Hansard — Tuesday, December 1, 1981 — Night Sitting (2024)

1981 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament
Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1981

Night Sitting

[ Page 6773 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

On the adjournment motion

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 6773

Mrs. Wallace –– 6773

Mr. King –– 6774

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 6778

Ms. Brown –– 6781

Mr. Lea –– 6785

Mr. Barrett –– 6789

Mr. co*cke –– 6804

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 6807

Mrs. Dailly –– 6808

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 6811

Mr. Skelly –– 6815

Mr. Lorimer –– 6820

Hon. Mrs. Jordan –– 6823

Mr. Hanson –– 6826

Mr. Davis –– 6830

Mr. Mitchell –– 6833

Mr. Brummet –– 6835

Mr. Gabelmann –– 6836

Mr. Passarell –– 6840

Mr. Lockstead –– 6842

Mr. Barnes –– 6846

Ms. Sanford –– 6850

Mr. Barber –– 6852

Division –– 6856

The House met at 8 p.m.

On the adjournment motion.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on the motion, Mr. Speaker.

Speakingto the motion that was moved by my colleague the hon. ProvincialSecretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), I would like to indicate to the members ofthe House that this practice that, we're debating is historic. Thismotion has been utilized in this Legislature before. It is, indeed partof the practice, custom and usages of the Legislature of BritishColumbia.

The budget and the estimates, as the officialopposition well knows, are in their usual course of preparation andthey're going to be furnished at the usual and appropriate time: in thespring, as is the historic manner in which the business of governmentsin British Columbia has been conducted since Confederation. [Applause.]

I didn't think that speech was that spectacular, but that's awfully kind of the hon. members.

We'regoing to be returning in the spring of 1982 to fully debate the budgetaddress, the estimates and the legislation that will be presented tothis Legislature in the interests of all of the people of the province.I fully support the motion of my colleague.

Mrs. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this motion certainly indicates to me that the government is completely devoid of any ideas or initiatives to meet the pressing economic problems in this province. If they had ideas or initiatives they would be pressing forward now to take steps to protect the people of this province who are facing very difficult times.

Iwould like the members opposite to review briefly with me the situationin my own constituency. We are a forest-based economy; 90 percent ofour economy is based on the forest industry. When one recognizes thatone out of five forest workers is now unemployed, you can recognize thekind of lack of economic drive that results from this lack of jobs.

Ithink one of the most startling things to come and one of the firstmoves that caught the eye of all British Columbia and all of Canada wasthe situation at Honeymoon Bay, a mill that has been in operation forsome 30 years. Suddenly on Wednesday the employees of that mill areadvised that they're out of.a job permanently as of Friday — 357employees in total out of a job. A great many of those employees hadgiven upwards of 20 years — and some of them over 30 years — of theirworking lives to that company.

Why? They say it's lack oftimber supply. That's not the case. The reason is they're not making aprofit. It's even deeper that that. The reason — and the Minister ofForests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) over there knows it full well — is thatthe companies which he allowed to purchase that mill had no intentionof keeping that mill operating — in spite of all his promises andplatitudes and all the crocodile tears he's been crying over thoseemployees up there. He was the man who was responsible for it, becausehe allowed a consortium of three companies — two of whom have adequatemill capacity right in the Cowichan Valley — to come in and take overthat forest land, and along with it the mill. He is the man responsiblefor those workers being out of jobs. Yet we have them wanting toadjourn the House until some unforeseen time — and we have fairly goodinformation that it will be March.

What are people to do whohave no jobs? They not only have no jobs, they're not going to have anyhomes. Many of those people lived in company houses, and they have beengiven six months to vacate. Certainly there is no question that theconsortium that owned that mill wants it out of business. They haveoffered it for sale at a ridiculously high price. They paid some $13million for the mill when they bought it. They say that they haveoperated it at a loss of $3.5 million for three years. Now they'reputting it on the market for $30 million. They have no intention that abuyer will pick up that mill. They want it out of business. They don'twant competition. They bought the timber supply there. The Minister ofForests let them do that, in spite of his powers under the Forest Act.He is responsible. He should be the one speaking up against theadjournment of the House until some date in the future so we can get onwith the job of creating jobs for those people. He's the one who shouldbe standing up and making some concrete proposals as to how thosepeople can be employed and what jobs can be found to keep those peopleworking and keep that town viable.

The chamber of commerceand the village council have written to the minister and had nosatisfactory response, They wrote some months ago to the Premier. As ofa week ago, they had had no response at all from the Premier. That'shis interest. He gets up here and speaks for two hours, givinglip-service to concerns about the people of this province. What are hisreal concerns? He doesn't even bother to answer a letter from thecouncil at Lake Cowichan. Why doesn't he answer it? Because he has noplans. He has nothing to offer. If that government had something tooffer, we'd see it on the order paper; we'd see some legislation; we'dsee some interim supply, some emergency bills that would take someaction and make jobs for those people.

No, this governmentis happy to sit back and bring in a throne speech that has nothing init at all. Then they have the audacity to say: "Okay, we're going toadjourn the House until next March. We'll all go to Hawaii or Mexico orsomewhere and have a nice suntan for the winter, and we'll come backhere in March." What are the people who are here without jobs going todo? This government has no plans to provide jobs for those people. Theyhave no plans for any thing that will help this very serious situationthat we're in with the economy.

For a year and a half we'veheard about their housing program. Well, now they say we've got ahousing program. Where is it? Why isn't the bill on the order paper?Why aren't we discussing it? Why aren't we doing something to keepthose people in their homes, instead of having them turned into thestreet? There's nothing there. If he were serious and sincere aboutprotecting those people who are facing doubled mortgage payments as aresult of high interest rates, he'd have something on the order paper,and he'd have a bill presented to this House right now, so we could geton with the job.

You can talk all you like about interestrates being the responsibility of the federal government. Otherprovinces are taking initiatives. All you have to do is look atSaskatchewan; they're taking an initiative to protect homeowners. Thisgovernment has no program and no policy. They're doing absolutelynothing. That's why they're adjourning. It's because they have noprogram, they have no policy and they have no initiative to carry out.

I mentioned that in my constituency forestry is the backbone of the economy. When we have the kind of withdrawal

[ Page 6774 ]

fromthe labour force, as a result of the layoff, the earning capacity ofthose people is so badly curtailed that all the merchants are showinggrave concern as to how they are going to keep their heads above water.They are facing the same high costs of interest charges and carryingcharges on their stock, and yet they're facing a depleted market,because the dollars are not there in the consumers' pockets. The wholeeconomy is winding down so badly in the whole Cowichan Valley thatthere have to be some definite measures taken. There have to be somejob-creation programs to put those forestry people back to work.

Wecan talk all we like about the reforestation programs or thesilviculture programs that this government has said they'reundertaking, but surely to goodness when you have a situation likethis, you move into some of those programs. I've written to theMinister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and he'sacknowledged that he's going to have a look at doing something aboutsome park development in the area. That's another thing that's longoverdue. When is it going to happen? You know, I've had these kinds ofvague promises so many times from those ministers over there that Iwill not believe anything is going to happen until I actually see theprograms in progress. When I see a work crew going into Gordon Bay Parkto enlarge that park or when I see a work crew going in on the westside of the lake to establish a new park there on the park reserve,then I'll believe it's going to happen. I won't believe it until then,and no vague assurances from that minister are going to indicate thatto me.

MR. SKELLY: He's asleep.

MRS. WALLACE:Yes, he is asleep. He's asleep as far as what's happening in thisprovince and asleep to the need to create jobs, jobs, jobs — to use histerminology.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: That woke him up.

Mr.Speaker, of course one of my concerns is also what is happening in ouragricultural industry. If our agricultural industry folds, as they maywell do under the lack of support from this government, we will findourselves in — to use the much coined term — dire straits. I know of nodirer straits than being unable to feed ourselves and unable to producefood. We're coming close to the time when we're going to have to havethat food produced locally, because it isn't going to be available fromoutside the province. And yet, what is this government prepared to doto support that agricultural economy? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

Wehave the president of the Social Credit Party going into Prince Georgeand talking about phasing out the agricultural land reserve and turningit over to private developers. We have a few people in this Legislaturetalking about that, and I feel sorry sometimes for the little ministerover there who tries to protect his own job. The president of theSocial Credit Party is going to phase out the agricultural land reserveand along with it all the farmers; he's also going to phase out ICBC.When you phase those two out, you've phased out that minister, so it'sno wonder he gives some degree of lip service, at least, to theagricultural land concept.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member,I would like to remind all members that the throne speech debate andits wide relevancy rule has now been drastically restricted by thewords of the motion before us and, of course, we can accept only thatdebate which is relevant to reasons why. Please proceed.

MRS. WALLACE:Yes, reasons why we should not adjourn. The reasons why we should notadjourn are that we should have some strong incentives before thisLegislature to bring some assistance to those hard-pressed farmers —assistance on their interest rates and assistance on their landpreservation. Those are the reasons why we should not be adjourning,Mr. Speaker.

I was sorry that for personal reasons I was notable to be here to participate in the throne speech debate, but reallyI don't know what was in that throne speech that required any comment.It's the things that aren't in that throne speech that are of interestand of real need as far as the people of this province go. It's thethings that aren't in that throne speech that we should be discussingin this Legislature. That's why we have taken this tack — to try toforce this lazy government, that wants to come down here for six, eightor ten days and then go off on holidays and not come back until March,to take some action and come out with some programs. If they don't havethe programs, they just have to call the House back and we'll certainlypresent programs for them. If they don't have them, we can present themand all they have to do is to support them, Mr. Speaker.

TheLegislature must continue to sit. We must continue to do the job forwhich we were elected. We must move to protect the people who arecaught up in high interest rates, inflation and loss of jobs. We musttake that action, and we must not pass this motion that adjourns usuntil the whim of someone who comes to you and says: "Well, let's getwith it." That's not soon enough, Mr. Speaker. March is not soonenough. If you're hungry, if you're cold, you need food now, you needclothing now. You don't need it on the first of March.

Thisis a ridiculous motion, Mr. Speaker, to bring before this House. Weshould be getting on with the job that we're sent here for

MR. KING:Mr. Speaker, I also rise to oppose the motion. I believe there are goodand valid reasons why this Legislature should stay in session andshould come to grips with many of the pressing problems that arebedevilling our population in British Columbia.

We needprograms to deal with the very severe economic slump in the forestindustry. We have nothing in the throne speech but some vague promisesabout privatization and some other exotic terms that are not explained.Now the government suggests that we should go back and think aboutthose vague promises of inaction until March of 1982.

Mr.Speaker, that's a clear example of the government reneging on itsobligation to properly and responsibly represent citizens in theprovince of British Columbia. I find it interesting that not agovernment member thus far has got up to give any credible explanationof why they want to adjourn until March.

The House Leader,the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) got upand mumbled some things about tradition. Well, Mr. Speaker, I've been amember most of the time since 1968, and the long-standing tradition inthis Legislature for many years was that we met on the last day ofJanuary and sat until completion of the business before the government.We never used to meet as late as March.

[ Page 6775 ]

Consistently, for the last number of years, the opposition has criticized calling the Legislature into session so late in the year, at the beginning of March, because the fiscal year ends at the end of March. That time-frame does not allocate adequate time for the government to present their budget and for the opposition to scrutinize and debate that budget.

Sowhat we have been seeing is a move away from tradition to a newprocedure which deprives the Legislature, and certainly deprives theopposition, of full debate on the budget estimates of the government.We think that is a serious breach of parliamentary tradition, Mr.Speaker. It has now become the custom under this government rather thanthe exception, as it used to be — that interim supply was only soughtin emergency situations. Now it has become the hallmark of thisgovernment to call the session so late in the year that no time remainsfor full presentation of the budget and the spending estimates of thegovernment. As a consequence, they have been coming to the House andasking for interim supply two and three times before the budget isfully approved. That's piecemeal government. That's irresponsiblegovernment. That's a denial of parliamentary tradition. It's adangerous trend, in my view, and that's another reason why we should weshould not now be adjourning this house until March so that thegovernment can pursue the same irresponsible policy.

Mr. Speaker, the government is lazy. This government is caught up in inertia. This is a government that has no life left. The headlines that the leader of this government is getting down east for his activities are: "Early to bed." Where is the Premier now? I presume he's headed off to bed again. Well, we have important issues on the economy to be debated here. The Premier snuck off with his little briefcase, and I don't know whether he's on the couch in his office, Mr. Speaker, or whether he's gone down to Harbour Towers. But he should be here in the Legislature defending the policies of this government. The reason he's not here is that the policies of this government are indefensible.

Interjections.

MR. KING:Mr. Speaker, the members on that side, particularly the minister ofcounties and other things, seem anxious to get on their feet. We'reanxious to hear the views of that minister and his colleagues in termsof defending their do-nothing policy. We're very anxious.

Wesee a number of very disturbing trends in the forest industry which arecontributing to the massive unemployment that is being experienced inthe industry at the moment. At one and the same time that economicproblems are besetting the industry and there is a soft market in theUnited States, other things are happening right here in BritishColumbia which should be dealt with now by the Minister of Forests(Hon. Mr. Waterland) and his government. We're seeing an increasingtrend towards merger — acquisition of small companies by larger ones,corporate concentration in the forest industry. A short time ago theMinister of Forests wrote a letter to the industry newsletter, Beale's Letter,saying that that was a trend that he was concerned about because itreally didn't meet the criteria that the government themselves had laiddown for economic stability of regions and for the preservation ofemployment opportunities in the forest industry. He decried that trend.

Mr. Speaker, these mergers are increasing. They're happening more frequently. We had the case of Atco Lumber Ltd. up in the Kootenays buying out Hadikin Bros. There's nothing wrong with one company buying another one per se, but the minister has stated his policy that when this occurs there should not be a net loss of jobs accrue from that merger, because that contributes to unemployment.

Inthe case of the company I referred to, the Ministry of Forests approvedthe sale and the transfer of their cutting rights from Hadikin to AtcoLumber, and he did it with a four-line letter. I'm going to read itinto the record to demonstrate the kind of problem which iscontributing to unemployment and economic hard times in the provincenow. This is a matter that must be dealt with now, not in March. Thisletter says: "Further to your request, and pursuant to section 50 ofthe Forest Act, I hereby consent to the acquisition by Atco Lumber Ltd.of all issued shares in the capital of Hadikin Bros. Lumbering Ltd."

TheHouse will note that there's no condition set; it's an outright carteblanche approval. The fact of the matter is that as a result of thatapproval, Atco Lumber immediately closed down the Hadikin Bros. millwith a net loss of jobs. Perhaps they had a good and sufficienteconomic reason for doing so, but the point is that there is noindication that the minister conducted any economic survey to determinewhether they were justified in acquiring these new cutting rights andat the same time closing down an existing plant, with a net loss ofemployment. The minister has the authority, under section 50 of theForest Act, to refuse or approve on a conditional basis. In thisparticular case, no condition is attached. The transfer of valuablecutting rights to Crown timber, a net loss of jobs in that area, andpeople who had worked many years and had seniority and undoubtedly hadmortgages on their homes, which were all of a sudden chopped off.... Iwant the Minister of Forests to explain why he does this kind of thingwhen his Forest Act and the five-year range and resource policy issuedand printed by his ministry provides the power under section 50 toprevent the very kind of thing he approved in a four-line response here.

That'sa denial of his responsibility. He's obviously willing to allow onecompany to acquire increased cutting rights, to allow unemployment toaccrue, when that violates the stated and publicly enunciatedobjectives of his ministry. I say that's irresponsible, and I want someassurance — before we leave here, Mr. Speaker, not next March — thatother mergers pending now will not be approved until the conditions andthe criteria enunciated by his ministry are in fact enforced, so thatour workers in the province of British Columbia are protected.

It'snot just me who's concerned about this. I have a letter from the cityof Revelstoke. We've had a similar acquisition of a mill. In thisparticular case, some 350 workers were laid off. That mill is closedfor the first time in 30 years. The mayor of Revelstoke has written tome, and he expresses these thoughts:

"We haveall heard of the plight of homeowners and small business across ourcountry, but it never seems so bad until it reaches home. We as acouncil are writing to you, our representative, to express our sincereconcern over the recent announcement of one of our major employersshutting his door. The closure of the Downie Street sawmill will affectabout 175 employees. We also understand that the Canoe mill is alsoshutting down at the end of October, affecting a couple of hundred moreemployees.

[ Page 6776 ]

"Wewould request that you inquire of our senior levels of government howmuch longer must we put up with this regressive and damaging action.The government has just announced that thousands of new jobs will becreated in western Canada, and in particular B.C. When do we see thesenew jobs? After we close down all the old ones? We want jobs, period.

"We feel it is time our governments got down to the real issues of our economy, not just the constitution.

"The council would request that you keep us in close contact with regard to these pursuits."

Mr. Speaker, this precisely outlines the problem.

MR. SPEAKER:Hon. member, may I interrupt you just long enough to give the membersof the House an idea of the scope of the debate that is in order onmotions to adjourn to a future date. This has to do particularly with amotion to secure a sitting of the House at a time or on a day otherthan the next ordinary time or day of sitting. Speaker Morrison says:

"I must point out that on a motion of this sort, which is a motion to adjourn until another day, it is quite allowable and proper to urge that the House should not adjourn to that date because certain subjects are of considerable importance. On the other hand, it is not in order to go into these subjects in any detail. They can be advanced only as reasons for not adjourning."

I wish the members would accept this as a guideline.

MR. KING:Mr. Speaker, that's what I'm attempting to do: give the general contextof why we should be continuing to meet in this Legislature, and why weshould be dealing with these very important matters that are importantto the communities as well as the workers who are adversely affected.The mayor of the city of Revelstoke has written to me, asking that Ikeep them in touch with developments, that I keep them in touch withthe government's plans for creating alternative employment so that theeconomy up there won't be irreparably damaged over the course of thislong winter. How can I do that when I come here and I'm restricted to adebate on a throne speech having no content? Then the government putsforward a motion to adjourn until next March. I'd be completelyderelict in my duty and my obligation to represent the smallcommunities in my riding, as well as the people, if I did not stand andvoice my objections to this kind of unspeakably lazy direction by thisgovernment. I find it unbelievable that, given the economiccirc*mstances facing hundreds of thousands of British Columbians thisyear — particularly this winter — the government seriously suggeststhat we should adjourn and run away from our duties and obligations tothe people who elected us. That's not only lazy, Mr. Speaker; it'scowardly of the government to suggest such a course of action

The mill I referred to is not the only one. My colleague the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) talked about the massive impact of the mill closures at Honeymoon Bay. Again, the minister of Forests had the power and authority under section 50 of the Forest Act to require, as a condition of approving the transfer of cutting rights, that that plant continue to operate. The minister failed to shoulder his responsibility. He failed, not only in defiance of common sense but in denial of his own enunciated policy. This was the objective of his ministry. He allowed the mill.to be sold. He allowed the new cutting rights to be acquired by the purchasing companies and then he entered a pale and very weak plea that that company continue to operate the mill. The fact of the matter was that the minister had then and still has the authority under section 50 of the Forest Act to, require as a condition of transfer that that mill stay in operation and those jobs be preserved. Mr. Speaker, perhaps those cases are by the board, but I suspect that over the course of this winter when economic times are very difficult and more small forest companies are going to be obliged to close the doors permanently, there will be an increasing trend towards acquisitions of the failing companies by larger firms. Unless this Legislature can be assured, Mr. Speaker; that the Forests Minister is going to act in a decisive and responsible way to ensure that jobs and plants are preserved and continue to operate, then certainly we are failing to live up to obligations as legislators.

Mr.Speaker, we have many hundreds of young people in the province ofBritish Columbia — not just young people; predominantly young people, Isuppose, but many of all ages — who are facing mortgage renewals overthis current year as well. We were promised a housing policy by theMinister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). The ministerlaboured long and gave birth to a dud that, he had to scurry back andrewrite after consultation with his federal counterpart. As a resultthe people of British Columbia facing a crisis in shelter accommodationin terms of affordable housing and in terms of their ability tomaintain mortgage payments are left without a vestige of hope over thecoming winter. And this is the time that the government chooses to saywe should fold up our tent and steal away. That's totally unacceptable.

Mr.Speaker, every time this government gets into trouble, it seems,usually by their own devices and not as a result of anything theopposition does. They usually get into political trouble because eitherthey try to be too cute and too smart or they try to manufacture nastypolitical tricks to improve their stock. Every time that happens andtheir image wanes with the public, their trend and their tendency is torun and hide. We see it with the Premier every time. As soon as theheat's on, he finds a place to hide out. We see that this evening asfar as the government is concerned. Where's the Premier? Where are thecabinet ministers? I think we have two and a half of them in here atthe moment.

Mr. Speaker, if the government has somecompelling reason.... If they are working on some master plan or someblueprint that would haul British Columbia out of its economicdoldrums, share that with the House. We're reasonable people. If theyhave some major strategy that they intend to unleash in March that'sgoing to do dynamic things for the province of British Columbia,perhaps then they could justify this lengthy holiday that they areplanning — this lengthy holiday in destinations unknown. If that'stheir objective, that's one thing, but I don't think it is. Byeverything we've seen — by their silence, their inattention and theirunwillingness to enter in this debate — we can only assume that theyhave nothing in mind at all. They have no positive programs or policiesoutlined and prepared for a legislative session, so they simply calledthis one to get the throne speech put aside.

Mr. Speaker, Iwant to know if the government can really justify calling this shortsession.to debate a shallow, empty document that did not do one thingto initiate a program.

MR. RITCHIE: Be nice.

[ Page 6777 ]

MR. KING:I'll be nice, Mr. Speaker. I'll say to the member that the thronespeech said some nice things. I'm not going to condemn it totally, butit didn't do anything. It didn' t do a thing. There was not one programinitiated that is going to affect the life or the circ*mstances of thewelfare of one British Columbian, be they a laid-off worker, ahomeowner facing onerous mortgage renewal costs or a small businessmanteetering on the brink of bankruptcy.

MR. HALL: Just political mercenaries from Ontario.

MR. KING:Yes, perhaps it benefited Mr. Kinsella and some of his colleagues whowere able to flee Ontario and find employment in British Columbia whenno one else can.

MR., HALL: Political mercenaries.

MR. KING: Political mercenaries indeed, but not very smart ones, my friend..

Idon't know what it costs to convene the Legislature and to bring all ofthe apparatus of the parliamentary process into play for a week oreight days, The Socreds at one time when they were in oppositioncriticized the New Democratic Party government for calling an emergencysession of the Legislature. They said: "It's too costly; you shouldnever have done it." At least we had something of an emergent nature todeal with, which we did. Mr. Speaker, we haven't dealt with onepositive program during the course of this short session. What canpossibly be the justification for the outlay of perhaps half a milliondollars?

MS. BROWN: For the ball alone. They came down here to dance.

MR. KING:I wonder if the government is planning another ball, at GovernmentHouse in March. The people of British Columbia have nothing to danceabout this year. Large numbers of the people of British Columbia canill afford workaday clothing and apparel, much less the fancy garb thatwould be necessary to rub shoulders with this gang of millionaires inGovernment House at the public expense. It's shocking and it'sdisgraceful.

I don't know what it costs. I don't think onecan put a price on the democratic process, but when the democraticprocess is prostituted and perverted by this sham of a throne speechand this short session, which accomplish nothing for people, then thatis not its intent — not at all. I say that it's a complete squanderingof public money. Wastrels, lazy at that, they're not prepared to putforward a program. The big-spending boys, the fat cats, are free withthe public coffers when it comes to their interests, but are tight whenit comes to working mothers with small children: "We'll cut back onthem." Typical millionaires: "Let the poor eat cake. We'll revel at thepublic trough. We'll put on a little charade of doing somethingpositive, at huge public expense. Not one effective program, then we'lladjourn and we'll run away and hide in the sun." Shocking! Scandalous!Lazy!

These are the ones who are fond of saying: "We wantpeople off welfare. We want them earning their livelihood." I say tothem: stay here; earn your livelihood; bring in some programs forpeople.

The maverick from Omineca indeed! Represent yourriding. Represent your constituents. Demonstrate that you're preparedto work, like you're so fond of saying you are, through you, Mr.Speaker.

I'm scandalized by it all. I want to tell you, Mr.Speaker, that W.A.C. Bennett would never have done anything like this.W.A.C. Bennett, as much as we disagreed with his policies, was a hardworker and a compassionate politician. He wasn't prepared to turn hisback on the people of British Columbia in dire need, in their moment ofcrisis. How can you ignore these people who are being drummed out oftheir homes? The people who are having a field day today are yourfriends, the millionaires and the sheriffs. They're the ones who arehaving the field day, at the expense of human suffering. They revelhere in luxury, and then want to run off and hide, without doing oneiota of work on behalf of the public. Shame on them!

Yes.,Mr. Speaker, it makes me angry. I talked earlier in the briefopportunity I had in question period about the matter of a bridge in myriding that is a danger to public health and public transportation. Anaccident occurred on it — a school bus with 45 pupils on board. Youknow what their answer was, Mr. Speaker? Condemn the bridge and run theschool bus around ten miles so that the kids have to get up an hourearlier and be an hour longer getting home. We can't afford a bridgefor public safety to get kids to school, but we want to pour hundredsof thousands into football stadiums for the friends of these people whocan afford to shell out that kind of money. It's public money you'redealing with.

When I see the basic services denied to myconstituents, yes, I get angry! And then when I see a government that'sso damnably lazy, Mr. Speaker, that they're not prepared to stay hereand come to grips with these real problems that I want to makerepresentations to them on, then I find that they are anti-democraticand they have no conception whatsoever of what their public obligationis.

This is the most shameful, shocking, scandalously lazyband of coalition politicians that I've ever seen put togetheranywhere, a rag-tag bunch of political opportunists who haven't got anounce of human compassion within their veins. Leave the people tosuffer!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I know the hon.member feels very strongly about the contents of his debate, butnevertheless the English language is rich and expressive in descriptivelanguage and vocabulary, and I think we don't have to resort toexpletives or other terms which might be considered offensive in publicspeaking. I would recommend the same to the member.

MR. KING:Mr. Speaker, if I've uttered any epithet which is offensive to anymember of the House, I certainly apologize. I felt my language wassingularly moderate, quite frankly, because my feelings are a good dealmore intense. But far be it from me to insult anyone; that's not myobjective.

On previous occasions I've appealed with everydegree of reason I've had and it's fallen on deaf ears. I'm trying todrive home now as forcefully as I can, Mr. Speaker, the need to respondto the problems that people are having out in the communities. It's notjust in my area. It's certainly in the north: the town of Terrace,totally reliant on the forest industry, without jobs, without hope forthis winter.

Are they really satisfied to leave people athome languishing on unemployment insurance and social assistance whenthey could introduce a program to put those people to work in aproductive way in intensive silviculture in our forest industry forvery little cost and for massive advantage in terms of production?

[ Page 6778 ]

Theysay they're against laziness. They say they're against idleness. Theysay they're for productivity. Mr. Speaker, their lack of action andtheir lack of imagination belies those statements.

Mr.Speaker, if they don't understand what is needed, if they have no idea,please let's get together and consult. We'll go to the office of theleader of the opposition and we'll sit down and design a programtogether as legislators, rather than party politicians, that would givesome hope to people for the coming very difficult, very bleak wintermonths. What's wrong with that?

You've subjected the publicto the high cost of calling this institution together. You've producednothing, not an iota of anything positive. The people are inidentically the same position they were in the day before we arrivedhere.

It angers one. From a group who like to suggest thatthey are the doers and the movers and the shakers, that they have somebusiness acumen.... Well, they don't. They're willing to leave peopleat home, getting paid unemployment insurance to sit in idleness — whichthose workers don't want to do. They have a mind. They have anintellect. They have an ego. They'd rather work.

Why not setup a program of tree-thinning? We need that in our forest industry. Theminister is saying we're going to be short of timber inside of 15years. Okay, here's a perfect opportunity. Thousands of people areunemployed, and they know something about the forest industry. They'recommitted to it. What would it cost you to put them to work? It wouldonly cost you a couple of bucks more than to leave them sitting at homein idleness. You haven't got the brains to see that. The governmenthasn't got the brains, Mr. Speaker. I didn't mean the individuals; Imeant the government collectively.

I don't know what else to say. I'm very interested in listening to one of the government members get up and....

Interjections.

MR. KING: There's my old friend, Mr. Speaker. Someone let him out of his cave and he's here now to heckle.

Reallyit's not funny. It's incredibly discouraging and unfortunate that anygovernment, regardless of its party philosophy, would be so useless asto subject the public to the kinds of costs involved in calling thisLegislature together, and then fold up and steal away without doingsomething positive for the people, in one of the most difficulteconomic times we've faced in many years. If this is your decision, andif by the weight of your majority you are intent on proceeding downthis road, I predict that it's going to come back and haunt you. Thepeople will forgive many things, but they will not forgive anyone,particularly publicly elected people, for abandoning them when theyneed help most. They will not forgive the waste of money for a foolishruse, which up to this point is all this current session can becategorized as. They certainly will not forgive a government thatabandons them and runs away and hides at a time when they needassistance. They need inspiration and they need help and direction froma government more than they've ever needed it since the 1930s.

It'sabsolutely shocking and scandalous that this government wouldcontemplate folding up, stealing away and going about their business,whatever it may be, without respect to their public obligation to cometo this Legislature, debate and put forward positive programs on behalfof the people in British Columbia who are hurting desperately tonight.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:Mr. Speaker, it's been a while since we've heard so much debate on amotion to adjourn. I was hoping perhaps we might receive someconvincing argument from the members as to why we ought to carry on. Ihadn't heard it during the throne speech debate, so I was certainlylooking forward to some hint as to what in fact might be offered bymembers of the opposition as alternatives or approaches that might bedeveloped other than those which the government is actively andforcefully involved in now.

I listened to the member forShuswap-Revelstoke go on at great length. I thought perhaps I couldgather some indication as to how or why we might continue with thesession as we now see it. But no., nothing came. I must confess thatperhaps as one of the government members who practically lives in thebuildings, and spends 15 or 16 hours a day, day after day, here anyway,I thought maybe this session, as we've seen the opposition perform,could offer some comic relief. Perhaps in that respect I had a bit ofbias when considering the motion. But, again, I thought about whatwe've seen happening.

Even though members of the oppositionare for the most part resident in Victoria and occasionally travel backto their constituencies, I know that their attendance during these lastten days, as the record will indicate when you check the votes, hasbeen horrible. Even the members who live here all the time andoccasionally travel back to their constituencies.... This has got somemembers on their side into some bad trouble. Unfortunately, theirleader recently had to go to Rossland-Trail to try to keep their forcestogether, because their member had no credibility with the constituencyassociation. After all, he only goes back now and again. I don't knowwhere he is the other times. He's obviously not here. That sort ofattendance from the other side has been typical. And then, I thoughtperhaps....

MR. LEGGATT: On a point of order, I'mwondering if the first member for Surrey could explain to you, Mr.Speaker, whether what he said is in any way relevant to the motion onthe floor, which deals with the question of whether we should or shouldnot adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the debate onmotions is much more restricted than the general debate on the addressin reply or on the debate in Committee of Supply. It is strictlyrelevant to the proposition within the motion itself. I might furthersuggest that Sir Erskine May says that matters which have already beendiscussed, either in debate in supply or on the address, may not beraised in the motion for adjournment after the hour of interruptionthat evening, and that's where we are.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:Mr. Speaker, in considering whether in fact I should be supporting thismotion or voting against it, I certainly have to keep in mind whatevercontribution might have been provided, if we were to continue, by theLeader of the Opposition. But again, unfortunately — and I'm verypleased to see that he's here now — he's missed so much of the last tendays that I really couldn't count on that in my consideration ofwhether I should support or not support the motion. I realize that's aproblem, and I thought about it a great deal more.

[ Page 6779 ]

TonightI saw on television the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi),who unfortunately is not here now, speaking about books. He's not herenow, and I don't think he was here this afternoon. I don't recall whenhe was last here, although I understand he lives in Victoria. I wouldexpect him to be here for this debate, and certainly I would haveexpected him during the throne speech debate, so that perhaps he mighthave given me some clue as to why we ought to continue with thissession. Because if continuing could be of real benefit to the peopleof British Columbia, I would be the first to support it.

AsI watched the member on television tonight very briefly I was remindedabout another television show on CKVU on November 20, 1981 — just a fewweeks back. This is where I saw a picture of a group of Douglas Collegestudents padlocking the administration offices of a school. Iremembered this incident as I was attempting to make up my mind as towhether I might go on speaking with respect to this motion. Thesestudents were protesting budget cuts in response to the federal budget,but they were saying that we're only doing this in advance of whatgovernment is trying to do because somehow, perhaps, they thought thatthe provincial government would suddenly latch on the example given bythe federal government and all would end for the college students.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Theywere representing this, and then suddenly, as big as life on thetelevision screen, appeared the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam. Hemet with the college students and said: "There's one thing they" — thatis, the government — "react to, and that is protest. They'll react toprotest." It struck me as strange, because in my mind I immediatelyrelated this to the protests in front of the buildings, at the Hyattconvention and in various parts of the cities where people are gettingtogether and carrying signs on different issues. And I thought: is thismember encouraging this, or is he really telling me that he's beendoing this all along and that he might have been a part of.... Maybe,as somebody suggested, in part these protests were orchestrated by theNDP. Perhaps that's a part of the strategy. I put this out of my mind,because I thought: no matter what party or what their politicalphilosophy, they could not possibly be that irresponsible.

However,then I was really struck by the following comment, the shocking,shocking comment made by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam. Themember said: "If enough students could get over to Victoria next week,maybe you could lock the doors of the Legislature." Can you imaginethat? This is the same member that represents the same group over therewhich wants to go on with the debate. One of their members said to- agroup of students on television: "Let's lock the Legislature." That'sdemocracy? They call themselves the New Democratic Party? If that's newdemocracy, I want no part of it. No British Columbian wants any part ofit. Is that new democracy? Are those the new democrats? Is that whatthey've got to offer? Is that all they've got to contribute to the tendays that we've spent, in which time they had a perfect opportunity toaddress many issues of concern to all British Columbians? That's theonly suggestion they had to make: padlock the doors, shut the place,and have some protests. Is that the NDP approach to government for thepeople of British Columbia?

I couldn't believe it. Ithought, when the session starts, I'm sure the Leader of the Oppositionwill come in and apologize for the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.Obviously there ought to be some explanation. Day after day I look atthat chair in which the Leader of the Opposition is supposed to besitting, and he's not there. He's someplace else. I don't know where heis. He lives close by. He could be here, but no, I guess he's just athome. Maybe he was sleeping. Now that could be it. But he wasn't here.So anyway, I thought maybe he'll come in towards the end. He did comein. I saw him today. I knew where he was at one point. Hon. member, Iknew where you were at one point. I heard you said someplace thatfarmers were real estate people. So I know you were someplace at onepoint. So I take back that I didn't know where you were all of thetime, hon. leader.

But he did come in. Then all day he's inand out and he never speaks. He never says a thing. Can you imagine?When there are so many things of concern to all British Columbians,when the people are looking for leadership, not only from thegovernment.... Obviously, as a part of the process, we expectconstructive suggestions from the members of the opposition. Butnothing happens, nothing is said, no alternative.

The memberfor Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) made a great speech, and went on for45 minutes. He called everybody names and said things that I'm sure hemight regret. Another member from the other side only aped what hadbeen said by the president of the Federation of Labour, Mr. Kinnaird.He said there are a bunch of right-wing thugs. That was repeated today.So I suppose perhaps somehow there may be some connection there, buteven that spiritual leader of the NDP, Mr. Kinnaird.... Maybe he's thereal leader, eh? Could be. Maybe we found the real leader, Mr.Kinnaird. My goodness, it suddenly occurred to me. I've been figuringout who the leader of that group might be. Maybe it's Mr. Kinnaird.

Soanyway, I thought perhaps Mr. Kinnaird, the spiritual leader, will giveus some advice. Maybe he will have some alternatives. Maybe he'll havesome suggestions that could be of benefit to British Columbians. Butno, their spiritual leader said nothing either. So we've seen nothing.We've had nothing.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, it's been a realproblem for me making up my mind as to how I might present thearguments, because, frankly, I would love to go on, if somehow in goingon we could seek from them some proposals that could in some way assisteven one British Columbian — one solitary British Columbian. Nothing'shappened.

So I thought perhaps the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, when he suggested we lock up the place....

Obviouslywe could have no session at all if we locked up the place. That wouldgive them a permanent holiday. They could stay in their homes inVictoria for a long time. Maybe that's what they were seeking. But thatmember that wanted to lock the doors — I thought of his neighbouringmember, the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt). I thought maybehe would have something to contribute to the debate, and perhaps Ishould consider which way I may go on this particular motion, becausethere's always a chance that the member for Coquitlam-Moody hassomething to offer.

I've been listening all of these days,and I still don't hear anything from the member for Coquitlam. Then Igo through some of my papers and find out maybe why it is. The

[ Page 6780 ]

possibilityof getting some contribution from the member for Coquitlam if we go onhas been shattered after I see this article in one of the newspapers.You know, I'm sure this article must be accurate. It has his pictureand it says: "Stu Leggatt is Man — Barrett's Successor?" Then it opensup, so now my hopes are really shattered. As a contribution to thisdebate, I certainly want to tell you what it is he said as it wasreported. It says: "For a guy who is being touted as the eventualsuccessor to Dave Barrett, Coquitlam-Moody MLA Stu Leggatt showedprecious little in a small crowd of some 50 people at Echo CentreWednesday night. It was a speech peppered with collegiate socialism andnot one concerned much with economic alternatives."

So, youknow, there is the man whom they see as the successor to the existingleader of the New Democratic Party, and I'm looking to that man tofollow the present leader of the New Democratic Party, a leader who hasoffered nothing and who has lost all credibility with by far themajority of all people in the whole of British Columbia. Only thestaunchest of die-hard socialists would ever think of supporting him.Obviously any good-thinking CCFer would have no part of him or part ofthem. So I'm thinking maybe their new leader — not the spiritual leaderI mentioned earlier, but the new leader for Coquitlam-Moody — hassomething. So then he makes a speech peppered with collegiate socialismand not one concern with economic alternatives. So now I'm reallyworried because there he's addressing a total NDP audience — the wholeof the NDP group remaining in Alberni, 50 people — and he can't evenoffer much there. As I go on reading the article I'm saying: "Hey, youknow, maybe there is a chance if we continue that we'll hear somethingyet."

So I'm reading what it says about the member forAlberni (Mr. Skelly): "Skelly pumped his brainstorm, a wood-firedthermo-generating plant for the valley. He also ridiculed localpoliticians vying for civic seats and went out of his way to insult thevalley chamber of commerce." What do I do now? My goodness, what ahope. What do we do?

So really, Mr. Speaker, I'm stillwondering where I might go on this motion with respect to adjourningthe House. Now I see that the majority of them are gone most of thetime, even though they live in Victoria. When they come in here theyspend very little.... At one point today, Mr. Speaker, much to mysorrow, they had one member in the House — one member, that's thetruth. O-n-e — I'm spelling it for the benefit of the opposition — uno,one, one only. Do you know the surprising part of it? Would youbelieve...? Hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. co*cke), you probablywon't believe this either. Do you know who he was? The guy whom Iaccused earlier today of being out there polishing his Mercedes, thefirst member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). I take it all back; hewas out there. He was there all by his lonely self.

So again I'm wondering if we really should continue this when only one of their members has enough interest in the debate. Is it worth continuing when only one of their members remains in the House and all the rest of the troops have taken off? They're taking an afternoon nap. They've gone back to their home someplace in Victoria. I don't know what they were doing, but obviously they were not around. There was one member in the House. Maybe that's never happened before in this House, I don't know. I don't recall things ever being that bad. This is the last day in the debate, when we're looking to the opposition for some alternatives, some suggestions, some recommendations — not a lot of name-calling, not a lot of nonsense, not a lot of frivolous stuff, but something concrete, something that you could really get your teeth into, something that would make you want to stay on and on, because while we have a lot of work as members in government and while we spend many, many hours day after day in these buildings, it's good to get advice from others. We should always be prepared to accept good alternatives, good recommendations.

I'mstill very benevolent. I'm still wanting to somehow give them thebenefit of the doubt, because I appreciate that our system must somehowprovide for a constructive opposition. That is good. That makes for ahealthy system. I'm hoping that somehow, if we persist, and wecontinually attempt to draw out some suggestions by telling it like itis with respect to the economic development and the wonderful thingsthat have been happening in British Columbia; if we could somehowinform the opposition that there's more to British Columbia thanVictoria or downtown Vancouver; if we could somehow inform theopposition of the diversity and the development that is taking place inthe north, in the northwest, in the northeast, in the southeast; if wecould somehow show the opposition that British Columbia is a positiveplace full of potential, with plenty of opportunities.... It's awonderful province that we shouldn't be negative about. There arepeople here that can do things, people here that can make things happenwithout government. If we could convince the opposition of that, if wecould get them thinking positively, maybe we should go on. Maybe therecould be some constructive suggestions. But there's nothing.

Iwas hoping the Leader of the Opposition would be here. I was so sad hemissed all of these days, because I was thinking that perhaps he wouldelaborate on a suggestion that certainly caught the attention of allBritish Columbians. He said: "When the mills go broke and the mines gobankrupt, we'll buy them up. We'll take them over." He would have themall go broke and take them over. That's his answer. Now there obviouslymust be better suggestions. Their leader could not have been serious. Iwas hoping perhaps maybe the second man in charge, the member forCoquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), might give some explanation for hisleader's statement. Or maybe we could hear from their spiritual leader.But anyway, nothing happened. I didn't get an explanation as to why thepeople of British Columbia would pool their tax dollars to buy thelosers. I just didn't get an explanation for that.

So timewent by, and I thought perhaps the Leader of the Opposition, if hedoesn't want to give an explanation for that, would maybe tell us abouthis interest subsidy program, where he was going to take a billiondollars the first year and a billion dollars the second year and abillion dollars the third year and a billion dollars the fourth andfifth years. All these billions of dollars, and he was somehow going todevise an interest subsidy program.

"We'll fixthose bad old banks and finance companies." And I'm not saying they'revery good; I wish you would have elaborated on that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Hey, I can certainly sympathize. "We'll fix them. We'll take the tax dollars. We'll take the taxpayers' money. We'll just somehow gather billions of dollars from the taxpayers and we'll devise a program, a good NDP program."

[ Page 6781 ]

Hesaid: "Well, maybe we could get all of these billions of dollars byputting a few cents on every bottle of booze." Can you imagine thebooze we'd have to consume? I mean, I just don't know. The distillerieswould have an awful time keeping up. Obviously we'd have a goodindustry making booze. I'll tell you, that would suddenly become thebiggest industry in the world. With a few cents on every bottle, you'dhave to make a lot of booze to keep up with it.

Maybe he wassomehow going to get into that business too. Probably not, though,because it makes money. No, I can't see him getting into that.

Butyou see, Mr. Speaker, again no positive suggestions, no concretealternatives, nothing at all, Nothing's happened. So they've beenrather sad days, and we certainly had every opportunity to speak duringthese past ten days and provide some alternative suggestions. There'sso much good could come from helpful debate, and now we're discussingthe motion whether we adjourn or don't adjourn. I suppose, looking atit from a personal point of view — and all members of government arespending their time here anyway, instead of perhaps working on thevarious programs, getting ready for when we meet again — we couldpossibly come back to this House day after day. If only I could beassured that there might be something positive, I would be very pleasedto support that. But after ten days of nothing, after ten days of nosuggestions — ten days of opportunity for the opposition to bring forthsome alternatives, to zero in on some of the problems as they affectBritish Columbians, the most outstanding suggestion, the one that willbe remembered most as having come from the opposition, was in fact noteven made in this chamber.

Lock the Legislature. Shut theplace up. We don't need a Legislature — have some protests, put thechains and padlock on the door of the Legislature. I truly hope thatBritish Columbians won't forget that sort of statement, because it'sperhaps indicative of some of the attitudes that we've seen displayedby members of the opposition.

Can you imagine when, on theone hand, I hear from the opposition the argument that we ought tocontinue — though they've contributed nothing — and on the other hand,I hear the member who's conveniently missing tonight say: "Lock theplace, padlock it.... If enough students could get over to Victorianext week, maybe you could lock the doors of the Legislature. Is that aresponsible statement from a member elected to the Legislature ofBritish Columbia? Terrible! Shame, shame, shame! I would hope that thefirst member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) — you live in Victoria,but you're originally from Vancouver East — I would hope that theLeader of the Opposition will get up and explain for the member forMaillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) what it is that he intended here,why it is that on the one hand they want to lock the doors and on theother hand they're now debating to continue on. Mr. Speaker, as I tryto make up my mind on this particular motion, I can't help but thinkthat maybe the reason they want to go on is that they've been caught.They did not contribute. Their leader did not speak in the debate andall British Columbians must be aware of that. He did not speak in thethrone speech debate. Shame, shame, shame!

Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry to say that I can in no way support this motion.

MS. BROWN:On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to express my most profoundthanks to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for describing the last tendays as accurately as possible: ten days of nothing. That's preciselywhat it was, Now after ten days of nothing, that minister, the personwho insisted that every person in British Columbia should be given ashovel so that they could go out and work, wants to pick up hispaycheque and slither off to his lettuce patch and not do the nation'sbusiness. Then he complains about the member forMaillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) wanting to lock him into theLegislature, so that we can get some work out of that lazy, shiftlessgovernment over there.

I have no choice but to speak againstthis motion. Earlier this afternoon, when the Premier was in his place,before he went home to bed early tonight, he said that what hisgovernment wants for this province is work and wages for the people,not waste and welfare. I think we're going to have to start by gettingthem off welfare.

Earlier this month in a column in hisnewspaper, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kemp) congratulated the Ministerof Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) for getting the bums offwelfare.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: We'regoing to start with him. We're going to start by getting that bum offwelfare. I do not know one single income assistance recipient in thisprovince who would have the gall to put in ten days of nothing, asdescribed by one of his colleagues, and would want to pick up apaycheque and go home for another two or three months, and think thathe had earned it. I don't know one income assistance recipient whowould dare do that — living off the public purse; come down here,dressed up in his tuxedo, dancing at Government House, pick up hischeque, and then off for a holiday. Well, the opposition came here towork, and we're going to stay here and work. If they don't want towork, they can go home. They can do their holidaying. They can goelsewhere.

I can't believe it. I'm not even going to quotethat minister any further — the one who went around this province,talking about deadbeats, lazy people and shiftless people, and tryingto move the income assistance recipients from the rural areas to thecity, from the city to the rural areas, shifting them back and forth.King PREP. Who remembers PREP? Can anyone forget PREP? PREP wassupposed to find work for people who didn't want to work. We need PREPnow for that minister over there. We're not going to have him rushingaround at the taxpayers' expense and picking lettuce all over the placewhen he should be here. I don't know what he's going to do with thelettuce, but whatever it is he's going to stay here and work.

TheMinister of Human Resources, in an article in April 1980, said: "Thewelfare problems of this province could be solved if only the clientswould go to work." That's right. We could solve the welfare problems ifonly the clients would go to work. I can tell you that every singleclient — all 60,000 of them — would take on that job today, if theythought they could get her kind of salary for six days' work.

Ibelieve that charity should begin at home. I believe it should startright here. We should set an example. The government that said to thesingle parent, "Unless you are lactating, get to work, " shouldthemselves, unless they are lactating, get to work.

Interjection.

[ Page 6782 ]

MS. BROWN:I don't know what their excuse is. I don't know what the excuse of theMinister of Municipal Affairs is — why he doesn't want to stay here andwork. Or the member for Omineca, who was so thrilled that the Ministerof Human Resources was going to be getting bums off of welfare; or theminister of methane over there — what's his excuse? We don't know whatthe methane minister's excuse is.

The Premier is at home inbed. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) is at home in bed. TheMinister of Human Resources is at home in bed. The Provincial Secretary(Hon. Mr. Wolfe) is at home in bed. The Minister of Finance is at homein bed. Highways is home in bed. Municipal Affairs has now gone home tobed. Energy is at home in bed. I don't know why they call it energy,but anyway, he is at home in bed. Let the record show they're allsleeping.

I'm telling you that even if we were tempted to gohome and go to bed ourselves, we can't do it because the Minister ofHuman Resources said in the Times-Colonist not more than two orthree days ago that any welfare mother who would rather stay home withher child than go to work does not have a leg to stand on. Singleparents with children six months of age or over — they can't go home.They can't put in six days of work or ten days of nothing, pick up apaycheque and then go off on holiday until March. No, they can't dothat. Once a month they have to trot down to the welfare office andsay: "I have been looking for work. I have been unable to find work,because that lazy government hasn't created any jobs for us. Thereforewill you please, for one more month, give me that lousy cheque that Ihave to live on." That's the kind of thing that the opposition is notprepared to allow you to go home and continue to let happen in thisprovince.

In a page 5 article in the Sun the Ministerof Human Resources says there is an alternative to welfare. It's abeautiful article. The headline is: "There is an Alternative toWelfare." Have you got the slightest idea what that alternative is, Mr.Speaker?

MR. BARRETT: Get elected as a Socred.

MS. BROWN:That's what they'd like to think. But the alternative that the ministerput forward to the welfare recipients was work. I think that thatgovernment should explore that alternative themselves. I think theyshould get some work done. We came here with a number of issues that wethought the government was prepared to address itself to.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Name one.

MS. BROWN:Pharmacare. That's the first one I'm going to talk about. The Ministerof Human Resources stood on the floor of this House and said: "Youdidn't tell the world about the great program of Pharmacare which wehave."

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That was number one.

MS. BROWN:I am not finished with Pharmacare, Mr. Prep. The golden shovel shovelsand having shovelled moves on. No way! You're going to stay here, Mr.Prep, until we get this thing done.

Pharmacare. What do wehear about that great program? Last year they discovered that theaverage person on Pharmacare submitted a bill for $130, which meantthat the government had to cough up $30 for each of the 200,000 peoplewho put in a claim for Pharmacare. Do you know how they dealt withthat, Mr. Speaker? Do you know how that wonderful, wise, kind, lazy,shiftless, indolent government dealt with that? They raised the base by$25, so that this time all they have to pay, rather than $30, is fivelousy, measly bucks. And they have the nerve to stand around for tendays of nothing and brag about that great program of Pharmacare. Makingmoney off the backs of the poor — that's what your government hasalways done. That's your trademark.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN:I'm not through with Pharmacare yet. You are very uncomfortable when Ipoint out that these programs that you go around bragging about andcall universal, when you're through putting them into place, don'tbenefit anybody but yourselves. That's what's wrong with your universalprograms. The government's going to start making money from Pharmacare.The government's going to start making money off the backs of the poorso that you lazy, indolent people over there can put in ten days ofnothing, pick up your paycheques and go on holidays for three months.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN:Mr. Speaker, it's okay if he interrupts me; I can understand hisdiscomfort, because now the truth is coming out, and he doesn't want todeal with the truth.

In 1975, before the NDP was defeated, they increased the GAIN, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: How would you know? You'd be too lazy even to find out.

Mr.Speaker, GAIN was $38.88 for every person who needed that supplement.The GAIN supplement, when they came in in 1976, was $38.88. What do youthink it is today, Mr. Speaker, on December 1, 1981, when they're aboutto take off on their four-month holiday? What do you think theirsupplement is today? It is $38.88, exactly what it was at the end of1975. And the Minister of Human Resources had the gall to stand on thefloor of this House and say that they've raised the bus passes becausethe bus passes have never been raised before, and the senior citizensare living in the lap of luxury and so they should be able to handle anincrease in the bus pass.

They haven't increased thesupplement that they pay to the senior citizens, but they've certainlyincreased every charge that they've ever placed on the senior citizens.You know what the senior citizens are doing? For the first time in thehistory of this province, there are more senior citizens leaving thisprovince than coming into it. Now that should tell you something. Youngpeople always leave the province looking for work, because they knowthat this government is too lazy to create any jobs. The young peoplehave always had to leave this province. The seniors used to stay, butthey're not staying any more. They can't hack the increases. They can'tafford the increases in utilities, in their heating, in their housing.

There'sa little cafeteria, Mr. Speaker, called "The 44," which is specificallydesigned to feed people who are in receipt of the GAIN supplements orincome assistance or on fixed income of some sort. They've increasedthe cost of food to those people. The Minister of Human Resources, whenshe

[ Page 6783 ]

justifiedthat, said the same thing: the food hasn't been increased in a longtime. But neither has GAIN. They have not received one single increasesince they came into office in 1976. Can the Minister say the samething about the perks and the benefits that the minister receives? Canshe?

If she had to make do with her 1976 salary, would shebe taking off on a four-month holiday now after ten days of nothing?Would she? No, she wouldn't.

Mr. Speaker, if that governmentis serious, as the Premier said, about work and wages rather thanwelfare, if that minister is serious about putting everybody to work....

The greatest waste....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it's incumbent on us to remain with the subject matter before us.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:Mr. Speaker, please hear me out without the interruptions from theother side. There is every opportunity to discuss the estimates for theMinister of Human Resources when they come before the House, andcertainly now is not the time to get into the estimates of the Ministryof Human Resources. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you keep the hon.members in order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon.members. Again, it might be an appropriate time just to refreshourselves with the actual motion before us. May I just briefly read itfor the benefit of all. The motion is:

"...that the house at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker or the Deputy Speaker, after consultation with the government that the public interest requires that the House shall meet. Mr. Speaker or the Deputy Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated on such notice and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time."

