1974 it rose; in 1975 it started rising more to 26,615; and in 1976 it reached an all-time high for the decade of 29,575. Since that time it then dropped. Even in December 1976 a drop had started to take place. That's because various actions had already been taken. Certain housing units that were slated for the rental-housing market in Burnaby — 500 units — were suddenly dumped onto the condominium or strata-title market. All kinds of other dislocations took place during the year, so that it did postpone certain housing starts and plans for multiple units. It threw the whole industry into chaos in 1976 because of some of the changes that were made by the government. In 1978 we reached an all-time low for the decade — you'd have to go back to 1970 to find anything lower — of 19,576 urban housing starts. And 1979 certainly 't much better: every year from 1972 through 1976 was certainly much higher.

As I say. this year the market has shrunk so much, and we have seen a 100 percent increase. I say there are two ways of looking at it: CMHC, who are very cautious, say 50 percent, but private realtors say there is a 100 percent increase in land costs in greater Vancouver. With an average cost last August of 50 percent, and with a rise in the cost of housing, which is estimated to be running between 35 and 50 percent, that $120,000 figure right now is probably closer to $140,000. Mr. Speaker, that is the situation today. The ministry's program does not hold out too much hope for the people who live here — the young people who are striving to buy a first home. It simply guarantees that people who might be moving out here from Alberta will be able to find a place, if they have

[ Page 4382 ]

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

I'll quote a comment from CHMC:

"'The new provincial housing program for greater Vancouver won't alleviate the area's housing problem in the short term and may never benefit the people who are most in need of housing assistance,' an official with Central Mortgage and Housing said Monday. 'We support the provincial initiative to make assistance available to facilitate the development of land and in the mid- and longer terms,' said Keith Tapping, CHMC general manager in the B.C. Region.

"'So the aim in the provincial program to provide 19,000 serviced lots in the Greater Vancouver Regional District is to stabilize prices,' said Lands, Parks and Housing Minister James Chabot in his announcement."

Well, I've used that same phrase, but that's when we were talking about stabilizing things at some $40,000-odd. We put housing on the market under $40,000 in Vancouver. We put housing on the market in Penticton in 1974-75 under $30,000; in fact, as low as $22,500 — that is single-family housing. Anybody who would try to take over this problem after these four years of neglect would probably take two years to show any kind of a turnaround in terms of prices. What we see here is the absence of a very badly needed social housing program.

I did mention a little bit about ICBC and FAIR. I've had so many letters on that. Again, the government seems to come out and club people. It fouls things up, and then looks at it a second time. I don't know why they couldn't have figured that out the first time around. You weren't going to get away with it. You're not going to get away with it. And you still haven't gotten away with that one. It's like the Marguerite. The government has been cute by halves. Everything is coming home to roost. But who suffers? Nobody over there really suffers economically or in any other way. It's the people of British Columbia who suffer: it's the people who are on the margin that makes the difference between bankruptcy and a profitable operation in the tourist industry in Victoria; or it's the senior who has to give up a second vehicle.

That sounds like a luxury to some people here — a senior having to give up a second vehicle. Well, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that when people have worked hard, and at the age of 64 or 65, in anticipation of retirement, they buy themselves a four-by-four pick-up truck because they like to get out in the woods and they like to do a bit of fishing, they like to saw some wood, and be active instead of just slipping into retirement.... You don't want to drive around in a four-by-four pick-up all the time. This is a person who looks after his vehicle. I know lots of people in my riding who have two vehicles. I have several letters telling me that because of this change in ICBC rates they are going to have to get rid of the second one. I don't look upon that as a luxury. I know people over there who've got vehicles on this side of the water and on that side of the water. They aren't insured by themselves; they're insured by the government of British Columbia. These people keep cars at Tsawwassen and over here.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I would say that there are many people who live in rural areas who need a car. This government has only been talking about Vancouver transit. They've done very little in terms of increasing rural transit — a little move in Trail, Kamloops and a few other places; that's still in the cities. They have no choice....

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

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

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Heavy attack!

MR. NICOLSON: Well, you will get a heavy attack. I will tell you that if you have the guts to call an election right now, you'll get a heavy attack from the senior citizens who've been toyed with. I'm not finished yet.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, I will defend senior citizens who have two vehicles. I don't agree with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt). Boy, what an about-face he's done. At least I give him credit: he played the game; he supported the team. Then he got cut off at the knees by his colleagues. He put on a brave face. He took the heat. You guys caved on the thing, and thank goodness you did cave. I think that's a great way to run a team.

Even with the latest changes, seniors are being forced to sell their only means of transportation.

We've had a long speech from the Minister of Human Resources (Hon Mrs. McCarthy) about all the marvellous things they're doing. It seems the the Ministry of Human Resources is so careful when it comes to looking at the expenditures and budgets of organizations like the Endicott home for the handicapped in Creston, or Beaver Lodge, which is also a residential home and training centre for handicapped children and adults in Oliver, or the Northern Training Centre in Smithers, that for nine months they held back any increases in their contracts or budgets for this year and forced them to go on last year's budgets. Going on last year's budgets, they eventually ate into any advances. It came to my office's attention first of all in September, when I was not here. We were given assurances that by the end of October everything would be fine. Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm given assurances that a cheque is on the way to the Endicott home — which is in my riding — as of December 4. But these three organizations have been subject to the greatest scrutiny. Their applications to Treasury Board have been going back and forth; people have been sent out and meetings have held.

I wonder if the government is giving the same kind of scrutiny to BCRIC, when insider trading, advance information and many other things raised in the Getz report, which certainly unearthed a lot of information.... It made no conclusion of wrongdoing, but it certainly didn't say that

[ Page 4383 ]

things were hunky-dory either. It certainly didn't find that there was no wrongdoing. I wonder when the government is going to start giving the same kind of attention to things like BCRIC and our Crown corporations committee, on which we're spending almost half a million dollars a year.

We've had one meeting so far outside of a legislative sitting. We've got things on our plate. We've got serious things that some of our members want to look into, such as the land transfer in Delta, the Olma brothers' centre and the land from B.C. Hydro which found its way to the Olma brothers. We're told no, we can't look into detailed things like that, which involve millions and millions of dollars. What about the land which B.C. Hydro is now being forced to give up to the CPR in exchange for B.C. Place? How many millions and millions of dollars are involved there?

Yet we give the closest scrutiny to places like the Endicott home for the handicapped — people that have on their boards professional chartered accountants, people of integrity in the community. We second-guess them, and now we're going to have a financial administration act, according to a White Paper. We're going to have more bureaucracy, and on homemakers to make sure they aren't doing by one method what they're not allowed to do by another. I say let the homemakers go ahead and do, by hook or by crook, the job they know they have to do. If this government won't give them the money, let them do it by means fair or foul, until the government can be fair with these people and give them a fair hearing. This government is treating social services in a most shabby manner. Yet it's letting the government and the people of this province be ripped off by friends of government, by people of special privilege. If you think we ever got rid of a class system in this province, you're very sadly and regretfully mistaken. We have a privilege system in this province that would make the Plantagenets look like Karl Marx.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Of course, the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) wouldn't know who the Plantagenets were.

We have been brought down here again, at great public expense, on a gambit. Let's throw a flyer; let's see if we can get the people all confused. Can we make them forget about inflation, the dirty tricks and the debacle of the Marguerite? And what a story it is, Mr. Speaker. It came out quite well in some of the media, but in others it was as if they were going to spend a whole $5 million to make the Marguerite safe. Well, putting in holding tanks for sewage is not going to make it safer; it's going to make it a darn sight more sanitary and environmentally improved, and this should have been done many years ago. But what a situation!

So where is the government today? They are calling BCRIC a piece of the rock. We hear that BCRIC is down to $5.85, but in actuality, Mr. Speaker, it is down to $5.18. That is what the combination of inflation and the lack of growth of that stock has done to BCRIC. What has done it? It is certainly not the performance of Can-Cel, nor the performance of KFP, even though they have gone through some difficult times. It has been the bad performance of a Premier who has been interfering with BCRIC. When things go wrong he says: "It's now a public corporation; government has nothing to do with it." They just own the largest single block of shares, but they have nothing to do with it.

Mr. Speaker, there are people out there in British Columbia who are trying to build the province, and they get more interference than help from the government. With regard to applying for assistance from this government, I have talked to small sawmill operators and to small manufacturers who are providing jobs. Many of them have just given up, and I have to tell them: "No, don't give up; you have a right to those grants; you have qualified for them. Don't let them bamboozle you with bureaucracy and red tape." One should not have to be a friend of the government in order to get fair treatment.

Mr. Speaker, in this province there are people who are light-years ahead of the big-money corporations in terms of technology. There are people who are already using heat pumps for drying kilns, thereby saving tremendous amounts of energy. Yet there are no initiatives from the government.

I think that the major problems with this government are its lack of direction and its internal problems. These can be best exemplified by the article which appeared under the name of Gordon Gibson in the Financial Post. He reminded us of the departure of so many top-level civil servants. What a coincidence it is that both the head of Treasury Board, John Kelly, and the Comptroller-General, Lionel Bonnell, departed within months of each other, both of them, I think, having left successful careers elsewhere to come here. Mr. Bonnell, I think, was only here about two and a half years. He even found it necessary to request an appearance before the public accounts committee in order to point out what he saw as very serious problems.

He also mentioned Mr. Harry Swain; Amy Anglin in Consumer and Corporate Affairs and her spouse as well; and two of the top people in the Energy Commission, Norm Gish and John Ludgate. Of course, we have had others who have been around for a little bit longer, such as Gary Runka. He also mentions the departure of long-time deputy and assistant deputy — a career civil servant — Lloyd Brooks, and the treatment of George Giles. Even Dave Brown — for whom I have had some criticism — "loyal operative" as he is described, has left this government.

These are the signs that a government has never been so ill-equipped to deal with some of the largest problems that we have had in the history of this province. The government has tried to create a stir about something upon which they themselves are not agreed. There is no agreement about the approach as to whether civil law or entrenched rights is more appropriate, and yet they have tried to use a focus like that. They have brought us here for a session in which they've proved they have no concrete ideas to solve the problems of this province — the mess this province is in. In other jurisdictions, they would have long ago, one by one.... These ministers should have been resigning. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who can't figure out whether his problem is too big a surplus or too big a deficit.... One day it's one thing, and the next day it s the other. Rather than Mr. Bonnell and Mr. Kelly resigning, the honourable thing is for the minister to resign. There should have been many resignations.

Mr. Speaker, this government should resign in the face of all other things that have happened, of which I don't intend to re-enumerate chapter and verse. This government does not have the confidence of the people. The Premier has to duck, dive and hide, and he's hardly ever in the province. I understand he's going to be away again after the New Year. This government cannot face the problems. The Premier is not facing the problems; he's not here to face them. He's been

[ Page 4384 ]

out of the province in the last couple of months more than he's been here. This is where the problems are; this is where the solutions must lie. If this group cannot do it, they should resign and give their blessing to a new conservative party to take their place, and let's see what happens from there.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place today to speak on the throne speech, and to speak in favour of His Honour's speech on behalf of those whom I represent, the people of Omineca. In so doing, I will very objectively, as a northerner, relate primarily to those areas of His Honour's speech which are of interest to my constituents. However, prior to doing so, I too would take this opportunity to add my message to those of other members of this assembly in welcoming the Speaker back to this chamber and wishing him the very best of health in the months and years ahead. Certainly it is with much gratitude that we thank those who were instrumental in giving him the care and medical assistance necessary to allow his return here to us.

Like him, I feel that it is good to be back in this chamber. Unlike the members opposite, Christmas month or no Christmas month, I feel it's my duty and, indeed, an honour to be here once again and to have the opportunity to speak, particularly on the throne speech, on behalf of those living in my area.

My riding is geographically vast and very diverse, stretching, as I'm sure you are aware, from the beautiful Bulkley Valley on the west to the very fertile Nechako Valley on the east. It encompasses a very large part of the interior plateau of this province. It's a very large, beautiful, rich and prosperous area of this province, and because it is, we provide a very large share of the dollars that flow into the coffers of the treasury of British Columbia.

In Omineca we have a very large and active forest industry, four large mining operations, including Endako Mines, Canada's largest molybdenum operation, and untold riches still in the ground or still unfound. As well, we have a very vibrant agriculture industry — Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre, it would do you well to listen to this; you may learn something about this province — and a potential for the tourist industry both winter and summer second to none anywhere in this province, not to mention the many secondary industries such as guide outfitting, trapping and others.

We're a very fortunate people in Omineca, for we have resources in abundance, which provide many jobs for British Columbians and, in turn, provide much for the economy of this province. We also have an environment that is probably the largest factor in drawing to the north our greatest asset, people who come to inhabit that area — proud, free enterprising people with initiative, something that is far too often discouraged in our society today. They are willing to brave the elements, willing to put up with a little less in many areas in the way of amenities, in order to make it on their own and to provide a better environment in which our families can grow. We as northerners, as people who are just a little more independent than our southern counterparts, can agree with His Honour's speech, as it is our philosophy as well, where it says:

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

Certainly those are the six basic aims of northerners.

"To enjoy the best possible health;

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

"To attain personal financial security;

"To live in a healthy environment;

"To enjoy equality of opportunity and treatment; and finally,

"To have the freedom to lawfully pursue their individual lives without undue interference from either the state or their fellow citizens."

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

"My government believes that the sum of degrees of achievement of these six basic aims determines the quality of life for each individual British Columbian. The greater the degrees of achievement, the better the quality of life."

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

"In pursuing this goal of bettering the quality of life for all British Columbians, my government plans to turn the six aims into a general guideline to be used as an important part of all government planning processes. "

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

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: You don't know anything about the north, the northerners or their feelings, Mr. Member for Victoria.