Hon.members, that is the motion before us. We must not allow ourselves toenter the same latitude of debate that we had in the throne speech, orthe debates that have just gone by. I would ask all members to bearthat in mind, as both the present member and the previous speaker havedone.

MS. BROWN: I will certainly carry on in thefootsteps of the speaker who spoke before me, because I know he didn'tgo out of order even once. So I will certainly follow his example andstick to the motion, which is the reason why we must not adjourn. Wecannot adjourn, because the work that we came here to do has not beencompleted. As much as we regret the demonstration of laziness on thepart of the government, as much as we regret their inability toconcentrate for longer than six days on anything, and despite the factthat we recognize that they really would like to get started on theirfour-month holiday, we cannot permit that to happen, because the peopleof British Columbia have work that must be done, and it has to be doneby the members of this House. So we're just going to have to carry on.

Inspeaking to this motion, I can only address myself to the issues whichI came here to work on and the issues which I came here to raise, andwhich must be raised before this House is adjourned. They are thereasons why I am speaking against this motion to adjourn.

Mr.Speaker, I was talking about the senior citizens who sent us here towork and fight on their behalf. The first point I raised had to do withthe Pharmacare program, which is now going to penalize them, and onwhich the government will make money. The second point I want to raiseis the SAFER program. In each of these, I want to reiterate that thegovernment goes around talking about the universality of theseprograms; how universal they are; how they help so many people and theydo so many things. In fact, when you get to look at the programs, youfind that that's not what is happening after all. Look at the budgetfor SAFER in 1978 and 1979. It was $12.2 million. In 1979 and 1980 itdropped to $9 million. In 1981 and 1982 it's still $9 million. Why isthat? Because, for one thing, SAFER doesn't kick in until a seniorcitizen is paying more than 30 percent of their lousy benefit on rent.They don't get any assistance at all until they're paying more than 30percent of their benefit on rent. Secondly, the base at which SAFERkicks in does not have any relationship whatsoever with the actual rentthat seniors have to pay.

The House cannot adjourn until wepay attention to the kinds of things that the Council of SeniorCitizens organization in B.C. are saying. They have called upon thegovernment to re-examine SAFER so that senior citizens do not have topay more than 25 percent of their income on rent. I remind you againthat the federal government has an incremental increase in terms ofwhat the senior citizens receive, but the provincial government has notgiven the senior citizens of this province one red cent over the $38.88since they came into government in 1976. Chuck Bayley himself wrote inan article in Primetime in April of this year in the Vancouver Sunthat Safer was becoming less and less helpful because the number ofpeople who are eligible under the formula lagged far behind the actualrents. The problem is that rent goes up, but SAFER doesn't kick in tohelp.

It is easy for a government to create a program whichgives some level of assistance. The fact that the amount and currentrates don't bear much relation over time to the reality is hidden bythe political posturing of the Minister of Human Resources and hercolleagues, who go around and talk about the brilliant programs and thewonderful things this government is doing for the senior citizens. Infact, in 1980 there were 13,000 people who were in receipt of SAFER,and this year it's down to something like 866 couples and something inthe neighbourhood of less than 10,000 single people.

Thesenior citizens recognize that, and it's because the senior citizensrecognize that, Mr. Speaker, that they are leaving the province. Ithink it is disgraceful at a time when our senior citizens are beingpenalized. They cannot make ends meet when they're finding inflation —increases in the cost of housing, food, transportation and utilities —deliberately brought on by this government. All of these increases aremaking it impossible for them to make do on that lousy $38.88. Thisgovernment has the gall to come here, Mr. Speaker, and spend ten daysdoing nothing. As the Minister of Municipal Affairs said: "Go to a ballat Government House, dress up in their tuxedos, pick up their paychequeand tell the world that they're going on holidays for four months." Wecannot tolerate that; that is just not good enough. It's not just thatthey're lazy, but they also lack compassion. They have no carewhatsoever for the people in this province, who unlike themselves....And the Minister for Municipal Affairs now goes home to bed. He saidhis two bits and he goes home to bed. How many senior citizens cannotsleep

[ Page 6784 ]

tonight,Mr. Speaker? How many senior citizens cannot sleep tonight, becausethis government is shutting up shop and going on holidays for fourmonths and not addressing themselves to the fact that they are askingfor that amendment to the act to be brought in so that senior citizensdon't have to pay more than 25 percent of their income on rent.

Whatpercentage of income do any of those government members pay on rent? Doany of those government members pay 25 percent of their income on rent?No, and that's the reason, Mr. Speaker, that they can take a four-monthholiday. They can take off for four months in the sun, in the lettucepatch, up north, down south or wherever. They can take off for fourmonths because none of them have to put up 25 percent of their incomefor rent.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Aquarter of a million dollar house on Rockland Avenue? Well, he probablyneeds a four-month holiday to recover from that, so we can understandit.

But you know, Mr. Speaker, I'm prepared to stay here andwork; I came here to work. I'm not satisfied with the ten days ofnothing that we just went through. That's the reason I'm not supportingthis motion. You should be fighting with your government on behalf ofyour colleagues in the IWA. That's what you should be doing. Instead ofthat you're voting yourself a four-month holiday. There are 15,000colleagues out of work and you're going on a four-month holiday? Mr.Speaker, I know that 15,000 of your colleagues are not out of work.They're here, aren't they? But 15,000 of the colleagues of the memberfor Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) are, and that member is voting himself afour-month holiday after six days work and ten days of nothing.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Anyway,I'm still speaking on behalf of the senior citizens, Mr. Speaker,because there is no one here — certainly not on the government side —who is prepared to speak on behalf of them. The SAFER program was justthe beginning. You know, the senior citizens asked for increases in theSAFER benefits. They asked that SAFER benefits not be cut off from onespouse just because the other spouse had died. Do you know what theygot? They got a telephone service. Now they have a phone to phone inand say....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN:That's right. The number is no longer in service, not for four monthsanyway. This line is out of order until March 1. That's what they'llget when they phone that information service. So all the complaintsthat they have about the bus pass and the lack of increase in theirGAIN and about the SAFER and Pharmacare and all those other expensescan't be dealt with until that bunch of dilettantes over there comeback from their four-month holiday — all brown as nuts from theirfour-month holiday in the sun, Mr. Speaker. We really can't supportthis. Even the auditor-general isn't taking a holiday.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: She works; that's right.

Theauditor-general was so concerned about the Ministry of Human Resourcesthat in her report tabled in this House in March 1980 she voiced anumber of serious concerns about the way in which the income assistanceprogram was being run and about the on-line computer system there. Inthe report she tabled in the House, the minister responded by sayingthat a formal view of the income assistance computer system has beencarried out by consultants, and this report was going to be completedby October. We anticipated that it would be released in October.October came and October went. November came and November is gone.December is here, and we understand that everyone is getting ready togo home and won't be back until March. What's happening to thatauditors' report? When is it going to be tabled in this House? Theminister has it. I know the minister has it. Why hasn't that reportbeen tabled in the House? We can't pick up and go on a four-monthholiday until we find out what the auditors had to say in that report.

Iwonder if one of the reasons the minister hasn't tabled that report isthat the main findings and recommendations of the Currie, Coopers andLybrand management audit of the on-line income assistance system are:

1.The objectives and goals of the system are not clear; the majorfeatures desired by the district offices have been omitted — furtherbungling and incompetence on the part of that lazy and inept ministerand her government.

2. This finding was that the best use ofthe currently available technology has not been made — further bunglingon the part of that inept and lazy government and minister.

MR. SPEAKER:Order, please, hon. member. Standing orders and the precedents of thisHouse, which you have placed in my hands in order to assist you in yourdebate, say: "It is not in order to go into subjects in any detail.They can only be advanced as reasons for not adjourning." I'm waitingto hear some more reasons, rather than some more detail.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you that I'm not going into details. I'm just touching on the findings. First of all....

Ican't believe this. Mr. Speaker, there are only six government memberswho are not home in bed. There are only six government members stillawake, still around, still in this House. Of the cabinet ministers,there are only three here — who shall remain nameless. All the othershave left, at a time when we are finding out from the auditors' reportabout the bungling going on in the Ministry of Human Resources, when weare finding out about the problems of senior citizens, when I'm aboutto talk about the problems of the disabled, to say nothing of theproblems of infants being kicked off Human Resources because they'reover six months of age. There are only six government members in theHouse. There are only six government members working. They're not evenworking, because one is rubbing his eyes and the other is sleeping.

However,the auditors' report on the on-line system said that the Ministry ofHuman Resources is not organized to get the job done. The lines ofaccountability, the roles of personnel, and responsibility for controlof the project are unclear. That's the reason the report has not beentabled in the House. It has been devastating. It has been an indictmentof the ineptness, incompetence and bungling that goes on in thatMinistry of Human Resources.

[ Page 6785 ]

Somethingyou also may not know is that, in fact, the Minister of Human Resourceshas already wired the system in order for it to be in place. Money hasalready been spent thousands upon thousand of dollars to put thison-line computer system in place, which the auditors now tell us is notable to do the job. They recommend that it is not designed toaccommodate the needs of the user to the level possible, and that theministry should redivide the project organization and relatedaccountability. Do you know what the ministry has done, based on theserecommendations? After spending thousands of dollars putting the systeminto place — having it audited, being told that it was totally out oforder and that it wasn't doing the job — they have scrapped it. Mr.Speaker, I don't know, but I want to remind you that in this article inthe Vancouver Sun of Saturday, November 28 the minister said:"In times of ever-increasing costs it is essential that my ministrytake a hard, look at how it spends taxpayers' dollars to ensure thatthey will go where they will do the most good." Putting in an on-linecomputer system costing thousands of dollars and then scrapping it....Would you say, Mr. Speaker, that that was being careful with thetaxpayers' dollars? Would you say that was taking a hard look at howthe taxpayers' dollars were being spent? Would you say that that wasensuring that the taxpayers' dollars were going where they would makeand do the most good? As I said, I am not going to table the report. Iam not going to discuss the report, because that's not allowed and Idon't want to be out of order.

But I do want to bring toyour attention that I cannot vote for adjournment until March untilwe've cleared up this issue. We have to find out from that minister howmuch money was spent on the wiring for that on-line system. We want toknow what it costs and we want that translated, Mr. Speaker, into howmuch is being taken away from single parents to pay for that bungle.How many fifty-five dollars had to be sucked out of the pockets ofsingle parents to pay for that Human Resources bungle? How manythirty-five dollars had to be taken away from families on incomeassistance to pay for that Human Resources bungle? How many seniorcitizens had to pay the increase in their bus passes so that there wasenough money to cover the cost of that Human Resources bungle? Becauseyou know what happens when Human Resources bungles and wastes money,Mr. Speaker. The poor are the ones who pay for it, not the governmentmembers over there. They are the ones who pay for it — the seniorcitizens, the disabled, the infants over the age of six months and thesingle parents. They are the people who are being told that they mustgo to work so that the ministry can make money off their labours to payfor this kind of bungling.

After the auditor-general broughtin her report, the ministry assured us that a study was being done thatwas going to be tabled in this House. It hasn't been tabled and we findout why. When the minister says that there is no money that's going tobe made from taking away from the poor the $55 a month which theyhaven't got, or the $35 from the single parent families.... Now theywon't make any money because that money has to go to cover the cost ofthis kind of bungling and ineptitude on the part of that incompetentministry and that lazy shiftless government over there,

Mr.Speaker, the association for disabled persons in British Columbia hasasked us to come to this House before the International Year of theDisabled comes to an end and ask that the Human Rights Code be amendedso that their rights are protected and they no longer have to sufferdiscrimination because they're disabled.

We can't adjournthis House until March. That has to be done now. We want the Ministerof Labour to bring in that Human Rights code and to bring in thatamendment. We want to see the Human Rights code amended before theInternational Year of the Disabled comes to an end. December 31 is thelast day of this year of the International Year of the Disabled. Theminister who has been responsible, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.Smith), has done little enough, so may he rest in peace. But one of thethings that the disabled people ask for and have never stopped askingfor was that they be treated exactly the same as everyone else in thisprovince. That's what they've asked for. They have asked that in thesame way that the Human Rights code forbids discrimination based onage, sex, race or marital status. They ask that their rights beprotected too. Now is that too much to ask this government to do beforeit takes off on a four-month holiday? Is that too much, Mr. Speaker?

Mr.Speaker, I'm sorry that my time is up. Very quickly, I just want toread into the record a letter which the Minister of Human Resourcesreceived from the council in Lake Cowichan. It said: "Dear MadamMinister:

"At the last meeting of council, Iwas requested to write on their behalf to express their dismay andprotest the recent changes to the GAIN program. Council is not happywith the reduction in benefits and the interpretation of 'employable'for the following reasons:

" 1) Even if onewere to agree that single mothers should be working, there are no jobopportunities for women in Lake Cowichan. The 27 applicants receivedfrom unemployed women for the village's one secretarial vacancy lastmonth is evidence of this.

"2) Day-carefacilities in Lake Cowichan already have up to a two-year waiting list,and they are unwilling to accept children under the age of three.

"Lastyear, the Island Shake and Shingle mill, through a fire, displaced manyemployees. Last week Western Forest Products announced the closure oftheir Honeymoon Bay and Gordon Bay operations, displacing 357employees. The immediate future for many people in this area is notbright, and for those people requiring social assistance it is evenmore dim. It is not a time to make social assistance more difficult toobtain, and we would urge your reconsideration of this matter."

Icannot, Mr. Speaker, support this motion to adjourn, because for thefirst time in 60 years of social services in this province, the moneyfor income assistance is being cut back and the family is beingundermined, threatened and dismantled.

MR. SPEAKER: I would remind members to observe the relevancy rules as they continue. I recognize the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: Mr.Speaker, there are two and a half million reasons why the officialopposition cannot vote for this motion. Each and every one of thosereasons is a citizen of this province. With the exception of thosemembers in this House who were Social Credit Party members previous to1975, I'm not surprised that the government members didn't come to thisHouse with any idea of helping anyone. I am surprised, though, thatSocial Credit members prior to 1975 can vote for

[ Page 6786 ]

thismotion, because Social Credit, like our party, Mr. Speaker, even thoughwe have our differences, believes that government is an instrument thatshould help the people, not hinder people. We had different ideas, theold Social Credit and the old CCF, of how we would use the instrumentof government to help people, but we both believed that governmentshould. Not the Liberals and Conservatives over there; they don'tbelieve in it. Look at the Minister of Universities, Science andCommunications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). Can anyone honestly believe that hebelieves government is an instrument that should be used to helpeverybody — not just the few, not just the elitists, not just the rich?

Mr.Speaker, there are two kinds of people in this House. There's one groupthat looks at the future and, especially this winter, sees it as prettybleak. The other group looks at this winter and the future and they seeit as pretty bleak. We agree on that. But should we do something aboutit? Should we use the power of the state to actually help people overthese coming months? Should we actually use the power of the state tohelp the economy in this province? We on this side of the House believeyes. But on that side, every time those government members get up tospeak they do nothing but bad-mouth the state. They do nothing butbad-mouth government. They don't like state and they don't likegovernment. Mr. Speaker, what would it be like if they actually hadtheir way and there was no state? They're so fond of standing up intheir places and talking about the evils of the state. If, for onemoment, they would stop and think about the barbaric state we would bein without the modern state, and without democracy, maybe they wouldspout a different story. Just maybe.

The Premier stands inhis place in this House. I've heard him and other members over theretime and time again talk about how the state takes away from theindividual. If only they'd read history. Without the state, individualshave no right except the right of the sword, the mighty, the rich.Without the state we are barbaric. Without the state we are notcivilized. The reason that they don't think they should help is notthat they don't want to; they're not bad human beings. They justhonestly believe that the state should not help people. They believethat the government is only there to make sure that the state doesn'tinterfere with people's lives, whether it's good or bad. They don'tbelieve we should.

They don't really believe that there is arole for government to play at this critical time in our history. Theydon't believe that the state has any business interfering with theeconomy. Well, we believe differently. We believe it is the obligationof the state to husband, nurture, guide and make sure that the economyserves everyone. What could be done? Over there, they have not onepositive suggestion as to what could be done. It's a littleinconceivable that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) standsin his place and lays out a program of putting IWA members to work inthis province, doing something that should be done on behalf of thestate, and therefore on behalf of the people, and they have no positivesuggestions. They believe that you set the climate, and that you setthe climate by not doing anything. But the state is there to donothing. We saw a throne speech in the last ten days that proves that'swhat they believe: the state should do nothing to help people.

Oneof my earliest memories is my father getting up in the morning andgoing out. It was during the Depression. They used to dig holes andmove the dirt down the road and pile it there. The next week, they'dget up and they'd take the dirt and put it back in the hole. Theybelieve in that, because that's dole. They believe in welfare, but theydon't believe in sharing.

Why is it, you have to askyourself, that a group of human beings would come into this Legislatureas government, in the most trying times since the last Depression, andoffer not one bit of hope, not one bit of help for the coming months?It's because they believe it's dog-eat-dog. They believe it's a cruelworld out there. They believe people should help themselves, and byGod, if this government's in power they'd better learn to helpthemselves, because they'll get no help out of that bunch.

Theyare willing messengers of the rich. I love the words "free enterprise."They used to be called capitalists on that side of the House until itbecame a bad word, and then they changed it to "free enterprise." It'sgot such a nice ring to it. It's free and it's enterprise. They're notcapitalists over there any more. They like to yell over here:"Socialist! Socialist!" But maybe we should start calling them by theirright name. Capitalists. The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr.Hewitt), shakes his head and says that's right.

There areother words that get changed in time. When this kind of economic statefirst hit us, it was called "panic." Then it was called "crisis"because panic got a dirty name. Then it was called "depression."Depression became a dirty word, so now we call it "recession," and nowsome people call it a "downturn, " and the Minister of Finance (Hon.Mr. Curtis) over there calls it "hard times." Hard times for whom?

Weknow that we're wasting our time here tonight. We know we're wastingour time if we expect to get results from that government; but we'renot wasting our time speaking on behalf of the people of this province.I don't believe that the people who are working in this province or thepeople who are in business in this province agree with what thegovernment is not doing. I can't believe it. As legislators, we meetwith some of the top business people from the biggest corporations inthis province. And not once have I heard the insensitivity towards theworking people in this province expressed.... Not by those people —they feel sensitive; they have to work with those people; they work forthem and with them. But this group doesn't have any sensitivity towardswhat people are going through.

Does the Premier havesensitivity? Well, I guess it's easy to feel that it's a dog-eat-dogworld and only the fit will survive when you've been born with thatgolden spoon in your mouth. It's not that big a feat to walk into thebank, when you're the Premier's son and your brother's a director ofthe bank, and get a little old loan to get you going or tide you overfor the winter.

But when you're all alone.... Maybe you'vejust moved out here a year ago from New Brunswick — one of the peoplethey're always talking about. Maybe you're somebody who saw anopportunity in British Columbia to come out, raise a family, send yourchildren to school and make a living — not with all the connectionsthat any of us in this Legislature have got. We're going to survive thewinter and we're going to do it very nicely. But what about the peoplewe represent? Who is going to help them survive? Who is going to getthem through the winter?

I believe that that government isso callous they won't follow the suggestion of the hon. member forShuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). Do you know why? To put people into theforests to help replant trees, clean creeks and do all of those thingsthat need to be done would take money out of the

[ Page 6787 ]

provincialcoffers; but to leave them idle and collecting unemployment insurancetakes money out of the federal coffers. It's as simple as that — nohelp from this government because they would rather see idleness thanproductivity; they would rather see federal tax dollars spent thanprovincial. Even if they're on social assistance, part of the money ispicked up by the federal government. So it's not a bad deal for thatgroup over there. No matter which way you slice it, the feds have topick up a big chunk of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: I trust the member will soon relate this to the motion.

MR. LEA:I'm relating it, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that we should not beadjourning this House, because that group over there is irresponsibleand will not do what people want them to do. I do not believe thatthere are any more than 30 people in this province — and I exclude you,Mr. Speaker — who don't think the government should do something,except the group over there. Maybe in the back bench, I don't know. Butthey want a cabinet post so bad they can taste it, and they're not evengoing to represent their own people.

What about the memberfor Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) ? Is he going to vote for this motion? Is hegoing to vote that we leave this Legislature, and all of those peoplein Kootenay riding who don't have enough food, who don't have enoughmoney to pay their mortgages, who don't have any hope over this winter,who are going to have to spend Christmas — not like we are, sittingaround our fires and our trees with our children and our presents....No, they're not going to be doing that, but the member for Kootenay isgoing to vote for this motion to get out of here without doing onething for his constituents.

What about the new member forKamloops (Mr. Richmond)? What does he think of it all? Is it what heexpected? Did he expect to come down and take his place in this augustchamber, and then go home to Kamloops after ten days of doing nothing,having to tell his people: "I didn't do anything for you, because I'min the back bench and I have to vote for them. Some day I want to be acabinet minister. Isn't that important for Kamloops?" I tell you it'smore important for Kamloops that those people have a Christmas turkeythan that they get a turkey in the cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, Idon't know how those people stand up in the morning and look into thatmirror and shave, if they do shave. I don't know how they get up in themorning and look into that mirror and comb their beards. I don't knowhow they can look in that mirror and look themselves straight in theeye and say: "We did the best for our people in British Columbia." Howcan those backbenchers say, "We did the best for the people werepresent, " when after ten days of doing nothing — not one program forthe unemployed, not one program to put them back to work — they want togo out of here voting for a motion to come back in March? How are theygoing to explain it, Mr. Speaker? How are they going to explain that wecame back into the fall session of the Legislature and left withoutdoing one thing for the economy or for any individual who is up againstit?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance says we're goingthrough hard times. The Premier admits it, because no one can deny it.We're going through one of the roughest winters in the last 30 years,and at the same time we have said to single parents in this province:"You're going to take a cut. Now, the reason you're going to take a cutis so that you're going to have the opportunity of going out andfinding a non-existent job." No training.

I've got apositive suggestion, Mr. Speaker: instead of putting people on socialassistance and then offering them no hope, why don't we give them alittle bit more money and put them into some training programs? Whydon't we say that down the road we're going to need these skills inBritish Columbia? What better source do we have than the unemployed?What better source do we have than single mothers? What better sourcedo we have of people who can be trained to do the jobs in industry?

Thedownturn isn't going to be forever; it's going to pick up. We all knowthat because we've all got faith in British Columbia; we've all gotfaith that things are going to get better. But when things get better,Mr. Speaker, surely the very people who are suffering the most nowdeserve a chance at that better life. What are we going to do? Cut downtheir money, with no training and no day care? That is unfeeling, andit's insensitive.

Did you see the Minister of Finance, Mr.Speaker, when he was being interviewed by the press, and he keptinsisting that we weren't in a recession, or, as they used to call it,depression; as they used to call it before that, panic; as they used tocall it before that, crisis? He said: "Well, no, we're not in arecession; we're in hard times." The reporters pressed the minister andsaid: "But when you have two quarters in a row where there is adownturn and no growth, isn't that a recession?" The Minister ofFinance said: "Well, I guess economists would call it that, but ourgovernment calls it hard times." We call it hard times too. But youknow, Mr. Speaker, it's harder for some than it is for most of us. It'shard enough to get along these days with the inflation when you'remaking money, when you're working for a living. It's hard enough tomake the old paycheque stretch, Mr. Speaker, when your mortgage candouble overnight, when your groceries can go up $100 a month from oneyear to the next if you have a family of four. Those are hard times,Mr. Speaker, and because those hard times are not in the future buthere with us now, this opposition cannot vote for a frivolous motion toskedaddle — to run, to offer no solution, and not come up with oneprogram.

I never thought I'd see the day when I thought itwould be a bright outlook to hope for the old dole that the federalgovernment used to dish out during the Depression, but those days arelooking pretty good for some people. Mr. Speaker, for the length ofthis throne speech the government has stood over in its place and said:"We don't know what to do. Don't you in the opposition have anysuggestions? We're out of ideas." When we give them an idea, they say:"No, not that one. That will cost us money, not the feds" — plantingtrees, cleaning out streams, making fish habitat a better place to be.Look at some of the things that can be done in public works — jobs thatmean something to our society in the long term. It is not dole, butpaying out taxpayers' money for jobs that need to be done.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask you as a family man: does it make sense? Let's equate the economy of British Columbia with the family. Really that's what it boils down to. It's the same thing. The numbers are bigger, but it's the same story. You can use the analogy. We have people out of work, and what are we doing? We're building Pier B-C, B.C. Place and northeast coal. Every time we point to those projects with some criticism the Minister of Science says: "Are you against them? Okay, tell us what they are. We'll tell the people. In 1933, 1937, 1944." It makes a cute speech.

[ Page 6788 ]

Takethe average family, when times get rough. The family may have plannedto build an extension on their home — a worthwhile thing. It's likeB.C. coal — a worthwhile thing. It's like B.C. Place — a worthwhileproject. A convention centre in Victoria, Vancouver and in othercommunities — worthwhile projects. But surely when times are rough onthe family, regardless of how much cash flow you have to buy groceriesfor the table, you don't go out and build the extension to the houseanyway. You'd probably say: "You know, it's a worthwhile thing that wewere planning on doing — building the extension on the house. But whilewe have only enough money to feed ourselves and to put clothes on ourbacks, maybe we should cancel the extension on the house for a while —not forever but until the mortgage rates come down and until we canafford to build." Not these birds. They say: "We don't care whether ourchildren get fresh fruit. We don't care whether our family has anutritious diet. We don't care whether they have rubbers for thewinter. We don't care whether they have fare to go to school. We don'tcare about all those things. The extension on the house is moreimportant than the everyday requirements to get through this winter."

Doesit make sense? Could anybody in his right mind say that it makes sense?The extension on the house might bring a better way of life in thefuture, as will the convention centre and the stadium and a sensiblyplanned coal export. All those things are good for the future, but youdon't go ahead when you don't have any money to put food on the tablefor the people of this province. It just doesn't make any sense. Yetthey like to think of themselves as the common-sense group, the peoplewho know what a buck is. Obviously they don't.

Is there anyone of them who would run his own personal affairs the way they arerunning the affairs of this province? I doubt it. Is there any one ofthem who would go ahead with the extension on their house at theexpense of a nutritious diet for their children? I doubt it. Yet whenthey get in government they can't seem to see the forest for the trees— that's no different. The extension on the house and B.C. Place andPier B-C are no different.

I can't honestly believe thatthey see the difference. They do. But the political opportunism thatbrought them together as a group of opportunists won't let go of them,even after they've had power for six years. They can't bring themselvesto realize that they aren't there just to be there; they aren't therejust to keep us out. Not everything goes to keep us out. That's whythey got together in the first place. It's not because they had acommon goal; it's not because they had a common dream; it's not becausethey had a common perception of what the future should hold in thisprovince for the citizens and our business community and for thehandicapped. No, they came together for a negative reason: they cametogether to keep the NDP out.

Now they want to go home. Theybring a motion before this House saying: "We want to go home. We'vebeen here for eight days. We talked about the throne speech. There'sgoing to be a conference in the spring that will solve the economy.We're going to have coal going out in 1984; that will help people thiswinter. We're going to have big sports games in the stadium inVancouver; that's two years away, and will be a big help. Oh, if we canjust get Pier B-C on the way, won't that be great? The answer is yes,they will all be great, and they're needed. But they're not needed thiswinter when people are suffering.

One of the members heresaid one of the positive things that you could do is bring in a programon interest rates like they did in Saskatchewan. I heard PremierBlakeney said: "Well, you know, the banks may be a little mad, but ourobligation is to the people of Saskatchewan." That's because PremierBlakeney doesn't owe the banks anything. These people owe everything tothat group, because when you take a look at the directors of the banks,you see that it's the same people who pay the campaign funds to makesure they're here.

Now if you take money from the verypeople who are setting the banking policy in this country, then you'vegot to suffer the consequences. And that government and that politicalparty over there can't seem to understand that when those people whoare the captains of industry and the banking system in this countrygive them money to get elected, they want to be paid back.

There'sonly one thing they have to pay them back with, and that's theresources in this province that belong to us all in a commonwealth.They take our common wealth and they give it to a few, for their ownpersonal desire to get into government, which they hate. They don'tlike government. They don't like the state. They think the state shouldkeep out of everything, and what the state doesn't keep out of, thegovernment should. The only reason they want to be in power is tomaintain and perpetuate the status quo. And after ten days of nothing,they have succeeded in perpetuating the status quo: do nothing.

Mr.Speaker, I can't figure out why they want to be here. I can't figureout why the government wants to be the government when they don't feelthat they should be doing those things that the government should do.Are we so cynical that we have to believe that they want to bring amotion to get out of here because they're just in it for the money, orfor the prestige, or for their egos? Why do they want to be thegovernment?

You know, I think I'd go on the electioncampaign trail with that. That would be enough. Why do they want to bethe government? They don't think the government should do anythingexcept set a climate. And even there, they've failed, because the majorprojects that are underway in this province are underway withtaxpayers' money. What climate was it that brought in all of thisforeign money to invest in this province? Where is it, Mr. Speaker?What kind of a climate did they set? They must have set a pretty badclimate, because I don't see the entrepreneurs and the financierscoming into B.C. to invest their money under Social Credit. Theyactually had to resort to spending the taxpayers' money to get theeconomy going. Is that the climate they were talking about — theclimate to spend the taxpayers' money in subsidizing private industry?

Yes,that's the kind of climate that the free enterprisers — no, I'm sorry,the capitalists — like. The free enterprisers may be a little bitdifferent, because they're modern capitalists and believe in a mixedeconomy. In six years these people have not shown one reason why theyshould be in government.

I remember a by-election a fewyears ago where the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon.Peter Hyndman) ran and lost. He ran for the Conservative Party. Afterthat election, he sent a letter to us. He sent it to my colleague,, ourleader, and said: "Boy, at least one thing: we kept the Socreds out."We still have the letter on file, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 6789 ]

Idon't know why. What change of heart! What a change of mind! What madethat politician change his mind in such a very brief space of time? Ithink it was probably a couple of weeks later that he joined theSocreds. If you can't beat them, join them, and for what — to come intothis House and for ten days, give us nothing?

Mr. Speaker,if we leave here now, this will be the winter of our discontent.Because if we leave here without doing anything for the people who needour help, not as political parties but as a Legislature, as government,government backbenchers and opposition members.... Are we so damneduncivilized that we can't talk to one another? Are we so uncivilizedthat we can't come up with a plan among all 57 of us here that wouldn'tbe one little bit of hope and help for the people? Are we so partisanthat in ten days the government could do nothing but talk about theevils of socialism? Are we so bankrupt of ideas and integrity that weput all of that stupid, political partisanship in front of the peopleof this province? Have we fallen to the depths of that, that thatgovernment doesn't care as long as they're there? Until this session Ididn't believe it, but how can we not?

After ten days we'regoing to leave the people of this province destitute of hope oninterest rates, on jobs and in some cases on food. A cutback to usdoesn't mean that much. The federal people bring in a budget. We haveto pay a little more income tax; it means we can't go to Hawaii thisyear. But for some it means no meat on the table. Don't you understandthat, Mr. Speaker? That's what it means to some people. A cutback to usmeans putting the new car off for another year. A cutback to us meanspostponing our holiday, not buying the new suit or only buying one suitinstead of two. That's really what the cutback of the federal budgetmeans to us as middle-class and upper-middle-class wage earners. Idon't mean that in the class sense, only in earnings. It doesn't meanthat much to us.

I saw John Crispo, an economist from Simon Fraser, on the Webster show last week or the week before. He said: "Yes, the federal budget is going to hurt me; I probably won't be able to keep my hobby farm." He said, "It savaged me, but I'm not sure I should have had it in the first place" — that tax break, that loophole.

Youknow, we're going to be just fine on that side of the House and on thisside of the House. We're working. We've got a paycheque. Probably mostof us have got a bit of savings. We've probably got some credit we canstill go and get. It's all too easy to forget, but I think probablymost of us can remember, if we think, that we weren't always in thisshape. We couldn't always get through the winter without a bit of helpfrom somebody — our parents, our friends, our neighbours. Have weforgotten that soon that just because we don't need help now therearen't others who do?

Has anybody here spent a Christmaswith no turkey and no presents? Probably most of us have at some timeduring our younger years had something like that happen to us. But, myGod, Mr. Speaker, do we want it to happen to our neighbours because ithappened to us when we were young? I don't think so. I don't believethat the people of this province are anywhere near as callous as thegovernment that represents them. I just don't believe that the peopleof this province want us to leave this Legislative chamber withoutdoing something for the needy, without doing something for theunemployed — they don't. And yet we're going to, because the majorityvotes in here are government votes. We're going to leave, having donenothing.

When I said that this could very well be the winterof our discontent, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis)laughed. It must have been real funny. That's the first time I've seenhim laugh in six years. But I'm going to tell you that unless we do ourduty, unless we do what we were elected to do — and that is to help thepeople in this province when they need it — our winter of discontentwill see people doing things that they would never have dreamed ofbefore. It's easy.... We on this side of the House believe that thereshould be social assistance, because we believe that we should help ourbrothers and our sisters and our neighbours. On that side of the Housethey believe in welfare, because if you don't give them something, youcan’t sleep in your big house at night and feel safe. That's thedifference. We believe in a civilized society in every way — not justsocially but economically. That means we share, because if we don'twe're barbaric and if we're barbaric we're not civilized. And if we'reneither of those, we're Social Credit. Somehow this group of peopleover here feel that there should be constitutional law and order.

Theonly reason for constitutional law and order is to get a civilized,orderly society. When you act in a non-civilized way — and anon-civilized way means not sharing, not being neighbourly — then youwill get disorderly conduct in your society and you will lose the thingthat democracy stands for: civilized behaviour. The only way we can becivil to one another is to know where the next meal is coming from andwhere we are going to sleep tonight. Take those two things away and youwill take away civilized behaviour. If it starts over here it won't belong before we are completely taken over by uncivilized behaviour.

Wehad a chance in this Legislature to help people, to act civilized.We've missed that chance, and now they want to go home. Mr. Speaker, wecannot vote for this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognizethe Leader of the Opposition. I would remind the hon. member before hebegins that we are on a motion and that the scope of the debate israther limited.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I welcomeyour advice and I want to tell you that I intend to keep the scope ofthe debate within the very narrow confines of the Minister of MunicipalAffairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), when he spoke.

I rise tospeak against this motion, which I was not surprised to find comingafter the formality of the throne debate. I am still trying to fathomthe high-school antics that went on this afternoon, when the Premiergot up and deliberately took all the time before I got up to speak. Onewag in the corridor — and I'm not suggesting somebody who interfered inone of my press conferences; it was another wag — Mr. Speaker,suggested to me that the Premier didn't want me to speak. I can'tbelieve that after all they have been saying about the democraticprocess, about how they wanted to hear from all the members before theyshut down after seven days and went home.

Mr. Speaker, if wevote for this short work week that we have, it will be known as theeight-day fall. When we expect the working people of this province toshow prudence and wisdom and work harder, the demonstration given bythis government is that we come here for seven days, with two days offfor the weekend. We've done our little thing here, and we're to go homewith this message ringing in the ears of the citizens who are close tolosing hope, who are desperately

[ Page 6790 ]

asking for leadership, who want some decisive action from a government, other than blaming Ottawa.

Theonly thing that we've got for those people is that little line in thethrone speech of the debate that's now over. I want to read you thisline, because I want to tell my friends there has been some comfort forthose people out there who are facing the doubling of their mortgages,facing the loss of their jobs, hoping for the government to dosomething. They can go to bed tonight with these words from page 5 ofthe throne speech ringing in their ears: "My government is meeting thiscyclical downturn with realism, with compassion and with a profoundoptimism about our medium-term economic prospects." What does thatmean? That means that anybody who is now faced with the doubling oftheir mortgage can just take in a copy of the throne speech to thebanker and say: "Look, I'm going to meet my mortgage payments withcompassion and a profound optimism about the medium-term prospects ofthe bank. You can do without my money for a while." You can go toSafeway or the supermarket and say: "I don't have cash, but mygovernment has compassion and profound optimism. Can I pay my grocerybill with that?" When it's time to buy gifts for your kids atChristmas, just go into Hudson's Bay and say: "If you're big businessand you support Social Credit, will you take my chit that says I'mmeeting this request with realism, compassion and profound optimism?"

That'sall they said: one brief line about a serious economic downturn in thisprovince, that is, without a doubt, compounded by the fact that worldmarkets have turned down — something they have no control over. But itwas only latterly that they found they had no control over the downturnin world markets. When they were in opposition and there was a farsmaller downturn, they blamed the government of the day. Now here weare, six years revisited, and there's a downturn in the economy. Whoare they blaming? The Prime Minister, the international marketplace andeveryone else except themselves. I'm going to come back to that, Mr.Speaker, because we must stay here and we must defeat this amendment.We must deal with the deliberate policies of this government increating this situation.

Who are we talking about tonight? Ienjoyed the banter. I enjoyed the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr.Vander Zalm) particularly. He was trying to figure things out. That wasthe most honest speech we've had from that member — a confession thathe still hasn't figured out what's going on. I want to tell you whatthe consequences are of him not figuring out what's going on. I want toread into the record what's happening to people in this province. Thereare people in every single constituency represented in this House whovoted for representatives to come here to fight for them, and there'snot a single peep, not a word, not a whimper, not a sound from thegovernment on behalf of these people.

MacMillan Bloedel —1,900 workers have been laid off. Port Alberni has been hitparticularly hard within the last few months. Has there been a singleword from the government benches concerning the workforce at PortAlberni being laid off? B.C. Forest Products, Port Renfrew — loggingand sawmill — 300 workers laid off on November 20, 1981 — 300 workerswith families in that small community. Sooke Forest Products, 150workers laid off on November 6. Eurocan Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd., 150workers laid off on November 27. B.C. Timber, Nelson, B.C. — plywoodplant — 150 workers laid off on October 23.

Peace WoodProducts, Taylor — in the Socred haven of British Columbia, where weused to have outrageous, screaming speeches from those North and SouthPeace River members about the fact that there was no drilling going onduring our term of office. What drilling is going on now? Not a peepout of the minister. Not a peep out of that member for North PeaceRiver (Mr. Brummet). They want to close shop and get out of here, justlike the oil rigs got out of North Peace River. Perhaps they want tofollow the oil rigs south, and find out why they went under SocialCredit. Social Credit scared them out of British Columbia. Do you knowwhy I say that? They used to say socialism scared them out of BritishColumbia. If they said that, then I'm entitled to say Social Creditscared them out, am I not? Of course, both statements are absurd. Thesimple facts of economics forced them out. This government has notlifted its little pinky to deal with any of these problems. There were175 workers laid off in Taylor. Did you get any letters from Taylorthat were happy that you went to the state ball — the second one thisyear? Two state balls in one year. If anybody asked me what the purposeof this session was, I can honestly say that, well, it was an excuse tohave another state ball. They want to get their money out of theirtuxedos. Perhaps they rent them on a six month basis, use them twice ayear and turn them back over Christmas.

FederatedCooperatives, Revelstoke, 175 workers laid off, November 1981. Doman atCowichan Bay and Chemainus, 71 workers laid off, November 1981. B.C.Timber, Hazelton — in the great north that is booming — 100 workerslaid off, November. B.C. Forest Products, New Westminster — plywoodplant — 250 workers laid off. B.C. Forest Products, Annacis Island —plywood plant — 25 workers laid off. B.C. Forest Products, Victoria —plywood plant — 212 workers laid off. Western Forest Industries, 357workers laid off at Honeymoon Bay. Not a word, not a murmur, not asound about it; just compassion and understanding. Balco Industries,Kamloops. Kamloops, where they have a brand new MLA, who spent a lot ofmoney in a campaign saying he was going to come down and fight for thepeople of Kamloops; and we haven't heard him say a single word onbehalf of those 150 workers laid off.

Yes, it's great fun tohave the Harris manipulation and the Kinsella heavies and all that junkyou've piled on with the taxpayers' money. But when you're asked toproduce for these people who stand to lose their homes and the littleequity they have in the holdings they have, what does this governmentdo? It calls us down here for seven days and says: "Shut up, boys.Collect your paycheque and go home."

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:I'm going to come to that, my friend. I'm glad you raised that. I'mgoing to come to that, because I have a great number of things to saywhile I'm on my feet.

Lamford Cedar, New Westminster, 100workers laid off. J. H. Huscroft Ltd., Creston — a sawmill with 65workers laid off. Wynndel Box & Lumber, Creston, 80 workers laidoff. The total number of forestry workers who've been laid off in thesefew examples is 4,480. You want any reasons why we're here tonightsaying: "Get off your duffs and get something done"? There are 4,480reasons why we say it.

I wish I could give better news aboutthe manufacturing sector. Windsor Machine Co. Ltd. in Victoria — chainsaws — 70 workers laid off. They got their notice today. They're

[ Page 6791 ]

throughon December 23, two days before Christmas. Merry Christmas from SocialCredit. Spear and Jackson, Vancouver — saw manufacturers — 49 workerslaid off. Simonds Cutting Tools — saw manufacturers — workforce reducedby half. Manco Home Systems Ltd., Agassiz. My good friend from Dewdney,how are you going to sell them cars if they haven't got jobs? I haven'theard a peep out of you about the closure and the layoffs in Agassiz —135 workers laid off by a mobile-home manufacturer.

I'msorry, Mr. Member. I apologize. It was Mr. Eckardt who took Agassizaway from that member and gave it to Chilliwack. Somebody slipped onthat road map and got you in trouble. What have they got against you,Mr. Member?

MR. MUSSALLEM: I don't know.

MR. BARRETT: Well, we'll deal with that later.

Van-Can,Victoria — chain-link fences — 12 workers laid off. There's more, Mr.Speaker, but I particularly want to draw the attention of the House tothese next two. Vanguard Trailers, 75 workers laid off in June of thisyear, Guess where? Kelowna, British Columbia. Who is the MLA forKelowna? Has he spoken about this? Where is the MLA for Kelowna? Thatwould be the more appropriate question. Frontier Manufacturing Ltd.,Kelowna, 41 workers laid off. Here's a few more, and pages and pagesthat can never tell the story of human misery behind every single caseof these hard-working people who pay the taxes in this province to keepthis government going. Not a word, not a peep, not a murmur. Just closethis place down, shut up, get out of here and let's hope it'll go away.

PancoPoultry; Cargill, 333 workers laid off. And it's not as if you didn'tknow about this one. It's not as if the opposition didn't tell you.It's not as if the opposition didn't warn you. It's not as if theopposition didn't advise you of the alternative. You sold out to anAmerican corporation that deliberately set out to close this plant downand buy the marketplace over the long haul. It's the same story ofwreckage of marketplaces for indigenous industries in this province bymultinational corporations since day 1. What will they do with theirlosses? They will write those losses off in their taxes, laugh all theway to the bank, and then flood their products in from the UnitedStates, while they try to sell it to unemployed people from Cargill.

LabattBreweries, 80 workers laid off in Victoria. Western Professional FilmLaboratories, 28 workers laid off. Air B.C., 50 workers laid off.Cominco, 23 workers in their exploration department laid off. DeKalbMining Corp., 70 workers laid off. Highland Valley is part of that.

Onand on, and the list is growing every single day. We've been here sevendays and what is their answer to that growing list? Close this placedown, shut up, bury their heads in the sand — preferably in Phoenixdesert sand — and hope that the problem goes away. Well, I want to tellyou, Mr. Speaker, we know that your majority will eventually have itsway in closing down this House, but I tell you I have never been moreproud of my group or the traditions that it's had for over 45 years inthis House than to tell you here tonight that you don't give a damnabout the people, and we're going to make sure that the people knowthat that's exactly what your attitude is.

[Mr. Nicolson in the chair.]

Mr.Speaker, I'm not going to repeat the speech of the member forBurnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), but I do want to quote again from the sameline in the Speech from the Throne, because my good friend talked aboutthe single mothers, and how those members over there who aren'tlactating should go to work. In this day and age, Mr. Speaker, thatkind of statement has to be made by that member in the face ofincreased travel by cabinet ministers, increased cuckoo plans like thelongest pipeline underground from here to Vancouver — cuckoo-land plansthat they spend $100,000 on, the longest exhaust pipe in the world —and they want ideas. Well, I've got an idea: pay back the money youwasted on the study for that exhaust pipeline. Do you know who's payingfor that? Every single-parent mother in this province who is having herwelfare cut back by $55 can know that she has helped pay for that studyin cuckoo land for the pipeline directly to UBC.

Do you knowwhy that member called for an election today? He can hardly wait to getout of here and get back to the university and sniff that good oldformaldehyde in the surroundings he understands — sterile, septic, noemotions, no need to care for people. "Let the riff-raff out there findtheir own way in the maze — I'm pickling brains out here at theuniversity. I've got my welfare grants for my research. Loffmarksecured my pension — Grace can't cut mine off for the threat not to runagain. Loffmark won the case — I'm safe; I get my pension; I go back touniversity." Mr. Member, I wouldn't call you a hypocrite, becausethat's against the rules of this House, but I make an observation ofsome of your comments today. You were a proud leader of a once proudLiberal Party.

If somebody had said to me that I wouldwitness in this House.... Never mind the new members. Never mind that,Mr. Member — we're talking about a little bit of time and space thatsoon you'll be out of. Soon you will be in that cocoon, nurtured in theprotection of the ivory tower of the university, away from this roughand tumble of real life. But before you go I want to tell you that ifsomebody had told me that I would witness the day that in the wind-upof the throne speech one of the defenders of Social Credit in theprovince of British Columbia would be none other than Patrick LuceyMcGeer, a minister in that government, I would have called that persona liar. Guess what, Mr. Speaker. The reason I would have done that isbecause I read his book. The moving hand, having writ, moves on, Mr.Speaker, but the moving politics will never be nailed down. I don'tmind the Premier defending the gobbledegook of Social Credit; I don'tmind the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom)getting kicked around and losing his manhood to the Premier; I don'tmind the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) sitting still in his seatwhile the rest of that group stood up like automatons applauding, butwhen I saw the minister stand up and applaud the younger Bill, it was abit much. This is a little private exchange; I don't want the press toreport it, but I'm disappointed in you, my friend. The least you coulddo is show some sanity and keep your mouth shut. You're the one whoshould have got Kinsella's advice.

Just a littleside-lecture that is out of order, Mr. Speaker, and I intend to comeback to the motion. Mr. Speaker, why are we in this mess? We are toldwe are in this mess because it is the Liberal government's fault. Well,is it the Liberal government's fault? Yes, it is. Who is it thatadvocated those monetary policies of the Liberal government today? Itis this Social Credit group over here, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to tell

[ Page 6792 ]

yousomething about beds and who is sleeping with whom: that group is inbed with the Trudeau Liberals and monetary policy and has been so forthe last three years. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, it's a crowded bed. Rightnext to Joe Clark is Pierre, and right next to MacEachen is Crosby, andtrying to find a little space in the blanket is our Bill.

And how did Bill get a little space in that bed with Trudeau?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:Well, no, they didn't find him sleeping there. They let him in thebedroom after he delivered this speech, "Towards an Economic Strategyfor Canada, the British Columbia Position" by Premier William R.Bennett, in February of 1978.

Now we are feeling the effectsof government monetary policy that developed over the last five years,a monetary policy that has been developed in this country long beforeReagan got elected, with the same slogans, and long before Mrs.Thatcher.

May I make an aside, Mr. Speaker? Correct me if Ishouldn't. But do you remember the old days when Labour was in power inBritain? We used to hear during every single session that thesocialists were ruining Britain. Maggie Thatcher is putting thesocialists to shame, Mr. Speaker, Maggie Thatcher and her economicpolicies are ruining Britain. I don't hear a peep out of them aboutMaggie. We don't hear a single word about Great Britain any more — nota sound, not a whimper.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, it's true, ducks.

NowI want to read to you from page 13 — I think it's an appropriatelynumbered page, Mr. Speaker — and show why I'm opposed to this Housegetting out of here. I want an explanation from the government why itsaid the following. Why did you support this policy of high interestrates when you said: "Monetary policies, alterations of money supplyand interest rates have powerful but complex impacts on Canada. TheBank of Canada's current monetary policy, which is largely in harmonywith this view, should be supported"?

In 1978 they said:"Move away from long-term mortgages." Do you remember, Mr. Speaker,when they used to have mortgages that lasted for 25 years? Can youimagine the sanctity of a contract that they used to talk about? Theyactually signed mortgages for 25 years. Do you remember thegobbledegook that they used to give about the sanctity of mortgageswhen they were in opposition? They supported the policy of removingthose 25-year mortgages. Now we're down to five-year, three-year andone-year mortgages based on Social Credit support of the federalgovernment's monetary policy.

Do you know any other time inour history when the whole nation waited for two events every week —the Provincial lottery on Friday and the bank rate on Thursday? Theweekly bank rate is of as much interest now to the Canadian citizenssimply because the fluctuation of that bank rate destabilizes anylong-term planning that any single family can do. And what do we getfrom the government? "Compassion and understanding," when theysupported that exact monetary policy themselves. Hypocrisy? No, Mr.Speaker, it's known as Social Credit politics.

My goodfriend, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), did me the favour ofdigging out this statement by the Premier. He pointed out to me thatthe federal government is now being chastized by the Minister ofFinance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who's not in his place. Earlier tonight wegot into this game about who was in here and who was not in here. Whereis the Minister of Finance? Where is the Premier? Well, Mr. Speaker,they're not here in this debate. You would think that they would sithere and defend the government's decision to close the House down. Wehaven't had a word out of them.

We had the Minister ofMunicipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who is still trying torecover from the disaster of the speech he gave to the ladies'auxiliary of the Social Credit convention. We all remember that speech,don't we? That was his leadership speech. He upset Bill so much that hecouldn't even show up for the dinner the following night.

Mr.Speaker, have we heard anything about this economic policy that theyendorsed? It makes Gerry McGeer look like a flaming left-winger.Remember that famous uncle, Gerry, who used to slam away at the banks?He sat in this House, sat in the federal House, was part of the memoryof the very chamber walls here, the very struggle that BritishColumbians have had since that time against the very ruthless roleplayed by the central banking system — the very speeches made byLiberals in the west, now sitting as Socreds.

It illbehooves you to attack the federal government, because the federalgovernment is only putting into place what you asked them to. Is thatthe way you treat people who do things you want them to do? You've gotsome nerve criticizing the federal government when you asked them to doit. You asked them to cut off their share in provincial funding ofprograms. Now we have the Minister of Finance going back east andsaying: "Oh, my goodness, the federal government is cutting off money."

Wheredid they get the idea to cut off the money? They got it from thePremier, when he said: "In addition, the expansion of spending levelsof provincial governments has increased, and their impact on thefunctioning of the national economy, likewise the transfer of taxpoints to the province in lieu of cost-sharing programs, has furtherstrengthened the potential of the province to affect the performance ofthe economy." I want to read this again, Mr. Speaker. This was theirposition in 1978, when they agreed that the federal government was tocut the federal tax share in funding federal-provincial programs. Theysigned the accord in 1976 by consensus. They agreed, as governmentpolicy, that they wanted the federal government out of tax-sharingprograms. They said that the transfer of tax points to the province inlieu of cost-sharing programs had further strengthened the potential ofthe province to affect the performance of the economy.

Well,the economy is in a nosedive, and they're demanding that the federalgovernment restore the sharing of the programs they demanded thefederal government cut. It would have been better if they'd got on thephone and told the feds quietly: "Pssst! Cut off the federal funding,because we can strengthen the provincial economy with our own taxpoints." The Premier and this government can't have it both ways. Theyasked the federal Liberals to adopt exactly the policy that they'recomplaining about. That's the first time I ever heard of a governmentcomplaining that another government did what they asked them to do.

Hypocrisy?Certainly not. I wouldn't say that, because it's not allowed here. Butthere are some people out there who might be angry enough to say: "Howcan this Social Credit

[ Page 6793 ]

governmenthave the gall to go in front of television cameras in this province andsay that they are against the federal government's formula of cuttingshared programs, when they were the ones who advocated it and asked forit and signed the accord because they said they could strengthen theprovincial economy." I heard the Minister of Municipal Affairs saythose students better behave themselves. Oh, and those hospital workersare asking for too much. We've got to cut down home care. Whose faultis it that they signed those accords? Who was it who said they wantedthat program? That government over there.

I'm proud toremind this government and the people of this chamber that when thefederal government first came to the New Democratic Partyadministration with the bonus payment on the tax-cut formula, and theshared-program formula, we said: "No deal, " We said that yes, we mightmake a few bucks in the short term. But the reason why I'm opposed tothis amendment to close the debate is that we must have an explanationof why they sold out for those short-term gains for the long-term painthat we're now having. I want to tell you I'm very proud of thephilosophy adopted by the cabinet and the caucus of that day. They saidthat even if British Columbia benefited temporarily, we would never bea party to the destruction of basic health-care programs such asmedicare; that if we had to pay a little bit more in any one year tobenefit the Maritimes or some of the poor provinces, there wasn't asingle British Columbian who would be opposed to it.

Buteven we did not predict the day that by falling for that tax formula,programs in British Columbia would be threatened — based on a programespoused by that government. I'm going to come to how they'rethreatened, Mr. Speaker, and I'm going to come to tax accountability.I'm going to come to questions that have yet to be answered on thefloor of this chamber — how money is being spent in secret by thisgovernment, shovelling it out of departments into massive projects withno accountability. That's a serious charge, and the reason I make it atthis particular moment is that I'm opposed to this amendment whichwould block the expose of how they're shovelling money out of the backof the Minister of Finance's office while they're cutting programs.