MR. HANSON: How about Kemano II?

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

We in the north agree with that philosophy because we're a determined people, not constantly looking to government for handouts, not expecting government to do anything other than govern. We're not asking government for handouts; we're not asking government to hold our hands from the cradle to the grave; we're not wanting government to involve itself in every aspect of our everyday lives. We expect government to provide only the atmosphere in which we can show initiative — the reason we moved there in the first place. We do, however, expect a fair return to the north and to our area of the fruits of our labour. We in the north are not isolationists.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We accept the fact that we must share the wealth of our area with all British Columbians. We support, as British Columbians, such projects as B.C. Place, the trade and convention centre, and yes, light rapid transit. We support those, as British Columbians, even though we have not one transit bus in the whole of Omineca. But also as British Columbians, Mr. Speaker, we expect a return to our area from whence the lion's share of the province's riches came from in the first place; we expect the return of our fair share. The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) laughs about that. Maybe he'd better check with his constituents if they believe in that philosophy. We want a return to the north of our fair share, Mr. Member, in the way of health services, more roads and...

Interjection.

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

[ Page 4385 ]

...bridge construction and better road maintenance, better communications networks. If you think you can give them better communications, Mr. Member, come on up and oppose me in the next election.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member would assist the Chair greatly in maintaining order if he would address the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, we see in the throne speech further recognition of the wants and needs of northerners, and I would hope to see even more in the 1981-82 budget, upcoming later in this session.

Mr. Speaker, I am elated when I see in the throne speech the mention of the creation of a northern health corps. Again I quote from His Honour's speech:

"The provision of health services to rural or isolated parts of British Columbia has been under serious review by my government."

During this session, however long, at least we are going to do something about it.

"During this session this assembly will be provided with details of the creation of a B.C. rural health corps. It will be an agency that will assure primary health care to all areas of this province."

This commitment, Mr. Speaker, coupled with the continuing effort on the part of this government to the airport assistance program, allowing for the first time in this province for the provincial government to participate in the building of community airports, particularly in rural British Columbia, which facilitates our air ambulance service, will most certainly be of benefit and a measure of confidence to the people of Omineca, as I am sure it is to all rural areas of this province.

His Honour's speech, Mr. Speaker, promises the provision of assistance in obtaining additional and more adequate television reception. Again I quote from His Honour's speech given a week ago yesterday:

"My government is dedicated to ensuring that all communities in British Columbia receive a basic television service, including education, entertainment, and British Columbian, Canadian and world news. Satellite technology now makes it possible for isolated B.C. communities to receive appropriate television signals. My government will announce policies and programs to assist British Columbians to obtain satellite and other television services."

That's a definite positive step, for, as you know, with the long winters and long winter evenings that we in the north experience, many of our people rely on television for their main source of entertainment.

I could go on outlining from the throne speech advantages which I see for the north. Maybe you can't see those advantages, Mr. Speaker, but I would suggest you read His Honour's speech more closely. I see many advantages for the people of the north and, in another forum, I will be bringing those words to my constituents.

Before closing here today, I would like to speak on behalf of my constituents about a couple of items which are of grave concern to many of the people living in my area, and which for this reason could rightly have been part of His Honour's speech. Firstly — and the members opposite have condemned me for not speaking out in this regard, an accusation which is not true; possibly I have not in this chamber, Mr. Speaker, but I certainly have where it has been heard — is the question of Kemano completion.

I spoke earlier of the people of my constituency moving to the north to provide a good environment in which to raise their families. We in the north are proud and very defensive of that environment. Don't get me wrong, we're not anti-development. By no stretch of the imagination are we anti-development. But we believe very strongly in planned development, development in which there can be multiple use of our environment. It is for this reason that I must say, on behalf of those whom I represent, that I cannot accept in my constituency a project which would bring about the devastation of one river system, namely the Nechako, and endanger another, the Bulkley. I must stand against that kind of project, and I do so here in this chamber.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: I just said that, Mr. Member. Are you hard of hearing? I must do so here in this chamber for all to hear, and to be recorded for all time in Hansard.

The second problem being faced by many constituents of mine at this particular point in time, and one serious enough in my mind to be discussed in this throne speech debate, is the plight of many small operators in our forest industry, not only in Omineca but all over this province. The inability of these bona fide loggers and small mill operators who have historically made their living — and in some cases, such as the people in the Burns Lake area of my constituency; they have been the economic stabilizer of the community — to obtain timber to continue their operations, has reached what I consider to be crisis proportions, and it is felt by this member that the emphasis mentioned here in this chamber must be placed upon it.

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

MR. KEMPF: No, I'll never resign, Mr. Member. If I were you I would give it some consideration, though.

I shall vote in support of His Honour's speech. As I see it, there are many moves in that speech which are very positive, not only for my constituents in Omineca but for all of the people of this province. It doesn't contain all the answers; I didn't expect it would. It does, however, point out very clearly that while the economy in other jurisdictions all over North America is at a virtual standstill, here in British Columbia we are moving ahead.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to join with everyone who has wished you a happy return to the Legislature. I would also like to tell a little story about my first meeting with the Speaker after he had recovered. I met him in Harrison Hot Springs, and I met this young, slim, trim, healthy-looking person with a beard. We talked, and I walked away, and I was trying to think who that young, slim, trim, healthy-looking guy with the beard was, who looked like Lenin. All of a sudden, as I walked away, I felt about that high. I hope, Mr. Speaker, you don't hold that against me. Even I made a mistake with the beard.

[ Page 4386 ]

I rise today to join in this throne speech mainly to express my disgust and to say why I am going to vote against this throne speech — not so much because of what was said in the speech, but because of the action that was not taken. We have in this bill, enshrined in these six beautiful sentences — "to enjoy the best possible health. " Mr. Speaker, I don't know if you have gone through my mail lately and watched time after time....

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: Everybody else goes through my mail, and I imagine that caucus does too.

A number of people are writing me to get into hospitals in the greater Victoria area for necessary operations, and they are denied that because of a mismanagement of 25 years of Social Credit inaction in hospitals in British Columbia and especially in the Victoria area. Twenty-five years of Social Credit mismanagement has ruined the hospital situation in this area. I say, Mr. Speaker, it's to the shame of everyone in that department who knows it and has not stood up and spoken against it.

There's one particular line that I feel shows that this government has not faced the facts that are taking place in our world, the section that states "to attain personal financial security." For a lot of people who are studying the technical development affecting this province, this country and this world, we are on the verge right now of the second industrial revolution in this country. We are on the verge of the second industrial revolution of this modern age. I think it's important that some of us should review what happened when the first industrial revolution hit the world, when men and women from all walks of life left the land to go into the cities and to work in the factories. The modern technical development of the modern mills, such as lead printing presses, put men and women out of work, put men and women onto the street where men and women were literally forced to go out and die.

It's easy, Mr. Speaker, now when we look back with a little 20-20 hindsight, to see that if the people of that time had taken some planning to develop a human understanding of what was happening to the workforce, there would not have been the degradation of egos of fathers, husbands, who could no longer supply their families with food on the table. Because of frustration they took to drinking, and they died early. That was some of the record of the first industrial revolution, and society at that time made no preparation for it. I say now, Mr. Speaker, we in British Columbia and we in the modern technical development are in the second industrial revolution. That revolution is being led, is being developed, is being caused by the development of the microchip.

I would like to read from a report from Dennis Robideau from Simon Fraser University, when he outlined some of the problems, some of the background of the micro-revolution that is taking place. He says:

"The history of the micro-electric revolution began in 1948 with the invention of the transistor, which dramatically replaced the vacuum tube. Research in the fifties and sixties led to the development of an integrated circuit and the discovery that a small wafer of silicon, properly manufactured, will behave like several transistors. This reduced the size of electronic equipment by several factors. By the 1970s the silicon chip had been reduced in size to a wafer smaller than the nail of a little finger on one's hand. In addition to this reduction in size, there has also been a dramatic increase in the number of functions which each chip could perform. When this silicon chip, which acts like a miniature computer, is added to the electronic systems of any number of machines, the creation of an automated world cannot be far behind."

These are the facts of life that are affecting the men and the women who are in the industry today and the youth of this province who are looking for jobs.

I would also like to quote further from a recent publication of the Science Council of Canada, who provided this explanation of micro-electronics. They said:

"Dramatic innovations stem from recent developments in the micro-electronic technology, leading to the introduction of the microprocessor, a tiny chip of silicon with the capacity of a computer. This remarkable advancement has made automation more flexible. It has extended the range of electronic processing to many economic applications in industry, communications, data processing, office equipment, consumer goods and services, transportation, recreation, medicine, and, in fact, in almost every area of human endeavour."

I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is happening to us. In the universities they are telling us it is happening so fast that the predictions they are making today were out of date a month ago; they can't comprehend really what is happening out on the industrial field.

I'm not one who will stand here and suggest that we can turn it back. When the wheel was developed, we used it; when the electronic computers and the technology is available for industry, we must use it. I say that we must use it in this country, because if we don't use it, if we don't utilize it in this country, industry will do like our Canadian merchant navy did following the Second World War, when it went to countries of convenience and sailed under flags of convenience. If we don't accept industrial development in this country, then industrial development under the multinational corporations will go to countries of convenience. But I think if we're going to use it, if we're going to face the facts that are there, we must understand what is happening, we must understand where we're going. If we don't know where we're going, we must start to prepare a program; we must prepare a chart and a course.

Over the last number of years with the development.... It's not only that it has eliminated jobs, but it has done something different. Again, as Mr. Robideau states: "Employment might be affected." He says "might." But then he goes on: "...that the outright elimination of jobs or a slowdown in the rate of creation of jobs, and the potentially widespread downgrading in job functions and of the skills required to carry out such jobs...." This downgrading, Mr. Speaker, is often referred to as de-skilling. This is not only going to affect people out on the industrial jobs or in the factories, but is actually going to affect lawyers; it is going to affect professional people; it is going to affect doctors.

There have been certain reports, Mr. Speaker, that have been made in the European countries which are trying to get a hold on what is taking place, and I would like to quote from three of these particular reports. There was the Simons report made in West Germany in 1978. They predicted that the jobs

[ Page 4387 ]

of 40 percent of those employed in offices will be eliminated in the next ten years — 40 percent of the people in the office industry, doing the jobs they are doing now, will be eliminated in the next ten years. In France, another report, Mr. Speaker, called the Nova report that came out in 1977 reports that within ten years banks and insurance companies will be employing 30 percent less personnel for basically the same production. A third report I would like to quote from, Mr. Speaker, is the Jenkins and Sherman report from Great Britain, published in 1979, entitled "The Collapse of Work." They report that 42 to 44 percent of the United Kingdom's employees in the information sector, such as TV, radio, telecommunication, clerical office and personnel on newspapers, will not be required in their present jobs.

We all know that they say that the micro-electronic revolution will affect the livelihood of British Columbians. But what we really have not taken an effort to get on to, to get a hold on, is what's going to happen, to understand what particular areas within this community are going to be affected. I'd like to read another section from Mr. Robideau's report, where he states:

"They said a lot of the changes right now are coming in office computers and equipment. It is easy to see how most jobs, such as those of secretarial clerks and bank tellers, can be eliminated with the introduction of micro-processors."

But what will this mean in human terms? This is what I say, Mr. Speaker. We made the mistake in the first Industrial Revolution; we did not understand, care or take an effort for the human terms of how it affected people. Mr. Robideau says:

"What will this mean in human terms? Due to the fact that the largest percentage of workers employed in these areas are women, it takes little to recognize that women stand to lose a great deal from the introduction of the new micro-electronic technology."

Mr. Robideau goes on to say that.

I would also to like to go on and read another report, which says that though it supports the fact that women will be one of the groups that will suffer, the automation threat will affect other more, technically developed people. I'd like to quote from the Telecommunication Workers' Union publication called "The Transmitter." I would like to read what they say regarding automation in the Bell telephone company in New York:

"For most telephone workers, job security is the crucial issue in the talks. A stepped-up program of computerization and development of modular plug-in equipment is changing skills drastically and threatening thousands of jobs. The computerization of clerical departments has advanced so rapidly that the U.S. Department of Labour warned last year that women, until recently a majority of the telephone workers, were rapidly becoming grounded at AT&T due to automation and sex segregation on the jobs."

It goes on further and says:

"In technical departments, computers are performing many of the testing and analyzation formerly done by highly-skilled crafts people. Disembodied computer voices are replacing human operators. Thus far, automation has led to few layoffs, except during the recession of 1974-75, but the various operating companies in the Bell system have cut back drastically through attrition. In New York, for example, 15,000 fewer employees are handling 50 percent more work than they were in 1969."

Mr. Speaker, I think it's a problem that each one of us in this House, who have been elected to give some leadership to this country, must start to understand in human terms.

As I said, in the first Industrial Revolution, we didn't know. We made no preparation and allowed companies to drift on and bring in their new machines and throw people out onto the human slag heaps. But we have been making studies in North America. I'd like to read a quote from a study prepared by the United States Joint Economic Committee of Congress, which indicates an increase of approximately 2 percent in the overall mortality rates when there is an increase of 1 percent in the unemployment figures.

"Deaths from cardio-vascular problems caused or aggravated by stress and poor diet contribute significantly to this increase. There is also a noticeable increase in homicides, stress-related suicides and admission to prisons and hospitals. "

Mr. Speaker, we all have constituents. There are millions of people working in this great land of ours. I say there will be millions of people put out of work because of this technology. A recent study by two Cambridge University economists contained information to the effect that a continued rise in unemployment of one million people over a five-year period could be the cause of 50,000 more deaths, over 60,000 cases of mental illness and 14,000 more prison sentences. Can we in society accept and afford that social cost? Can we afford the loss of fellow humans? Can we afford the cost of maintaining the mental institutions because of the insecurity of the job industry that has been created today by our industrial revolution that is taking place around us? Can we afford the $14,000 for every million people that we must maintain in jails? I say that if we are going to give any leadership in this age, we must make the preparations that are needed to plan for the future society. We must recognize that there will be unemployment; we must recognize that there will be frustration; we must recognize that as areas develop and technology comes in, we cannot afford to have trained individuals thrown out on the street to take up frustration and develop the hate, the worry, the drinking that we all abhor. That will happen if we don't take some action.