Onelast comment on this report, and then I'll go to the results of theirpolicy and why I'm still opposed to this amendment. This is what theysaid in their paper to the federal government. This is when theyclimbed into bed with the Liberals and got so enthusiastic they almostshoved them out of bed for a while. The Prime Minister actually climbedback into bed with the Socreds, it got so bad. Love at first sight,temporarily unrequited after a few months with the Tories — no changein policy, just bed partners.

This is what they said, Mr.Speaker: "The industrial strategy of that government would be based ontwo principles. First, competitive market forces rather than governmentpolicy would be relied on to set the level of activity in particularsectors over the long term."

Let me read this slowly so weunderstand exactly how we got in this pickle, exactly why these peopleare unemployed and exactly why this industrial strategy was fostered inthis country and spawned by that government. Let me repeat, "Theindustrial strategy ... would be based on two principles. First,competitive market forces rather than government policy would be reliedon to set the level of activity in particular sectors over the longterm."

Well, Mr. Speaker, before I go on to the next line,how does that square with BCRIC's disastrous purchase of Kaiser's coalmines in southeast British Columbia, and this government taking $1billion, most of it unaccounted to this House, and pouring it intocompetitive coal mines against BCRIC in northeast British Columbia,contrary to the policy you advocate? Where's the private gamble upthere? As my friend from Prince Rupert said very clearly, where is theoutside capital that you capitalists have attracted to this province?Not a penny.

You have the most generous welfare program, thecapital support, of any administration competing in the coal industry.You have no idea what the Australians are doing. You have no idea whatthe Americans are doing, and the Japanese have every idea what they'redoing. It is so incredibly stupid, but it is based on the policycontradiction of Social Credit as they announce where they're going.

I'mgoing to come to the Premier's homilies today. I really love some ofthose homilies. He's going to let people have a piece of the action. Doyou remember hearing that?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT:No, no, take it easy. Okay, I'll accept your word for it. The last timewe used to hear those stories about, "We've got to let everybody have alittle piece of the action...."

MR. BARBER: BCRIC.

MR. BARRETT: Itwas BCRIC, that's right. That experiment that has been an absolutedisaster was not mentioned once by the Premier today, but all therhetoric around it was mentioned.

MR. LEA: He's got a brick for a heart.

MR. BARRETT:No, my friend. He thinks that he can privatize something else in thisprovince and tell them that the shares are worth 11 bucks and they'resold for 6 and are now worth 3, but when he was put to the test in thisHouse of whether or not he would accept BCRIC shares as legal tender inpayment of a debt to him, he said: "Not bloody likely." Excuse me, Mr.Speaker. He turned down BCRIC shares because he knows what they'reworth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It would assist the Chair if the hon. member would relate his illustrations to the motion which is before us.

MR. BARRETT:Yes, Mr. Speaker, I want to relate it to the motion before us, becauseI want the House to go a bit longer. I want to ask the Premier if itwas Kinsella's idea to turn down the shares, or did Kinsella not get tohim in enough time? What are we paying him 65 grand for?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:Abbott and Kinsella. That's Doug Heal in the basem*nt. What everhappened to Doug Heal and the money we're paying him? What everhappened to those Hollywood advisers who told him not to go ontelevision with frizzy hair, or that other one not to go on televisionbecause he goes off the deep end, or the other one not to go on becausehe needs a shave?

[ Page 6794 ]

Ifthe people of this province weren't suffering, we could have a lot offun just talking about how stupid this government is; but guess whatthey've done? They've called us back for seven days and said theirpiece: "Have compassion. Now go home and don't bother us." Are thereproblems? Speak no evil, hear no evil, see no evil, not in thischamber, no, no, no.

The Minister of Finance, who refuses tostand in his place in this House during this debate and give us someaccountability of every penny going into northeast coal, goes toVancouver and announces in Vancouver — not in this chamber, but tonon-elected members, after they told the elected members to shut up —"Boys, it's a little rough. We've got to goose the taxes, and we'regoing to call the House back the first week in March."

See all those books on the Clerks' desk. Somewhere in all those mouldy books, somewhere in all those rulings...

AN HON. MEMBER: Is a mouldy Clerk.

MR. BARRETT: ...is a mouldy Clerk. No, Mr. Speaker, I would never say that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker,

Somewherein all those mouldy books is there not a ruling that the Financeminister's announcement on fiscal policy should be made in the House,not outside the House?

Back to the quote. "Second,industrial policy would be set so as to facilitate, not prevent,changes in the relative level of activity between sectors." Did youhear this? Let me read it again. "Industrial policy would be set so asto facilitate, not prevent, changes in the relative level of activitybetween sectors." That means that if you've got a coal mine in southernBritish Columbia and all the roads and schools are in and thetransportation is in, you don't open another coal mine with taxpayers'money to subsidize new towns and roads so the profit can flow out incompetition with what already exists. Australia knows that. They knewit when they wrote this paper, but they didn't believe in it. Now theywant to adjourn the House. Policy would not be designed as it has beenin the past to maximize or maintain production and employment in eachsector. In other words, we have employment in one sector. Instead ofmaintaining employment in that sector, we decided to give it somecompetition within our own jurisdiction. This is the biggest pile ofmalarkey and boondoggle economics of the nineteenth century given tothe federal government with the advice that Social Credit would supportit. The federal government embraced them in their economic bed. It hasbeen chaos ever since. When they are called to account, they say it'sall the federal government's fault. It's true, it is the federalgovernment's fault, because they followed Social Credit advice in thefirst place.

We talk about the time of the session andthe motion to get out of here. There's nothing more to talk about. Theywant to get out in seven days. Do you remember the last emergencysession, my friend? Do you remember what the emergency was? Related tothis particular motion of adjourning the House, I think it's importantto recall the last time we were called here for an emergency session,other than the time when Social Credit seized the old B.C. Electric. Doyou remember that? Social Credit seized private property in thisprovince. Guess who was against it? One of the most brilliant speechesI heard was from the former leader of the Liberal Party, when SocialCredit seized private property — nationalized, seized, expropriated,took away, stole with sweeping powers, embraced it in the public domainand kicked the shareholders right in the teeth. We had a specialsession for that seizure of private property. Who voted against it? Thesocialists voted against it because they respected the rights ofprivate property. Who voted to seize it? That gang over there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, are you the designated speaker?

MR. BARRETT:It is to my honour that I refer the Speaker and the member who is wisein the rules to check page 17. Motions and debates on motions have adesignated speaker, and I am he. Just read the little red book; it'snot Chairman Mao, even though you belong to a group that seizedproperty in that special session.

What was the secondspecial session that we had to rush in here for, Mr. Speaker? Iremember. Do you remember? I bet you that if we gave a test, half ofthem over there wouldn't remember what the emergency was. Do you knowwhat it was? It was the constitution. The whole country was on the edgeof falling apart. The whole country was disintegrating, but our Billcame here to the special session with a resolution that we had todebate immediately because the unemployed wanted a resolution debated,because the people on welfare wanted a resolution debated, becauseindustry wanted a resolution debated saying that there had to beunanimity in dealing with the constitution. The Premier got up andsaid: "That's my position. I'll go for nothing less than unanimity." Wehad that little meeting called together, and we wasted a lot of dough.We were sent home and the government voted for unanimity. We votedagainst it. Guess what the government settled for. Almost unanimity. Noone should dare read the Premier's speech back to him. I can't think ofany worse punishment than reading some of those old speeches of Bill'sback to him, even if some of them are partly coherent. You know, it isincredible that the leader of this government and this province calledan emergency session to play politics with the constitution andabandoned his position as soon as the politics turned sour on him, buthe wants to close this place down when the unemployed are demandingsome action by the government to resolve some of the economic problems.

Fortwo years after he advocated those ruinous federal policies, he ranaround this country ignoring the economy, ignoring problems at home,ignoring suggestions from the opposition and saying that the mostimportant thing he had to do was settle the constitutional issue. Thenhe discovered something — the light went on. In the Times-Colonistof August 12, 1981, the Premier said: "Constitutional matters werenever a priority of the people." Is it true? Yes, that's what he told apress conference. " 'The economy and particularly high interest ratesare the first concern of the Canadian people,' Bennett said." On August12 he discovered this. September and October went by. The last week ofNovember came for the throne speech, After he discovered that highinterest rates and the economy were bothering people, we came here forsix days and we heard not one word of a position this government wasgoing to take in solving some of the problems that they belatedlydiscovered in August of this year.

[ Page 6795 ]

Isn'tit funny that they can call together an emergency session in a matterof hours to deal with a constitutional matter, because the Premierwanted to put his position on the record — which he latterly denounced?But when people are suffering and it calls for some decisive action bya government with guts, who is the last one to show up here? After atlast showing up here, who is the first one to want to go home? It'sthat lazy government over there which doesn't want to do a bit of work.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT:Yes, I say lazy. Two, four, six, eight, ten, twelve cabinet ministersnot in their seats tonight. Only one of them defended this motion toadjourn. The rest of them are hiding in their offices hoping that thiswill go away and will all be a forgotten memory. They don't have theguts to stand up here and say: "This is what we believe in. This iswhat we want for the people. This is what we intend to do." They justsay: "We have compassion for you, and we hope that you get throughChristmas."

MR. LEA: They're sending Christmas cards to the unemployed.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, there's the Minister of Labour signing those gilt-edged Christmas cards.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Gilt? Oh, no.

MR. BARRETT:Yes, they're sprayed with gold on a toothbrush. I bet he learned how todo that in grade 3. And he's been spending his time in the front seatof his brand-new Mercedes. It's not a broken-down Mercedes like myfriend has. How does a cabinet minister buy a $40,000 Mercedes on hissalary?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I don'tknow. You tell me. I saw it in his parking spot. I bet it's all piledup with gilt-edged Christmas cards that he's been signing away in hisMercedes. It says: "Love to you from Victoria, written in my Mercedesin the balmy weather while you're unemployed in Mackenzie." Why don'tyou stand up, Mr. Minister, and tell us what you're doing for thepeople of Mackenzie other than writing them a few Christmas cards? Ihope they're on thick paper. At least when they burn they might last alittle longer for fuel.

Seriously, Mr. Member, when was thelast time you were in Mackenzie? When was the last time you went intoyour constituency and spoke to those middle-class small businessmen whovoted for you? They've been on the phone telling me that they're losingtheir businesses. There are foreclosures, and the banks are calling thenotes in that town. They'd like to know what the MLA is doing for them.I'll tell them what the MLA is doing. He's sitting here tonight signingChristmas cards saying: "Merry Christmas. Write me if you have anyproblems. Address unknown."

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:You've got some nerve, you member for.... Where are you from anyway?You're from somewhere. You're the first or second member for Surrey —whatever. You've got some nerve.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Numero Uno.

MR. BARRETT:That's what you'd like to be. And you say it in Spanish because youknow Bill can hardly speak English, and won't understand what you'resaying when you say: "Numero Uno." Oh, yes, my friend, we know whyyou're pushing this motion. You don't want to look any worse than youhave so far. If you have to speak again, other than that pious pile ofjunk you got up and peddled tonight What is the opposition doing?" I'lltell you what. I'll take your request to heart. Resign, get the hellout of the way, and we'll show you what can be done in this province.You've got about as much warm blood in those veins as an icehouse. Youstand up in this chamber, and you make nonsense speeches. Sit down, myfriend. We sat through your speech. Now you sit down and take the heatthat's coming to you before you close this House down.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you're very familiar withthe rules. I'm wondering what all of this has to do with the motion toadjourn, and I would ask that you address the member and ask him topertain to the subject matter before us.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:The minister does have a point. Throughout this evening there has beensome latitude. But it will assist the Chair if the speaker refers tothe motion and draws his points toward the motion which is before us,which is: "That the House at its rising do stand adjourned until itappears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker or the Deputy Speaker, afterconsultation with the government, that the public interest requiresthat the House shall meet. Mr. Speaker or the Deputy Speaker may givenotice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet atthe time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as if ithad been duly adjourned to that time."

MR. BARRETT:Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your guidance, and because of yourguidance I will keep my debate in the exact, narrow confines that themember who has complained kept his in — somewhere within the samebounds. That member is a paragon of following the rules, as exemplifiedby his particular contribution to this debate — talking about meetingsin Alberni, and all those things related to the adjournment. I'll juststick to those same things.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'll take theadvice of that learned member, who is an expert on the rules of thisHouse. He simply does not recognize that the government is elected togovern. People expect them to govern. For him to give a pious, sillylittle speech saying, "What have you got to offer?" to the opposition,without putting forward one single new idea of his own, is a ministeradmitting that his own government is bankrupt and is incapable ofshowing any.

He did mention one policy proposal of mine, andI want to clarify his error: it was not exclusively my proposal. TheSavings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia was not a proposalsupported exclusively by me when I was Premier. The records will showthat seven sitting cabinet ministers spoke positively about thatinitiative as an alternative method of financing in this province backin 1975. This was a bill that seven presently sitting Social Creditcabinet ministers embraced unto themselves. When the division bellsrang, they voted for it, and included among them was the Premier. Didhe vote for that bill for political purposes, or did he vote for it

[ Page 6796 ]

becausehe believed in it? We can't question the motivation, Mr. Speaker. Butwe can certainly bring to mind, in opposition to the adjournment ofthis debate, that we don't want to leave here until we get anexplanation as to why seven Social Credit cabinet ministers voted forthat legislation that is still o n the books, supported it, spoke inits favour, and then, when they came into office two months after theywere elected, they were given a report as to how to implement this ideathat they voted for, and they have kept the report on implementing itsecret since February 1976.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Isay to that member, when you make an appeal to us and ask where the newideas are, there are ideas that you spoke of that were voted on byseven Socred cabinet ministers. You've kept the report secret eversince. And I tell you when you ask, "What is a new idea?" I say thatyou don't even know what you're committed to. You don't even have thedetermination to follow through on policy that you voted for. That's afact.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: How much money were you going to put up?

MR. BARRETT:"How much money were you going to put up?" I'll tell you how much: asmuch money as you're pouring out the back into northeast coal.

Nowwe're getting into the essence of the debate. Now we're getting down tothe nitty-gritty as to why we should stay here. Now the ministerdoesn't say he's opposed to my idea any more, because he's discoveredthat his colleagues voted for it. Now he's asking how much it costs.Release the secret report and we'll all find out how much it's going tocost. When he gets into the hallway, he'll say it costs too much money.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Tell us about it.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, it's right there in Hansard.You voted for it. After you voted for the bill, we set up a committeebetween the Finance department and the B.C. Central Credit Union. Toimplement the bill, we asked that committee to give us a report. Wetold the House that that was the procedure we'd follow, when thegovernment members who were in opposition voted for it. They said:"That's a good idea. Let's have a committee study it." Yes, thecommittee studied it, and they gave the report to the Social Creditgovernment in February 1976. That's the secret report I'm referring to.You've deliberately hidden a report on a measure you voted for thatwould give mortgage relief to hundreds of people in this province.You've got the nerve and the gall to stand up here tonight and saythere are no ideas? Come on, tell us about it. You go and ask thePremier why he's not releasing that report, so we can put into effectthe idea you voted for.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You've got the floor. You tell us about it.

MR. BARRETT:If you're refusing to do what you should do as government, then quit.But don't yell over to me to release the report. You're the ones whoare sitting on it.

Before we leave, I'd like to ask some questions that need to be answered before any vote is held on this motion.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Tell us about it. Don't change the subject.

MR. BARRETT:Mr. Speaker, I'm glad I've got the minister's attention. It's thelongest attention span I've found. You go and ask Bill for a copy ofthe report. I don't mind the interruption, Mr. Speaker. It's at a levelI find amusing, but it hardly shows any serious intent behind thatminister's vacuous speech, in terms of dealing with ideas to solve someof the problems.

Before we leave this chamber, I'd like toknow how much money from general revenue has been spent by thisgovernment on northeast coal. I'd like to know from the Minister ofHighways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.Vander Zalm) and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) if any moneyhas been diverted from their voted funds to go into the northeast coalproject. If so, how much? How was the money diverted? Have there beenany roads built up directly for the northeast coal project which havecome out of the regular highways budget and caused potholes to beneglected elsewhere in this province? If that's so, tell us. I see theMinister of Highways smiling. Just nod your head, Mr. Member, if you'rewilling to tell us how much money has been taken out of your budget andtunnelled into northeast coal.

Mr. Speaker, they want us toadjourn the House without accountability for tax dollars that I chargehave been diverted from the intentions of the vote in this House — tobe spent on general purposes — into northeast coal so the cost can bekept down and buried out of general revenue. I make that accusation,and I ask the government to deny it. I ask any single cabinet ministerto get up in this chamber before the vote is taken tonight and tell usand the people of British Columbia, when he is supporting this motion —which is, in effect, closure, after a piddly seven days here — if onepenny of any single vote that we passed in this chamber in the lastyear for general purposes, under any one of their votes, has beendiverted to the northeast coal project. I'll give them 30 seconds tofess up.

Before we vote on this amendment, I'll ask theMinister of Highways: is any of the money that we voted in this chamberfor your department been diverted to the northeast coal project?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the answer.

Iask the Minister of Municipal Affairs if he can guarantee this Housethat no money allocated for general purposes in any of his votes, toserve existing municipalities around this province, has been divertedfrom that purpose and spent on northeast coal.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: It has gone, has it? Has your ministry spent any money on townsite preparation for northeast coal?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, there's no nod there.

Whenyou other MLAs get a letter of complaint about the condition ofhighways and the holding back of grants to municipalities....

[ Page 6797 ]

Imake this charge in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker. Those servicesnormally accepted out of general revenue and taxation votes in thisHouse have been diverted from department after department afterdepartment and buried in that sumphole up there with no accountabilityto this House. Perhaps I am going way out on a limb in making thatcharge, but the charge is clear. I challenge the cabinet ministers toget up one by one in their places and tell this House that to theirknowledge not one penny of their funds has been diverted to thatnortheast coal project.

The other question I want answered before this House is adjourned....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:We're not dealing with your money — through you, Mr. Speaker. We'redealing with money we take out of the hides of the taxpayers of thisprovince, and we're being told outside this House that more money isgoing to be taken out of their hides.

To this day, what isthe total expenditure of public funds on the northeast coal project? Doyou know who else wants the answers to these questions, Mr. Speaker?The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), who raised someimportant questions months and months ago about this project. He wroteletters to the editor about those questions he had. Before I leave thischamber on this debate, I'd like to ask that member if he has hadsatisfactory answers to the question's he has raised in his letters tothe editor. That member can't go in the cabinet room any more. He can'teven call the Premier "Bill" any more — as if he was ever allowed to.Only a few can do that. Has that member had an answer to his questionsabout northeast coal and the expenditures there? Just nod your head,Mr. Member. Silence.

I ask the minister of universities,technology, high industry and the chip manufacturer if he knows howmuch they've spent on northeast coal. He's gone. Here today, back tobeing Dr. Chips tomorrow. He can hardly wait.

When I askthese questions, who is it that I'm reminded of? It is said that thischamber is a place where we should avoid secrecy. Who is it? It is noneother than the Premier of this province, who said in his 1978 paper ongovernment: "In order to achieve the objectives of the proposedeconomic strategy, the share of the nation's resources dedicated togovernments must be reduced." Did you hear that? "The share ofresources dedicated to governments must be reduced." We've got to givethem away as fast as possible to initiate our economic strategy. That'screating a climate. Come and get it, gang. We're going to give it away.

Thepaper continues: "Moreover, the growth of government in the future mustbe controlled in line with the public's desires." Did you hear thatone, gang? Listen to that. "To accomplish this, governments must adopteffective procedures for financial management and must be made moreaccountable to their electorates." Who said that? The Premier of thisprovince. And they want to close this House down before we have anyaccountability for the amount of money that has been siphoned off bydepartments into the northeast coal project.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Have you got a point of order over there?

MR. BARRETT:What is that? Oh, my good friend is holding up a pillow. Mr. Speaker,that is the most productive work that Minister of Housing has done formonths. He's holding the chamber up by leaning against the wall.

Whatabout the housing program that has been announced for weeks? We'vewaited for this program. Seven days in November and nothing. Now theywant to close the place down. They can hardly wait for a four-monthdelay, so we can have another state ball and they can prance aroundagain up there in their tuxes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where were you?

MR. BARRETT:I refused to go. I will not participate in that charade. One state ballat the taxpayers' expense is enough for me. You can't pour booze inforever for free and think that you're fooling the people. My dearfriend, it was symbolic to me that in a time of economic turndown, at atime when this province is desperate for leadership from a governmentand at a time when we call the House back for a throne speech, goingback to the free booze trough at Government House twice this year isyour answer to dealing with unemployment. I'll have none of that.

Youjust came off a $100,000 cabinet tour through the interior. You hadfree food and free booze. "Listen to your problems, " I'm going to getto that too, and why we shouldn't adjourn here. "Listen to yourproblems." What a joke! What about those mothers in Lumby who wanted tocome in and see the cabinet? They were told that they didn't write foran appointment so they couldn't come in.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We saw them.

MR. BARRETT:You saw them, eh? You did, but did Bill? You're a nice guy. Just tellthe newspaper up there to print a front-page story saying that Zalm sawthem. I'm sure those mothers will be happy to know that they saw you.They're a very nice group of ladies. They're taxpayers. All taxpayersare very nice, Mr. Minister. The ones who don't complain when you gougethem are the nicest ones of all.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:Oh. Mr. Speaker, I don't think the minister loves me. But whether helikes it or not, I love him. I'm going to come over and give him a bigkiss on the cheek.

Now that we've established that, myfriend, and we're still good friends, why aren't you doing something?Why didn't you stand up tonight and say: "As far as I'm concerned, whatI'm going to do as Minister of Municipal Affairs is create a winterworks program in every municipality in this province and I'm going tospend money. I'm going to say to those municipalities.... Because I'm alovable person, and I like to speak to the Social Credit ladies'auxiliary in homilies and clichés, I'm going to say to the unemployedthat we're going to give you a chance to go to work in the cities andtowns of this province cleaning up, beautifying and painting?" Do youknow why you can't announce that, Mr. Minister? Because every singlespare penny you've got has been tunnelled into northeast coal, and youknow it.

You didn't announce that tonight. You got up andyou made a fool of yourself, and that was not difficult to do. Whydon't you do a hard thing, like thinking and doing something for achange instead of sitting there?

[ Page 6798 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Are you against northeast coal?

MR. BARRETT: I am against giving welfare to the Japanese when our own people are unemployed here in British Columbia.

ThePremier spoke about unemployment, and he was going to send us home withhis statistics and his announcements. He said he created 60,000 newjobs in British Columbia this year. I heard him say that unemploymentis at an all-time low. What he should do is tell Mr. Kinsella toabolish the provincial Ministry of Labour, because the latest B.C.labour report is making a fibber out of the Premier. He has enoughtrouble with that without another ministry adding to those troubles.Unemployment in British Columbia for October 1981 is 105,000 — up25,000 from a year ago. That's almost 25 percent more unemployed than ayear ago this month in British Columbia. Did we hear the Premier saythat? They want to adjourn the House and get out of here, because theydon't want to talk about that.

I want to quote something else, Mr. Speaker, and I rarely do this. Here is a B.C. Business Bulletin.It arrived only yesterday. It has a nice logo: "B.C. Business Bulletin,Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Industry and Small BusinessDevelopment." Who is that one? I would like to quote from thatministry's report released yesterday. Doom and gloom? Downturn? Badnews? I couldn't come up with anything as bad as this. But this is whathe's telling us when the Premier has said things are wonderful: thenumbers of unemployed, rising; the amount of timber scaled, dropping;retail trade, dropping; numbers of employed, dropping; imports throughcustom ports, dropping; factory shipments, down the tube. The onlything that is up in the six important economic indicators from theministry's own statistics is the percentage of unemployed. It's goingup, up, up. What am I quoting from? I'll ask leave to table it beforethe motion is voted on. I'm quoting from the B.C. Business Bulletin, issued by the province of British Columbia's Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development.

ThePremier is telling us things are rosy, and this minister's latestreport indicates that the number of employed is down and droppingrapidly; timber scaling is down and dropping right out of the graph;retail trade is dropping rapidly; imports through customs ports aredropping rapidly; factory shipments are going off precipitously. Theonly thing that is up is the unemployed. Who am I quoting? So help me,wash my mouth out with soap, Mr. Speaker, I am quoting a minister ofthe Crown. Now who's telling the truth, the Premier, or that minister?You decide, Mr. Speaker. You ask us to support 'a motion to close thisHouse down when we receive a report like this 24 hours before we are toclose after a seven-day session?

MR. KING: Shoot the messenger.

MR. BARRETT: Shoot the messenger? No, that minister doesn't deserve that fate.

Mr.Speaker, I find it interesting that this government speaks with onemouth through the Premier, but issues a report from the minister that,in effect, calls the Premier a fibber. Now, Mr. Minister, you shouldn'tdo that. Can all those people in the ministry who drew up thesestatistics. Call in Kinsella. Tell them to shut up; we'll do it theOntario way. If the news is bad, we won't release it at all. Mr.Speaker, why bother pretending? I'll bet you that these charts don'tshow up in the Socred mailing machine from Bernie and the boys. "Idon't want the newspapers to quote from the government. Just quote thePremier. It's much more comfortable."

There are cutbacks,shortages, everything. But is the government telling the truth to thepeople of British Columbia all the time? Is the government keeping thepeople informed all the time of what is going on? I mentioned why I amopposed to adjourning this debate. The minister went to Vancouver andtold them how things were. Has the government in this session told ushow they are driving the taxpayers of this province into deadweightdebt at a rate never before experienced in this province? B.C. Hydro,this year alone, $700 million.

Now I want to read somethingto you, Mr. Speaker, about what they tell the Americans, because theyare required to by law. You see, they have in the United States ofAmerica the Securities and Exchange Commission, and before B.C. Hydrocan borrow any money they have got to tell the truth as to what isgoing on. I'll read these figures and you'll get an idea why they wantto close the House down, why they want to rush this motion through.Information from the British Columbia Hydro registration statementfiled with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Committee as of March 31,1981: the total direct and guaranteed debt of the province, net ofsinking funds, was $7,990,400,000. It has almost doubled since theyhave been in office, since 1976. The debt has almost doubled under youradministration.

What are the projections that B.C. Hydromust honestly answer about the province's financial condition when theyhave to file a report with the Securities and Exchange Commission — nottold us here in the House during the throne speech, not mentioned bythe Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), not even referred to by thePremier. What is it that they told the SEC? "In the fiscal year 1981-82through the fiscal year 1985-86 the province will borrow a further$9,586,000,000" — approximately $3,600 per person in this province.They are going to double the debt in this province in the next fiveyears, and they have not given one single explanation in this House asto where that money is going. They are mortgaging the future of BritishColumbia, putting future generations into debt, with no accountabilityto this House, and we have that cliché speech from the Premier saying:"We would never put the future in debt."

If he made thatstatement in the United States of America, in the face of what B.C.Hydro has filed, the Securities and Exchange Commission would want aninquiry into who is telling the truth, the Premier or B.C. Hydro. Idon't believe that British Columbia Hydro would dare give falseinformation to the Securities and Exchange Commission, because it wouldnot risk its credit rating. It is telling us something we can't learnanywhere else — not in this chamber, not in the debates from theminister, not in the speeches. It is telling us that in the next fiveyears the Social Credit government is going to borrow $9,586,000,000.And what's the accountability? A seven-day session; get out of here,

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Where's Rosemary?

MR. BARRETT: Where are your brains?

AN HON. MEMBER: Vicious attack!

[ Page 6799 ]

MR. BARRETT:Clever, Mr. Member. You know, I try to contain my sense of humour. Whenyou were a Liberal I used to laugh at you. Now you're a Socred and Istill laugh at you. Nothing has changed. How do you justify sittingover there with the old speeches you used to make about accountabilityand debt? I have never heard you say a single word. A year ago I said —and I repeat it — that the one member of the Liberal gang who walkedacross that floor and has maintained a thread of self-respect is theAttorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). Even today he didn't stand up andapplaud the Premier, and he has yet to say one word publicly supportingthe Premier. He was the only one who didn't stand. Even he has somelimits. But when I see the former Tories and former Liberals allstanding, oh, boy.

Mr. Speaker, I think I've got a little more time as designated speaker.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: All the time I want? Thank you very much, Mr. Member.

Iwant to deal with a typical problem that I picked up in my travelsthroughout British Columbia in the low profile areas of the outback.Yes, my friends, in the area where there's not the big city televisionand where the big city reporters don't often venture because theirhard-hearted employers won't given them a travel budget to leavedowntown Vancouver. It's not that the press won't travel into theoutback; it's just that the mean old employer is Scrooge-like, so theycan't cover those tours. My good friend from Atlin (Mr. Passarell) hada reporter with him, and it was great. Good coverage. It's beginning tobe understood, by those excellent reports throughout the papers, howother people in British Columbia live.

Do you know, Mr.Speaker, a lot of people in this province don't have all those big cityamenities that we're so used to, but because they are of pioneer stockand they believe in the stories of this government — that it is in therural areas of British Columbia that the pioneering work must be done —they provide all the tax money that fills the coffers of thisgovernment so it can build that bauble downtown for the big citydwellers.

Mr. Speaker, before we leave tonight I want to recount to you how sometimes these small city folk go to their MLA with a local problem and say to them: "We're not asking for the moon or the stars; we're just asking in this case for a little simple health clinic." It's true that as much as we have an excellent health-care program, there are some areas in this province where there's a shortage in the health-care delivery system. It's true. Our minister tried his best and did a wonderful job. The present ministers tried and they've overlooked some areas.

I'mtalking about correspondence with the minister, the hon. Pat Jordan,who is the MLA for North Okanagan. Mr. Speaker, 44 local organizationsmade up of local citizens in the Lake Country Health Planning Societyhave asked their MLA to please help them establish a health clinic intheir area. I've met with them twice. What has been my advice to them?Please work through your MLA. She's very busy, but I know that sheshould be given the opportunity to respond to her mail and deal withthis problem. Please work with your MLA. If you want to send me copiesof the letter, by all means do that. If you want to prod the minister alittle bit, I would suggest you use a device that has been verysuccessful in other instances. Put "copy to Dave Barrett, Leader of theOpposition," on the letter.

Some ministers who are wise seethe opposition has been advised of a problem and quickly get on it,because they don't want any heat. It's good politics — logical andsensible. That's the way to use the Legislature. Very good stuff.They've done that.

Mr. Speaker, this correspondence goes back week after week, month after month. They met with the minister — a very brief meeting — and they laid out their problems. The minister said: "Submit a brief." They submitted a brief. The brief was submitted in July of this year. Since that time they have tried politely, cautiously and carefully to contact that minister and ask her what action has been taken on that brief. I am informed by Miss Sharon Redecopp, who wrote me again this week, that the minister has not even answered the most recent correspondence, let alone responded to this brief. Is that so, Madam Minister? Is that why you were angry in the hall? Did you know I was going to bring this up? Had that been the case, you could have come down to my office and we could have discussed it privately, so you wouldn't be embarrassed.

Whois it that is supporting this application? Who are these groups? Arethey radicals? Are they hippies? Are they revolutionaries? Are they thesolid stock that doesn't vote Social Credit? Let me quote to you who itis in this community that wants some action from the minister, and shedoesn t even reply. I want to read the list: the Winfield United Churchwomen: the Parents and Tots group in Winfield; the Winfield MemorialHall Association; the Independent Order of Foresters: here is a groupthat ought to be watched — the Kelowna Jaycettes; oh, the PacificRegion Jaycees; the Royal Canadian Legion, No. 189, Ladies Auxiliary;TOPS, No. 1349, Winfield; TOPS, No. 3074 chapter, Oyama; the OyamaCommunity Club; the Winfield and District Minor Hockey Association; theRoyal Canadian Legion; the Lake Country Senior Citizens HousingSociety; the Senior Citizens Society; the Winfield Missionary Church;the First Winfield Scouting Group Committee; the Winfield RecreationCommittee: the Wood Lake School–Parent Advisory Council; the WinfieldElementary Parents Auxiliary; the Lake Country Senior Business Society;the Winfield Volunteer Fire Department Ladies Auxiliary; the WinfieldVolunteer Fire Department; the Seventh-Day Adventists; the KalamalkaWomen's Institute; the Girl Guides of Canada; and the last name I'llread — though it's not the last one on the list; there are many more —is the Women's Christian Temperance Union.

Forty-fourcitizens' groups have backed this appeal to the minister. I'm toldshe's been rude to some of those people; I haven't witnessed that. I'venever witnessed her being rude, except....

AN HON. MEMBER: I think she hit one.

MR. BARRETT: No, she didn't hit one.

Mr.Speaker, I find it interesting that the time that I was in theminister's riding, she was travelling in Europe; perhaps she waschecking out health clinics there. Will the minister stand up and givea reason to this House for why she's supporting that the throne speechdebate should shut off and we should get out of here? Is it that she'safraid to answer her own correspondence from these basic citizens inher riding who've been pleading with her for months to take some

[ Page 6800 ]

action?They're not hippies; they're not radicals. They are the solid stock oftaxpayers in this province who are patient and tolerant and expecttheir MLA to do something for them — not to be insulted.

Youknow, Mr. Speaker, I said to the group before I raised this issue: "Iwill not raise this issue until you contact the minister again. I thinkit's important. I've asked you to contact her once. Keep me informedwith copies of the letters. But I will not raise it until the ministerhas been given another chance to respond."

MR. BRUMMET: You're all heart.

MR. BARRETT: I'm all heart; I'm responsible.

Thereis no need for this kind of thing to come to the floor of theLegislature if there is going to be proper action taken by theminister. But I want to tell you this: when that government comes inand attempts to close down this House when people aren't even gettingcivil answers from their MLA or action on requests, then the place towhich we bring those requests is this House, to serve the people ofBritish Columbia, not to run and hide on holidays somewhere while thehealth services are not being given.

Yes, yes, yes, you goahead and vote for this; you sit there and seethe, Madam Minister,through you, Mr. Speaker; you get angry at the nasty Leader of theOpposition for daring to raise a constituency problem of yours. I wantyou to get so angry at me, Mr. Speaker, that you're going to leave thischamber right now and do something for those people. You show me; youshut me up. I challenge the minister to shut me up by going and doingsomething about this clinic, so that I don't have to raise it again onbehalf of her constituents.

It's not as if those peopledidn't go through the proper channels. It's not as if those people, whowere responsible every step of the way in dealing with this, didn't goto the minister with the letters backing up their request. It's not asif they could witness tonight the witless whining of that minister'sseatmate, who has something wrong with his throat. The witless, smugsilence of the cabinet-benchers in the face of the problems of thisprovince should be shown on television tonight.

Oh, Mr.Member, you sit there and make all your funny noises. You're safe. Upin the Cariboo right now they are so busy cutting wood to keep warmthey don't know what you're doing down here. But guess what! Somepoliticians are going to go into your town and tell them how you votedtonight to close the House down because you only believe in an eightday fall. Some people have to work a seven-day week just to makemortgage payments, but you're going to work an eight-day fall and letit go at that and close the House down.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where were you when we needed you?

MR. BARRETT: Where was I? I was in government, and you were one of the dumb ones that got rid of us.

Mr. Speaker, I'm just about a quarter of the way through making my argument on this particular amendment.

MR. LEA: Will you stop if Pat gets the clinic?

MR. BARRETT: Yes. If she makes that promise, yes, I will. I will stop if Pat gets the clinic. I'll take her word for it.

. Mr. Speaker, I now want to come back to another part of the Premier's speech today.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Don't interrupt, Charlie. He'll tell you to shut up, Charlie.

MR. BARBER: Is Kinsella here?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, but his advice was sound.

MR. BARRETT:"His advice was sound." Did you hear that? That's the mentality; oncein a while it just sort of creeps through. It gets through the ozone.What they were mad at was not what Kinsella said. They were mad that hewas stupid enough to get caught. That's what they were mad at; that'swhat all the gossip was around the corridor. "Why does he hire thosestupid guys? Why don't they keep their mouths shut?" They're notagainst the tactic, it's the lack of PR. The problem with Kinsella isthat he didn't consult with Heal. It wouldn't have happened had he doneit; that's a fact.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Iwant to go back to the amendment, because I've been distracted. Mr.Speaker, I want to read something to you, because it's reminiscent ofwhat the Premier said today. I want to read this little paragraph toyou, Mr. Speaker, as to why we shouldn't adjourn the House, because weneed some accountability. I am talking about the BCRIC propaganda sentout by the Premier. "To you the individual citizen the shares representreal ownership, or a portion of a resource industry. To our provincethe move will mean a greater opportunity for British Columbians toguide their own destiny through ownership, and stop acting asmoney-lenders to others, and harness their savings to the task ofbuilding a secure future for all British Columbians."

ThePremier said that about BCRIC. Do you know what he said today? "That'swhat we've got to develop for British Columbia — an opportunity forthem to invest so that they can become..." What was the expression heused?

MR. KING: Individual capitalists.

MR. BARRETT:...individual capitalists. You know what? The Premier has a selectivememory. He's taken out a lobe — scrubbed it clean. "Out, out, damnedspot" — he just scrubbed it right out, like Lady Macbeth. Do youremember what lady Macbeth said, Mr. Speaker, when she was...?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're a burned-out has-been. That's what she said.

MR. BARRETT: Now, be gentle, my friend. Anybody that is spending the amount of money you are without any accountability should be gentle.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're straight from the bottom of the barrel.

MR. BARRETT:Well, I want to tell you, to deal with this government the only placeto go is the bottom of the barrel. There sure isn't anything left inthe rest of the barrel, the way you're shovelling money out of the backof the truck.

[ Page 6801 ]

BeforeI go any further, I want to remind the minister that he was advised byHeal to shut up. If we're going to spend all that money, I don't thinkit's wise of the minister, who was given advice not to talk because hehas a tendency to go off the deep end, to ignore that $14,000 we spentin Hollywood to get you that advice. You're a minister of the Crown.Show some dignity, self-respect and restraint when you vote to closedown this House so you don't have to give accountability for the moneyyou are squandering.

When the Premier was in opposition itwas like Lady Macbeth saying to him: "Glamis thou art, and Cawdor; andshalt be what thou art promised. Yet do I fear thy nature; it is toofull o' the milk of human kindness to catch the nearest way." Do youremember that? That was the criticism — too full of the milk of humankindness. Well, he's sure learned since then. Now he's gone to thesecond stage.

Macbeth is the most appropriate ofShakespeare's plays applying to this government. There he was scrubbingout the memory of BCRIC in his speech today, forgetting that he toldthe people of British Columbia: "You the individual citizen will becomea real owner of a portion of the resource industries in our province.The move will mean a greater opportunity for British Columbians toguide their own destiny through ownership, to stop acting asmoneylenders to others, and harness their savings so the task ofbuilding a secure future for all British Columbians.... He was seekingout those whom he thought were gullible. He said: "I am particularlyhopeful that our young people will seize the opportunity for apractical education in individual ownership and recognize the potentialit has for lifelong benefits." How many young people took the savingsthey had waiting for a down payment on a home, and on the Premier'sadvice went out and bought BCRIC shares, and can't buy a home now?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Dave Stupich did.

MR. BARRETT: Dave Stupich offered the shares back to the Premier and the Premier refused to take them.

AN HON. MEMBER: What!

MR. BARRETT: Yes, he did. The Premier is a millionaire. He's had his lessons on the piece of the rock.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: They've forgotten the admonition in caucus that they were to be quiet. You go ahead and chatter, fellows.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT:It was the Premier who told the people of British Columbia to buyBCRIC. It was the Premier who implied that it would be a shortcut tothe wealth of capitalism. It was the Premier who said: "The shares areworth $11, but have I got a deal for you, they're only $6, " It was thePremier of this province who, on television — interfering in themarketplace — directed people to buy shares in a company which he saidwas private. Why was he favouring a company that was private, just likeany other company — touting those shares and telling them to buy thoseshares? Now that it has turned into a disaster, there's not a word. Hewants to rush through this motion and adjourn the House. There's notword in the throne speech about BCRIC. There's not a word about thatdisaster. There's not a word about his own turndown of those shares,but he's still spouting the same old garbage: "You can be an individualowner." What is he going to privatize now?

As another reasonfor opposing this motion, I want to refer to another part of ourcriticism of government policy. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did say — and I wasquoted correctly — that if private enterprise was going to abandonregions of this province, then we would buy those mills.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:Now, my good friend, I want to give you a lesson in your own economics.Who bought Can-Cel after Celanese Corp. had lost $80 million? Were youopposed to that? Yes, you were. We bought it for $1. We got a mortgagefor $69 million at 6 percent. In the first two years that the peopleowned that company it made $154 million, which was spent here inBritish Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did they get for it?

MR. BARRETT:What did the taxpayers get for it? I'll tell you what the taxpayers gotfor it. They had a guarantee of those profits being reinvested here inthe province of British Columbia. What did you do with it, my dearfriends?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: That's why they're yelling, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:Order, please, hon. member. The occasional interjection may betolerated, as I've said on many occasions, but interruptions are out oforder. I would ask the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) to pleaserestrain himself.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I understand the interruptions.

Itwas those companies that we bought that were the foundation of BCRIC.Those companies were the assets that you boasted about, that you weregoing to have the people buy back when they already owned them. Yousquandered those assets in the incompetence of BCRIC, allowing allthose assets to escape in one lump-sum payment of cash to Mr. Kaiserfor those mines. Now BCRIC is saddled with $600 million in debt.There's not a word in the throne speech about it, not a word about thepeople who lost money on your advice, not a word about the squanderingof those assets that we bought in a downturn of the cycle because weknew the cycle would turn up again, just as the cycle would have turnedup again in British Columbia.

You can buy now and make thesame deals and the same money, but they are not committed to thatpolicy. They believe the public sector should go broke and the privatesector should have its free will at any time in the economy. They'renot about to interfere in the marketplace, particularly after theysquandered all those assets in BCRIC. There's not a word from thePremier, not a word from the government in the throne speech braggingabout BCRIC, because there's simply nothing to brag about. You wish itwould go away as a

[ Page 6802 ]

badmemory. It was politically conceived. You are politically responsiblefor it. You haven't said one word about the disaster that you broughtupon tens of thousands of British Columbians who you told to go out andbuy shares in the company.

MR. BARNES: Even their own convention condemned it.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I won't bring up the problem of their convention asking about BCRIC, but could you not at least shut up, could you not at least convey some silence? At the end the Premier announces that they're thinking of a similar scheme — once unlucky, twice maybe they'll be lucky. What are they going to pawn off this time? What is it that they're going to unload this time? What is it that they're going to privatize?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Marguerite.

MR. BARRETT:They've already done that once. That was a disaster. They subsidized anAmerican jetfoil coming in. They paid the Americans $3 million to hireAmerican crews so they could have jobs coming into Victoria. Did youtalk about that?

Did you talk about the heroin treatmentprogram? I would like to ask the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)in this brief session about that wonderful heroin treatment program. Wewarned them. Others told you that it was a disaster. But you got up inthe same manner that you got up and told us how the gas pipeline wasgoing to built on the southern route. You were told in a parking lot bythe press that the Premier had announced that there's a second look.You said: "I don't believe it; I want to hear the tape." You heard thetape, and guess what? You were cut off at the ankles.

I feelsorry for that member. I know why he's supporting this motion tonight:because he doesn't want to give an accounting to this House as to whyhe lost the decision-making in his ministry about where the gaspipeline should go, or give an explanation about the heroin treatmentprogram. You think it's a joke? Fourteen million dollars was thrown upin the air on the heroin treatment program. The minister was cut topieces by his own Premier. He asked to hear the tape, and when he heardit, what did he say? You had nothing to say. Your whole policy waswiped out. You were made to look foolish by the Premier. I don't thinkthat's fair. You do a good enough job on your own. You don't need thehelp from the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: To the motion, please.

MR. BARRETT:In speaking against this motion, I see no need for us to be brought inhere for seven days to be given a nothing throne speech and told thatwe're going to close the House now for four months.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What's your policy?

MR. BARRETT:My dear friend, my purpose, more than anything else, is to see thedefeat of this disastrous government that is absolutely insensitive tothe people's needs in the province of British Columbia. My policy doesnot include giving welfare to the Japanese, no matter how manysteambaths I have in Tokyo.

Mr. Speaker, lay the contracts in front of this House. Tell this House....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What's your policy, my friend?

MR. BARRETT:We're seeing the minister at his best. I ask the minister to lay thecontracts on northeast coal in front of this House. If the minister'sarms.... What is that salute he's giving? Where have we seen that onebefore, my friends? It's just a Doctor Strangelove reflex.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, no. We heard the Premier speak about the national socialists.

Theytreat this six days here as a bother. Why do we have to come here andspend this time with the opposition? Why do we have to come here andspend this time in the House? Why do we have to come here when they askthese questions? We'll just come here for six days, give them a PRthrone speech and send them home to be nice boys.

There isnot a single sign of maturity in that government in the six yearsthey've been in office. They have never gotten over their oppositionmentality that brought them together as a coalition. They have nevershown the graciousness or the understanding of the use of power in thischamber or throughout the province. They have flaunted tradition,accountability and responsibility. They make statements withoutsubstance; they backtrack and fill on policy without giving anyexplanation to this House; they spend vast sums of money; and they makeincomplete decisions in the face of some information already in theirhands purely for political purposes. When they're asked questions, theysay: "Don't ask us. We know best. We'll do what's best. Just shut upand get out of here." I'm not surprised at us getting out of here. Mr.Kinsella gave away the whole purpose the first day when he said, "shutup." He was only expressing government policy.

I gave oneexample and there are many more examples of local problems beingignored. I gave an analysis of questions about northeast coal withoutany minister answering. I asked questions about how much money has beenspent there and asked for a complete accountability, but they're stillnot answered. I will expect that the minister will get up and tell ushow much money has been drawn from Highways, Municipal Affairs, everyministry and how much money in total has been spent. I will ask theminister to tell us why the Crown corporations committee was denied therequest to hear federal navigators as witnesses and also denied therequest to hear details about the deal with the National HarboursBoard. The Crown corporations committee asked that they appear and weredenied by the Social Credit majority.

I ask the minister tostand up and tell us what the total commitment is and how far they arein the tunnels. Is all the exploration done in the tunnels? What willthe final cost be? Are those contracts open-ended? Will the ministerfile with this House the copies of those contracts that he will sign inthose tunnels? Will you file those in the House? Will the minister filein this House the contracts on those tunnels?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What's your policy?

MR. BARRETT: I don't expect the minister to answer those questions. I expect the minister to go along with the

[ Page 6803 ]

kindof mindless political rut that this government has been in simplybecause it refuses to deal with accountability in the Legislature,simply because it treats this House as a bother and simply because theyhave reduced the whole concept of a session to just a short time beforeChristmas where people will forget what's gone on and hopefully theproblems will go away.

We have not seen one move by thisgovernment against high interest rates, not one move in the area ofhousing and not one move in helping the unemployed. Now they want tofinish off the debate as quickly as they want to.

Mr.Speaker, I want to suggest that the government has an opportunitytonight to demonstrate that while they ask the people of this provinceto work harder and show some restraint.... I ask the government to givesome leadership to the people of this province by keeping this sessiongong so the government can lay out in detail proposals that it intendsto carry out, to give those thousands of citizens some hope. More thananything else, beyond specific programs, beyond promises, the peopleneed hope. When they lose hope, they lose the potential of gatheringthe forces in their own lives to take them through the crises they meet.

Mindlessquips across the floor, cabinet ministers who do not participate interms of accountability, will leave a vacuum out of this particularthrone debate that will not be filled by anything other than despairfor the people of this province. Your own supporters are asking forleadership. Business people are asking for leadership. The trade unionmovement is asking for leadership. This province is rich. It does havethe potential, but it needs the leadership and the participation of agovernment that says in spite of the economy they sponsored andfavoured they are now going to spend the time here in this House,laying out policies, taking action and saying to those people that theywill give them some provision.

One small thing that theycould do is that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon.Mr. Hyndman) could stand up in this House tonight and say, as PremierBlakeney of Saskatchewan said to every homeowner who has beenthreatened with foreclosure by the banks, that the government will notstand idly by and allow the banks to foreclose on their homes. Let'shave that much. The Province of Saskatchewan doesn't adjourn the House,but says clearly to the citizens of that province that it is thegovernment's responsibility to promise those citizens, in these timesof fluctuating mortgage rates and the week-by-week pressures of highinterest rates, that the government will say to the banks: "No personin this province will lose his home. We forbid foreclosures for ayear." I advocate that policy for the homeowners in this province. Whydon't you?

If the government of Saskatchewan can say thatpeople will have a year to determine when they will renew theirmortgage, at the interest rate they prefer within that year, so theycan make plans to salvage the equity in their homes, why don't you dothat here? If seven cabinet ministers in opposition sign and vote forlegislation, known as the B.C. Savings and Trust.... If they believedthat in 1975, why don't they implement it now, when the people need it?

What'smy policy, Mr. Member? My policy is to come to this Legislature, detailthe problems that our citizens are having, and appeal to the governmentto do what other governments in other jurisdictions have had thecourage to do: nothing radical, nothing revolutionary, but certainlymoral and sound in terms of protection.

Did we hear one wordabout doing the same as Saskatchewan? Not a word. Did we hear one wordin the throne speech about pleading to the federal government to lowerthat interest rate and help homeowners? Not a word. Did we hear in thethrone speech a new plan to train youngsters in this province so thatthey could be equipped to find jobs with skills? Not a word. They'veclosed the Rossland Mining School in this province, as a budget cut, Ihaven't heard the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) get up andexplain why. They say that the mining industry is going to develop, asgovernment policy, but they cut the only mining school open in thisprovince. They cut it off one week before the students were to register— sent them letters and told them not to show up. You didn't know that,did you, Mr. Member? You didn't know that the Ministry of Education andthe Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources cut outallocation of funds for the Rossland Mining School, and told thestudents they would no longer be allowed to enrol. That wasn't in thethrone speech. That's why I'm opposed to this amendment.

I'mopposed to this amendment because junior colleges in this provinceright across the board have been told to slash their budgets, whilestudents who believe speeches by the Premier and the Minister ofEducation, telling them to go out and get an education and they'll geta job, have been cut off from funds. Not a word. You've got the galland the nerve to come in here with an amendment to say, after six days:go home and shut up; we're not going to do any work, and those problemswill go away. I can't support the motion.

Tell me about theRossland mining school. Why did you close it? Why? You're gettingtired, are you? Well, that's fine, Mr. Member. Maybe the lights are toohot on you. I understand why they are. Why hasn't the government dealtwith these real problems throughout the province?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:You know, there are times when I truly wish there were televisioncameras in this House. Just a couple of shots of the minister would dowonders for his posture. his presence, and his intelligentinterruptions of the debate.

Fortunately, within theconfines of this amendment, I have said almost everything that Iintended to say in my 40 minutes, when I was to speak on the thronespeech.

AN HON. MEMBER: You look like a chickadee.

MR. BARRETT:A chickadee is better than a turkey, my friend. One wag said the onlyway some of the poor people will have a turkey at Christmas is bybringing a Socred home.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:I like to hear the dulcet tones of the former high-school principal.One of the wisest things the voters in that constituency did on behalfof the children of that town was to remove him as principal and sendhim down here. We can handle him, but God help those poor children ifhe ever goes back to the classroom.

MR. SPEAKER: And now to the motion.

[ Page 6804 ]

MR. BARRETT:Yes, to the motion. I have a logical suggestion to make, and one that Ithink would be welcomed by the government. It's not an amendment to themotion, which would be in order. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, if theopposition amended this motion, we could all get to speak again? Yes,you know that. I was surprised to learn that, when my learned friendthe member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) came to me and said wecould amend this motion and it would be within the rules. Theneverybody could get up and speak again, and I could have a designatedspeech time so I could fill in the 40-minute time I had on the thronespeech.

So rather than go through considering that process,I have a suggestion to make. I move adjournment of this debate, andthat the House stand adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The only motion that I could accept would be a motion on the adjournment of this debate.

MR. BARRETT: Yes. Well, I've got two motions ahead of me. I know the first one will be accepted. I move the adjournment of this debate.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

Barrett King Lea
Lauk Stupich Dailly
co*cke Nicolson Hall
Lorimer Sanford Gabelmann
Skelly D'Arcy Lockstead
Barnes Brown Barber
Wallace Hanson Mitchell
Passarell

NAYS — 28

Waterland Hyndman Chabot
McClelland Rogers Smith
Heinrich Hewitt Jordan
Vander Zalm Ritchie Richmond
Ree Davidson McCarthy
Gardom Bennett Curtis
Phillips McGeer Fraser
Nielsen Kempf Davis
Strachan Segarty Mussallem
Brummet

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

MR. co*ckE:Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the motion I would like to welcome thegovernment members back from their beds. There go some of the lazy,shiftless government members now — all cabinet ministers.

Whatthis motion says is that we should go away from here without havingtaken care of the responsibilities vested in us by the people of thisprovince. That government has done absolutely nothing except put somehollow phrases before us. They have given us no programs, and then havespent the entire six days talking about the years of 1972 to 1975,totally ignoring their responsibility for the year 1981-82.

Thereare people all over this province hurting. Yes, we know this governmentwith its lack of talent. Yes, we know there is not too much they cando, because they're bone-weary after six years of total frustration.But there are some things they should do, or at least try to do. Thefirst responsibility that they have is to come into this House and putprograms before us to be discussed so that people in the province havesome hope.