It has been said that every person, within the next few years, will be facing at least five or six job changes. If you are going to have a workforce that is called on to move from one section of an area to another, there must be built into it a certain amount of security — security which the throne speech mentions: "...to attain personal financial security."

I am calling on this House and this government, Mr. Speaker. One of the ways of making the workforce of this province far more portable than it is, far more movable, far more innovative, far more adaptable.... People cannot be allowed to feel that they are going to be locked into a job for a pension, because it is not going to work. I think this government, in conjunction with the federal government and all other provinces of this country, must develop a fully integrated portable pension. That portable pension must go from one job to another, it must go from one industry to another. A person must have the right to feel that financial security — the right to feel that he has a part in this land, that he has a responsibility not only to work but to feel wanted.

I think this is an obligation that we as a society can afford to give to each one of us in this country. If we don't — and I

[ Page 4388 ]

say this in all sincerity — we will have a very frustrated, bitter workforce. That frustration will cost each and every one of us hundreds and thousands and millions of dollars. A good example is the demonstration that we had out in front of the Legislative Assembly on our opening day, when 3,000 teachers from all parts of the province came down here to demonstrate. It wasn't the half day that they left school and came down here; that wasn't the frustration. It was the frustration that developed within their own groups, within their schools, within their families, that they talked about and that motivated them over this period of time — the loss of teaching abilities and the goodwill that we, the taxpayers and society, have lost.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Another good example is in the area in which I am the critic — communications. In that particular industry, the telephone company has been going through long and bitter labour negotiations. That particular group of employees has gone through every step that the trade union legislation calls for. They brought down an industrial inquiry report, commonly called the Peck report. For some unknown reason, the employees accepted it; it was not the particular award that they wanted, but they accepted it. But the company, an international multicorporation, would not accept it. The part that bothers me is that this Minister of Universities, Science and Communications failed to stand up, use his good offices, meet with the union and the company, and give the leadership that was needed to bring those two parties back together so that they could be working today with a little more harmony.

What's happening? Because of the frustration of dealing with a free-enterprise multicorporation the employees of that company in that union produced a button. This button is blue and white — very responsible colours — and all it says is "Crown Corporation Now," and it has a telephone. It's just a small sign of frustration, an expression of opinion.

Do you know what this private-enterprise multinational corporation has ordered? They have ordered that any person found wearing this button will be fired. Can you imagine that any company in this day and age could run roughshod over the Bill of Rights brought in by John Diefenbaker, which said you have the right of expression of opinion? What would happen if one person wears a button to indicate that he wants to have a Crown corporation now? That right has been denied.

Not one person from the government side has stood up and said that was a trampling of rights of British Columbians. This government should be leading the way. Every one of us should be standing up in disgust. This is just one of the areas where this government has failed to give leadership. We must have a portable pension so that people can move around and work within the new, modern technology that is happening.

I also call on this government to set up a royal commission to study the effects of what computerization is going to do to our industry and what computer technology is going to do to our workforce. We must make plans now, before we have a large section of people unemployed.

MR. BRUMMET: Now we know how you're going to solve the unemployment problem. You're going to appoint a judge and a royal commission.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, here is a person who was a leader in his community, a principal in a school, who knows that you must study, who knows that there must be planning, who should be a leader to the children in his area for whom he is going to help prepare a future, and he sits there making insidious, snide remarks. I won't say it's ignorance, because you may say that it's unparliamentary.

I'm saying a royal commission is needed to study it and face it. Right now we're having royal inquiries into the crookedness and graft of the Social Credit government. There is a difference between a royal inquiry and a royal....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I must ask the hon. member, in the parliamentary tradition, to withdraw the terms he just used.

MR. MITCHELL: I withdraw the remark, if it offended anyone. I wanted to bring out that the inquiries that were made into the dirty tricks have never been brought before this House. These reports are what we're looking for. But this is the difference between a royal inquiry and a royal commission. I say we must have a royal commission. We must have a commission studying along the lines that have taken place in Germany, France, the United States and Britain. And we must start laying the plans down of what's going to happen in the future, before we are back into the midst of the same Industrial Revolution of history.

MR. RITCHIE: I too want to go on record as welcoming our Speaker back to the chamber. I was hoping he would have been in the chair, because I can recall being out yonder where he was too, and I too believe it's great to be back anywhere, even here. I was going to suggest that when I came down those stairs I had some chalk left over.

I just want to say, very briefly.... I had a speech prepared earlier, but because of the amendment I was cramped a little bit, and I just want to finish that off so that a few things that are important to myself and my constituency will be on the record.

I'm extremely excited about the things that are mentioned in the throne speech. I'm excited about the recent development in rapid transit; 65,000 more jobs created; 20,600 new companies, and the lowest bankruptcy rate in Canada. This excites me immensely. But I have to admit that the most refreshing day of any that I have spent in this House since becoming a member was yesterday. I would suggest that all of you, after listening to a speech like the one we have just heard, just go back to Hansard for December 11 and read that. That will make you realize that there is still hope in this province.

I didn't want to go into a great deal of detail in preparing a speech because I don't want to speak too long. But what I did do was go back to a speech that I made to students in an agricultural economics class at the University of British Columbia in February 1979. I'm just going to read the summary. It's as follows:

"In summing up, I believe that the challenges, not only in our own country but in foreign lands, are unlimited, because we are a highly respected country. If we do our homework properly there is no reason why we cannot succeed. But it is important to realize that success does not just happen; it must be caused to

[ Page 4389 ]

happen. I have often been told: 'My, aren't you lucky. Look how your business has succeeded.' And they are right. But it is also very strange to note that the harder I work the luckier I get. I believe it is important that you never underestimate your abilities, otherwise your subconscious mind will hold you down. Whatever you think you are, you are likely to become.

"Our industry offers unlimited opportunities to those who feel at home in agriculture. People who appreciate good fellowship, and above all can appreciate the challenge of change, because our industry is constantly in a state of change.... That keeps it exciting, but like most industries our opportunities are very seldom labelled; you must get in there and dig. The harder you work the more they appear, and the favourite disguise of opportunity is hard work. Failure is really the path of least resistance. You should never look at the obstacles, but rather look at the possibilities. I want to assure all of you that those possibilities in our country and in our province are many. If I should have a dream, it would be that some day I'll see all the people of our province and all Canada so enthused, happy and proud of their country and province that they will be prepared to fly the Canadian flag in their little corner of this province. "

I'd like to just say a few thank-yous. I'd like to say thank you to our Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), who did a tremendous job in my constituency. He spent a whole day there, and I can tell you that the people out there — teachers, staff and students — are all very, very pleased with the efforts of our minister.