Did we hear one word from the Minister of Forests(Hon. Mr. Waterland) or the Premier on how we could put people to workin the forests in this province? We know that many people areunemployed. We also know from our foresters, if we're listening tothem, that we are heading toward a failure in terms of the amount oftimber available. Wouldn't it be a remarkable way to utilize people whoare available now by hiring them to go out and plant trees, to go outand weed the forests, fertilize and generally assist in the future ofthis province? No, Mr. Speaker, we haven't heard anything like that; wehaven't heard any suggestions that would lead us to feel that there issomething going on in terms of looking at our future. I believe thatthe government, as my good friend and colleague from Surrey says, is agovernment that represents bankers and bailiffs, not the people who sobadly need the services of government.

I guess probably thebest criticism was put forward by the other member for Surrey, thatbeloved member — and I'm talking about the Minister of MunicipalAffairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) — when he said: "We've been here tendays and we've done nothing." The last resolution that brought us herewas a resolution that the Speaker would be asked by the government tobring us back to the House if there was something important to do. Soobviously the government felt that there was something important to do.How come one of their important ministers, the one who likes to readcornflakes boxes, says we've been here for ten days and we've donenothing? It's the government's responsibility to see that programs areput before the Legislature. It is not the responsibility of theopposition to put programs before the Legislature. It would beridiculous to even consider this government listening to whateverprogram we might put forward, no matter how virtuous.

Mr.Speaker, that lazy, do-nothing government, with an attention span ofsix days in the House, are on their way to the nice warm spots in thesun. I assume that they've been reading the travel folders and will beheading off and coming back nicely tanned, well rested, while thepeople in this province continue to suffer. There are so many thingsthat should be addressed. These are just a few plants in NewWestminster where there have been layoffs: 80, 20, 250, 25, etc. Iwould like to see some of these questions addressed. But no, people inthe country are going around.... These buttons, I'm sure, will increasein numbers: "Citizen of Dire Straits." I remember that there was aPrime Minister of the country who talked about those people, and Idon't think he has an easy time looking over the mountains. Sometimeswhen he comes over here, he wishes he was on the other side of themountains. But aside from all that, he was the person who talked aboutpeople in dire straits, and I think he was talking about the citizensof B.C. who in their innocence have relied on this government to getthings going again.

I believe that we have to ask why it isthat when jobs go down the tube in this province there isn't a move bythat government to protect those jobs. For the longest time thegovernment has criticized the Panco situation. How they

[ Page 6805 ]

laughedat my colleague who said in a note to a union leader, whichincidentally was duplicated and sent to everyone under the sun, that ifthe Social Credit were returned — I'm talking now of 1975 — those jobsin Panco would go. It took them a while, but they finally did it. Whatdoes the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) do in thesesix days — or as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who has difficultycounting, would say, ten days of doing nothing? What has the Ministerof Agriculture said? Nothing. He hasn't suggested any alternatives forthose people who are going to be out of work. For that matter, he hasnot suggested alternatives for the agricultural industry, which isgoing to be hurt on account of this silly decision that has drivenpeople out of work.

They sold it to Cargill. So much for thejobs. Who cares in that government? When you're down in Palm Springs,taking in the sun, it's easy to forget the folks back home. TheMinister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips)runs off to the Orient to do business, and criticizes the Leader of theOpposition, who once or twice went to the Orient and made a significantcontribution, incidentally. He jokes around about a football game, etc.Either the minister is going to the Orient and not paying attention tobusiness, or he is being most unsuccessful. We continue to ship ourjobs there. We continue to send the most raw of our resources, with aslittle labour input into those resources as is possible, to thatcountry, to refine, saw, manufacture, etc., where there are millions ofjobs.

I believe that there are so many things, that weshould be hearing so many programs that should be put forward; butwe've heard none from a lazy group who like to put responsibility forrunning government in the hands of their own bureaucrats and take itaway from the Legislature. One day, some political scientist is goingto do a study on how much erosion there has been in this last six yearson the power of the Legislature which has been vested in cabinet. Thatis going to be a very significant revelation. When you do that, youjust sit in your nice, warm cabinet room, where we're all on the sameside. You assign the work to the bureaucrats, and then you run off toCalifornia, the Bahamas, Hawaii, Palm Springs. Everything is in greathands. Certainly those awful opposition people haven't got anything todo with the direction.

A while ago the Premier, to show thismarvellous policy about women.... Remember, he visited the SocialCredit convention. He spoke to the women's auxiliary, and he told themall the great things he was going to do for women. Then he extolled thevirtues of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). He said: "Lookat that. The Minister of Labour has a woman deputy." It begs thequestion, doesn't it, colleagues? Where's Kathleen Ruff, whom theyinherited from the NDP? They inherited her from my colleague the memberfor Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) in that department — a woman with agreat deal of responsibility. They canned her, fired her. NolaLanducci, Gene Errington — we could go on and on, Their antipathy forwomen in responsible places is obvious. Now suddenly there's greatrepentance. We see in the constitution that women exist and are goingto have some rights. I wonder how many. I'm a little suspicious, evenyet. But, you know, you have to at least do something. Anyway, wecommissioned the Minister of Labour to reinvent the wheel. It'sKinsella's idea. There's no question about that. I just feel that we'dlike to see some direction.

For some time I've been eithercritic or Minister of Health in this province. Before we walk away fromthis chamber, having been dismissed until March, I would like to hearsome of the alternatives that should be coming from the Minister ofHealth (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). Where is he? I'm sure his own departmentwould like to know where he is. A long time ago they announced thatthey were going to hire a bunch of new deputies. I would like to knowwhere they are. They're going around the bend, Mr. Speaker. It strikesme that they're just not doing anything about health care in thisprovince.

The minister disappeared tonight. He disappearedanother time recently. He was to speak to the ambulance workers'conference in late September — you know, the emergency health service.We remember how important they were to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.Williams). They're obviously not very important to the Minister ofHealth. At the last minute he cancelled his attendance, with the excusethat it was due to administrative changes. What administrative changes?He hadn't been relieved of his position; he's still Minister of Health;he still sits in that chair.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Quit your frowning.

MR. co*ckE:With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, to the member for Peace River, Ihave to frown when I look across at such an unpleasant creature.

Wewould like to know about reorganization. We would have suggested,however, that before they reorganized their telephone book — which theydid, incidentally.... The Ministry of Health has been taken right outof this 387 number that we have and has been given another 387 number,but you have to dial the full number. But they do it before they'veappointed all these new deputies.

MS. BROWN: No one will come. No one is going to work for you.

MR. co*ckE: I guess that's it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're losing steam.

MR. co*ckE: It's easy to lose steam when you get to be my age, old chap.

Beforewe leave here I want to hear from the Minister of Health about allthose vacancies in public health. I heard the Minister of Finance (Hon.Mr. Curtis) today in question period say there is no hiring freeze.That's a bit hard to believe when every health district in thisprovince is short of public health nurses, health inspectors,nutritionists....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Your leader just said we had an excellent health service.

MR. co*ckE:Mr. Speaker, the member for South Peace River doesn't know what he'stalking about. I'm talking about the public health in this province. Itis being starved to death. Why is it being starved to death? Why do wedebate this adjournment motion? We debate it on this basis: whilethey're starving public health they're spending money like drunkensailors in other areas — shovelling it out of the back of a truck, onlythis time it's a big truck.

In the North Okanagan — becausethe Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) is here, let's review thesituation there. We can do that by just reading a little note into therecord. This is a copy of a letter to the minister. It should beaddressed by one of those members before we adjourn. He says:

[ Page 6806 ]

Dear Mr. Minister" — a nice, polite salutation.

"Numeroustimes over the past five years this union board of health has requestedthat the Ministry of Health consider increasing the number of publichealth inspectors within health district 4. Our request for thisconsideration has produced a reply acknowledging the need for anadditional health inspector in district 4. However, budgetaryrestraints made it impossible to hire additional staff.

"Theunion board of health has been informed by the health district ofcertain facts relating to the public health inspection field. It is theopinion of this board that your office should be in receipt of suchinformation. For your consideration we present the following: presentstaff complement — one chief public health inspector, four publichealth inspectors. The last increase in staff....

Guess when the last increase was in that very powerfulminister's constituency. It was July 1, 1974. The population in 1974was 64,000. The population now is 90,340 — an increase of 40.8 percent.

MR. MUSSALLEM: What's that got to do with the motion?

MR. co*ckE:Mr. Speaker, this is what it has to do with the motion: we want thesematters addressed before we leave here. We need, in my view, some kindof definitive direction from the government in terms of what's goingon. We need the Minister of Finance to get up and tell us.... I'll readthe headline to you from the Vancouver Sun, November 13:"Curtis Says Hard Times Ahead for Schools and Hospitals." Oh, sure. Hetalks about MacEachan's budget and so on and so forth. He should comein here, Mr. Speaker, and report to us before March and tell usdefinitely what those hard times are going to be. We can't go back toour constituents without the answers. Why should we?

Mr.Speaker, it's another responsibility of mine before I go home to findout how come the Minister of Finance is holding back payments. Askevery contractor working for the government....

MS. BROWN: Ask every little doctor.

MR. co*ckE:Ask the doctors. Here is a doctor: Dr. David Jones, a Burnaby generalpractitioner, can't resist the challenge from government bureaucrats,and believes Victoria may be holding back doctors' payments totallingnot $45, not $45,000, but $45 million. The government should answer....

MR. LEA: Or pay interest.

MR. co*ckE: Yes.

Thepoor old psychologists, friends of the government — remember, theybrought in a Psychologists Act — are telling us the same thing. "B.C.doctors aren't the only ones fed up with the length of time it's takingthe provincial government to pay its bills; psychologists are fed uptoo."

MS. BROWN: Family day-care workers don't get paid either.

MR. co*ckE:Mr. Speaker, they're all in the same boat. Why should we go home in theface of this without any decent explanation, without the minister who'sresponsible getting up in the House and telling us his direction? "'Health Standards Call Faces Opposition,' Nielsen says. A call inThursday's federal budget for national health-care standards may 'runinto provincial opposition,' says the B.C. Health minister." Now, Mr.Speaker, what has he done? What is he going to do? Is he going to tellus how he's going to handle it?

MS. BROWN: No.

MR. co*ckE: How is he going to fight for us? Is he going to make an impact?

MS. BROWN: No.

MR. co*ckE: What's his plan? Has he flown to Ottawa?

MS. BROWN: No.

MR. co*ckE: Is that why he's not here tonight? What's he doing?

MS. BROWN: Nothing.

MR. co*ckE: Nothing. No, Mr. Speaker, we don't hear anything.

MS. BROWN: Tell us about Cuthbert.

MR. co*ckE:I had hoped in the last while that the government, in reply to theombudsman, would have said: "Mr. Ombudsman...." Roy Cuthbert, that poorlittle guy in Delta who has his home expropriated, a home that's beenin the family since 1886 or thereabouts.... Years ago it wasexpropriated for Roberts Bank; then it was found it was not needed. Itfell into the agricultural land reserve, and all they want to do islive there and have their family's right to live there....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Why did you refuse it when you were government?

MR. co*ckE: I'll discuss that.

Interjection.

MR. co*ckE: You just hear me through.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. co*ckE:Mr. Speaker, it should be carefully looked at. What did the ombudsmanrecommend? Return the property. What has happened, however, is that nowthe minister has taken it to arbitration.

It's not a bigpiece of land. It's not hurting anybody. You were told by yourbureaucrats exactly what we were told by ours, I'm sure: that it wouldbe a bad precedent. That's nuts. That's crazy. I'm here to tell youthat our Environment and Land Use Committee recommends returning thatland. Somehow or other, accidentally in our cabinet.... I saw it.

[ Page 6807 ]

Interjections.

MR. co*ckE:No. In response to our bureaucrats, we did exactly the same thing. Weproceeded. We didn't do anything. We actually didn't restore theproperty. It should have been restored. We should have done it. Youshould have done it. You've had six years.

Let's go over thehistory. First, it was the Social Credit government that took it awayfrom him. We were in power for three years and four months. We didn'trestore it. We should have. One of our most powerful committees ofcabinet recommended it. Incidentally, you've been government since thenfor six years, and you've not restored the property. It's absolutely,totally unjust.

I'd like to have heard any kind of argumentput forward in this session before we leave. But no, we heard nothing.I guess we're going to have to debate that issue. I'll take as muchresponsibility for the injustice to Cuthbert as anybody else. I don'trecall it coming back. It must have come back very late. In any event,I do believe that that property should be restored, precedent or noprecedent. There is no better use for that property than for itsoriginal owners to have it and hold it and live in it, as they're doingnow. They're living in it, but renting it from the Harbours Board.

MS. BROWN: Going to bed, oh, Don?

MR. co*ckE: There goes that lazy minister. Go have a little sleep; it will do you good.

Mr. Speaker, I also am very interested in another area; the whole area of transportation. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) has given us a little hot air. He told us some of the things that are going to happen. He could have made a great contribution, and so could this government, if they had leaned heavily on the federal government over the reduction of passenger rail service across this country. They did zero. They are one of the few governments in the whole country that paid absolutely no attention to it whatsoever, and they want us to leave. They want us to leave this House, go back to our constituencies, while they go flitting off to the southern sun, having done nothing about this whole question of conservation of energy: conservation that is gained by passenger rail service.

Weregretted giving up light rail transit in Vancouver years and years agoto the energy gluttons, and now we're turning back to it. We're goingto do the same thing with longer transport. All over Europe now they'reimproving their rail service and making it more attractive; they'regetting people to move by rail. This is something for energyconservation and good, comfortable transportation. That's what weshould be doing. But we hear nothing from this lazy, do-nothinggovernment.

I suggested that we should have had somedirection. We could even have debated one of the bills that have beenput forward. I know the police are anxious to get hold of the new acton motor vehicles. The roads today are covered with blood. It's a veryserious situation. We have been sitting and waiting for.... Well,we were given the bill at the end of the last session; they called it aWhite Paper. We went home, and we're back. We're given another bill andtold we're going home for another three months. Meanwhile they want toget tough. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) keeps putting outpress releases saying that they're going to get tough on drunkendrivers, speeding drivers and every other kind of driver. They'resending us home before we even debate the bill.

What's goingon? Laziness, Mr. Speaker. They could have found out very quickly howlong it would have taken. It might have taken a very short while. Butno, let's sacrifice the situation. Let's send them home so that we cango back and rest. It's not good enough. I suggest that every thoughtfulperson in this House should vote against this resolution and get backto work. I just ask everybody to do so.

HON. MR. McGEER:It seems like old times. We haven't had an all-night debate in thischamber for more than ten years; it's probably closer to a dozen. Doyou know why these all-night debates were abandoned years ago? Becauseof the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett). He was the one whorailed against the all-night debate: how criminal it was, and howunparliamentary. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I know you weren't here, and youcan't believe it. It was the Leader of the Opposition who said: "Never,ever again will there be a late night debate in this LegislativeAssembly." Never again until tonight. Why was it necessary? I'll tellyou why it was necessary: because it was inconvenient for the Leader ofthe Opposition to appear during the throne speech debate. It wasinconvenient for him to defend his party when the time came for theirnon-confidence motion. Nobody saw the Leader of the Opposition. Hecouldn't work it into his schedule.

If you'll recall, therewas much said in that debate pointing out the absence of policy fromthe New Democratic Party — no policy at all and no constructivesuggestions. There was no thought at all in debate until the time cameto adjourn the debate. This afternoon the Leader of the Oppositionfound it convenient to attend the House, and then he found that thetime had come when neither he nor anyone in his party had advanced anyreasons at all why they should be in opposition, much less government.We had gone ten days without a single thought of any consequence comingfrom the New Democratic Party.

Then in some death-bedrepentance this evening we've engaged in something which is, to use theLeader of the Opposition's own words, "a cuckoo plan." It's a cuckooplan to do something which, I suppose, has never been done in thehistory of British parliamentary debate: to engage upon a whole thronespeech in a motion to adjourn. In the history of legislative debate, Idon't think there has ever been a circ*mstance where the Leader of theOpposition, having found it inconvenient to be present in debate,initiated a whole new throne debate on a motion to adjourn. Mr.Speaker, I've never seen anybody come into a chamber before with apodium to debate a motion to adjourn.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER:I must say, Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the members of that partyshould be restless. I'm not surprised that during their conventionthere was some pretty heavy thought as to whether there should be a newleader of the New Democratic Party. Because I can tell you, thedisorganization which marked the period in which they were ingovernment, and has now marked the period when they've been inopposition, has not been cured one bit by another attempt at a thronedebate — in the middle of the night — on a motion to adjourn.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

[ Page 6808 ]

It'sreally a strange thing, Mr. Speaker, that suddenly people shouldrealize that the purpose of this Legislative Assembly's being calledtogether is to permit the members an opportunity to debate during thethrone speech, to bring forward all of the proposals for constructivechange and to bring forward their criticisms of the government. Severaltimes this week there has not been a quorum in this chamber, whenmembers of the New Democratic Party have risen to make whateverspeeches they've been able to prepare in these many months when they'vebeen at home, while all the lazy ministers have been at workadministering British Columbia. They've been at home not being able toprepare any kind of speeches or lessons for this assembly, and thenarrive in this House and deliver a stream of consciousness so that eventheir members won't attend. Then, Mr. Speaker, at the hour ofadjournment they suddenly realize that they were supposed to come hereand engage in some debate and present some ideas. So there has beenanother effort — a last spasmodic gasp — producing nothing more thanthe empty rhetoric that we've been hearing for this full week, but notone single idea.

I have a suggestion for the oppositionparty. They'll have an opportunity to go home and spend some timepreparing speeches. I don't know whether four months would be enoughfor them, because certainly four years — or five years in opposition —have not been enough for them to reflect on the disaster they broughtto British Columbia when they were in government.

One otherthing, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me after this evening's performancethat they might well give careful thought during the weeks and monthsahead as to what they ought to do, as a party, about leadership,because surely that's the first step to developing quality. Perhaps inthis hiatus which they badly need — this having been demonstrated thisevening — they could give some consideration to how to address theproblem of leadership, since they obviously lack it in the House, andwhat they should do about the problem of policy. Mr. Speaker, if theycould come back as a revived party with some capacity for debate andsome ability to present a program to the people of British Columbia,then they might be taken seriously by the public of this province. Butas it stands now....

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER:Mr. Speaker, I don't want to dwell on the past, as the Leader of theOpposition spent his time this evening doing, trying to recall thebygone days when he was in opposition — and more effective in debate, Imight say — and trying to fit the history of this provinceinto the context of tomorrow. What is required is not reliving thepast, but to develop contemporary policies for the contemporaryproblems and opportunities that face British Columbia. This is what isso conspicuously lacking, Mr. Speaker, in the presentations that theNew Democratic Party have brought forward, even to this dying effort ofputting forward some show of force, some ideas, before they go home toreflect for a few months' time on their performance in this House.

Certainly,if we can believe the statements made by individual members — if we canaccept in the present disorganized state of the NDP the statements ofindividual party members as a reflection of the policy of that party —then the public of British Columbia should take cognizance that thedisaster suffered under the NDP from 1972 to 1975 would pale bycomparison with what would take place if the present group inopposition ever were to gain power. We've heard member after memberstand up and advance ideas that would be total disaster for BritishColumbia.

MR. BARNES: Like human rights.

HON. MR. McGEER:You're against the development of the economy, Mr. Member. You don'twant to dam any rivers. You don't want power in this province. Youdon't want natural resource development in this province. You'reagainst northeast coal. What are you for? Yes, we've heard the memberfor Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) give a long diatribe this evening aboutthe lazy members, and how all the people that she represents have to behelped in British Columbia. We agree with that, except there's onething. This party delivers. We deliver because, too, we believe in thedevelopment of the economy of British Columbia, and it's only throughthe development of the economy — only by having people working, not onwelfare — that the others can be supported. As the Premier of theprovince said today, "work and wages." That's the policy of SocialCredit. Your policy is welfare, because you don't know how to developthe economy. All you understand is how to shut it down.

Itis appropriate that the House adjourn this evening. It's appropriatebecause nobody needs that adjournment more than the NDP. No party shouldever hang its head in shame as should the NDP for their performance inthis House during the past week. They're the ones who need the rest.They're the ones who need to go home and do some thinking. They're theones who need to reflect upon the leadership of their party, on thepolicies that they've developed, on their program for British Columbia,and only when they have done that kind of homework should they appearagain in this Legislative Assembly, so as not to be an embarrassment tothe public of British Columbia. That's what you've been through thisdebate this past week.

Mr. Speaker, the hour is late, and weshould put this session of the Legislative Assembly, characterized byemptiness of debate from the opposition, out of its misery, and havethis Legislative Assembly reconvene for debate when these members inopposition are ready for debate. In the meantime, the government ofthis province will be in the sound hands of Social Credit, as it hasbeen for this past six years, and will continue to be — not for six,not for twelve, not for eighteen, but another two dozen years or more.Why? Because the New Democratic Party, by their performance in thisHouse, proves session after session their incapability of governingBritish Columbia.

MRS. DAILLY: It is now five minutesto two, and I hope that we can keep the House awake for the next fortyminutes. I couldn't help thinking, when the last member was speaking,that I recall twelve years ago, when that member and I were bothsitting on this side of the House. That member was up making the sameattempt at a venomous attack on the Social Credit government. At thattime, of course, he was complaining, as we were, about the barbariclate hours of sitting. No one appreciates staying in the Legislatureuntil this time in the morning when we've all had a fairly long day. Ican assure you that the opposition didn't take this step very lightly.

Thereason that we're here debating at this time in the morning is simplybecause we have no intention, as members of Her Majesty's LoyalOpposition, in just folding up and

[ Page 6809 ]

leavingthis Legislature in December, 1981, following a vacuous throne speechthat has given no hope to the citizens of British Columbia that thisgovernment is competent enough to deal with the economic problems today.

Wehave a responsibility to stay here and to hope that this governmentsomehow or other will be able to listen to some of our constructivepolicies and suggestions, and hopefully will be ready, after they havelistened, to take some positive steps to help the economic crisis.

Mr.Speaker, I have to disagree with some of my colleagues who have beenreferring to this Social Credit government as being a lazy government.I don't thing they are really lazy; I think they are just incompetent.

MR. BARNES: And impotent.

MRS. DAILLY:Right — and impotent. I really feel that even at high speed they wouldstill be incompetent and impotent, because they simply are not able tocome up with anything inventive. They are not able to cope with theproblems of 1980 and 1981.

Mr. Speaker, all we have to do is look at the throne speech again. I am going to be negative to start with and hopefully will end up on a positive note. You know, most of our speeches throughout the last week have contained some very positive statements, but naturally that government over there is incapable, apparently, of assimilating positive statements from the opposition. Instead, they like to spend their time, as did the former member who just spoke, in just regurgitating over and over again the same old tired, negative aspersions against the former NDP government. But, you know, the people of British Columbia are getting very, very tired of that. They say: "Look, isn't it about time that this Social Creditgovernment accepted their responsibility and came out with somepositive policies, and stopped talking about a former government?"

Mr.Speaker, if you look at the throne speech again, when it comes to theforest industry, which is the biggest problem that this province facesright now.... Whether it's to do with the American economy or not,it's certainly accepted by the members of the House on this side also.But when you listen to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland)speak, there is no hope that he has any grasp on, or any intention oftrying to ease, the situation with some alternatives — despite the factof the American situation. Surely he could have listened to some of thepositive programs put forward by our critic and others on this side ofthe House for trying to alleviate some of the problems in our forestindustry.

Whether people liked the demonstration in thegallery or not, it was certainly very clear that this governmentfaces a serious problem because of their lack of understanding,apparently, of how serious the situation is for the many unemployed in our province today.

Mr. Speaker, I understand there is no quorum, so I will s move adjournment until the next sitting of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair has determined at this time that there is a quorum present; 11 members are present.

MRS. DAILLY: I never could count. It gave me a little pause for a moment, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway,we have no hope from the Forests minister that he seems to grasp theseriousness of the situation. Perhaps he does, but he seems incapable,as does the government, of trying to alleviate some of the problems.

Whenit comes to the concern of the citizens about the increase in taxesimposed by Social Credit — sales taxes, ICBC rates, medicarepremiums.... . Do you know what the throne speech says, Mr.Speaker? It says: "We must not obscure the basic strength of oureconomy." You know, that gives great hope to the people out there,doesn't it? No wonder we're up here — no wonder we are delaying theclosing of this House when we and the people of the province of BritishColumbia have to deal with this vacuous statement.

Mr.Speaker, I notice that the Minister of Finance was out talking to agroup yesterday, and he let it drop that the poor people of BritishColumbia will have to expect increased taxes again. Even some of hisbusiness friends attacked him for making that statement. Finally, indespair, the business people of the province are asking whether thisgovernment understands that the imposition of more and more taxes isjust going to cause further stagnation of our economy.

Soyou see, Mr. Speaker, not only have they lost the faith of the averageworking person in this province because they're incompetent to governand to meet the problems today, but they are beginning to lose more andmore every day the faith of the business community that this isbusinesslike government that can govern.

Mr. Speaker,there's an almost naive complacency in this Social Credit governmentabout our economic problems. As I've said earlier, I don't think we canattribute it just to laziness, I want to repeat again that thegovernment is absolutely incompetent, and we in the official oppositionsay to you, step aside and give the NDP an opportunity to step in withsome positive policies. I want to give you an example of some positivepolicies that the NDP would bring in and did bring in in the past.

Housingis the one area that stands out as being one of the greatest problemswe face, and yet it is one area where this government shows completeincompetency in dealing with the problems. We almost felt sorry for theMinister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who had a major pressconference, and at the end of it no one understood what he was saying.I don't think the poor minister himself was able even to understandwhat he was told to say. I suppose the problem is that Treasury Boarddid not give him the money to produce a good program, and that istragic.

It is tragic when the Minister of Human Resources(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) can spend hours upon hours trying to promote aconvention centre and raise more money for it. Why doesn't she showone-tenth of that energy in raising money for housing for the averagecitizen in tis province? Unfortunately, that energy is divertedentirely only to the things which interest that particular minister.

Whatwe did when we were government.... This comes from a meeting Iattended where someone who was not involved with the NDP was justcommenting on the great success story of the cooperative housingmovement in the province of British Columbia. One of the greattragedies of that government, since they came into office, is theirseemingly almost calculated moves to obliterate every good housingpolicy that the NDP had created. If one area showed that more thananything else, it was their callous disregard for the importance of thecooperative housing movement in British Columbia, which took somegigantic steps ahead when the NDP became government. If you want totalk about policy, here are some positive policies which an NDPgovernment would move on again.

[ Page 6810 ]

Between1972 and 1975 it was a real success story for cooperative movement. Wemoved the cooperative movement in British Columbia to a point where itbecame the envy of other provinces in Canada. Do you know why? First,the NDP government recognized squarely and honestly the failure of theprivate development industry to meet the housing needs of a significantpercentage of B.C. residents. That is the basic problem with thatgovernment — that they still sit back and say: "Leave it up to theprivate development and have no government intervention; let's sitback" — just like Reagan is doing in the United States. We see theresults.

Isn't it interesting? You're endorsing the samepolicies that Reagan is. You're suffering here from Reagan's policiesand you're making the people of B.C. suffer from your stupidconservative fiscal policies.

If I can digress for a moment,Mr. Speaker, if anything is frightening it is what is happening to ourneighbour, the United States, where we find the perfect example ofgovernment saying: "We musn't interfere in anything. Let's remove allgovernment regulations so that there is no government interference.Keep government out of the people's business." One of the tragedies isthat one of their first moves down there has been to deregulate so manythings in the area of the environment and in safety, with the result,I'm sure, that because of this obsession with non-governmentintervention, we are going to find some pretty tragic things happeningin the United States because of a very conservative government whichmistakenly believes that if they take their hands out of anyinvolvement for the betterment of the people through any form ofgovernment regulation, society will progress. The tragedy is thatmillions of people are going to suffer from this idiotic approach. I'mreally concerned that this government over here is moving more and morein that direction. They're throwing up their hands and saying: "Wecan't do anything about the housing crisis, because we don't want tointerfere with the private developers." So nothing is happening.

Theco-op movement under the NDP government: first, we recognized theimportance of involvement by government. We recognized the need for analternative approach and for efficient and effective mechanisms todeliver that approach. We recognized that the key factor in theprovision of housing was land. It's almost farcical the way theMinister of Housing in the Social Credit government in the province ofBritish Columbia has been talking about the release of land for housingfor years. Nothing has happened. What nonsense! You have beengovernment since what — unfortunately it seems like an eternity toeveryone — over six years? And he tries to tell us that they've got anenviable record in housing? The record of that Social Credit governmentis the worst in Canada.

In December 1980, the Minister ofHousing announced major provincial initiatives to stabilize landprices. On December 11, he said: "Foreign ownership of housing is not aconcern to us." On December 14, Mr. Chabot said....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Rosemary, you're asleep!

MRS. DAILLY:I wish that member across from me were. His contribution and hisinterjections are really raising the level of debate on the floor ofthis House. We've had to put up with that for years. We just have toignore it.

On December 19: "Curtis indicated the governmentwill soon approve a capital cost allowance plan to assist in newhousing development." On January 29: "Hyndman says he is examiningshared appreciation mortgages." On February 21: "Chabot says thefederal-provincial shelter allowance program should be established tohelp renters." On March 3: "Chabot says he will ask cabinet to approvea provincial housing program." On March 7: "Hyndman says the rentalcrunch will soon be eased by new construction." On April 9: "Chabot andHyndman are reported to have a new plan for housing." On May 1:"Hyndman says there'll be a major housing policy." On May 30: "Bennetttells the B.C. Chamber of Commerce there will be a major housingannouncement." On June 3: "Chabot says, 'We're ready to take moreaction in housing.' " And so on and so on. The record of thatgovernment in housing is.... It's incompetent. You are absolutelyincompetent.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY:You've had enough trouble with northeast coal in your own portfolio. Ifwe put him into housing, could it be worse? I doubt it. As I saidearlier, this government's record in housing is one of the worst inCanada. We're standing here tonight, debating at 2:10 in the morning,because we cannot leave this floor until the people across from me,including the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips),understand that they do have a responsibility, not just to interjectwith inane remarks.... If the people of British Columbia were watchingthis on television, I think they would not be too pleased. I think theywould be saying: "How much money do we have to spend for these peopleto stand and argue?" They want some concrete action. We are here todemand that concrete action on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

Everythingthis government has attempted to do is too late. The housing crisis hasreached a point where people are suffering. They haven't come to gripswith the mortgage situation. Saskatchewan has announced a policy. Thenew government of Manitoba has already announced a policy. Thisgovernment has been in office since 1975, and they still can't come upwith a housing policy.

In the area of services to people,they have not given any hope to the people of British Columbia. Again,that's why we are here asking for some concrete statement from thisgovernment.

The Minister of Human Resources, as I referredto earlier, has spent most of her time on Pier B-C — with the seagulls,as you say. She has spent far too much time there and not enough timelooking at the serious problems in her own department. Certainly hergreat statements about putting people back to work.... Everyonewants to see people working, but the interesting thing is that it's alltalk. She talks about putting them back to day care. Yet for the lastseven years that Social Credit government, particularly the Minister ofTourism (Hon. Pat Jordan), has said: "We can't go for day-care centres;that's gross state inference with the bringing up of children." Do youremember those speeches?

The Minister of Human Resources, year after year....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY:Her critic, who is sitting beside me and interrupting me at the moment,has asked over and over again for that Minister of Human Resources toproduce some day-care centres. We will have much time, I'm sure, laterin the

[ Page 6811 ]

spring,to go over the history of that minister's remarks on the importance ofday care, which she completely brushed aside. Suddenly, very belatedly,the Minister of Human Resources has discovered that day care isimportant. But it's not important for the right reasons to her. It'sonly important because they fit in conveniently with her new welfarepolicy. She is not committed to day care, any more than the ministerfor Peace River even understands what I'm talking about at this moment.

TheMinister of Tourism has much to answer to when it comes to day care,because I'm sure that her attitude helped hold back the development ofday care in this province.

So suddenly, we have all theseyoung women and mothers told to go out and go to work, put yourchildren in day-care centres — and where are they?

MS. BROWN: They don't exist. The Minister of Tourism kept saying mothers should take care of their children.

MRS. DAILLY: Right. Who is....? Would you ask this member who is making this speech, Mr. Speaker?

We'vehad to listen to so many half-truths, so many myths from that SocialCredit government, it's almost pathetic. They just spend their timeover and over again in so-called debate with the opposition. They can'teven seem to understand our policies, how we're trying to give themsome help. Instead, they go back and talk about the years of the NDPadministration, completely glossing over the many glorious, importantpolicies that happened in those years. I want to assure you, Mr.Speaker, that the people of British Columbia have had time now tocompare the two governments. I say we're ready at any time to go to thepeople and face that comparison. May I also say that the policies thatthe NDP is enunciating in housing, economics, where we want some equityin our resources, and not just subsidies....

The policies the NDP are enunciating, even at 2:15 in the morning, still sound pretty good, don't they?

Ithink it's tragic that this government is sitting here without thePremier even in his seat — showing absolutely no interest in thisdebate, and yet the losers are the people out there. The losers are thepeople of British Columbia who are waiting for a government to givesome leadership to help them out of this economic crisis. That is whyit is time for the government over there to concede they areincompetent, they are bereft of policies. I think it's time for achange.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, it's been aday or two since I've sat in this Legislature at 18 minutes after twoin the morning, and I was thinking to myself, as I support the motion,why I would be sitting here at quarter after two on December 2. We'resitting here at quarter after two on December 2 because the oppositionhas frittered away their time since the House has come into session.They have not put forward any programs for the people of B.C.

TheLeader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) has hardly been in theLegislature since the session opened. I don't know where he's been, butmaybe he was out, Mr. Speaker, trying to do a little homework; tryingto come up with some positive program. Unfortunately that leader isburned out. He's had it, and his party knows that he's had it. They'requestioning his leadership. He was a poor leader when they weregovernment and he's been worse since they've gone back into oppositionsome six years ago. No wonder we have all-night sittings, because,believe it or not, the Leader of the Opposition finally wokeup and said: "I haven't even spoken in the debate." He was away anddidn't even speak when that frivolous non-confidence motion was broughtforward by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), and he did notsupport it. As my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey said, this is adeath-bed repentance.

The truth of the matter is that thatparty is completely devoid of policy. I have listened since this Houseopened, and I have listened since we went back tonight at 8 o'clock —now it's 22 minutes after 2 o'clock. I've listened intently to theLeader of the Opposition: not one single, solitary, positive aspect,note or policy emanating from the NDP benches.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:Oh, there is that member for Victoria over there who is great on policybut has never done a day's work in his life. He has functioned verywell on grants from the government — I guess you'd call him an armchairwonder.

The NDP have had really no debate whatsoever duringthis throne speech. I listened to them standing here tonight, Mr.Speaker, asking questions about the economy and questions aboutnortheast coal. During question period there was not one question tothe Minister of Industry and Small Business Development on economicpolicy, not one question on northeast coal. What were they busy doingduring question period. Mr. Speaker? They were busy muckraking. Smearand innuendo is all they know how to do. Not one question was put tothe Minister of Industry and Small Business Development during questionperiod — not one question about northeast coal, not one question aboutthe forest industry, not one question about the economy. No, they'retoo busy down in the gutter. The trademark of the socialist hordes inBritish Columbia is muckraking and guttersniping.

I waslistening with a great deal of interest about them yacking about theforest industry, but their spiritual leader was supporting the IWA whenthey were out on strike. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I've justcome back from some overseas missions where we have the opportunity tosell our lumber on the international marketplace. What was the firstquestion I was asked? "What about security of supply? You want tomerchandise your lumber; we want to build houses with your lumber, butwe want to ensure as we switch over to using British Columbia lumberthat indeed there is going to be a secure supply." You can't have asecure supply when your industry goes out on strike. That's the policyof the NDP Their spiritual leader, supporting strikes in thisprovince.... I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, it's time the NDP andthe labour union leaders in this province recognize that BritishColumbia, to survive, must sell in the international marketplace,because I happen to think that the working people of this province wantthe opportunity to work.

It's great for the NDP now to standup and talk about layoffs in the lumber industry. There are markets outthere other than the United States, but we have to break into thosemarkets. And if we want to break into those markets, let me tell youand the other members of this Legislature and all the people of BritishColumbia, particularly those that are working in the lumber industry,they want to know that they're going to have security of supply. Oh,we've made some great strides. We've made some progress into theinternational marketplace, and it's just a little embarrassing to gointo those areas and say: "Well, we don't know whether to buy from

[ Page 6812 ]

you or not because, Mr. Minister, we're not positive that you're going to be a reliable supplier."

Mr.Speaker, that group of socialists over there support strikes and unionbosses, but they don't support the working man. The government is outthere to support the working man and to ensure that we sell not only inthe United States but indeed that we make progress into the Europeancommunity and make further progress into the Japanese market — which isalmost as big as that of the United States — that we break in a newmarket such as Korea, which is going to embark on a tremendous majorhousing program, and that we continue in the European community intothe countries of the United Kingdom; Holland, France, Germany andItaly. If we're going to market our products — not only lumber but ourother products — in the international marketplace, the workers, theunion bosses and the NDP better realize that we must be a reliablesupplier and that we must supply our product at a competitive price andthat it must be of high quality.

It's great for the NDP tostand up here and mouth about layoffs in the forest industry. Yes,we've got some problems, and we're working with the forest industry.The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and myself have met withthe forest industry and we will be working with them. We will besurveying new markets. We will be coming up with new merchandisingideas. But all of our efforts will be in vain unless the union bosses,who, in my humble opinion, do not really speak for the working man anylonger.... I just happen to think the union bosses are living backin the 1920s and 1930s. They haven't kept up to date with the modernworld, but that is not going unrecognized by the working people.

Youtalk about housing. There have been more housing starts in BritishColumbia this year than there has ever been. There have been morehousing starts per capita than in any province in Canada. What are theydoing by standing up here criticizing? Have they offered anyalternative? I've listened to the criticism about the layoffs in thelumber industry, and I've also listened very keenly to a suggestion — apolicy.

MR. BARBER: Proclaim B.C. Savings and Trust.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:Oh, to proclaim B.C. Savings and Trust is going to save the world. Whatthey're really saying is: "Let the government take over the creditunions in the province of British Columbia." If they couldn't run thecredit unions any better than they run the government of BritishColumbia, I wouldn't want them running anything in this province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:Oh, will you quit your yacking? You've had lots of opportunity, and allyou've stood up and done is talk about prophecy and airy-fairy dealsthat you read out of a book. You've never met a banker in your life.You've never met a payroll in your life. You don't know the meaning ofa dollar. You've got all your money from government. So why don't youshut up and let me talk, Mr. Member for Victoria? You're just anarmchair airy-fairy socialist. You've never gone out and earned a day'sliving in your life. It's great for you to go on television and expoundyour policy....

So why don't you just shut up? Why don't you ride your bicycle up the path?

MS. BROWN: You're a welfare bum.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:You're not a welfare bum. You're one of these capitalist socialists.Your dress probably cost $500. You've never worked a day in your lifeeither.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:Order, please, hon. members. If one member speaks at a time it helpsgreatly in debate. Also, if the member speaking would address theChair, it does have a tendency to keep other conversations to a minimum.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:I'll tell you what their policy is, and I've listened intently to itsince the Legislature started sitting a few days ago. Every commentthat has been made by the socialist opposition is: give more welfare,give more welfare. I'd like to run down just a slight record of....

Theytalk about jobs. They haven't come up with any policies. They natterand yatter about the forest industry, but have they come up with...?

Oh,I'm sorry. Yes, they've come up with a policy for the forest industry.The Leader of the Opposition is going to buy up the forest industrywith taxpayers' money to keep the jobs. I don't know what he's going todo with the lumber. That's the policy of the socialists opposite.

We have a good record in this government of creating....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:You speak for your record, my friend, and I'll stand on mine. We have agood record in this government of creating jobs, and we have a numberof programs on the planning boards. But what is the record of the NDP?They are against every positive project that we have put forward. Yetthey talk about creating jobs. They're against northeast coal, whichwill create thousands and thousands of jobs in this province, not onlyfor this year, but for decades to come. As new mines come on, newpeople will be employed. They talk about jobs in industry, yet they'retotally against any further development of power in this province.They're against every power project that we have proposed. Negative!Oh, they say: well, you should create more jobs in the province. Idon't know how we're going to create more jobs unless we have power.They're against nuclear power, they're against damming our rivers andthey're against thermal power. Maybe they're for candles; but, I'lltell you, I'm glad they're not for lanterns, because their oil isrunning very low and their light is getting very dim.

They are against the Hat Creek development. They don't want that.

MR. BARBER: Do you favour nuclear power?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Why don't you just shut up?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. minister, the terminology the member used is hardly in parliamentary keeping, and I would ask him to....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:Yes, I'll withdraw that, Mr. Speaker, but I thought he might understandthat language, because he doesn't understand anything else.

[ Page 6813 ]

Theyare against the development of power from Hat Creek and the project ofcoal liquefaction. They're against the development of Site C on thePeace River. Yes, you're against it. Sure, you're against everythingthat is good for the working man in British Columbia — you're againsteverything that will provide jobs now and into the future. You'reagainst the Laird and the Stikine. In total, Mr. Speaker, they areagainst every power development in this province. It doesn't matterwhether it's from a renewable resource like water power, from coal,from nuclear or from anything. They are against power, yet they piouslystand in this Legislature and say: "Oh, but we're for jobs." I guesstheir policy is that we should have more power from waste woodproducts. I don't think they understand that 17 percent of the powergenerated in this province today is from waste wood products. They haveno understanding and no conception of the power needs of this province.

Italways amazes me when I hear the socialist hordes opposite talk aboutjobs. They're against the development of a petrochemical manufacturingfacility in this province. They would far rather see our natural gasput into a pipeline with a couple of compressor stations and sent downto the United States. We used to have a take-or-pay contract with theUnited States. But when they were government they did away with thetake-or-pay contract. So what did the United States do? As soon as theydiscovered a little gas of their own they shut off the valve. Now thatwe can establish a petrochemical manufacturing industry in the provincewhich will not only create thousands of man-years of employment duringconstruction but will also provide solid employment on a steady basisfor decades to come, they're against it.

They're against thedevelopment of mining in the province of British Columbia. Witness howthey drove out the mining industry when they were government. They'reagainst the port of Prince Rupert, which will be the second largestwest coast port development in British Columbia. They're against theport, even though it will hurt the province of Saskatchewan. This portis necessary in order that goods and services from Saskatchewan canflow into the Pacific Rim. The NDPers in Saskatchewan believe ininternational trade. They know they must export their products. The NDPare against the development of Prince Rupert.

They wereagainst the development of Duke Point; they fought that as well — agreat development here on the Island, which not only provided thousandsand thousands of jobs during construction, but also has provided anindustrial park for future development to help the economy of theIsland.

They were against the development of Roberts Bank,because they don't have a common policy. Their environmentalist memberfrom Port Alberni is against any development. Yet some of their othermembers stand in this Legislature and talk about jobs. They have beenagainst B.C. Place. They don't seem to understand that during thedevelopment of B.C. Place — which the Premier talked about thisafternoon, and there's no sense my repeating it — there were thousandsof jobs in the construction industry, plus hundreds of jobs thereafter,in running the facility.

[Mr. Nicolson in the chair.]

Iwish the member for New Westminster (Mr. co*cke) were in the Legislaturetonight. He was against the development of downtown New Westminster,that $250 million development initiated by the British ColumbiaDevelopment Corporation, which will give that city a newlift during construction. It will create thousands and thousands ofjobs. Even the member for New Westminster was against it.

Theywere against the development of Lonsdale Quay, which is providingthousands and thousands of jobs during construction. It will give alift to the North Shore, and it will provide thousands of jobs wellinto the future. It's a great development by the British ColumbiaDevelopment Corporation in rehabilitating that piece of land. Oh, theywere great for buying land, but they weren't much for developing it.

They'reagainst Pier B-C. They do not realize the advantages of having a tradeand convention centre at Canada's great gateway to the Pacific. It willnot only help the province of British Columbia, but it will also helpall the provinces in Canada and all the industry of Canada. It's ourshowplace of the great Pacific Rim, where the action is going to be inthe next several decades.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ocean Falls — what is it now?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:Oh, yes, you like losers like Ocean Falls, Swan Valley, South PeaceDehy.... You back all the losers. Yes, when they're going broke andcan't survive, buy them out, take them over. That's the socialistphilosophy. Don't go with a winner. Don't go with something that's goodfor the people of British Columbia. Don't go for something that's goingto make a profit for the people of British Columbia. Don't go forsomething that's going to help us in the international marketplace. No,go with all the losers. That's what your so-called leader wants to do.As soon as somebody's going broke, buy him out and the government takesover. Spend the taxpayers' money on losers; don't go with winners. No,you're against all the winners, my friend. That's why you're losers.That's why you're not even good opposition. That's why you were no goodas government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. Please address the Chair.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:Mr. Speaker, they're also against Transpo. They're against the rapidtransit system. They're against further coal development in thesoutheast. Oh, they had a lot to say about the southeast in the springsession of the Legislature. They stood here and they organized themayors from the southeast and they came into my office and said: "Oh,if you develop northeast coal you're going to steal all the marketsfrom the southeast." I want to tell you: today another announcementcame through for another 100,000 tonnes. It happens every day as amatter of course. The southeast can't handle the sales. Why?

Oh,they're great to stand here in the Legislature and criticize travellingby the minister of economic development, who goes into the marketplaceand who had to tell the international marketplace in all the countriesin the world that British Columbia is no longer the Chile of the north;no, we want to sell.

I remember when I first went to Koreasome five years ago. I started talking to Korea Electric Co. and PohangIron and Steel. I said: "We'd like to sell you some coal." They said:"Don't talk to us about coal from British Columbia. We went there in1974 and we talked to the government of the day and they said: 'We'renot interested in selling coal to Korea; we're not interested inselling coal to anybody.' " I said: "My friends in Korea, let me tellyou, there's a new day in British Columbia."

[ Page 6814 ]

Whathappened in that span of five short years? Let me tell you, becauseit's a revelation. From buying no coal from British Columbia, writingoff British Columbia as a poor place to do business, today KoreaElectric Co., which provides electricity to 38 million people in acountry with no natural resource.... You think B.C. Hydro's gotproblems? They want to take a lesson from Korea Electric Co., whichprovides all the power for the country of Korea with 38 million peopleand no natural resources.

Anyway, they're building a newboiler, a huge new thermal plant. They said: "We're not going to buycoal from British Columbia." So I sat down and had a talk with them.They had their boilers all designed. Six months later they changed thedesign of the boilers to accommodate British Columbia coal. TodayBritish Columbia will be supplying 26 percent of the coal for that newplant. They can criticize the little minister of economic developmentall they want, but I'll tell you, the sale of that coal provides jobsnot only today but tomorrow and the next year and the next year,because they're long-term contracts.

Same thing with PohangIron and Steel. They came here to do business with the province ofBritish Columbia in 1974, and nobody would talk to them. When I firstmet with them they said: "You can forget trying to talk coal to us.We've written off British Columbia. Those socialists over there don'twant to do business with us." I said: "My friends, just a minute, thesocialist hordes have gone. It's a new day. We want jobs for BritishColumbia. We're going to compete in the international marketplace. Wecan be better than Australia, better than South Africa, better than theUnites States."

Today, my friends, what's happening? Largedevelopments of Pohang Iron and Steel. They designed their mill for 8.5million tonnes of steel a year. They're producing 9.2 million; they'rerunning 110 percent. And guess where 30 percent of the coal is comingfrom? It's coming from the southeast of British Columbia. Why? Becausewe went and asked for the order.

Those men that are employeddown there, in the southeast, those coal-miners, are happily employed.Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that we didn't steal themarkets away from the southeast. They can't handle the sales today fromthe southeast because of restrictions on the railway transportationsystem.

They're against the copper refinery for BritishColumbia. The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) — I can see him now. Whenwe announce a new world-scale copper smelter in British Columbia, he'llsay: "Oh, it's going to pollute!" I'll say: "Oh, it's going to employthousands and thousands of people."

Further processing ofour natural resources — oh, it's on the drawing board; it isn't goingto happen next week, but that's part of the plans of this greatgovernment. That's how we're going to create jobs and how we're goingto further process our industry. But how are we going to do it withoutany power? They're against power. They stand up here and piously talkabout jobs, but they're against everything we do to create jobs.

Ilistened to the member for New Westminster (Mr. co*cke), who is back inthe House now. When we worked with the federal government to put a newdrydock in Burrard Yarrows, oh, he stood up here and he was against it.I want to tell you today, Mr. Speaker, that there are people gainfullyemployed in that new drydock. What did I read in the paper justrecently? B.C. shipyards, because of that new drydock, get millions andmillions of dollars worth of business.

He was against it. Hestood up here and condemned it. The NDP over there, Mr. Speaker, hasbeen against every project that this government has ever brought in.Negative, negative, harping criticism! When the Ministry of Highwayssays we've got to build a new Annacis Island bridge in order toaccommodate transport and industry at Annacis Island and in the LowerMainland, they're against it.

How many items have I named sofar? Northeast coal, Hat Creek, coal liquefaction, Site C, Laird,Stikine, petrochemicals.... Oh, power to Vancouver Island; I missedthat one. I heard talk from the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson)about what this government has done for industry in Victoria. Whenwe wanted to bring power to Vancouver Island to accommodate the growingindustry on the Island, who was against it? That second member forVictoria. Yet he stands up here and says: "Oh, what are you going to dofor industry in Victoria? You haven't done anything for industry inVictoria."

You'd better run out to Saanich and take a lookat the new marine technology centre. You'd better go out to UVic andsee the high-technology industrial park we're building, my friend.You'd better wake up. I've said in this Legislature before, and I'llsay it again: industry is going to go to those communities that wantit. If we were to bring industry to Victoria, you'd stand up and be thefirst one against it. Everything we do in Victoria — it doesn't matterwhether it's a convention centre or what — you're against it, becauseyour whole party's philosophy is negative, negative harping criticism.

Iwant to go back a few years, Mr. Speaker, and not too many at that. Wewanted to start developing the economy of British Columbia. We saidthere was gas down in the Grizzly Valley area, so we should build apipeline, a new scrubbing plant, and develop the area so that the oilwells and the drills would go in there and develop more gas. What didthe NDP say? They had the opportunity to build that pipeline and thatscrubbing plant when they were in government, Mr. Speaker. They killedthe project. Oh, leave the gas in the ground. Maybe they think it'slike ants: it will multiply or something if you leave it there. Oh,they were against it: hundreds of jobs, great development, peoplegainfully employed today.

They're against new pulpmills.They're against new sawmills. They're against everything that moves inthis province, and yet they stand up on their high horse piouslytalking about new jobs. Oh, how fictitious can they be! They are aparty devoid of policy, or any concrete plans. As a matter of fact, Ithink they're all encased in concrete.

But what are theyfor? They're for more welfare, more Pharmacare. They're for all thesocial programs. You'd think that they had captured the market onsocial programs. I want to ask you who has brought in more socialprograms in this province than any other government? It's been theSocial Credit government, my friends. I want to tell you, if thisprovince had continued to decay the way it was decaying in the threeyears they were government, the people would not have the socialprograms they have today, because there would be no money to pay forthem. Make no mistake about that.

What else are they for?What is their policy? I've listened intently. All I've heard them talkabout is Swan Valley, what a great deal it was — the biggest loser inthe history of this province. Yes, that was their swan dive. Oh, theywere great.

[ Page 6815 ]

Theystarted a big dehy plan up in the great Peace River country. Biggestloser the farming industry has ever known. But that's their policy.

Oh,yes, I've heard the Leader of the Opposition. That guy that's run outof steam over there, the guy that's dead — lost all his wind. He has noheart in being the leader of that rump group any more. What does hetalk about? He talks about Railwest. They're going to put people towork manufacturing railroad cars. The fact that the taxpayers are goingto have to subsidize every railcar they manufacture to the tune of$34,000 doesn't mean a thing. We're going to put people to work, We'reputting people to work, gainfully employed — long-term jobs that aregood for the private sector, not losers.

MS. BROWN: Fifteen thousand woodworkers.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:Oh, you're for more welfare. All you know is welfare. If I've ever seena capitalist socialist, you're one, my friend. Yes, yes, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Amen, brothers.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:I don't want to remind you again, but I mentioned this in theLegislature the other day. Compare those dark years of 1975 with 1981.Oh, there was a downturn in the world economy, sure. What was on thedrawing boards? Absolutely nothing. I want to tell you they would havehad to pull down the blinds as the last person left British Columbia,because they were leaving in droves. Compare that with today. Theyleft British Columbia absolutely destitute. People were fleeing ourprovince. They didn't have any housing problems. I take that back. Yes,they had a housing problem — all those empty houses, because peoplewere leaving British Columbia like fleas. What did they do? Theprovince was going broke. They tried to hide it under a snowbank, andgot an election in the middle of the winter.

I want to tellyou we generated enough heat during that election campaign. We meltedthose snowbanks and the facts came forward. The people wereenlightened, and they elected Social Credit. What are we doing? Theysaid we haven't done anything for jobs. Just look at the record thisyear alone. Highmont mine, employing hundreds of people duringconstruction, will continue to employ hundreds of people — justrecently opened up. A $150 million investment. Lornex Mining isexpanding — a $160 million....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ah.... The green light...?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS. I'll rush along. Yes, I'll rush along. Amax is employing hundreds of people during construction, and will continue to employ hundreds of people. They were against it. Oh, but they stand on their pious horse here, and talk about jobs. We've created jobs, I want to tell you, and we'll create jobs well into this decade and into the next because this government is planning for the future.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There is the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) ; she never worked a day in her life.

Theytalk about manufacturing shipments — I just want to give you somefigures. Mr. Speaker, about manufacturing shipments. Oh, the Leader ofthe Opposition.... You know, his wax is burning very low, and thered light is on. I wish I had more time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the hon. member for his speech. The time has elapsed.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk about all the great ski areas: I wantedto talk about tourism. There were dozens of things I wanted to talkabout that this great government has done to create jobs. They are notonly jobs now, but well into the future — all jobs without governmenttakeover. Oh, we're planning, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker! Oh,we're planning not only now....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Who's doing it? Us! Yes, we are planning.

MR. SKELLY:Mr. Speaker. that's a tough act to follow in some ways! [Laughter.]Some of the things the minister says are interesting, and we shouldreply to those.

On the one hand he talks about going tothese foreign countries — to Japan, to Italy and to Europe — trying topersuade them to buy our timber or our lumber over there, and theysuggest to him that it is the strikes and lockouts in the laboursituation in B.C. that cause problems with the security of supply. I'mwondering what he's suggesting. Is he suggesting that we initiatelegislation in this province to ban strikes and lockouts, or that wecontrol strikes and lockouts in some way, or cut down the power of theunions in this province? Is that what the minister is suggesting"Should we sacrifice the rights of working people in this province toorganize and to bargain collectively for better wages and conditions inorder to gain markets in Europe and in Japan? Is that what they'redemanding of that minister, and is that what that minister issuggesting in the way of legislation to control the labour force in theprovince of B.C., to make our industry more accept able to somepurchasers of commodities in foreign countries?

Should ourworkers submit to the demands made upon them by foreign purchasers ofour commodities? Is that what the minister is suggesting? Should we curbthe freedom of individuals here in British Columbia in order to makeour commodities available to the countries of Europe and to Japan?

Well,Mr. Speaker, I for one suggest that that is not what is being demandedof our government. However, I believe it's what is being demanded ofthe minister by his own party in their convention, and I believe it'sthe propensity of the minister himself to cut down the rights ofworking people in this province and to curb their right to organize andbargain collectively to improve wages and working conditions in theprovince of British Columbia. That's what that member has always stoodfor — curbing the rights of working people in this province and curbingtheir ability to bargain fair wages and working conditions. Mr.Speaker, not even the Employers Council of British Columbia would goalong with nonsense like that, and I certainly don't believe for oneminute that the overseas purchasers of commodities from the province ofBritish Columbia would ever attempt to impose that kind of a conditionfor a purchase on the government of British Columbia.

[ Page 6816 ]

Whatthe minister also fails to mention, Mr. Speaker, and one of the reasonswhy we're against some projects that the government has proposed — butnot all, some projects....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Name them!

MR. SKELLY: We've got lots of time, and will name certain projects.

Butone of the reasons why we're against some of those projects is that theprojects themselves are dangerous to the health and safety of thepeople who will be working in or near them. We will not for one minute,Mr. Speaker, support projects like that until it is obvious and clearto us — and clear through environmental impact analyses and otherstudies, and also through an effective public hearing process whereworkers can be involved, where the public can be involvedeffectively.... Not until those projects have been cleared by thatprocess will we accept projects that appear on their surface to bedangerous to the lives, health and safety of working people and peopleworking and living near those projects.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I'll get down to naming some in a minute.

It'sinteresting to note the contradiction in the member's speech. At onetime he stood up and said: "We're having all these new projects comingahead in New Westminster, at Hat Creek, in the Peace River, in thenortheast coal sector, in the southeast coal sector, Roberts Bank,Prince Rupert, all of these projects that are on the drawing board."

Ifthose projects are creating such wealth and employment in BritishColumbia, then what are we doing cutting back on our programs? What arewe doing cutting single parents off welfare, cutting back on the amountof money we make available to those people? What are we doing cuttingback on health programs, on Pharmacare, on programs that providenecessary services to the people? If this province is so rich, sowealthy, and people are employed in such vast numbers, why do we haveto cut back on these programs? Probably because of what the member forBurnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) said.

It's one thing to havethese projects. The NDP has always stated that they're in favour ofdevelopment and growth in the province, but only development and growthon terms that are favourable to the people of the province of BritishColumbia and in which this province is a participant. If we have allthese projects going ahead in the province of B.C. and they aren'tproviding adequate revenues to the provincial government, then theremust be some problem with the competence of the provincial governmentand their ability to develop revenues from new developments in thisprovince. That's the real problem: fiscal mismanagement and governmentincompetence from a government that's totally lazy, totallyineffective. They leave everything up to the private sector and cannotgenerate from those new developments the revenues we require to provideneeded services to the people living in this province who have a rightto those services as a result of their citizenship.

Isupport the motion that we should keep this session going, There isbusiness for this Legislature to do. There is business that needs to bedone for the people of the province of British Columbia.

I'dlike to explain some of the problems that are being experienced rightnow in the constituency of Alberni, some of the problems that relatedirectly to the mismanagement of this economy by the Social Creditgovernment. Now they blame world market conditions, interest rates andthe federal government, but the problems in Port Alberni can be relateddirectly to the inefficiency, laziness and incompetence of the SocialCredit government in the province of British Columbia.

Whatis happening right now in Port Alberni? There are over a thousandpeople laid off in the forest industry in Port Alberni. The town has apopulation of roughly 19,000 or 20,000. I'll tell you what the effectis. It's that something like one breadwinner in every six families islaid off in Port Alberni. If you can imagine the problems that thatwould cause in the community of Nelson, Mr. Speaker, it is a seriousproblem in Port Alberni.

The whole economy is affectedbecause there is naturally a spinoff. The wages and salaries earned inthe forest industry in Port Alberni are passed right through theeconomy of that city, having an important effect on the local economy.The results? Businesses are shutting down. Businesses are moving awayfrom Port Alberni. Salaries aren't being paid. People are being laidoff. As a result money isn't trading hands and retail sales are down.People are having extreme difficulties in Port Alberni.

Onefamily in six is affected right now, and under the present government'spolicies, by the time spring of 1982 rolls around, it's expected thatthe problem will be double, so that one family in three will beaffected. And it affects everyone in Port Alberni — not simply incommercial terms, not simply in terms of the success or failure ofbusiness or the ability of people to find jobs and to work, Thosearen't the only terms in which the city is affected and the populationis affected. Social service workers and teachers tell me that under theconditions we're now experiencing, social problems increase — crimeincreases, family violence increases, assaults on children increase.This economic situation is causing serious social problems. I realizethat the government couldn't give a darn about those social problems,but there is a serious social cost involved in the economic conditionswhich we're experiencing now in Port Alberni.

What happensin the middle of all these problems? When people are experiencing theseproblems, then there's a cutback in the social service payments made bythe provincial government. What happens with cases of domesticviolence? What happens in cases of assaults on children? The staff inthe Human Resources offices are being cut back, assistance to familieswho are experiencing these problems is being cut back, and those socialproblems are being made worse. And that's from the Social Creditgovernment that just a few minutes ago we heard was doing such greatthings for the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I don't knowwhere these great things are happening, but they're certainly nothappening in many of the resource-associated communities on VancouverIsland and, I suspect, on the mainland and throughout the province aswell.

What the minister was talking about in his speech afew minutes ago was nothing but a bunch of hot air. He said that whenhe took office in 1975 there was nothing on the drawing board, and nowin this province all we have is drawing boards. All we have is thesewild plans and projections by the minister, plans and projections thatseem to disappear as they come out of the wild mind and imagination ofthe Minister of Industry and Small Business Development.

[ Page 6817 ]

Hetalked about housing and how there have been more housing starts inBritish Columbia during the Social Credit period of office than thereever was under the NDP. If you look at individual communities, Mr.Speaker, that is absolutely false and without foundation in fact. Ifyou look at the housing-start statistics for Port Alberni and theAlberni-Clayoquot Regional District that I represent, housing startshave gone down consistently since 1974, with the specific exception of1977 when there was a mini-boom and housing increased.

Inthe last little while, Mr. Speaker, companies from Vancouver have movedinto Alberni. As the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon.Mr. Hyndman) has been advised, a big investment company has now movedinto Port Alberni and is buying up a lot of the old housing stock inPort Alberni, which for a long time escaped the kind of price increaseswe had in Vancouver. Those investors have now taken advantage of thelow prices of housing in Port Alberni to drive up rents, to drive uphouse prices and to drive people who are already suffering fromeconomic conditions in that city out of their homes. They're allowingthose houses to run down, they're ignoring the provisions of theresidential tenancies legislation. They get very little assistance fromthis provincial government in resolving their grievances with landlordsand with that investment company.

One of the problems withthis government, Mr. Speaker, is that it totally ignores thetransportation needs of areas outside the major areas of the provincewhere it's having its megaproject developments. And places — smallremote communities like Port Alberni, Tofino, Ucluelet — that Irepresent are suffering, for example, from the lack of investment ofhighway funds in those areas, for which the Minister of Transportationand Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is directly responsible. Now he saysthat during the 1972-1975 years they called the NDP Minister ofHighways "Pothole Lea." In Alberni, Mr. Speaker, the thing that weremember is "Pothole Fraser." His own Highways ministry staff say theyare being undercut in the budget by their own Minister of Highways,that they need a million dollars extra a year just to keep the roadsfrom deteriorating and the minister is allowing those roads in thatparticular area, and in other areas of the province, to run down whilehe concentrates on these megaprojects that benefit only very smallareas of the province and a small number of people in the province.

Mr.Speaker, the people on the other side of the House say that we're notin favour of energy development in the province, and they mention anumber of developments. They talk about the Site C development. TheSite C dam produces something like 900 megawatts of power at a cost ofalmost $2 billion. Many of the people in the province are opposed tothe Site C development, and this party has also expressed itsopposition to the Site C development for good and valid reasons. It'sgoing to destroy farmland in the Peace River area, farmland that we aregoing to desperately require in this province.

Now the minister talks about energy, about bringing in industry, bringing in smelters, bringing in shipyards, bringing in ports and new resource-development facilities. But if those people can't eat, Mr. Speaker, than there's no point in having that industry in this province, because if you can't feed the workforce, what are they here for anyway? The one thing we have to secure most strongly for the people of this province and for the people who will come to this province as a result of economic development is a strong agricultural base — based on agricultural land and strongly protected through agricultural land protection legislation. We have to secure the food supply for our people first. Otherwise, it's a little pointless to have all this economic development that the minister imagines is going to come to this province.

Definitelywe're against Site C because of the impact it's going to have on theforest industry, a renewable resource, and on the agriculturalindustry, a necessary and life-sustaining renewable resource, andbecause of the effect it's going to have on water in the province ofBritish Columbia. We're also against it because the government has notyet demonstrated that the Site C dam is necessary even for energyreasons, and that's the battle going on right now before the UtilitiesCommission in Fort St. John which will continue in Vancouver in the newyear. If B.C. Hydro changed its pricing policy and changed its energyefficiency policy — or you can call it conservation, if you will — andwas mandated by this government to be more effective in the way itproduces and markets power, and if this government would provideincentive to people and industry to be more efficient in the way theyuse electrical power, then we would have a situation where in fact theSite C dam and some of the other projects mentioned by the previousspeaker may not be necessary.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair I

We'renot talking about pie in the sky, as the minister just speaking beforeme was. Conservation is possible and energy efficiency measures aretaking place elsewhere on this continent and they are being effective.They are able in other parts of the continent to cut back on theirhuge, expensive, capital-intensive generation and transmission projectsin favour of more labour-intensive, capital-efficient conservationprojects and alternatives-renewable projects.

Mr. Speaker,it's happening even in the states just south to us. The United Statesfederal government has mandated the Bonneville Power Authority to goafter conservation and renewables as a priority. We do that last.Billions of dollars of Hydro money is being spent on huge centralizedtransmission and generation projects. Only a very small amount is spenton conservation. In the United States and in the states just below usit's the other way around. The people have told their energy authoritythat they do not want that kind of centralized development. What theywant is more efficiency, more conservation, less debt, more access toand more public control over the utilities, and because the people downthere are able to influence their legislators, and their legislature —particularly their government — listens to them, those states arechanging their procedures and changing the mandate of the utilities.

So,Mr. Speaker, we have proposed alternatives. Those alternatives havebeen developed elsewhere on this continent, but this government,hidebound by the traditions of the 1950s, still hide conditions whichthey didn't create themselves back in the 1950s but are still bound to.Because they cannot think originally, those traditions still propelthem ahead with this huge, centralized energy utility type ofdevelopment. It's unfortunate for the people of British Columbia,because what Robert Bonner is still now talking about in SanFrancisco.... In spite of the promises of the Premier and some ofhis cabinet ministers, Bonner is still travelling around the countryand the continent telling us that B.C. is going to have a nuclearfuture in the 1990s and B.C. is going to be spending in the next tenyears something like $28

[ Page 6818 ]

millionin borrowed money. Because B.C. Hydro cannot generate sufficient of itsown revenues to pay for these projects, we're going to be borrowing, onthe assets of the two and a half million people in this province,something like $28 billion and saddling our citizens with that kind ofdebt.

This party believes that in energy terms we should bepaying as we go; we shouldn't be saddling the future with those kindsof debts which they're not going to be able to pay off in the energyregimes of the future.

They talk about the Hat Creekdevelopment: 2,500 megawatts of power generated in a coal thermalgeneration plant near Hat Creek, a very isolated part of the province.It is a beautiful valley, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure you've been there. I'msure the people have asked you to go up there and take a look at thevalley and at what's going to happen to the valley as a result of thatproject. We went up there at the invitation of the people in that area.Environmentally they are going to totally destroy the region. They aregoing to totally destroy the existing ranching industry in the region,which produces something that the people of this province are going tobe desperately in need of in the future, which people cannot livewithout — protein food. It's a life-sustaining resource. It doesn'tmatter how much energy you produce, it doesn't matter how much coal youproduce, and it doesn't matter how much gas you produce from coal inthis province; if you cannot feed the workforce that produces thatmaterial then you're not going to produce that material. It's as simpleas that.

What this government always neglects to look at arethose life-sustaining resources that are so invaluable that theyhaven't yet attached a reasonable price to them. Yes, we are againstthe Hat Creek coal project. Yes, we even said we were in favour of itat the last election. But rather than be hidebound by the way we'vebeen thinking in the past, as the Social Credit government is, ratherthan being in that same kind of strait-jacket which they were in in the1950s, we are able to re-evaluate projects such as Hat Creek. When theenvironmental impact statements come down we read them and get ourresearchers to read them. We consult the people in the area and thepeople at universities. We question what Hydro tells us. We don't takeeverything as gospel. You have to do that if you're going to be areasonable government.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, as a result of thatquestioning and as a result of some of the information that came out ofHydro's own studies, we changed our minds on the Hat Creek development.Perhaps under some other circ*mstance — some other coal-burningtechnology or smaller plants located in diverse areas of the provinceand producing less pollution — we would not oppose coal thermaldevelopment; in fact, I think we would probably support it. We wouldrecommend that to the government as something they should look at. I'mnot sure that the government would accept that as a positiverecommendation, because of the strait-jacketed commitment they have tothose huge centralized generation technologies. It's unfortunate,because no matter what positive suggestions we make in the House thegovernment sits stone-deaf and ignores them.

Now they say that we're against all hydroelectric projects in the province of British Columbia. Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. Let me point out this: we support none of the ones that the government has proposed, with some possible exceptions. We selected from a whole range of programs which Hydro presented to us when we were in office, and we took the least damaging alternatives: the Seven Mile hydroelectric dam on the Pend-d'Oreille River and the Peace Canyon dam in the Peace River area. They were the least damaging projects available to us which were presented by B.C. Hydro.

Youhave to remember that when we came to office in 1972 we didn't evenhave a Ministry of Energy in the province of B.C. It's hard to believein this modern era. When this government was involved in the ColumbiaRiver project and in the Peace River project, we didn't even have aministry responsible for energy or for coordinating energy developmentand studying future energy alternatives in the province of BritishColumbia. We had a stone-age government which belonged before World WarII, in the way it was structured and in the way it operated.

Weset up a ministry responsible for energy when we took over thisgovernment in 1972. You will recall this, Mr. Speaker, because you andI were elected at the same time.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:On a point of order, what has all this to do with a motion to adjourn?We've heard about energy and alternative energy. I haven't yet heardany reference to the motion to adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER:Thank you, Mr. Member. I've been listening very carefully and waitingfor the member to relate his remarks to the motion before us. I'm sureI'm about to hear it.

MR. SKELLY: It was my nextline, Mr. Speaker. Before we get heavily involved in these energyprojects, this Legislature should be discussing the alternativesavailable to the people of British Columbia.

Right now,after Mr. Bonner's speech in San Francisco, the people of BritishColumbia are saying this province is going to have a nuclear future —after Mr. Bonner's speech saying that we're going to have the Laird,the Stikine, with all the extremely damaging impacts of those dams. Thepeople of this province are living in fear that those projects aregoing ahead right away. They're living in fear that we're going to besaddled with the $28 billion in debt that Mr. Bonner is planning togenerate on the backs of the people of this province. This Legislatureshould be meeting right now to do something about that, and not puttingthe decisions off until some time in March or April, in the spring of1982.

We should be discussing those issues in thisLegislature right now, and that's why we should not be supporting thisamendment to adjourn the House so that the cabinet can take anotherholiday — their third of the year. I am surprised, Mr. Speaker. Theminister said: "I heard everything the member was saying, but I didn'thear him relating it to the motion." If you heard everything I wassaying you would know exactly what we're proposing. But like anySocred, sitting there in that strait-jacketed attitude of the 1950s,you refuse to listen. You can't understand. It's beyond you. It has todo with the seventies, the eighties, the nineties; something that'spassed you by completely, Mr. Minister.

I'm sure if the minister reads Hansard — or if somebody reads Hansardto him — he will find out what we're proposing. If the minister iswilling to listen, I have suggested that we are absolutely opposed tothe hydro projects that are presently on the drawing-board for theprovince of British Columbia. We have asked Hydro....

Interjection.

[ Page 6819 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SKELLY: You're going to miss it if you keep screaming and waving your hands.

Wehave asked Hydro and the government time and time again to look at therenewables, to look at small hydroelectric projects that are lessdamaging and can serve local areas or local industries, projects thatdon't destroy whole fish runs, projects that don't destroy whole valleybottoms, and projects that don't take out of production thousands uponthousands of acres of timber, which are the renewable resources thatthe workers in this province depend upon. Those are the kinds of thingswe are proposing. If the minister would like to learn a little bit moreabout it, all he has to do is talk to the energy agencies in Washingtonand Oregon.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not in Canada.

MR. SKELLY: Well, that's one thing he's learned.

Hehad an opportunity just last year to go to a seminar which wasconducted by the utilities and by the state governments of the fournorthwestern states with which we share power grids and exchange power.The Washington government and their utilities, the Oregon governmentand their utilities, the government of Idaho and their utilities, andthe government of Montana and their utilities were represented. Theonly government connected to that power system that wasn't representedwas the government of British Columbia and its utilities. But theopposition party in British Columbia and its research staff wererepresented. The Governor of the state of Oregon made a point, duringhis address to the seminar, to recognize the fact that some people fromBritish Columbia were interested enough in the energy regime in thenorthwest sector to come down and attend that seminar and to find outwhat the northwestern utilities were doing and exchange ideas with them.

TheMinister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips)talks about going to Japan, Korea and Italy. It's hard to believe thathe had time to get off the plane to stop in at the LegislativeAssembly. He talks about selling all of our raw resources to thosecountries. He talks about sacrificing rights and freedoms of ourworkers in order to create markets in some of those countries. In theone area where we could learn new things about energy that would beextremely valuable to this province and would cut down on our debt loadand our requirement for new energy generation and transmission, thegovernment of B.C. isn't even represented. It's like the oldCanada-wide conferences of the past, where B.C.'s was the empty chair.When it comes to dealing with modern ideas about energy, and dealingwith energy efficiency, the government that's not represented acrossCanada and throughout the northwestern United States is the governmentof British Columbia. But the opposition is represented there, and thatis recognized by those other governments. We know that energyefficiency can create more jobs. We know there's a relationship betweenenergy and labour, because in the past — in the 1950s, in the era thatyou people are thinking about and thinking in — energy replaced labour.

Inmy constituency, energy has replaced jobs. Fifteen thousand jobs havebeen replaced in the forest industry in the last few decades bymodernization, by substituting energy for human labour. Fifteenthousand jobs have been lost.

In the last little while, as aresult of a mill modernization in Port Alberni, 300 jobs were lost in asingle mill, and we're looking at several hundred more to be lost at amill that MacMillan-Bloedel is in the process of shutting down.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Are you suggesting that we go back to the 1950s?

MR. SKELLY:I'm saying that you are in the fifties, and we want to get rid of thatmentality. We want to get it out of British Columbia for good. We wantto become more efficient and we want to develop energy systems whichare much more labour-intensive and which involve people in thedecision-making and in the conduct of those energy utilities.

AsI said, Mr. Speaker, it is being done. The problem is that these peoplein government in British Columbia cannot see that it is being done.It's being done in Alberta. It's being done in Saskatchewan. It's beingdone in Manitoba. It's being done in Ontario.

MR. BARRETT: Alberta?

MR. SKELLY: Alberta is developing a wood-fired thermal generating plant.

MR. BARRETT: You're kidding — those Tories?

MR. SKELLY:One of the people who spoke here — I believe it was the Minister ofIndustry and Small Business Development — said that the oppositioncannot understand that 17 percent of the energy in the province isprovided by wood.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I don't recall interrupting the speech of the minister who is now shouting across the floor. Do you, Mr. Speaker?

Inhis speech, he said that I was promoting "some kind of wood-thermalgenerating scheme for Port Alberni," and I am doing precisely that.Right now wood technology is the premier energy technology of theprovince of British Columbia. Seventeen percent of our energy isproduced from wood in this province. More energy than was produced byhydroelectric is produced by wood-thermal energy.

A studywas done on Vancouver Island in 1979 by the federal Forest Service, andthey found out that there were 200 potential megawatts of electricalpower that could be developed from wood-thermal energy on VancouverIsland. A quarter of the power produced at the Site C Dam, and that'sjust on four communities on Vancouver Island: Duncan, Port Alberni,Campbell River and Port Hardy.

What I'm asking thegovernment to do is to advance those studies and take a look at thatwood-thermal electric generation system. Right now, and since thefifties, we've watched people being phased out of the forest industryby energy. Fifteen thousand jobs have been lost in this provincebecause those jobs were replaced by electricity. What I'm asking isthat we now get labour involved again in the wood industry to produceenergy — to do it the other way around, in a very modern system.

InPort Alberni we've got something like 1,200 people laid off in theforest industry, Mr. Speaker. We've got people laid off with decades ofseniority working in that industry and, in many cases, with absolutelyno hope for future employment in that industry because mills areshutting down, mills are being phased out.

[ Page 6820 ]

WhatI'm asking the government to do is to develop a wood-thermal energysystem for Vancouver Island. We have people experienced in cuttingtrees. We have people experienced in yarding and in hauling. We havepeople experienced in transporting and chipping, and we have peopleexperienced in thermal-electric generation, using wood as a fuel,because that technology was developed in the forest industry of BritishColumbia. We are leaders in that technology. Mr. Speaker, thegovernment has not done anything about it. One of the reasons we shouldbe carrying on this session is that we should be demanding that thegovernment get involved in wood-thermal energy development on VancouverIsland, and particularly in those communities which are affected bylayoffs due to market conditions and due to the substitution of energyfor labour.

Those are only a few of the things, Mr. Speaker,that I propose to raise in a very positive way — positive suggestionswhich I propose to make to the government during this session of theLegislature. Therefore I'm absolutely opposed to taking a break now,when the people in my community are so economically distressed; whenpeople are moving out of town to find work; when people cannot findwork; when businesses are shutting down. What we need is some activity— some action on the part of the government — and we don't have it. Weshouldn't be closing the Legislature at this time when that work isundone.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, earlier yesterdaymorning I mentioned a few things with reference to the telegram thatyou had kindly sent me a couple of weeks before. The telegram statedthat it was necessary to bring the House together for the publicinterest of this province. We came here to work. We came here to try toresolve some of the problems of this province. But we've run up againsta lazy government a government that wants to go home. They believe inseven days' work and three months' rest.

We believe that theMinister of Small Business Development should have more time in thisHouse. He was anxious tonight; he was going at it tonight. He had a lotto say, but he didn't have time to say that when the government triedto cut him off today, and if they had succeeded we wouldn't have heardthat fine speech tonight.

Interjection.

MR. LORIMER: There are lots of ways of looking at it.

Iwant to talk about the IWA layoff. Layoffs in a major industry. Theselayoffs are affecting every community in this province; they're evenaffecting some of the Peace River areas. Workers in the forestryindustry are being laid off right across the board — some 17 to 20percent, and in some cases 25 percent are laid off in the differentsections of the forest industry. That is the key industry, one whichaffects everyone in this province. We should be here so we coulddiscuss this matter. The government should have proposals presented tous, telling us how they're going to get these people back to work. Whenwe go back to our ridings, we can tell them that this government is nota lazy government after all, that that was only a rumour; that thisgovernment has proposals; that they're working full-time and that theyhave proposals to put everybody back to work.

There are lotsof problems in this province. There is lots of opportunity for agovernment to take steps in trying to create employment for the peopleof this province who are unemployed. What about shipbuilding? Therecould be a large shipbuilding industry here that there used to be a fewyears back. During wartime one of the major industries of this area wasthe shipbuilding industry; there is an area you can start working at.You could be helping small business; you could be trying to cut downthe number of bankruptcies that are taking place in this province everyyear. It's getting worse and worse — there are more and morebankruptcies. There are a number of things that could be done.

I went through my wastepaper basket this evening and found a few clippings I had thrown out.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's what you call digging down to the bottom of the barrel.

MR. LORIMER: Yes, I dug there so that you would understand what I was speaking about.

This little bit here says: "Housing Accords Fall Short" and that's dealing with our Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). It says right here on the front page that the housing accords fall short. Now we want to meet here so the Minister of Housing can explain what the problem is, why the housing accords have fallen short. We're interested in that. One of the major problems in this province today is the shortage of housing. It says right here: "Housing Accords Fall Short." We want you to give us some proposals on how you're going to cure this problem of the shortfall in housing.

Whathave we got here? This says: "Three Simple Steps Key to AffordableRents." Who said that? Well, it says that Mr. Hyndman said this. "Thefederal government must restore capital cost allowances to landlords,the province must phase out rent controls, and tenants must learn tolove their landlords, " Hyndman told the delegates at the two-day B.C.Housing Conference at the Bayshore Inn. You see, he spoke at theBayshore Inn but he didn't speak here, because you tried to cut him offtoo soon. If this debate had gone on for another week we would haveheard the minister's proposals in the House, and we could have listenedto him. Maybe he's got some good ideas here. He says that tenantsshould love their landlords. That might be a start. But we didn't havethe opportunity to discuss these matters because he didn't speak herebecause there wasn't enough time for him to do so.

Here we have something else.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Where did you find that one?

MR. LORIMER: Same place.

"GovernmentChanges its Stand on Equal Value Pay Issue." This is a matter withreference to the rights of women. We should be discussing that here. Weshould be meeting to discuss these important matters which affect halfthe population of this province. To say that you have to lock up theshop and go home is a very serious mistake.

The reason wedon't proceed with a reasonable session in the fall is that the onlypurpose we're here is so that the Premier and the other ministers cango around saying: "In British Columbia we have two sessions of theLegislature, one in the spring and one in the fall." It's only apropaganda tool, in order to tell the people in the other provinces:"Yes, we're a big province too. We have two sittings, you know. We haveone in the spring and then we do a lot of work in the fall" — theseven-day fall — "and then we have three months of rest because we'veworked so hard."

[ Page 6821 ]

Here'sanother one: "It's a Bleak Year, Experts Say." It's a bleak year; weaccept that. The experts are saying that it's a bleak year. We shouldhave the opportunity to hear what this government is proposing. for thepeople of this province so we can debate the matters that are affectingeveryone in this province, but no, you try to cut us off so that wecan't discuss these matters that are of such importance to the peopleof the province.

This was a real funny one. It's got apicture here. It says, "Housing Demand to Rage On, " and it's got apicture of the Minister of — oh, he's gone — Municipal Affairs (Hon.Mr. Vander Zalm). It's admitting the fact that there's really nosolution in sight from any government action on the housing problemsthat face the people of this province.

Those matters shouldbe debated here. There should be proposals brought in by the minister.There was a proposal, if you remember, in the throne speech. I thinkmost people have forgotten the throne speech. There was nothing there,you see. If the Speaker hadn't been careful and kept a copy of it, noone would have remembered anything about it. One thing about ourSpeaker, he was right on his toes. Right away, as soon as the speechwas read, he knew what was going to happen. He knew that people wouldforget what was in that speech. So he said: "No, I'm going to get acopy right now, so we'll have it."

(Hon. Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Wehave some other clippings. It says here: "Chabot Makes Housing Deal."He thought he'd made a deal, but it backfired. So the next issue talksabout that. At this particular time, on November 27, he had made adeal, he said here, with Paul Cosgrove. Paul Cosgrove, that ministerfrom Ottawa, isn't that great a Housing minister. He came here tostraighten out your minister.... He came here to straighten youpeople out. Your minister thought he had a deal, but he didn't have adeal.

Here's another little clipping; I've got lots of these.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: All from the same place?

MR. LORIMER: Yes. It didn't take long.

"HomelessLive in Cars," says this one. Now if that's not a housingproblem.... We should be doing something about it. We shouldn't belocking up the shop and trying to go home. We shouldn't work seven daysand take three months off. Seven days of work and three months of rest!We're here, ready to do some work; however, the government is notprepared to work, so there's not much we can do about it.

Wecan try to indicate to them by sitting tonight that things are seriousin this province, probably the worst they've been since the deepestpart of the Depression. Of course, this is a depression government, adepression party. Wastrels, spendthrifts, lazy government! All we cando is indicate to you, suggest to you, and beg, that you carry on withthe session and bring some proposals and resolve some of these problemsthat are facing the people of this province. But no, you want to shutit down.

Here's another clipping, and it's a good one. Thisone says: "Public Undecided About how to Save Fraser." Now, I don'tknow; we have some proposals for that. We would like to pass them alongto you. The fact that there is so much unemployment at thistime.... This doesn't refer to the minister. I thought it did whenI clipped it, but I intend to use it either way. I'll use it both ways.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Turn it over. The headline is on the other side!

MR. LORIMER:That's right. The other side is a used care sale. You can buy a usedcar for $999, and you can sleep in it to solve your housing problems.

Buthere it is: "Public Undecided About how to Save Fraser." The public hasnot actually decided whether he's worth saving. That's up to yourgovernment to decide.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They must call you the NDP bat, because you come alive at night! [Laughter.]

MR. LORIMER: That's not bad!

Wehave so much unemployment in this province at the present time. One ofthe projects could be to clean up the Fraser River. Put the people towork. Get the Fraser cleaned up. Clean up Fraser, I say.

Here'sanother one I found; I can't remember where I got this one. It says:"New Home Rule a Catastrophe for First timers." There are lots offirst-timers. There's one first-timer; he's a one-timer.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're an old-timer.

MR. LORIMER: That's right, and when I got here you were already here. [Laughter.]

Thisis dealing with housing and the new mortgage rates, which are a veryserious problem. With the high mortgage rates now, for the majority ofpeople — especially young people — there is no way they can possiblyget into a home. It’s not funny; it's a very serious problem, and weshould be dealing with those sorts of things here. " 'It is acatastrophe for the first-time buyers, ' said Maurice Butler, presidentof the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver. 'It means a lot of themwon't be able to buy.' " Well, that's an understatement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read all of it.

MR. LORIMER: I'm not going to read all of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. LORIMER: You can have it if you want it; you can get up and make a speech. I'll give it to you. You can read it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps the member would address the Chair.

MR. LORIMER:Yes, I certainly would. I didn't realize there was a change in theChair. I wasn't going to address the other one because he was asleep,but I'm very pleased to address you, Mr. Speaker.

Now here is one.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Another one?

MR. LORIMER:Yes, but I'm not going to deal with this one; I'm just going to commendit for your reading. It's "The Saving Graces of' Work," by ArthurMayse. I think it would behoove you all to read this article. I'llleave it there. If you want it, you can come and I'll find it for you.

Here is another one — oh, I've got lots here yet: "Full Enumeration to Begin in Weeks."

[ Page 6822 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Arthur Weeks! [Laughter.]

MR. LORIMER: Yes, that's what I was wondering. Who is "Weeks"?

Mr.Speaker, I want to address you about this problem. As you are wellaware, the increase in unemployment in this province means that thereare a number of people who aren't at work — that's the general idea.You can put them to work on enumeration; you can put them on theenumeration to begin in weeks, as it says. Well, it can begin rightnow. That's why we should be meeting here, so we could discuss theimportant matter of getting enumeration started and getting people backto work — that's the important thing.

Now I've got anotherone here. I don't want to deal with them in any great detail; I'm justgiving you the headlines: "Curtis Orders Cut, Cut, Cut." We certainlyneed to meet to discuss the financial disaster that has occurred inthis past year, with a government of big-time spenders, wasters, whodon't want to come to work. They come to work, work for seven days andwant three months of rest. Things have changed in the last number ofyears, but here it's a question of the Minister of Finance refusing toaccept our amendments last year to reduce costs and waste, and here itis: they're now having to pay for their failure to listen to theopposition in the spring of this year.

Here is some more: "Lack of Planning Laid to Socreds." I'm not going to read it all; I'll just tell you who the author is.

Interjection.

MR. LORIMER:No, actually it's Graham Lea, from Prince Rupert; he's an authority, asI understand. I won't deal further with this, but it's here for you ifyou want to read it.

"City Housing Starts Decrease by 40 Percent" — that's in Victoria.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That was in 1973.

MR. LORIMER:No, it's this year, 1981. To date the mortgage starts have decreased by40 percent. "Victoria's housing starts are down 40 percent, anothervictim of high interest rates, the local president of the Housing andUrban Development Association of Canada said today. 'Not many peoplewant to build homes when rates are this high,' Gary McInnis said."

Weshould be meeting here in order to discuss these matters of highinterest rates, the effect they have on housing and the fact thatpeople are sleeping in cars. This government is sitting here piouslypretending there is nothing wrong in the economy of this province. It'sa shame.

Here's another one: "Is This the Next Depression?"The answer is very simple. Unless this government decides to roll uptheir sleeves and get to work and do something, it will be the nextdepression in this province. That's why we're here tonight: to try toimpress on you the importance of keeping the session together and doingsomething about the problems of this province.

This one says: "The Recession is a Bad One, GNP Figures Confirm."

Itdidn't take too much time to collect these items. There were lots morethat I could have taken, but I didn't bother. We were stuck with 40minutes, so there wasn't much point. That's why I have to go throughthem so quickly. The problems are the same all over the province.

Here'ssome hope. This one says: "Housing Scheme Lumber Booster." It says thenew housing scheme is going to sell more lumber and so on. Oh, yes,this is from Fredericton. This isn't from B.C. at all. This doesn'tapply here. That's New Brunswick.

Here's one. It says: "Grace Entrenches." Oh, no, that's a different one. We won't bother with that one either.

Here'sanother one: "Figures Now Confirm Economy Really Ailing." And it is,eh? We're not here to debate and bring up propositions and proposalsfor the solution of the economic problems that are rife in thisprovince, due to the fact that we've got a lazy government, agovernment that wants to work for seven days and then rest for threemonths. The government of the third-largest province in this country isprepared to work for seven days and rest for three months — shockingperformance when we consider the sorrowful Christmas that a number ofour residents are going to have. There's no hope in the budget and nohope anywhere for most of the taxpayers and residents of our province.

Here's another one: "We'll Pay More Tax For Less." Do you know who said that?

MR. BARRETT: Curtis.

MR. LORIMER: That's right. I was going to give a multiple choice.

Do we think that is a satisfactory method of operating our province: pay more tax for less?

Thisone says that the economic fall is "the worst in 30 years." That's anunderstatement. It's probably the worst in 40 or 50 years. What was ourgovernment doing here tonight and this past week?

MS. BROWN: Dancing at the ball.

MR. LORIMER:That's right. They came here for seven days. They've had a nice littleparty at Government House. They want to go home now; they're tired.They've had their ball and their seven days of work; now they wanttheir three months' rest.

The next one is: "Curtis Warns ofTax Hike." There's nothing very warm here — a tax hike. You wouldn'thave needed the tax hike if you had taken our recommendations last year.

What have we got here? "Wardair Plans Cutbacks as Nine-month Earnings Fall."

MR. BARRETT: That's not because of the cabinet ministers.

MR. LORIMER: No. It says down here somewhere that that's the only thing that's keeping them afloat. It's keeping them in the air.

Eventhe stock exchange is suffering. Even your friends on Howe Street arenot too happy. "Trading Falls in November." They're not very happy withyou. "Canadian Dollar Declines." It's been going down, up, down. Itused to be a dollar for a dollar. This is December 1; it's an oldpaper. You probably haven't yet read the one for December 1. I'll leaveit here for you, and you can come and read it.

I'm sorry tosay I've run out of clippings, but I can start over. We can use theother side, because the story on the other side is basically the sameas the story on the front.

[ Page 6823 ]

Seriouslyspeaking, there are many things that can be done by this government.Initiatives could be brought about by this government which would havereceived the wholehearted support of the opposition if it would havemeant assisting in the problems which are facing so many of our peoplein this bad year of economic downturn. If you want to roll up yoursleeves and get to work, lots can be done.

I'm convinced,and I'm sure you agree.... I know the Speaker agrees because hecalled us here in the public interest, and nothing has happened. I'mquite sure that we all agree that this government's activities in thepast year have been a complete disaster. You've got to do a lot better.You've got to be prepared to work. Operating a government isn't thateasy; it shouldn't be that easy. You should be ready to work, or youshouldn't be in it. It's not good enough to have seven days' work andthree months' holiday. You've got to do much better.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:I can't help but wonder about the whole purpose of this debate. We havejust had a very silent presentation in the last two minutes, sayinglet's roll up our sleeves and let's work, from the refugee from SleepyHollow — a man who has taken nearly 40 minutes of this Legislature'stime in a hilarious interlude of press-clipping readings, whichprobably cost the people of this province, between now and the time westarted this sitting at 8 o'clock, more than any ball or any other costwe've experienced.

All the members on the floor are in adifferent position than our staff who are being paid overtime anddouble time. I just wonder what the cost of this sitting is.

Whenthe member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) got up at 8 o'clock, shesaid: "Call the House back, and the NDP will present programs. We'rewaiting. We're ready to go." We've been sitting here for eight hours,and we have yet to hear one positive suggestion or program from theNDP. That member who just sat down talked about seven days' work andthree months' holiday. I don't know what that side of the House doeswhen the House isn't sitting, but I know what this side of the Housedoes: they serve their constituents. Their record will show that theyserve their constituents. I'll speak for myself. I work for myconstituents. I will refer to the record in a moment.

Whatdoes the NDP do? They don't work, and then they run around and whineand cry, just as they are doing tonight. What am I accused of? Workingtoo hard and getting too many things for my constituents — too muchlottery money. Anything to excuse themselves from ever doing any work.If they want to sit here with the example of debate that we've beenwitnessing tonight, then it's quite obvious that they want to sit heresimply because they haven't the fortitude or drive or ideas to go outand work for their own constituents.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:Oh, I'll address that, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. Speaking of that,I think the record should show once again at this late hour that yousimply had to move an amendment of an adjournment debate in order tomake a belated appearance on the floor of this House to try to getsomething — not much — on the record. That something certainly hadnothing positive, but was just a few little picayune things fromvarious parts of the province and a lot of ill burnout.

Thisrecord should show that that member is following his classic line — aninability to have any policies, to win the confidence of his party orto win the confidence of the people. He's never got over the classicerror he made when he was elected Premier of this province, nor havethe people of British Columbia. He's running away from the issues now.That's why he didn't appear in the throne speech debate. That's whyhe didn't speak or support his own party's amendment to the thronespeech. He's running away now just as he ran away when other debateshave taken place in this House. Let us not forget. as a classicexample, the debate on the aid to independent schools. when he didn'teven have the courage to sit in this House and take a position — didn'teven have the courage to tell the people how he felt about things. Andhere we are this evening. wasting the taxpayers' money, listening tosome of the most frivolous, if entertaining, speeches that I think I'veever heard in my life.

The member for Port Alberni got upand said that Social Credit had no social conscience and no economicpolicies. I suggest these are very bold words from a member whose ownconstituency, by their own admission, has certainly told many of usthat they seldom see him. They say he has done nothing but complainabout the Social Credit and has done nothing for his constituents. I'dask him when he's talking about his constituency: what has he done forthe people of Ucluelet and Tofino? Why is he trying to prolong theadjournment of this debate to plead their cause here when they seldomsee him? What has he ever done towards the water and sewer system thatwe're trying to develop for the people in that area? What has he everdone to try to develop a bus system for that area?

If youtalk to his own constituents, they tell you: "Nothing." What has heever done towards trying to help develop the golf course that thepeople in Tofino are working towards? The people on this side of theHouse and in this government are trying to assist those people, andsince I've been the Minister of Tourism, never have I had one visitfrom the member for Alberni about any of his constituents' problems.What do they have to say about him in his own constituency? I think therecord should show in this debate what they have to say about him.

Firstof all, they mention the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), andwhen we've we listened for eight hours on a non-policy suggestion fromthem to assist in the unemployment situation in relation to the forestindustry, it's interesting to note that the aspiring leader of the NDPopposition, when questioned in Port Alberni about what his position andhis party's position would be on how to keep the mills going in PortAlberni if they were the government — and I quote from the newspaper:"A Philosophical Socialism NDP's Heir Apparent" — he said the answerwas not "no"; it was more a qualified "I don't think so." "We can'ttake over every mill that faces closure," Leggatt told his audience.Isn't that interesting? It's like the NDP candidate that ran in ourarea when he was questioned about his party's policy on land andwhether he believed in the private ownership of land. That candidatehappened to be a real estate operator, and he stood on one foot andthen the other and said: "Well, in a way, yes, and in a way, no." Thetrouble with the NDP is that they don't know whether they're pregnantor not, and they certainly don't know whether or not they have a policy.

Going on to that famous evening when the member for Alberni was presenting himself to his constituency for the

[ Page 6824 ]

firsttime in many months, they asked him about what he would be doing and hewent on to say — and the paper goes on to say — "Skelly pumped hisbrainstorm, a wood-fired thermal generating plant for the valley." Butnotice this about a member who's accused the members of this side ofthe House of being incourteous. "He also ridiculed local politiciansvying for civic seats and went out of his way to insult the valley'schamber of commerce." That's how the member for Alberni treats hisconstituents; he insults his chamber of commerce and goes out of hisway to insult his citizens. And he went on to say the chamber ofcommerce is talking about the Cumberland Road again. "Skelly said:'Therefore, it must be another municipal election. It's not a good yearto develop develop a new way to let people leave Port Alberni.' " Notonce did either of those members of the NDP party in Alberni ever offerany alternatives to the Alberni people as to how to broaden the base ofthe economy of their area, how to create new jobs such as thisgovernment has. Never did he suggest that some of those fledglingindustries apply for assistance from the Ministry of IndustrialDevelopment to assist them in their manufacturing development.

Neveris there any suggestion that they talked about tourism. Not at all. Yetin Alberni, this year — and the citizens and the council will admit itthemselves — if it hadn't been for the development of tourism in thisprovince over the last few years, their year would have been adisaster. It was tourism, Mr. Speaker, that kept Alberni afloat thislast summer. It's very interesting to note that they sum it up and say:"For all that, the attentive, quiet audience endured the hour and ahalf Skelly and Leggatt held them less than spellbound." So much, notfrom us, but so much for them as it's written in their own papers andas their own people say it.

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to thereasons why this motion of theirs be rejected, I'd like to suggest inthe area of housing — what did the NDP do for housing? Mr. Speaker, itis Social Credit that has led in the province of British Columbia andmany parts of Canada in assisting people to own their own homes. Itwasn't the NDP that brought in the home-owner grant; it was SocialCredit. It wasn't the NDP that brought in the first home-buyer'smortgage; it was Social Credit. It wasn't the NDP that brought in thesecond-mortgage plan; it was Social Credit. It wasn't the NDP thatreleased Crown lands for private housing so people could buy land tobuild their own houses, as has been done in the last three years; itwas Social Credit. All the NDP tried to do was take some land and leaseit out to the people, denying them the right to own their own land.

Mr.Speaker, what about the grants in aid to senior citizen renters? Wasthat brought in by the NDP? No, that was brought in by the SocialCredit government. And it is this government that has offered moreopportunities in the past and will in the future for people to have anoption of the type of home living they want. For seniors — if they wantto live in a community of senior citizens' housing, they're there. Ifthey want to stay in their own homes, then there's the home-owner grantand other assistance for them. As young people buy their home, thenthere is that assistance. If seniors want to stay in their own homesand rent — or apartments — then there is the grant to aid them if theirrent exceeds 25 percent of their income. Mr. Speaker, were any of theseprograms developed by the NDP, or can they match any of these programs?Absolutely not.

The Leader of the Opposition is wavingaround a little brief, one that's very important to our area, one I amvery familiar with. He talks about community health care in Winfield.Mr. Speaker, let's look at what the NDP did for Winfield when they werein government. Did they bring in the water system for the people inOyama, Okanagan Centre and Winfield? No, the Social Credit governmentdid. Did they do any road work in those areas when they weregovernment? No, the Social Credit government does. Mr. Speaker, didthey build schools in that area when they were government? No, butSocial Credit does, is, and has. Mr. Speaker, did they build arecreation centre for the people of Winfield? No, they did not; it'sbeen paid for by the Social Credit government. Did they build tenniscourts and parks for the people in the area? No, it was the SocialCredit. Mr. Speaker, did they build a senior citizens' recreationcentre? No, it was Social Credit that did. Did they give them funds foradditions to the community hall? No, it was Social Credit that did.

Mr.Speaker, let's get onto the health unit. Indeed, the people in the areaand I have a strong feeling that there is a need for a health unit inthe Winfield area, because Social Credit introduced baby-care clinics;they've introduced home-care programs; they have introduced otherservices to that community — not introduced by NDP, but introduced bySocial Credit in cooperation with the people. Therefore there is a needwith the growing population for a health unit.

My office,myself and our staff have helped the people put together an excellentbrief, and that brief is now before the Ministry of Health and is beingstudied as to the feasibility of developing a health unit there.

Mr.Speaker, if there is any need, a major need and an opportunity, then itwill be the Social Credit government that will build that health unitin Winfield, as they have done 90 percent of the things for Winfield.It's only proper and right that a proposal such as this should beexamined. It was Social Credit that brought extra policing to the areaand is now examining the need for more policing.

What didthe NDP do for Winfield — and that last refugee from Sleepy Hollow whenhe was the Minister of Municipal Affairs? They forced a compulsoryboundary extension on the people of Winfield that absolutely cut thecommunity in half and gave it to the city of Kelowna. They took thetotal tax base out of the community of Winfield — the industrial siteand the major areas of revenue for that small community — and forcedthem into the position of being almost in a no-man's-land.

Mr.Speaker, I stand on the Social Credit record and my record in theWinfield-Okanagan Centre area any day. The NDP did nothing for thepeople in that area. The greatest thing they have ever done is havetheir leader visit there with a busload of people, and he picked up onebrief and waved it around the hall. It's a good thing he has thatbrief, because that's about the only thing he's been factual about, interms of having some authentic document, in this whole session.

Mr.Speaker, let's look at the NDP record, as the Leader of the Oppositionwants to talk about the Okanagan North constituency. What did they dowhen they were in government for the community of Lumby? Did they buildsenior citizens' housing? No, the Social Credit government did. Didthey build any schools? No, the Social Credit government did. Did theydo the dyking that saves that community from being totally floodedabout every fourth year? No, the Social Credit government did. Did theybuild a health unit in Lumby? They could never get it off the ground.Social Credit, when we got back into office, built it. Road work wasnon-existent. What did you do on the Monashee Highway?

[ Page 6825 ]

Absolutelynothing, and this government today has a major rebuilding program upthere. Millions of dollars are being spent so that the people inFauquier and Burton and Edgewood — people whom you represented, Mr.Member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), and did nothing for in tenyears — will now have easier and safer transportation from theircommunity to their health and shopping centres.

Was it theNDP that gave the grants for the ballpark, for the swimming pool, forthe recreation development in Lumby? Absolutely not, it was SocialCredit. There are many programs on tap that we'll be developing overthe next two years, including, we hope, an industrial site, a newentrance to the city, new bridges, a new road alignment and many otherthings in keeping with the people's needs. Mr. Speaker, let the NDPshow one single thing that they did in Lumby.

Seeing thatthe member for Shuswap-Revelstoke is jumping around and so excited, Ishould tell him what's going on in the area that he represented mostcharmingly, but very unably, for so long: Fauquier, Burton andEdgewood. Even his own NDP members admitted to me at a Christmas dinnerthis year that I had done more for them in the short two years Irepresented them than the member for Shuswap had done in ten years.They never saw him; they never heard from him; he used to write acouple of articles in the newspaper. In that area, Mr. Speaker, let theNDP say whether they got a school for the area and got the children outof busing and into a local elementary school. Are they the ones who gotthe library that will open in Edgewood in the next two months? No, itwas Social Credit. Are they the ones who assisted in the redevelopmentof the community hall with lottery grants? No, it was Social Credit.

And then, Mr. Speaker, let's go to the great community of Vernon.

MR. KING: Why don't you?

HON. MRS. JORDAN:Yes, Mr. Member, I go to my constituency regularly. Why don't you? Ihave to spend part of my time going to your constituency because you'renever there. Those people in the Shuswap area are lost and lonely; youshould go back and see them once in a while. And it wouldn't hurt toroll up your sleeves and do a little bit of work for them once in awhile.

But let's look in the north Okanagan, in Vernon. TheLeader of the Opposition is very keen to talk about health units. Wasit the NDP that built the new regional health unit in Vernon? No, itwas Social Credit. Was it the NDP that built the regional collegecampus in Vernon? No, they couldn't get it off the ground. It wasSocial Credit, and it's under construction now. Was it the NDP thatgave money to assist the local people with the ice arena and theballparks, that assisted in the other recreational developments in thearea? No, it was Social Credit. If you listen to the NDP, they'll tellyou they'll do something; they'll tell you over and over again. When Ilook at the north Okanagan and I look at the highway constructionthat's gone on, I ask: was there anything done by the NDP? No. Mr.Speaker, we have rebuilt Highway 6 between Vernon and Lumby. We'verebuilt Westside Road on the other side of Okanagan Lake, and we'vejust completed the rebuilding of the north end of Highway 97, north ofVernon, with a major beautification program which is going to meandollars and jobs to the people of Vernon. Now, at last, they'll be ableto work towards becoming a destination area. It wasn't the NDP thatbrought grants to assist the local Vernon golf club to expand. Itwasn't the NDP that assisted the neurological society to have its ownbuilding. It was Social Credit and their ability to handle money and tokeep the economy of this province rolling, so that these things couldbe done — and they'll be done again in the future.

I'd like to talk for just a moment about tourism. That's something that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) is very familiar with and quite an authority on. What did the NDP do about tourism when they were in office? Were there any major new constructions, any major new hotels built, any major new restaurants built? Were there any major new jobs created? What did they do? None of these were done under the NDP. They took tourism, a thriving industry in British Columbia, and absolutely slaughtered it. They stood up and told visitors to British Columbia to go home. The statement "Go home, tourists," haunts us today. In my trade-mission trips which are out to market British Columbia, to encourage people to visit our province and to create jobs in our province, to help create investment in our province for our local people, I still run into the comment: "Oh, you're the province that told people to go home."

Mr.Speaker, the NDP depressed and almost broke the thriving industry oftourism in British Columbia. They didn't build any roads. They didn'tdo anything to develop the industry, to even give it any confidence initself. It was this government that took this industry and gave it somelife and gave it some confidence in itself to get on with its ownbusiness. It's under this government today that we have over 10,000small businesses in the tourism industry of British Columbia, 98percent of which are small, family-owned operations. There are over65,000 people working in this industry today. It will soon be 70,000under this government. Would that have happened under the NDP? It willsoon be a $2 billion industry in British Columbia — over $600 incomeper person in this province, adult and child, generated through aprivate enterprise industry. Under the Social Credit government thisindustry today enjoys major historical restorations, regional managers,grants to regions for promotion, cost-sharing in joint-promotions, anda multiplicity of new private investment.

[Mr. Nicolson in the chair.]

Thereare more people and there is more opportunity today in this industrythan almost any other industry in the world — for people who have anidea, who can give good service and who want to work hard and investtheir money to start their own business. Tourism offers the greatestopportunity over the next few years to create more jobs with morevariety of skills than any other industry. In this industry we can takea person — whether he or she is 15 in high school, or whatever age —who is willing to work, who has a liking for people and who can learn,and we can train them and employ them. This is not just for the job atthe time; we can train them and we can provide opportunities for themto go on for more training, so that they not only have a job now, butcan have a sense of professionalism and a sense of direction, and canknow that there is a future in tourism for them.

You want totalk about opportunities for women? It's amazing to sit here and listento the soapbox pronouncements coming from that side of the House, whenthey destroyed tourism in this province. Yet tourism offers women ofall sorts of ambition and all capabilities more opportunity to owntheir own businesses or to seek a professional career, whether

[ Page 6826 ]

it's waitressing or hotel management.... Mr. Speaker, this has been done under Social Credit.