I want to say thank you to our Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) for the tremendous cooperation he and his staff have been giving us in that area. I'd like to say thank you to our Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) on behalf of my constituents for the tremendous effort he's putting out. In spite of all the negative stuff we hear many people out there are thankful for the tremendous service. We in the Central Fraser Valley are particularly thankful for the recent major expansion taking place in MSA Hospital, and for the commitment to extend the extended-care service beds by providing us with 100 extended-care beds.

I also want to say thank you to our Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) on behalf of the Clearbrook Golden Age Society and on behalf of the Abbotsford Old Age Pensioners Society for the assistance they received in helping them to develop those facilities that they need so badly and of which they are making so much use. Not only the old-age citizens but the junior people, our youth and middle-aged people, are all immensely enjoying those facilities.

I'd also like to say thank you to our Deputy Premier and Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) for the individual opportunity program. We are very pleased and thankful for the assistance we are getting from that ministry. I'd like to say too that the staff in my area are super; their cooperation is just tremendous.

I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, and thank every minister for what he or she is doing for my constituency; I won't do that, because I just don't want to take up too much time. The collective effort is showing up in my constituency; it's showing up in jobs; it's showing up in everything. No matter where you look, you can feel the vibrance of what is taking place as a result of the positive thinking here. As we talk about what government should do, I've very quickly come to realize that one of the great challenges for government is to try to determine that middle line between the tax giver and the tax taker, All we ever hear from that side is on behalf of the tax taker. Then, of course, you go to that side and you say, well, now we have to sort out the needy from the greedy. But I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the needy are heard in my area in particular and throughout the province, and many people are very thankful for it.

There is another item I'd like to speak about, and that is some of the things that we need. I've now said thank you to those ministers. I hope they're all listening somewhere and feeling good about me and are now prepared to listen to what I need. I want to get this into the record because it's important that, when I go back to my constituency, I can stand up there and say: "Yes, I asked for this." They can't argue because it will be in the record. We very badly need more secondary industry. We're an agricultural area. I consider that we're the bread-basket of British Columbia, and therefore we are in the best position to accommodate secondary industry related to agricultural food products. As I speak of that, Fraser Valley College at this moment is bidding for a new program of veterinary medicine, which I have supported very strongly. I understand there is other competition for it, but I would like to go on record publicly as saying that that program belongs in the Fraser Valley College, because that's where the action is as far as agricultural activities are concerned.

Another item we need out there is an accelerated bypass road-building program, because our community is growing so rapidly. I believe I mentioned earlier that from January to October of this year somewhere around 700 families — I hope my figure is correct — have moved into my constituency, not only from other parts of this province but also from other parts of Canada. Our area is growing tremendously, so great that you now decide to do your shopping during the week because Saturdays and Friday nights — those busy times — you can hardly move on the roads. We require an accelerated program to bypass our town with bypass roads so that we can spread out that traffic and take away the congestion from our downtown.

Then, of course, we have another program in mind that our Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) will be very interested in. I know, Mr. Speaker, that as long as he can get hold of the funds somewhere, he's going to make sure that this one is carried out.

This one has to do with something that is close to all of our hearts, and that is land — agricultural land. Let me caution you to keep your philosophical political nonsense out of this. We are only interested in that true need — not just preserving land for the sake of preserving land but rather to preserve our ability to feed ourselves into the unforeseeable future. As I say that, Mr. Speaker, I would like our Minister of Agriculture and Food to take note that we have tremendous potential land available in the Matsqui prairies, which at the moment is quite often under water. We need a draining program to get these hundreds of acres of land recovered and into production.

We also have a problem that arises from time to time, and this one affects our Ministry of Environment. It is also something that I think gets mixed up in some of the regulations that are not, in my opinion, always coordinated as they should be. It is to do with the floodproofing regulations as they are laid down today. I recognize the need for stringent

[ Page 4390 ]

regulations applied to any residential, commercial or industrial developments, but when you are talking about land that is locked into the agricultural land reserve, it is something different. I am saying that it is wrong to lay down a regulation that would demand that should a farmer require an additional home for his farm labour, or should he require replacement of his own home, he may find himself putting it up on stilts, maybe 15 or 20 feet in the air. Mr. Speaker, I believe that should there be a requirement to build a farmhouse within the agricultural land reserve, the restrictions should be eased to allow the local regulation to apply, with the condition that they do not come back at some future date when there may be flooding taking place, and say: "I need your help." That would not be fair; that would be wanting your cake and eating it. I am saying that we should not be imposing those hardships that really don't belong out there within the agricultural land reserve.

Mr. Speaker, another area that needs help is the area of assisting those with alcohol problems. I speak mainly of our King Haven alcohol and drug centre. As you know, there was a fire there just recently that almost totally eliminated the facilities. There is a great need not only to replace that facility but to add new and modern ones. I am asking our Minister of Health — I'm very happy to have him in the House, but I know he was listening somewhere else — to take a very close look at the need at King Haven because those people are providing a tremendous service. Keep in mind too that a lot of it is volunteer work. We need the assistance and encouragement of our Ministry of Health to make sure that the facilities that have been burned will be replaced and additional facilities will be made available as required.

That is my shopping list, Mr. Speaker, and I really welcome the opportunity of putting it on the record.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, here we are about a half a million dollars later, more or less, from the time when His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor came and told us why we were here.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You hollered for a session all fall.

MR. HOWARD: I am pleased that the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing tossed that query along here, saying: "I thought you wanted a fall session." Let me get to that. I'll deal with it right now, if you like; I might as well.

Yes, the NDP has persistently talked in terms of the necessity of having a fall session of the Legislature. We have talked persistently about the necessity — and I am sure you, Mr. Speaker, more than anybody, will appreciate this — of having some orderliness to what we are doing, some timetable, so that those of us who are members.... I am not saying that no one else is faced with this difficulty, and probably to a lesser degree. But the gentlemen in the back row of the Social Credit, who all applauded that statement — the members for Kootenay and Peace River — and myself, from long distances, would appreciate being able to predict within a certain time frame when it is we might and might not be here. It doesn't matter to cabinet ministers, who are here all the time anyway, doing relatively little. They've got lots of time on their hands. In fact, they welcome the session of the Legislature; it's an intrusion into their normally boring day.

Sure, the NDP has looked and hoped for a fall session. We have a session now. I don't know that I would be one of those who would call December 4 the fall of the year. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) seems to think it is, but then he's a bit out of it on a lot of other things as well. Whenever the session is called, it should be called to conduct some of the people's business, not just to have a frothy throne speech debate, one resolution, a few items on the order paper and an indication of "now it's time to go home again." That's not a fall session. That's not a business session. That's just a session to suit somebody in the Premier's office who called this thing by way of a letter or something to somebody.