Didthe NDP develop Whistler? No, that was Social Credit. It's aninternational tourist generator, which will generate millions ofdollars of private investment, not just in the Whistler area but allaround this province. It will generate hundreds of jobs, and createmore opportunity for smaller private investment. That was done throughSocial Credit in cooperation with the federal government.

Whatabout Panorama? Did the NDP look around this province? Did they developa strategy for encouraging the visitor to the province, in areas wherewe needed that type of generation of dollars and jobs to develop aneconomic climate in the tourist industry so that people could buildtheir own businesses and have those jobs? No, what this governmentdid.... Panorama is another excellent example in the ColumbiaValley. What about Mount Washington, a ski resort for Vancouver Island?What about the development of programs that go with us that are sharedbetween the private sector and this government? Special packages forscuba diving: British Columbia will one day be the winter scuba divingcentre of the world. That creates jobs and investment. What about theKootenays, the area where our friend comes from — in Elkford andSparwood? Did the NDP do anything over there to encourage coaldevelopment there? Did they do anything to encourage the redevelopmentof Sparwood? Did they do anything to encourage tourism or new industryin Elkford? Did they do anything to assist Kimberley? Yes, they putthem all on relief by killing the mining industry. The Social Creditgovernment has restabilized and developed the mining industry so thatthe Kimberley area has a good mining industry. Kimberley is alsobecoming a recreational and tourist centre of North America. That wasall done on the basis of the fiscal management and policies of theSocial Credit government. The Okanagan Valley, where our home is — didthe NDP do anything for Silver Star or Big White or Apec? Did they doanything to see the development of hotels and motels and restaurants inthat area, all of which serve our own citizens and provide morerecreational opportunity at a price that our local citizens can afford?We couldn't afford to support those facilities on our own without thevisitor industry.

Did the NDP understand the tourismindustry? Did they understand how complex and competitive it is? Thefirst member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who just woke up, camein. Good evening. He said: "Send them a letter." This is what thelawyers do: they sit in their offices and send them a letter with abill in it. Did the NDP understand that you have to go out and market?Speaking of tourist attractions, we might just capture that littlefellow and put him on display. People wouldn't believe it. We couldcharge. Did the NDP understand that you have to go out today andmarket? The Ministry of Tourism, in cooperation with the privatesector, are sales people. Did they understand that you have to developa sophisticated analysis of the market so you know where to market andhow to market, so we can bring visitors to British Columbia who areinterested in us as citizens, who are compatible with our lifestyle,who will respect our natural resources and our culture and not try tochange us, and who will be here in such a way that they will helpcreate jobs and the need for capital investment that our citizens canenjoy the benefits from? The NDP didn't do any of that, but underSocial Credit we are doing it. We are leading Canada, in terms of ourapproach to tourism.

Did the NDP declare tourism a basicresource, so that we could develop and nurture it every bit ascautiously as we should our water and forestry resources, so that ourtourism industry develops in a manner that's compatible with ourlifestyle and our citizens, so that there is always a place for ourcitizens in our own province? It was Social Credit that did that, notthe NDP; they just told the visitors to go home.

What abouteducational and training programs? Under Social Credit we havedeveloped educational and training programs. We have also put oneducational seminars and hospitality programs, all of which are gearedto assist those who want to work in the tourist industry to have thetraining they need for their own success and to make our industrycompetitive and viable in the future.

I would mention againthe fact that many communities in this province this past year — PortAlberni, Gold River and many northern and interior communities — wouldnot have had as successful a year, be they shoe stores, grocerystories, motels or restaurants, trucking firms or lumber companies, ifit hadn't been for the tourism industry in British Columbia. Tourismmeans investment and jobs. In British Columbia it means that it's donein a style that respects our own citizens and our own expectations forourselves.

I won't go any further into the northeast coaldevelopment and the port developments, all of which are job-creatingand economy-creating in our province. When you look at the record it'svery simple to see that the NDP can do little more, and did little morewhen they were government, than what they've done in this last eighthours, and that is joke, jump around, make funny statements, make falsestatements, attack people personally, attack their families andgenerally behave in a manner that is hardly a credit to thisLegislature and the people of British Columbia — or for that matter acredit to the faith of those few who did vote for you. It certainlywon't be enough to gain the credibility and the support of the peoplein the future.

It's interesting to sit and listen to them,Mr. Speaker. I'm sure they're very entertaining. But you can't run aprovince, provide jobs, create investments, solve the forest industryproblems and solve the high cost of money problems that were created inlarge part by the federal government who you're in bed with, by jokingand sitting through the night passing homely remarks.

Mr.Speaker, I'm very pleased to vote against their motion, and I feel thatwe should get on with the business of serving our constituents. Weshould get on with the business of trying to solve the problems thatall economies are facing, and perhaps a little less here in BritishColumbia.

MR. HANSON: In typical fashion, theMinister of Tourism doesn't know how she's going to vote on this. She'son the wrong side of the issue as usual. In her opening remarks shealluded to the cost to the taxpayer of this session this evening. Isubmit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the cost of Social Credit governmentfor the past three decades has been devastating to the people of thisprovince.

We heard a lot of hot air from the minister ofindustry and muy poco about our position on power projects. Talkingabout growth and power, I would like to tell you some of the remarksmade recently by Mr. Ralph Loffmark. Mr. Loffmark did an assessment ofthe Social Credit performance in managing the Columbia River. Here's aperson who was a minister of that government and is now a professor inthe commerce department at the University of British Columbia.

[ Page 6827 ]

Heis able to now analyse objectively the performance of that period andthe decisions that were made, some of which was by actors presently inthe House, Mr. Jack Davis, for one.

Let me just tell youabout some of the power projects that are currently on the books andslated by Hydro to be brought on line and what the costs of those are.For example, Site C is slated to be roughly $2.7 billion to produce 900thousand kilowatts; Murphy Creek on the Columbia will cost $1.2billion; and Hat Creek thermal will cost $5 billion. for a total of $9billion. If the Stikine and Laird were to be brought on line as well inthe ensuing decade, we'd be looking at a debt of approximately $30billion. Mr. Loffmark maintains that that would totally dislocate theeconomy of British Columbia. The $9 billion set aside is the additionalcost for Laird and Stikine, etc. But what Mr. Loffmark does, which Ifind very, very interesting, is he points out the extent to which wegot hosed and ensuing generations of British Columbians were hosed bythe decisions made by the Socreds in the late fifties for the agreementsigned in 1963. We're not against development. But we are certainlyagainst being hosed by the Americans or the Japanese or anybody else.

Letme just point out some of the facts of that case. What did the provinceof British Columbia get for that agreement? They got $69 million forflood control. As a result of that flood control, they were able toreclaim about a million acres of arable land on the American side foragriculture. What we got was a buried reservoir of a quarter of amillion acres. In addition, we got a lump-sum payment of $425 millionfor half of the downstream benefits for 30 years of power.

Mr.Loffmark makes a proposal to try to overcome what he regarded as — Iquote — "a terrible error in the negotiations at that time," becausewe got stuck with a doubling of overruns and construction — over $600million. That's $425 million for 30 years of power. Now we're going tohave to go to the north of our province — these are the proposalsbefore us — and flood the only arable land in the Peace River area forSite C, and then flood pristine areas of the Laird and the Stikine at acost of $9 billion, rather than doing the following: There is acondition in the agreement with the Americans that we could reopenthose agreements if we do it negotiating up to 1983. There's a ten-yearclosing off period for recapturing downstream benefits for that next 30years. In other words, for a loss of $425 million of cash payment forthose 30 years going from 1983 on into the next century, we could havefor ourselves, as Mr. Loffmark estimates, 4.8 million kilowatts ofpower that we could recapture back in downstream benefits from theAmericans rather than flooding our own valleys and inundating our ownarable land and potential for the future in the north.

Thatis a constructive proposal that I am putting to this government, andthis is the kind of thing we want to do here in this House right now.I'm putting forward to the government the proposal to open negotiationsand serve notice to the Americans right away so that by 1983 we'll havea ten-year closing out period to recapture that $425 million of 4.8million kilowatts of power on downstream benefits. rather than floodingand inundating our northern rivers, burning low-grade thermal coal inthe Hat Creek area, and spewing high degrees of sulphur and radioactiveash, etc. Into the atmosphere. If that isn't a constructive proposal, Idon't know what is.

I'd just like to read you a couple of lines of Mr. Loffmark's speech. He said:

"Ifwe paid the U.S. back its $425 million, added all of the interestcharges on the intervening years and let them keep eight years of freepower from our share of the benefits for the sake of goodwill, it wouldstill cost B.C. barely more than a billion dollars today, and we wouldget the use of 4.8 million kilowatts a year forever. The Americanswouldn't do it, of course, because it would cost them more than $10billion to replace that power loss. However, the 1963 Columbia RiverTreaty is firm for 30 years and renewable for another 30. It ispossible, with a determined government, to recapture the downstreambenefits belonging to British Columbia as power, rather than resellingthem for the additional 30-year period. But to do so, ten years' noticemust be given under the treaty so that the U.S. has time to buildprojects to make up the loss to them. The deadline for completingnegotiations on a ten-year termination notice comes up in 1983. Twoyears is a short time in which to negotiate such an important recaptureand must be begun immediately if we're not to have a psychological gunat our heads demanding that we take mere money again instead of thepower."

That was an incredible thing that encumberedsubsequent generations of British Columbians. The reason we are sohesitant and lack so much confidence in this government's performanceon megaprojects they presently have on the drawing board is because weknow how we got hosed on the previous megaprojects this governmentmanaged on behalf of the people of this province. That is it in anutshell. We don't have confidence, because we know what poornegotiators you are; you don't get a good deal for the people of thisprovince. The record is clear. The library is full of thedocumentation, and I challenge any member on that side of the House torefute the figures that are here. I would be happy to hear the argumentof one of the members sitting on that side, the member for NorthVancouver–Seymour (Hon. Mr. Davis), who recommended from the federalpoint of view that that would be a good deal. and to hear him refuteMr. Loffmark's assessment of that agreement and the relative merits ofthe recapture of those downstream benefits rather than taking the moneyfor another 30-year period. If he would like to take that challenge,I'd be happy to hear from him. That's the kind of government we've had.You know, the people on this side of the House have confidence in thisprovince. We know the vast wealth and potential of this province, butwe do need a province free of a Social Credit government whichencumbers us with giveaways for short-term gain, with lack of planningand coordination and no long-term return to the people of thisprovince. We cannot live with those kinds of Columbia River Treatyagreements any longer; we cannot have that kind of thing happen withnortheast coal or with power on other dams and so on. Here on VancouverIsland, where we're very economically distressed at the moment becauseof the lack of diversity and innovation shown by this government over30 years, we are simply outraged at the amount of money being pouredinto these political symbols scattered throughout the province for yourown political purposes.

How did they come about? Mr.Speaker, I would just turn your mind back about 18 months ago, when theSocred government was up to its hips in dirty tricks and scandal, towhat they did at Harbour Towers. as they started dreaming up what theyfelt were visionary projects to try to distract the

[ Page 6828 ]

publicof British Columbia from its focus on the real behaviour and politicalimmorality of this government. They started writing projects on thebacks of napkins for things such as Pier B-C, B.C. Place, northeastcoal, etc. These were poorly planned.

We now know, forexample, that there was no transit study done in Vancouver and therewere no impact plans for the community of greater Vancouver. You know,they might as well fold up the planning departments at the universitiesuntil we are free of the Social Credit government, because they simplydo not respond to or respect or see any merit or value in having townplanning, urban planning — rational planning that assesses the impacton communities when they pour masses of concrete into an urbanenvironment. That is very distressing to the people of Vancouver, andthat is why I suspect and hope that the people of Vancouver willcertainly throw this government out at the earliest opportunity.

We'veheard comments over the last few days from that side of the House thatthis side should tell the people of the province what we stand for. Wetell people very clearly what we stand for: we stand for equity and westand for making the resources of the province serve the people of theprovince. The people of this province have never ever had theopportunity to realize the potential of this great province; we havenever had the opportunity to have the resources of this province reallyworking to the full benefit of British Columbians. We did have a briefthree-year sojourn or session or interlude, when we tried to make upfor some of the disasters that had taken place.

Even Mr.Loffmark gives the CCF and the NDP government credit for fighting for afair deal on the Columbia River Treaty. Then he makes a comment aboutthe NDP period of government. He says: "To be fair, it should beremembered that while the fledgling New Democratic Party government wascriticized for overruns on Mincome and other social programs" — Mr.Speaker, note this carefully — "it was labouring under the handicap ofcoming to office when $600 million had just been sucked out of thetreasury by the Columbia Treaty overruns." That is by a former cabinetminister of that government.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's now an NDP member.

MR. HANSON:And it's certainly to his credit, Mr. Member, that he is now an NDPsupporter. He is not a member, but he certainly supports us onobjective criteria of sound management and the sound proposals that weare putting forward to the people of this province. On the other hand,I think the people of this province should really know what the Socredgovernment stands for, because they don't have all their cards on thetable, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does the NDP stand for?

DEPUTY SPEAKER:One moment, hon. member. The speaker who has the floor is addressingthe Chair. Interruptions, particularly persistent interruptions, willnot be tolerated.

MR. HANSON: I think it's importantto the people of the province to know what the Social Credit Party'sobjectives are. Many of the people on that side of the House aren'tclever enough to keep their mouth shut. They're not really fair andsquare with the people of the province as to what their objectivesreally are. However, there are people in their apparatus who don't havethat political wisdom. The senior elected officer of the Social CreditParty, Mr. "Whistling" Bernie Smith, gave a speech in Prince George onlytwo and a half weeks ago. I think it's very important to the people ofsouthern British Columbia to know what the president of the SocialCredit Party says when he ventures into the north. The president of theB.C. Social Credit Party said that the party is "finding ways ofphasing out both ICBC and the agricultural land reserve."

MR. MUSSALLEM: It's high time.

MR. HANSON:The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) says it's high time. The vastmajority of the people of British Columbia have a high regard for theagricultural land reserve in this province. They will be on the lawnsof this Legislature if this government attempts to dismantle it anymore than they are attempting to do now.

Let me tell you,Mr. Speaker, what separates the sides of this House. The Socredgovernment took the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, whichwas set up to serve the people of this province and to stop investmentof compulsory insurance going into the United States or abroad when itcould be recycled and invested for the benefit of BritishColumbia.... They have done their utmost to try to make thatcorporation unpalatable in its programs, policies and rate structures,and to make palatable the dismantling of the Insurance Corporationeither by having it sold to private insurance interests or by having itcompeted against by the private insurance companies by jacking up ratesdisproportionate to the actual needs of the corporation. There has beenpolitical interference with the corporation, whose fundamental premisewas to set up an agency to serve the people of this province in theinsurance field.

The Agricultural Land Commission. I defyany member of this House to take his place in this debate and say thatthey will do away with the Agricultural Land Commission. They do nothave the courage to put their cards on the table in this House. Theirpresident is giving speeches to the party faithful around the province,saying that this government is going to find ways of phasing out theagricultural land reserve. "ICBC," he says, "is an albatross aroundour neck. It's socialist policy being run by private-industrygovernment." Smith emphasized that "the party is finding ways to phaseout both ICBC and the ALR, replacing them with private sectorinitiative. In the case of ICBC, it could mean re-entry of privateinsurance. In the ALR, some land could fall into private real estatehands." Those are very significant policies for the people of thisprovince.

MR. KEMPF: What do you know about land? What do you know about the north?

MR. HANSON: I know enough about land to know that you and your government mismanage it every day.

MR. KEMPF: You talk about land! You're not even dry behind the ears.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:If we are ready to continue to pay attention to the address of the hon.member without interruption, I ask the member to continue.

[ Page 6829 ]

MR. HANSON:In response to the comment by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), Iknow enough about land to know that the Socreds have totally mismanagedthe Crown land, which is the heritage of our province.

Interjection.

MR. KING: That man has never done an honest day's work in his life!

MR. KEMPF: Why don't you get a job?

DEPUTY SPEAKER:Order! I ask the member for Revelstoke (Mr. King) to be seated whenanother member has the floor. I will ask the member for Omineca toremain silent, particularly when the Chair is addressing this House ona matter of order. If there's persistent disobedience of the Chair,other things will have to be done. I will ask the member to continue.

MR. HANSON:Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that the point raised by the member forOmineca is an important one, because the record is clear. The Councilof Forest Industries know that this government is incompetent inmanaging land. They turn out prime forest land for marginalagriculture. The B.C. Federation of Agriculture knows they'reincompetent because they want to sell Crown grazing leases for hobbyfarms. They know they are incompetent in the management of land. TheB.C. Federation of Agriculture, the B.C. Institute of Agrologists andevery credentialed organization that has knowledge about the managementof land knows that that government is absolutely incompetent in themanagement of land. They dismantled integrated planning agenciesestablished by the New Democratic government to make sure that therewas integrated planning for the beneficial use of all citizens, becausethey want to deliver unencumbered land to real estate interests, hobbyfarms, their own friends, the George Spetifores, the Jones'right-wingers, the Gloucester Properties, et cetera, of this province.That is their management of land and the record is clear.

Mr.Speaker, it's not just in the management of land that this governmentis incompetent. Their incompetence has been demonstrated very clearlyin the development of the coastal transportation policies that theyhave devised. They have been a disaster from start to finish. ThePrincess Marguerite was one.

I would like to talk aboutsomething which is very current, of very great interest in my ownriding and of great concern to all of the members represented on ourside from Vancouver Island. That is the way that this government hastreated and has fashioned the policies of the B.C. Ferry Corporation.Under the New Democratic Party government, the coastal transportationwas regarded as a matter within general revenue to be debated in thisHouse. The policies were debated within a ministry of this government.What the Social Credit government did, as you know, Mr. Speaker, wasestablish a Crown corporation, which they have been trying to push on auser-pay system. They have adopted the user-pay system, and they willnot be happy until the economy of Vancouver Island is virtuallycrippled as a result of their rate structures.

Let meillustrate. On November 1 of this year the B.C. Ferry Corporation wasgranted a welfare payment by the Social Credit government. They calledthat payment the annual highway equivalent subsidy payment. They didthat according to a formula — judging a certain piece of highway in theinterior of the province as the equivalent of the coastal nauticalmileage to Vancouver Island. That particular formula did not recognizethe importance of that life artery of the B.C. Ferry system linkingVancouver Island and the mainland. That is not a strip of highway; thatis the lifeline of the Vancouver Island economy. There is virtually norecognition in that subsidy formula or the rates that have beenestablished by the Social Credit government of the impact thatincreased rates have on the ability of small businesses and industry onVancouver Island to compete in a viable manner for the benefit of onequarter of the population of British Columbia.

MR. BRUMMET: They've done better.

MR. HANSON:They've never done worse, Mr. Member for North Peace. On November 1this government very foolishly increased the commercial rates from$1.60 to $2 a foot for commercial transit carrying essential goods andservices back and forth between the mainland and the Island.

Asof ten days ago an order-in-council was passed. Rather than making the$56 million payment to the B.C. ferry system on a quarterly basis at$14 million a quarter, which was past practice, that formula subsidywill not be paid quarterly; it will be paid at the discretion of thisgovernment. In other words, they will hang onto that $56 million,accrue the interest through their own investment, and let the B.C.Ferry Corporation go into the money market and borrow money which wouldnormally be invested, as a result of the receipt of those quarterlypayments, to help assist the generation of interest revenue tosubsidize the system.

The net result of this change is thatif, for example, that $56 million is given to the Ferry Corporation atthe end of the fiscal year, the Ferry Corporation will be denied theinterest revenue on that money for a full year. What does that mean? Itmeans a loss of revenue of approximately $10 million. Where will thatmoney be made up? The money will be made up from the fare box, fromcommercial rate increases, pushing more small businesses towardsbankruptcy and making it more difficult to compete on Vancouver Island.There will be more Labatts, more Mortifee Munshaws, more OaklandIndustries, more Windsors and so on.

The job losses onVancouver Island are staggering. We have lost a massive amount ofemployment. Why have we lost it? On an island with so much wealth inits soft wood-fibre, minerals and marine resources, and withrecreational attributes second to none, why are we losing those jobs?First, it's because we have a Socred government. The second reason isbecause we've had that Socred government for 30 years. They have failedto diversify. They have failed to take advantage of opportunitieselsewhere.

We hear that minister of industry and muy pocosay: "We are now trying to expand our lumber markets into Europe orJapan." Why hasn't that been done over the past 30 years? You can askanyone who is knowledgeable in the forest industry, on either side ofthe equation: we only turn to Europe when times are tough in theStates. We don't develop and secure our markets with good, solidcommitments in supply to our European customers until times are toughin the States, and then we seek them out. That ain't good enough. We dothe same thing in Asia. Anyone from COFI will admit that. I'm trying tooutline the error of 30 years of Socred mismanagement of our economy.

[ Page 6830 ]

Isaid earlier that we on this side of the House have great optimismabout the future of British Columbia, if we can get through thisdifficult time, this obstacle before us — this coalition, which is onits last legs. If we can get over that obstacle and begin rationalplanning, there is a wealth for the people of this province beyondtheir wildest dreams. Why do these people keep it so close to theirchest? Because it's only for a few. There are only the resources to bedistributed among those in the private club, those around them whobenefit directly. We want to share. We want to build a society inBritish Columbia based on sharing, respect for the diversity of ourcultural heritage and respect for the aboriginal people of thisprovince, who have certainly been neglected and betrayed by the SocialCredit government in the most graphic form in the constitutionalbehaviour of the Premier of this province, which was an absolutedisgrace.

In 1975 and 1976 we had the former Minister ofLabour going to the Indian people of the province and telling them thathe would be dealing with cutoff lands, with land claim settlements andso on. But that's another issue for another day,

What I'mraising here is the economic distress in my own community, in mycolleagues' communities and on Vancouver Island. We are vulnerable. Wehave been left vulnerable by Socred mismanagement. The kinds of thingsthat my colleague for Port Alberni (Mr. Skelly) has talked about —rational uses of energy, utilizing wood waste, questions of foodproduction, mariculture.... We should be virtually self-sufficientin food on Vancouver Island, not on land-based protein — grazing cattle —but on marine protein.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.)

Underthe stewardship of the Social Credit government, in only a few yearsthey allowed Japanese industries to take control of our fishingindustry at the processing end. That was a tragedy. The Japaneseindustries were really only interested in a secure supply for their ownneeds. They didn't necessarily want to own it; they just wanted thesupply. There are so many good reasons why British Columbians should beinvolved in the secondary processing of marine food resources for ourown purposes and for export, for value added to our food-producingindustries. Now the absolute shame and sorrow is the only processingplant in my own riding going under because of a lack of coordination inmarketing and management of the resource, of coordinated effort withthe federal government in terms of the fishing industry and developmentof technology related to the fishing industry.

My commentsreally are of little interest to the Minister of Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt).If we had a minister who cared, if we had a government that cared, thatwasn't lazy, that wished to work, wished to stay here and deal withthese important questions, we could actually make some gains for thepeople of this province. But we don't. We have a gang of lazymillionaires, who love to go to Manila, Germany and Japan. They probablyhave their tickets already booked. They might have even gone on planesthis evening if we hadn't kept them here.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON:Ah, there are many things to talk about. The management and stewardshipof the wealth of this province, when you look at that wealth and assessthe amount of lumber, coal, copper and molybdenum that leaves theprovince, and the lack of secondary processing, when you look at thatgreat wealth and then look at the streets of'our cities and see poverty— which is something that I never could understand as I was growing upin this province....

Why, in a province with this greatwealth, did we also have such great need? In my own riding, wherepeople are waiting 18 months to get into hospital for elective surgeryand are waiting five and six months for relatively serious operations,it doesn't make sense. We have a bunch of stooges over there.

MR. STRACHAN: That's unparliamentary.

MR. HANSON: Is it in the book?

MR. STRACHAN: No, but it should be.

MR. HANSON:They are stooges because, when they're asked to respond to reallyconstructive proposals, they abandon their responsibility. The Ministerof Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) was a perfectexample in the Labbatt's brewery situation in Victoria. He could havedone many things. He could have said to Labbatt: "As the minister thatcontrols the distribution of alcohol in this province, I am going toask you to be a good, solid corporate citizen and maintain productionin your brewery over this difficult time. Meanwhile we'll havetripartite negotiations to discuss your plans that you may or may notwant to take action on at a later date." But he said nothing. Noaction. Zero. He's the spokesman for the industry. It's like talking toa stump.

We're prepared to stay here to try to fight for thejobs and the benefits that really are owing the people of this provinceand that they deserve, because that wealth of the province belongs tothem — not to you.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I hadn'tintended to get up, but after listening to the second member forVictoria (Mr. Hanson) I can't resist saying that we're really fortunatethat we haven't had his party and particularly people of his mentality,his outlook, in power in this province, because what's always part oftheir speech and certainly part of their thinking is the inferioritycomplex they have, particularly relative to the United States and ourother trading partners abroad.

He chose to talk about theColumbia River Treaty and other arrangements we have with other partsof the world, but the Columbia River Treaty particularly. I know it'spart of the NDP religion that the Columbia River Treaty was a bad dealfor Canada and a bad deal, particularly, for British Columbia. TheColumbia River Treaty, in my view, was a good deal, and certainly thisis what most United States critics had to say at the time. They saidCanada got the best of the deal.

Of course, up here those inopposition, those who weren't part of the action, said it was a baddeal for Canada; but I think most of the people up here who are stillcritical of the Columbia River Treaty arrangements basically don'tunderstand what happened, and certainly don't want to understand ifthis would result in a conclusion that it was either a reasonably gooddeal or a very good deal.

What the Columbia River Treatydid was to set up a regime whereby the floodwaters from Canada would becontrolled in Canada and Canada would get half of the additional powergenerated in the United States. It said nothing about production fromany dam in Canada. The dams in Canada are

[ Page 6831 ]

partlypaid for as a result of this arrangement. They would otherwise havebeen built without any contribution whatsoever from the U.S. side. Sothe Columbia River Treaty essentially gave us two things: a fairlylarge amount of money for dams built in Canada, the power production ofwhich is always ours and will always be ours; and, in addition, half ofthe additional power made in the United States. That is a uniquearrangement.

All the weeping and wailing right now — andcertainly Ralph Loffmark's weeping and wailing — has to do with theprice at which the power in the United States, which had we waitedwould never have been ours, was made available for 30 years to theAmericans, We're talking about hydro power. That hydro power will beavailable not just for 30 years but forever. At the end of the 30-yearperiod, roughly 1993, we can charge any price we can get in the UnitedStates for it. Presumably, we will do this. We'll sell it on a spotbasis for not 5 or 6 mills, the price Premier W.A.C. Bennett decidedupon, but a price of the order of 30 or 40 or 50 mills. That's what wecould get for it today.

So after year 30, and forever, we'regoing to be able to get an arm's length price for that additional power.If we hadn't had a treaty with the United States, if we hadn't builtour storage dams early, we wouldn't have got any of their power for usas a matter of right. We can bring that power back; we can leave itdown there and sell it. So that treaty did something unique. What wedid was control the floodwaters, which were of no use to us.

MR. HANSON: Do you support the recapture?

MR. DAVIS:I invented the recapture. I wrote the original documents which aftersome years British Columbia adopted as the approach for financing thedams in B.C. That approach was, instead of bringing the power backimmediately, to leave it there for a term so that we would have moneyto build the dams. I know also a lot of people, and certainly the NDP,believe that the price for that power had to be enough to build thedams. But had that been the deal the Americans could have claimed thatthey owned the dams. There is no direct linkage between that price ofpower and the dams. We got some money from the Americans for theirpower, and that helped us build the dams. They're therefore cheaper tous than if we'd built them on our own and to hell with the Americans.So the Columbia River Treaty was an accommodation of the U.S. whichsuited us.

What really happened was this. There was a wildriver in the United States, the Columbia, one-fifth of which rose inCanada. That wild river was progressively tamed as they built dams.They built most of their dams before we did anything to our wild river.Had it been the other way around. we wouldn't have been able to takeadvantage of the fact that they had all their dams, or most of them, inplace. What we were doing for them was very valuable to them. We strucka deal with them. They paid us money both for flood control and for theadditional power they can make because the floodwaters were held backand let down in a more orderly way. They could produce more reliablepower. Half of that additional production is ours forever. We sold itfor 30 years to help finance the dams. That isn't a bad deal, becausehad we gone it on our own we would not have had the power that RalphLoffmark's talking about at all. We wouldn't have had it at any price.We'd have got zero, not the hundreds of millions of dollars we got fora 30-year sale.

The favourite NDP position was the so-calledMcNaughton plan. And I was through all that. I was with GeneralMcNaughton through all his early period. General McNaughton wanted tothrow up two dams at the border, one on the Kootenay and the other onthe Columbia. Basically, he was going to take all the floodwaters andput them through the Fraser system.

The second member forVictoria (Mr. Hanson) is sensitive on ecological matters. This wouldhave flooded the whole of the mountain trench from the border up theKootenay, through Lake Windermere, through Golden and around to theMica Dam. It would have flooded all of that recreational park country.Most of the ridings of the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) and theMinister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) would have beenunder water. I like to think of one story which I heard at the time andI know is true. There was a provincial by-election in theRevelstoke-Golden area. The then CCF — no, I guess they'd just switchedto the NDP — had a candidate running. Tommy Douglas went out fromOttawa imbued with the McNaughton approach, He went to the meeting atGolden. He started to expound on the glories of the McNaughton plan,and he was booed out of the hall. They told him you'd be under 200 feetof water if the McNaughton plan was invoked.

The NDP shouldforget the McNaughton plan, because environmentally it would have beenan ultimate disaster. Why flood all of the mountain trench? Why divertthe floodwaters of the upper Columbia into the Shuswaps, into theThompson, down the Fraser? The fishing industry at the coast was allagainst it. It was a disaster environmentally. It was perhaps anengineer's dream if you wanted to spend billions of dollars and drilltunnels through the Cascades to divert the Columbia into the Fraser.But it flooded so much of British Columbia and certainly so much of themost attractive part of British Columbia that it would have been, as Isaid, a disaster for the province. Certainly environmentally it wouldhave been. Certainly from a tourist point of view it would have been.So let's not weep about the McNaughton plan. It didn't happen, for goodand sufficient reasons, and most of the reasons were environmental.

Theremaining reasons were economic. Naturally, if you were going to takethe floodwaters and divert them in Canada they weren't going to do anygood in the United States. So the United States wasn't going to pay forthat. We had the power to do it. 'Ale still have the power to divertour rivers in Canada. We didn't give that up. We can divert thefloodwaters either into the Fraser. or across the Rockies into theprairies if we want. But it isn't economic, so we're not doing it. Butwe Could do it some day if it paid us to do it. So we didn't give upthe freedom to divert. We avoided the massive environmental damage thatthe McNaughton plan would have done to that corner of the province. andwe got a payment for power made in the United States. not power made inCanada.

Ralph Loffmark is all-wise. He was a member of theprovincial cabinet in those days. British Columbia decided on theprice. I remember the negotiations well, because I was there. RayWilliston and Bob Bonner were there. Paul Martin used to go out pacingthe Americans. Paul Martin was the negotiator for Canada. The Americansoffered a price that Canada, negotiating for B.C., countered, and wekept working them up. In those days 4 mills was a big price. TheBonneville Power Administration was selling all its power for 2 mills,so they thought 4 was a big figure. It got up to 5 and finally 6 mills.It got up there with Paul Martin going to the

[ Page 6832 ]

phoneevery half-hour or whenever they changed another notch — phoningPremier W.A.C. Bennett and asking if it was the right price. PremierBennett finally said: "Six mills. That's it." That's how the price wasstruck.

Interjection.

MR. DAVIS: Well,right. It's like looking back 30 years at a house mortgage and saying:"Oh, that was a terrible deal" — I'm the lender, of course — "lendingfor 25 years at 7 percent." Today we're all wise. Now, because of theinflation in the interim, those prices look like terrible prices; butthey were the reasonable prices in those days. The Americans made us alump-sum payment for the power and a lump-sum payment for floodcontrol, because we were controlling the floodwaters.

Anotherthing that most politicians — certainly on the other side of the House— and a surprising number of economists don't take into account isthat, if you're going to compare the cost of the dams with thosepayments the Americans made, you should, for heaven's sake, put thatmoney in the bank and see what the interest has done to it in themeantime. Allow 20 percent in the last couple of years and you'll findthat, if you put interest on those payments of those days, you've got avalue of the U.S. payments which is comparable to the cost of the damsin Canada — by chance. We did not ask the Americans to pay for thedams; we simply sold half the downstream benefits which they generate.The dams are up to us. They're ours. We can do with them what we want,and we can keep, produce and use all the power we generate at our dams.The Americans have no control, no say whatsoever about the powergenerated in Canada. So when we talk about bringing downstream benefitsback, we're not talking about bringing back Canadian-produced power.We're talking about bringing back half the additional power they makeas a result of our controlling the water.

So we got alump-sum settlement which is valuable because we've been able to use itover many years. It helped pay for dams in Canada. We've got dams inCanada which can generate a lot of power and which are cheaper thanthey otherwise would have been. We've got all the latitude we wantincluding our ability, if we wanted to, to do a McNaughton plan — Godforbid — and to divert all of that water in Canada if we wish. I can'tthink that's a very bad deal. Hindsight is always easy, but I don'tthink it was that bad, and in fact if we hadn't moved in those days, Idon't think we would ever have got a substantial lump-sum settlement tohelp us finance dams, which otherwise were expensive. We didn't have amarket for all that power here in the lower mainland instantaneously orovernight, whereas the Americans had a market for it. That's the otherreason for selling it for a period.

After 30 years, 1993,we've got it back and can bring it back, or we can sell it. It's ourproperty. So a future government will make that decision and they'llprobably have all sorts of opportunities year by year to decide whetherto bring it back or leave it down there and sell it. So it wasn't a baddeal, and let's not have an inferiority complex over the ColumbiaTreaty.

Americans don't always think that Canadians gavethem soft deals. I remember General McNaughton setting the stage forthe Americans when they first came up. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineerscame up — Bonneville people. They all came up to his office. Here theywere, coming up to little Canada, to start negotiations onthe Columbia. He brought in Ontario Hydro and a few others to sit onthe other side of the table. He introduced Ontario Hydro, saying:"Here, gentlemen, is a utility that's three times bigger than yourbiggest utility in the United States." We had people on our side of thefence who were not only capable, but big. Ontario Hydro was then thebiggest socialist enterprise in North America. We had a lot of good,competent people.

Anyway, I don't think the Columbia Treatywas really a bad deal. We have flexibility. We can rescue anything thatwas wrong, and thank God we didn't flood all of the mountain trench. Idon't think it was bad, and therefore I don't think one should assumethat Canadians always make a bad deal when they're entering intonegotiations with the United States, or that most of our export dealsare bad.

About the same time, Westcoast Transmission builttheir pipeline south from the Peace River into the Pacific Northwest.They sold the gas to the Pacific Northwest for 22 cents. Today it'sselling for over $5 a thousand cubic feet. That was the only price wecould get. We had to have the U.S. market — Seattle, Portland — to makethe pipeline viable, to get the volume and 22 cents was the price. Itwas rock-bottom, and it meant a very low field price in Canada, buttime has resolved that problem. The price has gone up and up. The fieldprice has risen. We found more gas as a result of higher field prices,and latterly the provincial taxpayer — certainly the Minister ofFinance — has taken more out of that deal than the industry has beenable to. The yield today from Westcoast's export of gas is more to theprovincial treasury than it is to the entire exploration developmentpipeline-operating end of things. That's been one thing that happened.It happened when the NDP were in power. The fixed-price contract, whichhad been written for 25 years, was broken. I think it was right tobreak it under those circ*mstances, because the world price of oil hadshot up and energy prices were rising. The 22-cent price disappearedwhen the NDP were in power. In effect they broke the contract — whichhad its precedents, but which was unprecedented in Canada-U.S. gasrelations. It was bound to happen. The 22-cent price could never standwith energy prices rising the way did.

What was lost inbreaking the contract was the requirement that the U.S. purchasers takea certain amount of gas. They said: "If you are going to break thecontract on price, we're going to break the contract on the quantitieswe must take." Consequently, ever since that contract was broken in1974 or thereabouts, the Americans have taken only the gas they wanted.They are not required to take a certain stipulated amount, which wasthe condition of the original contract.

In retrospect, wasthat export arrangement a good deal or a bad deal? We wouldn't have hada gas pipeline down across B.C. for another decade or so if we hadn'tentered into that deal. In the end, it's worked out well: we got apipeline early and we've now got the world oil price equivalent for thegas we're exporting.

So in time it worked out. I think thatarrangement too, while it had its critics — and I was one of them,certainly from a price point of view — worked out all right. So let'snot have an inferiority complex about these things. You do what youhave to do at the time, and you improve it; you are far-sighted enoughyou have arrangements written into the long-term contract which allowyou not only to recover your costs but also to get full value for yourresources. On the hydro side — remember, that's a renewable resource —that whole operation goes on forever, so there will be many more oppor-

[ Page 6833 ]

tunities to improve the deal, rejigger the water-control arrangements and so on.

Idon't think we should necessarily be talking too much about making baddeals. If we're a wealthy country and if we have a real welfare-statephilosophy, surely we shouldn't be too upset about losing a little bitfor a little while to our trading partner.

Anyway, in thecase of the Columbia River Treaty, and now, in the fullness of time, inthe gas export arrangements, I think we've made good deals. I thinkthat this kind of initiative, this willingness to do things for thefirst time, to do them on a large scale, to do them in cooperation andcertainly in a business partnership with our trading partners, is theway we're going to make this province a better place for more people tolive in. The NDP just doesn't have that kind of philosophy. It's alwaysworrying about doing something, especially where the big foreigncompanies are concerned: we're going to be stupid; they're going tooutsmart us. It just doesn't work out that way. Certainly the ColumbiaRiver Treaty is one case whereby, I believe, we came out well andcouldn't have done better in the long run. That's one of the reasonsI'm going to vote for the motion, and why I'm glad that we are where weare on this side of the House and the NDP is still over there.

MR. MITCHELL:I sat here and listened to that apologist, and all I can say is thatthe whole reason for this debate this morning is that we on this sideof the House feel that this government has not taken a positive programon creating jobs. The last speaker stood up for 30 minutes and rattledoff figures about flooding here and flooding there. What was the main,important mistake that was made on the Columbia River Treaty? Not onlydid they underestimate the cost of building those dams by $600 million,but I was shocked that the speaker actually said that we would have nouse for that power. The Americans had no use, but they have built threealuminum plants and they created employment.

[Hon. Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

This is why we are here this morning — because we feel that this government has not taken any action to create jobs.

Theapologist from that side stood up and said: "We had no use for thepower on the Columbia River and we created three aluminum plants in theStates." I feel that this is what we should review and why we are heredebating a very traditional — if you want to call it — motion toadjourn, so we can go home after taking our $40,000 a year and go onholidays. A lot of the ministers can travel to foreigncountries.... They can go to Hawaii and Australia and Arizona attaxpayers' expense, so they can play golf and tennis and eat and drink.This is what we say is a far more important job for us. We have anobligation as the members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to bring tothe attention of this government and the citizens of British Columbiathat after seven days we have a Legislature.... That vast majoritythat sits over on the government side keeps putting everything down andexpects the private member to roll over and do nothing. I say that thisis what our job is. Our job is to bring to the attention of thegovernment and the people that this government is prepared, after afour-month holiday where they had been travelling all over theworld.... They work seven days and then they want to go off foranother four months. To me, Mr. Speaker, it's a disgrace.

Itwas a disgrace when I sat there and listened to the Minister ofUniversities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and he ranby us that flim-flam speech he has. No one debates, brings anyproposals or talks constructively. I've heard that speech ever since Icame back in 1979. When I listen to him giving that flim-flam speech,it reminds me of when he built that plywood edifice that he calls asatellite receiving station. He told everybody, and it was perceived bythe public, that you could have a satellite receiving station for $200.

Ithought that here a minister of the Crown is telling the public thatfor $200 we can have a satellite receiving station. So I, ascommunications critic, went over to his office and talked to the staffand asked if I could have the specification sheet for this $200satellite receiving station that was making headlines. It was on TVthat everyone could have a satellite station, as it says here. Itdemonstrates how simple and easy it would be to have a satellitetelevision transmission in every home. So I thought: "Well, for $200 Iwill go out and build one." The young lady in the minister's officesaid: "Well, you better read all the way through it before you getstarted." I read all the way through it to the back page. On the backpage, on the fifth from the last line in this three-page release, itsays: "Together, this pair of units cost about $5,500." There was no$200 satellite station. The minimum cost of that construction was $200for the plywood plus $5,500 for the electronic components.

Thisis what this whole government is made up of. I won't say "half-truths,"because you will say that's not parliamentary. If I say it'sdeceptive, you'll say that maybe that's not quite the proper term. Butit is misleading. This whole government, their whole policy, theirprogram, their budget and their actions are misleading, because thepeople of this province believe that we have elected a government togovern. But what do they want to do? They want a four-month holiday,seven days of work and another four months of holiday.

WhenI told some of the people who were up in the galleries earlier on thisevening that we were opposing the closing down of this Legislature,they were shocked. They said: "With all the unemployment?"

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:I wonder if I could interrupt the member for a moment. There isconsiderable chit-chat on the floor. Out of respect for the remarksbeing made could we all observe that the member forEsquimalt–Port Renfrew has the floor and should be accorded byall members on both sides the courtesy of this House. Please continue.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Intalking to the general public, when they realized that with the largeraises that we got last spring we were only going to come here and havea throne speech — one of the longest throne speeches that has beengiven to this House....

Let's just take one part of thatthrone speech. Let's take the part that deals with the industry thatproduces 50 cents out of every dollar that is generated in BritishColumbia, the forest industry. What do we have in this throne speech —one of the longest throne speeches we've had? We have exactly 11 linesdealing with the most important industry of this province. To be exact,there are 131 words, and it said

[ Page 6834 ]

nothingthat was going to help this industry. What is the effect of this lackof action that has been slowly building up since the summer? Instead ofcalling the Legislature back when the problem was first arising andcoming in here with some positive action to create some employment andkeep our forest industry going....

Here we have a vastshortage of affordable housing. There is no rental accommodation thatis affordable to the average person today. The Deputy Speaker, in hisother role, knows it better than any one of us. He knows the problemsof people who are trying to exist when they're paying 50 and 60 percentof their income for rent today. I have an apartment in my own ridingwhere, because of the so-called financial remortgaging, proposed rentshave gone from $335 to $500. I have senior citizens living in thosehomes who, if the rent increases go through, will have $67 left overfrom their pensions to feed and entertain themselves after they've paid$500 rent.

I say nothing in that throne speech took intoconsideration the need to keep our forest industry going, to startplanning to build houses and affordable apartment rental accommodation.There's nothing in there, not a thing. There are 11 lines and 131 wordsof platitudes — nothing constructive. If we as private members justkind of rolled over and said, "Yes, we'll go home and have our fourmonths off and enjoy Christmas," we would be derelict in our duties aselected members.

To get down to actual, hard facts, whatdoes it do to my riding? One of the industries in my riding is theWindsor Machine shop. For those who are not aware of what WindsorMachine Co. manufactures, they manufacture chainsaws. They manufacturechains for the power saws that are used in the forest industry. Whathappened? Sixty employees got their notice. Sixty employees on December23 will be out of work — two days before Christmas — because there areonly 11 lines of nothing in this throne speech dealing with the mostimportant industry of my riding.

Were there any suggestionsfrom any of the speakers that got up and ranted and raved, saying thatwe are wasting taxpayers' money because we are trying to make thisLegislature work for the people of this province? Do we get anyassistance from the backbenchers? No, they want to run off and go homeand ape their cabinet ministers and go on their trips. We feel thatthis government must be prepared to govern; this government must bringin the legislation that is needed; this government must stand or fallon doing nothing.

Another part of my riding is the Port Renfrew area. My riding is known as the Esquimalt–Port Renfrew constituency. Out in Port Renfrew there were over 300 loggers laid off. B.C. Forest Products shut down their camp, shut down the operation, and 300 families were out of work. What has this government offered? Mr. Speaker, I'm ashamed to say that it has offered nothing, absolutely nothing, and we have the Premier shouting and talking about work and wages. Does he make any plans for work and wages? It's a lazy government; it's a do-nothing government; it's not accepting the responsibility that the people of this province elected them for. There are so many things that 300 men and women can do — 300 trained forest workers.

My colleague proposed that the industry go on a program of silviculture, replanting, thinning. There are so many things that can be done. I am just going to make one little proposal: instead of having 300 men and women sitting doing nothing, collecting UIC or whatever you do when you are out in a community which is 40 miles from the main cities.... We have a river out there, Mr. Speaker, the San Juan River. That river has flowed down the valley for years, but because of 30 years of Social Credit's unplanned forest policy, because of the widespread poor logging practices that have gone on in the past, because of 30 years of Social Credit, where they have made no attempt to clean up that river, the river is jammed with logs. It either flows too fast or it doesn't flow at all. At one time that river had over 100,000 salmon coming back to spawn, but because of the forest practices that were allowed to take place under the Social Credit government that river has been destroyed. Right now there are less than 8,000 salmon going up that river. The community, as volunteers, on their own time have taken up a program of salmonid enhancement. They have designed and built hatcheries that are capable of rearing a million eggs. Because this river has been ruined, they cannot get enough salmon to produce the million eggs. They are now fighting with the Indians over the few salmon that are going up. The Indians have had a historical right to fish on the river.

Ifthis government had brought in some kind of program, instead, ofallowing 300 people to do nothing but collect unemployment insurancefor the winter, they could have brought in a program that couldrehabilitate that whole river, and we would have 100,000 salmon comingback. But no, this government decided the forestry policy would be 11lines, 131 words of doing nothing to help loggers who are unemployed.

Notonly can the forest industry be blamed for the poor return of salmon tothat river; we have another problem, and this is a problem that theMinister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) and the Minister of Environment(Hon. Mr. Rogers) should both be involved in. Because of new technologyin the purse-seiner fleets this year and because there was a largesockeye salmon run heading for the Fraser River and a large pink salmonrun also heading for the Fraser River, the federal government allowedthe large purse-seiners to fish for the salmon as they entered Juan deFuca Strait, and they said they were there to harvest the large sockeyeand pink runs. But what are they doing to the rivers — San Juan River,Sooke River, De Mamiel Creek and some of the other rivers you getfurther around toward the Cowichan? In their greed to take all the pinkand the sockeye, they're taking thousands and thousands of what theycall incidental fish — spring salmon and the Coho salmon. The springsalmon and the Coho salmon, as you know, Mr. Speaker, are the lifebloodof the sports industry and the tourist industry. Our Minister ofEnvironment and Minister of Tourism should be meeting with the federalMinister of Fisheries to take that fleet of purse-seiners, which iskilling the Coho and the spring salmon, back to the mouth of the FraserRiver to harvest the fish where they should be harvested — at theFraser River, instead of destroying the rivers between Cape Flatteryand the Fraser River. It's something that this government should bedoing instead of talking platitudes and closing this House down.

Thereare so many programs that must be instituted. This government must bedriven to take action instead of sending everybody home to go on theirholidays, so that they can fly around the country and be tourists. WhenI listened to my Minister of Industry and Small Business Development(Hon. Mr. Phillips), when he is talking and waving his arms aroundabout all the great things they did, and when I listened to the Premiertalking in his speech about all the industrial parks they had createdin this province, I couldn't help but think....

[ Page 6835 ]

Iknow that maybe to you, Mr. Speaker, or to some of the governmentmembers, 15 jobs doesn't mean too much. Right now in my riding there isa steel plant — it's actually a steel warehouse owned by DrummondMcCall Inc. — which is situated beside the Burrard Yarrows shipyard,and part of their job is to supply steel to the shipyard. This companyalso supplies steel to all the small manufacturing and machine shopsand plants throughout the area south of Duncan. What happened? BecauseYarrows is expanding because of employment, they need the buildingwhere the steel plant is located right now. The company is trying toget relocated, they're trying to find some affordable industrial spaceto continue this business in the greater Victoria area, and they cannotfind anything. I listened to the minister and the Premier talking aboutthese great industrial parks. Where are they? We have a companyhere.... It's only 15 jobs that are going to be closed down in Mayof this year, but that's part of the economy — a steel plant thatsupplies the steel not only to the shipyard but also to a lot ofsmaller machine shops. And they do nothing.

This governmenthas no affordable industrial land or parks developed in the greaterVictoria area to keep the industries we have today. I watch my friendsacross the floor who laugh and giggle. Three hundred loggers meannothing to them; nor do 80 brewery workers and about 200 people in thefishing industry. These are the types of programs that this governmentmust take some positive action about and bring in legislation that we,as private members, can discuss and not be turned loose for anotherfour months after we just came back from four months' holiday. We inthe opposition have a traditional job: to examine the legislationproduced by the government. It is our traditional job to makeproposals, to check it, to go through it, to adopt it if we agree withit, and to defeat it if we can, if we disagree.

Thisgovernment, in their wisdom or lack of it, took the advice of thedeputy minister from the Premier's office who said "shut up." That'swhat you wanted us to do. Two of the first words that came from aSocial Credit mouthpiece were "shut up." That's what you want us all todo. Our job is not to shut up; our job is to point out the failure ofthis government. If we can't keep this House going until we get somesense in this government, and if we are squashed by that overallmajority that brought in closure and tried to stop the Leader of theOpposition from doing his traditional job of speaking in the thronespeech, then our job will be to go out through the width and breadth ofBritish Columbia and tell the people how inactive, how lazy, howuncaring this government is — how they would rather go on trips, go onholidays, and go home and watch their Christmas tree while people areunemployed. We must do the job that we've been elected to do, and wemust do it continually until such time as there is some sense in thisgovernment.

This government has to do something. They've gotto come to their senses and do the job that they've been elected to do.They have to create the jobs and develop the security that the secondmember for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) was talking about. In a rich countrylike this there should be no fear of not having a house. There shouldbe no fear of not having a job. There should be no fear that we cannotgo to hospitals without an 18-month waiting list for elective surgery.or six and seven months for major surgery. These are the issues weshould be facing, and these are the issues that the government must dosomething about and do it now.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr.Speaker, we have certainly heard some interesting assertions during thelast few hours. For instance. one of the earlier speakers, the secondmember for Surrey (Mr. Hall) made a statement that the business ofgovernment should be conducted in the House. Probably that is true.They say that repeatedly. However, their leader gave very sparingly ofhis time in this House. He apparently had other activities to do.

MR. BARRETT: I haven't seen yours all night.

MR. BRUMMET: We'll get to that point later.

Thereseems to be this great interest in the work that is done in this House,and yet during the speech on the amendment and on the throne speech wefound a lot of talk, a lot of negative criticism and a lot ofnon-attendance. So the interest seems to be more in word than in deedon the part of the opposition. The opposition yesterday were sodisorganized that they couldn't get their speeches into the regularsession, and many of them made no attempt to do so. So they used thetechnical rules of this House in order to give them an opportunity tospeak again. Certainly lacking in organization and bereft of anypolicies, they rely on words in order to try to pretend that they areworking.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET:I have a slight advantage; I have somewhat of a hearing loss and thatmeans that I do not hear the inane comments from some of the othermembers.

MR. LEA: How do you know they're inane?

MR. BRUMMET:I can hear that they are being made, but I don't hear what they aresaying. Mind you, if my hearing was perfect I would hardly be missingmuch.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) also saidthat we should stay in session. I think we've had adequate evidencethis evening in the speeches from the members of the opposition thatthere is quite a question about whether there is any real value instaying in session, because they've contributed nothing but the samediatribes that we've heard over and over again.

We've hearda great deal about why we're having this all night session. We've heardthat the real reason is that they're here to represent their people. Ithink perhaps we should discuss the real reason that ve've had thisextended session.

The real reason was to provide an opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to get an opportunity to speak in the debate.

Becauseof his continued absence from the House and be cause of bad manoeuvringhe missed the opportunity to speak in the regular debate. In otherwords. he flubbed it.

I think it should be pointed out thatthe Leader of the Opposition flubbed his opportunity to speak, and sowe have this extra session. Some of his colleagues were asked to fillin some time in order to give him a chance to speak, and once he spokeI take it that the orders were, "Now punish them as long as you can, "because I note that he has not been here for some time. He wanted to bein the House because the House in session was so very important, yetthe real reason we’re here is because Chief Walking Eagle flubbed it. Icould tell you why that member is named Chief Walking Eagle, but Iwon't.

[ Page 6836 ]

Wehave another continuous example here in the House that parallels theirstandard behaviour: words to cover their lack of policy, words to covertheir lack of deeds and words to cover their lack of a lot of things.They insist on keeping the House in session. One of their members wouldlike to see the doors locked as a tactic. They insist on keeping theHouse in session, and yet their attendance is pretty minimal.

We'veheard many accusations this evening about this being a lazy government.Apparently the NDP definition of work seems to be to talk endlesslywithout saying anything. I note that the second member for Victoria(Mr. Hanson) was getting into the business of ICBC and I think thephrase that he used was that we "were making it unpalatable." To makeit palatable, I take it the definition is that if it's palatable thenit should be taking in only about half the fees of what it cost to runthe operation. I would suspect that that is standard NDP policy: foranything to be palatable, it's got to be losing money. That seems to bestandard.

He made the same inference regarding the ferriesand used the same term again: "The ferries could be made morepalatable." And I take it that the way they could be made morepalatable is that the more money they lose, the more palatable theybecome. That seems to be NDP policy with industry and any operation inthis province: it's very palatable if it's losing money. If it's payingits own way, then it becomes unpalatable.

The other thingthe second member for Victoria mentioned was.... He made thisstatement: "The Social Credit government has mismanaged Crown land." Ithink if we combine that with the number of their other assertions andstatements....

MR. co*ckE: That's what we're debating — staying or leaving. Should we stay or should we leave?

MR. BRUMMET: Oh, should I be the first one to stay on the topic? I think we've got many reasons to leave and I'm getting to that.

Themember said that the Social Credit government has mismanaged Crownland. If we put that beside some of their other statements, it wouldappear to me that we mismanage Crown land when we make it available tothe people of this province and that it should all remain under statecontrol and that is good management. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, it isgood management when that land is made available for people to own.

We'veheard a lot about the trips that some of our cabinet members make inorder to sell the products that bring revenue to this province. I canunderstand that the NDP would not want to or need to make trips,because if they had their way, they would shut down the industries andenergy projects and there would be no need for them to travel lookingfor markets. There would be nothing to sell. They certainly don't wantto develop the resources of this province.

Like any memberin this House and like the members in the opposition, I want jobs andservices for my people, including health, recreation, human resources,and education.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cross the floor.

MR. BRUMMET:No, I want these services for the people. I want facilities for mypeople in my area and I want the people there to have and be able toafford houses. In order to be able to afford houses they need jobs, andin order to have jobs they have to have some place to work. It iscertainly not.... I cannot accept the NDP version of jobs assomething that just employs people. I think jobs have to be somethingproductive. They have to produce something and pay their own way.That's what jobs mean. We had their way.

Just to go on, Iwant roads, parks and a lot of things for my people and that is why Isupport energy projects in this province, because energy is the key toindustrial development. I support industrial development and thedevelopment of our resources, because without that we do not have allthe services and the revenue to provide all of the things that I wantfor my people.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the members ofgovernment want to work and we have a lot of work to do. Sitting herelistening to all this talk is not getting much work done. As a matterof fact, it takes people away from work. Members on the government side— the cabinet members — do a lot of work when the House is not issession; they do not have that as a holiday. I can see why the NDPwould say that when the House is not in session it's considered aholiday, because I guess it is to them, particularly when so many ofthem live here in Victoria.

I support the motion to adjourn.The extension of this session is really a ludicrous waste of time. Thebasic purpose of it was to save face for Chief Walking Eagle.

MR. GABELMANN:I'm sorry that I had to be here for the last 15 minutes to listen tothat speech. I'm disappointed that it was necessary that we had to sitthrough the evening and into the morning, rather than attempting tocarry on the tradition of the last nine years when we've had a morecivilized Legislature, unlike the one during the 1960s. Perhaps it'sappropriate, however, that we have had to go through a whole eveningsitting, because it makes it somewhat more of an historic occasion forus in this Legislature, for those who record it and for those who hearlater about what happened.

I think that in a symbolic waythis morning we have witnessed some concluding chapters in a veryimportant decline in democracy in this province, on at least two countsthat I want to talk about. The first relates to the kinds of commentsmade by the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), in which hesaid that it is not work for members to stand up in this Legislatureand talk about the problems of this province. Democracy is founded uponthe principle that people select their representatives to come toparliament to speak on their behalf, to talk about what the problemsare and to propose solutions. Democracy is not electing a parliamentand then having a minority in that parliament hide themselves away inan executive council chamber — unavailable to the public, unavailableto the press, unavailable to the elected representatives, making allthe decisions. That's not democracy. This is democracy in this chamber.

Webelieve that even though talk sometimes seems to go on for a longperiod of time, it is the essence of democracy: in fact the word"parliament" means talk. Those who are opposed — as the member forNorth Peace River appears to be — to talk are therefore, by definition,opposed to parliament. What kind of democrat is he? What kinds ofdemocrats are they? They don't like talk and they don't likeparliament; the words are synonymous.

(Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 6837 ]

Overthe last six years in this province we have witnessed a decline in theimportance of this institution in various ways. We don't meet oftenenough. Often we go four, five, six and seven months in successionwithout meeting, without giving the executive council an opportunity tohear what the people are talking about in various ridings, throughtheir elected representatives. That's a serious decline in democracy.We have witnessed a serious decline in democracy when we look at thestatutes that have been introduced and passed in the last six years inthis province. One by one they have been eliminating powers from thisLegislature which it has had for decades and transferring those powersto the executive council, transferring those powers to change byorder-in-council.

One of the reasons that I'm opposed to themotion on the floor at the present time is that I think we should behere for the next two or three weeks. I've cleared my calendar. When Igot your telegram, Mr. Speaker, I cleared my calendar right throughuntil the middle of December, because I was sure we would be here forthat period of time.

We should be here talking about thoseproblems that the cabinet and their colleagues in the Socred backbenches would prefer not to see the light of day. They havedemonstrated that by their legislative action, and they havedemonstrated it by various comments made in the House, most recently bythe member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), who does not believe intalk. As I said before, talk is the essence of democracy. Talk is theessence of parliament. They don't believe it. As the member for PrinceRupert (Mr. Lea) says, they would go back to the days when the sworddetermined power.

I don't know that members of thisLegislature on the government side have quite understood what point wehave been trying to make in this debate. For me, it is an essentialpoint regarding the institution of parliament, the very nature andbasic tenets of our democracy. They have not understood that. We've hadsome impassioned speeches this evening. We've had some light speeches.We've had some frivolity. We've had all kinds of different tones in thedebate, and that's good. I'm all in favour of that, and I think it'suseful in this Legislature. In the course of many of those speeches, wehave heard some things that are on people's minds across this province.If the government is to govern effectively, it has to hear thosecomments. It hasn't heard those comments since July 6 of this year.

SinceJuly 6, this province has undergone a major transformation. I want totalk about some of the transformation that's happened in this provincewith respect to my own constituency.

During the last sevendays we have debated a throne speech that was empty. We went through avery short debate — only six or seven days. I was fully expecting thatwe would then go from there to discuss legislation. I thought thatduring that throne speech we would get speeches from cabinet membersoutlining what they have done for the last six months, and what theypropose to do for the next six months, and what they propose to do intheir respective departments to get us out of this recession that we'rein. Not that they can do it all; there's nobody in this Legislature whobelieves that a provincial government can deal with the world-wideeconomic situation that we have. But we did expect that during thisthrone speech debate we would hear from the ministers responsible someoutline of what they plan to do. We heard nothing. We thought maybeonce the throne speech debate was over we would get on to those kindsof programs. We still hear nothing. They want us to go home.

Whatkind of cost has it been to the taxpayers for us to have had thisthrone speech at this point? A million dollars? Probably close to that.Why did we come down here to debate an empty document, to haveministers not stand up to tell us what they plan to do so that we canthen comment: yes, that's good; no, that's bad; this is what the peoplethink in respect of that proposal. We've had none of that. What's thepurpose of this institution? Have we forgotten why we're here? Have weforgotten who we represent?

I was beginning to talk aboutsome of the problems that I think we should be dealing with in thisprovince. I want to talk about some of the problems in my constituency.During the throne speech debate, when I made what I thought was arelatively constructive speech in proposing a variety of programs forthe government, I said that there were whole communities in myconstituency that are shut down. That's a fact. As of last Friday, thetown of Sayward is 90 percent unemployed. Two-thirds of the communitiesin my constituency will be between 80 and 100 percent unemployed withinthe next two weeks. For most of those people and those communities,that unemployment is going to last in some cases, they are told,hopefully for only six or eight weeks, in some other cases, hopefullyonly ten weeks. But there's always the nagging fear that it might bethree, four or five months before they go back to work.

It'sa serious problem when you live in Tahsis and you have one employer,two sawmills and a logging division, the logging division shuttingdown, one sawmill already shut down and the other not far away. What dothose 800 workers in that community do for Christmas? What have theyheard from this government lately about their prospects this winter?Having already not had a full year's employment, having already had awinter shutdown in the early part of the year and then two or threemonths of shutdown in the summer, what is there in government activityfor them? Nothing at all.

People on that side wonder why wekeep this Legislature sitting beyond the 5:45 p.m. adjournment thisevening. Is there any wonder, when we see what is happening in theconstituencies? Mr. Speaker, in Campbell River alone there were sixbusiness that closed their doors last week, and that's beforeChristmas, before the time when those people can be expected togenerate a bit of cash flow. Hopefully, given good Christmas sales theymay be able to get themselves through the winter, pay their rent, andpay their costs. They couldn't last till Christmas. One of the biggestretail stores in town closed its doors about a month ago. In the lastweek six more small businesses have gone under, and there has beennothing from this so-called pro-business, pro–free enterprise, pro–thelittle guy; nothing in the throne speech; nothing from ministers'statements during the throne speech debate; nothing even in pressconferences in the hallways; nothing anywhere that will make thosesmall business people feel any better this Christmas. The only turkeysin their life are on the government side, and they know it.

Mr.Speaker, some governments in this country, most notably the federalgovernment, when we are in severe economic times and when economicconditions change drastically in the course of a year, introduceinterim budgets. I think the economic situation in this province todaywarrants the introduction by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis)of an interim budget before Christmas. Why isn't he presenting a budgetthat will promote some kind of winter work? There are a variety ofthings that need to be done.

[ Page 6838 ]

Mycolleagues, earlier in this debate and earlier in the throne speech,have touched on a variety of things that can be done. We're not justtalking about salmonid enhancement; we're not just talking aboutmunicipal works. There are a million things that need to be done inthis province in terms of park development, reforestation,silviculture; the list goes on and on. It has been dealt with and Idon't intend to repeat it. An interim budget would reallocate some ofthe money that we allocated earlier this year and would say no, we arenot going to spend the kind of money that we're now spending on the bigmegaprojects; we're going divert some of that money into job-intensive,labour-intensive projects this province, where people are sufferingunemployment, where people are not sure where their rent cheque ortheir next meal are coming from. An interim budget could have done that.

Why else would we have been called into session this fall?

Whatreason could there possibly be to call us into session for asix-or-seven day debate on a throne speech? We all know that there isa great deal of ceremony about a throne speech, but the motion thatflows from the throne speech debate doesn't employ a single souloutside this building. Why call us back unless there was some program,unless there was some proposal? Did somebody get cold feet in this pastten days? Why not an interim budget; why not a reallocation of capital;why not a reallocation away from the big, nonproductive capitalexpenditures on projects that I happen to think are good, Mr. Speaker?I have said this in meetings in every town in my constituency thisfall. I like the idea of having a stadium in Vancouver. I am a jocktoo. I like to go to soccer games and football games, and I thinkworking-class people that attend those kinds of functions should havethat stadium, which is basically a working-class thing. I equate itwith the symphony orchestra, the Orpheum theatre and other things likethat in our society. But we can't afford that stadium this year. Maybewe could next year or the year after, but we can't afford it this year.Why do it this year? Patch up Empire Stadium. We've gotten along since1954; we can make it for a couple more years. That's the kind of thingthat I expected we would get from the government.

Northeastcoal. I think it makes sense that we develop the northeast portion ofour province. We began to do that in a planned way when we were ingovernment. Once the election is over we'll do it again; we'll carry onwith it, but we won't do it in the way it's being done now, in aneffort to build monuments and edifices so that, hopefully, in theSterling Lyon mode, the government will get re-elected because of thegreat megaprojects. It won't work; it didn't work in Manitoba and itwon't work here.

We can go through all of the others: theconvention centre, B.C. Place.... I think they're good ideas. Idon't have any basic objection to them, but I sure have some objectionto them this year when almost half the people — not literally half, buta good portion of the people, 25 to 30 percent of the people in myconstituency — are unemployed this Christmas and this New Year's andthis January and probably all of February. How can a government withany conscience continue to pour the kind of money it is pouring intothose projects when our economy is in that shape? Don't they even careabout their own supporters, Mr. Speaker — the people who used to betheir supporters, the small business community, the people that theytalk about being their supporters? They're losing them. I guess Ishould be thankful for that, because that, on top of working-classdiscontent, will absolutely guarantee our election.

Mr.Speaker, I will move on. I called for the introduction of an interimbudget. I'm surprised we don't have one, but I move on to some otherthings that I thought we would be doing here in Victoria in this monthof December. I actually thought — and here is another illustration ofmy naivete, I suppose — that we would begin debate today or tomorrow onthe Election Act. I thought the revisions or the amendments or the newact or whatever would be introduced this session, that we'd have a goat it, we'd pass the legislation, it would be proclaimed, theenumeration would flow from it, and it would continue to go on as it,hopefully, has been started.

MR. BARBER: It is supposed to start in a week.

MR. GABELMANN:If the government was determined, if what we were being told by theProvincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) is accurate, then why not bringin the legislation? They know what it says; they told us in detailabout half a dozen specific sections of the legislation. If they knowwhat it says, why don't they bring it in so we can debate it, pass itand have it proclaimed, so that those people out there — a majority inmost of the communities in my riding — who are not on the voters' listwould know with some certainty that they will be franchised in the nextelection? Why aren't we debating that piece of legislation?

Mr.Speaker, on the first day of the session we established somecommittees. I don't believe — and I could be corrected if I'm wrong —that a single one of those committees has met. We are now into theninth day since that motion passed on Monday last, and not a singlecommittee has met, at a time when we face the kind of economic crisisthat we face. It's December 2 today, and we've got at least three weeksbefore Christmas. Why don't we spend these three weeks having thosecommittees going around this province? If the government doesn't wantto listen to MLAs in this Legislature representing the people, if theydon't believe us, if they don't perceive that we have any credibility,why then don't we establish these committees, put them into operationand send them around the province?

MR. co*ckE: The selections committee hasn't even met.

MR. GABELMANN: I wonder why that is, Mr. Member.

MR. co*ckE: So that there are no committees.

MR. GABELMANN:Doesn't that go back, Mr. Speaker, to my earlier comments about the waythe government values democratic institutions? What kind of parliamentis it that doesn't want to meet and doesn't want committees to meet?What kind of democracy is that?

Mr. Speaker, I thoughtduring this session we might get some indications from membersopposite, from members of the government, about an industrial strategy,an economic development strategy for this province. I've heard nothing.I've heard nothing at all about how we're going to create more jobsfrom the wood we harvest and from the minerals that we mine and in mostcases export in their raw form. I thought we might hear how we candevelop more jobs with the marine resources in this province,particularly on this coast. Nothing, nothing at all. Why? Is it becausethey haven't done anything? Or is it because they have done somethingbut are ashamed to tell us? I can't think of what else it might be. Isuspect they haven't done anything.

[ Page 6839 ]

Isuspect they basically don't care. I suspect they made a decision sometime ago that the road to re-election was megaprojects — the samedecision that Sterling Lyon made. Given last Tuesday's results, I thinkthey now are in panic, Mr. Speaker, and have decided that they hadbetter pull back from all of the programs they were going to introducefollowing the throne speech debate and reassess their politicalsituation. What other answers are there?

I want to talkabout a few things that need doing, that could provide jobs. I'm notgoing to talk any more about value added to our resources. That'ssomething that requires a major statement from government. and it isrequired soon. But there are little things that need doing. The memberfor North Okanagan, the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), wastalking earlier this evening. She even named a community in my riding,Gold River, in which the tourism industry was just booming. Thank Godfor the tourism industry, she said, because without it the poor townwould have really suffered because of the forest situation. But the fewtourists who did get to Gold River this year found out there were nocampsites. Why are there no campsites? Because the Minister of Lands,Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) doesn't believe in campsites. He'smade it very clear on a number of occasions. He's told me and thepeople of North Island that there will be no more government campsitesin North Island. That would be fine if we had some, but we don't haveany to start with. That could create jobs — not many, but a few hereand a few there, building campsites. Nothing, nothing at all

Thenwe go to a situation that I find absolutely disgraceful in an areawhere we could be putting people back to work. That's the whole area ofsalmonid enhancement. This coast is dotted by rivers that no longerproduce the way they once did. They no longer produce because of themethods we have used in our forest industry. We have filled the riverswith gravel, silt and debris, and we have emptied those rivers of fish.And when we try to get a few measly dollars out of the Ministry of theEnvironment to clean up some of those rivers, we're told there's nomoney left. There is no money to make sure that the Oyster River canonce again be a major producer of salmon. There is no money to do astudy of Buttle Lake to determine the effects of the poisons that arebeing spewed into that lake and possibly destroying salmon areasdownstream. Why not? It would create a lot of jobs now in the kind ofwork that could and should be done. It's labour-intensive work. But no,the edifice downtown is more important, Mr. Speaker.

Theother day in the Legislature, during the throne speech debate, I talkedabout poverty. A couple of days later the member for Central FraserValley (Mr. Ritchie) had some comments to make about my comments. Heand I discussed that privately, and I'm not going to repeat thatconversation. One of the things that the member said was that he wasashamed of me; ashamed to be in the Legislature because I would talkabout people, senior citizens and kids, and how they faced poverty. Hesaid that I shouldn't use individuals. Mr. Speaker, the reason I'm inpolitics — the single reason why I'm in politics — is that I want toeradicate the poverty that grinds those people into the ground. I don'twant to do it by using the kids the way the government would have themused, the way they are used in the kind of Tiny Tim campaigns that wesee in this province and across this continent. If ever there is anabuse of kids, that is an abuse of kids. But for me to stand up in thisLegislature and not to name the particular people involved, but to talkin more general terms about their situation, is apparently an abuse.But to take a crippled kid or some other symbol and put them ontelevision and ask people to contribute their five dollars has got tobe the greatest abuse of children I have ever seen. Raising $2.1million — we wasted half of that this last week. Why should we beasking people in this society to pay their guilt money so that theydon't have to think about those problems for the rest of the yearbecause they put their ten bucks in?

I'm in politics. as Isaid. because I care about the poverty in this country. I care aboutthe fact that 40 percent of this country is living below a reasonableline of income, below the poverty line — and that number is growing.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN:I want to say to the member for Central Fraser Valley that I intend tocontinue talking about poor kids and I expect the government to do thesame — by taking some constructive action.

We face in thisprovince today what is probably the greatest housing crisis that wehave ever faced. What do we have from the government legislation?

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN:Yes, some programs announced by the minister — not in this Legislature,but in the theatre. If the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot)believed in democracy, he would understand that he would come herefirst to make those kinds of announcements, and not down the hall.Because the problem is so great, I'm prepared to forgive that and dealwith the issues as they're presented.

What do we have fromthe minister? Absolutely nothing, until Paul Cosgrove — that weakexcuse for a Housing minister in Ottawa — comes out here and says tothe minister: "I'll help you provide some rental accommodation as longas you make sure one-third is available for subsidized housing and 5percent is available for the handicapped." The minister didn't announcethat on Monday afternoon in his press conference. That came out laterin the week, having been shamed or forced into it by the minister fromOttawa. We have no programs from B.C., no activity. Why?

I'mnot going to go through again what is becoming almost a litany — andthat's unfortunate — of the kinds of situation that poor people, oldpeople. people with fixed incomes and people on welfare face in termsof their rental accommodation. In most apartment buildings in CampbellRiver most people pay between 40 and 60 percent of their income onrent. That would be like the Minister of Housing paying $40,000 a yearfor rent, if he were to pay 50 percent of his income come January 1.

Whatkind of equity is there in this society? Why aren't there programs? Whyisn't Crown land being released for co-op housing in this province? Whyis it that there are two housing co-op societies on the endowment landsat UBC that can't get the minister to release Crown land, alreadyidentified, already agreed to for that purpose, from the Crown landreserve. Where does the government think that the people who work atthe university hospital and the people who clean the university in theevenings live? They have to live a long way out in the Fraser Valley,because they can't live in Vancouver and they certainly can’t live onthe endowment lands. What does that do to their lives when they'respending an hour or an hour and a half commuting each way? What

[ Page 6840 ]

doesthat do to our economy when we have to build more roads and morebridges and burn more oil to get those people back and forth to work?The minister and the government can't find it possible to release someCrown land for co-op housing at UBC. Why? Because they're thinkingabout creating a village at the university, and they can't make anydecisions until they decide whether it's going to be a village. Whatabsolute nonsense and rubbish that is. Then we look at the seniorcitizens' housing situation. Two years ago in this Legislature, duringdebate on the Minister of Housing's estimates, I was fairlycomplimentary to him and the government about their seniors' housing. Ipointed out that a deal had been made with the federal government atthe time that they would look after co-op and public housing and theprovincial would look after seniors and handicapped. At the time, itappeared that there was a fair amount of seniors' housing being built.We now have senior citizen groups and other community groups who wantto build seniors' housing on Vancouver Island being told that there isno money in this year's budget. They will have to wait until 1983before they will get approval to build seniors' housing on VancouverIsland. Where are the priorities? Sure, we want the football stadium,but we don't need it when seniors can't build housing. We don't need itwhen co-op groups can't get land for their co-op.

I'm goingto conclude my remarks this evening by going back to my initialcomments. I am appalled, disturbed and concerned about the future ofour democracy, when we are told in this Legislature that talk is notwhat we should be doing. As I said before, the word "parliament" meanstalk. If the government is not prepared to accept that we 57individuals represent all of the people of this province, and have aresponsibility to talk among each other here and to the governmentabout what it is those people out there want, then they have a seriousand fundamental failure in their understanding about what democracy isall about.

I think this debate is of such importance that Ibelieve it should be carried on for some time yet, until we find a wayto convince the government that what we need are some programs, somestatements from ministers about their activities, and an interim budgetfrom the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). It's an unusualprocedure for a Minister of Finance to bring in an interim budget, butas I said before, it's something that this province needs now because,when we considered the budget in March, April and May, the economicconditions were not as they are today.

MR. SKELLY: They're the worst in thirty years.

MR. GABELMANN:That's right. We need a budget to re-allocate spending. I believe weshould take some time to consider these comments, and other commentsthat have been made during the course of this evening. Because of that,I would move that the debate be adjourned until the next sitting of theHouse.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if you would referto standing order 34, which is on page 9, then turn the page and readthe last part of the standing order which appears at the top of page10. It says: "...no second motion to the same effect shall be madeuntil after some intermediate proceedings shall have been had." So Icannot accept the motion, hon. members.

MR. PASSARELL: I'm standing in my place opposing this motion on a number of issues. First, I'd like to discuss the headline in the Vancouver Provincefor yesterday, December 1: "Bigger B.C. Tax Bite on the Way." To quotethe first paragraph: "The B.C. government intends to raise taxes andcut social services next year in order to balance its budget, FinanceMinister Hugh Curtis said Monday." Further on in this article, it says:"Curtis says capital spending on megaprojects such as B.C. Place andthe northeast coal project will not be reduced."

Finally, atthe very end of the article, it states: "The province's megaprojectswill keep construction at a high level, he predicted." Involved in thistoo is a quote from the Finance minister about user-pay and the factthat some social services will have to be cut back. What advantages arethese to the northwest section of this province? Are taxes to go tobuild football stadiums in Vancouver? Are taxes to go to buildconvention centres in Vancouver? Are our taxes from the northwest tosubsidize Japanese businessmen and the northeast coal project? At thesame time, the government has the audacity to say — I'm quoting fromthe article headlined — "Users of Government Services Must BeReassessed." Reassessed how? To reassess our senior citizens? Toreassess the school children? Are these two particular socio-economicgroups supposed to feel ashamed because the government wants user-payto be increased? They have to have service cuts because the governmentwants to continue with its megaprojects, such as football stadiums.

Anotherissue I'd like to discuss was on the front page of yesterday'sProvince: "BCRIC Tender Fails to Amuse." We see that the Socredsgrandiose schemes to ensure their victory in the 1979 election bygiving away five free shares.... At that time they were $6 apiece;now they're $3.15 or $3.20, if I'm not mistaken — almost half theprice. Now we find that on this particular issue the Premier did notwant to accept the BCRIC shares in lieu....

We'reopposing this motion because there are many important issues to befaced. To let this session wind up after seven days is almost anatrocity.

Back onto the BCRIC shares. How many people inthis province listened to the Premier when he said "borrow the money"?Many people went out and borrowed money at high interest rates, only tofind that their BCRIC shares are down to $3.15.

Anotherissue I'd like to discuss to show why this session should continue isB.C. Hydro. It appears that the philosophy of this government is tobuild big, think big and spend big. Today we see....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Oh, I certainly hope you do talk about the constitutional problems you had.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll tell Governor Hammond.

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, tell him about it. I certainly hope you do, Mr. Premier, about your beliefs on Indian affairs and the constitution.

Wefind that B.C. Hydro think big and spend big, while their debt isaround $7 billion. Bond issues are floated around the world. Then theMinister of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has the audacity to statethat we should build the northern dam schemes, regardless of the priceof $28 billion.

[ Page 6841 ]

It's going to destroy two major salmon rivers which the native peoplein this province depend on for their livelihood. "Go ahead and buildthem," is what the government says. There are no laws or bills broughtin to debate B.C. Hydro and its rapid spending of taxpayers' dollars.

Asa passing thought, I wonder if the Minister of Universities has everread the Hayward report, published by B.C. Hydro. The Hayward report,on page 28, specifically stated who not to contact. The first group notto contact was native people; the second, fishermen; the third,outfitters and guides. But the Hayward report still stays on stream asone of B.C. Hydro's initial documents to go ahead with the northern damscheme of $28 billion, which the taxpayers of this province are goingto have to absorb. The Hayward report states not to contact nativepeople.

Another report, dated April 24, 1979, was by Hydroexecutives. We talk about northern dams providing power for thisprovince. Out of the $28 billion which we're going to allow B.C. Hydroto run away with — it quotes from this leaked document — "No northerncommunity, townsite or sawmill will receive power, because it'sdifficult to tap small amounts of power from an ultra-high transmissionline." What benefit are these dams going to be for the members of thisHouse, specifically in the north? Are these $28 billion northern damsgoing to encourage development or provide power for residential usewhen B.C. Hydro is allowed to make statements of this nature?

Todevelop the north, what this government should be looking at, insteadof $28 billion massive northern dam schemes, are smalllocal-consumption dams on rivers that will not effect salmon runs orthe environment. But no, this government does not bring in any type oflegislation talking about building small, local-consumption dams forthe development of the north. That's what they should be doing. But no,they think big, spend big and build big.

Another issue thatwe should be sitting around this Legislature discussing is women in theworkforce. I notice that the Premier was very confused on this issuelately as it relates to the constitution. One issue I'd like to discussis women in mining, particularly in northern communities. I have aletter from one of my constituents, a Miss Davis, who raised some verypertinent information and topics regarding the need of having women inthe workforce in northern development, particularly in mines. I'll justquote briefly from the letter: "To date, women's concerns and needshave been ignored by economic development planners from both governmentand the private sector. Studies have been done, but there is nocommitment to implementation." Another issue that was raised in thisletter from Miss Davis is the northern British Columbia women's taskforce report on single-industry resource communities. They stated intheir report: "We are convinced that if there is to be any positivechange for women in the present existing single-industry communities,and if there is to be any positive development for women in the futureof such communities, we must voice our own perceptions of what life isfor us and demand full participation in the planning, governing andevaluation process of any economic development."

We have amajor scheme in front of us, the northeast coal, but this governmenthas been very silent with regard to what involvement women will have inthe development of northeast coal. I think that was an issue thatshould have been brought up in this Speech from the Throne. It's verysilent concerning women and northern development projects. Thisgovernment seemed, once again, to have ignored the issue and to beconfused, as the Premier was confused, concerning women's rights.

Anotherissue I'd like to discuss is health. There is very little in thisSpeech from the Throne regarding health. One pet peeve that I've hadsince I was in this House for the last two years is Dease Lake. I'msorry that the Minister of Health is not here. Dease Lake, a communityof 300 or 400 people, has been asking for a first-aid station. They'dlike $15,000 for a trailer so people who are injured in Dease Lake cango and get a Band-aid. This government has nothing whatsoever in theirSpeech from the Throne concerning the rural health corps that theydevised two years ago. This time, the Speech from the Throne was verysilent about it. There was no mention of the rural health corps. Itseems to have been passed up. It doesn't seem to be much of an issuefor the government at this stage, if they started talking about therural health corps in 1980 and simply ignored it in 1981.

Anotherletter I'd like to mention on the issue of northern health is from Mr.Fulton, the MP for Skeena, to the Hon. Monique Bégin, Minister ofHealth and Welfare. I'll just quote a few statements from Mr. Fulton'sletter to the federal Minister of Health and Welfare: "I am writing toyou regarding health care in the northwestern part of British Columbia.Recent moves by the provincial government have led to a freeze on thenecessary health-care staff that are needed to provide many importantservices. There are presently 11 staff positions going unfilled." Hegoes on to talk about the need to implement these 11 staff vacancies innorthern health care. This also seems to have fallen on deaf ears — inthe Speech from the Throne by this government.

One of thelast issues I'd like to discuss, Mr. Speaker — at 7:15 a.m., after anall-night session — is the position of this government regardingaboriginal rights and title. Once again this government has ignored theplea of native people. There was no mention of this issue in the Speechfrom the Throne — not to mention the ensuing confusion that the Premieradded. There is definitely a need for support of a consent clause bythis government. An interesting aspect of the position that thisgovernment has taken is its discussion with native people in thisprovince in the last month. I doubt, Mr. Speaker, that there have beenvery many discussions with native leaders in this province regardingthe Premier's position.

MR. BARNES: None.

MR. PASSARELL:That's right, Mr. Member, none. I think native people in this provinceare quite aware of the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Williams')statement on July 23, 1979, in which he outlined the Social Creditposition on aboriginal rights and land claims. But the Speech from theThrone did not deal with this very important issue that's facingthousands and thousands of natives who are residents in this province.The government has still not retracted its statements made by theAttorney-General in July of 1979. What I and, I think, many nativepeople would like to see is the Premier of this province sit down withnative leaders in this province and start having some discussionsconcerning his policy and what native people in this province think.

Itseems to me that the Premier of this province is — and I think thisword is proper to use — a poltroon when it comes to meeting nativepeople and facing the problems that native people are having. I wouldcertainly hope that the Premier could look up the word "poltroon" tounderstand himself and

[ Page 6842 ]

whatnative people are thinking — through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier.He is a poltroon in his position on Indian affairs, aboriginalrights....

MR. BARNES: What is a poltroon? Is that a coward, or what?

MR. PASSARELL: That's right.

MR. BARNES: Is it a weasel too?

MR. PASSARELL:No, I think that would be not proper to use in this House. But he's apoltroon when it comes to facing the concerns of native people in thisprovince.

We've also seen many problems in what thisgovernment has neglected to bring forth in the Speech from the Throneconcerning economic development for native people in this province.We've seen many northern businesses and industries that have beenaffected by the problems that this government has brought about in aneconomic sense, but no clearcut distinction, definition or statementregarding economic development for native people and northern residents.

Mr.Speaker, there were a number of issues that I raised, and I wouldcertainly hope that the government would take those suggestions....I particularly hope the Premier will stop being a poltroon and facethe native people of this province and start coming up with someconcrete statements regarding aboriginal rights.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:I too am going to take my place in this debate to oppose the motionthat was put forward by the government. I just cannot imagine, Mr.Speaker, that the government would call us to Victoria at taxpayers'expense — and the cost of having this session's debate, if you want tocall it debate — for a very thin throne speech, which is an indicatorof the government's intentions and their legislative program for theyear. They have nothing in that throne speech to give any hope at allto the people of this province in terms of the economy — nojob-creation programs, nothing.

As I said a few days ago inthis House, there is not one single major logging operation, forexample, operating in my riding at the present time. Furthermore, thereis no indication that they're about to open at the normal time of theyear, as they usually do, early in the spring. In fact, I think CalvertKnudsen or senior people from MacMillan-Bloedel, for example, havealready told their workers: "Don't expect to be called back until latein the year, very late in the spring, or early summer; only if themarkets improve." How are these people supposed to live? On hope? Onthe contents of that throne speech? Not too likely.

This isjust a reflection of what is happening all over the province under thisgovernment at the present time. The taxes go up, ICBC rates increase,health and medical care increases — horrendous increases in taxation ofevery sort — yet the government has had the gall to call us back intosession here and is not about to debate or put forward positiveprograms to benefit the people of this province. We have had speakerafter speaker on this side of the House get up and offer positivesuggestions and proposals, which I'm about to do myself, to aid theeconomy. The government refuses to act.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:That's absolutely true. The colleague just preceding me, in terms ofaboriginal rights.... My colleague just preceding him, our criticon housing, put forward to your government, Mr. Premier, a number ofpositive proposals of the Leader of the Opposition this evening interms of housing, job creation and a lot of other matters. Mr. Premier,with all due respect, you weren't even in the House for most of thatspeech. You weren't even listening, were you? You don't care. You'reasking for positive suggestions, Mr. Premier, but you're not listening.You don't really want to hear those.

There's an aspect ofhousing that I want to talk about. My colleagues have brought to theattention of this House, and it's on the record, the many statementsthat were made by the government, and the Minister of Lands, Parks andHousing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) specifically, about what the government saidthey're going to do. In fact, in last year's throne speech, as Irecall, the government announced its intentions — and this is in 1980,remember — that they were going to do something about the housingcrunch, as the minister calls it, for British Columbians. They didnothing. This year again, in the throne speech, they say they're goingto do something about housing. Well, I don't believe it, and I don'tthink the people of the province believe it either.

We havein this province, as the government is so fond of claiming, thousandsand thousands.... Five percent of the province is theoreticallyCrown land. That land is tied up in one form or another, under sometype of tenure, TFLs for example, and that kind of thing. But the factis that this government is not going to make Crown land available tothe people of this province, to the people who need it. They are notabout to make Crown land available. They'll make it available to theirfriends through developers. But they will not make Crown land availableto the people of this province. Just mark my words. Just remember ayear from now, when we stand in this House, who will have received thatland. I'll tell you what they do. They release blocks of Crown land andhand it over to a developer. That developer develops the land, sells itat a very fancy price — a price the ordinary person can't afford — andsometimes to their friends. Those are the types of people who get theland out there. The people who really need it don't get it.

Thisgovernment could do a lot if they'd come out with a clear-cut policy ofreleasing Crown land around this province, and make it available to thepeople who need it, not to the people who have already got it, not totheir fancy rich friends.

[Mrs. Dailly in the chair.]

Mr.Speaker, you've changed. You look a great deal better than the lastSpeaker, I can tell you that. You should be there all the time.

Cutbacksin human resources. Welfare. This government has not taken one majorinitiative, except to sell out our coal at a giveaway price to someforeign customers and to subsidize the Teck and Denison corporations tothe tune of about $1.1 billion. That's how much the people of thisprovince are subsidizing the Teck and Denison corporations and ouroffshore customers for the sale of that coal at — how much a tonne? Howmuch do you think you're getting? After we build the railroad, theroads, the townsites and all of the infrastructure, what do you thinkis going to be left over? That $1.1 billion could easily be going intojob-creation programs

[ Page 6843 ]

in this province or to help the senior citizens and the handicapped.

TheMinister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is so proud of herprograms with the handicapped of this province. All we see is scrolls,medals and buttons, but what are she and that government really doingfor the handicapped of this province? Not a great deal. But they'recertainly doing something for their rich multinational corporatefriends. That's who they're representing in this House, and I think thepeople of this province know it. I think they've finally tumbled tothese guys.

I know for sure that they're particularly angryout there about this government and this Premier peddling and promotingBCRIC shares. People have lost literally thousands and thousands ofdollars. I know one gentleman. a constituent of mine, who drew amortgage on his home for $20,000 from the bank at 13 percent interestat that time. Subsequently, the interest rate went up, in hisparticular case to 18.5 percent. He had bought $20,000 worth of BCRICshares on the word of the Premier. He trusted the Premier. You shouldhear what that constituent of mine has to say about that government andthat Premier today. He had to sell his BCRIC shares at $4.20 each, at aloss — plus the interest he'd paid to those over-rich, overstuffedbanks which are sucking the blood out of the people of this provinceand this nation today with their huge, unconscionable profits.

I'mglad to see the Premier's in the House. He must have had a good sleep,because the Premier wasn't in the House.... He's leaving! Mr.Premier, I was just going to discuss Ocean Falls with you. I reallywanted you to listen to this story about Ocean Falls, because ithappens to be perfectly true.

I mentioned this in the Housethe other day, Madam Speaker, about the government and the way theyclosed Ocean Falls arbitrarily and broke their promise to the people ofthis province, particularly to the people of that community. I haven'tconcluded my remarks on that particular situation, because what Ifailed to mention was that even though the government claims to havebeen losing money in that operation over the last four years, thebenefits to the province were great. First of all, 500 people wereemployed in that community, people who should be working today.

Theresidents' council of Ocean Falls compiled this list for me quiterecently about what Ocean Falls is really providing in economic benefitfor this province. In a six-year period the Ocean Falls Corporationachieved export sales in excess of $150 million. That's 150 millionoffshore dollars that the province received and is not now receivingbecause they've closed Ocean Falls down. During the same period morethan $55 million were paid in wages, which in turn generated more than$13 million in income tax revenues. Another $55 million were added tothe economy through purchases of logs, pulp and fuel. Interest paid onloans from the provincial government totalled $2.7 million, Capitaltaxes, stumpage and water rentals returned approximately $1 million tothe province. An estimated $2.6 million were paid in provincial salestax during the same period. Also during this period, the corporationspent approximately $15 million on equipment, upgrading andimprovements.

What I'd like to know is this: is thegovernment aware of these facts? It's not very likely. They're not toointerested. Did the government, the corporation or anybody do a costbenefit analysis? No, they didn't; it's not very likely. I think theyclosed that mill down for political reasons, and that was the onlyreason. Worse than that, the people living in that community weredouble-crossed once again by this government. The government broketheir promises to the people in that community and to this province.When they closed that operation down, they told us very clearly that wewould have a new operation, a different type of operation, in thatcommunity, and they've done absolutely nothing. In the meantime thecorporation has done a mid-coast timber supply study and put a freezeon vast timbered areas of that part of the coast. Consequently, 15small logging operators in that part of the coast are now unable to gettimber to continue their very small logging operations. I wonder whothey're going to vote for next time.

The residents of OceanFalls have made a lot of suggestions on what could be done with thatcommunity. I don't think I'll read them all; there are something like18 pages of suggestions. By the way, this is not a letter to me; it's acopy of a letter that has gone to the government and to Mr. Willistonof the B.C. Cellulose Company. They are suggesting, among other things,that the community should become an independent community. "The OceanFalls Corporation at the present time is not living up to its moralobligation to properly look after the people of that community in termsof services."

No use looking at your watch, Mr. HouseLeader. We'll be here this time tomorrow morning — you're aware of that— unless this government decides to tackle the basic problems of theeconomy of this province, which they are afraid to do and which theyare incompetent to do. That's why they want to get out of here. Theyknow they're incompetent to handle the basic economic problems of thisprovince. They're afraid to face the people. They won't go to anelection. They won't face the opposition. They just want to get out ofhere, run and hide — lazy government. Half the cabinet ministers arestill up in the cabinet room sleeping, while we're down here workingfor the people of this province.

Madam Speaker, I was goingto go through this long list of suggestions from the residents of OceanFalls. What should be done now in that community? I'm terribly afraidthat since the corporation has cut off the fuel supply for home heatingin that community, they're now attempting to freeze the remaining 84residents out of that community. They've shut down the school, thehospital, the library and the rec centre. They've literally torn downthree churches. That's an honest-to-gosh fact. Not only is that fact inthis document; I witnessed it with my own eyes just six days agowhen I was in that community. You wouldn't believe what's happeningthere.

In any event, I know it's no use talking. I discussedthis with Mr. Williston on several occasions over the last severalweeks and with the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development(Hon. Mr. Phillips). who is responsible to this Legislature for theOcean Falls Corporation. Do you know what he said to me, just prior tomy going into that community? I told him that there would be a publicmeeting in that community last Thursday night and asked him if therewas anything I could say to the residents for him to give them any hopeat all. He said, "Give them my regards," sarcastically. Big deal.

Isee the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) sitting in the House.He's not in his seat but he's sitting back there — that's okay, he canhear me. I'm asking him now, once again, to release at least some ofthe small, better patches of timber

[ Page 6844 ]

tothose 15 hand-loggers and small logging operators of the central coastof this province that he's given by some sort of land-freeze process tothe B.C. Cellulose Company. You'll be getting correspondence and copiesof correspondence from me.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:Come down and talk to me. The minister says why don't I come up andtalk to him sometime. Well, I don't want to be insulting, Mr. Minister.In any event, it's much safer....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:Madam Speaker — through you to the minister who's interjecting acrossthe floor.... Okay. You don't have to call us to order, because I'mgoing to be quite sensible about this.

Any transactions Iever have with the Social Credit government, I put in writing — onevery single occasion. You know why? Because if I don't have it inwriting, the next thing I know he denies he gave me one answer on thetelephone or one answer at a meeting, and the next thing he'll do isturn around and deny that the thing ever happened.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I wonder if the hon. minister would resume his own seat.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just wanted to point out to the ministerwhy I have to put every single item that I deal with in terms of thisgovernment in writing. It's the only thing I can do.

While Iwas up in that area I met with the people at Bella Bella and I went tothe Native Brotherhood's annual convention. While I mentioned this inthe House the other day I had interjections from across the floor fromvarious ministers saying: "What would you do? What's your native Indianpolicy? What would you do for these people?" Well, I'll tell you ifyou'll listen.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:If the member would get back to his own seat, for starters, I wouldappreciate it. Then, if he wants to interject, I will listen to him.

Thefact is, I was asked by members across the floor: what would we do? AndI am going to tell you at least some of the items that were passed atthe NDP convention — in consultation with our native Indian people, notarbitrarily, not the way you operate. I want you to listen carefully,because you may be able to pick up some of these ideas to yourpolitical benefit, and certainly to the benefit of some of the nativeIndian people of this province.

At the brotherhood'sconvention I said to about 200 to 250 native Indian delegates, plusguests who were at that convention, that the NDP has taken the positionthat the same quality and standard of provincial government servicesshould be available to all of our citizens, including treaty Indians.We have no wish, however, to impose a particular mode of delivery ofservices on Indian people, without their consent. It would be ourintention to enter wide-ranging discussions with Indian bands todetermine the most effective vehicle for providing services in thefield of health care, social services, economic development, educationand vocational training. In general, the NDP supports decentralizationof these services, so that decisions are made at the closest possiblepoint to delivery.

It is also important to note that we haveno wish to erode the traditional relationship between the Indian peopleand the federal government. In other words, we would impose provincialgovernment services in a way which would not compromise the treatyrights of Indian people vis-à-vis the federal government. And last, butnot least — not last, not by a long shot — we would, for any Indianband that wished self-government — and I think there are some 42 or 43bands who feel that they would be eligible for self-government at thispoint in time — work with those bands and give those bands the sametreatment as any other local government that we have in this province.This is an item that we would negotiate with our native Indian people.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:You asked me the other day, and these are some of the things that ourparty, in consultation with native Indian people of this province, hascome up with. I want to tell you we would negotiate in a tripartitesituation with the native Indian people, the provincial government andthe federal government. That is the position of our party. Many of thenative Indian people have agreed to this, and have taken part at ourconventions in the debate on this question. That is exactly what wewould do, and we would do it in consultation. We wouldn't do itarbitrarily. We wouldn't bring down planning acts, as some people do,that take away all the rights of municipalities and regional districtsand all the planning functions.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:Madam Speaker, I am pointing out to those members over there, and tothis House, why right now we should be debating bills in thisLegislature to rectify the economic situation of this province, andthese people all want to go home, that's all — get their bucks and gohome.

Another item I'd like to discuss for a moment is thehorrendous flooding situation that we're facing in places like Squamishand Bella Coola. As I said before, the engineers in the water rightsbranch are very much aware of what is needed to rectify that situationto protect the lives and families and homes of people living in theseareas. This government knows that. The Minister of Environment (Hon.Mr. Rogers) knows what has to be done. The fact is that this governmentdoesn't want to do anything. They've spent a paltry $2 million or lesson dike work in the Squamish Valley, for example, and about $7 million— part of that is federal, I understand — in compensation for damagethat was brought about by the various floods.

They must knowthat we're going to have a flooding situation in Squamish and BellaCoola again — certainly in Squamish — yet they're not doing anything.In fact, they have just pulled off.... Because the governmentrefused to forward any more money for a diking problem in the CheakamusRiver in the Squamish area, in this particular case, the contractor haspulled out with the job half-finished. There is no question at all thatbecause the job is only half finished, any minor flood will causesevere damage to homes in that area.

[ Page 6845 ]

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:I'm not going to ask for a withdrawal, but I want this on the record.The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing interjects: "Tell the truth."I really think that's quite unparliamentary and unbecoming a member ofhis years and standing, and the stature of a minister of the Crown, touse that kind of language in this House.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Madam Speaker, I don't make the statement lightly. I'm asking the member to stick to the truth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the hon. member satisfied?

MR. LOCKSTEAD:Am I satisfied? With him? Never. Absolutely not. I just wanted to pointout that that member over there is known for his erroneousinterjections, making statements, and he is the same Minister of Lands,Parks and Housing who last year promised us a housing program. Noprogram at all. He's promised us a housing program for 1981. It's ahousing program for the rich, not for the poor — if it's everimplemented, which is not very damned likely.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:Half right, half the time. That's what the member says. To get back tothis potential flooding and very dangerous situation.... After all,there were nine lives lost in this most recent episode of heavy rainsand flooding and washed-out bridges in that area. I'm not blaming theMinister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) or anybody in particular. Thesethings will happen. The bridge at M Creek was old and due forreplacement. The standards for construction of these bridges are muchbetter now. How many other bridges in the province are in a similarcondition? In last winter's flooding in Bella Coola, for example, threebridges were washed out, and they were never replaced. They have hadsingle span, Bailey bridges with one-way traffic for a whole year.Nothing has been done. When I phone the Ministry of Highways or writethem, they say: "Yes, we're aware of the problem, but we don't have themoney right now. They've got money to subsidize northeast coal and theyseem to find money for B.C. Place. I think they are finding the money,of course, by taking from the needy and giving to the greedy. That'sthe philosophy of that government. They cut back on welfare, raisedmedical and health-care costs and reduced homemaker service for ourcitizens. That's where they're finding the money.

MadamSpeaker, there are one or two other items I would like to discuss. Ithink I would be remiss if I didn't discuss coastal transportation, atleast just a little bit. It was pointed out by a very well-knowncolumnist in this morning's paper that the government has changed theway they're paying and supplying the subsidy to the B.C. FerryCorporation. What this means, Madam Speaker, is that the B.C. FerryCorporation now, in order to operate and maintain their vessels anddocks and things, have to go to the banks or whatever other operationlends money. They have to borrow money, and if they have to borrow thatmoney, they have to pay interest for that money. It's money that theyused to be able to count on in every quarter, but now they can't. Theydon't know when the government is going to come across with a subsidy —once a year or whenever. So what this ultimately means in the long run— and I make this prediction right now — is that rather than the onefare increase.... The minister has always said we're going to havethis one 10 percent fare increase every year to keep up withinflation, etc., etc. I predict that what is going to happen now isthat in this particular year there will be two fare increases. We'llhave a fare increase this spring to pay these interest rates on theborrowings of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, and then the regular fareincrease again next fall. So there you are — two fare increases. Markmy word, Madam, it's on the record.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Rubbish!

MR. LOCKSTEAD:The minister of housing and lands and do nothing says: "Rubbish." He'spretty good with words like that — interjecting across the House — butwhen it comes to formulating a policy, he's totally useless. He's hadthat portfolio for well in excess of two years and hasn't done a thingfor the people of this province — nothing. He doesn't even know hisportfolio. He's too busy travelling around the world at taxpayers'expense, as the rest of those lazy ministers over there who want to gohome.

For some years now the village of Bella Bella on Campbell Island has been asking for a ferry terminal.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:Madam Speaker, it may well be. I know that you made that trip to BellaBella. I don't recall which particular route you went, but you saw thecondition of the wharf there. The federal government wharf is going tobe condemned, probably within a year. It's absolutely essential, ifwe're to maintain water transportation services to this central coastarea. that a ferry — a roll-on, roll-off service terminal — be built inthat area. But it's not likely to happen with this government, and onceagain people will be left out in the cold with no ferry and no docks.

Themost incredible thing that happened this year, Madam Speaker, is thatthis government, would you believe during a constitutional conferenceheld in British Columbia, rerouted, took off the route, a major vesselserving the central and north coast of this province, to entertainguests from other parts of the country. That is fine; I believe that weshould be good hosts to guests in British Columbia, but you should notleave people stranded in the central and north coast of this provincewithout food, without milk and without transportation. What if therehad been some kind of major disaster? That government took that vesseloff that route to entertain their friends from across the country, andit was totally unnecessary. I'm pretty sure that Premier Lougheed,Premier Davis and the rest of them would have been very content andhappy to ride with the rest of us on the regular ferry service, whichleaves every hour or hour and a half from Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay.I'm sure they're quite used to travelling with us ordinary people.They'll certainly mingle with us during the voting season. At electiontime those politicians come around and are quite pleased to mingle withus ordinary voters. I think they would have been quite happy, and Ithink that was totally unnecessary.

I have quite a lot ofother items to discuss here. I do feel like getting into it, but thegovernment has cooled down a bit. There is one last item I'll touch on.I've mentioned it several times during the course of this debate. It'sthe northeast coal subsidy. Somebody — I'm not sure who — has developedBritish Columbia's northeast coal subsidy shares. I'm going

[ Page 6846 ]

tosend these shares over to the House Leader. I hope he will share these.One's for the Premier's desk and one's for the House Leader on thegovernment side. I'll tell you what it says on the shares:

"British Columbia's Really Incompetent Corporation Bearer Share Certificate.

"Thiscertifies that the bearer of this certificate is the holder of fivevery expensive non-transferable shares of the northeast coal subsidy.The bearer of this certificate, as qualified under the British ColumbiaIncome Tax Act and such other statutes as allow the government to pickour pockets and short all of us, is required to pay the government ofthe province of British Columbia the sum of $400 in the form ofincreased taxes as a subsidy to the steel industries of Japan, therebypersuading them to buy northeast coal at a price far below what anyoneelse in the world would charge for their coal."

With thatI'll conclude my remarks and get on to the next speaker. I do want toask, appeal and demand once again that this government quit thishanky-panky — this fooling around — and get on with the seriouseconomic problems of this province. Let's get-on with the job.

MR. BARNES:Madam Speaker, the government has been accusing the opposition of beingagainst just about everything that they claim they've been proposing intheir policies and programs. I would just like to remind theHouse....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES:We'll get around to that too, Mr. Member., I know your conventionalready dealt with the civil rights protection act, but I've allowedyou the latitude of thinking over your position before addressing thatquestion.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

However, thegovernment seems to fail to recognize the reason we have opposed anumber of the initiatives they have undertaken, and the reason is quitesimple. I think it's been stated several times by the members on thisside of the House, and it was probably put best by the member for NorthIsland (Mr. Gabelmann), who was talking about the processes in arrivingat a democratic decision: that is, to engage in dialogue andconsultation with a view to finding a level of cooperation beforetaking major initiatives that would affect the lives of people, thecommunity and the economy — just about every aspect of the economy —when you make decisions that are of such magnitude and have suchlong-range implications as the northeast coal development project andother projects for which capital funding in fact is not even in place,such as the trade and convention centre and the stadium. Of course B.C.Place was never really solidified, even though an announcement was madein the wee hours of the morning, somewhat similar to these, I suppose,by the Premier. In one of his dreams he saw this vision and out ofnowhere descended upon the residents of Vancouver with his proposal,and then said: "Okay, now we're going to make it work." We're notopposed to the concepts, as such, but we do have a problem with theprocess which this government uses in arriving at decisions. I thinkthat's one of the distinguishing characteristics between that side ofthe House and this side.

There is no question that theSocial Credit government, and particularly the party, has tried toproject its own image upon the opposition. You will recall, Mr.Speaker, that over the years the government has often referred to thoseof us on this side of the House, particularly when we were ingovernment, as the party that was the heavy hand of socialism. I don'tthink the evidence will support that charge against this side of theHouse anywhere near the way it would if we were to add up the examplesof the heavy hand of state Social Creditism.

It's a matterof approach. It's not really a question of us being opposed tosomething, as such, because just about everything can be made palatableand feasible. There are levels of cooperation which we can arrive at.The problem is that that side of the House has more confidence indictatorial decision-making and rule than it does in due process.Certainly it does not trust the electorate in self-determination andmaking decisions for itself.

I want to draw a similarparallel to the government's attitude with respect to providing housingfor the people of British Columbia — the attitude, policies andphilosophy with regard to that — and, on the other hand, its attitudewith respect to arts, culture and sports in the province. I will justquote the Premier. When he was in the opposition he once said thathome-ownership is the right of every British Columbian. A few yearslater, after he became Premier, he proceeded to destroy the only meanswhereby such a dream could be fulfilled, eliminating a Crowncorporation that was in the business of building affordable socialhousing that had been started by the New Democratic Party between 1972and 1975.

They disposed of the assets of that corporation,which included land-banking. There was an administrative infrastructurein place. The community was aware of the initiatives, and we werebeginning to effectively compete in the field of constructingaffordable housing, as opposed to the level that was being created bythe private sector. In this respect we were able to keep some level ofrespectability in the production of housing, to make it honest and tooffer some kind of a challenge to give the potential home-buyer a fairchance.