Yes, we have called for a session of the Legislature in the fall to deal with the people's business, and we called for a session of the Legislature in the spring to deal with the financial aspects of the people's business and to get some orderliness as to what the parliamentary timetable is. It wouldn't only suit the convenience of MLAs, but it would certainly suit the convenience of the general public, whom we are elected to serve. But that's not what we've got. We've got a squandering of half a million dollars, more or less, to bring everybody here and send them all home again, open up the Legislature, provide a stock of food for the restaurant, which was closed and is now apparently going to close again, and all of the other costs involved in getting the Legislature ready to meet.

That's a squandering and wasting of roughly $500,000, all because the Premier had some pipe dream that he thought he would be able to tie in a constitutional resolution to a proposed closing of a parliamentary committee in Ottawa. While he was off in Mexico for that ten-day trip, he was out of touch with the realities of the situation, which were that the NDP members in Ottawa on that committee and the Conservative members of that committee in Ottawa were putting pressure upon the federal government to extend the date of closure, and succeeded. If he would have been paying attention to what was going on here at home, he would have realized that he goofed in trying to tie his parliamentary timetable for political purposes into somebody else's parliamentary activities. However, that's the way the Premier operates things, and that's why many cabinet ministers publicly said, "Gee, I didn't know there was going to be a session," the day the Premier or his secretary called it.

"What's it all about?" "I don't know." They found out afterwards, just the same as the rest of us found out — by a news item. However, we've got to ask ourselves why we are here.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) made a specific appointment to examine hospitals in Terrace on December 8. He made the appointment some time ago. We were looking forward to seeing him, and then he suddenly discovered that the Premier told him he couldn't be there on the 8th and had to be here, so he revised his schedule.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.)

You don't know how pleased I was, Mr. Speaker, when I found out that I had to be here while the Minister of Health was supposedly going to be in Terrace on December 8, because I am afraid of that wild man from Kamloops, and I wasn't sure just what his apoplexy would do to the situation if we were both in the same place.

AN HON. MEMBER: The wild socialist from Skeena.

[ Page 4391 ]

MR. HOWARD: Listen to all the chattering that's going on over there, Mr. Speaker. Obviously they don't like the truth, and the only way they can respond to it is by nattering away from their seats, spinning around in their chairs and, with gravelly voices, making catcalls. I don't mind. This is the Christmas spirit we're into now, and if it's done in that spirit I accept it and I'll gladly return it. I'm sure no one will be offended by it.

Speaking of returning something, I'll tell you how interested I was in listening to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) making his maiden speech in this House. The member for Omineca wrote an article to his hometown papers last year, April 30, and he talked about the session of Parliament, etc., etc.... I'm not going to read the whole thing, because a lot of it is froth and foam and not germane to what's taking place here, but here's one of the things he said. There are two paragraphs, and one of them says: "Here we see an opposition doing certain things...." Okay, that's fine, whatever that was. That's editorializing on his part. I don't mind that, but he spoke about his own government. Here is what the member for Omineca said last year, as for his reason for not saying anything. He says: "The government, on the other hand, cautious because of the polarity of the vote in the province and as well because of numbers in the Legislature, is unable to make bold decisions or take strong action." What else has changed? Nothing. The same commentary could come forward now.

He said further: "I'm wasting my time and your money in absolutely useless and pointless debate...." We certainly heard that from the member today; he certainly knew what he was going to say at the opening of this session — useless and pointless debate, etc. "...with an opposition set only on bringing down the government." Not only, Mr. Speaker, are we set upon bringing down the government. Yes, the general public in this province need an opportunity to get rid of this group over there, but that's not the only thing we're concerned about.

Then he went on quoting the minister and he said.... Anyhow, wasting his time in absolutely pointless debate is not what he considers to be the way to attain the goal. I really enjoyed the member.

We could have been doing some things at this part of the session, if we only had a government, Mr. Speaker, that was conscious and desirous of doing those things. We tried that on opening day, as you remember. The Premier stood up in this House and said: "No, I do not want to be involved in any way in fair election practices, because I don't want a fair election practices committee." The Premier also said: "Ho, ho, I turn my back on my child, B.C. Resources Investment Corporation; I abandon that as an orphan; I wash my hands of anything; I don't want to touch it. Let the board of directors of B.C. Resources Investment Corporation" — you know, the ones who the Premier hand-picked — "mismanage B.C. Resources Investment Corporation. Let them play their games of insider activities, let them reap the profits. I don't want anything to do with that, and we certainly don't want a parliamentary committee examining that situation; we don't want to know what Kaiser and BCRIC and Helliwell and the rest of those predators are doing." We could have been doing that.

The Premier also said he wasn't the least bit interested in having a parliamentary examination as to what ICBC is doing to the people in this province. We could have been looking at that situation, if we'd only had a Premier who concerned himself with some of the important subjects in this province.

Now, some things have happened outside of the Legislature, Mr. Speaker. For instance, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and, I think, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) — I'm not sure.... In any event, they went over to the lower mainland, went over to Vancouver, and met with all of the representatives from the municipalities there, had breakfast and made some very important, worthwhile announcements. One of those announcements dealt with land assembly, dealt with making serviced lots available to people in that area, because there was a shortage of them. Oh, Mr. Speaker, how we would love it, how we would enjoy it very much, if those same ministers would pay attention, say, to my hometown of Terrace, where you can't get accommodation for love nor money.

HON. MR. MAIR: You can for love.

MR. HOWARD: If you get accommodation for love, it's usually of a short-term nature. It's not the kind of rental relationship that we normally look to. Every day in the paper, every week....

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm going to live for love and money.

MR. HOWARD: Well, the Minister of Health says he can acquire those things — whatever they are — for love and money. It's interesting to note in that regard that there was a resolution at the recent Social Credit convention that talked about the government living off the avails of prostitution.

Every week in the paper in Terrace there are ads by people saying, "Wanted, a place to rent," and no ads which offer places to rent. There's a shortage. There's pressure and demand for housing greater than exists in the lower mainland — maybe not numerically greater, but certainly greater in its intensity and impact on human beings in that area. I know there are more votes in the lower mainland; we know that in the north. We know that we always have to be subservient to the people in the lower mainland in our expectation of services. We've known for years that we always have to play second fiddle to what goes on with this government in paying attention to the people of this province.

MR. KEMPF: Not so. I've got quite a few things for your constituency.

MR. HOWARD: The member for Omineca may be satisfied with the situation that in his constituency he's got the largest mileage of back roads and gravel roads in the whole province. That may satisfy him, but it doesn't satisfy me. I say we're just as entitled to attention and service in Skeena as they are in Surrey, Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). The Minister of Municipal Affairs can go over to Vancouver, or wherever he was, on a Saturday and say: "We've got a great land-assembly program going on to supply housing." We have a greater need in Terrace, for argument's sake, for that type of attention than they do in the lower mainland. We could be doing something of that nature.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Sit down, and I'll tell you what we're doing in Terrace.

MR. HOWARD: I know what the Minister of Lands and Forests is doing to Terrace.