There are several examples — I would like to read acouple — of what happened with respect to the comments of the Premierand the minister now responsible for housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). I havea little trouble seeing at this hour of the morning, but let me justgive you an example. These were some of the remarks that the presentMinister of Housing was making in 1975 when the member forNelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) was the Minister of Housing andresponsible for the Housing Corporation of British Columbia, previouslyDunhill. He stated that "many of these projects are very costly and arebeyond the means of the working people of this province." He went on togive an example, 21 units that our Minister of Housing had purchased.He said:

"There are 21 units; seven of themare going to cost a total of $325,000" — imagine that; today that wouldhardly buy a lot; this is in 1975, six years ago — "which makes theseunits worth approximately $50,000 apiece. I don't really believe that aworking man can possibly afford to move into one of these townhouses.Yet they are supposed to be reasonably priced housing for people. At$50,000 I just can't visualize how anyone who earns a working wage inthis province can afford this type of housing. If you

[ Page 6847 ]

figure it out at the current interest rate ofless than 10 percent, just interest alone on that amount is $5,000 ayear When one compares the Meadowbrook lease structure, which is thelease involved in this particular project, one has to conclude that theminimum annual lease on the land which the townhouse sits on will costabout $1,200 in total."

Sohere we could have had 21 units at less than $50,000 apiece in 1975.I'm sure those same units, if we were to go and research them now,probably cost $300,000 apiece today. I'm sure the Premier will agreewith that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: How does that compare to a subdivision in Metchosin?

MR. BARNES: Well, we can get into that later, too. I think the point is, Mr. Speaker, that....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. Would you please address the Chair.

MR. BARNES: I said "Mr. Speaker." Didn't you hear me?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.

MR. BARNES:Okay, I'll repeat it. The point is, Mr. Speaker, that the government ofthe day was attempting to provide a much-needed commodity on behalf ofthe public. It was going to take its role, its rightful place, inproviding the kind of healthy competition that the private sector lacksat the present time in the province. In other words, there was no needto give away subsidies and write-offs which ultimately just feedinflation. So that is one of the examples I wanted to point out.

TheMinister of Housing stated as well, in criticizing our former Ministerof Housing, that the housing situation in British Columbia was inchaos. He said: "It's being handled by a minister who does notunderstand his responsibilities in the housing field." It's curiousthat that minister would have had that to say in those days, and hasnot built one single unit, to my knowledge, since he has been Ministerof Housing. There is a message here with respect to doctrinaire, rigidattitudes about what government should and shouldn't do. Clearly thereare limits to which governments can successfully carry any projects.But had the Housing Corporation of British Columbia been maintained andallowed to function in the marketplace, we would have been able tocontinue our land-banking programs and to continue to build up thestock of Crown land, especially in the urban areas where peopleinevitably want to live. Instead. you suggest you have a strategy onhousing that involves moving people to remote areas of the province.

There are other aspects which indicate the disinterest on the part ofthe government in making available housing to the people most in need.I would just like to read a statement from the Sun of September24 of this year. This is a report respecting a decision of the court todeal with conversion of rental housing by a group of owners orprospective tenants who were going to buy a building for themselves, sothey said. In any event, the brief summary of that situation is asfollows:

"The provincial government will notintroduce legislation to prevent groups from buying apartment buildingsand taking over the suites from tenants, Consumer and Corporate AffairsMinister Peter Hyndman said on Wednesday. The minister made the commentafter County Court Judge Graham Darling ordered the rentalsman toreview the eviction notices served 21 tenants at 1967 Barclay Street bya group of owners who want to live in the 40 suites. Six suites remainrented and the evictions have been stayed pending the review. Thebuyers are appealing the judge's decision.

"Evenif it is overturned, Hyndman says he won't act. 'I am a fan of effortsby groups of renters who want to become homeowners.' "

Hewent on to state that such owners usually move from one facility intoanother, and therefore those tenants whom they were displacing hadevery opportunity to move into their suites as they moved out of them.It's sort of an interesting theory on housing policy. I'm not sure howit applies. If they are moving out of a $1,000 apartment into a $2,000apartment, what has that to do with those people who are in need ofaccommodation that would relate to them spending about 25 or 30 percentof their income for such accommodation?

Another thing I findcurious is one paragraph I am going to read that relates to therentalsman's office, which is supposed to be non-partisan. Impartialand quasi-judicial in acting on behalf of tenants and landlords, as thecase may be. Nonetheless, it is curious that the Minister of Consumerand Corporate Affairs, responsible for that office, has given him theseinstructions, or he's acting on his own. This is a quote from theOctober 8 edition of the Vancouver Sun — letters section — inwhich the rentalsman says: "We try to balance the need to protecttenants with the need to encourage more investment in rental property,but such balancing is sometimes difficult when the interests of bothparties are so high." That's a curious statement from a non-partisan,non-biased sort of intermediary body. It suggests that he has apolitical consideration to make in seeing that justice is done. I wouldsay that is a grievous problem for people who go to that office withthe hope of getting a fair hearing, objectively carried out with allthe facts on the table and decisions following therefrom.

Wetalked about the credibility of the first minister of this provinceearlier, and I commented this afternoon about his "seatbelt"misjudgment. Others have said that there are many parallels to thatstory about the Premier, and I don't need to repeat them. I think thePremier's credibility problem is one that he has to live with. He hadto deal with it just a few weeks ago at his own Social Creditconvention, in which there was serious concern about histrustworthiness,

Another paragraph I want to quote was in the Vancouver Sunfor November 21. It talks about his "gold-BCRIC caper." This certainlyisn't new news, but it serves to indicate. Mr. Premier, that youyourself don 't even want to touch those BCRIC shares. Yet you haveindelibly impressed your name upon the mind of every single soul inthis province forever — every single man, woman and child, you name them,every category — because you said that everybody should have a share inthe action.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, would you please address the Chair.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to you.

[ Page 6848 ]

Poorstock advice, misrepresentation, or whatever you want to call it —you've got your own convention mad at you. This is what they said: "Anoverwhelming number of delegates were not prepared to see Premier BillBennett take the blame for BCRIC's poor showing on the stock exchange,and they rejected the idea of an investigation, even though more thanone delegate suggested that the state of BCRIC, 'an election gimmick,'is enough to get the NDP re-elected.

"The elected members of the party received their second clear message in two days that Bill 32...."

Thething is that you bring legislation in arbitrarily. I would like totalk to the Premier and I hope that he will listen this time. ThePremier brought BCRIC in and made his own people and the whole provinceangry at him. Senior citizens and other people were going to the bankand borrowing money on which they had to pay interest; that compoundsthe loss from $6 to about $3.15 on the promise of it going up to $9 or$12, plus the loans, and they're still holding onto them. Just a fewdays ago the Premier himself said he didn't want to have anything to dowith it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's not true.

MR. BARNES:I heard the Premier say it wasn't true, Mr. Speaker. I would like himto stand up right now and say that he will accept those as justsettlement for the claim that was given to him through court. When Isit down you can stand up and say that you'll accept those shares atthe value you said they were when you sold them to the province. Allright?

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Mr.Speaker, I made those few remarks to say that the government wants tohave nothing to do with housing. The Premier's credibility is not evena question any more. Everybody knows — even his own party knows — abouthim and what he will do. He'll say anything, do anything, promiseanything. He is simply insensitive to what he's doing. I guess he can'thelp it. If that's the case, if they don't want to have anything to dowith housing on the premise that the government should not involveitself in the construction of social housing.... I think he hasstated on more than one occasion: "We have no place in the constructionof housing; it's up to the private sector. Quite frankly we don't wantto get involved at any level." And I think they've lived up to that,notwithstanding their promise to do otherwise when they werecampaigning between 1972 and 1975, and notwithstanding their promisesto protect tenants living in rented accommodation and all of thesethings.

We're used to that. But why is it that they're sointerested in taking over the culture, arts and sports of the provinceas a cause? This is the thing that I don't understand, a governmentthat believes in the privatization of most economic activities — theycall it free enterprise sometimes and capitalism sometimes; there areall kinds of designations they use — but when it comes to the cultureof this province, they want a share of the action. Why is that?Culture, from any balance sheets I've seen, is not a revenue-producingindustry as such. It has a spill-off effect for the community. Itcreates a lot of activity and there is lots of capital as a result, butas far as government revenues are concerned, it's a cost factor.

Stillthe government is interested in taking over as much as it possibly can.The B.C. Summer and Winter Games are no accident. The governmentmanipulates them as much as possible. He sets the stage and brings inhis own politically appointed officials in the right places to see toit that the government gets its higher profile and gives out as manyawards as it can. The gifts and grants are given for performance, andall of these things are done because the government now has an interestin the culture of the community something that should be private, in myview.

A few years ago we created the Western Lottery Fund,which at that time was intended to relieve the cost to the taxpayersfrom the consolidated revenue fund, as a way of paying for culture,sports and recreation. It was restricted and limited to just thoseactivities, but the government amended that legislation, expanded it,and now they can do just about everything with a multimillion-dollarfund and without any debate in the Legislature. It's a perfectporkbarrel, Mr. Speaker, for the government to go around and ballyhooand appear to be doing a good thing for the people, buying TV ads,talking about how if you buy lottery tickets you will be helping theyouth of tomorrow and building champions for British Columbia and so onand so forth. But why should the government be so concerned about this?This is the kind of thing you would expect those so-called heavy-handedstate socialists to be doing. It's the kind of thing that you wouldexpect from the so-called irresponsible people on this side of theHouse who want to do things for people.

Why has thegovernment entered the culture business so strongly? Why are youcorralling all of the power in this province? Why are you taking overeverything? You are giving the people the line that they arecontributing to something that is at arm's length from the government,when the government is manipulating and taking over more and more everyday. This is what I was telling you this afternoon about the bigproject that is going on — the fine arts program that you will beholding in Kamloops. That's an excellent idea. A lot of peopleappreciate it, but why is the government involved? Why can't it be doneby the citizens? They're the ones who are buying the lottery tickets;the government is not buying them. Why can you arbitrarily take moneyout of the Lottery Fund and give it to your friends? All I'm asking iswhat their philosophy is? Do they believe in sticking to the strictmatters of fiscal responsibility and running the economy and carryingon those kinds of programs they feel the government should be involvedin, or are they trying to give the impression that that's what thegovernment is doing, while, in fact, they're nationalizing,centralizing and controlling aspects of the community which they feel —and their own judgment is good for them for their politicalpurpose....

Now for those of you in the Legislature whoare perhaps not as familiar with the cultural scene in British Columbiaas you might be, consider that the major board in this province is theB.C. Arts Board, which consists of people appointed by the government —in this case the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) — to advise oncultural policy and the advisability of spending moneys from theLottery Fund in various sectors of the province. Now that, one wouldthink, would be a body that has nothing to do with the government; itwould be working on behalf of the public and the various arts councilsand cultural groups throughout the province. But that's not the case.Those are not people who are elected by those people whom they areserving; they're appointed by

[ Page 6849 ]

thePremier and his friends to do their bidding. This is why I say it's atakeover. It's a confiscation of the culture of the province, pure andsimple; there is no other way to look at it. I wonder how they canjustify doing that. Yet they say they have nothing to do with housingor the construction of housing, that that's not in the purview of thegovernment. So when we were government, we were building housing. Whenthey became government, they cancelled all the projects and said: "Thegovernment should not get involved in the private sector." Are theysaying, then, that the government should control the culture of theprovince? That's what it sounds like. Mr. Speaker, here is a statementto support some of the remarks that I'm making. It's a submission fromthe B.C. Touring Council, and it's concerned about a program that wasstarted a few years ago called the Artists in B.C. Schools program. Ithink what I'll do is read a series of resolutions that they passed atthe Pacific Contact conference of artists and arts organizations fromthe west coast, which was held just a few weeks ago in Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker, if I can have the Chair's attention, I will attempt to read these resolutions:

"B.C.Touring Council and ABCS program — which is Artists in B.C. Schools —"Whereas the provincial government has indicated to the board of theB.C. Touring Council that it is unlikely to continue to fund the ABCSprogram as administered by the B.C. Touring Council, and whereas theB.C. Arts Board has recommended that the ABCS program, or a duplicateprogram, be administered by the cultural services branch" — which isunder the Provincial Secretary's ministry — "with no indication of howsuch an action will increase and improve performance opportunities forschool children or the general touring network of the province, be itresolved that the B.C. Touring Council express to the minister, EvanWolfe, and all MLAs its commitment to the administration of the ABCSprogram by the Touring Council and its opposition to the creation of aduplicate program within the cultural services branch."

So if you're going to compete with them, weaken them. That's the essence of that resolution.

"Fundingfor ABCS program. Whereas the B.C. Touring Council's ABCS program hassuccessfully stimulated performing arts exposure programs in B.C.schools, and has acted as an incentive to school boards in B.C. toincrease local funding for cultural activities, it is necessary toallow the program an opportunity to continue and gain in the future. Beit resolved that the B.C. Touring Council urge the government of B.C.,through the Ministries of Education and the Provincial Secretary, torecognize the importance of cultural opportunities for the children ofB.C. and to ensure opportunities for all children in B.C. to experienceprofessional performing arts productions through the provision ofincreased funds for BCTC's ABCS program.

"Provincialcultural policy. Whereas there is a growing concern among the artscommunity that there is no direction and has never been any directionfor a cultural policy within the province, be it resolved that the B.C.Touring Council urge the British Columbia government to review thestate of culture in the province, and that the government establish acomprehensive cultural policy in direct consultation with the PacificConference of the Arts."

That's not likely. They're not going to be consulting with the artists. They're going to dictate and direct.

"Arm'slength funding for the arts. Whereas the provincial government seems tobe centralizing control of the arts and thereby discouraging volunteerparticipation in the arts, and whereas volunteer organizations haveproven to be cost-efficient and more sensitive and quickly responsiveto local and regional concerns, be it resolved that the B.C. TouringCouncil strongly urge the provincial government to reconsider its movesto centralize control of the arts and to continue to support volunteerorganizations via arm's length funding.

"Lotteryfunding. Whereas the B.C. Lottery Fund was established in 1974 with theintent that all proceeds go towards the areas of fitness and sport,recreation, culture and heritage, and whereas in 1976 the provincialgovernment changed the legislation to broaden the scope to includeareas such as health care, et cetera, and whereas there are no criteriaas to what projects are eligible for receiving direct grants and noformula as to what percentage of direct grants go to recreation andsport, culture, heritage, health and so on, be it resolved that theprovincial government, in direct consultation with the arts community,immediately establish guidelines and criteria for projects eligible fordirect grants from the lotteries fund and that the provincialgovernment set a formula for assigning lottery funds which reflects theoriginal intent of the fund."

As I've stated, Mr. Speaker,there's no question that the government is manipulating that fund forits own political purposes. The cultural community knows it, and theyare appealing to the government to indicate whether or not it intendsto confiscate the whole cultural scene or allow the people in thecommunity to run their own affairs. There is one other:

"Publicationof ABCS subsidies. Be it resolved that each year the B.C. TouringCouncil publish the list of schools and school districts that receiveABCS grants together with the amount of that grant, and that thisinformation be made available upon request."

Anyway, I think we have aquorum, Mr. Speaker. However. It's interesting that the government onlyhas two people in the chamber.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. Please proceed. You have the floor.

MR. BARNES: Thank you. I just think that is rather interesting.

MR. RICHMOND: Make it a little more exciting.

MR. BARNES:It's not a question of it being exciting, Mr. Member for Kamloops. It'sa question with just dealing with the facts. It doesn't have to bedramatic or anything that is going to be earth-shattering. We're justdealing with the facts. We're all here to work. That's why I'm notsupporting the amendment to adjourn. The work of the people of BritishColumbia is not an easy matter. It requires considerable energy andcommitment on the part of members on all sides of the House — upstairs,downstairs and everywhere else.

[ Page 6850 ]

MR. MUSSALLEM: You're playing games.

MR. BARNES:What games am I playing, Mr. Member for Dewdney? You know better thanthat. I want you to stand up and tell me whether or not....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre please address the Chair?

MR. BARNES:I've been trying, but I keep getting interrupted by the member forDewdney and the brand-new member for Kamloops, although I don't thinkhe's found his way to his feet yet. However, he did make one speechwhen he first came in and we all congratulated him and welcomed him,and I wish him well, as I do all hon. members in the Legislature.

Ithink the point that I'm trying to make is that the government has notime for the construction of affordable housing in this province. Ithas made it quite clear it does not intend to protect people who arebeing squeezed out of their homes into rental accommodation. It simplysays: "That's just too bad. Sorry, there's nothing we can do. We're notgoing to address it because, in our opinion, we should have nothing todo with it." But on the other hand, it has everything to do with thetakeover of culture in the province — at a cost.

It justhappens that the B.C. Touring Council, with the Artists in B.C.Schools, was receiving grants from practically every fundinginstitution in the country, including the Vancouver Foundation and anumber of others, and, to a small degree, some funding from theprovincial government. But the provincial government has threatened totake that program over. Do you know what's going to happen when ittakes it over? Do you know what's going to happen to all those moneysthat the B.C. Touring Council was receiving from the other fundingbodies and to the use of all those volunteers, who number into thehundreds? That's all going to be cancelled, because you can be surethat the Vancouver Foundation, Koerner Foundation, Spencer Foundationor any of these other foundations are not going to be contributing thatmoney to the provincial government, which in effect means that there'sgoing to be a greater cost factor than there is in a situation that hasto be subsidized in the first place.

So this has got to be avery curious initiative on the part of the cultural services branchthrough the B.C. Arts Board through the Provincial Secretary. It has tobe very curious that they would want to use the heavy hand of SocialCreditism on the culture of the people of British Columbia — the onelast vestige of private independence from government control. Can youimagine what's going to happen in this province when we realize thateverybody is going to have to do their dance by the number according tosome dictate from the bureaucracy centrally controlled by SocialCredit? That's exactly what you're doing. You shouldn't be dabbling inthe arts, culture, sports and recreation of this province. Leave peoplealone. Give them the funds and let them do their own thing. If youcan't build housing for people in this province because you say it'sagainst your principles, how can you justify getting involved insomething such as this, when it costs you money at a time when youhaven't got any? You say you haven't got, any money, but you're takingthis over. I think it's quite clear — high profile, great politics. Youcan go out, cut a few ribbons, give out a few medals, pat a fewchildren on the head and play games.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, your time under standing orders has elapsed.

MR. BARNES:Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You appear to be relieved. Why are you smiling?My goodness, I thought we were a House undivided in doing the people'sbusiness. I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I think my points aremade.

MS. SANFORD: Where is the government? Are there only two members over there?

MR. HALL: There are only two members and one's asleep.

MS. SANFORD: Good grief!

Mr.Speaker, it's about 22 hours since I took my place in the throne speechdebate in the Legislature. At that time we were attempting to convincethe government that it was high time they took some action with respectto the economic situation of the province — the problems of theunemployed and the problems of those people who have had services cutback. Speaker after speaker has pointed out that the throne speechcontains nothing for the people of British Columbia at this time.

Afterwe were called down from our constituencies for this special session,which has lasted seven days, we were presented with a threadbare thronespeech and then presented with this motion that says that we will nowadjourn until the public interest requires that we be called back. Itrequires that we be here now. It requires our presence in thisLegislature right now. It requires our presence in order to discuss theunemployment situation, particularly as it relates to young people.It's not acceptable that the unemployment between the ages of 15 and 19in this province is at 17.6 percent. Is that acceptable to you, Mr.Speaker? It's not acceptable to me. Those are the latest figures out ofthe Ministry of Labour of this government for October. There are 17.6percent unemployed in that age group. Why did the government not bringin programs? Why are they not now adjourning this debate so that we cancome back later today in order to discuss proposals about problems suchas this?

That's what we should be doing here. We have heldthis floor all night to try to convince the government that it is hightime they took some action with respect to these unemployed, withrespect to those people who were demonstrating on the lawns and withrespect to the cutbacks that people have suffered in this province. Whyaren't we facing a revised budget? I'm quite prepared to moveadjournment of this debate if the government is prepared to bring in arevised budget later today for us to debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's out of order.

MS. SANFORD:That's out of order? Oh, I don't think so. I'm debating the reason thatwe should not be adjourning this debate until some time next March.

Withinmy own constituency, the last time I made inquiries, a couple of weeksago in the Courtenay area, I was told that the homemaker services stillhave to cut back by 700 hours the services they are now delivering tothe handicapped and pensioners. They have been cutting back for months.I have been swamped by phone calls from people who are concerned aboutwhat these cutbacks are doing to them. They

[ Page 6851 ]

stillhave another 700 hours to cut out of the service currently beingdelivered. The last time I visited Hornby and Denman Islands it was themajor issue. The people on those islands quite often don't live closeto neighbours and have to rely on that homemaker to come in once a dayto check on them, to ensure that there is food on the table and thatthe basic things are done for them; They are being cut back and cutback. We should be here trying to determine how we can avoid cuttingback on the services delivered to old people, pensioners and thehandicapped.

The government seems to have found money forall these beautiful, big projects that they are involved in, such asthe stadium, B.C. Place and convention centres. Whatever they can thinkof is fine, but only if you cut back 700 hours in a small area likeCourtenay on services delivered to those people who most need it. Whyaren't we discussing ways and means in which we can avoid the kinds ofcutbacks and hardships that we're causing those people? Why aren't wediscussing the problems that are being faced by people like the womanwho was quoted in the Vancouver Province yesterday? This womanused to give money at Christmastime for the empty-stocking fund. Sheused to give five or ten dollars. She was always pleased to be able tohelp. But because of the cutbacks she has faced she does not even havefood for the table for her three children. You didn't read that story,Mr. Speaker? It's there. She was declared employable. The firm fromwhich she rents her stove and her fridge and her other appliances isgoing out of business, so at Christmastime this year she's not evengoing to have a stove or a fridge. That's the kind of thing that thisgovernment is doing to the people of this province through theircutbacks in social services., through their cutbacks in homemakerservices, and through their cutbacks in every kind of service to people.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Themegaprojects can go ahead. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis)and the people within his ministry are busy shuffling those figuresback and forth so that the budget in March will be palatable andacceptable to the people of the province. It's a disgrace. After sevendays we're going to leave here with these kinds of problems that existin this province.

Why aren't we discussing the fact that allof the students at the universities are going to be facing incrediblehikes in their fees next year?

HON. MR. SMITH: That's a lie. It's not true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. SANFORD:Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education has just said that the hikesthat the students expect they will be facing next year are not going totake place. He said it was a lie. When I held up this article thatindicates that the fees are going to be going up, the minister said:"That's a lie." I heard it, Mr. Speaker; I'm sure you heard it too.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:Yes, hon. member, I heard it as well. It was quite audible to theHouse. Perhaps the Minister of Education would withdraw the comment.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to withdraw it and say that the outrageous statement was not correct.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A withdrawal is fine. Thank you, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD:The minister has now withdrawn his comment that this article is a lie,so one must assume that the fees are going to take incredible hikesnext year. That's the only thing we could assume from that. Thestudents are correct to be demonstrating, to be worried and to bewriting articles about the kind of increases they're going to face nextyear. The students at the University of British Columbia today in firstyear are sitting in classes that have 585 and 550 students in them.Students in first year at UBC this year are lucky if they're in a classthat has fewer than 150 students. Why aren't we discussing ways andmeans to ensure that the universities can continue operating and thatthe students can go there without having to have rich parents to putthem through? The Minister of Education has assured us today that theywill be facing incredible hikes next year because of the inability ofthis government to deal with the economic problems.

We'realso told through an article in the paper yesterday that the taxpayersare as usual going to bear the burden of education costs. The ministerhas been making various announcements about moving this around andjuggling that back and forth. It all turns out that it again means thatthe homeowner is going to bear the greatest burden of the educationcosts in this province. I'm not surprised. I was never fooled by anyannouncements that the minister was making. Not for a minute was Iconvinced that the Minister of Education was going to remove the burdenof taxes from the homeowners of this province. Year after year thatburden has been increased by that government.

We should notbe adjourning today. We should continue to find ways and means in whichwe can relieve homeowners of the burden they're now paying foreducation tax. Doesn't the minister have a copy of the McMath report?Doesn't he know that the recommendations in that report were that thehomeowners of this province should not be paying the burden thatthey're now paying, the burden which is being increased year after yearby that government?

University students can't afford to paytheir fees, and they're going to take incredible hikes. He tried toconvince us today that they were not going to take incredible hikes,that those university fees were not going to go up this year. But hehad to withdraw that, because obviously they are. So announcements thathe's been making in the past about changes to the taxation system tohelp the homeowners of this province, you can take with a grain of saltas well.

Why aren't we hearing from the Minister of Labour(Hon. Mr. Heinrich) during any of this debate? He's been signingChristmas cards, and once he'd signed his Christmas cards he went tobed, and we haven't seen him since.

Why aren't we in thisLegislature debating amendments to the Human Rights Code to ensure thatthe disabled in this province will have the same kind of opportunityand the same treatment as the rest of the people of the province? Whyaren't we here discussing new industrial health and safety regulations,so that the people of this province who are in the workforce will notbe faced with the kinds of injuries and deaths that are now takingplace? Two hundred deaths a year in the workplace is not acceptable. Weshould have programs and proposals by the Minister of Labour, who hassaid absolutely nothing during these eight days. He doesn't care abouthuman rights.

[ Page 6852 ]

Hedidn't even replace the Human Rights Commission for months on end. Lookat the labour practices he indulged in. Look at the industrialrelations that he indulged in. He didn't even let the chairman knowthat her services were no longer required — just faded away. She didn'tknow whether or not to come to work. What kind of example is that forthe Minister of Labour to set? When we had a director appointed to thehuman rights branch, her instructions were: "Please make sure that Idon't get any bad press on human rights. That's your job as thedirector of the human rights branch. Make sure I don't get any badpublicity." That's the extent of their interest in human rights.They've done nothing.

Why aren't we here discussinglegislation which would prohibit the sale of our agricultural land toabsentee foreigners? Why is there nothing in the throne speech on that?Why is there nothing on the order paper for our discussion? Accordingto the agrologists of the area, 30 percent of the land up in the PeaceRiver area is owned outside this country. That resource is too valuableto have decisions made about it outside our borders. They're not goingto do anything about it. They don't even mention it in the thronespeech. There's no legislation. There's no concern. They don't have anymore concern on that issue than they do for the people of the province.

Weshould not be adjourning today. There are too many issues in thisprovince that need attention. That government is too lazy. It will notget off its butt in order to propose changes to improve the situationfor the people of the province. With a government like that, where isthe hope for the people of the province? ICBC rates up. Student feesup. Homeowners having to pay more for education. Now the Minister ofMunicipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is going to take over theentire planning for the province, so the province will developaccording to the Minister of Municipal Affairs' plan. If you don't fitin with his plan, there are the camps.

I'm adamantly opposed to this motion which is going to give the government a holiday for three months.

MR. BARBER:It's our position that this government has no right to adjourn thisHouse without presenting and passing a policy for economic recovery.They have no right to adjourn the House unless they've done that pieceof work for the people of British Columbia. It's our position that theyhave no cause to adjourn this House, in light of their own failure tobring forward even one single bill for debate. On that basis, too, theyhave no right to adjourn this House. It's our conviction that theyfurther have no right to adjourn this House in view of the callouscontempt in which they hold the interests of working people in BritishColumbia, who are in the middle of a depression, the end and the bottomof which we haven't seen yet. They have no right to adjourn this Houseon that count either.

They do have, I suppose, in thetechnical sense, a right to adjourn the House, because the iron heel ofthe Social Credit majority will eventually force through the vote intheir favour. But the people of British Columbia are perfectly wellaware of why this extraordinary overnight session has been held. It hasbeen held because of the failure of Social Credit policy, because ofthe absence of Social Credit policy, and because of the incompetence ofSocial Credit policy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are they now?

MR. BARBER:Asleep or passed out in their offices on some basis or another. They'renot here, where they should be. They're not here working, and theypropose to adjourn the House so that no one can work. The apparentstandard they have is that they don't propose to be here to do anywork, and they don't want us to be here to do any work either. Thatstandard is not good enough. That's another reason why this Houseshould not adjourn. It is irresponsible of Social Credit to adjournthis House in the face of the economic crisis that faces BritishColumbia itself. It is irresponsible to adjourn this House withoutpresenting one plan, one project, one strategy for economic recovery.They have no right to adjourn this House, in the light of their failureto deal with the economic crisis.

AN HON. MEMBER: Three MLAs.

MR. BARBER:At the moment three Social Credit MLAs are in the House; that's it.That's a sign of the willingness to work or the lack of it on the partof the most incredibly lazy government caucus we have ever seen. Thisovernight debate is the precise result of the failure of Social Creditto do anything but bring in a meaningless, hollow and empty thronespeech. It is the result of the failure of Social Credit to accept anyresponsibility whatever for the economic crisis faced by working peoplein this province. This overnight debate has been the result of theSocial Credit admission — by their silence, by their incompetence andby their contempt — that they have no plans, no strategy and nointerest in anything other than taking a four-month vacation at theexpense of the taxpayers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are they?

MR. BARBER:They've passed out, they've conked out, they've given up, they'veabandoned ship, because they have nothing to say and no policies todefend.

Let me briefly inquire into three failures of SocialCredit policy. Let me describe for you three public policies and threepublic debates which are going on in every comer of British Columbiaexcept one, and that is the government bench itself.

Everywherein British Columbia but within the government caucus people are asking:what is the housing policy of this administration? We saw the abysmal,lame, inept, absurd performance of the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr.Chabot) on Monday. He introduced a housing policy which he could notexplain, did not understand and failed to defend. The press werelaughing at him to his face. The press were laughing in the pressconference. The press themselves understand what he alone fails tounderstand: that ridiculous and reactionary homilies about the virtuesof private home-ownership are meaningless and insulting in an area of 20percent interest rates and no available land.

The ridiculousand reactionary homilies are apparently the only text of a SocialCredit housing policy. There is nothing else. No interim budget cameforward, no statute measures were introduced, no reference to anyserious policy can be found in the throne speech, and no minister stoodup to define or even defend a Social Credit housing policy.

Itis unacceptable that this government adjourn the House withoutpresenting a housing policy that makes sense. We propose not to allowthem to adjourn readily without pointing out to the people that thepublic debate they should have been

[ Page 6853 ]

leadingand the public policies they should have been establishing to recreatea housing industry in this province are debates that they have utterlyfailed to introduce and policies they've utterly failed to act on. Thisovernight debate is the precise. result of the failure of Social Creditto introduce a housing policy during this session.

There isa second major cause of this debate, and it is also the precise resultof another Social Credit failure. This failure is that failure of will,courage and imagination to deal with interest rates in BritishColumbia. The old Socreds would never have been made suckers by thebanks as the banks have made suckers of the new Socreds. The oldSocreds at least had some vision about the ways, particularly inwestern Canada, whereby we could assume some authority over the bankingsystem, and having assumed that authority, redirect it in the interestsof home-ownership, small business and the development of our owneconomy. At least the old Socreds had some guts, some principles andsome policy.

The second major reason we refuse and rejectthis lazy man's adjournment is the failure of imagination and courageon the part of Social Credit to deal with interest rates. In a fewmoments I'll be referring to some of the positive proposals that we'vemade in this debate in terms of dealing with interest rates. At themoment it is simply and provably a matter of public record that SocialCredit has no plan, strategy or policy whatever to deal with thecrippling interest rates that are ruining small business and theopportunities for home-ownership.

The third and final majorfailure of Social Credit is to bring forward in this all-too-shortsession a policy to create jobs in this province. They haven't doneanything of the sort. We have been treated to the lamentable andastonishingly illogical speeches of the Minister of Industry and SmallBusiness Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). Those speeches may go overwell, I suppose, in Socred meetings, where people believe that sort ofguff as a matter of course, but they don't go over with the generalpublic. They're not accepted in this Legislature. No competent academicwould ever take them seriously, and no one in the housing industry doeseither, in terms of employment in that particular field. Even Dr. Patlaughs behind his clasped hands when the Minister of Industry and SmallBusiness Development speaks. His speech, however, was the only one thateven peripherally addressed the question of creating jobs — of creatinga full employment economy in British Columbia. The rest of thegovernment went their usual way attacking another government that'sbeen out of government office for six years. Apparently they believethat that's all they need to do to deserve re-election.

Mr.Speaker, they do not deserve re-election, and they do not even deservethe right to adjourn this debate. Since the House adjourned in Julythey have had a four-month holiday. They have spent the last seven,going on eight, days debating a phony throne speech that contained noproposals whatever to deal with housing, interest rates orunemployment. Now they propose yet another four-month holiday beforethey come back in March.

This is a government of lazypeople. It is a government of people who lack anything like thecompassion, vigour or imagination to be fit to govern in the provinceof British Columbia. They fail on those three counts as well.

Letme repeat: Social Credit has no right to adjourn this House withoutpresenting a plan for economic recovery. The longer they delay thepresentation and the execution of such a plan, the deeper will BritishColumbia slide into depression. The longer they delay, the moredirectly will Social Credit be held responsible for the recession thatplagues British Columbia today. The longer Social Credit fails to dealwith the problems of housing, interest rates and unemployment, the moreclearly will they be held accountable by the electors in the nextgeneral election for those failures and for a downturn in an economywhich is, in good times, something they take credit for and, in badtimes, something they blame someone else for. The simple deceit of thatpolicy is an offence to the people of British Columbia. The hypocrisyand deceit of such a posture offends people in British Columbia. But itis, after all, typical of the way Social Credit has always done itsbusiness.

For me, though, the worst thing about this shortsession is the demonstration it presents of the contemptible stupidityof Social Credit. It is a contemptible stupidity which seems to believethat they can convince the people of British Columbia that they are notrequired to present policies in order to justify a session. It is acontemptible stupidity which seems to hold that they are not requiredto debate bills in order to justify a session. It is a contemptiblestupidity which seems to recognize what no one else recognizes: thatall they need to do is bring in a phony-baloney throne speech whichcontains no practical measures and results in practical achievement,and everyone will think they've done something good.

This isthe contemptible stupidity of a group of arrogant and lazy politicianswho have no vision and offer no hope. A further proof of thatfundamental misjudgment can be described simply by recounting andindicating briefly the incredible history of mistakes, errors,maladministration and bungles for which Social Credit is responsible.When you examine the history of bungles under this coalition, itbecomes, I suppose, a little more understandable why they have bungledthis session from beginning to end. This is the government that bungledthe Princess Marguerite, the Prince Rupert and the Surrey issue; theseare the bunglers who wasted $20 million on that fiasco; this is thegroup of inept, incompetent ne'er-do-wells who managed to throw away$20 million on this whole ridiculous escapade and has yet even to admitcandidly, even for a moment, that they did something wrong. This is thegroup of bunglers that wasted money on a jetfoil from Victoria toSeattle that no one wanted to ride on but only Americans could crew,and which had to be abandoned six months later.

The samebunglers responsible for the Marguerite, the Rupert, the Surrey and thejetfoil fiasco are understandably, Mr. Speaker, just possibly the samebunglers who have introduced no policy on housing, interest rates andunemployment. Social Credit is the group of bunglers that doubled theferry rates to Vancouver Island and wrecked the tourist economy, and itis no surprise, when you remember that catastrophe, that they shouldturn around and bungle away a session, failing to introduce a policy onhousing, interest rates or unemployment. When you look at that bungle,the bungle of this session becomes a little more understandable.

Thisis the group of incompetents that accidentally wiped out an insurancecompany. Seaboard was thrown overboard through the provable errors ofthis group of administrative misfits opposite. The consequence of thatbungle cost the taxpayers a hundred thousand bucks, required anovernight emergency sitting of this House again, and was once moreproof that the same group that could bungle Seaboard could bungle awaythis session and introduce no policy on housing, interest rates andunemployment.

[ Page 6854 ]

Thisis the group of bunglers that invented — do you remember it, Mr.Speaker — a department of deregulation. I remember the Premierannouncing in a throne speech that Social Credit was committed to apolicy and a Ministry of Deregulation, and they were going to dosomething to wipe out red tape. Well, they wiped out Seaboard and thatwas the end of the Ministry of Deregulation. It now exists as asolitary clerk in the Ministry of Finance. A government that is capableof setting up and then destabilizing their own Ministry of Deregulationis capable of the same mistakes they have committed in this session,this nitwit group of bunglers that was responsible for the Marguerite,the Rupert, the Surrey, the jetfoil, doubling the ferry rates, shuttingdown Seaboard and shutting down their own Ministry of Deregulation. Itshould not surprise us, then, that they have failed to introducepolicies on housing, interest rates and unemployment, and are thereforenot entitled to adjourn this House. But there is more, Mr. Speaker.

Thisis the group that concocted a program called PREP in the Ministry ofHuman Resources, a program that we were told was permanent and asuccess. It turns out to have been neither, Mr. Speaker. It was a flopand it too was destabilized, deanimated and put out of business bySocreds who weren't even honest enough to admit that mistake.

Thisis the group of incompetents that put together a heroin treatmentscheme which has failed in New York, failed in Illinois, failed inTennessee, failed in New Jersey and failed in California. Sure enoughit failed in British Columbia. If they had done their homework — butthey are incompetents and we know they didn't — they could have spentroughly $14 and received from the journals of the day a précis of thefailures in those several American states. Instead of spending $14 toread about it in the professional literature and to realize it didn'twork, they wasted $14 million to prove that it didn't work here inBritish Columbia. The same group of bunglers that could fritter away$14 million on an unworkable heroin treatment scheme is that group ofbunglers that wasted seven days in this session by failing to deal withhousing, interest rates and unemployment.

Now they wantanother four months off, and they wonder why the opposition has keptthem in a sustained debate overnight. This is the group of bunglersthat invented Doug Heal, who then went on to destabilize him andeveryone who worked within 100 yards of his office, including thePremier, until Mr. Heal was put out to pasture. The group of bunglersthat could invent Doug Heal is more in its usual mould, it's moreunderstandable, when you remember the last seven days' debate on thethrone speech, which the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. VanderZalm) himself described in a moment of alarming candour as ten days ofnothing.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Why, Mr.Speaker, does the government believe it is entitled to an earlyadjournment? They've had four months off since July; they want anotherfour months off until March. When have they ever been on the job?

Thisis the government of bunglers that got caught. This is the group ofpolitical misfits that got caught in the dirty tricks scandal, thatfired their caucus staff, that fired Dan Campbell, that fired GeorgeLenko, and that did everything necessary to jettison all of theiraccomplices while retaining their own pretended innocence. The group ofbunglers that would appoint a one-man commission, headed by a one-timeSocred candidate, that would wipe out three New Democrat seats andcreate an aberration called Gracie's Finger is the same group ofbunglers that believes it is entitled to another four-month vacation.And they wonder why the opposition has kept them working overnight.

Thisis the group of bunglers that wasted another $100,000 on a worthlessstudy to decide whether or not to build a tunnel or a bridge orsomething like both between the continent and the Island. The onlyperson who wanted the study was its principal author. The only personwho read it was its principal author. The only person who paid for it,however, was not its author or its reader; it was all of us, Mr.Speaker. What a waste of money! What a stupid, contemptible waste of$100,000! If we had the power, we would send the bill to thatminister's home address and let him figure out how to pay for it,because the taxpayers never should have. It was an illegitimate,wrongful and dumb expenditure of money typical of their incompetence,typical of their bungling, typical of their short-sightedness, andtypical of their arrogance.

This is the group of bunglersthat told us the Victoria convention centre would cost $4 million.Three years later they now tell us it will cost $14 million, but it isyet to be built. A year ago last month the Premier did a sod-turning inVictoria — pardon me, two years ago last month. I remember, itcoincided with municipal elections; it was thought to have politicalovertones. Two years ago last month this far-sighted Premier turned thesod for the Victoria convention centre. That was the first and lastshovel we've seen at the construction site. We have, however, seen thebills, which started at $4 million and have now gone to $14 million,and nothing has been built, thanks to the proven incompetence of SocialCredit. Now they tell us they want another four months off. For whatpurpose? To waste more time and cause thereby greater expenditures forthe Victoria convention centre? Maybe. Or maybe they've got their ideason more expenditures in Vancouver.

In Vancouver Gracie'sSlipper, which presumably would contain several of Gracie's fingers,was originally budgeted at $25 million. Today it's $135 million. Thisis a $110 million overrun under Social Credit, which said it wouldnever have any overruns, and it has yet to be built.

Theincompetence of Social Credit is further proven by their totalinability to build convention centres on time, within budget, or atall. Why does this group of incompetents believe they have beenentitled to an adjournment? They have yet to do anything to earn theirpay. They are not entitled.

This group of incompetentsopposite then decided they would muck around with the agricultural landreserve system in this province and would try to give some land totheir friends the Wengers, the Spetifores and the Ainslie Lorettos ofGloucester. Even with that perverse agenda, they screwed it up. Theycouldn't even do that right. They got caught; they got found out; theygot stopped; they got halted; they blew it. They can't any longer evendo what the old Socreds could always do, which was deliver favours totheir friends. These guys bungle that too. We certainly know what theirintentions were, but bad intentions aren't enough. Under Social Creditwe should at least expect bad results, but all we've seen are badintentions and no results except more screwups, more mistakes, morebungles, more court cases — and more political points for the officialopposition, glory be!

[ Page 6855 ]

NowI come to the final bungle in this list; this is number 15. This is thebungle that has probably done more than anything else to prove theutter incompetence of this group of misnamed businessmen opposite. Thisis the bungle that started when the Premier had a dream, a vision, anenlightenment, a headache, petit mal — petit tête. This is thevision called BCRIC. This is privatization gone nuts in BritishColumbia. This was the way the Premier thought.he could cleverly outfoxthe NDP and prove once and for all what a foolish policy publicownership is. If anything, he has proven the precise opposite. Ifanything, he has proven that this group opposite, which may know how tosell used cars, used fridges or used MLAs, doesn't know anything at allabout the major corporate enterprises of British Columbia, theinterrelating and interlocking natures of our economy or anything atall about how to put together an organization that knows how to do itsjob.

I act as the BCRIC critic for the official opposition.I enjoy doing that, although my secretary doesn't, because she has totype a lot of letters which I write to a lot of angry BCRICshareholders. When I write to these people who complain to me about thelow value of BCRIC shares, I tell them a few, simple andstraightforward things. Every time they complain about actions of theboard of directors, I tell them they should remember who appointed theboard in the first place: the Premier of British Columbia. Every timethey complain about the Kaiser deal, the Mac-Blo deal and the highprices BCRIC has paid for anything and the high indebtedness BCRICsuffers, I remind them of who appointed the board of directors of BCRICin the first place: the Premier of British Columbia. Every time theycomplain about the low trading value of the shares, I remind them ofwho reduced the trading value in the first place: the Premier ofBritish Columbia.

Let me briefly remind you, Mr. Speaker.The four stockbroking houses that gave evaluation of the net assets inthe first prospectus established those assets at $11.16 a share; thatwas the net book value per share established by four stockbrokinghouses in British Columbia. If the Premier had any brains, he wouldhave allowed the shares to be sold for what they were worth, to findtheir value on the market and to allow the market to make thedecisions. But no, the Premier decided he would be political. For sixmonths it almost worked. For six months the Premier almost got awaywith it. He said that even though the shares are valued in theprospectus at $11.16, and even though ordinarily they would be allowedto find their own value on the stock market — and might have hit $9 or$9.50 — he was going to interfere politically. He was going to use allthe wisdom at his command and lower the value to $6. Every time peopletell me that they are really unhappy about the low value of BCRICshares, I remind them of who reduced the value arbitrarily from $11.16to $6: the Premier of British Columbia.

Not only was heresponsible for that ridiculous action — at least as hindsight now provesand as foresight might have suggested — but what's worse and even morecontemptible is that he had no strategy whatever to bring the sharesback up to their real value. He was very good at lowering the value.He's good at lowering the value of a lot of things he touches. He didthat very well. He lowered it from $11.16 to S6 and stopped. Whathappened? After they briefly rose to $9.15, they began their plummet.This morning I understand they are trading at $3.20 in Toronto. This isa far cry from $11.16. This is clear proof of the incompetence ofSocial Credit. It is clear proof that they are not entitled to anotherfour-month vacation, having just recovered from the previous four-monthvacation that they gave themselves at the end of July. Those are 15instances, Mr. Speaker, of proven incompetence on the part of SocialCredit.

We then ask again, given their record, why we shouldbelieve they would use the next four months to do anything worthwhilefor the people of British Columbia. We then ask again that thisLegislature should be given the chance to do something worthwhile,because clearly it's beyond the government. If the government can't doit, the Legislature will. If the government isn't competent, theLegislature is. If the government can't do the job. the Legislatureshould. This is why the adjournment motion should not be accepted.

. The government responsible for the Marguerite, the Rupert, the Surrey, the jetfoil. doubling the ferry fares, Seaboard, the Ministry of Deregulation, PREP, the heroin treatment program, Doug Heal, dirty tricks, Eckardt, Gracie's Finger, the tunnel study, the Victoria convention centre overrun, the Vancouver convention centre overrun, the disposition of ALR lands and BCRIC is not a government that can be trusted to do anything right. It took them only six years to do this.

Thegovernment has attempted to purvey a political falsehood in thisdebate. They've said that the New Democratic Party has yet to propose asingle positive, constructive suggestion in this or any other debate.This is clearly and provably false, Mr. Speaker.

I would nowlike to refer to not one, or two, but 19 significant proposals whichthis opposition has made in this overnight debate. They're all in Hansard.They're all in the record, they're all worth considering, they're allpositive. They all have a chance of developing a policy in thisprovince for economic recovery. Again, Mr. Speaker, if we can't trustthe government to do the job, then the Legislature will have to do itfor them. We've led this overnight debate because we believe inpositive programs; we believe in positive remedies; we believe indealing with the triple crisis of housing, unemployment and highinterest rates.

We have put forward in this overnight debatealone 19 concrete proposals for economic recovery. Let me review them.First of all. we have asked them to proclaim a law that they voted forthemselves. It's called the Savings and Trust Corporation of BritishColumbia Act. We've asked them to do what on June 3, 1975, Mr.Schroeder, Mr. Morrison, Mr. Curtis, Mr. McClelland. Mr. Richter, Mr.Fraser, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Jordan, and Mr.Bennett, all voted for. It is here in the records of this House thatevery one of those Socreds voted in second reading in favour of theSavings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia Act; but today theyrefuse to proclaim it.

The first positive suggestion we makeis: take yourselves at your own word, believe that you voted right, actright now, release the report and proclaim the bill. This alone wouldsignificantly deal with two of the three crises: high interest ratesand the unavailability of affordable housing. That is the firstpositive proposal we've made. It is rational. They voted for itthemselves six years ago. They may wish we'd forgotten, they may wishthis wasn't printed. but it is nonetheless provably a matter of publicrecord.

The second positive proposal that we've made is toask them to declare a one-year moratorium on interest rates as theyapply to home mortgages. Saskatchewan has done this, Manitoba may bedoing it in the very near future, and we

[ Page 6856 ]

proposeit here in British Columbia. This is our second positive proposal todeal with the triple crisis of housing, unemployment and high interestrates.

Third, we again now, as we have on many previousoccasions, call for the immediate recreation of the Housing Corporationof British Columbia. We are, I believe, the only province in Canadathat doesn't have such an instrument for the disposition of Crown landand the development of public housing. By public, I mean a mix ofhousing — private ownership, public ownership, co-ops and seniors'. Weare the only province in Canada that does not have an equivalent of aprovincial housing corporation. The Socreds stupidly shut it down in1977. We ask them today to correct that mistake and to recreate theHousing Corporation of British Columbia.

Fourth, we ask themto initiate a crash program to bring on stream non-ALR Crown land forseniors' and co-op housing. This is affordable, this is vital, this ishumane, this is necessary. It's the fourth proposal we make to dealwith the triple crisis of housing, unemployment, and high interestrates.

Fifth, we have asked them to accelerate developmentof parks in British Columbia. That is a highly labour-intensiveeconomic proposal. They benefit tourism, they benefit recreation, theyemploy a lot of people, they're easy and quick to do. They can be donenow. They should be done now.

Sixth, we proposed in thisdebate the immediate creation of a program for winter works to becarried out by the municipalities of British Columbia. Local governmentis confident they are able, and we believe they are willing. This, too,is another positive proposal to deal with unemployment.

Seventh,we propose again now, as we've proposed before, the immediate inclusionof farmworkers and domestics under the minimum wage acts of thisprovince. These people are entitled to be counted into the mainstreamof economic life. The longer they are excluded, the longer will theirsector of the economy remain depressed and unhealthy.

Eighth,we have asked them to take immediate action, and to include thepossibility of public ownership in their plans for those shut-downsectors of the forest economy in the province. There is a role forpublic ownership, there is a role for public intervention, and theremost certainly is a role for a Legislature as well as a government todeclare its commitment to reopen, revitalize and remake the foresteconomy of this province.

The ninth is a proposal for animmediate program of intense silviculture in those areas of theprovince where climate and topography encourage it. There are many suchareas and they will be available this winter and should be planned fornow.

Tenth, we have proposed the establishment in a rationaland judicious way of a mariculture industry in this province. I see thelight is on, and I will proceed quickly.

Eleventh, we have proposed the upgrading of public bridges in British Columbia in the interest of public safety.

Twelfth,we propose the creation of small, affordable hydroelectric and thermalprojects in communities that want them. This is the wave of the future:small electric and co-generating projects.

Thirteenth, wehave asked for further funds to be committed to the salmonidenhancement program. Fourteenth, we have asked in relation to thatprogram for a major effort on stream-clearing and restoration in salmonand other streams in this province that support the fishery.

Fifteenth, we have asked for an amendment to the Human Rights Code to protect employment possibilities for handicapped persons.

Sixteenth,we have proposed the creation of household energy-conservationprojects; and seventeenth, industrial energy-conservation projects.

Eighteenth,we have asked that the government, for the sake of humanity, for thesake of the individuals who are clients and for the sake of theworkers, immediately restore the previous full employment levels in thehomemaker service of British Columbia.

Nineteenth, andfinally for this debate, but not finally in the ultimate sense, Ipropose now, as we have proposed before, the development of a marineproducts marketing strategy to save the Oakland Fisheries of thisprovince, to make mariculture a feasible thing, to make sense ofsalmonid enhancement and stream restoration.

These are 19positive proposals we have made overnight, Mr. Speaker, to do in thisLegislature what the government will not do in its own chambers. Thisis a government that offers no help; this is a government that shows nohumanity; this is a government that provides no hope; this is a groupopposite that is not fit to govern and not entitled to an adjournment.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I didn't notice any of the opposition members getting up, so I call the question.

MR. BARBER: There's no provision to call the question that way. Mr. Speaker calls the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Closure, closure.

MR. SPEAKER:Order, please. The question is that the House at its rising do standadjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker or theDeputy Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the publicinterest requires that the House shall meet. Mr. Speaker or the DeputySpeaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon theHouse shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transactit* business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Wolfe McCarthy Mussallem
Gardom Bennett Curtis
Phillips McGeer Fraser
Nielsen Kempf Davis
Strachan Segarty Waterland
Hyndman Chabot McClelland
Rogers Smith Heinrich
Hewitt Jordan Vander Zalm
Ritchie Richmond Ree
Davidson
Brummet

NAYS — 20

Barrett King Lea
Lauk Stupich Dailly
co*cke Nicolson Hall
Sanford Gabelmann Skelly
D'Arcy Lockstead Barnes
Barber Wallace Hanson
Mitchell Passarell

[ Page 6857 ]

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

MR. HALL:On a point of order, yesterday at about 20 minutes past six we passed amotion of adjournment, which was recorded in the Blues, that we adjournuntil the next sitting of the House. When the bells were rung as asignal to come into this chamber at eight o'clock, the mace was alreadyin, Your Honour was not here, the procession was not taken and we weretold by the leader of the government what the business was, which didnot, to my way of thinking, conform to the orders of the day whichshould have taken place. This is the first opportunity I've really hadto raise a procedural point. I'm not one who wants to wrangle.[Laughter.] I blush a little.

Mr. Speaker, I would like youto tell the House when we next meet by what legerdemain, by what magicpowers, the mace arrived at eight o'clock, Your Honour didn't and weadjourned debate without apparently obeying our own orders and motionstaken at twenty past six.

MR. SPEAKER: We willundertake to bring the decision that you've requested. However, I wouldlike the House to know that the Speaker, with his advisers, agonizedover the point during the brief adjournment period and had somedifficulty with the fact that the House orders two separate anddistinct sittings in every day and we could not possibly have a thirdsitting in that day. I think the House would understand the problemsthat the Chair was in. Yet, without the direction of the House to actfurther, we could only presume what the House wanted us to do. And wedid what we thought you presumed, God bless you.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order, I just seek clarification. Would you advise me whether the Journalsof the House that just recorded the last vote will record the fact thata number of NDP members changed their vote. When they voted verballythey voted for the motion, and when they voted to be recorded theyvoted against the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The record will show only those who physically stood for the vote.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:47 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1981,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada

Hansard — Tuesday, December 1, 1981 — Night Sitting (2024)
Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Catherine Tremblay

Last Updated:

Views: 6534

Rating: 4.7 / 5 (67 voted)

Reviews: 82% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Catherine Tremblay

Birthday: 1999-09-23

Address: Suite 461 73643 Sherril Loaf, Dickinsonland, AZ 47941-2379

Phone: +2678139151039

Job: International Administration Supervisor

Hobby: Dowsing, Snowboarding, Rowing, Beekeeping, Calligraphy, Shooting, Air sports

Introduction: My name is Catherine Tremblay, I am a precious, perfect, tasty, enthusiastic, inexpensive, vast, kind person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.