[ Page 4392 ]

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Well, whatever his department is.... Those gold-dust twins over there, it's hard to tell them apart. One's got hold of the land, the other's got hold of the forests, and each is terribly jealous of the other because they're intruding upon each other's jurisdiction.

This session of the Legislature could have been dealing, at this point in time, if the government so desired, with the position of our native people in this province. Let's go back a bit. In 1867, and prior thereto, when the discussions were taking place which were preliminary to the enactment of the BNA Act in London, England, the native Indian people were not counted as human beings by the parties that were at that time talking about confederation — ignored completely; they didn't exist. When this province entered Confederation in 1871, there was a debate in the House of Commons about the terms of union, and about the number of Members of Parliament and Senators that would be afforded to this new province which was to enter, and the debate in the House of Commons shows tip what MPs at that time were saying relating to the population in the province. "Oh, yes, there are some Indian people there, but they have never been counted as people or even numbers. They are like the deer in the forest and the trees on the land. They don't exist as human beings, and we don't count them." That's the sad part of our history, that the original peoples of this land were not considered when this constitution, the British North America Act, was developed, or when British Columbia entered Confederation in 1871.

The resolution we dealt with yesterday ignored them completely, said to the native people: "You don't count, you shouldn't be a part of developing a constitutional structure that's going to affect you." It wiped them out completely. I find that the best possible reason one could have to have voted contrary to that motion yesterday. But in any event, this is something we could have been doing in this part of the session.

I don't want to go on at great length. [Applause.] That's the only way to get applause from government benches — make some announcement that you're going to sit down. Some of them even privately applaud the Premier that way. They won't do it out in the open, but under the desk they clap their hands and say: "Good, Bill, sit down, we've had enough. "

There are a number of matters affecting one's constituency which could be dealt with at this time in a wide-open throne speech, debate.

MR. KEMPF: Why don't you?

MR. HOWARD: To that person who broke his vow of silence and who just finished his maiden speech, I find it more appropriate to deal with those matters where I can get responses from ministers and not just speak for the record, as the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) does. He speaks during the throne speech and says, "Oh, I raised my constituents' problems," and then he shuts up for the rest of the session. Read his article of last year. Each person approaches things the way he sees best to get results. We get results in Skeena because we know how to go about it; we don't try to double-cross our friends, as the member for Omineca did and got caught up short. You know, try to be independent and then try to suckle up to the crowd that he belongs to. We don't need to do that sort of thing to get attention in Skeena.

The estimates will be available to us at some time in the distant future. That, to me, is an appropriate time to deal with subject matters that more appropriately fit there. The Premier has participated in squandering at least half a million dollars in this pre-Christmas period, simply to deal with one resolution — as important as that resolution is.

We had a speech from His Honour, which was a rehash of a lot of other things. It made some pronouncements about hopes for the future, but it was largely a pretty barren document. Since then, we've seen government members, whether cabinet or backbenchers.... I've got to congratulate them for it; they are trying to do what they think is the way to go. They don't accomplish it very well, but they've been trying desperately to put some flesh on an arid, lifeless skeleton, otherwise called the Speech from the Throne. Because it's arid, lifeless, insipid, and barren of any real projections of what we hope to accomplish in this coming year, we have no choice but to vote against it.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, we're in the final moments of the first throne speech debate in almost half a century to take place before Christmas. It's in the spirit of charity and goodwill that we wind up and try to compare and contrast a little bit the positions taken by the government and the opposition during what in the British parliamentary system is the key debate of the whole of the legislative session. It's the tradition of grievance before supply. Those who have opinions to express about the manner in which government is being conducted, who have particular wishes for their constituencies, and who have a grander plan for their province and the people they represent will have that opportunity to make their case and to indicate quite clearly to the citizens they represent exactly how and why they would put on a superior performance if they were given the range of responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and all members of this House to consider carefully the programs presented by the opposition. They have had the golden opportunity to lay before the public of British Columbia, with precision and clarity, the program they would take to the people of the province. They have had an opportunity to dissect the shortcomings of the government, and as never before they have had a grand opportunity to see beyond the horizon, and lay before the public of Canada their vision of what this country should be.

I've listened and, perhaps like other British Columbians, I've wondered about how a group that has been able to do no better in debate than during this past week could possibly accept, without fear in their hearts, the responsibility of managing the affairs of this province. Do they have a vision of the future? No, Mr. Speaker; they have a vision of the past. And like Scrooge, who realized the errors of his past ways, they discovered that all of the crusades that were presented with such brilliance in debate by their socialist predecessors, when put into practice by that government, turned out to be a statue with feet of clay, because all of those grand arguments turned out to be based upon false premises.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, if there's one overriding reason why the NDP, is unable to present to this House a program of positive action — and has been unable to for five years — it's because they know that the things they have stood for have proved to be wrong in practice, and because their ideas are wrong in practice; They have never gone back to their roots to build once more a set of concepts to test in government; should, heaven forbid, that disaster ever happen: They are bereft of ideas, debate and any vision

[ Page 4393 ]

for the future. So I say to the opposition: take this time until we meet again to prepare a program for the people of British Columbia, present it in this House and let your ideas stand the test of time and be reviewed by the people of British Columbia. Don't ask for the reins of power during an election campaign unless you have prepared yourselves and put that preparation before the public of British Columbia.

What about the Social Credit government, who the opposition claims is so unfit to hold office? Once more we have been through the most prosperous period in our history, and what we were able to tell the public of British Columbia in a Christmas message is that things will be even better next year, because of the government they have in power. The government is far from perfect, but one thing is clear: it is not a government that is afraid of criticism, runs with the wind or runs with the polls; it's a government that sets wise policies. The public of British Columbia will enjoy the benefits of those policies despite what the media or the opposition may say or what the polls may say today.

Mr. Speaker, it is performance that counts. It is no accident that British Columbia is the success story of Canada, of North America and of the world. It comes from policies which are based upon soundness, wisdom and truth, rather than upon seeking instant popularity. This is the contrast between the government and the opposition. You don't have to took to debate to find it, though; it can be found there. It is in performance; it is in comparing what happened between 1972 and 1975 — when the opposition was in power, with the same ideas that they have now — and between 1975 and 1980, when this government has been in power. I say to the public of British Columbia, compare and contrast, and then you will see the reason for our prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, there need be no halls hired in British Columbia, because the hall for debate, for ideas and for a judgment is this legislative chamber of British Columbia. I call the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The motion is: "That we, Her majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session."

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 24

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider the supply to be granted to Her Majesty, and that this order have precedence over all other business, except interim supply and introduction of bills, until disposed of.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Administrator.

MOTOR VEHICLE (ALL TERRAIN)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

Hon. Mr. Chabot presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle All Terrain Amendment Act, 1981.

Bill 7 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet. Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.

MR. HOWARD: Under the guise of debate on the motion, might I wonder aloud if the government House Leader could advise us when that might be in general terms.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It is dealing with the public interest, but I would say within the general vicinity of two months.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:10 p.m.